Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Merged: Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 Tags Alfven waves , Birkeland currents , hannes alfven , Kristian Birkeland

 24th March 2012, 04:44 PM #7441 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by The Man 1.5 Dinner in a restaurant Great idea. Catch you boys later.
 24th March 2012, 05:11 PM #7442 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by The Man You can object all you want but you’re only objecting to matters of your own inclination (because you simply don’t look outside yourself) that don’t alter the magnetic reconnection demonstrated. Objecting to current carrying rods instead of filaments or insisting on a “reconnection rate” with no intervening plasma only demonstrate that you’re just objecting to simply object with no demonstrable relevance to the magnetic reconnection exemplified. If you truly do think any different then again use your objections to show exactly where he made any kind of mathematical mistake. I think before I go to dinner, I will respond to the comment above as well as this one: Quote: This “REQUIREMENT of PLASMA” is only in your imagination, again simply because you are denying the antecedent. No, the REQUIREMENT of plasma and charged particle acceleration in the reconnection process is NOT my "imagination". I cited the Wiki page that describes it and defines all the terms including the RECONNECTION RATE. This rate is measured in terms of the change in particle velocities over time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection Quote: Magnetic reconnection is a physical process in highly conducting plasmas in which the magnetic topology is rearranged and magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy, thermal energy, and particle acceleration. Magnetic reconnection occurs on timescales intermediate between slow resistive diffusion of the magnetic field and fast Alfvénic timescales. This brings us to the first paragraph I selected. I *DID* show you where Clinger made a mathematical mistake. He did NOT include a reconnection rate formula in part four. Without it, he FAILED to describe anything REMOTELY like "reconnection" in part 4. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 24th March 2012 at 05:15 PM.
 24th March 2012, 06:37 PM #7443 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Ya, you have to prove to me that you at least READ the paper and have made some attempt to understand it. I'm not going to explain the ENTIRE paper, and the last time you asked me questions, it was clear you had not even read the first page. You have steadfastly said that reconnection requires plasma and that these two equations *PROVE* it. You have stalled, made excuses, postured and set me on one chase after another and still refuse to explain how these equations do what you claim. Quote: If you want to talk about those two specific formulas, great. Start by explaining the variables now so I now you put a WEE bit of effort into UNDERSTANDING the paper, otherwise I simply distrust your motives and I see no point in continuing. My motives are simple and unambiguous. I do not believe that the two equations do what you claim and I am asking you to demonstrate what you claim. It's quite ironic that you want me to explain the variables when you have not indicated the slightest understanding of the equations yourself. Quote: I already gave you PLENTY of hints about how they are related. That is a blatant lie! Show me one post where you have indicated any understanding of those equations or given any "hints." Quote: I want to see that you've at least made some effort to understand what you read. I also want to know that you're interested in a DISCUSSION rather than an INQUISITION! I’ll make one more attempt. The first equation (16) below: $\mu_0I(z) = 4\pi\alpha^{-1} cos(\alpha|z| +\phi_r)$ gives the current along the negative part of the z axis of the author’s figure 2. It is a function of z (negative position along the z axis of his figure). The I(z) term is multiplied by the permeability of space (μ0), for reasons unknown to me. This current is shown in the equation as determined by the cosine of the absolute value of z times α (CurlB) plus φr (defined as an arbitrary constant). The second equation (17), which is similar in structure to the first, gives the density of magnetic charges σ(z) along the negative part of the z axis. I'll leave the rest of the details to you as you now explain how these two equation *PROVE* that reconnection requires plasma. $\sigma(z) = -4\pi\alpha^{-1} sin(\alpha|z| + \phi_r)$ Now, I have done my part, it's your turn to explain how these equations do what you claim. __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ
 25th March 2012, 06:40 AM #7445 The Man Scourge, of the supernatural     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 11,973 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Great idea. Catch you boys later. Remember to adhere to all the "requirements" of "Dinner in a restaurant". __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ
 25th March 2012, 07:08 AM #7446 The Man Scourge, of the supernatural     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 11,973 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I think before I go to dinner, I will respond to the comment above as well as this one: No, the REQUIREMENT of plasma and charged particle acceleration in the reconnection process is NOT my "imagination". I cited the Wiki page that describes it and defines all the terms including the RECONNECTION RATE. This rate is measured in terms of the change in particle velocities over time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection Once again the exclusivity you insist upon is not explicitly stated in that article and certainly magnetic reconnection in plasma is going to involve an intervening, well, plasma. Just as water flow in a toilet is going to involve a toilet. Which is where this argument of yours ends up, just down the toilet. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina This brings us to the first paragraph I selected. I *DID* show you where Clinger made a mathematical mistake. He did NOT include a reconnection rate formula in part four. Without it, he FAILED to describe anything REMOTELY like "reconnection" in part 4. Fine show that formula and how it mathematically relates to magnetic reconnection in a vacuum. Particularly how it would alter the field line configurations as displayed or their calculations. Again equivocating your “"reconnection"” with magnetic reconnection is no ones problem but yours. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ Last edited by The Man; 25th March 2012 at 07:11 AM. Reason: typo
 25th March 2012, 08:53 AM #7447 DeiRenDopa Master Poster   Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 2,582 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student You have steadfastly said that reconnection requires plasma and that these two equations *PROVE* it. You have stalled, made excuses, postured and set me on one chase after another and still refuse to explain how these equations do what you claim. My motives are simple and unambiguous. I do not believe that the two equations do what you claim and I am asking you to demonstrate what you claim. It's quite ironic that you want me to explain the variables when you have not indicated the slightest understanding of the equations yourself. That is a blatant lie! Show me one post where you have indicated any understanding of those equations or given any "hints." I’ll make one more attempt. The first equation (16) below: $\mu_0I(z) = 4\pi\alpha^{-1} cos(\alpha|z| +\phi_r)$ gives the current along the negative part of the z axis of the author’s figure 2. It is a function of z (negative position along the z axis of his figure). The I(z) term is multiplied by the permeability of space (μ0), for reasons unknown to me. This current is shown in the equation as determined by the cosine of the absolute value of z times α (CurlB) plus φr (defined as an arbitrary constant). The second equation (17), which is similar in structure to the first, gives the density of magnetic charges σ(z) along the negative part of the z axis. I'll leave the rest of the details to you as you now explain how these two equation *PROVE* that reconnection requires plasma. $\sigma(z) = -4\pi\alpha^{-1} sin(\alpha|z| + \phi_r)$ Now, I have done my part, it's your turn to explain how these equations do what you claim. Insert eating popcorn smilie here ...
 25th March 2012, 08:45 PM #7448 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 Mozina: I have made a bit more progress. I understand the basis for the expression $\mu_0I(z)$ -- Ampere's law. So, I'm eagerly waiting to learn why and how the two equations *PROVE* plasma is required for reconnection. OK, no more procrastination, diversions, deflections and posturing. Just give us your rational for these two equations providing the *PROOF* you claim. __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ Last edited by Perpetual Student; 25th March 2012 at 09:11 PM.
 26th March 2012, 08:07 AM #7449 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 One more note: I noted a misstep above. α is curlB/B, not curlB as indicated in my post above. So, the α-1 term would be B/curlB OK, no more procrastination, diversions, deflections and posturing. Just give us your rationale for these two equations providing the *PROOF* you claim. __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ Last edited by Perpetual Student; 26th March 2012 at 08:25 AM.
 26th March 2012, 08:11 AM #7450 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student One more note: I noted a misstep above. α is curlB/B, not curlB as indicated in my post above. So, the α-1 term would be B/curlB OK, no more procrastination, diversions, deflections and posturing. Just give us your rational for these two equations providing the *PROOF* you claim. You'll never get a reply to your question on this forum.
 26th March 2012, 08:38 AM #7451 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 Originally Posted by GeeMack Oh well, I think everyone here knows that the two equations do nothing even close to providing the proof Mozina claimed. The two equations are clearly an intermediate step defining the current and magnetic charge density in the authors configuration for the purpose of developing his thesis, which has nothing to do with proving reconnection requires plasma. Mozina so boisterously repeated the mantra that the two equations *PROVED* reconnection requires plasma, so I think I finally had him pinned down to demonstrate his claim was nothing more than a blatant bluff. In any case, based on prior experiences, he would have just vanished from the exchange rather than admit his failed boast was exposed. __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ Last edited by Perpetual Student; 26th March 2012 at 08:41 AM.
 26th March 2012, 10:21 AM #7452 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student Oh well, I think everyone here knows that the two equations do nothing even close to providing the proof Mozina claimed. The two equations are clearly an intermediate step defining the current and magnetic charge density in the authors configuration for the purpose of developing his thesis, which has nothing to do with proving reconnection requires plasma. All the evidence would indicate that those equations look like squiggly lines, alien symbols, and chicken scratchin's to Michael. In almost seven years of reading his nonsense on the 'net I have never seen him address any mathematical issue with any honesty or competence. Quote: Mozina so boisterously repeated the mantra that the two equations *PROVED* reconnection requires plasma, so I think I finally had him pinned down to demonstrate his claim was nothing more than a blatant bluff. In any case, based on prior experiences, he would have just vanished from the exchange rather than admit his failed boast was exposed. Correct. I've found the same to be true in all my years of trying to help him understand running difference graphs. He never did understand the simple math in their construction, or that a variety of inputs can result in identical outputs, or that a given output pixel can be brighter or darker than both corresponding input pixels. He never could understand that the "light" in a running difference image is caused by a mathematical function in the software and not by any actual light from the Sun. Hell, he recently claimed on another forum that the SDO PR image allowed him to verify his claim to within 32 kilometers of a particular location. But duh, even in the absolute maximum resolution from the SDO, a single pixel represents over 400 kilometers on each side. His argument is quantitatively non-existent, not to mention raw stupid. His incompetence in understanding satellite imagery is rivaled only by his incompetence at mathematics in general. Yep. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain by getting himself booted. He can haul that cross of persecution all around the 'net and continue to whine about how real scientists conspire to silence the heretics. He'll go to his grave believing that someday you'll see, you'll all be sorry, someday you'll understand!
 26th March 2012, 10:26 AM #7453 D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land     Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,399 Dammit. This thread was lurker gold. __________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC
 26th March 2012, 12:38 PM #7454 Guybrush Threepwood Trainee Pirate     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: An Uaimh Posts: 2,408 Originally Posted by D'rok Dammit. This thread was lurker gold. +1 I've learned a lot about astrophysics just from seeing MMs wrongitude corrected. Oh well, one thing about crackpots is there'll be another along in a minute.
 26th March 2012, 02:25 PM #7455 dasmiller Just the right amount of cowbell     Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon Posts: 5,715 Originally Posted by GeeMack Wowsers! I certainly understood his occasional suspensions, but I never thought he'd get himself banned. Ah, well. I did learn things from these threads, but there was far more swirl than progress. Now, what am I supposed to do with those magnets and iron filings? It was a rhetorical question - sheesh! __________________ "In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
 26th March 2012, 03:24 PM #7456 Almo Masterblazer     Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 6,825 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina This brings us to the first paragraph I selected. I *DID* show you where Clinger made a mathematical mistake. He did NOT include a reconnection rate formula in part four. Without it, he FAILED to describe anything REMOTELY like "reconnection" in part 4. Well, the last thing he posted here was still wrong. I guess I can take him off ignore now. __________________ Almo! My Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia
 26th March 2012, 03:37 PM #7457 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 Originally Posted by GeeMack All the evidence would indicate that those equations look like squiggly lines, alien symbols, and chicken scratchin's to Michael. In almost seven years of reading his nonsense on the 'net I have never seen him address any mathematical issue with any honesty or competence. Correct. I've found the same to be true in all my years of trying to help him understand running difference graphs. He never did understand the simple math in their construction, or that a variety of inputs can result in identical outputs, or that a given output pixel can be brighter or darker than both corresponding input pixels. He never could understand that the "light" in a running difference image is caused by a mathematical function in the software and not by any actual light from the Sun. Hell, he recently claimed on another forum that the SDO PR image allowed him to verify his claim to within 32 kilometers of a particular location. But duh, even in the absolute maximum resolution from the SDO, a single pixel represents over 400 kilometers on each side. His argument is quantitatively non-existent, not to mention raw stupid. His incompetence in understanding satellite imagery is rivaled only by his incompetence at mathematics in general. Yep. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain by getting himself booted. He can haul that cross of persecution all around the 'net and continue to whine about how real scientists conspire to silence the heretics. He'll go to his grave believing that someday you'll see, you'll all be sorry, someday you'll understand! Frankly, I will not miss him. Science is tough enough for a layman without Mozinas to make the waters even more murky. Before getting involved in this forum I had no idea such people even existed. RIP Michael Mozina! __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ
 26th March 2012, 03:48 PM #7458 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,202 Originally Posted by GeeMack It's gonna be a lot quieter around these parts.
 26th March 2012, 04:29 PM #7459 The Man Scourge, of the supernatural     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 11,973 Well I certainly would have preferred that he learned something. Occasionally it seemed that some things did get through but there was always that underlying distain simply for a term that describes a particular physical interaction, magnetic reconnection, that he just couldn’t get past even when it got him some of the other things he wanted (like ‘current reconnection’). Quite frankly I’d never even heard of magnetic reconnection before I stated posting on this forum almost five years ago now (I think it was Be A Chooser who first brought it up in a discussion we were having). Since then I’ve learned quite a bit both by researching for my own posts and from the excellent information posted by others. Sad and ironic that some can inspire education by their fixation on something they just wish was different yet just can’t seem to partake of that very education because of that same fixation. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ
 26th March 2012, 04:47 PM #7460 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,136 Michael Mozina's delusion that a reconnection rate exists without plasma II Originally Posted by Michael Mozina FYI, still no mathematical expression for the reconnection RATE in the absence of mass and mass acceleration. . FYI: You are still inanely demanding that there be a reconnection rate for plasma when there is no plasma! Michael Mozina's delusion that a reconnection rate exists without plasma! Of course someone could do the following: The Alfvén speed when there is no plasma: Quote: So the plasma density is zero and vA = B/0 (undefined !) The Lundquist number Quote: , but there is no plasma so what do we plug in for the plasma resisttivity ? And then we finally get to the reconnection rate, e.g. in Petschek reconnection in plasma: Quote: and the maximum reconnection rate becomes And this is undefined because .... that someone does not know that the reconnection rate is defined for plasma . __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 26th March 2012, 05:06 PM #7461 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,136 Michael Mozina, List the "light sources" of the original 171A TRACE images Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Let's follow you as you run from my question about the LIGHT sources of 171A ORIGINAL images! What are they GM? That is rather dumb - GM is not running away from the question. He knows that you cannot understand the answer because you have not been able to understand it for years now (at least 6 years since you first revealed your fantasy of an iron surface on the Sun). The answer is there is only one light source for any image taken on the Sun - the plasma emitting the light (Duh!). Or if you like you can consider it as billions and billions of light sources (every ion in the plasma). In this case, the plasma in the transition region (thousands of kilometers above the photosphere) has been heated to > 160,000 K and is emitting light. The majority of the light comes from Fe ions. This plasma happens to be heating on one side of the flares in the images and cooling on the other side of the flares. Thus taking a running difference between the images gives dark and light areas on each side of the flares. This gives the illusion of "mountain ranges" on which you base your delusions: The delusional nature of Michael Mozina's fantasy about the TRACE RD 171A movie!. But it would be good to get your scientific analysis () of the images that pinpoints the light sources in the images so: Michael Mozina, List the "light sources" of the original 171A TRACE images. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 26th March 2012 at 05:08 PM.
 26th March 2012, 05:16 PM #7462 Hercules Rockefeller Woof!     Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 2,910 Originally Posted by Reality Check That is rather dumb - GM is not running away from the question. He knows that you cannot understand the answer because you have not been able to understand it for years now (at least 6 years since you first revealed your fantasy of an iron surface on the Sun). The answer is there is only one light source for any image taken on the Sun - the plasma emitting the light (Duh!). Or if you like you can consider it as billions and billions of light sources (every ion in the plasma). In this case, the plasma in the transition region (thousands of kilometers above the photosphere) has been heated to > 160,000 K and is emitting light. The majority of the light comes from Fe ions. This plasma happens to be heating on one side of the flares in the images and cooling on the other side of the flares. Thus taking a running difference between the images gives dark and light areas on each side of the flares. This gives the illusion of "mountain ranges" on which you base your delusions: The delusional nature of Michael Mozina's fantasy about the TRACE RD 171A movie!. But it would be good to get your scientific analysis () of the images that pinpoints the light sources in the images so: Michael Mozina, List the "light sources" of the original 171A TRACE images. Errh, I think you're wasting your time here. MM is banned. __________________ Quantum physics means that anything can happen at anytime and for no reason. Also, eat plenty of oatmeal, and animals never had a war! - Deepak Chopra
 26th March 2012, 05:17 PM #7463 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,136 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I don't doubt that claim, but it doesn't invalidate my beliefs in any way. That is because your beliefs are delusions because the facts that D'rok pointed out have been told to you for years: Quote: Originally Posted by D'rok 30 seconds on NASA's site reveal two pieces of information that, by themselves, completely invalidate your claims about seeing deep into the interior of the Sun and about solid features on the surface. 1. The instrument is called the Transition Region and Coronal Explorer 2. The filter used for those images captures a temperature passband of 160,000 to 200,000,000 Kelvin and you persist with the "beliefs" thatThe transition region is below the photosphere . That a solid iron surface exists at temperatures of 160,000 to 200,000,000 Kelvin . And even more delusions, e.g. that the less than 1 photon emitted per year from 4800 km below the surface of the Sun can be detected . __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 26th March 2012, 05:20 PM #7464 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,136 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It's UNDER the photosphere in the SDO images! The SDO image"green line" is a processing artifact as confirmed by the NASA team. And a blatant mistake: Your delusion is that the transition region is below the photosphere in one SDO public relations image. The stupidity and ignorance of claiming that the transition region is below the photosphere is abysmal- the transition region is above the photosphere by definition, no light is detectable from below the photosphere. Michael Mozina delusion that light is detectable from 4800 km "under the photosphere"! ETA: MM: Why have you never in almost 2 years, contacted the SDO team about the image? __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 26th March 2012 at 05:24 PM.
 26th March 2012, 05:28 PM #7465 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,136 Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller Errh, I think you're wasting your time here. MM is banned. Whoops. But I guess a few extra posts listing his delusions will not hurt ! __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 26th March 2012, 05:59 PM #7466 Dancing David Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 38,512 Dancing on the grave is , well,... sort of SOP around here. Sorry MM, I will miss you. __________________ I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
 26th March 2012, 07:26 PM #7467 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,234 Farewell to Michael Mozina As of his final post, Michael Mozina had posted 2983 of the 7442 posts in this thread. That's 40.08%. I'll miss him too. He was kinda cute when we were just sniggering, but he couldn't handle being told he was wrong, especially when the refutations involved math—which, given the nature of physics, they often did. If not for Michael Mozina, I'd never have heard of magnetic reconnection, and I doubt whether I'd ever have read any of Alfvén's papers. Even before I encountered Michael Mozina, I had heard it said that magnetic field lines never begin or end, and that this was a consequence of Gauss's law for magnetism. I had never encountered that myth in a physics course, or in a text or paper I trusted, but it sounded plausible enough for me to try to prove it. I failed, and reserved judgement on whether it was true. Now, thanks in part to Michael Mozina's unfaltering opposition to truth in physics, I know a simple counterexample. So I learned a few things from him, despite his best efforts to the contrary.
 27th March 2012, 09:25 PM #7468 ben m Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 6,387 Originally Posted by dasmiller Wowsers! I certainly understood his occasional suspensions, but I never thought he'd get himself banned. It's not the first time---he was banned on BAUT and Sciforums a long time ago.
 28th March 2012, 05:53 AM #7469 DeiRenDopa Master Poster   Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 2,582 Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood +1 I've learned a lot about astrophysics just from seeing MMs wrongitude corrected. Me too. W.D.Clinger wrote up a very nice piece collecting his work here on magnetic reconnection into a single page: Magnetic Reconnection. As long as that page remains up, there's an excellent, single source for material on this topic. You can use that next time you encounter magnetic reconnection wrongitude (lovely word that!), which you surely will. However, it would be wonderful to have all of Tim Thompson's excellent posts similarly collected into a single page, preferably not on JREF, for easy reference. For example, the series of posts starting here (though that's just a small subset of all the great posts on the topic that he wrote). Anyone have any suggestions on how that might be done?
 28th March 2012, 08:04 AM #7470 DeiRenDopa Master Poster   Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 2,582 Originally Posted by ben m Originally Posted by dasmiller Wowsers! I certainly understood his occasional suspensions, but I never thought he'd get himself banned. It's not the first time---he was banned on BAUT and Sciforums a long time ago. And from some ten days' ago: Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Actually I tend to sleep 7+ hours a night unless I'm on a programming binge. I just spend WAY too much of my awake time here. I really will "eventually" wean myself from this place and move on to healthier more productive discussions on Thunderbolts, but I was really curious to find out just how deep this denial of PHYSICAL fact would go. Now I know. They take it to the EXTREME! He seems to have been good to his word, posting at a pretty furious rate there recently. I wonder how long it will be before he's banned there too?
 28th March 2012, 11:45 AM #7471 Steve Master Poster     Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 2,918 I expect this thread will fade away soon. Before it does I would really like to thank the many posters who, over several years of replying to and correcting MM, have provided us less knowledgable folks with some good education in real physics/astrophysics. I will not mention all by name because I would likely miss someone, and that would not be fair, but your efforts and patience (even if a bit strained at times) are very much appreciated. __________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
 28th March 2012, 02:21 PM #7472 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 Originally Posted by Steve I expect this thread will fade away soon. Before it does I would really like to thank the many posters who, over several years of replying to and correcting MM, have provided us less knowledgable folks with some good education in real physics/astrophysics. I will not mention all by name because I would likely miss someone, and that would not be fair, but your efforts and patience (even if a bit strained at times) are very much appreciated. ditto __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ
 28th March 2012, 03:33 PM #7473 Almo Masterblazer     Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 6,825 It is a long chapter that is coming to a close. I learned a lot as well. __________________ Almo! My Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia
 28th March 2012, 06:33 PM #7474 Dancing David Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 38,512 What is amazing in the number of views compared to the number of posts. 7,472 / 121,334 or 16x more views than posts, and amazing thing in SMT, or at least for this old a thread. (I know the statistics are against me. ) __________________ I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
 28th March 2012, 06:39 PM #7475 CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 22,419 Originally Posted by Dancing David What is amazing in the number of views compared to the number of posts. 7,472 / 121,334 or 16x more views than posts, and amazing thing in SMT, or at least for this old a thread. (I know the statistics are against me. ) I love to watch rugby, but it would never occur to me to play the game . __________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
 30th March 2012, 10:19 AM #7476 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa W.D.Clinger wrote up a very nice piece collecting his work here on magnetic reconnection into a single page: Magnetic Reconnection. As long as that page remains up, there's an excellent, single source for material on this topic. You can use that next time you encounter magnetic reconnection wrongitude (lovely word that!), which you surely will. Yes, Michael's willful ignorance and convoluted misunderstanding of that issue alone was (and will undoubtedly continue to be) epic. Quote: However, it would be wonderful to have all of Tim Thompson's excellent posts similarly collected into a single page, preferably not on JREF, for easy reference. For example, the series of posts starting here (though that's just a small subset of all the great posts on the topic that he wrote). Yes, too. Pretty much all the pro-electric/iron Sun arguments were shown to be nonsense by reading Tim's thorough and well written posts and perusing his links. Tim has been at this for many years. When I first heard of the electric Sun/Universe stuff back around 2004 or 2005, I looked around to find the real science. I found it in some of his rebuttals posted around the 'net. When he joined this forum and started posting in these electric/iron Sun pseudoscience threads, I was pleased to find out it was the same Tim Thompson. As for my own fluency in solar/astro/plasma physics, I'd compare it to my ability in the French language. I learned a lot of it in school and more by self teaching. It was a very long time ago. I can read it pretty well and understand what I read, write it a little but not with much confidence, and I don't really speak it very well. Many of the other posters here are far more articulate, knowledgeable, and organized than I. And I appreciate that. I've learned a lot here. As for my contribution, much of Michael's wrongness is built on his misunderstanding of a couple of optical illusions and some intentional misrepresentation of various satellite imagery. I have a blog page which explains running difference images and Michael's serious errors in using them to support his nutty fantasy. It's a few short pages, and although it's somewhat disjointed, it should be a little informative to anyone who wants to know more about it. You can find those pages through this link.
 30th March 2012, 11:59 AM #7477 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 969 Comments on Solar Silliness About a month ago, I predicted that Mozina would choose to deliberately get himself banned ... Originally Posted by Tim Thompson Why is it that Mozina is only too happy to call anybody who disagrees with him a "hater", while at the same time deliberately ignoring the non hate-based reasons for disagreeing with him? I don't think Mozina will stop posting here because he loves to be insulted, to feel insulted, and to insult back. In fact, rather than leave, I think he will deliberately get himself banned as a badge of honor. Anything to avoid any real discussion of real science. I confess some surprise that he did it quite so soon, but I do believe that he did it deliberately. Now he can crow about being suppressed by a fearful mainstream establishment that would rather run than fight. He is completely delusional and unable to deal with reality. But of course, you already know that. I have been of doing more useful things than dealing with the frustration of being forced by civility to pretend that Mozina deserves any kind of serious respect. Good riddance. I am flattered by the suggestion that my posts should be archived somewhere and I will look into that. __________________ The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
 30th March 2012, 12:49 PM #7478 dasmiller Just the right amount of cowbell     Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon Posts: 5,715 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson I confess some surprise that he did it quite so soon, but I do believe that he did it deliberately. Now he can crow about being suppressed by a fearful mainstream establishment that would rather run than fight. Yeah, I think that's a strong possibility. It may not have been an entirely conscious decision, but like I said earlier, I was surprised to see him get banned. I wasn't surprised at his occasional suspensions, but IMO he'd previously stayed well clear of anything bannable. Perhaps even he realized that he was getting deeper into the weird with the reconnection discussion. "Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process" means that reconnection cannot occur in a vacuum? Lordy . . . Quote: He is completely delusional and unable to deal with reality. But of course, you already know that. Frankly, I'm a bit puzzled by this. Certainly, some of his fixations seemed almost schizophrenic to me (caveat: IANAP) but he seemed to have a successful career in programming, so I'd think that he had to be fairly functional IRL. I didn't notice any other symptoms of schizophrenia (word salad, neologisms, way-out-of-the-box connections, etc). But on the the whole astrophysics thing, yeah, "delusional and unable to deal with reality" seems like a reasonable description. He seemed to have a profound aversion to ever admitting he was wrong about anything, and that forced him into stranger and stranger positions. Maybe that was the real problem; he'd come up with some ideas that seemed plausible, and rather than admit they were wrong, he had to keep adding to his increasingly-strange, increasingly-elaborate worldview. __________________ "In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
 2nd April 2012, 06:26 AM #7479 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 Why was he banned? Its a hell of a lot of time he's put into this thread and others. I gave up trying to argue a lot of things on the internet. Someone on the internet is always wrong, you could waste your life here arguing with people and never getting anywhere.
 2nd April 2012, 08:05 AM #7480 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Its a hell of a lot of time he's put into this thread and others. Yes. Michael first started spouting his nonsense on the Internet almost seven years ago. There are people who were just getting out of high school when he started, people who have gone on to acquire masters degrees in physics in the mean time. And in that time while thousands of people went from high school kids to professionals in various fields of physics, actually advancing their understanding of physics and the relevant math, Michael hasn't added a single productive thing to his repertoire. Without a doubt he has written millions of words on various forums, and he's still just as wrong as the day he started.

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit