Electric universe theories here.

[edd]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

That is rather wild speculation from the point of view of a skeptic. Got even a single gram of non baryonic matter that we can actually inspect in controlled conditions?

I will concede there's no direct detection as yet. Requiring grams of the stuff is laughable though (I'm not aware that anyone has a gram of neutrinos you can inspect in controlled conditions and the same can be said about many other things. Including some elements sitting comfortably on the periodic table.)

The evidence that's already been done to death here certainly does give CDM large amounts of support. I would be surprised if I turned out to be wrong and some MOND variant turned out to be right, but even in the latter case it looks likely that you will still need a large mass fraction in the form of neutrinos to get cluster observations to fit, and so sol is probably still wrong if CDM turns out to be wrong.

In contrast, the chance that you are right is way down at the other end of the scale, close to zero.

[Vermonter]

I don't see why dark matter is such a controversial topic. It doesn't emit (or react to) electromagnetic radiation. So? I'm not seeing the big deal. We just haven't found a way to directly observe it. Unless I'm missing something important. Am I?

[Dancing David]

Nope, nutrinos are in the same category.

[Vermonter]

Thanks, that's what I figured.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Why batteries? why not capacitors?

Charge them in our magnetosphere, push of to say Jupiter magnetosphere use the kinetis energy to recharge the capacitors while slowing the craft down ready to "pushed" of again!

Simple, brilliant and easy, so why not???

What is the difference between a battery and a capacitor in this frame?

And then please read my summary of the conclusions of the tether satellite.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Vermonter

I don't see why dark matter is such a controversial topic. It doesn't emit (or react to) electromagnetic radiation. So? I'm not seeing the big deal. We just haven't found a way to directly observe it. Unless I'm missing something important. Am I?

Why do we need to postulate invisible matter and invisible forces? Where does "dark matter" even come from? Where is it? Why can't your whole industry produce even a single gram of the stuff if it's actually 5 - 10 times more plentiful than the dirt in my backyard?

Whereas controlled experimentation led us to postulate the need for a neutrino (or a law of physics was being violated), no known controlled experiment requires or suggests the need for a new form of matter. Not a single SUSY particle has ever been found and SUSY theory itself is a form of "non standard" particle physics theory.

The part that gets really over the top is why you folks publish papers about finding "proof" of 'dark matter' (rather than "missing mass") based on some distant and completely uncontrolled observation. Such statements should never pass a peer review process, but you folks don't even understand what a real "experiment" with a real "control mechanism" actually is. In the lingo of your industry any uncontrolled observation is somehow a "test" of mythical mathical make-believe entity, physically indistinguishable (in a lab) from magic.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by edd

I will concede there's no direct detection as yet. Requiring grams of the stuff is laughable though (I'm not aware that anyone has a gram of neutrinos you can inspect in controlled conditions and the same can be said about many other things. Including some elements sitting comfortably on the periodic table.)

The key difference however is that the postulation of a neutrino was brought about due to active experimentation with real control mechanisms. In such 'experiments' related to particle decay reactions of identified particles, some amount of mass/energy was not accounted for. These ideas were born of *EXPERIMENTATION* and active control mechanisms. Furthermore their origin and approximate energy state was identified and physical experiments could then be created to test for their presence. At no time was anyone reliant upon anything other than controlled experimentation to postulate their existence. In a mere few decades, neutrino experiments were created and their presence was also verified by active "experimentation" with actual control mechanisms.

Compare and contrast that with non baryonic forms of "dark matter" that have no specific identified origin, have never been seen in a lab, may not exist at all, etc, etc, etc.

What makes "dark matter" claims so 'incredible' (as in lacking credibility) is when you folks attempt to build a federal case about the abundance numbers of exotic matter because you grossly underestimated the mass of a galaxy. What makes you think your mass estimation techniques are right in the first place?

Quote:

In contrast, the chance that you are right is way down at the other end of the scale, close to zero.

Peratt's work on galaxy formation models demonstrates that you're dead wrong. Even if the odds are low, the physics is based upon real forces of nature. The odds of you being right about even the mere existence of any form of "dark matter", is itself low beyond belief. The odds that such a form of matter would even last a single millisecond in existence before converting so something less exotic is even lower than finding it at all. The odds any of it exists in space and has the effect you claim it has is therefore infinitesimally small. I'll take my chances with known and identified forces of nature before I run off on a wildly speculative concept about new invisible forms of matter.

Don't you think it's odd that your entire industry can't produce a single SUSY particle in an experiment, not a single gram of 'dark matter', not a single thing to demonstrate it's not a figment of your collective imagination?

I must say that MOND theory isn't particularly attractive to me either, but then I have no faith that suns are mostly hydrogen and helium. I therefore have no confidence in your industry's abilities to accurately estimate the mass of a galaxy in the first place. If you have found any "missing mass" (certainly not any new forms of exotic matter) in lensing data, you'll probably find it located in the mostly nickel and iron suns that you believe to be made of light elements. I definitely see no need to invent invisible matter based on your primitive mass estimation techniques.

[Skamandros]

OK, Mr. Mozina:

"When that universe was young, law of 3 what injected by the three fold three off feat in with physics of the situation and enlightended by cosmic radiation, then we see three."
Gligor Makedonska

If you study remembar this elecric universe comes true if power of 3 is forced to come out of magnetick fields like in radiation of the 3 great galaxys.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You have an opinion that it definitely is due to an electrical discharge. Why?

Because it is the one force of nature that has been observed to create all the observations in question. It's the one force of nature that has been shown to:

A) heat plasma to millions of degrees naturally in an atmosphere.
B) pinch free neutrons from plasma (observe in Rhessi images and in the lab)
C) sustain high plasma temperatures for hours on end.
D) sustain "loops" in an atmosphere of a terella in a vacuum
E) create jets from a terella in a vacuum.
F) create "flying electrons and electric ions of all kinds"
G) release gamma rays in the atmosphere of bodies in the solar system.
H) release x-rays in the atmosphere of multiple bodies in the solar system.\
I) create filamentary shapes in plasma.
J) create huge energy releases in plasma in explosive double layer events.
K) accelerate charged particles to high speeds.

How long of a list would you like? Electrical energy sure fits all the evidence.

Quote:

I (and others) have explained the RD animation many times. The fact that your delustional state does not allow you to accpt the explanation is your problem not ours.

The only "delusion" here is that you "explained' anything. You never mentioned a single cause/effect relationship, not a single observed phenomenon with your single exception about the flying stuff coming from the CME. You did get that right. You also correctly identified the coronal loops and coronal material as the source of the original images, but you incorrectly claimed there were *NO* light sources in RD image and you seem to be oblivious to the fact that the movement of the surface between images will generate lots of important features in the image, like the shadowing, etc. If you can't identify any real cause/effect relationships, you didn't *EXPLAIN* anything. If you don't focus on a specific observation, by frame, location, etc, it is absolutely irrational to believe you "explained" any detail of the image.

Quote:

A child for example can see that the various directions of the "shadows" (actually records of temperature change) means that the objects "casting" them do not actually exist.

Anyone who's put a RD image together also know that it is a false statement to claim there are no light sources. All the light, all the light in both images comes from the sun and is a result of a process on the sun. That is also true of every pattern we observe in a RD image. You folks have missed far too many of the mechanical aspects of what a RD image is to even take you seriously at this point. A child can also see the flying stuff in the image, the peeling along the right, the angular features in the image. A child can't explain them of course, but neither can you.

[GeeMack]

Michael, you missed this one...

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Michael, is Dr. Neal Hurlburt of LMSAL stupider than you? And if he is, who is smarter than you? Whose word would you take if they were to say, "Michael, you're wrong. Running difference images do not show any kind of surface features at all. They can't. That's not what running difference images do?"

And why is it that after several years of your bitching and moaning, not a single solitary physics professional on the face of the Earth agrees with your insane fantasy?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Michael, is Dr. Neal Hurlburt of LMSAL stupider than you?

No, and I'm sure he's a lot smarter than you when it comes to RD imaging and what it shows us. I'm sure he'd never have claimed that the technique itself creates rigid patterns in the image, or that there no light source in the image, or that there's no flying plasma observed in the image.

If he has any actual "explanations" to offer us related to persistent patterns in the image, related to the peeling effects we observe, the flying plasma we observe, etc, why doesn't he just come over here and tell us all how to "correctly interpret' the details in the images?

All the appeals to authority you might come up with are really very meaningless to me unless you (or they) can also provide a real analysis of this image, and I don't mean "flying stuff? what flying stuff?".

You are not a real scientist, and you have made at least three critically false statements related to the RD imaging process. I know one thing for sure. You're no Dr. Hurlburt.

If and when he feels like coming over here and explaining some of the actual details in the image, including cause effect relationships, frame numbers, specific observations, etc, you let me know. At the moment I have no logical reason to believe that you or he can offer us a valid explanation of these images based on gas model solar theory. I've been dogging your whole industry for the better part of 4 and a half years to explain this image, and the best you all seem to be able to come up with is "flying stuff? what flying stuff"? Sheesh.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

No, and I'm sure he's a lot smarter than you when it comes to RD imaging and what it shows us.

Good, then I'm sure you'll agree with him that a running difference image doesn't show any surface of any sort, and that what you mistakenly believe is a surface is just an optical illusion that comes about from the process of creating the output image.

And where's that detailed quantitative explanation of every single pixel in the image, Michael? Or were you lying again when you said you'd provide one? You know your lying is quite tedious and you would waste a lot less time if you'd actually get to your point rather than crying about all these good people finding fault with your idiotic delusion.

Oh, and why is it that after so many years of your whining and complaining, not a single solitary physics professional on the face of the Earth agrees with your insane fantasy?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Good, then I'm sure you'll agree with him that a running difference image doesn't show any surface of any sort,

I'm not sure. We would need to discuss that statement in some detail.

Quote:

and that what you mistakenly believe is a surface is just an optical illusion that comes about from the process of creating the output image.

To know if such a thing were true, I would have to hear his full "explanation" of this image, frame by frame in some cases, certainly observation by observation in some detail. I'm sure that a real analysis would lead to some areas of agreement, perhaps a few areas of disagreement. I'll never know if all I heard over the last nearly five years is "Flying stuff? What flying stuff".

Quote:

And where's that detailed quantitative explanation of every single pixel in the image, Michael?

I think I'll work on that over next bit of time and post you a link when I'm ready. I guarantee you that it will take time to put a full analysis together for review, and it won't suffer from any of the three bush league mistakes that you have already made.

Quote:

Or were you lying again when you said you'd provide one?

I guess when one's expectations are as low as yours, ("flying stuff"?) a "full analysis" in your mind takes something on the order of about ten milliseconds or so. In the real world of actual physical "science", it's not nearly that easy. I see no need to continue to duplicate these discussion around the internet ad nausea, so I'll just post you a link when I'm done. It won't be today, maybe not even this week. I'd like to include a lot of detail and make it substantive and put it all together properly. I've got parts of it done already, but I'd like to spend some time going through it and adding specifically highlighted parts of specific frames. Don't worry, I'll be happy to give you a link, and I promise you it will be a lot more professional than anything I've seen from you, or from your side of the aisle in more than four years.

Quote:

You know your lying is quite tedious and you would waste a lot less time if you'd actually get to your point rather than crying about all these good people finding fault with your idiotic delusion.

You really are the single biggest sleaze on the internet when it comes to fair debate. You don't even know how to make a single post without relying upon personal insult. That is due of course to your incapability of being able to address any actual detail (by frame, by observation in the frame) in these images. All you have are pitiful insults and ad homs to rely upon. You're a scientific wash out of epic proportions, starting with the "Flying stuff? What flying stuff" comment. All you have left now are childish, inane personal insults and personal attacks. I guess you figure that nobody is going to notice that your conversation style is simply unethical and less than professional?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You really are the single biggest sleaze on the internet when it comes to fair debate. You don't even know how to make a single post without relying upon personal insult. That is due of course to your incapability of being able to address any actual detail (by frame, by observation in the frame) in these images. All you have are pitiful insults and ad homs to rely upon. You're a scientific wash out of epic proportions, starting with the "Flying stuff? What flying stuff" comment. All you have left now are childish, inane personal insults and personal attacks. I guess you figure that nobody is going to notice that your conversation style is simply unethical and less than professional?

No, it would be an ad hominem if I said you're wrong because you're an ignorant liar. I'm saying you're wrong, too.

Now why do you think it is that nobody, not a single person on Earth, working in the field of solar sciences or astrophysics thinks your insane solid surface Sun notion has any merit?

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Peratt's work on galaxy formation models demonstrates that you're dead wrong. Even if the odds are low, the physics is based upon real forces of nature.

Really, this is just too rich to pass up. First, as already demonstrated by others, Peratt's work on galaxy formation is in fact dead wrong, since it is seriously contradicted by observations of galaxy structure. But really, the big deal here is this: "the physics is based upon real forces of nature". Now, the last time I checked, gravity certainly counts as a "real force of nature" in any practical sense (setting aside literal interpretations of general relativity & etc.). The appeal to dark matter is nothing more or less than the direct appeal to gravity. It's the simplest and most obvious solution to the problem of reconciling known physics with observations. This does not guarantee that it is right. But ignoring the serious possibility of dark matter would be an exceptionally stupid thing to do.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

What makes you think your mass estimation techniques are right in the first place?

I might ask: What makes you think they're wrong? Gravity is certainly a known force of nature, so why is it so bizarre to use gravity to estimate the mass of a galaxy? Indeed it is not an easy thing to do and there are not all that many galaxies where we can estimate mass in the most efficient manner, by dynamics. But Fritz Zwicky's original idea for estimating the gravitational mass of a galaxy cluster (Zwicky, 1933; Zwicky, 1937) has certainly stood the test of time and is just as valid today as it was then (with some modifications perhaps in assessing the mass - luminosity relationship).

Really, you are on the warpath against an idea that is so simple & so obvious that it is simply astonishing to me that anyone can stretch their reliance on pure & unadulterated prejudice to such extremes. So what if we don't see it in a "controlled laboratory experiment"? Who cares? That has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific validity of the assumption of dark matter. Your view of what "science" should be is far too naive to do you any good.

[edd]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Why do we need to postulate invisible matter and invisible forces? Where does "dark matter" even come from? Where is it? Why can't your whole industry produce even a single gram of the stuff if it's actually 5 - 10 times more plentiful than the dirt in my backyard?

Well... it just might have something to do with the interaction cross-sections of dark matter and a myriad other factors that would be plainly obvious to anyone with the slightest clue what they were talking about.

If I could give you a gram of dark matter in a jar it would practically by definition be no good for the job it needs to do in astrophysics.

That your argument is so plainly flawed but you put it forward seriously is a pretty damning indictment on your understanding of the relevant arguments.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

No, it would be an ad hominem if I said you're wrong because you're an ignorant liar. I'm saying you're wrong, too.

Yawn. That wouldn't sound so utterly pathetic if you had not said "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" not to mention all the other ridiculously false statements you made about RD imaging.

Quote:

Now why do you think it is that nobody, not a single person on Earth, working in the field of solar sciences or astrophysics thinks your insane solid surface Sun notion has any merit?

The only insane individual around here is the one that believes he has already "explained" every single pixel of every frame of that image. Hell, you never even mentioned a single cause/effect relationship related to that image. You never cited a single frame or a single specific observations of any frame of the actual image set, and you blew three important statements related to RD imaging!

Since you are so convinced of their infallibility, why don't you get one of your so god-like buddies at LMSAL to come over here and actually explain a few of the *SPECIFIC* details of the image so we can know whether they agree with any of your BS about "What flying stuff?" and how the RD process is responsible for persistent features in the image, or that there are no light sources in a RD image? You've stuck you foot in your mouth so many times now GM, you have "negative credibility" with me.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by edd

Well... it just might have something to do with the interaction cross-sections of dark matter and a myriad other factors that would be plainly obvious to anyone with the slightest clue what they were talking about.

Come on edd, I'm really not asking for the moon here. I'm simply asking for some solid empirical evidence that new and exotic forms of matter exist in nature. Pointing at the sky, claiming your mass guestimates of galaxies are entirely accurate and therefore you have found "proof" of DM isn't going to cut it. A single physical experiment in *controlled* conditions would do the trick however. Got one? It's a simple and logical request.

Quote:

If I could give you a gram of dark matter in a jar it would practically by definition be no good for the job it needs to do in astrophysics.

If you could hand me some to play with in any form, at least I'd know you didn't just make it up in your collective head. As it stands, you guys have this stuff doing magic tricks, you've assigned it "special properties" that prevent you from finding even a single gram, and yet you expect me to simply buy this argument that it's way more plentiful that normal matter based on an obviously lame mass estimation technique and a wee bit of lensing data from distant galaxies?

Quote:

That your argument is so plainly flawed but you put it forward seriously is a pretty damning indictment on your understanding of the relevant arguments.

The problem here edd is that you've conveniently made up the rules as you've gone. (well, it wasn't you personally of course, just astronomers as a whole). Whereas Birkeland physically demonstrated the merits of his statements and beliefs in a lab, and made predictions based upon what he learned from these controlled experiments, you are basing your whole faith in DM in your "faith" that your galaxy mass estimation techniques are valid and useful. IMO if they were valid and useful you wouldn't require 80% gap filler!

[Vermonter]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Why do we need to postulate invisible matter and invisible forces? Where does "dark matter" even come from? Where is it? Why can't your whole industry produce even a single gram of the stuff if it's actually 5 - 10 times more plentiful than the dirt in my backyard?

Whereas controlled experimentation led us to postulate the need for a neutrino (or a law of physics was being violated), no known controlled experiment requires or suggests the need for a new form of matter. Not a single SUSY particle has ever been found and SUSY theory itself is a form of "non standard" particle physics theory.

The part that gets really over the top is why you folks publish papers about finding "proof" of 'dark matter' (rather than "missing mass") based on some distant and completely uncontrolled observation. Such statements should never pass a peer review process, but you folks don't even understand what a real "experiment" with a real "control mechanism" actually is. In the lingo of your industry any uncontrolled observation is somehow a "test" of mythical mathical make-believe entity, physically indistinguishable (in a lab) from magic.

Alright, enough of this. You keep blabbering on about real experiments in controlled environments like it's the best since since sliced bread. We get the point. It's not a valid complaint. Have you even performed an observation outside of the lab? You keep repeating yourself louder and louder like it'll mean something. Well, it doesn't.

Papers pass the peer review process because they are well-written and well thought-out, not because the "industry" (which doesn't make sense because you don't make a lot of money doing this...) likes patting itself on the back.

We understand what experiments are. We've done them in labs. I did them frequently as an undergrad, and I'm sure the others who have taken any college classes at all have done it too. So kindly knock it off. We know how to do experiments. You must have a very hard time accepting that.

[edd]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Come on edd, I'm really not asking for the moon here.

You're not asking for the moon, but you are asking for something challenging. Practically by definition dark matter is hard to directly detect. We're trying very hard to give you the evidence you want, but it is a long way from trivial to give it to you. This does not mean that dark matter does not exist. And we are all keen to get the direct detections everyone wants - but don't expect your ludicrous requests of grams of the stuff to be given to you on a plate.

There's good reason to think we will find it, far better reason to think that than to think that any of this electric universe nonsense holds water.

Give it more time before ruling it out, which is how it sounds like you're treating it right now.

I'll preempt you by pointing out that I'm not giving EU ideas the same time and I'm dismissing them out of hand. All I'd want there is good predictions that are competitive. I've not seen the slightest sign of them yet.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Really, this is just too rich to pass up. First, as already demonstrated by others, Peratt's work on galaxy formation is in fact dead wrong, since it is seriously contradicted by observations of galaxy structure. But really, the big deal here is this: "the physics is based upon real forces of nature". Now, the last time I checked, gravity certainly counts as a "real force of nature" in any practical sense (setting aside literal interpretations of general relativity & etc.).

Ok, fine. You are formally welcome to apply the concept of gravity to every KNOWN AND IDENTIFIED* form of mass in the universe. No invisible gnomes will be considered however.

Quote:

The appeal to dark matter is nothing more or less than the direct appeal to gravity.

No, an appeal to gravity alone tells me that your mass estimation techniques related to guestimating the mass in a galaxy are off by a mile!

Quote:

It's the simplest and most obvious solution to the problem of reconciling known physics with observations. This does not guarantee that it is right. But ignoring the serious possibility of dark matter would be an exceptionally stupid thing to do.

Fine. I will accept that there is "missing mass" to be "explained". Now explain to me how you're sure that any new forms of exotic material are required to explain these specific observations.

Quote:

I might ask: What makes you think they're wrong?

SUSY particle theory is purely theoretical in nature with zip in the way of empirical support. What makes you think it's right?

Quote:

Gravity is certainly a known force of nature, so why is it so bizarre to use gravity to estimate the mass of a galaxy?

Go right ahead and use gravity to calculate the screw ups you made when estimating the amount of mass in a galaxy. Don't come to me however and claim your mass estimates were correct because clearly they are not correct.

Quote:

Really, you are on the warpath against an idea that is so simple & so obvious that it is simply astonishing to me that anyone can stretch their reliance on pure & unadulterated prejudice to such extremes.

It's simple, obvious, and entirely "made up" Tim. You can't tell me that you already know from distant lensing data that A) your galaxy mass estimates were accurate, or that B) any new exotic forms of matter were in any way involved in these VERY distant observations.

Quote:

So what if we don't see it in a "controlled laboratory experiment"? Who cares?

Then "Invisible elephants did it and here's the math" is a valid scientific answer Tim.

How do you know that exotic forms of matter are involved in these observations which are light years away from us, and which preclude us from having any control mechanisms to verify your claims?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by edd

You're not asking for the moon, but you are asking for something challenging.

Why exactly should or would it be challenging if this stuff is 5 times or so more plentiful than ordinary matter?

Quote:

Practically by definition dark matter is hard to directly detect.

As far as I can tell edd, those "definitions" were entirely contrived in an ad hoc manner based on what you needed to fill an otherwise epically failed theory about galaxy mass estimation.

Quote:

We're trying very hard to give you the evidence you want, but it is a long way from trivial to give it to you.

Evidently I just have to take your word for it that it should be anything other than trivial edd. It's supposedly many time more abundant than the dirt in my yard, so why would it be difficult to find a single gram of this stuff? Logically it should be damn near impossible to miss the stuff, or at least the influences of this stuff here on Earth. It's gravitational effects on Earth alone should be staggering and damn obvious.

Quote:

This does not mean that dark matter does not exist.

What evidence do you have that it does exist and that you accurately guestimated the mass of a galaxy?

Quote:

And we are all keen to get the direct detections everyone wants - but don't expect your ludicrous requests of grams of the stuff to be given to you on a plate.

It's only "ludicrous" because you made up the various properties as you needed them based on what would fit into your otherwise dead theory of galaxy mass estimation techniques. I see no evidence that any of these properties were not entirely contrived by your industry to fit things as you needed them to fit. You certainly didn't identify these properties based on laboratory evidence.

Quote:

There's good reason to think we will find it,

There's no reason to think that, it's simply an act of faith on your part in the final analysis. There could be many ways that you blew the mass estimates, and this notion of "dark matter" *REQUIRES* that your mass estimates be accurate.

Quote:

far better reason to think that than to think that any of this electric universe nonsense holds water.

Compared to the faith it takes to believe in inflation, DE and DM, EU theory is certainly not "nonsense". It's 'lab tested' in fact. That's far more than I can say for A) inflation which can now *NEVER* be seen on Earth, B) DE which can only show up when no mass is around evidently, or C) mythical dark matter which is so abundant it's supposedly dwarfs the mass of ordinary matter but you can't find a single gram of the stuff, EU theory is an empirical breath of fresh air. You are welcome to your faith of course, but don't call it "science" unless you can backup your claims with empirical support. Birkeland demonstrated his beliefs had merit. Right or wrong they work in a lab and they can therefore be compared to events in space in an ordinary scientific manner. No acts of faith are required.

I don't know how you can actually miss the "signs" of electricity in space edd. That "current flow" you call "solar wind" is composed of moving charged particles. Those million degree coronal loops are discharges in the solar atmosphere and emit the same wavelengths of light as discharges in the Earth's atmosphere and the atmospheres of other bodies in space. How can you miss all that?

[edd]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Why exactly should or would it be challenging if this stuff is 5 times or so more plentiful than ordinary matter?

Gravity is weak.

Quote:

As far as I can tell edd, those "definitions" were entirely contrived in an ad hoc manner based on what you needed to fill an otherwise epically failed theory about galaxy mass estimation.

Yes that's not an entirely unfair comment. However, claiming electromagnetism as a cure for it is crazy. Your ideas are so much deeper epic fail it is hard to find comic internet jargon to fit them.

Quote:

Evidently I just have to take your word for it that it should be anything other than trivial edd. It's supposedly many time more abundant than the dirt in my yard, so why would it be difficult to find a single gram of this stuff?

The dirt in your yard interacts with different sets of forces. You cannot possibly engage in this conversation without being aware of this.

Yes, it's weird. Yes, it's not something we want to bring into our idea of the universe without evidence. BUT THE EVIDENCE IS THERE.

Quote:

Logically it should be damn near impossible to miss the stuff, or at least the influences of this stuff here on Earth. It's gravitational effects on Earth alone should be staggering and damn obvious.

You've not worked the numbers then have you? Or would you like to prove me wrong on how galactic scale smooth distributions of dark matter have influences on the gravity of your back yard?

Quote:

What evidence do you have that it does exist and that you accurately guestimated the mass of a galaxy?

Doesn't need repeating. Those that see the value of it have accepted it. You haven't.

To repeat, I understand that you find the need for a dark sector uncomfortable. Noone really wants it, but the evidence is overwhelmingly against your point of view.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Because it is the one force of nature that has been observed to create all the observations in question. It's the one force of nature that has been shown to:

A) heat plasma to millions of degrees naturally in an atmosphere.
B) pinch free neutrons from plasma (observe in Rhessi images and in the lab)
C) sustain high plasma temperatures for hours on end.
D) sustain "loops" in an atmosphere of a terella in a vacuum
E) create jets from a terella in a vacuum.
F) create "flying electrons and electric ions of all kinds"
G) release gamma rays in the atmosphere of bodies in the solar system.
H) release x-rays in the atmosphere of multiple bodies in the solar system.\
I) create filamentary shapes in plasma.
J) create huge energy releases in plasma in explosive double layer events.
K) accelerate charged particles to high speeds.

How long of a list would you like? Electrical energy sure fits all the evidence.

Magnetic fields also fit all of these.
Give us some numbers from your theory, e.g. what is the X-ray specturm from your electic discharges and how does it fit observations.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

The only "delusion" here is that you "explained' anything. You never mentioned a single cause/effect relationship, not a single observed phenomenon with your single exception about the flying stuff coming from the CME. You did get that right. You also correctly identified the coronal loops and coronal material as the source of the original images, but you incorrectly claimed there were *NO* light sources in RD image and you seem to be oblivious to the fact that the movement of the surface between images will generate lots of important features in the image, like the shadowing, etc. If you can't identify any real cause/effect relationships, you didn't *EXPLAIN* anything. If you don't focus on a specific observation, by frame, location, etc, it is absolutely irrational to believe you "explained" any detail of the image.

Learn to read MM.
We have stated what all of the features in the RD - they are records of changes. That is what every specific observation, by frame, location, etc. is.

Your "mountain range" delusion is merely areas of increasing temperature on one side of the flares and areas of decreasing temperatures on the other side of the flares. The fact that this is happening around the relatively constant flares (but note the "mountain ranges" that pop up during the RD animation) makes it look as of there are persistent structures.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Anyone who's put a RD image together also know that it is a false statement to claim there are no light sources. All the light, all the light in both images comes from the sun and is a result of a process on the sun. That is also true of every pattern we observe in a RD image. You folks have missed far too many of the mechanical aspects of what a RD image is to even take you seriously at this point. A child can also see the flying stuff in the image, the peeling along the right, the angular features in the image. A child can't explain them of course, but neither can you.

The "mechanical aspects" of an running difference animation are easy - each frame is the record of changes between two of the original images. \

There are no light sources in the result because an RD image is no longer a photograph. Photographs have light sources. There might be records of changes in the positions and intensity of light sources in the RD animation.

A young child could be fooled into thinking that the RD animation have "mountain ranges" in them because they do not know better. An older child would know:

• An RD animation only shows changes in position or intensity (temperature). Thus any persistent feature is something that is always changing temperature but is not changing position.
• The "shadows" in the animation point in various directions. This means that a deluded person could say that there were multiple "light sources" but that child would see that there are not multiple "shadows".
• "Mountain ranges" erupt out of the background during the animation.

Then there is your delusion that the RD animation is of "mountain ranges" on a hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface that is 4800 km below the photosphere.
This is a result of your continued ignorance of basic physics that allows you to be deluded into thinking that the 171 Angstrom pass band filter used to take the original images can look into the photosphere.
Trace pass bands:

[Reality Check]

Since Michael Mozina is spewing his unfounded assertions:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

No, an appeal to gravity alone tells me that your mass estimation techniques related to guestimating the mass in a galaxy are off by a mile!

it is time for repeat of the dark matter questions.

Hopefully sometime in the next few decades he will actually answer them .
(P.S. mass is not estimated in miles ).

First asked on 23rd June. 2009.
No real response yet (5th July 2009 and counting).

How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?

• galaxy rotation curves (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
• the motion of galxies in galactic clusters (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
• the actual measurement of the mass density of galactic clusters showing that about 2% is in the galaxies and IGM (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, indirect measurement)
• the two actual measurements of the separation of dark matter from normal matter:
  • NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (Bullet Cluster)
  • another observation (MACS J0025.4-1222)
    (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, direct measurements of the separation of dark and normal matter)
• A bit of supporting evidence is that the Millennium Run used the Lambda-CDM model to replicate the large-scale structure of the universe. CDM = Cold Dark Matter.

So far we have seen

• Michael Mozina's usual inability to understand what empirical means with his "empirical measurments of an *CONTROLLED* experiment" nonsense.
• His personal opinion that somehow astronomers have underestimated the visible mass of galaxies. That would have to by a factor of 50 or more.

The last point demands more questions:
First asked 25 June 2009.
No real response yet (5th July 2009 and counting).

Would you like to explain how the astronomers got the mass so wrong, e.g.

• What visible matter are they not accounting for?
• How is the mass of the visible matter they are accounting for measured incorrectly?
• Is the Sun two times heavier than orbital mechanics say that it is? 10 times? 50 times? 100 times? Or greater?

Perhaps this just your personal opinion unsupported by any empirical evidence just because you cannot understand the evidence for dark matter?

[GeeMack]

Michael, in all the years of you hollering and whining about that ridiculous solid surface Sun crap, not one single professional in any field related to any legitimate science has agreed with your claim. Why is that? Tens of thousands of people believe crazy things like the Earth is only 6000 years old. Millions of them believe space aliens visit the Earth. Thousands think there are living bigfoot type creatures roaming the woods of North America, and thousands more accept as reality a prehistoric monster swimming in Loch Ness in Scotland. Yet not a single solitary legitimate science professional, researcher, or educator on the face of this planet accepts your ludicrous conjecture. Why?

[tusenfem]

Well, well, well, up to now no working model for the electric universe has been presented.

• I have not obtained an answer from MM on where exactly Birkeland calculates the dragging of the ions by the electrons, and I did go through lots of math pages in the book and wrote it down here.
• I have not obtained an answer from either Sol88 or MM or Zeuzzz on how the water in a comet gets created from solar wind protons and nucleus oxygen ions
• I have not obtained an answer about how EDM works on an electric comet
• I have not obtained an answer on what "particle reconnection is
• I have not obtained an answer on how induction can change the topology of the magnetic field in the following way that is from anti-parallel field to this X-configuration
• I have not obtained even the smallest acknowledgement from PU/PC/EU/ES/EC proponents that mainstream does not abhor electric fields and elelctric currents
• I would love to be explained how Birkeland's fission of uranium in the Sun leads to electricity (whatever electricity is)
• I would love to know why a failed model like Peratt's is being deified, when all observational evidence is lacking
• How does the "stars are z-pinches" model work, and what evidence is there and what is driving the currents for these z-pinches (I realise that this is somehow a mini-version of Peratt's galaxy creation mechanism)
• I would like to know ... well, that is about enough questions

Basically, I have not received squad from the PU/PC/EU/ES/EC apart from things that are already in mainstream, but the PU/PC/EU/ES/EC proponents have not got the foggiest

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Magnetic fields also fit all of these.

Baloney. Which *NATURAL* "event" in the Earth's atmosphere that causes all the aforementioned items is the the result of "magnetic fields" to the exclusion of electrical discharge?

Quote:

Give us some numbers from your theory,

Give us a physical demonstration of your theory. Where can I go on Earth to see a *NATURAL* event that is due to magnetism, that is going to emit x-rays and gamma rays and such?

Quote:

e.g. what is the X-ray specturm from your electic discharges and how does it fit observations.

Electrical discharges are used to generate x-rays in your dentists office. You have to plug it in of course because it requires "electricity' (you know, those flowing charged particle thingies that make stuff work) .

Quote:

Learn to read MM.

You're going to have to learn to do some real experimentation, show real cause effect relationships, and figure out that that there is in fact a light source associated with both original images, specifically the discharges (or whatever you prefer) in the solar atmosphere that release such high energy photons. When you get that far, we might actually have a rational discussion. As it stands, your childish and cartoon like understanding of a RD image is preventing us from having a rational or real scientific discussion on this topic.

Quote:

We have stated what all of the features in the RD - they are records of changes.

Well, we all agree that they can and do show us changes over time, but you've failed to acknowledge that the whole surface is rotating between images and therefore the "outlines" we observe are in part due to the light sources simply rotating to the right.

Quote:

That is what every specific observation, by frame, location, etc. is.

This statement is a childish and stupid cop out. There are actual physical processes that cause the light to be emitted, that cause the CME event, that generate the shapes we observe in the image, etc. There are specific events that occur in the image that have specific cause/effect relationships associated with them, like that "flying stuff" we observe in all the images from the CME event. To actually "explain" this image you will need to focus on and explain (cause/effect and everything) all the important events in the image. You haven't touched nary a single one of them. You mentioned the flying stuff being associated with the CME. That's about as far as you ever got. GM blew so many important aspects of RD imaging that he's into minus territory in the credibility scale. You're hanging in there by your fingernails, but only by your fingernails. Let's see you do some real science stuff, and address some of the specific events in the image, like the peeling along the right, the angular persistent features, etc.

Quote:

Your "mountain range" delusion is merely areas of increasing temperature on one side of the flares and areas of decreasing temperatures on the other side of the flares.

In the sense that the shadows in the image are caused by the rotation of the sun, and the light sources are moving left to right, ok, I agree, shadows are generated this way. The rest of your rant is pointless until you address some of the other important aspects of the image, like persistent angular features, etc.

Quote:

The "mechanical aspects" of an running difference animation are easy - each frame is the record of changes between two of the original images.

That is only a layman's explanation of the general process. That is not a specific explanation related to a specific event associated with specific frames and locations in the image. You're tossing out a general explanation of RD imaging that you might have read on LMSAL's website and claiming you somehow explained *THIS SPECIFIC* image. That's not how it works. You've only explain the some of the fundamental issues, but you actually explained them incorrectly. There are two light sources, not *NO* light sources. Each original image is lit and visible due a specific *PROCESS* on the sun. It's a solar related and generated photon that hits each and every pixel of each original image. The solar process called "rotation" combined with the length of time between images will determine the total amount of movement in the image, as will any changes in the solar processes that generated the photons in each original image.

Quote:

There are no light sources in the result because an RD image is no longer a photograph.

It does not matter if it is a "photograph" by your standards. It still has two original light sources, both of which are solar generated in origin. It's probably the exact same set of original light sources too because whatever caused the light in the first image is likely to be causing the same light in the second image as well. There is one set of solar light sources moving left to right in the image. To say there are "NO" light sources is irrational and physically incorrect. All the photons came from the sun, and the rotation of the sun between images will have a large effect on image.

Quote:

Photographs have light sources. There might be records of changes in the positions and intensity of light sources in the RD animation.

Those "changes" you're talking about are 90% the result of rotation alone, and only maybe 10% of the actual changes we observe in a RD image are due to changes in the light source between shots.

Quote:

A young child could be fooled into thinking that the RD animation have "mountain ranges" in them because they do not know better.

A 'child" might think there are no light sources. A scientist understands that the sun is the light source of both original images and the RD image as well, mostly due to rotation between images.

Quote:

An older child would know:[list][*]An RD animation only shows changes in position or intensity

An older child would understand that the sun is rotating between the images, and the light sources are staying relatively constant throughout the image.

Quote:

(temperature).

Temperature changes on the order of several OOM's here on Earth are the direct result of electrical discharges in the atmosphere. That something a child learns as they grow older.

Quote:

Thus any persistent feature is something that is always changing temperature but is not changing position.

That is not so. You are not considering the rotation aspect at all. It's changing in part simply due to rotation, not because anything actually changed much in temperatures between images.

Quote:

[*]The "shadows" in the animation point in various directions.

Which side are they on typically? Hint: The sun is rotating between shots.
Until you start to acknowledge that the sun is simply rotating in between images, and that rotation shows up in the specific features in the image, we can't get very far. You're going to have to sit down and create a couple of RD images yourself like I did with those STEREO RD images on my blog page to start to understand some fundamental processes (like rotation) that have a specific effect on these images.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Let me recap:
1) Magnetic reconnection is a valid and well accepted physical process, well described in theory, and well observed in controlled laboratory experiments. It's validity is beyond question.

Hi Tim. If you have an answer to all my questions in the thread i started specifically on magnetic reconnection please post them there (Magnetic reconnection and physical processes) I think you will find many of the links and sources in that thread to be of interest, and showing that the debate over magnetic reconnections validity is indeed a question worthy of consideration. There has been no consensus reached in that thread, and only (less than) half of my original queries in the OP have been answered.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Baloney. Which *NATURAL* "event" in the Earth's atmosphere that causes all the aforementioned items is the the result of "magnetic fields" to the exclusion of electrical discharge?

Baloney. This is teh Sun not the Earth. Even an idiot can tell that there is some differences between the two.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You're going to have to learn to do some real experimentation, show real cause effect relationships, and figure out that that there is in fact a light source associated with both original images, specifically the discharges (or whatever you prefer) in the solar atmosphere that release such high energy photons. When you get that far, we might actually have a rational discussion. As it stands, your childish and cartoon like understanding of a RD image is preventing us from having a rational or real scientific discussion on this topic.

You need to learn to read.
The original images had light sources.
The RD animation process removed constant light sources and leaves only changes in light sources.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Well, we all agree that they can and do show us changes over time, but you've failed to acknowledge that the whole surface is rotating between images and therefore the "outlines" we observe are in part due to the light sources simply rotating to the right.

You have failed to show that the scientists are so stupid that they do not compensate for the rotation of the Sun.
You have faield to see that your delusional "shadows" point in various directiosn and are not the multiple "shadows" that a child would expect from multiple "light sources".
In addition your delusional "mountain ranges" do not drift across the animation.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

...snipped MM's usual spewing of lies and delusions...

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by edd

Gravity is weak.

That's not much of an answer IMO. Your mythical particles are always located "somewhere out there" where they seem to have *NO* direct effect on humans at all. Only when we get "somewhere out there" do you expect to find any of that material? Why wouldn't it lump together with ordinary matter, and if it doesn't lump with ordinary matter, why does it "lump" at all? Why doesn't a chunk of this stuff ever blow right though Earth and disturbing any of the gravity wave experiments presently in process?

Quote:

Yes that's not an entirely unfair comment. However, claiming electromagnetism as a cure for it is crazy. Your ideas are so much deeper epic fail it is hard to find comic internet jargon to fit them.

It can't be considered "crazy" to suggest that a force of nature that is known to be many orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity might have an effect on physical bodies in space. That's not "crazy", that is simply an "idea" that may or may not pan out. It's not "crazy" because there are logical reasons for suggesting the idea that are not simply 'made up" here in my head, but that work in a lab.

When you talk about "dark" stuff however that conveniently can't be found in a lab, that sounds pretty "crazy" from my perspective. Astrologers start with that premise too.

Quote:

The dirt in your yard interacts with different sets of forces. You cannot possibly engage in this conversation without being aware of this.

Woah. It's not a *COMPLETELY* different set of forces in the sense that gravity must still be a factor. The other "completely" different forces you came up with were ad hoc constructs to fit your theory, not due to something you learned in a laboratory experiment. You conveniently make it impossible for me to validate or falsify your theory here on Earth.

Quote:

Yes, it's weird. Yes, it's not something we want to bring into our idea of the universe without evidence. BUT THE EVIDENCE IS THERE.

From the perspective of a skeptic, all you've got is *EVIDENCE* to support in lensing data is the fact that your galaxy mass calculations are *WAY* off the mark, and they are not even in the ballpark. IMO it's time to go back to the drawing board as it relates to galaxy mass calculations, and forget the gap filler.

Quote:

You've not worked the numbers then have you?

Frankly I don't care about your numbers because they are:

A) impossible to verify in a lab.
B) impossible to verify any time, ever.
C) directly linked to one and only one scientific theory on the whole planet, namely LAMBDA-Gumby theory.
D) unsupported in the lab by direct experiments done to date and there have been extensive collider experiments done to date.

Quote:

To repeat, I understand that you find the need for a dark sector uncomfortable. Noone really wants it, but the evidence is overwhelmingly against your point of view.

From my personal point of view, a "dark sector" might simply be composed of burned out solar remnants and standard matter. I have no faith at all that any sort of unique form of matter is necessary *ONLY* to explain distant events that are many, many, many light years away. There's no way I can see that far with enough accuracy to really know what might be there. I don't have any rational reason however to simply *ASSUME* that whatever is there *CANNOT BE* ordinary matter. You simply *ASSUMED* this and went off on a wild tangent IMO.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Which side are they on typically? Hint: The sun is rotating between shots.
Until you start to acknowledge that the sun is simply rotating in between images, and that rotation shows up in the specific features in the image, we can't get very far. You're going to have to sit down and create a couple of RD images yourself like I did with those STEREO RD images on my blog page to start to understand some fundamental processes (like rotation) that have a specific effect on these images.

Are you blind?
The "shadows" are on all sides except the upper right. Their direction is fairly constant.

Theay are not "shadows". They are records of the constant reduction of temperature in the original images (as explained to a certain delusional individual many times before).

If they were real shadows then they would rotate with any rotation.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Baloney. This is teh Sun not the Earth. Even an idiot can tell that there is some differences between the two.

Nobody said they were exactly the same, but in the sense that the atmosphere of each body in insufficient to explain gamma-rays and x-rays sustained in the atmosphere, they are more alike than different. Whereas electricity has been shown to have this effect on bodies in space in a "NATURAL" setting, you are *ASSUMING* this same process does not occur on the sun. Why?

Quote:

You need to learn to read.
The original images had light sources.

All of which came from the sun.

Quote:

The RD animation process removed constant light sources and leaves only changes in light sources.

The whole thing moved to the right. So what? It's not a huge mystery why those changes occurred, and why the shadows got created, etc. Stop making this an impossible process to comprehend. It's not. Anyone can do it. They can't however miss the fact that the light sources (plural) are all related to the sun, and processes on the sun, and there are *MANY* light sources, not *NO* light sources.

Quote:

You have failed to show that the scientists are so stupid that they do not compensate for the rotation of the Sun.

I wasn't talking about scientists in general, I was talking about you specifically. I think even GM got that one right in a previous conversation. You seem to *INSIST* there are temperature changes necessary to observe features in this image. That is false. Rotation alone will create "features" in the image.

Quote:

You have faield to see that your delusional "shadows" point in various directiosn and are not the multiple "shadows" that a child would expect from multiple "light sources".

You don't even begin to understand what I've said to you. The light isn't coming *EXCLUSIVELY* from the largest discharges in the image, but from discharges all along the contours of the crust of the sun. There is not a single light source, or a small number of light sources for that matter, but an incredible number of discharges occurring in the atmosphere, not all of which are larger than 350 kilometers in size! I've explained that before, but evidently you can't hear that part for some reason.

Quote:

In addition your delusional "mountain ranges" do not drift across the animation.

The rigid and persistent features in that RD image are centered in the image specifically so that they do not move. Compare and contrast that with the SOHO RD images in the SOHO archives where the surface rotates in the image. Someone selectively and intentionally cropped and centered the rigid features in the image.

Due to the alignment process, where rotation is compensated for in the image, only the "flying stuff" from the CME event, and the parts of the surface peeled from the surface move in the image. We do end up seeing some areas of temperature differences.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Are you blind?
The "shadows" are on all sides except the upper right. Their direction is fairly constant.

As you watch this image for a *LONG* while, you'll find that most of the shadows are located on the "leeward" side of the various structures as determined by the flow of plasma in the atmosphere. That "flying stuff" we observe after the CME event shows us the direction of movement of plasma in the atmosphere. It's blowing from the bottom right toward the upper left during the image, but as you can see from the plasma flow it's "windy" and not always the same direction for each and every particle of plasma.

FYI, there are some specific observations about this particular image (including shadowing features) that suggest to me that it is an "averaged" image in some way, not simply a standard "difference" image by the way. Most "difference" images show a clear movement process, in other words shadows are *ALWAYS* found on the left side of bright background stars in LASCO images. The fact that the shadowing features are less obvious in this specific image suggest it may not be a simple difference image, but rather an averaged difference image where each pixel is averaged over time. There are however some obvious features however where shadows are on the left on this image due to the rotation process itself, just like any ordinary difference image.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Well, well, well, up to now no working model for the electric universe has been presented.

Baloney. Birkeland built a working solar system in a lab.

Quote:

I have not obtained an answer from MM on where exactly Birkeland calculates the dragging of the ions by the electrons, and I did go through lots of math pages in the book and wrote it down here.

Are you telling me that the flow of cathode electrons will have no influence on the movement of positively charged ions in a lab?

Quote:

[*]I have not obtained an answer from either Sol88 or MM or Zeuzzz on how the water in a comet gets created from solar wind protons and nucleus oxygen ions

Why are you dragging me personally into the comet theory side of this issue? That's really not my gig. I would assume that the oxygen atoms come from the comet's surface and electrically interact with the protons in the solar wind.

Quote:

I have not obtained an answer on what "particle reconnection is

It's where a charged proton meets a charged electron and they "reconnect' at the level of actual physics. I've yet to hear your side of the aisle explain what is physically unique about 'magnetic reconnection" that can be physically demonstrated to be unique and different from ordinary electrical interactions in plasma. How did you determine for instance that "magnetic reconnection" is different from ordinary current sheet acceleration, and/or standard induction processes?

Quote:

I have not obtained an answer on how induction can change the topology of the magnetic field in the following way that is from anti-parallel field to this X-configuration

That X point you're talking about is simply a "short circuit" point, and the *TOTAL CIRCUIT ENERGY* will have a direct influence on the outcome of what occurs there. Furthermore, it is not the "magnetic lines' that are actually changing, it is the "current flow" that is "inside" that "magnetic line" that changes direction and therefore the topology of the "lines" follow suit. The "magnetic lines" are there *ONLY BECAUSE* the current flow is there sustaining the field. If there was no current flow, you'd have not "magnetic line" or any energy to release at the intersection point. A NULL point in a pure "magnetic line" has no energy at all at the NULL point that it could possibly pass on to a charged particle. There's no energy at a null point of magnetic lines, but lots of energy at a point of "short circuit".

Quote:

I have not obtained even the smallest acknowledgement from PU/PC/EU/ES/EC proponents that mainstream does not abhor electric fields and elelctric currents

You downplay their importance to the point of absurdity. Everything in the media an in the published papers talks about "magnetic" this, "magnetic" that, never "electromagnetic" this, or "current flow". They talk about charge particle flow as through they are neutral atoms, much as you treat solar wind. It's CURRENT FLOW that occurs between the surface and the heliosphere just as Birkeland *DEMONSTRATED IN A LAB* over 100 years ago! Gah. You're industry is so screwed up, it's almost hopeless.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Nobody said they were exactly the same, but in the sense that the atmosphere of each body in insufficient to explain gamma-rays and x-rays sustained in the atmosphere, they are more alike than different. Whereas electricity has been shown to have this effect on bodies in space in a "NATURAL" setting, you are *ASSUMING* this same process does not occur on the sun. Why?

I am not assuming that electrical fields ("electricity?) do not occur on the Sun. That is silly and no scientist would or does this. There is a thing called electromagnetism. If you have magnetic fields (as in coronal loops) then you have electrical fields also.

I do know a little about plasmas.
I do know that electrical (and ionic) currents in plasmas are caused by charge being separated.
I do know that charge separations in plasmas are limited to a few tens of Debye lengths:

Quote:

Hannes Alfven pointed out that: "In a low density plasma, localized space charge regions may build up large potential drops over distances of the order of some tens of the Debye lengths. Such regions have been called electric double layers. An electric double layer is the simplest space charge distribution that gives a potential drop in the layer and a vanishing electric field on each side of the layer. In the laboratory, double layers have been studied for half a century, but their importance in cosmic plasmas has not been generally recognized.".

I do know that the Debye length of the photosphere is of the order or meters.
I do know that flares and coronal loops extend for 1000's of kilometers.

You still have not presented any evidence that the flares and coronal loops are electrical discharges on the Sun.
Please do so - remember to give the citations to the published papers.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

..snipped "shadows" delusion stuff...

This is all moot because of your ignorance of basic physics has lead you to your biggest delusion:
That the TRACE detector when using the 171A pass band filter can see anything below the chromosphere. The physical fact that it cannot means that your delusional "mountain ranges" are in the corona and do not exist.

[GeeMack]

Michael, your willful ignorance is showing. You "missed" this one for, what, the twelfth time?

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Michael, in all the years of you hollering and whining about that ridiculous solid surface Sun crap, not one single professional in any field related to any legitimate science has agreed with your claim. Why is that? Tens of thousands of people believe crazy things like the Earth is only 6000 years old. Millions of them believe space aliens visit the Earth. Thousands think there are living bigfoot type creatures roaming the woods of North America, and thousands more accept as reality a prehistoric monster swimming in Loch Ness in Scotland. Yet not a single solitary legitimate science professional, researcher, or educator on the face of this planet accepts your ludicrous conjecture. Why?

[Reality Check]

Talking about electrical currents and plasmas, I think that this post by ben m in reply to Micheal Mozina in the Magnetic Reconnection thread applies:

Originally Posted by ben m

And I get the feeling that you keep coming back to "current flow" because you want to justify putting large electrostatic fields in space. Let's just head that off at the pass, shall we?

We've agreed (repeatedly) that magnetic fields are generated by currents. Not very surprising; it's all B = del cross J as usual. Tell me J and I'll tell you B, and vice versa, modulo a constant of integration. Where are those Js coming from? You want them to come from J = sigma E, Ohm's law, or F = qE. And you want those Es to come from charge separation. Is that a fair statement?

You've got Maxwell's equations in front of you: grad E = rho (charge separation) and curl E = -dB/dt. Standard astrophysics isn't "there's no E in space", standard astrophysics is "there's usually no grad E in space". Space charge separations are small, rare, and generally transient. You get currents in plasma because of changing, usually turbulent, magnetic fields; those currents generate their own changing fields, which generate more currents, and this generates complex plasma dynamics and waves in the absence of charge separation. That's standard astrophysical plasmas: Grad E ~= 0. Curl E != 0. Curl B != 0. Not "J=0", not "there's no plasma", not "plasma is unimportant", not "the current is bunched into discrete ropes or lines". Is that clear? If you've got a coherent objection to mainstream astrophysics at all, that objection is "I think that grad E != 0 configurations are an important/dominant source of currents" Is that a fair statement? "You ignore currents" is a false premise. "Maxwell's Equations don't apply" is ... well, let me just say wrong.

Since dB/dt implies some sort of B to begin with, we need a "primary" source of currents. You want to put big charge separations on or near the Sun to push a "primary" Ohm's Law (nor Coulomb's Law) current around. This would be sort of a reasonable wacky hypothesis ... if you, MM, had shown us that you were *generally quite good* with Maxwell's Equations, and that *your best effort* at getting non-Ohms-law currents had failed and that this idea worked better. Instead, you've shown us that someone who doesn't understand Freshman E&M also doesn't understand where solar currents come from. Anyway, there's a perfectly good mainstream explanation for where solar surface fields come from. Why don't you read up on it, with your newfound understanding of E&M, and explain it to us? Give us the Devil's Advocate version before you launch into what you think are its flaws.

As an other exercise---there's one very common piece of lab equipment (ubiquitous in teaching labs, found in specialized research labs) in which an electric current is created, but *not* driven by an electric field (though such a field happens to be present) or a changing magnetic field. Can you name it? It's tangentially relevant to the mainstream heliomagnetic and geomagnetic models.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Michael, your willful ignorance is showing. You "missed" this one for, what, the twelfth time?

What did you expect me to say to an appeal to authority fallacy that is based upon blind conjecture? When did you personally take a pole?

[Zeuzzz]

I agree MM, the fallacies employed by some of those arguing against you are quite a spectacle. I just ignore posts like that one with emotive overtones, and reply to the posts that raise genuine scientific queries.