Electric universe theories here.

[GeeMack]

Oliver Manuel does not agree with your nutty notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface.

That is false. He agrees with me that we can see this "stratification subsurface" in heliosiesmology data and in the RD images. As I said, we all (three, not two) agreed upon the term "rigid". We all agree that we can observe a "rigid" surface in those images.

So good, you acknowledge that Oliver Manuel does not agree with your nutty notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface. That's exactly what I said.

And Michael, when are you going to get around to explaining, quantitatively and in detail, that very first image on your web site? You know, that image that you lie about when claiming nobody else has addressed it in detail, yet you yourself have never been willing to describe it in detail? Scientifically. Quantitatively. Please explain what every pixel means, you know, like so many other people have done. Please tell us exactly, specifically, and in detail, why Dr. Hurlburt from LMSAL is wrong when he says you're only seeing an optical illusion in that image and that it doesn't actually show any kind of surface at all.

 

[tusenfem]

See lightning bolts and "electrical discharges through plasma" for further details. How exactly from this great distance did you decide that this "reconnection" process was between "magnetic lines" rather than between moving particles in plasma, or current streams? What is physically unique about "magnetic reconnection" that cannot be explained in ordinary current sheet acceleration experiments with electricity?

And where exactly should I see that?
We make observations, MM, looking at flares at the limb of the Sun, now we even get 3D images with STEREO of the stuff happening on the Sun. Other peeps that you ALSO look at observations, whether you believe it or not.
Naturally, there are currents associated with reconnection, nobody ever stated otherwise, but you keep on ignoring the one fact that does not fit in your idea and that is that the topology of the magnetic field changes. And these changes cannot be created by extra currents or by induction or whatever, there has to be a null in the magnetic field at the X-point/line.

The change in the field may create induction, but the change in topology is related to the particle movement not the magnetic field.

But the magnetic field is also there if there are no particles, the particles themselves do not create the magnetic field that they are flowing along. The ions and the electrons decouple from the magnetic field in nested regions around the X-point/line.

It's called a "short circuit" in plasma. Big deal. It's not anything you can't create here on Earth with *ELECTRICITY*.

It is not a short circuit, whatever gives you that idea? You just look at currents and forget about the magnetic field. The magnetic field is an important part of magnetic reconnection.

But this "discussion" will just go round and round until you give a complete description of what you think reconnection should be and explain the topological changes in the magnetotail of the Earth. I am looking forward to a consize model.

How are you going to get a change in the magnetotail without a change in "current flow"? You must realize that the particles flowing into the Earth's magnosphere are a form of "current flow", right? They are whizzing by at a million miles per hour you know.

No, I don't know that they are "whizzing away at million miles per hour" because that HIGHLY depends on the situation you are looking at.
Also, I have no idea what kind of current flow you are talking about as there are various currents in the tail, some of which will change (e.g. the substrom current wedge will be created) others will basically remain the same (the cross tail current), so depending on more info I cannot give you any answer on this handwaving argument.

Your term "magnetic reconnection" is purely "made up". You could have slapped any EM term to the process, including "particle reconnection" (since they are doing the actual acceleration part) or "circuit reconnection" because the totals circuit energy determines what occurs at the point of "reconnection". Calling it "magnetic reconnection" however is like calling a short circuit between two copper wires a "magnetic reconnection" between the wires. Yes, the magnetic field topologies might change, but that change is directly related to the flow of electrons through the wire. In this case the conductor is simply made of plasma and it can move around and change it's physical topology. Big deal. The *CURRENT FLOW* will determine both the rate of reconnection and the total amount of reconnection. You just created that term to intentionally muddy the waters and to confuse the public. If there is something physically unique about "magnetic reconnection", what is it?

Well "particle reconnection" makes even less sense because the particle are not connected to eachother. The term magnetic reconnection exactly describes what is happening and what is observed and what is experimented with and what is numerically modeled.

The short circuit between two copper wires has NOTHING to do with reconnection, for one, because the magnetic fields acting in that process are negligible. In the process of magnetic reconnection the magnetic field is the most important part because the particles are magnetized.

What is physically unique is that the topology of the magnetic field is changed that can only happen with mainstream reconnection and not by induction or currents. Then, from the X-point/line the plasma is accelerated because of the tension of the magnetic field lines, and the acceleration of the plasma is perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field, exactly as one expects at an X site.

 

[tusenfem]

Then why not just call them what they are, "current threads" or "discharges"? Why give the process a name that is self conflicted? Magnetic lines lack physical substance and form a full and *COMPLETE* continuum, without beginning and without end. They can't "reconnect". Circuits can and do "reconnect". Why call it "magnetic reconnection" then at all?

Ohhhh playing word games again, MM. Just because you see only half of a loop, we should not call it loop. I think that any person looking at a picture of a coronal loop would call it a loop even if it is only half-a-one. This is just childish.

The magnetic field lines are naturally closed, the close again under the "surface" of the Sun. Why would the not. And yes, maybe to the uninitiated some of the terms that physicists use are a bit strange, when we talk about "open field line" for example, we do not mean that they are just flapping around on one end, we mean that the are not returning to the point where we see that the other starting point is.

Another weird example is hole-conduction in semi conductors, where the hole has both a mass and a charge, whereas there is actually nothing there. Confusing, yes, but sometimes you have to go more into the stuff to understand it. The same can be said for many a research direction and not necessarily only in physics.

Literally millions of them.

Well, you have looked at half-loops ...

Then they should be visible at the surface and also somewhat below the surface of the photosphere, particularly if they are heated at the bases of the loops by shear forces. Why would they only become visible "high up" in the atmosphere?

Because the loops are denser than their surroundings, because they are hot and emit radiation, because because because. Don't insult yourself by asking such questions MM. Only when the contrast is big enough can something be seen, take a picture of a bright white wall and someone standing in the shadow of a tree that is cast on the wall. If you don't use your flash you will not be able to see the face. Too little contrast.

They are not full circles and they have a definite footprint. If they start under the photosphere, why wouldn't we see them *AT* the photosphere?

see above

Birkeland called them by their proper name - discharges. So did Bruce.

Well, birkie was wrong then and bruce (whoever he is) too. It is not a discharge, it is escaping magnetic field from the surface of the sun. The terella experiment was only a analogue (as in your quoted birkie text) and an analogue does not mean that exactly the same is happening on the sun.

Yes, but the x-rays are not visible at the base of the 171A images.

Well, maybe your are looking at the wrong wavelength band? Just use ADS and find X-ray brightening of coronal loop foot points. Here is a start for you. Not everything revolves around one pathetic wavelength.

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg[/qimg]

Notice the layered effect? What's that from?

It's layered because two images have been put on top of eachother.

You're trying to tell me that a "shearing effect" in plasma that is like 1/15th the density of air at sea level is going to cause plasma to reach a million degrees? Come on. What's the more likely "cause", shearing or "discharge"? That Birkeland current flying off the sun in the image I posted for David sure has all the "twists" one expects to find in a "Birkeland current".

The fact that YOU cannot imagine it happening does not mean that it does not happen. Apparently, you are not well versed in plasma physics. Just read up on all the papers I linked to, you might learn something.

Birkeland currents (in the global usage, which I do not favour, but anyway) are just field aligned currents, nothing magical nothing special, but happening in magnetized plasmas over which an EMF is placed (beit through shearing or induction or what) and when these currents flow, their toroidal field will be added to the main field of the loop or filament or what-have-you-nots and twist the field. What is the big deal here? The fact that they are twisted means that there is current flowing which means that there is Ohmic dissipation. And how much dissipation, you might be surprised about how much, look it up in the literature.

That "twisting" helix shape in plasma is called a "Birkeland Current".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Magnetic_rope.png/300px-Magnetic_rope.png[/qimg]

It is often referred to as a "magnetic rope" as well, a term that Alfven explicitly explained as a "current carrying" z-pinch filament or Bennett pinch.

No, wrong, get your definitions straight! A Birkeland current is a magnetic field aligned current, which will cause a toroidal field around the main field, and then you get a twist.

In special cases you may call this a magnetic rope (e.g. you may not call it that when you are discussing the REAL Birkeland currents in the Earth's magnetosphere) magnetic ropes are single entities, found e.g. in the solar wind, and whether or not it pinches is a whole different question.

What's with nature and all it's discharges? Discharges heat plasma to millions of degrees. "Shear" processes in wind never do that.

Wrong comparison MM, the shear of the magnetic field causes a time change of the magnetic field which creates an electric field which drives currents which can Ohmically dissipate.

I do always claim that plasma is a gas, but only for the right situations. Talking about magnetic shear and the currents it drives cannot be compared with a simple gas model like "shear winds" because now we are dealing with a real plasmaphysical phenomenon.

What the hell is ohmic heating in loops unless you have "current flow" heating the loops?

What part of my message did you not read MM? I clearly stated that in coronal loops currents are flowing. I claimed it at the top of the messages to which this was your reply and I claimed it several times hence. Bit short of memory are we, when we are excited about not understanding plasma physics.?

The currents in the coronal loops, driven e.g. by the shear motion of the foot points (and that means that both foot pionts do not move in the same way to clear that up for you) can have Ohmic disspation. You might remember that from your days at highschool P = I² R.

Look at any electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere. That's what I'm talking about. Nature has created a perfectly "natural" way to heat plasma to millions of degrees, namely by running electrons through plasma. What exactly do you mean is specifically *PHYSICALLY* unique and different from a standard discharge when you say "magnetic reconnection"? When did magnetic reconnection ever "naturally" occur on Earth or Mars or Saturn or any of the places where nature has been shown to generate huge discharges?

What do you think Ohmic disspation means?

Compared to the plasma in those loops, it's nothing. The plasma in the loops is OOMS hotter than the plasma doing the "shearing" you describe. It's one thing to expect a 10K shearing effect, it's quite another to expect shearing to cause million degree coronal loops.

As you obviously have not understood the shearing motion and the Ohmic dissipation, I will let this hang ...

The discharges in my plasma ball are constant as long as I leave the switch turned on. How does "magnetic reconnection" stay "constant" and heat even individual loops to millions of degrees again?

Again you have not understood a word of what I explained to you, just keep your mind closed MM, that way you don't have to worry.

Ok, so what? Birkeland's loops remained there for as long as he kept the power turned on. He had no problems with longevity of the loop because it wasn't "shear" force that powered it. A shear scenario would tend to be short lived.

And what makes you think that a shear scenario would be short lived? Read the papers describing this process? There are certain conditions that need to be fullfilled for a loop to flare, and it takes time to build that up.

Again, that is simply expected and predicted in Birkeland's work. What's your point?

My point is that they are not discharges. Sheesh, read!

Which explains your witch trials related to anything about his work over at Baut?

What witch trial? I only object to false interpretations of the things that Birkeland has done, like the claims you are making.

The things I'm describing were all lab tested by Birkeland and his team, or postulated by Birkeland himself in the case of a fission power source. They created jets and loops and lots of the same things we observe in satellite images.

Yeah, and experimentation stopped after Birkeland died.

That should be done in a lab, not on website in cyberspace. Instead of spending all your time and money on magic magnetic fields I suggest you folks spend more time in the lab in real experimental settings with real plasma. In spite of all Birkeland's work you refuse to even discuss the bulk of his work on forums where you moderate and you hold witch trials for anyone who dares to do so. That is not science, that is religion. When are you folks ever going to stop playing with your invisible magic math constructs and get in a lab and practice real experimental science for a change? Plasma has predictable properties that are not that difficult to understand as long as you understand that it's "current carrying" plasma.

Nature does not "do" magnetic reconnection. It does generate "discharges" on virtually every planet in the solar system an it generates x-rays and gamma rays that way every single day. Why would you not expect discharges to occur in the solar atmosphere as well?

No, you could easily write down the equations MM, but then, you don't know the math, and you just throw around words and use Birkeland as your religion, without even trying to see wheter after Birkies death anything new has been discovered (a well maybe by B's acolyte Alfvén) or experimented on.

You are lost in the first half of the 20th century, MM, please try to catch up with the 21th century.

 

[tusenfem]

It works *A LOT*.

No, I'm counting on it to cause discharge process between the surface ant the heliosphere like that helix discharge.

The electrons "flow" from the surface to the heliosphere and their movement through the ions drags the ions along for the ride. Even Birkeland noticed he left particles of the "globe" on the sides of his experiments. Why?

That would depend on the specific type of discharge. Birkeland predicted the sun would shoot electrons at high speed and drag particles along for the ride.

It makes sense and it works in a lab. You can't simply ignore his experiments and make statements that defy these experiments.

Ya, and if I had tried to take credit for his work you'd be all over me for that too. Right. Every one of his experiments used a metallic globe, not a plasma body. Nothing he would have seen in satellite images would have surprised him one bit, including all the rigid feature in these images. Every single experiment he performed used a "solid metallic surface" model. Period.

Michael Mozina, this whole process that you are trying to get working here does not work. And why not? Because it violates Maxwell's equations and conservation of energy. The solar wind does not consist of fast electrons flying through a stagnant ion sea, both electrons and ions move at basically the same pace from the sun to the heliopause and no electric field from sun to heliopause can accomplish this.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're playing "definition games" rather than to deal with the obvious.

No. I'm trying to find out what the terms you use mean. Nobody knows, and your previous answer doesn't help.

Electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere occur all the time. They are a "natural" event that occurs on other bodies in space too. The only body in space where you seem to reject this process is in the solar atmosphere

I also reject electrical discharges occuring within a metal sphere. Do you know why, Michael? Because electrical discharges (ie, lightning) happen because of dielectric breakdown. Which happens in insulators under high fields. What happens in conductors if you ramp up the field? You get a continuous increase in current (opposing the buildup of more voltage, BTW). So it's just not possible to get discharge like that in a conductor. And yes, we can observe that on earth. Now, what's different about the solar atmosphere compared to the earth's atmosphere? Why, the solar atmosphere is a plasma! And what's one of the central characteristics of plasmas? They're conductors! So what should we not see in plasma that we do see in gas? Discharge!

Once again, the plasma and electricity fanboys show they don't know anything about plasmas or electricity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So good, you acknowledge that Oliver Manuel does not agree with your nutty notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface.

You have no intengrity. That's not what I said. What I said is we all thought it would be appropriate to use the term "rigid" rather than solid because it was a more "intellectually honest" position and included the possibility of a dense plasma rather than *ONLY* the possibility of a solid. You wouldn't understand anything about intellectual honesty however so I 'm sure you heard only what you wanted to hear.

That's exactly what I said.

None of us thought either position was a "nutty idea". That was your unethical behaviors running amuck.

And Michael, when are you going to get around to explaining, quantitatively and in detail, that very first image on your web site?

Why should I bother explaining NASA and LMSAL images to you "quantitatively"? I've provided you with links to all the images and you can look up all the "numbers" for yourself. I will explain them quantitatively for you if you like.

You know, that image that you lie about when claiming nobody else has addressed it in detail,

WHICH SPECIFIC DETAIL IN THAT SPECIFIC IMAGE DID YOU OR ANYONE ELSE "EXPLAIN"?

yet you yourself have never been willing to describe it in detail?

You mean besides the other 4 or 5 website forums where I've already done it?

Scientifically. Quantitatively. Please explain what every pixel means, you know, like so many other people have done.

When did you intend to explain *QUALITATIVELY* (not via math) *ANY* single event in observed in any single specific pixel of that image? You did nothing more than spew mechanical facts about a RD imaging process, including one "fact" that turned out to be utterly false. RD imagery does cause something to remain rigid as any LASCO image can demonstrate. Whatever credibility you had prior to that comment went flying out the window, especially since I've busted you on that very same statement once before. You evidently don't even care to learn when you're proven wrong so you repeat the same mistakes over and over again. The "flying stuff?, what flying stuff?" comment was simply over the top in terms of pointless dialog from you. Clearly you have no idea what's physically going on in that image, or you would not be going "flying stuff?, what flying stuff?" Gah.

Please tell us exactly, specifically, and in detail, why Dr. Hurlburt from LMSAL is wrong when he says you're only seeing an optical illusion in that image and that it doesn't actually show any kind of surface at all.

Please have Dr. Hurlburt come over here and explain *ANYTHING SPECIFIC* about the image. Your single appeal to authority fallacy is meaningless. Unless he has something more to offer than "flying stuff?, what flying stuff?", I don't see evidence that you, he or anyone else here understand anything specific at all about this image. You may be able to figure out the the mechanics, like the pixel manipulation mechanics, but you have no clue how to deal with what's going on in the image, or how it effects the image. Your comment about the RD software causing the patterns is clearly and absolutely false. If you can't get that right, there is no way in hell you'll get anything else right either. You're clueless and the silence from the rest of this crew is deafening when it comes to specific details or physical explanations.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I also reject electrical discharges occuring within a metal sphere.

What do you mean by "within", and how can you reject something that has been physically demonstrated to work in a lab? Birkeland's coronal loops occurred *above* a metal sphere, not necessarily inside (within) it.

Do you know why, Michael? Because electrical discharges (ie, lightning) happen because of dielectric breakdown.

You mean atoms turn to plasma and get ionized in the electrical current?

And what's one of the central characteristics of plasmas? They're conductors!

Ya, but somehow you've convinced yourself they aren't conducting anything. What else could possibly be driving that solar wind process?

So what should we not see in plasma that we do see in gas? Discharge!

By the way, are you really so naive as to believe that every atom in the solar atmosphere is ionized already? Have you ever seen a plasma ball in action? What would you call those current carrying threads if not "discharges"? Let me guess, "magnetic lines"?

Once again, the plasma and electricity fanboys show they don't know anything about plasmas or electricity.

Please. Due to a lack of obvious errors on your part thus far, your personal credibility may be a bit higher than say GeeMack who's already stuck his foot down his throat, but until I hear you folks qualitatively explain anything specific about that RD image, I'm not impressed. So far it's been all talk and no action in terms of offering actual detailed explanations of the events in that image.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina, this whole process that you are trying to get working here does not work. And why not? Because it violates Maxwell's equations and conservation of energy.

Oh baloney. It works in a lab. You guys really need more lab time doing real experiments.

The solar wind does not consist of fast electrons flying through a stagnant ion sea,

It's not a "stagnant ion sea", it's a moving flowing environment where protons are not solid or connected to other protons so they too move around and are affected by the flow.

both electrons and ions move at basically the same pace from the sun to the heliopause and no electric field from sun to heliopause can accomplish this.

Again, this is simply a false statement. Birkeland even did a whole series of calculations for you after page 664 or so that were directly related to the movements of both positively and negatively charged particles from the sphere, but I doubt any of you bothered to read any of it. None of you bothers much to educate yourselves on what's actually been done in a lab before you claim it's "impossible".

 

[Tim Thompson]

Rigid Plasma?

Note emphasis mine:

What I said is we all thought it would be appropriate to use the term "rigid" rather than solid because it was a more "intellectually honest" position and included the possibility of a dense plasma rather than *ONLY* the possibility of a solid.

Please define "rigid" as specifically as you can.
Please indicate what constitutes a "dense" plasma.
Please define the physical conditions under which one might expect a "plasma" to become "rigid" (which may also require a more specific definition of "plasma"). I trust you already have at hand a reference to a controlled laboratory experiment in which sufficiently "rigid" plasma has been observed, under the same physical conditions as one might expect for the Sun?

 

[Ziggurat]

By the way, are you really so naive as to believe that every atom in the solar atmosphere is ionized already?

It doesn't need to be fully ionized in order to be a conductor.

Have you ever seen a plasma ball in action?

Yes. Are you aware that most of what's inside is not in a plasma state? And that the part that is in a plasma state is in that state because of dielectric breakdown of insulating gas?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It doesn't need to be fully ionized in order to be a conductor.

But more of it can become ionized in a discharge scenario.

Yes. Are you aware that most of what's inside is not in a plasma state? And that the part that is in a plasma state is in that state because of dielectric breakdown of insulating gas?

So what makes you think it's all that different in space?

I find it funny that your group accepts the fact that plasma is an excellent conductor, you accept that many charged particles whiz by the Earth at over a million miles per hour, sometimes up to a 1/3 of the speed of light. You refuse however to note that this charged particle "flow" is also known as "current flow" and that the whole solar atmosphere is experiencing "current flow". It's like you all have a mental block and are ignoring the key piece of evidence, namely the fact this charged particle flow is constant, just as Birkeland predicted.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's like you all have a mental block

Time and time again, you've been proven wrong. Time and time again, people have pointed out to you the errors and inconsistencies of your ideas. Time and time again, you've refused to answer simple questions, or even to define the terms you use. Do we all have a mental block? No, Michael. You do. You don't have the faintest understanding of even freshman-level physics. You have absolutely no clue about the theories you are trying to overturn. And you have proven that you are uninterested in ever learning about those theories.

 

[GeeMack]

So good, you acknowledge that Oliver Manuel does not agree with your nutty notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface. That's exactly what I said.

You have no intengrity. That's not what I said. What I said is we all thought it would be appropriate to use the term "rigid" rather than solid because it was a more "intellectually honest" position and included the possibility of a dense plasma rather than *ONLY* the possibility of a solid. You wouldn't understand anything about intellectual honesty however so I 'm sure you heard only what you wanted to hear.

Fine, you agreed to use the term "rigid". That's not the point. You've acknowledged that Oliver Manuel does not agree with your nutty notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface. That is the point.

None of us thought either position was a "nutty idea". That was your unethical behaviors running amuck.

I don't care if he thought your idea was nutty, or if you thought his was. You're a couple of crackpots. He doesn't agree with your silly conjecture that the Sun has a solid iron surface unless he has completely changed his mind about the location of the iron in his silly conjecture.

Why should I bother explaining NASA and LMSAL images to you "quantitatively"? I've provided you with links to all the images and you can look up all the "numbers" for yourself.

You should explain them quantitatively because that how the process of science works. Without describing your fantasy with real numbers, so that other people can check those numbers and see if your fantasy makes any sense in the real universe where real scientists work, all you have is an unsubstantiated claim. In all these years of you blathering on various forums you haven't ever explained that very first image on your web site in any scientific, quantitative way. Yet you are quite insistent on lying about other people not explaining it.

I will explain them quantitatively for you if you like.

I'd like. Have at it. Start with these: How high are the mountains. How deep are the valleys? What angle is the light coming from? What's the scale of the image in kilometers per pixel? How big an area does the entire image cover?

WHICH SPECIFIC DETAIL IN THAT SPECIFIC IMAGE DID YOU OR ANYONE ELSE "EXPLAIN"?

I explained the reason for the varying lightness or darkness of every single pixel. Reality Check explained every single pixel. His explanation agrees with mine. Several people on SFN and BAUT explained every single pixel, explanations that also match mine exactly. Name a pixel, any pixel, and that's a specific detail that we've explained.

You mean besides the other 4 or 5 website forums where I've already done it?

... you say, without providing a shred of substantiation to your claim. No, Michael, you never have been willing to stick your neck out far enough to offer up any numbers to go along with your fantasy about that image.

When did you intend to explain *QUALITATIVELY* (not via math) *ANY* single event in observed in any single specific pixel of that image? You did nothing more than spew mechanical facts about a RD imaging process, including one "fact" that turned out to be utterly false. RD imagery does cause something to remain rigid as any LASCO image can demonstrate.

And you're still wrong. But, being as I'm a nice guy willing to give you a break, prove that running difference images actually show static structure or features. Oh, and your incessant whining, "It looks like it to me," isn't going to cut it. Bring in your favorite image analysis expert and have him/her explain how a running difference image can show static features and allow a view thousands of kilometers into an opaque body of plasma. Yours is so far nothing more than an unsubstantiated (and demonstrably wrong) opinion.

Whatever credibility you had prior to that comment went flying out the window, especially since I've busted you on that very same statement once before. You evidently don't even care to learn when you're proven wrong so you repeat the same mistakes over and over again. The "flying stuff?, what flying stuff?" comment was simply over the top in terms of pointless dialog from you. Clearly you have no idea what's physically going on in that image, or you would not be going "flying stuff?, what flying stuff?" Gah.

There's no flying stuff in a running difference image, Michael. Everyone except you agrees on that point. Move on.

Please have Dr. Hurlburt come over here and explain *ANYTHING SPECIFIC* about the image.

He explained specifically that what you see that appears to be a surface is an optical illusion and isn't a surface at all. I'd say that's pretty darned specific, especially since it flushes your entire crackpot delusion right down the toilet.

Your single appeal to authority fallacy is meaningless. Unless he has something more to offer than "flying stuff?, what flying stuff?", I don't see evidence that you, he or anyone else here understand anything specific at all about this image. You may be able to figure out the the mechanics, like the pixel manipulation mechanics, but you have no clue how to deal with what's going on in the image, or how it effects the image. Your comment about the RD software causing the patterns is clearly and absolutely false. If you can't get that right, there is no way in hell you'll get anything else right either. You're clueless and the silence from the rest of this crew is deafening when it comes to specific details or physical explanations.

If you ask why there's a bunny in the clouds, when in fact there is no bunny, people will not tell you why there's a bunny in the clouds. Now if you ask why it looks like there's a bunny in the clouds, you'll get reasonable replies. In fact, you've gotten reasonable replies, many of them.

Why is that surface there? It's not. Why does it look like a surface there? It looks like a surface as a result of the process of creating a running difference image. But again, this issue was put to rest over three years ago. You're the only one who hasn't caught up, Michael.

Oh, and here's one that hasn't slipped past your wall of willful ignorance: Why do you suppose not one single professional or academic anywhere on Earth in the field of physics, astrophysics, or any related field is willing to agree with your crazy idea that the Sun has a solid surface?

 

[tusenfem]

Again, this is simply a false statement. Birkeland even did a whole series of calculations for you after page 664 or so that were directly related to the movements of both positively and negatively charged particles from the sphere, but I doubt any of you bothered to read any of it. None of you bothers much to educate yourselves on what's actually been done in a lab before you claim it's "impossible".

Okay, I took the pdf again, and looked through many pages, starting at 664. The math starts later, but that is about (see page 697-698 of the book, that is 802 of the pdf page counting)

135. We have discussed above the problem of the mouvement of an electrically charged particle about a magnetic and gravitating sphere, when the particle is ejected in the plane of the magnetic equator, and thus always remains there. We saw that there were boundary-circles towards which the particles, under certain conditions, could draw nearer and nearer, this giving rise to the formation of planets. It still remains for us to investigate the conditions outside the plane of the equator whether the formation of planets is also possible there, when the particles are flung out anywhere on the sphere or not.

This is all really nice what he does, and then basically goes on on this topic in the next pages, calculating all kinds of boundaries and circles that particles in that system of a magnetized and gravitating sphere can or cannot reach. Up to now I have seen no mention of any electric field being used. And basically, these calculations have to do with the creation of planets as our old friend writes on page 706:

(end of section 135)
Hence we may conclude, that formation of planets will hardly be possible outside the equatorial plane. If after all a multitude of trajectories could approach asymptotically a common curve outside the equatorial plane, this curve as we have shown could not lie in a plane passing through the centre of the sphere, and as further the particles certainly very soon will lose their charge, they will come to move in the most different directions. The only possibility for formation of planets must be, that the particles approached a common curve lying in a plane through the centre of the magnetic sphere, and this we have proved to be impossible.

Yes, the particles are charged, but no there is no electric field, only gravity and the magnetic field of the sphere. However in section 1.36 he claims the following:

Our mathematical investigations have shown as their result that if boundary-circles exist for all the velocities with which material corpuscles are expelled from the central body, the corpuscles will either return to the central body (this being what will happen in the great majority of cases), or the particles will continue to approach nearer and nearer to the boundary-circles. Possibly some velocities may also be sufficiently great to cause the particles in question to leave the system and retire indefinitely.

Concerning the charge of the particles, we may imagine three cases:
I. When the particles are not charged. They will then either retire indefinitely, or fall down again.
II. When the particles are so highly charged that the electrostatic influence dominates that of gravitation.
III. When the particles carry a charge of medium strength, so that the electrostatic influence plays an important part side by side with gravitation, which, however, is the dominating force.

If we consider negative particles in case II, we shall easily be able to prove that they can in approach boundary-circles, but the radius of these circles must be < (1 + sqrt(2))r₀ .

However, in the equations that Birkeland used up to this point there were (unless I have not looked well enough) only the magnetic field and the gravitational field in the equations of motion of the particles. So, I don't know exactly how to rhyme this, without going detailed through the derivation, for which I do not have time right now. However, the rest of the mathematical analysis is based on getting the particles to certain limiting circles and thus creating the planets and until now I have not found anything that describes the solar wind, or electrons being accelerated by an electric field from the sun to the heliopshere (or whatever Birkeland may have called it as that term probably did not exist in his time) and the electrons dragging along the ions.

I am gladly set straight if I have made an error in my skipping through the Birkeland book. Maybe I missed how the solar wind is created.

 

[tusenfem]

So what makes you think it's all that different in space?

The gas in a "plasma ball" is basically like the Earth's atmosphere, very very small ionization level, and because of the method used, there are lots of discharges like lightning in the Earth's atmosphere.

The gas in space is at least 99% ionized if not more.

Methinks, thars a difference.

I find it funny that your group accepts the fact that plasma is an excellent conductor, you accept that many charged particles whiz by the Earth at over a million miles per hour, sometimes up to a 1/3 of the speed of light. You refuse however to note that this charged particle "flow" is also known as "current flow" and that the whole solar atmosphere is experiencing "current flow". It's like you all have a mental block and are ignoring the key piece of evidence, namely the fact this charged particle flow is constant, just as Birkeland predicted.

Michael, equal amounts of positive and negative charge are whizzing by the Earth at basically equal velocity. Thus this flow does not constitute a current because current is:

[latex]
j = n_e * v_e *q_e + \Sigma_i n_i * v_i * q_i
[/latex]

Moving charges does not equate a net current, this is just basic electrodynamics and Birkeland would have told you so.

There is, however, a slight net current flowing, which is created by the heliospheric current sheet in combination with the Parker spiral of the solar wind. This current is necessary to separate the two magnetic hemispheres of the heliosphere (field pointing away from the sun and field pointing towards the sun). Because the current must be perpendicular to the field, this results in a small component of the current in the (anti)solar direction.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Time and time again, you've been proven wrong.

Excuse me, but you can't "prove me wrong" by ignoring every single detail in the image. You'd have to actually address the image *DETAILS* and explain them in some fashion or another to 'prove me wrong'. Since the whole lot of you refuses to even address *ANY* of the details of the image, you haven't "proven" anything other than the fact you collectively can't and won't explain the image.

Time and time again, people have pointed out to you the errors and inconsistencies of your ideas.

You guys make up strawman cartoon characteratures of my ideas and attack them, you never actually listen or respond the model I've actually presented. I doubt you could even explain it properly let, let alone honestly critique it.

Time and time again, you've refused to answer simple questions, or even to define the terms you use.

I'm willing to do that, but you seem to refuse to even address a single specific detail of the images. What can I do but throw up my hands in discust? Don't you figure there was some reason I came to these conclusions that had something to do with the details we observe in these images? If you can't and won't explain them, all that tells me is that none of you have any valid method to explain these images in terms of standard solar theory. I tried to explain them using standard solar theory myself, but alas it never fit. Birkeland's solar model does jive with these observations of "rigid" (I'll define that for Tim in the next post) features in these images at a depth that is consistent with his experiments.

Do we all have a mental block? No, Michael. You do. You don't have the faintest understanding of even freshman-level physics.

This coming from the guy that hasn't touched a *SINGLE* specific detail that that specific image... Yawn. More personal attack, no focus on the science. You folks are becoming painfully predictable.

You have absolutely no clue about the theories you are trying to overturn. And you have proven that you are uninterested in ever learning about those theories.

If you mean "learning about" all sorts of invisible metaphysical friends of yours, no, not really. If you mean learn about this image based on standard solar theory, I am interested in hearing your explanation. So far however, none of you have addressed any of the key observations of the image, so it is not as though any of you have actually "tried" to explain any of the "physics" for us. What can I do? I can't make you address the details of the image, but the fact you won't touch them tells me volumes. None of you really have a valid explanation of what's going on at the level of actual physics. If it's not a math formula, and it's about actual physics and physical processes, you guys don't understand diddly squat. You're all bluster, and no science. Not one detail in that image has been touched by any of you.

 

[D'rok]

Sorry to cherry pick one part of your reply, but...

.So far however, none of you have addressed any of the key observations of the image, so it is not as though any of you have actually "tried" to explain any of the "physics" for us.

The following is a complete and definitive answer to your key observations of the image:

There's no flying stuff in a running difference image, Michael.

If you ask why there's a bunny in the clouds, when in fact there is no bunny, people will not tell you why there's a bunny in the clouds. Now if you ask why it looks like there's a bunny in the clouds, you'll get reasonable replies. In fact, you've gotten reasonable replies, many of them.

Why is that surface there? It's not. Why does it look like a surface there? It looks like a surface as a result of the process of creating a running difference image.

An authoritative corroboration (Hurlburt) was provided as support for this answer. You have given no rebuttal that has been the slightest bit persuasive. Your entire counter-argument has been to insist that your interlocutors describe the "physics" of features that have been shown conclusively not to exist.

This is very bizarre behaviour.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Note emphasis mine:

Please define "rigid" as specifically as you can.

Fair enough. I'll define it loosely as a pattern of persistence of structures with "very limited change/time", specifically compared to the plasma structures in the solar atmosphere.

Let's start by talking about the "lifespan" of various "structures' in the photosphere. Any K-band image of the photosphere shows us a series of "structures" that are located at the surface of the photosphere. These "structures" have a very limited lifespan of around 10 minutes or so, because the whole surface is convecting heat, much like a boiling liquid. Kosovichev's Doppler images (including some images he has emailed to me personally) show very consistent features *under* the photosphere, like that image on the tsunami page. They typically also show us the waves that pass through the photosphere. In every way the photosphere acts a lot like a liquid as defined in MHD theory.

That rigid feature that I circled in Kosovichev's video however is "persistent" and unaffected by the wave in the photosphere in terms of it's overall shape, size, outline and lifespan. Why is that?

During the CME event in that RD image we also find "persistent features" that are not consistent with "light plasma" in a "light plasma" atmosphere, but rather these features have a persistence and lifespan that far exceeds anything we find in the photosphere. The chromosphere in Hinode images shows that this part of the atmosphere is even more dynamic than the photosphere, and of course the corona reaches millions of degrees Kelvin and it's also extremely dynamic. How do we get persistence in such a dynamic and changing environment like a CME event in the case of the RD image? How about that angular structure in Kosovichev's Doppler image? Why is that feature persistent throughout the whole movie?

Please indicate what constitutes a "dense" plasma.

A dense plasma is one that contains more ions per cubic meter than a light plasma It may also be composed of significantly heavier elements. It could be cooler as well.

Please define the physical conditions under which one might expect a "plasma" to become "rigid" (which may also require a more specific definition of "plasma").

I do not personally expect plasma to ever become "rigid" which is why I believe we're looking at a solid crust in these images, not simply a more dense layer of plasma.

I trust you already have at hand a reference to a controlled laboratory experiment in which sufficiently "rigid" plasma has been observed, under the same physical conditions as one might expect for the Sun?

Rigid in this case is simply a matter of noticing which structures 'change over time', and which ones do not change as rapidly if at all. Whereas light plasma features in the photosphere come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals, these features in the RD and Dopper images have a lifespan that is far in excess of anything related to light plasma in the solar atmosphere. The Doppler image in particular shows key features that can only be located *UNDERNEATH* the photosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sorry to cherry pick one part of your reply, but...



The following is a complete and definitive answer to your key observations of the image:

GM:There's no flying stuff in a running difference image, Michael.

Well, let's start here. That statement it patently and completely false. This is a running difference image of an area of the surface that is experiencing a coronal mass ejection process. There are *LOTS* of things flying around in that image that can be observed in that image moving from the bottom right, toward the upper left of that image. It's hard to take his answer seriously when he makes absurdly false statements.

He has also stated that the persistent patterns in the image are a result of the RD imaging process, which is also easily disproved by looking at any RD image from the LASCO series. You will not find a single one of them that shows "persistent patterns" as a result of the imaging technique itself. Any patterns in the image (like stars in the background) are there physically in the image and remain in the image in those "patterns' because they exist that way in the first place. Any patterns we find are a result of what's going on in the image itself, not because of the imaging technique. The RD images from LASCO show us that plasma flys off the sun in "waves", and we can see such waves develop and mature in the original 171A images and the RD images. He's literally 0 for 2 in his "explanation". How can I take him seriously if he can't A) isolate the source of light in the original 171A images (at least RC could do that much) B) figure out that patterns in the image have nothing to do with the technique, and C) that there is flying stuff to be observe in all the images, 171A original images and RD images?

An authoritative corroboration (Hurlburt) was provided as support for this answer.

Technically the only answer that Hurlburt provided could be considered technically correct, even by my understanding based on the pitiful wording of his question. What I asked for however was an actual explanation of the details in that image, and Dr. Hurlburt has not done that, nor have any of you. I'm also *CERTAIN* the good Doctor would vehemently disagree GM that there is no flying stuff to be seen in the image. Since no detailed explanation has ever been offered, Hurlburt's one single statement is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy and has not given us a single "explanation" of any detail in that image.

You have given no rebuttal that has been the slightest bit persuasive.

Do you personally honestly believe that there is no "flying stuff" observed in that image?

Your entire counter-argument has been to insist that your interlocutors describe the "physics" of features that have been shown conclusively not to exist.

One cannot show anything conclusively by ignoring every detail in the image, making obviously false statements, and by avoiding the details entirely. That only demonstrates conclusively that they can't actually explain the events in this image, so they're intentionally avoiding dealing the the details in these images.

This is very bizarre behaviour.

IMO the bizarre behavior is the complete avoidance of the details in these images and the constant barrage of personal insults. While Tim and DD and many others have attempted to focus on the science itself, GM and RC and a couple others have consistently taken the low road and attack the individual, not the actual images. Which specific detail of the RD image did they explain to you, and how did that make you come to the conclusion that there is no "flying stuff" during a CME event?

 

[D'rok]

GM:There's no flying stuff in a running difference image, Michael.

Well, let's start here. That statement it patently and completely false. This is a running difference image of an area of the surface that is experiencing a coronal mass ejection process. There are *LOTS* of things flying around in that image that can be observed in that image moving from the bottom right, toward the upper left of that image. It's hard to take his answer seriously when he makes absurdly false statements.

I don't doubt that there are lots of flying things in a coronal mass ejection process. The point is, there are no "things", flying or otherwise, in an RD image. GeeMack can correct me on this if I am misunderstanding him.

He has also stated that the persistent patterns in the image are a result of the RD imaging process, which is also easily disproved by looking at any RD image from the LASCO series. You will not find a single one of them that shows "persistent patterns" as a result of the imaging technique itself. Any patterns in the image (like stars in the background) are there physically in the image and remain in the image in those "patterns' because they exist that way in the first place. Any patterns we find are a result of what's going on in the image itself, not because of the imaging technique. The RD images from LASCO show us that plasma flys off the sun in "waves", and we can see such waves develop and mature in the original 171A images and the RD images. He's literally 0 for 2 in his "explanation". How can I take him seriously if he can't A) isolate the source of light in the original 171A images (at least RC could do that much) B) figure out that patterns in the image have nothing to do with the technique, and C) that there is flying stuff to be observe in all the images, 171A original images and RD images?

All of this still seems to me to be refuted by the fact that RD images aren't showing actual physical features.

Technically the only answer that Hurlburt provided could be considered technically correct, even by my understanding based on the pitiful wording of his question. What I asked for however was an actual explanation of the details in that image, and Dr. Hurlburt has not done that, nor have any of you. Since no detailed explanation has ever been offered, his one single statement is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy and has not given us a single "explanation" of any detail in that image.

Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is inappropriate. (If that weren't the case, we would have to kiss the entire Common Law tradition goodbye). This Hurlburt chap seems to be a very appropriate authority.

Do you personally honestly believe that there is no "flying stuff" observed in that image?

Yes.

IMO the bizarre behavior is the complete avoidance of the details in these images and the constant barrage of personal insults. While Tim and DD and many others have attempted to focus on the science itself, GM and RC and a couple others have consistently taken the low road and attack the individual, not the actual images. Which specific detail of the RD image did they explain to you, and how did that make you come to the conclusion that there is no "flying stuff" during a CME event?

GM and RC have made it plain to me that looking for distinct physical features in an RD image is nonsensical. This is completely different than saying that there is no "flying stuff" during a CME event, which is clearly not what anybody is saying.