Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

What kind of idiocy is this.

If you didn't use loaded language, you'd be defenseless.

Are you sure MM that you are not also Sol88? Because he stated exactly the same stupid thing that you claimed here.

Wow, the term "idiocy" and "stupid" ad homs in just three sentences, with a paranoid delusion in between. How cute. I've explained to you now at least once before that I am not Sol88. Are you paranoid or what?

Quasi-neutrality and currents are totally unrelated in the following way:

They are unrelated to events inside our solar system because the whole thing is one big "current carrying" plasma, complete with million mile per hours charged particles.

So quasi-neutrality does not prevent the plasma from carrying a current.

So you still can't seem to identify electrons when they heat plasma to millions of degrees inside of our own solar system. Why should I have any confidence that you would find and recognize "dark" electrons if you can't see the "brightly lit" kind?

Did you look at the specific image with a NASA time stamp of April 15th 2001, 13:55:01 from about 30:05 on the video? Yes or no? What did you "observe" in that image?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope. Since MHD is by definition the coupling of Maxwell's equations and the Navier-Stokes equations and neither of these allude to any specific information on the particles involved then MHD can quite clearly not include a single particle perspective. As has been pointed out to you previously, the clue is in the name.

So what? That changes absolutely nothing. The plasma is still composed of individual particles. There are only three basic particles present in the plasma that might 'reconnect', electrons, ions and the carrier particle of the EM field. That's it folks. There are no other physical "things" that could possibly "reconnect" in the plasma. It's all "particle reconnection" at the point where the circuits "reconnect". It's still not "magnetic reconnection" because not one of you can tell me what differentiates "magnetic reconnection" from any ordinary particle interactions, or induction. There are only three "things" that can possibly reconnect, and all of them are "particles".

 

[GeeMack]

Wow, the term "idiocy" and "stupid" ad homs in just three sentences, with a paranoid delusion in between.

Once more, an ad hominem would be if he was saying you're wrong because of your idiocy or because you're stupid. It's not an ad hominem because here he was saying you're wrong, too. Your wrongness, and continued insistence on staying wrong, demonstrates your idiocy and stupidity.

Get it?

Now when are you going to take down that running difference graph from your web site? You know, the one that you can't explain? The one that doesn't in any way support the idea that the Sun has a solid surface? You know, that image that you can't support by pointing to an objective experiment. One that other people can perform and agree with your conclusion that you can see a few thousand kilometers through an opaque plasma by looking at a graphical mathematical model created using data acquired from several thousand kilometers above that opaque plasma?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Appartently you forgot, we downloaded the DVD that you mentioned, and looked at the times that you mentioned.

Who is "we"? Did did I miss anyone else?

I wrote a message several pages ago where I went through what I saw on the DVD.

You never explained to me what you saw at 13:55:01 on April 15th, 2001 on that video. How about a brief verbal description of what you see in that specific image?

It seemed that the times that you gave us were incorrect, or the specific DVD that you told us to download was the wrong one.

Well, I didn't cite a timestamp of a specific image, but I've corrected that now.

Anyway, both Tim and I

Did I miss a post from Tim on this topic? The last I heard, Tim had not burned the image to DVD yet or seen the images I cited or selected and had not seen the April 15th 2001 image with the 13:55:01 time stamp.

were unable to see the features that you were telling us to look at, as at the times you indicated the things you mentioned were not there. You were going to put images on your website, you said, then you could not grab images, which you can actually do easily, just by using the print screen function of your pc and then paste it into ACDC or Irfanview or whatever image program you have.

Um, it's evidently not that easy on my machine or I assure you that I'd post you a link. Maybe you have a different DVD player that will allow you to capture the DVD image, but I didn't have any luck trying to capture that image from my DVD player. How about you show us how easily you can do that and just snip out he pick with the date stamp of 13:55:01 on April 15th, 2001 at about the 30:05 mark? It's possible your player will allow you to do that, but mine will not, not even using various screen capture programs. It could be related to the DVD player at my end and perhaps you'll have better luck than I have had, but I assure that that the print screen function doesn't allow me to capture that image.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your wrongness, and continued insistence on staying wrong, demonstrates your idiocy and stupidity.

Hey, I found your theme song Geemack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv9VKKXwVxU

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why should we waste our time?

Oh, I forgot that you're an "expert" on every topic without reading or studying or looking at anything. You evidently get all your (highly accurate) information via osmosis.

You know that two people

Which post of Tim's did I miss? I count *ONE* person who's claimed to have even seen the video and so far he's said nothing about the specific image in question.

have already looked at the video where you stated this "white light flare" existed and could not see any such thing.

You'd have to be blind to miss the flare in the 13:55:01 image on April 15th 2001 at about the 30:05 mark on the video, or maybe just too "lazy" to bother.

So you either

It had to be me eh?

[*]Told them to download the wrong video or

Nope. I cited the right video.

[*]Told them to look at the wrong place in the right video or

Well, you could "blame" me I suppose for not citing the specific image on the video based on a NASA time stamp, but I've fixed that oversight already.

[*]The "white light flare" does not exists except in your mind.

Oh no. It's clearly visible in the image.

[/LIST]Given your track record ("mountain ranges" in the corona from RD animations!), I would go for the last.

Given your proven track record of not studying the subject and getting all your information via osmosis, I don't put much value in most of your opinions. If you had actually seen the SOHO RD image archives *BEFORE* you started playing devils advocate, or you had actually downloaded the video I cited, your opinions wouldn't seem so, well, "laughable". You can't study something or learn anything without making an effort.

As you know we have addressed all of the visual evidence. The problem that you have with understanding it is your problem not ours.

Not one of you have "addressed the visual evidence". Tusenfem's handwaves aside, nobody has even claimed to have seen the image, and all tusenfem said about it is that he could not see the flare at all. *I* don't have a problem because I took the time to download and watch the images and I've now cited a specific frame for you to look at. I can't make you look at it, or comment on it, but I can darn well stop you from claiming you "addressed the visual evidence", because that never happened.

 

[Ziggurat]

I missed this before, but it's pretty rich

Yes I would, and of course the "properties" (like the freezing point) of water are of interest. For instance, water does not behave in space at all the way "Newtons theories" might expect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaHLwla2WiI

What makes you think any of that behavior is non-Newtonian?

Why doesn't the water crush the air inside the bubble?

Why would you think it should? Why would you think anyone else would think it should? Seriously, Michael, what misconceptions are you operating under? You are deeply confused, dear boy. That video is neat to look at, but NOTHING in it is surprising.

Of course, you've badly misinterpreted the significance of that video before, when you tried to use it to argue for the gravitational stability of a shell. But it's quite amusing to see you recycle it to try to back up another claim of yours.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How about a quick show of hands...

How many of you besides tusenfem have actually downloaded the DVD in question?

 

[Tubbythin]

So what? That changes absolutely nothing.

Sol said (though of course he meant dihydrogen monoxide):

It's [MHD] precisely NOT about the study of particles, any more than studying tsunamis is about hydrogen dioxide molecules.

To which you said:

False.

So the so what of my point:

Nope. Since MHD is by definition the coupling of Maxwell's equations and the Navier-Stokes equations and neither of these allude to any specific information on the particles involved then MHD can quite clearly not include a single particle perspective. As has been pointed out to you previously, the clue is in the name.

...is that you were wrong. when you said

False.

Maybe, since you were wrong, you should learn your lesson and stop with all the ridiculous comments like:

Now we know why you don't understand anything at all. You don't have the first clue that Alfven himself applied his formulas to *INDIVIDUAL* particles. Sheesh. You folks are *SAD*.

It'd cause you much less embarassment next time you completely mess up an argument.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sol said (though of course he meant dihydrogen monoxide):

His statement is wrong for more than a single reason. There are no "magneto" effects in water or tsunamis, but even the properties of water molecules are useful in studying the flow of the wave in water. It's wrong for at least two scientific reasons that I did happen to catch. It's wrong for three reasons evidently.

There are only three types of particles present in plasma, electrons, ion and photons. Take your pick but you can only pick these three physical "things" to create "reconnection" because they are the only three things present in the plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I missed this before, but it's pretty rich



What makes you think any of that behavior is non-Newtonian?

What makes you think it is? Isn't water heavier than air? Why doesn't the heavier material sink to the core, and the light materials rise to the surface? Do you mean to suggest that *other* forces like the EM field and surface tension have an influence on the arrangement of elements, not just gravity?

 

[GeeMack]

Hey, I found your theme song Geemack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv9VKKXwVxU

You're demonstrably ignorant and a proven liar, Michael, and you can stay that way forever as far as I'm concerned. I'm only continuing to point out your inability to support your insane fantasy. And if you had half a mote of rationality, you'd understand that that's exactly what all these other people in the thread are doing, too. You think they're talking science with you. Wake up, man! You're saying stupid things, one after the other after the next, and they're all telling you you're wrong!

But back to the subject at hand. When are you going to take down that running difference graph? After all, it doesn't meet your own standards of evidence. Hell, it doesn't meet anyone's scientific standards, and your standards aren't even what most people would consider scientific.

 

[Tubbythin]

His statement is wrong for more than a single reason. There are no "magneto" effects in water or tsunamis, but even the properties of water molecules are useful in studying the flow of the wave in water. It's wrong for at least two scientific reasons that I did happen to catch. It's wrong for three reasons evidently.

There are only three types of particles present in plasma, electrons, ion and photons. Take your pick but you can only pick these three physical "things" to create "reconnection" because they are the only three things present in the plasma.

I'll repeat again since you failed to understand the first time:

Since MHD is by definition the coupling of Maxwell's equations and the Navier-Stokes equations and neither of these allude to any specific information on the particles involved then MHD can quite clearly not include a single particle perspective. As has been pointed out to you previously, the clue is in the name.

You claimed that Sol's statement that MHD didn't involve single particles was false. But since, by definition, MHD cannot include single particle behaviour, your claim is trivially wrong. Your semantic objection to the term "magnetic reconnection" is utterly irrelevant to the fact that you were wrong.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're demonstrably ignorant

This coming from the guy that believes he has explained every pixel of every frame of that RD image and said "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?"

I'm afraid that you have absolutely zero scientific credibility. Most of the rest of the partipants in this conversation act rationally and at least make some attempt to focus on the science. You on the other hand are so far out in sleazy debate tactic left field that you're in a class all by yourself.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You claimed that Sol's statement that MHD didn't involve single particles was false.

His statement is false for two different reasons. MHD involves *LOTS* of single particles and his analogy is also false because the study of tsunamis requires some knowledge about the properties of the individual water molecules. Are the molecules 'frozen' in place or do they form a liquid for instance becomes an important question. The same is true of plasma particularly the charge of the particle in question. You can't ignore the properties of individual particles because they have an effect on the movements of the plasma.

But since, by definition, MHD cannot include single particle behaviour,

The theory, including Maxwell's equations, do allow us to predict the path of single particles. Alfven did it all the time.

your claim is trivially wrong.

How so? Was Alfven incapable of applying Maxwell's equations to individual particles?

Your semantic objection to the term "magnetic reconnection" is utterly irrelevant to the fact that you were wrong.

The whole point of my objection to that term, and my preference for "particle reconnection" relates directly to the fact that there are only three "physical" particles to chose from to "reconnect" in plasma, specifically electrons, ion and photons. Period. These are the only "physical things" that are capable of "reconnecting" in plasma.

There's an old saying "Sol can't see the forest for all the trees. In this case sol refuses to see the water molecules in the water, or the *PARTICLES* inside the plasma which these formulas attempt to model. The whole conversation began when I asked tusenfem what he thought these formulas related to if not the plasma particles and the carrier particles of the EM field. These formulas all relate to one of three things, electrons, ions and the carrier particles of the EM field. Period. That's all there is to choose from.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Alfven was in the MDH universe, in which reconnection cannot happen, reconnection does not exist in MDH, if you write a code you cannot use an MHD code to model reconnection, because there are things missing in MDH because it is an approximate theory.

In other words, MHD theory doesn't justify your faith in "magnetic reconnection", you can't claim reconnection theory is even related the MHD theory, and the only actual "thing" that is 'missing' from MHD theory is a quantum understanding that EM field are composed of "carrier particles" called "photons.

 

[Reality Check]

Oh, I forgot that you're an "expert" on every topic without reading or studying or looking at anything. You evidently get all your (highly accurate) information via osmosis.

And of course looking at pretty pictures and totally getting what they are wrong just like you MM !

Which post of Tim's did I miss? I count *ONE* person who's claimed to have even seen the video and so far he's said nothing about the specific image in question.

You are right. Tim downloaded the video. I guess he is still looking for your flare. Or he may have given up on it because the exchange between you and tusenfem makes it clear that your information about the DVD and location of the flare is wrong.

So, I downloaded and burned the DVD a while ago, and I just checked it.
Now supposedly I am to look at something at 30 minutes and 4 seconds.
I guess it is at "play all movies" (combined X Flares part 1, part 2, filament flares, flare evolution) let me click on it and see if I can get to 30:04.
At 29:30 images of a sunspot (I knew the Sun was Dutch!!), orange sun, black spots, gray umbrae
At 30:00 we see the spot rotating to the limb.
At 30:04 .... nothing
Guess I am watching the wrong movie?

Oh, in an earlier message it is at 30:10, 30:56 and 45:15
At 30:10 the spot has reached the limb
At 30:30 the movie changes to flares nice arcades building up at the beginning something "shoots away" at 30:32
At 30:40 change to green showing an loop and bright footpoints and some kind of streamer.
At 30:41, the loop has evolved into an arcade. This arcade is dynamic, but little emission in it, the flows seem to take place mainly in the lower shorter loops. Interesting to see.
at 30:52 change to orange again and sunspots near the limb.
at 30:56 nothing just a sunspot going to the limb

Let's go to 45 minutes
at 45:00 a black and white image of a sunspot going to the limb and as it reaches the limb there seems to be emission "around" the sunspot at 45:08

at 45:30 change to Xray emission from loops, showing flows through the loops (i.e. moving bright blobs along the field lines)
at 45:49 a nice build up of a large loop
at 45:58 something that looks like a flare
then lots of activity in the magnetic loops, "flaring" and "throwing plasma around" and as it it a top view of the action, we cannot really see what is happening completely, although there are events that appear to eject stuff upward, which "blind" the camera now and then.
It's facinating to watch all that activity and some of the things can probably be described by Alfvén's "unwinding of the flux tube" and some can be described by the Kaastra model of a flare.

at about 50 mins there is a side view of a region with loops. a nice build up of an arcade until 52:09 or so and then an explosion with stuff being ejected upward, out of the image (i.e. away from the sun), and the rest of the loops are short again, in agreement with the Kaastra model. At the same time there is activity in the smaller loops, maybe in agreement with the Alfvén model.

Note that there seem to be large explosions that eject matter but it gets "bend around" further away. This is because some of these flaring loops are covered with larger arcades that are virtually devoid of plasma, but will stop some of the ejecta and lead them back to the "surface" of the Sun.

So, what exactly was I supposed to be looking at here?

I am sure I am interpreting it all completely wrong.

and in reply to your reply:

I downloaded exactly the file that you told us to download, FlaresDVD.img, that was about 3.5 GB large.

Don't bother to put in on your website. This is another show that you are totally incapable of giving exaxt information.

Of course do magnetic loops come out of the photosphere, they are created in the Sun and then emerge through buoyancy forces (which you probably do not believe). If there are currents flowing in the loops, then from mainstream it is expected that the loops light up. The loops at their highest points are far above the photosphere.

Apparently, you cannot even envision this simple event. You seem to see somthing magically there, which is not there. I have seen enough flux tubes come out of the sun in the DVD that you told me to download. There was nothing magically there.

I am sure that the DVD I watched shows nothing else as what you supposedly have seen. This is all a farce, you probably just made it up, and now someone checked and ... it's not there. Just like the calculations of the electrons dragging along the ions in an electric field are not in the Birkeland book.

If you want to convince us, you have to at least give the correct information.

(Emphasis added)

First asked 29 July 2009
It looks liketusenfem is looking at the DVD that you cited.

Why are the flares not obvious at 30:04 into the movie?

 

[GeeMack]

This coming from the guy that believes he has explained every pixel of every frame of that RD image and said "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?"

I'm afraid that you have absolutely zero scientific credibility. Most of the rest of the partipants in this conversation act rationally and at least make some attempt to focus on the science. You on the other hand are so far out in sleazy debate tactic left field that you're in a class all by yourself.

Michael, enough with the tantrums already. When are you going to take down that running difference graph on your web site?

Scientific credibility? Nobody here, or at LMSAL for that matter, or in any discussions we've been involved in on any other forums, have ever had any doubt about my ability to effectively explain running difference graphics. Well, that is nobody except you.

And don't you think it's funny that the only person who doesn't understand and agree with my assessment is the same person who hasn't been able to explain the graphs himself? You can't explain how you can see anything in any graphic presentation of a mathematical calculation when the data was acquired thousands and thousands of kilometers from the stuff you think you see. And you certainly can't explain every last pixel like I and so many other people have.

But, if you'd like for me to explain, again, any particular pixel, just name one.

And that lie you told earlier in the thread about other people disagreeing with me? Are you going to refute that by showing the quotes where they disagree, or can we just let that rest as the lie that it appears to be?

Wiping the floor with you here, Michael. Got anything besides more ignorance and whining? Like, maybe, some kind of quantitative support for your delusion?

 

[sol invictus]

his analogy is also false because the study of tsunamis requires some knowledge about the properties of the individual water molecules.

As you get more and more desperate to pretend you have a clue, you make stupider and stupider claims. This one might take the cake, though.

I suggest you travel back in time and tell Newton, the Bernoullis, Venturi, D'Alembert, Navier, etc. etc. etc. that all their work on fluids and waves was nonsense, because they didn't know about dihydrogen monoxide (thanks, tubby!).

Hell, if you knew ANYTHING about the subjects you're continually lying about, you'd know that the equations describing fluid dynamics (including MHD) are called the Navier-Stokes equations... and Navier died (in 1836) right around when molecules were first starting to be hypothesized and their properties understood. It wasn't until Einstein's paper in 1905 that the Brownian motion of particles in water was understood to be due to molecular collisions... and that was long after the full equations of hydrodynamics were known.

So no - you don't need to know about molecules to study tsunamis. The idea is, frankly, stupid.

There's an old saying "Sol can't see the forest for all the trees. In this case sol refuses to see the water molecules in the water, or the *PARTICLES* inside the plasma which these formulas attempt to model.

And there's another ridiculous lie. I've said clearly from the beginning that hydrodynamics and MHD are approximations to the true physics in which one treats these substances as continuous fluids. I think you simply don't understand what that even means, because you don't understand any of this stuff.

This is a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Reality Check]

These are some of the questions that MM has been asked and seems incapable of answering other than by spouting unsupported assertions.

1. What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected?
   First asked 6th July 2009
2. A post that seemed to retract his "mountain ranges" on the TRACE 171A RD animation evoked this question:
   What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona.
   First asked 6th July 2009
3. From tusenfem:
   Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkelands book?
   First asked 7th July 2009
4. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source" and in the same post
5. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
   First asked 7th July 2009
6. Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible?
   First asked 8 July 2009
   See this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.
7. Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
   First asked 10 July 2009
8. Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question?
   First asked 10 July 2009
9. More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth
   First asked 13 July 2009
10. Formation of the iron surface
    First asked 13 July 2009
11. How much is "mostly neon" MM?
    First asked 13 July 2009
12. Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?
    First asked 13 July 2009
13. Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina
    First asked 13 July 2009
14. Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina
    First asked 13 July 2009
    He does link to his copy of Alfvén and Carlqvist's 1966 paper (Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and A theory of Solar Flares). This does not model what we now know a real solar flare acts like.
15. Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested?
    First asked 14 July 2009
16. Is Saturn the Sun?
    First asked 14 July 2009
    (Birkelands Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings but MM compares it to to the Sun).
17. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
    First asked 14 July 2009
    MM has one reply in which is mistakenly thinks that this question is about coronal loops.
18. What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model?
    First asked 17 July 2009
19. What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K?
    (MM states that it is not the photosphere)
    First asked 18 July 2009
20. Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles?
    First asked 18 July 2009
21. How does the "mostly neon" surface emit white light?
    First asked 19 July 2009
22. Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves?
    First asked 22 July 2009
23. Evidence for the existence of "dark" electrons
    First asked 28 July 2008
24. MHD also treats plasmas as particles and circuits according to Alfven
    First asked 29 July 2009
    Can you give a citation to where Alfven states that he derives the equations of MHD from collections of particles rather than a fluid?

Actual Answers From Michael Mozina:



Unsupported Assertions as Answers from Michal Mozina:

1. How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
   First asked 23rd June 2009
   So far just an unsupported assertion that astronomers have got the visible masses of galaxies wrong (and another reply with his usual "if we cannot detect it on Earth then it does not exist" non-science).
   Now he is on about dark electrons (see above) as an example of matter that cannot be detected!
2. Why do the composition of the "mostly neon" photoshere and the corona differ?
   First asked 22nd July 2009
   It is "mass separation" - no actual physics cited or experiments.