Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

Let me see now ... the title of this thread is what?

You know DRD, I was naive when I began these conversations 4 years ago. I thought for awhile that some real "scientist' might come along and say something to the effect of: "You know Mr. Mozina, I realize that you believe for the time being that you're observing a surface in these images, but let me explain all the details of these images from the perspective of the standard solar model and I think you'll see why you're wrong about that". I then figured someone might actually "explain" these images in a professional way that left no doubt that I was simply wrong. Nobody ever did that, or even *tried* to do that with any sort of professionalism or attention to detail. Instead you crucified me, attacked me as an individual and acted like just a religious cult, witch hunts and everything.

I realize now that everything that you believe in is false. Your solar theories (mine too 5 years ago) are false. Your faith in "dark" stuff is also false. Your belief that only math constitutes "knowledge' is false. Your concepts are false from beginning to end and based upon faith, not upon physics. You shouldn't feel too bad actually because the same was true for me as well a few years ago. I however could simply open my eyes, lay down my ego, and look at the universe with fresh eyes. You can't. Your ego and professional livelihood is so heavily invested in being right, you simply can't look reality in the face.

Ah yes, "Electric universe theories here".

Birkeland was more or less the first electric universe proponent, or at least the first one to *demonstrate* it has merit in real laboratory settings and real "experiments" with real "control mechanisms" where cause and effect can be firmly established.

Are you ever going to demonstrate your alleged scientific superiority by 'explaining' the details of these images, yes or no? An "intellectually honest" individual would focus on the *IMAGES IN QUESTION AND THE SCIENCE*, not the individual. You are not focused on the science, but rather on me. That is scientifically unethical. Do you have a "better" explanation for these images, including the rigid features which remain visible in these images over a long lifetime? Yes or no?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You see gamma rays from Earth's atmosphere, and indeed some of them are generated by electrical discharges associated with lightning and thunderstorm activity, most likely rapidly decelerating electrons (i.e, Smith, 2009) or inelastic neutron scattering (i.e., Paiva, 2009). But there are always mysteries, and the brightest terrestrial gamma ray flahs yet observed was not associated with a thunderstorm and remains unexplained (Smith, et al., 2006).

Nobody is arguing that electric currents cannot generate gamma rays.

Why aren't you acknowledging that it is one known and verified way to generate gamma rays around bodies in space, and therefore the most likely way the sun generates them in it's atmosphere as well? If Rhessi observe them from discharges in the Earth's atmosphere, isn't it also likely that the gamma rays seen in the solar atmosphere could also be discharge related?

Nobody is arguing that electric currents are not responsible for some of the observed gamma rays.

As far as I can tell discharges are responsible for *most* (probably not all) gamma rays from the atmosphere. They almost always seem to be associated with events at the base of coronal loops.

But we have been all over this ground as well in previous conversations, and so you must have known in advance how I would answer, since you have asked the very same question before. So I refer you & the curious reader to previous posts with detailed answers about where gamma rays come from: No RHESSI Fusion & CNO Redux.

Regardless of whether or not CNO fusion is involved, the gamma rays are in fact associated with events at the base of coronal loops were "solar moss" forms. The neutron capture signatures on the other hand tend to congregate higher in the solar atmosphere near the middle of coronal loops rather than the base. Both emissions are related to, and emitted by coronal loop activity.

You seem to make the rather simplistic & unrealistic assumption that the mere presence of gamma rays is by itself a direct indicator of electric currents.

Gamma rays in a low temp atmosphere have been show to be associated with gamma rays. Why wouldn't you consider this option *first*? What other naturally occurring events might do that?

But we have already discussed narrow line emission, for instance, which cannot be generated by electric currents. You need to stop jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

You'll have to elaborate on this argument some because I don't see how you eliminated z-pinch process from consideration, especially since electrical currents have been known to generate z-pinch processes.

There is an established and totally natural "cause and effect" relationship established between "atmospheric discharges" and gamma ray emissions. Why would you eliminate that from consideration particularly consider all of Bruce's work on electrical discharge theory?

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm

Let's you and I skip the surface argument (I'll do that one with DRD et all). How about you and I focus specifically and only on those multimillion degree coronal loops? How do you know Bruce was wrong about his theories about these high energy events?

 

[GeeMack]

It's your turn. You tell me DRD. What is the original light source of these images, and why do we observe "shadows" to the left as you describe them? Come on. If you actually have a "better" scientific explanation of this image, please enlighten me.

It's been done to death, Michael. You've been smacked around like a cat toy on this issue on a few other forums. You've lost this argument, miserably, several times. You don't have the slightest idea what a running difference image is. You're flat out wrong in your interpretation of it. So wrong, in fact, that not a single professional in the field of physics, astrophysics, or solar sciences even remotely agrees with you. Not one.

In all the years you've had to make your case, why do you think it is that you haven't been able to sway even a single person, Michael? You're wrong? You're unable to communicate effectively? Or everyone on Earth who is highly educated enough on this subject to actually be employed in the field is stupider than you?

But oh well, if you insist on getting your butt kicked again, why don't you open another thread about the solid surface of the Sun. Then you can properly demonstrate once again that you're delusional. (... as if there's any doubt in anyone's mind on that point.)

 

[GeeMack]

You know DRD, I was naive when I began these conversations 4 years ago. I thought for awhile that some real "scientist' might come along and say something to the effect of: "You know Mr. Mozina, I realize that you believe for the time being that you're observing a surface in these images, but let me explain all the details of these images from the perspective of the standard solar model and I think you'll see why you're wrong about that". I then figured someone might actually "explain" these images in a professional way that left no doubt that I was simply wrong. Nobody ever did that, or even *tried* to do that with any sort of professionalism or attention to detail. Instead you crucified me, attacked me as an individual and acted like just a religious cult, witch hunts and everything.

And as to that comment, you are a flat out liar.

 

[GeeMack]

Do you have a "better" explanation for these images, including the rigid features which remain visible in these images over a long lifetime? Yes or no?

Better explanation: They're not rigid. Anyone besides Michael disagree? Didn't think so.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's been done to death, Michael. You've been smacked around like a cat toy on this issue on a few other forums. You've lost this argument, miserably, several times.

Boloneyl. You've only embarrassed yourself on other forums.

You don't have the slightest idea what a running difference image is. You're flat out wrong in your interpretation of it.

So enlighten us, here and now. Explain *all the details* we can observe in that first RD image for us. Why are we observing fixed patters during a CME event? What's that "dust in the wind" for lack of a better term? Where did it come from? Where did it go? What's the pealing effect we observe along the right during the CME event? What is the light source of the original images and how does that knowledge help us to explain some of the details of these images?

In all the years you've had to make your case, why do you think it is that you haven't been able to sway even a single person, Michael?

Er, why do you have a need to exaggerate and berate? I know of several folks that do agree with me. An actual "scientist" would explain all the details of these two images. A sleaze artist fixates on individuals and ignores the images. Which are you? If you think you can "kick my butt", please do so "scientifically" explain some of those details and why those features remain "persistent" throughout the CME event. What's that persistent feature under the photosphere in Kosovichev's video?

There are just two of MILLIONS of satellite images and movies. Can't you even explain two satellite images?

 

[Michael Mozina]

And as to that comment, you are a flat out liar.

False. You personally are like one of the enforcement "thugs" of the cult. DRD tends to play the role of grand inquisitor and/or executioner. I've had my throat slit at two different sites where DRD has moderated. Once she slit my throat and never bothered to even notify anyone they did it. Even religious oriented message boards are more tolerant of dissent than your inbred little cult. Fortunately you don't own the whole internet, there are websites in cyberspace with integrity, and time and technology are on my side.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Better explanation: They're not rigid. Anyone besides Michael disagree? Didn't think so.

That's your best effort eh? That tells me a lot.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I was wondering when you'd get around to introducing Alfvén MM ...

As with Bruce, I was unable to find any posts, by you, in which you "presented" Alfvén's "electric universe theories" in this forum (other than indirectly, by citing your own website, directly or indirectly)*.

How many forums have we butted heads on now? 3? 4? More? I tend to use the same handle whereas that isn't true of everyone in cyberspace so I can't be certain, but I'm sure it's at least three forums now. I've certainly mentioned Bruce's work to you, and there's a nice link to his work on the first page of my website. Have you read my website?

Now it turns out that you have had extensive exchanges with a DrRocket, over on the discussion forum attached to space dot com.

You'll note that space.com is a reputable website and they don't conduct witch hunts like your little cult boards. Dr. Rocket was perhaps the only real vocal critic of my beliefs at that forum but we seem to have learned to live and let live.

And reading that material is most educational ... but not in the sense of leaving one with the feeling that you know what you're talking about MM (for other readers: DrRocket shows, in devastating post after devastating post, that MM not only has not understood the very book he is so apparently in love with, but that he hasn't even read much of it!

This is all ridiculously false. He didn't even bother to read Cosmic Plasma for the first 6-8 months of our conversation. How the hell could he understand any of Alfven's cosmology theories without ever reading his book on that subject or his papers? To his credit however, it turns out that DrRocket is *infinitely* more intellectually honest than you are. At least he broke down and eventually bought the book and while he may have wanted me virtually executed, he hasn't been on my case in months and he's learned to "deal with dissent". You however are still taking on the role of the grand inquisitor.

Oh, and there are lots of bits where Alfvén's work aligns with textbook astrophysics, and some bits where it has failed the standard scientific tests (it is inconsistent with relevant observations and experiments); there are also lots of bits that are inconsistent with MM's own version of EU theory, and certainly with other versions of EU theory presented here).

I personally tend to think of myself as more of a "Birkeland purist", since I use his solar model whereas Alfven and Bruce used a standard solar model. Not all EU proponents would agree with my choice of Birkeland's solar model.

BTW, did you bother to read the material I provided a link to earlier MM? The stuff that knocks Bruce's ideas for six?

Where did they mention Bruce by name in those links? How did they "knock" his ideas exactly in your opinion?

If you had, you'd have noticed that that work is a direct result of Alfvén's own work on MHD ... but, of course, you have to be able to follow the relevant physics and math to see this, and we have an abundance of objective evidence that such a basic task is beyond you, so I expect that you didn't even try to read the papers ...

Even in Alfven's time people abused and misused his MHD theories. Alfven for instanced called your beloved "magnetic reconnection" theory "pseudoscience" and he described CME's as explosive, electrically active double layers. You folks have *NEVER* applied his work properly, at least not in his opinion.

* as usual, I could have missed something, so if any reader knows of posts by MM where he did this, I'd appreciate you pointing them out

You posture and include more disclaimers than anyone I've ever met.

 

[GeeMack]

Boloneyl. You've only embarrassed yourself on other forums.

Embarrassed? Not me. Who got banned? Who came back as a sock puppet? Not me.

So enlighten us, here and now. Explain *all the details* we can observe in that first RD image for us. Why are we observing fixed patters during a CME event?

It's your lunatic claim, Michael. Start a thread on the surface of the Sun and you explain them.

What's that "dust in the wind" for lack of a better term?

Well it sure isn't dust. But if you think it is, start a thread on the surface of the Sun and you explain it.

Where did it come from? Where did it go?

It's not dust.

What's the pealing effect we observe along the right during the CME event?

It's not peeling.

What is the light source of the original images and how does that knowledge help us to explain some of the details of these images?

The light source is essentially a florescent lamp behind the LCDs on your monitor if you have a flat screen.

Er, why do you have a need to exaggerate and berate? I know of several folks that do agree with me.

And the entire body of professional astrophysicists on Earth thinks you're wrong.

An actual "scientist" would explain all the details of these two images.

Actual scientists have. That you have been so willfully ignorant as to not realize it isn't anyone's fault but your own.

A sleaze artist fixates on individuals and ignores the images. Which are you? If you think you can "kick my butt", please do so "scientifically" explain some of those details and why those features remain "persistent" throughout the CME event. What's that persistent feature under the photosphere in Kosovichev's video?

There are just two of MILLIONS of satellite images and movies. Can't you even explain two satellite images?

Your willful ignorance notwithstanding, I, and many others, have explained your pretty little pictures at great length. But all you could do was stuff your fingers in your ears and whine like a little girl. Your butt's been duly kicked.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Embarrassed? Not me.

Then just sit down and explain these image in a "better" scientific manner and be attentive to detail. Otherwise you're just choosing the path of pure sleaze and we have nothing to talk about. You're welcome to wallow in self imposed ignorance for the rest of your life for all I care.

It's your lunatic claim,

I guess since your religious cult can't damn me to hell, you instead settle for a pure smear campaign aimed at the individual. Sleaze, sleaze and more sleaze and not a lick of science from you or any other self professed "expert" on solar images. Your childish behaviors are absolutely pathetic and the fact you refuse to simply focus on the images says volumes.

Your willful ignorance notwithstanding, I, and many others, have explained your pretty little pictures at great length. [/QUOTE]

Never have any of you been even the least bit attentive to any of the details in that image, not a single one of them. No one has ever even tried to explain Kosovichev's images in public. You folks are a legend in your own mind. Never have you once addressed the details of that image personally. Pealing? What pealing? Particles in the atmosphere? What particles in atmosphere? Persistent features in the images? What persistent features in the images? You're pathetic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not dust.

What is it? Where did it come from and where did it go?

It's not peeling.

What is it? Explain the "cause" of that observation for us.

The light source is essentially a florescent lamp behind the LCDs on your monitor if you have a flat screen.

Like this is supposed to demonstrate your scientific superiority? Please!

And the entire body of professional astrophysicists on Earth thinks you're wrong.

It seems to me that you're whole gig is one big appeal to authority fallacy followed by a limitless string of personal insults. Is that all you know how to do?

 

[Reality Check]

So if I can demonstrate that these 171A emissions begin *UNDER* the photosphere, that would demonstrate that LMSAL's explanation of this images is false?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg
http://www.solarviews.com/cap/sun/moss8.htm

Why is it that Yohkoh only sees the tops of these loops (yellow) and it cannot see the footprints that are visible in the 171A image (blue)?

You also seem to be ignoring Kosovichev's Doppler image entirely and it too contains rigid features which are obviously located *UNDER* the photosphere.

I have seen and commented on Kosovichev's Doppler "image". It shows what that say it shows - adiabatic stratification,i.e. a change in density of the plasma of the Sun.

 

[Reality Check]

Michael Mozina: Have you read your own web site?
Di you know why the "mountain ranges" in your caption for the TRACE image is completely wrong?
Hint:
And the woo gets better (or worse?) !
MM's description of running difference images:

When it comes to compelling evidence of a solid surface on the sun, seeing is believing. The TRACE and SOHO programs use very sophisticated software to create what are called "running difference" images like the top image from TRACE and the chronologically ordered examples from SOHO shown on the right. These images were created by NASA at the frequency of various iron ions, using software that essentially compares sequential snapshots, subtracting one set of images from the other, and thereby isolating only the more consistent and "stronger" features from each image. This image processing technique creates a very detailed "snapshot" of the stronger, more obvious features of the iron calcium ferrite surface of the sun that lies below the photosphere.

(emphasis added)

 

[Reality Check]

Michael Mozina:
Newtonian dynamics have been confirmed in controlled experiments.
Maxwell's equations have been confirmed in controlled experiments.
General Relativity has been confirmed in controlled experiments.

First asked on 23rd June. 2009. No real response yet (24th June 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.

N.B. The above evidence is based on empirical data (as defined in MM's web site, e.g. the solar data and images). But we can expect MM to spew his "empirical measurments of an *CONTROLLED* experiment" non-science yet again. And he has !

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have seen and commented on Kosovichev's Doppler "image". It shows what that say it shows - adiabatic stratification,i.e. a change in density of the plasma of the Sun.

According to the stratification paper, the region found at .995R makes sound waves travel faster, meaning the density is significantly higher, or it exists at a higher temperature or both. Which of these things are you suggesting is true? Why would that feature I circled show persistence that is far in excess of any other structure we observe in the photosphere? That flowing wave shows us that that the photosphere is "fluid-like" (MHD like) in composition. The "structures" in the photosphere come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals. The "feature/structure" that I circled is unaffected by the wave or be the event that started the wave in the photosphere, suggesting that it must be far more dense than the material of the photosphere. That one feature is but one of several rigid items in that image that show persistence that is far in excess of what we would expect in a plasma that has waves passing through it. Furthermore it also demonstrates that any sort of "more dense/more rigid" plasma is located *UNDER* the photosphere, not 3000KM above the photosphere. That's going to be important when we start comparing this image to the RD images.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?

I went through this at great length with Dancing David. He did seem to comprehend my explanation even if he did not agree with it. Did you miss that discussion? Why do you keep asking me this question?

I personally think you grossly underestimate the mass of stars, the mass of the plasma between star, the influence of current flow between the stars, etc. All these studies demonstrate is that your method for calculating the mass of a galaxy is ridiculously flawed, and woefully underestimates the amount of mass in a galaxy. That is likely due to the fact that you believe that stars are mostly made of hydrogen and helium IMO.

 

[GeeMack]

Then just sit down and explain these image in a "better" scientific manner and be attentive to detail.

Been there. Done that. You didn't listen then any better than you're listening to sane, intelligent people correct your foolishness now.

I guess since your religious cult can't damn me to hell, you instead settle for a pure smear campaign aimed at the individual. Sleaze, sleaze and more sleaze and not a lick of science from you or any other self professed "expert" on solar images. Your childish behaviors are absolutely pathetic and the fact you refuse to simply focus on the images says volumes.

We don't need a self professed expert. Dr. Neal Hurlburt says you're wrong. There likely isn't a higher level expert in solar imagery in the world. Let me repeat: Dr. Neal Hurlburt says you're wrong.

Never have any of you been even the least bit attentive to any of the details in that image, not a single one of them. No one has ever even tried to explain Kosovichev's images in public. You folks are a legend in your own mind. Never have you once addressed the details of that image personally. Pealing? What pealing? Particles in the atmosphere? What particles in atmosphere? Persistent features in the images? What persistent features in the images? You're pathetic.

I've explained the images in detail. Every single pixel. You can't get more detailed than that. Again, your lack of ability to understand that isn't anyone's fault but your own. But for you to say that nobody has explained them, or that I haven't explained them, makes you a liar.

And, one more time for the apparently reading impaired, your harebrained conjecture about the solid surface of the Sun isn't Electric Universe, Michael, and it's damned certain that it isn't a theory, so it really doesn't belong in this thread. If you'd like to discuss that craziness, start a thread on it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina: Have you read your own web site?
Di you know why the "mountain ranges" in your caption for the TRACE image is completely wrong?

Completely wrong according to you or to me? I'm still waiting to see which of you (if anyone here) has the intestinal fortitude to actually sit down and explain these two images professionally and fully, down to the subtle details in each of the images. I'm looking to see you explain the *PROCESS* we observe in these images and the *CAUSES* behind these observations, down to the detailed observations in each image. You're welcome to include math if you like, but I mostly interested in hearing you physically explain these images in terms of cause, effect and specific detailed observation.

It's very clear that LMSAL *ASSUMES* that all the light in these images occur *completely* above the photosphere. How would you verify that *assumption*, and how do you explain the "persistence" and angular patterns (if you don't like rigid) of the features in that image?

 

[Reality Check]

I went through this at great length with Dancing David. He did seem to comprehend my explanation even if he did not agree with it. Did you miss that discussion? Why do you keep asking me this question?

I personally think you grossly underestimate the mass of stars, the mass of the plasma between star, the influence of current flow between the stars, etc. All these studies demonstrate is that your method for calculating the mass of a galaxy is ridiculously flawed, and woefully underestimates the amount of mass in a galaxy. That is likely due to the fact that you believe that stars are mostly made of hydrogen and helium IMO.

That is your opinion. It is based on what? Your personal dislike of the words "dark" and "matter"?

What is your evidence that astronomers have underestimated the mass of galaxies by a factor of at least 50?

Your ignorance is showing yet again.
Astromoners did not measure the mass of the Sun by assuming that it is "mostly made of hydrogen and helium". They took the mass of the Earth and used orbital mechanics to calaculate the mass needed to keep the Earth in its orbit.
Of course there are other methods, e.g.
Ask an Astronomer: How do you measure the mass of a star?
Astronomers measure the mass of a single star (first since the Sun).

Do you find it strange that astronomers have calculated the mass of the Sun in two different ways (orbital mechanics and using the observed composition of the Sun) and they match?