Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

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.

Oh, I'm glad you approve.

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.

Nobody has ever denied this point. I simply pointed out that plasmas and fluids are composed of individual particles who's "properties" influence these movements. Hoy. And to think you folks accuse me of temper tantrums.

I think you simply don't understand what that even means, because you don't understand any of this stuff.

I understand that there are three "physical things" that you can chose to "reconnect", electrons, ions, and photons. The rest of your rant is meaningless, because the properties of the particles contribute to the movements of the plasma, including charge, density, conductivity, etc. Without salts, your water molecules don't act like a plasma. Why? Conductivity. The "properties" of the material matter, even if you don't physically understand them at the time of the creation of the math formula. QM is full of such formulas.

Alfven described these current carrying events in terms of a "particle" viewpoint of MHD theory that involved "circuits" and "current flow" and "Short circuits" in plasma. It has nothing to do with "magnetic reconnection.". This whole debate begins and ends and revolves around the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that this is simply "particle reconnection", and "circuit reconnection", not magnetic reconnection. Magnetic fields are composed of the carrier particles of the EM field, namely photons. There are only things to chose from in the realm of actual physics to "reconnect" in plasmas.

 

[sol invictus]

Nobody has ever denied this point.

Actually someone just did. Who was that... I think his name was something like... Michael Mozina? Yeah, that was it.

I see you're back to your old trick of cycling through a variety of pathological liar personalities. The one thing they all have in common is they're all equally clueless when it comes to math and physics.

I understand that there are three "physical things" that you can chose to "reconnect", electrons, ions, and photons.

What the hell does that have to do with anything we were just discussing? You're back to crouching in some corner of your own head, Michael, shouting.

 

[Reality Check]

I understand that there are three "physical things" that you can chose to "reconnect", electrons, ions, and photons.

I would be interested in how you "reconnect" electrons.
Do you squeeze them together until you get one fat electron ?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are right. Tim downloaded the video. I guess he is still looking for your flare.

Somehow I get the impression he'll be more observant than tusenfem.

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.

Naw, Tim isn't like that in my experience. He tends to like to see things and read things for himself and then make up his own mind. You seem to really 'enjoy' simply 'guessing' without ever reviewing the suggested materials. Most folks aren't like that.

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

Well, you'll have to describe "obvious". To me it was pretty darn "obvious", but I had to pause the frames a few times and make sure I was capturing the specific moment of the flare. Frankly I'm 'underwhelmed" at your side's inability to notice much detail in any sort of solar image. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? I mean you do have to at least look at the images, and that excludes you altogether in this case.

Now of course there is only one specific frame of the image segment that shows the moment of the flare, and you will also have to know how to "pause' and rewind. That's typically true for the other segments as well. You do have to pay attention to detail and frankly I've never seen any of you pay attention to much detail with the possible exception of Tim.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually someone just did. Who was that... I think his name was something like... Michael Mozina? Yeah, that was it.

No, what I said that same EM fields and MHD theory apply to particles and circuits and the "properties" of the particles make a difference, like charge. The concept of "circuits" and the "particle" perspective are something that Alfven himself used to explain these solar events and never did he chalk it up to "magnetic reconnection".

What the hell does that have to do with anything we were just discussing?

Everything. We were discussing the *PHYSICAL THINGS* that could or might "reconnect" in plasma. I asked you what physical things could or might physically "reconnect" in plasma. There are only three of them to choose from and all of the are "particles". It is therefore "particle" reconnection you're describing and there is no way around this fact. You can tap dance around the trivia till the cows come home, but it won't change the fact that only "physical" things "reconnect". You've also never explained what is physically unique about "magnetic reconnection' that makes it unique or different from induction or particle interactions in plasma. Of course the term "circuit reconnection" is a better term because it highlights the fact that the total circuit energy will play a role at the point of physical reconnection.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

Er, why is #7 still on your list? Let me guess? You didn't actually read the paper I cited for you or Bruce's work, or Alfven's work on this topic?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, enough with the tantrums already.

This statement comes from the guy that can't even post without the crutch of the personal insult.

When are you going to take down that running difference graph on your web site?

When are you going to figure out it's not a "graph"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

Well, he definitely found the right segment:

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

Well, evidently tusenfem isn't particularly attentive to detail. He made no mention at all of the flare that occurred in these images and it definitely occurs in the image segment that he sites and that he watched. It's found in the 15:55:01 image and there is something rather "unique" about the footprint patterns in the photosphere that relates to those gray umbrea.

 

[Ziggurat]

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?

Oh, I get it. You think "Newtonian" means just Newtonian gravity. Clue for the clueless: it doesn't.

But do you understand anything about scaling, Michael? Surface tension and viscosity do not scale with volume. Gravity does. Get small enough, and surface tension will dominate for a liquid. Get large enough, gravity will dominate. The fact that self-gravity is irrelevant for the behavior of a small water droplet says nothing about what we should expect for a stellar mass object. Which, according to you, isn't even liquid to begin with. You've claimed it's made up of solids and plasmas, neither of which have surface tension. So what the hell is your point, Michael, other than demonstrating (once again) that you've got no clue what you're talking about?

Oh, and you still haven't quantified any of your beliefs.

 

[Reality Check]

Well, evidently tusenfem isn't particularly attentive to detail. He made no mention at all of the flare that occurred in these images and it definitely occurs in the image segment that he sites and that he watched. It's found in the 15:55:01 image and there is something rather "unique" about the footprint patterns in the photosphere that relates to those gray umbrea.

In other words it is something that it so obvious that you can see it and yet so invisible that tusenfem cannot see it.
Really good science !

What do you mean "unique"?
Have you brought this "unique" feacture to the attention of actual astronomers?

That "15:55:01" sounds like a timestamp on the movie.
According to tusenfem you stated 30:04 before (and 30:10 and 30:56 and 45:15) which sound like times from the beginning of the movie. Are you sure that the movie starts at 15:24:57 to give 15:55:01 at an elapsed time of 30:04?

 

[Michael Mozina]

In other words it is something that it so obvious that you can see it and yet so invisible that tusenfem cannot see it.
Really good science !

One does have to pay attention to detail. Your side seems to find it nearly impossible to pick out flying stuff in CME images and background stars in RD images. I don't really have much faith in your attention to detail.

What do you mean "unique"?

You'll have to watch the video to find out.

Have you brought this "unique" feacture to the attention of actual astronomers?

I don't know. Are there any actual astronomers involved in this discussion?

That "15:55:01" sounds like a timestamp on the movie.

It's a timestamp from LMSAL evidently. It's displayed in the bottom left corner of the image.

According to tusenfem you stated 30:04 before (and 30:10 and 30:56 and 45:15) which sound like times from the beginning of the movie. Are you sure that the movie starts at 15:24:57 to give 15:55:01 at an elapsed time of 30:04?

The original timeline of "30:04" was in fact a timeline from the DVD player, not from the images themselves. My bad. It was evidently too vague for tusenfem. The 13:51:01 number is time that is actually stamped into the video itself so that you can be sure to find the exact image I'm talking about.

The 30:04 timeline (and the other times I listed) are rough estimates relative to the DVD player. In retrospect it would probably have been better for me to provide the specific LMSAL timestamp on each of the images in question. It should not have been something I had to nail down to a specific image however if he was being the least bit attentive to detail. It's pretty darn obvious when the flare occurs and it does occur during that segment.

 

[Michael Mozina]

...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),

Emphasis mine.

Well in fairness to tusenfum, he's not completely inattentive to detail. That specific observation he nailed. The stuff comes up and through the photosphere, exactly as we would expect if the explosion comes from under the photosphere.

 

[Reality Check]

One does have to pay attention to detail. Your side seems to find it nearly impossible to pick out flying stuff in CME images and background stars in RD images. I don't really have much faith in your attention to detail.

There is not flying stuff in the
Every one (including me and you) who has watched the TRACE RD animation has seen the "flying stuff". It is even mentioned by the astronomers who took the images that the RD animation was constructed from:

This shows the ejected material very well, first flying upward at several hundred kilometers per second. Later, some of it is seen to fall back as a dark cloud.

Every one (including me and you) who has watched the LASCO (SOHO) RD animation has seen the "stars" in the background and realized that the "stars" are the record of the changing positions of the stars in the original images.

It is only you who thinks that everything in the RD animations that looks like something is that actual thing.
You want to see actual stars but the real stars are in the original images.
You want to see actual flying stuff but the flying stuff (CME) is in the original images.
You want to see mountain ranges but there are no mountain ranges in the original images and it is clear that your "mountain ranges" are areas of cooling plasma (dark in the RD animation) and heating plasma (light in the RD animation) on either side of flares.

Your side seems to find it totally impossible to answer a question about a simple RD animation. So here it is again.
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.

• What does the RD animation show?
• Is whatever the RD animation shows in the original images?

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

 

[Reality Check]

Well in fairness to tusenfum, he's not completely inattentive to detail. That specific observation he nailed. The stuff comes up and through the photosphere, exactly as we would expect if the explosion comes from under the photosphere.

And now you are quote mining. The full quote is:

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.

I would say (tusenfem can confirm) that this is a statement that the plasma in the arcade above the photosphere is ejected away from the Sun and then the loops get shorter.

 

[tusenfem]

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.

It is noted that instead of admitting that quasi-neutrality does not prevent a plasma of carrying current, you come up with just nonsense. Please show us in (mathematical) detail how you see that quasi-neutrality prevents currents outside our solar system.

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?

This does not even make sense, MM, looking at all the solar physics papers about coronal loops in which currents are flowing and in which heating and electron acceleration is happening. Maybe you should refrain from getting your science info from thunderbolts and read real journals like ApJ, A&A, MNRAS, JGR, GRL.

We were discussing basic theory here, the fact that quasi-neutrality does not prevent a plasma from carrying a current. I dare you to find the opposite in Alfvén's writings. This has NOTHING to do with coronal loops or your magical pink electrons that we supposedly are not recognizing. This is just a diversion of the discussion when you find that theoretically you are out of your league.

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?

Was that time listed in my overview message? Dunno, MM, how can I be sure your time stamp is correct now, you're not really the harbinger of correct information.

So here is my list Apparently at my version of the DVD there is only the motion of a sunspot to the limb at 30:05 on the video. And apparently Tim was not able to find your "timestamps" either.

Unfortunately, I am at the Magnetospheres of the Outer Planets right now, hearing about lots of plasma physics and currents (whoddatoughthat) and electric fields, so I cannot join too much in this unending useless merry go round discussion.

 

[tusenfem]

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.

you keep on ignoring that MHD is an averaged theory. the equations for MHD do not have single particles in them they have densities. particles are smaller than the Debye sphere.

The fact that MDH breaks down on the spatial scale of the Debye sphere implicity means that the processes near the reconnection region (which is in the electron diffusion region, that is the region where the electrons decouple from the magnetic field) cannot be described by MHD.

You can moan beg and scream what you like, but that is the way it is.

 

[tusenfem]

Somehow I get the impression he'll be more observant than tusenfem.

Naw, Tim isn't like that in my experience. He tends to like to see things and read things for himself and then make up his own mind. You seem to really 'enjoy' simply 'guessing' without ever reviewing the suggested materials. Most folks aren't like that.

Well, you'll have to describe "obvious". To me it was pretty darn "obvious", but I had to pause the frames a few times and make sure I was capturing the specific moment of the flare. Frankly I'm 'underwhelmed" at your side's inability to notice much detail in any sort of solar image. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? I mean you do have to at least look at the images, and that excludes you altogether in this case.

Now of course there is only one specific frame of the image segment that shows the moment of the flare, and you will also have to know how to "pause' and rewind. That's typically true for the other segments as well. You do have to pay attention to detail and frankly I've never seen any of you pay attention to much detail with the possible exception of Tim.

As you seem to be unable to find anything on the board that has been posted. Tim commented here about your comment where he should look and could not find a thing.

 

[tusenfem]

Emphasis mine.

Well in fairness to tusenfum, he's not completely inattentive to detail. That specific observation he nailed. The stuff comes up and through the photosphere, exactly as we would expect if the explosion comes from under the photosphere.

Nobody expects a solar flare to happen below the photosphere.
That stuff comes up has nothing to do with an "explosion", up to now I have never understood what you mean here. It is buoyancy that lets magnetic loops get out, shearing motion of the footpoints that drive currents in the loops and then reconnection the lets the loop "explode" ejecting matter in the form of a magnetic cloud.
There never is an explosion under the photosphere.

You might have noticed that I wrote more about that event, not just this inadequate quote mine of yours:

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.

The explosion that takes place is clearly high above the surface of the sun and not happening in the photosphere.

So, enough, gotta pay attention now, I might miss some more currents in space.

 

[GeeMack]

When are you going to figure out it's not a "graph"?

Maybe when you meet your own standard of evidence and describe the experiment that shows how you can look at a graphic representation of a series of mathematical calculations using data taken from one place and see something in that graph that you claim is thousands upon thousands of kilometers away from where the data was obtained? Maybe when you can explain why every single pixel is the color that it is in that graph, the way that I and so many other people have done? Maybe when the folks at LMSAL who created that graph are persuaded to correct their statement that it is indeed just a graph?

But until you can demonstrate that it's anything but a graph, your continued claims that it shows some kind of surface makes you a liar, or at the very least, a deluded crackpot. So you just keep on lying, Michael. And if you ever do say anything that is scientifically correct and actually supports your nutty fantasy, see if anyone is still listening. Real scientists are objective and honest. You are neither.

So, back to business. You didn't answer the question. That's like a bad habit with you, isn't it? Here, try again. When are you going to remove that running difference graph from your web site, Michael, or explain how it meets your own demands for evidence?

One does have to pay attention to detail. Your side seems to find it nearly impossible to pick out flying stuff in CME images and background stars in RD images. I don't really have much faith in your attention to detail.

When you're the only one who sees something, Michael, something that isn't there, that's usually an optical illusion or a hallucination. Optical illusions are pretty easily explained, and once they are, most people of normal intelligence understand that what they saw isn't really there. Hallucinations, on the other hand, are something you should be seriously concerned about. Generally they're caused by things like environmental toxins, drugs, or mental illness. None of the possible causes for hallucinations, chronic hallucinations as seem to affect you anyway, can be considered a good thing. As long as you continue to see things other people don't see at all or they recognize as optical illusions, you might want to consider getting that problem properly assessed by a qualified physical or mental health professional.

 

[Dancing David]

So by "classical", I'm supposed to now limit my understanding of the EM field to what we knew in the 19th century?

[/lurk]
The irony, it burns.

And the model of the sun as a brass ball is...
[lurk]