Electric universe theories here.

[Singularitarian]

This is the place for all theories considered part of the 'electric universe' part of the spectrum.

This is not a place for:

A) Plasma Cosmology (ie, things only relevant on cosmoloigical scales)
B) Ad homs or personal jibes
C) Anything to do with any cosmology

It is a place for:

A) "thunderbolts" material,
B) "elecric universe material",
C) Whatever published papers there are to back up the former theories
D) Whatever science articles may back up the former theories
E) Terrestrial (plasma) physics,
F) Stellar (plasma) Physics,
G) In general all (plasma) physics from nanoscales up to the maximum of galaxtic scales.

This is try to reduce the length of the plasma cosmology - woo or not thread. And to enable it to stay more on the topic of cosmological models in future discussion, which attempts up until now have been futile***, which is no-ones fault in particular (Infact I kinda started some of the irrelivant material myself a while back)

Go.

And a random post to start it off:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4782859

***You could say the greater degree of physical theories beyond our experimental evidence have been futile to suggest any acceptable answer, never mind the increadible ones we have come to submit to subliminally. Cosmology will be the last theory to be ultimately inified. Before on does this however, using pure logic, one must understand the funsamentals of the theory first, no matter how aloof and elementary they may inexorably come across like.

 

[Reality Check]

Thank you for repeating yourself. I must have missed it earlier. That helps a lot. I'll have to do some more reading now.

You do not have to that much reading.
Have a look at the Homestake Experiment that originally detected the solar neutrino problem. That detected the neutrinos by extracting and counting radioactive argon that had been created by neutrino collisions with the chlorine in a tank of perchloroethylene. Argon has one more proton than chlorine.
Each neutrino collision converted a neutron to a proton (Cl to Ar).

That does not happen with electron anti-neutrinos (AFAIK).

 

[Michael Mozina]

You do not have to that much reading.

Actually *I* do. I don't like surprises and I like to understand someone's argument thoroughly. The limitations and capabilities of these detectors isn't necessarily obvious at first glance and I can already see that I still have a lot to learn on this topic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Almost right.
The original images were created by photons.

Those photons are all directly related to "real things" like coronal loops.

The RD animations were not created by photons.

Yes it was.

The intensity of the pixels

Come from the photons of the last image minus the photon intensity of the previous image. It's still related to "photon intensity" of the first image - photon intensity of the previous image.

in the RD frames is not related to the photons in an original image.

Its not directly related to *AN* original image, but rather *TWO* of them.

The RD animations were created by mathematical operations on pairs of original images.

Yes. So? You're essentially subtracting photons from photons.

The pixels represent changes between pixels in pairs of original images.

Agreed, but there is no physical disconnect between real things seen in the original images (like stars and planets in Lasco images) and real things observable in RD images (like stars and planets). You (well, D'rok and I) can still pick out background stars from the original images in the RD image. It is not as though these photon counts are physically removed from physical objects in the images. They are not. The planet in the original images can still be seen cruising through the RD image. The background stars can still be observed to drift from left to right in the RD image and it's possible to pick out star pattens in the original images and observe those same patterns in the RD image.

The only 'disconnect" between items in the RD image and the real world is in your head. Anyone with enough time watching LASCO-C3 RD images will be able to:

A) pick out stars in RD images.
B) pick out flying plasma in RD images.
C) pick out planets in the RD image.
D) pick out cosmic rays in the RD image.

These are not difficult things to do. Anyone CAN do it, but first you have realize that it CAN be done and bright things in RD images are also bright in the original images.

 

[GeeMack]

Those photons are all directly related to "real things" like coronal loops.

Related to, yes, in the same way that the blocks of color on a bar graph showing tax revenue increases are related to the dollars paid in one year compared to the dollars paid in another. The blocks of color aren't money. They don't show money. They weren't even caused by money. They were caused by a program that ran some calculations on the differences between various amounts of money and printed the blocks of color as a visual representation of those differences.

Yes it was.

No, it was not. Because of the filters and equipment used, the photons caused lighter and darker pixels in the original images. The varying brightness of the pixels in the running difference animation were caused by the computer program's output when calculating the difference between the values of lightness and darkness in the original pixels.

Come from the photons of the last image minus the photon intensity of the previous image. It's still related to "photon intensity" of the first image - photon intensity of the previous image.

If the pixel in the first image had a value of 50 and the same pixel in the second image had a value of 50, there would obviously be no difference between them, and the output pixel would be neutral gray. If the pixel in the first image had a value of 1000 and the same pixel in the second image had a value of 1000, the output pixel in the running difference image would be the exact same neutral gray as the output pixel in the first example. So the result of a massively bright spot in the original images can cause the exact same output as a massively dark spot in the original images.

Its not directly related to *AN* original image, but rather *TWO* of them.

Wow, this sentence is correct!

Yes. So? You're essentially subtracting photons from photons.

No, you're not subtracting photons. You're subtracting values. You're subtracting the brightness value of the pixel in the second image from the brightness value of the corresponding pixel in the first image. The first image could have a very bright pixel in one location and a very dim pixel in another, and the output in those two locations could be identical.

Agreed, but there is no physical disconnect between real things seen in the original images (like stars and planets in Lasco images) and real things observable in RD images (like stars and planets). You (well, D'rok and I) can still pick out background stars from the original images in the RD image. It is not as though these photon counts are physically removed from physical objects in the images. They are not. The planet in the original images can still be seen cruising through the RD image. The background stars can still be observed to drift from left to right in the RD image and it's possible to pick out star pattens in the original images and observe those same patterns in the RD image.

There are no physical items in a running difference image. There are no rows of buildings in a bar graph. There are no slices of pizza in a pie chart. There is no gasoline in the fuel gauge on your car.

The only 'disconnect" between items in the RD image and the real world is in your head. Anyone with enough time watching LASCO-C3 RD images will be able to:

A) pick out stars in RD images.
B) pick out flying plasma in RD images.
C) pick out planets in the RD image.
D) pick out cosmic rays in the RD image.

Nobody with the intellectual capability above that of an average fourth grader could possibly misunderstand all the very clear concise explanations offered so far that show you're wrong, Michael. Nobody who is actually rational and sane, that is.

These are not difficult things to do. Anyone CAN do it, but first you have realize that it CAN be done and bright things in RD images are also bright in the original images.

You're wrong. Something very bright in the first image and equally bright in the second will create an output pixel exactly the same shade as it will for something very dim in the first image and equally dim in the second.

And you still haven't convinced a soul that you're correct, Michael. Do you suppose it's because of your crappy communication skills or the fact that you're wrong?

 

[Michael Mozina]

A lot of energy compared to what? A lightbulb? Sure. For a two-hour event, that's about 7x10¹⁰ Watts average. Quite a few lightbulbs there. But how much power is that, really, for the whole earth?

You missed the point IMO. It is "current flow" that transferred energy into the Earth's atmosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, RC...

Please stop listening to GM. You did *a lot* better on your own, and he has *ZERO* credibility as it relates to these images. The fact the surface is rotating left to right precludes the RD image from "zeroing out" anything. Anyone who can't pick out "flying stuff" and stars in a LASCO RD image is blind or completely ignorant of the image technique or both.

 

[Michael Mozina]

To be fair to Michael Mozina this flux rope that interacted with the Earth's magnetosphere does carry a lot of current.

Gee, will wonders never cease. You really are an enigma on many levels. In some ways your understanding is quite good. On other levels you reject Alfven's work on solar theory almost completely. Things never seem to quite add up with you. Thanks for the support on this issue at least.

These are structures in the solar wind in which there is a "central guide field" along which the currents flow to create the "toroidal component" of the flux rope.

Sure, but it's a current carrying Bennett Pinch thread driven by the current flow inside the rope, and the *total circuit energy* according to Alfven.

These structures are rather common in the solar wind

The are common in all types of current carrying plasma, from the ordinary plasma ball on my desk, to the plasmas in space. These are indeed "ordinary" processes and very "natural" processes in current carrying plasma.

and enter the Earth's magnetosphere on the day side or the tail on the night side regularly. Usually, these things are called FTEs (Flux Transfer Events).

Ok, as long as we're both clear that the "flux" is *electro*magnetic energy, I agree.

 

[GeeMack]

FYI, RC...

Please stop listening to GM. You did *a lot* better on your own, and he has *ZERO* credibility as it relates to these images. The fact the surface is rotating left to right precludes the RD image from "zeroing out" anything. Anyone who can't pick out "flying stuff" and stars in a LASCO RD image is blind or completely ignorant of the image technique or both.

Yeah, don't listen to me. You might actually learn something!

Are you scared people might believe me because my line of BS is so much more powerful than your truth, Michael? Don't you have what it takes to make your truth as convincing as my BS? Oh, well, kicked your ass again. What's new?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, MM, but only after he has changed the setup by reducing the magnetic field inside the terrella and/or increasing the voltage drop between the anode and the cathode.

And? This is where that enigma thing comes in. You should at least acknowledge that he compared the whole thing to the sun.

And then he goes on to claim:

And then there are pics of a big ring around the terrella with some spots on the surface. So, in all, according to Birkeland's experiment, the corona would be a ring around the sun, which his pictures also show.

We do have a "ring around the sun" of a flowing sort. It's called a Parker's Spiral. It's not a "ring" per se, but a "flow pattern" created by the current flowing toward the heliosphere and the rotation of the sun. If anything Birkeland seemed to underestimate the amount of material

And the "might perhaps expect" does not seem convincing reasoning.

Well, if might be less than convincing if he wasn't right about their existence in the solar atmosphere. Yes, it could be less than convincing had he been wrong, but the loops at least turn out to be a "successful prediction" of his model.

And by the way, it's the rings of Saturn, not Jupiter (although Jupiter has a very thin ring too).

Ooops. My bad.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yeah, don't listen to me. You might actually learn something!

Like your ever famous classic:

"Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" Please. What did you teach them to do except to intentionally blind themselves to everything that can be observed in a RD image?

Are you scared people might believe me because my line of BS is so much more powerful than your truth, Michael?

No, I'm scared that most people don't have enough experience watching and analyzing RD images and therefore you have some hope of confusing the newbies. You might sound like you actually know something about RD images. About the only thing you seem to accurately understand is the fact they subtract one pixel intensity from another, but in every other respect everything else you've said is absolutely false. You've blown your credibility to hell already even with 'newbies" around here.

Don't you have what it takes to make your truth as convincing as my BS?

Of course I do. I'll keep pointing them to the LASCO images, showing them that the stars and star patterns in the background are visible in both the original and the RD images. Most people who actually look at the RD images will be able to see them. You'll eventually be seen for the ignorant oaf that you are, but it will be a distraction. They might as well know right now you have zero in the way of credibility and you have no idea what you're looking at in a RD image because you seem to think it's physically detached from real things and is some sort of bar graph.

Oh, well, kicked your ass again. What's new?

In my last conversation with D'rok, he could see the background stars in a RD image. You kicked your own ass (and credibility) evidently.

 

[Ziggurat]

You missed the point IMO. It is "current flow" that transferred energy into the Earth's atmosphere.

Which still tells us nothing about whether your iron shell idea can maintain a temperature far below the 6000 K layer of the sun that we see. I've asked you to quantify your ideas. You repeatedly refuse, even though such a task is easy. Very well, I shall endeavor to do so for you.

Let's say we've got mass being ejected from your solid surface. This mass is supposedly taking heat away with it - it therefore must be mostly on a one-way journey, or else it would take heat back with it from somewhere hotter, and so the solid shell would heat up. So how much mass can we lose on a continual basis? Well, let's ballpark this as being about the same amount of mass we get in the solar wind (that way we don't make the atmosphere above our solid shell any thicker or thinner). That's about 6.7 billion tons per hour, or about 1.7x10⁹ kg/s. Now the visible layer of the sun is radiating about 3.8x10²⁸ Watts outwards, but that layer will radiate inwards as well. In order to keep from heating up, we need to carry away the heat from this. But let's be generous. Let's suppose (with no evidence) that your solid surface is incredibly reflective, so that only 1% of the light is absorbed. Now we only need to carry away 3.8x10²⁶ Joules/sec. This means that each kg of mass that's being ejected must carry with it 2.2x10¹⁷ Joules. In other words, each kg must absorb more than twice its own rest mass in energy. Which, let's be frank, is an absolute absurdity.

OK, so let's see if we can fudge these numbers a bit. Let's suppose that we instead start with a more reasonable heat absorption, and then try to figure out the mass. The energy to ionize a hydrogen atom is 13.6 eV, which corresponds to 1.3x10⁹ J/kg. Each proton and electron will act like an ideal gas molecule in the plasma state, so if we heat up from 0 to 6000 K (we can't heat up any more than that), we get 1.5⁷ J/kg. So the total is still about 1.3x10⁹ J/kg. Of course, I'm being incredibly generous here, since not all the gas would be ionized, and that's clearly the dominant contribution to the heat capacity at these temperatures. So again assuming only 1% absorption, how much mass do we need? 2.9x10¹⁷ kg/s. That's eight orders of magnitude larger than the solar wind. How long could the interior of the sun last losing this much mass? Well, the sun is about 2x10³⁰ kg, so that's about 6.9x10¹² seconds, or roughly 220,000 years. Again, absurd. Clearly that's far too large a mass flow to be sustainable.

The numbers don't work out, Michael. Not by MANY orders of magnitude. This took me maybe 10 minutes. Back of the envelope calculations. Easy to do, no fancy calculus, just simple multiplication, unit conversions, and easy-to-find input numbers. But you didn't do anything like this. You didn't test the fundamental parameters of your own theory to test whether it made even the slightest amount of sense. If you did, you would have realized how absurd it was. Now that you've had the calculations presented to you, what will you make of them? Will you realize your mistake? Or will you bury your head in the sand?

 

[brantc]

Which still tells us nothing about whether your iron shell idea can maintain a temperature far below the 6000 K layer of the sun that we see. I've asked you to quantify your ideas. You repeatedly refuse, even though such a task is easy. Very well, I shall endeavor to do so for you.

Let's say we've got mass being ejected from your solid surface. This mass is supposedly taking heat away with it - it therefore must be mostly on a one-way journey, or else it would take heat back with it from somewhere hotter, and so the solid shell would heat up. So how much mass can we lose on a continual basis? Well, let's ballpark this as being about the same amount of mass we get in the solar wind (that way we don't make the atmosphere above our solid shell any thicker or thinner). That's about 6.7 billion tons per hour, or about 1.7x10⁹ kg/s. Now the visible layer of the sun is radiating about 3.8x10²⁸ Watts outwards, but that layer will radiate inwards as well. In order to keep from heating up, we need to carry away the heat from this. But let's be generous. Let's suppose (with no evidence) that your solid surface is incredibly reflective, so that only 1% of the light is absorbed. Now we only need to carry away 3.8x10²⁶ Joules/sec. This means that each kg of mass that's being ejected must carry with it 2.2x10¹⁷ Joules. In other words, each kg must absorb more than twice its own rest mass in energy. Which, let's be frank, is an absolute absurdity.

OK, so let's see if we can fudge these numbers a bit. Let's suppose that we instead start with a more reasonable heat absorption, and then try to figure out the mass. The energy to ionize a hydrogen atom is 13.6 eV, which corresponds to 1.3x10⁹ J/kg. Each proton and electron will act like an ideal gas molecule in the plasma state, so if we heat up from 0 to 6000 K (we can't heat up any more than that), we get 1.5⁷ J/kg. So the total is still about 1.3x10⁹ J/kg. Of course, I'm being incredibly generous here, since not all the gas would be ionized, and that's clearly the dominant contribution to the heat capacity at these temperatures. So again assuming only 1% absorption, how much mass do we need? 2.9x10¹⁷ kg/s. That's eight orders of magnitude larger than the solar wind. How long could the interior of the sun last losing this much mass? Well, the sun is about 2x10³⁰ kg, so that's about 6.9x10¹² seconds, or roughly 220,000 years. Again, absurd. Clearly that's far too large a mass flow to be sustainable.

The numbers don't work out, Michael. Not by MANY orders of magnitude. This took me maybe 10 minutes. Back of the envelope calculations. Easy to do, no fancy calculus, just simple multiplication, unit conversions, and easy-to-find input numbers. But you didn't do anything like this. You didn't test the fundamental parameters of your own theory to test whether it made even the slightest amount of sense. If you did, you would have realized how absurd it was. Now that you've had the calculations presented to you, what will you make of them? Will you realize your mistake? Or will you bury your head in the sand?

Ziggurat, you are right about this particular problem with the iron sun model.

My problem is that the observational evidence(in my mind) indicates that the sun has a solid surface. I believe its metallic for alot of reasons.

However if you posit that what is leaving the sun is "electricity" that doesnt become thermal(photon) energy until it interacts with matter, I think that would solve the problem.

This also requires some slight shifts in thinking in certain areas of physics....

 

[Reality Check]

The only 'disconnect" between items in the RD image and the real world is in your head. Anyone with enough time watching LASCO-C3 RD images will be able to:

A) pick out stars in RD images.
B) pick out flying plasma in RD images.
C) pick out planets in the RD image.
D) pick out cosmic rays in the RD image.

These are not difficult things to do. Anyone CAN do it, but first you have realize that it CAN be done and bright things in RD images are also bright in the original images.

Try to read MM - there is no 'disconect'.
I agree with you up to "bright things in RD images are also bright in the original images" (bright stuff in the original images that stays bright and in the same position ends up as grey stuff in the RD animation)

The LASCO-C3 RD aminaions do have features in them that are connected to stars, flying plasma, planets and cosmic rays in the original images.

I have no real objection to you calling these features "stars", "flying plasma", "planets" and "cosmic rays" so long as you make it clear that that the only reason that you call them that is because you have identified a connection to those objects in the original images.

Where we depart company is when your web site makes the mistake of naming features in the TRACE 171A RD animation without identifying them in the original images, i.e.

• mountain ranges when there are no mountain ranges seen in the original images,
• peeling stuff when there is not peeling stuff seen in the original images and
• to a lesser extent flying stuff when there is no flying stuff seen in the original images.

Where we really depart company is when your web site makes the basic error of stating that the TRACE 171A filter can see your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust through 4800 kilometers of the photosphere. The optical depth of the photosphere is ~500 km. This depends on wavelength so it is up to you to show that at aroung 171A there is a hole down to 4800 km.

 

[D'rok]

Just to put the kibosh on a trend in this thread...

Michael, you probably shouldn't use me as a rhetorical hammer in your battle with your interlocutors. Yes, I can see background stars in an RD image. But thanks to GeeMack and others, I also understand that I am not literally seeing stars; I am seeing a graphical representation of the change in the position of stars in the background of a series of images. I'm perfectly happy to call them "stars" as a shorthand without having to qualify that language every time I use it, but that's as far as I will go. The RD animation is not the same thing as a series of time-lapsed photographs showing the actual starfield as it shifts across the field of view. But, visually, that is what it looks like, and it is plainly obvious that those features in the RD animation represent stars.

 

[Reality Check]

Can Micheal Mozina answer an RD animation question

Micheal Mozina: As an example of the importance of identifying a feature in the original images before naming an RD animation feature after it, you may want to answer this question.
After all you have had nearly a week to think about it. It cannot be that too hard a question for a genius like you !
First asked 10 July 2009
Below is a sketch of a 1 by 5 pixel RD animation where '_' is a blank pixel and '*' is a filled pixel.

• Does the RD animation show flying stuff? (i.e. What feature is in the RD animation?)
• Is there flying stuff in the original images? (i.e. Is that feature in the original images?)

Frame 1: *____
Frame 2: _*___
Frame 3: __*__
Frame 4: ___*_
Frame 5: ____*

 

[Ziggurat]

However if you posit that what is leaving the sun is "electricity" that doesnt become thermal(photon) energy until it interacts with matter, I think that would solve the problem.

No, it wouldn't. You can't magically transform heat into other forms of energy, because that would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics by decreasing entropy. And heat will flow from the hot visible layer of the sun to anything underneath it. Unless you can get rid of this heat, it's going to warm up until it reaches at least 6000 K. You cannot get rid of heat by simply dumping energy in some low-entropy form, as you propose. It doesn't work.

This also requires some slight shifts in thinking in certain areas of physics....

It would require violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which is not a "slight shift".

 

[GeeMack]

[*Whining, bitching, moaning, crying, and complaining snipped.*]

I'll be damned, all that snipping and not a shred of substantive response left. Just another temper tantrum and more lies. Who coulda knowed?

Christ, Michael, don't you find it the least bit odd that after over 1300 of your mostly nonsensical posts here, not a single person even remotely agrees that you're seeing solid physical things in running difference images? Nobody. I'm asking seriously. Doesn't your disconnect with reality even concern you a little bit?

And isn't it strange that everyone, every single person who has ventured an opinion, understands me and fundamentally agrees that I am correct in my explanation? Everyone. Don't you consider the possibility that your mental health might be suffering when you see things nobody else sees? You'd talk to a mental health professional if you were hearing things nobody else was hearing, wouldn't you? Again, I'm asking seriously.

You say these people accept what I say as true because I'm vastly superior at persuading people, which I agree is clearly the case. But don't you ever stop to seriously consider it's also because I'm right and you're wrong.

Now if you truly want to show people that Dr. Hurlburt and I are wrong, you should seriously address the issues I raised in posts #806, #819, and #829. If you really have any more than your big mouth and a crackpot delusion, don't be such a puss. Get down to the business of supporting your insane fantasy already.

ETA: I see there is one person, brantc, who is obviously as capable of supporting his position as you are, Michael. It looks like a solid surface to him, therefore he believes it is solid. But even he admits that his observational evidence is in his mind!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Just to put the kibosh on a trend in this thread...

Michael, you probably shouldn't use me as a rhetorical hammer in your battle with your interlocutors.

I agree. I apologize for that.

Yes, I can see background stars in an RD image. But thanks to GeeMack and others, I also understand that I am not literally seeing stars; I am seeing a graphical representation of the change in the position of stars in the background of a series of images. I'm perfectly happy to call them "stars" as a shorthand without having to qualify that language every time I use it, but that's as far as I will go. The RD animation is not the same thing as a series of time-lapsed photographs showing the actual starfield as it shifts across the field of view. But, visually, that is what it looks like, and it is plainly obvious that those features in the RD animation represent stars.

Nobody is trying to suggest that the RD images are the "same thing" as the original images. The photons in all the images come from real things, real objects that really move. The *light source* is the sun, not your monitor.

There's nothing preventing GM from seeing "flying stuff" or stars in RD images, and there is no denying that these *THINGS* caused the pattern of photons in the images, both of the original images *AND* the RD image.

The problem here D'rok is that GM claimed several things that are not true. We *CAN* see "flying stuff" in the RD image. GM also incorrectly stated that the persistence in the image is related to the RD technique rather than solar events. That is categorically false. The persistent patterns relate directly to real things, like those real stars in the background. There's nothing about the RD technique that creates persistent patterns. Only persistence in the original images could or would create persistence in the RD images.

One thing you should have learned from me that you would never learn from GM's "explanation' is that the dark shadows provide us with a directional component *of real objects* and the distance from the light source to it's shadow gives us insight into it's "speed". You can't understand these parts of the RD technique unless and until you realize you're looking at "real stuff" in all of these images.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Micheal Mozina: As an example of the importance of identifying a feature in the original images before naming an RD animation feature after it, you may want to answer this question.
After all you have had nearly a week to think about it. It cannot be that too hard a question for a genius like you !
First asked 10 July 2009
Below is a sketch of a 1 by 5 pixel RD animation where '_' is a blank pixel and '*' is a filled pixel.

• Does the RD animation show flying stuff? (i.e. What feature is in the RD animation?)
• Is there flying stuff in the original images? (i.e. Is that feature in the original images?)

Frame 1: *____
Frame 2: _*___
Frame 3: __*__
Frame 4: ___*_
Frame 5: ____*

A genius like you should realize that those are real stars in the background of Lasco-C3 images, not "x"'s in some data graph.