Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

You mean the electrons that move, emit radiation and can be detected?
You mean the electrons that collide, emit radiation and can be detected?
You mean the electrons that interact with the ISM, emit radiation and can be detected?

The irony here is that we *DO* detect them and the effects of them. You simply refuse to recognize them when you see them. Instead you go out of your way to *NOT* accept or go with the obvious choice, you select something that that is completely off the wall, and you continue to overlook the mass contained in the non baryonic electrons that are there in that image. No wonder you can't account for all the "missing mass" in "non baryonic" matter. You don't even recognize it when you see it.

Or are they some other kind of electrons?

No, they are the same ordinary same electrons that create twisted Birkeland current filaments like the kind you find in every plasma ball ever sold at Walmart. You do however have to recognize their flow and the effect they have on plasma and recognize their presence. Since you're intentionally and willfully blinding yourself to their presence, you can't find them. That's why you can't find any of your missing non baryonic matter. You *REFUSE* to find that mass when it's staring you right in the face. It's a willful and intentional oversight on your part.

 

[Ziggurat]

The only "things" that MHD theory describe or can describe are the particles of plasma (the electrons/protons/ect) and the photons that make up the EM field.

How many photons does it take to make a 1 Tesla field?

 

[GeeMack]

Er, could you at least keep your rantings focused on the right topics of the right threads and stop hijacking every conversation of this thread?

I figured you didn't have the guts to actually admit you can't meet your own standards of evidence. Thanks for proving it once again!

 

[Michael Mozina]

I figured you didn't have the guts to actually admit you can't meet your own standards of evidence. Thanks for proving it once again!

Actually, Birkeland's solar model works in a lab, these image, the loops, the sustained solar wind, and the observation of jets are all evidence that his model is correct, and *best* of all, it's all based on pure empirical physics. Thanks for demonstrating that you aren't paying attention.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How many photons does it take to make a 1 Tesla field?

Evidently a lot of current flow is involved as well as a lot of carrier particles of the EM field. How about you explain exactly what physical "things" that you believe these formulas relate to?

 

[Ziggurat]

Evidently a lot of current flow is involved as well as a lot of carrier particles of the EM field.

"a lot" is not an answer. And while current may be the source of a field, it is not the field itself. You said that photons make up the field. I want to know how many photons I need in order to get a 1 Tesla field. Either you can answer the question, or you can't. But your response is not an answer.

How about you explain exactly what physical "things" that you believe these formulas relate to?

I'll tell you if you can answer my question first.

 

[GeeMack]

Actually, Birkeland's solar model works in a lab, these image, the loops, the sustained solar wind, and the observation of jets are all evidence that his model is correct, and *best* of all, it's all based on pure empirical physics. Thanks for demonstrating that you aren't paying attention.

Yeah, yeah, more crying and moaning, just as expected. But you do realize (and I hope you do, because nobody could be as stupid as you act and still have the ability to tie his own shoes) that for all your noise making, you didn't even remotely address the issue I've raised a couple dozen times now. You see, if you can't demonstrate, objectively, that what you see in a running difference graph is actually what you claim it is, then it doesn't support your whacked-out delusion. And so far, all you've shown us is your ignorance, lies, tantrums, and your flat out refusal to actually address the claim.

So here's where we were... You've utterly failed, so far, to point to an experiment that shows how you can see a surface over 4000 kilometers below the opaque photosphere of the Sun by staring at difference graphs produced using data acquired thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. That experiment, to meet your own standards of evidence, must be done right here on Earth, nothing metaphysical, no fudge factors, mathematically consistent, physically sound, repeatable, and objective so that other people performing it can independently reach the same conclusion you've reached.

Can you show us that experiment, Michael? Or will you have the courage, integrity, and honesty to admit that you can't? Because as soon as we put that first image on your web site behind us, you know, you prove it shows what you claim it shows, or admit that you can't and remove it from your site, then we can move on to the next one.

(Whining, avoidance, ignorance, and probably more lies will follow. Michael will not make any effort whatsoever to provide the method for his super secret vision technique. He won't even acknowledge the particular concern I continue to raise because to acknowledge it would require that he admit failure. He'll just babble and complain, and totally pussy out, again. Oh these nutty crackpots are so predictable, aren't they?)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

That's just flat-out false. There's no equivocation, no way around it - it's just not true. Here's an explicit counterexample:

[latex]$\vec B(x,y, t) = a(t) y \hat x + b(t) x \hat y$[/latex].

If a and b are constants, nothing changes. But give them any time dependence at all (except a/b is constant) and the field lines reconnect at x=y=0. Draw a picture if you're not capable of doing the math (yes, MM, that means you).

As there is ample objective, independently verifiable, evidence consistent with the hypothesis that MM cannot understand (much less has an active command of) math more advanced than simple arithmetic, and no evidence (objective, independently verifiable) to the contrary, one can be 99+% confident that MM will not understand what you wrote sol ... not even to draw the picture ...

Of course, I could be wrong; indeed, I really hope I am ... and that MM will prove me wrong tout de suite.

 

[Reality Check]

The irony here is that we *DO* detect them and the effects of them. You simply refuse to recognize them when you see them. Instead you go out of your way to *NOT* accept or go with the obvious choice, you select something that that is completely off the wall, and you continue to overlook the mass contained in the non baryonic electrons that are there in that image. No wonder you can't account for all the "missing mass" in "non baryonic" matter. You don't even recognize it when you see it.

Astronomers do not ignore the effects of electrons in space. They are aware of what they do and recognize them when they see them.

Electrons are not baryonic so calling them "non baryonic" is redundant. The image is of radio waves being emitted by the gas cloud that produces the helical magnetic field.

You may not be aware of some simple physics:

1. Plasma is overall electrically neutral (quasi neutral).
2. This means that for every electron there is a proton.
3. The mass of an electron is 1840 times less than that of a proton.
4. Therefore the mass of electrons (detected or not) in that gas cloud is 0.06% of the mass of the cloud.

And of course galaxies are thought to be overall electrically neutral (I would be interested in any papers you can come up that say otherwise). So the same argument leads to the mass of electrons being 1 in 1840 parts of the mass of a galaxy. Ditto for galaxy groups, clusters, super clusters and the universe.

This non-science of yours is worthy of a formal question. You could just state that you are mistaken !
First asked 25 July 2009
According to these posts from Michael Mozina all or a part of dark matter is made up of electrons in galaxies.

What would the observable effects of electrons in a galaxy having enough mass to account for the observation of "missing" matter in them?
To make the math easy just add enough electrons to a galaxy to make up 10 times the observed mass, i.e. 18,400 electrons per proton.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's just flat-out false. There's no equivocation, no way around it - it's just not true. Here's an explicit counterexample:

[latex]$\vec B(x,y, t) = a(t) y \hat x + b(t) x \hat y$[/latex].

If a and b are constants, nothing changes. But give them any time dependence at all (except a/b is constant) and the field lines reconnect at x=y=0. Draw a picture if you're not capable of doing the math (yes, MM, that means you).

Before we can talk about what "connects" and "reconnects" at various locations, I need to ask you two basic "physics" questions, starting with the same question I put to tusenfem.

In terms of actual "physics" and physical things, what exactly *DO* you think these formulas relate to *if* not the charged particles of the plasma and not the photons of the EM field? Inquiring minds really want to know.

In terms of what "physically reconnects", what *physical things(s)* are you claiming is 'reconnecting' at *ANY* location in plasma?

I expect you to answer these two question too DRD.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Astronomers do not ignore the effects of electrons in space. They are aware of what they do and recognize them when they see them.

No you don't or you would simply agree with me that these are "Birkeland currents" in space. The fact you drag your heals, kicking and screaming, and attempt to explain them *ANY* other way demonstrates that you are incorrect on this point.

You'd "understand" the "cause" of solar wind. You'd recognize the "cause" of jets and coronal loops. You'd understand something about what drives the events in our own solar system as well as recognize their effect *outside* of the solar system. You *refuse* to recognize it's effects either inside our own solar system, and outside of our solar system. In fact you go out of your way *NOT* to recognize the effects of "current flow" in astronomy.

I want to hear each and every single one of you answer the questions I put to Sol and DRD. I may never be as efficient at math as any of you, but when it comes to physics, your side seems pretty clueless. There's no point in talking about the math until we all comprehend the physical processes going on inside the plasma.

Particles reconnect. Circuits reconnect. Magnetic fields lack physical substance (other than perhaps photons) and they are physically *incapable* of "reconnecting" other than via a simple act of passing kinetic energy (from photon) to ions and electrons in the plasma. Once you folks figure that out, we talk about the math, but if you don't have a clue about the physical processes going on in the plasma, there is no way to have a rational discussion about the math and what it relates to in terms of actual *PHYSICS* and real physical things.

 

[tusenfem]

MHD theory is all about the study of the particles, movements and properties of plasma.

Ehhhhhhhh, WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MHD is an approximation of plasma physics. The approximation is such that it has averaged the equations of plasma physics and loses its application when you want to look at scales smaller than the largest Larmor radius, or at time scales shorter than then the slowest gyro period. The fact that you claim that MHD studies particles in a plasma is preposterous.

Please, show us what the requirements for MDH are!

The more I read your messages, the more I find that you have "studied" Michael Mozina plasma physics, which is totally detached from real science and of Alfven.

The movement of charged particles creates "magnetic fields', but that EM field is carried by photons. The only "things" that MHD theory describe or can describe are the particles of plasma (the electrons/protons/ect) and the photons that make up the EM field. You don't even seem to understand *WHAT* these formulas relate to in terms of actual physical things like photons and the actual particles of plasma. In terms of actual "physics" and physical things, what exactly *DO* you think these formulas relate to if not the charged particles of the plasma and not the photons of the EM field? Inquiring minds really want to know.

(my bold)
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! MHD has an H which stands for hydro, this theory describes the plasma as a fluid NOT as particles.

 

[Reality Check]

No you don't or you would simply agree with me that these are "Birkeland currents" in space. The fact you drag your heals, kicking and screaming, and attempt to explain them *ANY* other way demonstrates that you are incorrect on this point.

I do not agree with you because you have not stated any evidence for your assertion (as usual).

Please cite the papers that state that there have been Birkeland currents detected in space (other than planetary magnetospheres).

This is not me "kicking and screaming" It is the scientists who actually analyzed the data coming to a conclusion consistent with the laws of physics.
As the article you have not actually understood (just looked at the pretty picture again MM ) states

Astronomers have known for some time that many molecular clouds are filamentary structures whose shapes are suspected to be sculpted by a balance between the force of gravity and magnetic fields. In making theoretical models of these clouds, most astrophysicists have treated them as spheres rather than finger-like filaments. However, a theoretical treatment published in 2000 by Drs. Jason Fiege and Ralph Pudritz of McMaster University suggested that when treated properly, filamentary molecular clouds should exhibit a helical magnetic field around the long axis of the cloud. This is the first observational confirmation of this theory.

 

[Reality Check]

How many electrons make up dark matter

First asked 25 July 2009
According to the post from Michael Mozina below, he may think that all or a part of dark matter is made up of electrons in galaxies. However the smiley may mean that he is just joking (please tell us if that is so MM)

What would the observable effects of electrons in a galaxy having enough mass to account for the observation of "missing" matter in them?

The amount of invisible matter in a galaxy is measured to be ~100 times the normal matter. To make the math easy just add enough electrons to a galaxy to make up 100 times the observed mass, i.e. 184,000 electrons per proton.


You may not be aware of some simple physics:

1. Plasma is overall electrically neutral (quasi neutral).
2. This means that for every electron there is a proton.
3. The mass of an electron is 1840 times less than that of a proton.
4. Therefore the mass of electrons (detected or not) in that gas cloud is 0.06% of the mass of the cloud.

And of course galaxies are thought to be overall electrically neutral (I would be interested in any papers you can come up that say otherwise). So the same argument leads to the mass of electrons being 1 in 1840 parts of the mass of a galaxy. Ditto for galaxy groups, clusters, super clusters and the universe.

That is not a statistical error, that is a category or hypothesis error, so how do you demonstrate that the hypotesis is wrong? Or an error in measurement methodology.

1. How do they under sample baryonic matter for example?

Maybe the simply underestimate the number of electrons flowing through a galaxy and it has nothing to do with baryonic material, and everything to do with the non baryonic materials that Alfven suggested?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I do not agree with you because you have not stated any evidence for your assertion (as usual).

Didn't you just demonstrate my point? I should not and would not have to point out that high speed solar wind, those million degree coronal loops, those "jets", those "double layer explosions", you would simply see them for yourself if you "recognized" the presence of electrons when you saw them. I wouldn't have to sit here and beat you over the head with evidence which you then refuse to acknowledge, like Birkeland's "prediction" of a high speed solar wind between the solar surface and the heliosphere (space).

Please cite the papers that state that there have been Birkeland currents detected in space (other than planetary magnetospheres).

How about that "slinky". What do you suppose makes and sustains those helix shaped magnetic fields?

This is not me "kicking and screaming" It is the scientists who actually analyzed the data coming to a conclusion consistent with the laws of physics.

No, it's "kicking and screaming". The whole bunch of you *REFUSE* to acknowledge the electrical nature of the universe and you're over here crusading against the idea in this forum. DRD and tusenfem are the grand inquisitors of all of cyberspace in fact. Don't tell me you folks recognize current flow when you see it, because that is simply not true.

Not once did you acknowledge these jets and solar wind and atmospheric discharges were predicted by Birkeland, or acknowledge their parallel in any satellite image. It's absurd how far out of your way you will go to *NOT* recognize and not accept the effect of electrical current in our solar system and universe.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ehhhhhhhh, WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I want to hear Sol and DRD respond to this question as well. I want to see if they are as clueless as you are.

 

[tusenfem]

I want to hear Sol and DRD respond to this question as well. I want to see if they are as clueless as you are.

That would be fun! Let's ask Tim Thompson too.

You have studied Alfvén, and you don't know that MDH is a fluid approximation of plasma physics, and thus that individual particles are meaningless in that theory. Talking about clueless.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That would be fun! Let's ask Tim Thompson too.

You have studied Alfvén, and you don't know that MDH is a fluid approximation of plasma physics, and thus that individual particles are meaningless in that theory. Talking about clueless.

You have never explained to me what you think these formulas relate to (physically) if not the electrons, ion and photons of the EM field. I'm really curious now what you believe all this math relates to exactly?

By all means, let's ask Tim the same questions I put to Sol and DRD. I'd like to hear everyone's answer in fact.

Did you and Tim sit down and look that image on the DVD that I specified, the one where the loops come up through the photosphere and light up the photosphere in the process? I did list the timestamp of the image awhile back.

 

[Reality Check]

How about that "slinky". What do you suppose makes and sustains those helix shaped magnetic fields?

The movement of charges in the quasineutral plasma of the gas cloud.

I take it from your silence that you are actually serious about the following claim?
In that case I will add it to your list of unanswered questions.
First asked 25 July 2009
According to the post from Michael Mozina below, he may think that all or a part of dark matter is made up of electrons in galaxies. However the smiley may mean that he is just joking (please tell us if that is so MM)

What would the observable effects of electrons in a galaxy having enough mass to account for the observation of "missing" matter in them?

The amount of invisible matter in a galaxy is measured to be ~100 times the normal matter. To make the math easy just add enough electrons to a galaxy to make up 100 times the observed mass, i.e. 184,000 electrons per proton.



You may not be aware of some simple physics:

1. Plasma is overall electrically neutral (quasi neutral).
2. This means that for every electron there is a proton.
3. The mass of an electron is 1840 times less than that of a proton.
4. Therefore the mass of electrons (detected or not) in that gas cloud is 0.06% of the mass of the cloud.

And of course galaxies are thought to be overall electrically neutral (I would be interested in any papers you can come up that say otherwise). So the same argument leads to the mass of electrons being 1 in 1840 parts of the mass of a galaxy. Ditto for galaxy groups, clusters, super clusters and the universe.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Originally Posted by Dancing David
That is not a statistical error, that is a category or hypothesis error, so how do you demonstrate that the hypotesis is wrong? Or an error in measurement methodology.

1. How do they under sample baryonic matter for example?

Maybe the simply underestimate the number of electrons flowing through a galaxy and it has nothing to do with baryonic material, and everything to do with the non baryonic materials that Alfven suggested?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The movement of charges in the quasineutral plasma of the gas cloud.

If it were "quasi-neutral", it would not create the persistent magnetic fields. Hoy. What doublespeak.

I take it from your silence that you are actually serious about the following claim?

No, I didn't think you'd take me seriously to the point of absurdity. Sure you probably underestimate the mass of electrons in the ISM just like you underestimate everything else, but I do not believe all the missing mass is found in the lowly electron, and not all forms of "current flow" involve "electrons".

Care to answer either to the two questions I posed to everyone else yet? I've never seen the whole lot of you get so quiet so fast. You must all be scared silly. I guess the moment you admit it's all related the movement of charged particles and carrier particles of the EM field, you'll have to cop to the fact it's "particle reconnection" and ultimately "circuit reconnection". Is that the reason nobody else wants to answer these questions?