Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

[/lurk]
The irony, it burns.

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

It's the only model that actually fits the satellite evidence.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

As far as I can see there are no white light images on that DVD. They are all EUV images.

Is that true tusenfem? Are there no visible light images on that DVD?

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

What exactly do you figure that density number relates to exactly?

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.

So that's where you stuff in your "magnetic reconnection" stuff that is unrelated to MHD theory?

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

I am not begging or screaming, I'm simply noting that the EM fields have their affect on "physical particles", and the EM field is simply composed of more "particles". This is simply a "particle reconnection' process, nothing more, nothing less. There are only three possible physical things that could or might connect, and all of them are "particles", even the carrier particle of the EM field.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nobody expects a solar flare to happen below the photosphere.

And yet stuff always comes flying up through 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.

Then it should have blown material *INTO* the photosphere, from above the photosphere, not up and out of the photosphere.

There never is an explosion under the photosphere.

Then how does that material get blown up, though, and away from the photosphere?

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

If it occurred high above the photosphere, it should have blown material *INTO*, not *AWAY FROM* the photosphere.

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

If you can't see the "brightly lit" electrons that light up the solar atmosphere, you certainly will never see the "dark" electrons.

Did you ever find that image on April 15th, 2001 at 13:55:01? If so, how about describing it for us?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

(quoting MM's post, reply, in full, for the record)

As you wish.

MM's inability, so far, to provide any objective, independently verifiable, evidence to back his (outrageous, ridiculous) claim that "MHD also treats plasmas as particles and circuits as any of Alfven's later writings will attest" is hereby noted.

DRD's inability to read or respond to the materials written by Alfven that have already been provided are so noted.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...eq=no_params&author=Alfven, Hannes&db_key=AST

Back on 27 March, 2009, in another thread, I commented that "the discussion we should be having is not about Birkeland, the solar wind, inflation, Einstein's EFE, negative pressure, etc; rather it should be about what constitutes science (or at least physics)" (I copied this in a post of mine yesterday, #1362 in this thread).

From the last few days or so, it seems that the "not about" could be "MHD, whether Alfvén included particles in his expositions on MHD, what the DVDs show, whether the photosphere is opaque or not, etc", but otherwise my conclusion seems to still ring true.

With one caveat: there seems to be ample objective evidence that several of MM's posts, with key content, contain lies, and that at least some seem to be quite deliberate. If this is so, then before we could have a discussion about what constitutes physics we would need to agree on some ground rules concerning the acceptability of lying (or not) and the consequences of doing so.

Comments?

 

[sol invictus]

With one caveat: there seems to be ample objective evidence that several of MM's posts, with key content, contain lies, and that at least some seem to be quite deliberate. If this is so, then before we could have a discussion about what constitutes physics we would need to agree on some ground rules concerning the acceptability of lying (or not) and the consequences of doing so.

Comments?

Never wrestle with a pig.

 

[Michael Mozina]

With one caveat: there seems to be ample objective evidence that several of MM's posts, with key content, contain lies, and that at least some seem to be quite deliberate.

A specific example of what you consider to be a "lie" would be helpful. I find it is often difficult to completely explain my meaning at times in a single sentence, nor is this the best medium of communication. I find you folks to be notorious at twisting a single sentence out of context. When I attempt to explain my meaning, or clarify a point, you act as though I've changed my position.

It is the case for instance that while we can study fluids without knowing "much" about their "properties", even that would necessitate we know something about the "non rigid' nature of fluids as compared to solids. We may not be able to technologically know the "physical causes" of why the fluid is not rigid, but knowing these facts is only "helpful", not harmful to fully comprehending the whole physical process. Sol seems to think he can figure out the fluid dynamics without even knowing that the fluid is "not rigid'. I suppose it is possible to understand some property (fluid /not solid) and not understand why that property exists, but unlike you folks, I like to understand the physical causes of why things work, and how they physically work. I would never suggest is it irrelevant to know why the fluid is not rigid (composed of moving particles). IMO, knowing "why" something works is always a good thing, and ignorance of cause/effect relationships is never a good thing. Sure, it's possible to study fluids without knowing much about their chemical composition, but it's always good to know more facts. I really don't comprehend your notion that it's irrelevant.

As it relates to plasma, Alfven himself began his description of MHD theory by explaining how EM fields effect the movement of individual particles. He described their movements in the field. Once he explain the movement on one particle, he then applied it to something larger, like a whole "circuit". The notion of comprehending the movement of a single particle was paramount in his presentation of MHD theory and how he specifically applied MHD theory to objects in space.

If this is so, then before we could have a discussion about what constitutes physics we would need to agree on some ground rules concerning the acceptability of lying (or not) and the consequences of doing so.

How about we do this right then and also discuss the consequences for the continued focus on individuals rather than on the physical science?

This whole conversation started because of my question about the "physical things" that might "reconnect" in plasma. Now you're all acting as though this issue doesn't even matter and some trivial detail in the discussion is all that matters.

 

[Ziggurat]

What exactly do you figure that density number relates to exactly?

Mass per volume, of course. Having problems with basic definitions again, I see.

And I'm still waiting for you to quantify any of your ideas.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Mass per volume, of course.

Mass of what? "Physical particles" by any chance? You seem to be ignoring the point here and fixating on trivia. The only physical things that exist in plasma are electrons, ions and photons. There are the only physical things that can "reconnect" in plasma, and that's been the whole point of my questions to sol and tusenfem, and all of you. There are only plasma particles and photons in the plasma that are capable of physically affecting anything. That is "particle reconnection" at it's most basic level. "Induction" has a proper scientific name and Alfven used and referred to it by it's proper name. He also worked from the "particle/circuit" perspective anytime he described plasmas in space. Why?

 

[Ziggurat]

Mass of what? "Physical particles" by any chance?

Not in a continuum model. Which MHD is.

You seem to be ignoring the point here and fixating on trivia.

Not at all. Rather, I'm pointing out what should be blatantly obvious: a continuum model doesn't need and doesn't include anything about particles. That this continuum is an approximation of the collective behavior of individual particles is irrelevant: the model itself is independent of this fact.

And I'm still waiting for you to quantify any of your ideas.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not in a continuum model. Which MHD is.

Gah. Pure dodge. There is a *PHYSICAL CAUSE* and a "physical reality" that these formulas relate to. That continuum you're talking about is composed of many "particles". The physical conditions of those 'particles' determines the density, their "rigidity", etc. Ya, you don't have to deal with them at the level of a single particle, but you can and Alfven did look at the behaviors a single particle and *THEN* described something composed of "many" of these particles, like a whole "circuit".

The rush to trivia here seems to be motivated by fear because none of you want to deal with physical fact. There are only three three things physically capable of "reconnecting' in plasma, electrons, ions and photons. All of them are "particles". There is no way you can avoid the fact that this is "particle reconnection", so you refuse to acknowledge the whole thing is full of particles with individual kinetic energy.

 

[Ziggurat]

Gah. Pure dodge. There is a *PHYSICAL CAUSE* and a "physical reality" that these formulas relate to. That continuum you're talking about is composed of many "particles".

Yes. But their individual properties are irrelevant in a continuum model. And MHD is a continuum model. Therefore the individual properties of protons and electrons is irrelevant to MHD.

The rush to trivia here seems to be motivated by fear because none of you want to deal with physical fact.

No one is scared of you, Michael. Nor of your ideas. But you are quite scared of numbers yourself. You avoid them like the plaque. You have yet to quantify a single one of your ideas.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes. But their individual properties are irrelevant in a continuum model.

So every particle in plasma behaves exactly the same way in the same EM field?

And MHD is a continuum model. Therefore the individual properties of protons and electrons is irrelevant to MHD.

How about the charge of the particle, the size of the particle, etc?

No one is scared of you, Michael. Nor of your ideas. But you are quite scared of numbers yourself. You avoid them like the plaque. You have yet to quantify a single one of your ideas.

It's pointless IMO to get fixated on the math with you folks because all of your "errors" are related to your "poor understanding" of the actual "physics" of what is occurring. I can't teach you anything about math you don't already know. I can teach you about physics because none of you seem to understand the fact that your formulas relate to "real things". You keep acting as though your formulas do not relate to real physical particles with real physical properties.

 

[Tubbythin]

His statement is false for two different reasons. MHD involves *LOTS* of single particles

Nope. MHD is an approximation to aspects of the real physical universe. An approximation that works well in appropriate situation but explicitly ignores the characteristics of individual particles.

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

No, it quite clearly doesn't.

Are the molecules 'frozen' in place or do they form a liquid for instance becomes an important question.

I'd love you to find me somebody who studies ice Tsunamis.

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.

They're not ignored. They're replaced with homogenised, macroscopic quantities like pressure (!), conductivity, density

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

Go on then...

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

Because MHD is, by definition, a macroscopic approximation.

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.

What do you mean by "physically reconnecting"? You can't just string electrons together.
Regardless, is still just a semantic argument.

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.

Nope. Maxwell's equations relate to electric and magnetic fields. The Navier-Stokes equations relate to fluids as macroscopic entities.

 

[Tubbythin]

It's pointless IMO to get fixated on the math with you folks because all of your "errors" are related to your "poor understanding" of the actual "physics" of what is occurring. I can't teach you anything about math you don't already know. I can teach you about physics because none of you seem to understand the fact that your formulas relate to "real things". You keep acting as though your formulas do not relate to real physical particles with real physical properties.

Errm, Michael. The Navier-Stokes equations involve pressure. You have illustrated to us all excellently how you have no understanding of what pressure is. Why should we possibly think you could teach us anything about this?

 

[Tubbythin]

Gah. Pure dodge. There is a *PHYSICAL CAUSE* and a "physical reality" that these formulas relate to.

There is a physical reality that these formulas approximate. These formulas explicitly ignore the motions of individual particles because trying to calculate the motions of 10^{somebignumber} is impossible.

That continuum you're talking about is composed of many "particles". The physical conditions of those 'particles' determines the density, their "rigidity", etc. Ya, you don't have to deal with them at the level of a single particle, but you can and Alfven did look at the behaviors a single particle and
*THEN* described something composed of "many" of these particles, like a whole "circuit".

How many is "many"?

The rush to trivia here seems to be motivated by fear because none of you want to deal with physical fact.

The only one ignoring fact is you: MHD is a continuum theory.

There are only three three things physically capable of "reconnecting' in plasma, electrons, ions and photons. All of them are "particles". There is no way you can avoid the fact that this is "particle reconnection", so you refuse to acknowledge the whole thing is full of particles with individual kinetic energy.

Yes Michael. If you define "reconnection" as something that must happen with particles then it is tautologically true that reconnection must happen with particles. This, however, gets you nowhere.

 

[Ziggurat]

So every particle in plasma behaves exactly the same way in the same EM field?

Did I say that? No, of course not. But either that difference won't matter, or the continuum model will break down. But within a continuum model like MHD, no such differences will be accounted for.

How about the charge of the particle, the size of the particle, etc?

All irrelevant to the continuum model.

It's pointless IMO to get fixated on the math with you folks because all of your "errors" are related to your "poor understanding" of the actual "physics" of what is occurring. I can't teach you anything about math you don't already know. I can teach you about physics because none of you seem to understand the fact that your formulas relate to "real things". You keep acting as though your formulas do not relate to real physical particles with real physical properties.

I'm not asking you for formulas, Michael. I'm asking you for numbers. You know, the things that quantify those "real physical properties". I'm asking you to make a quantitative prediction about the real physical properties that are behind your ideas. And you consistently refuse to do so. Why? If you've already made any such predictions, why not share them? If you aren't willing to do that, why are you even here? And if you haven't made any quantitative predictions based on your ideas, well, isn't it about time you did? It would be quite sad, really, if you turned out to be right but couldn't convince anyone because you never did even the most basic calculations to quantify your ideas.

Actually, it would be sad if you're wrong too: it would mean you've wasted years of your life chasing illusions, when calculations might have revealed your errors long ago. Is that why you won't do it, Michael? Are you scared to learn how useless so much of your life has been?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'd love you to find me somebody who studies ice Tsunamis.

That's the whole point, you won't find one. The properties of the "particles" matter. We may not understand why the fluid isn't rigid, but the fact it's not rigid is what allows for "tsunamis" to form in the liquid. You can be ignorant of the "particles" of water that are in the tsunami and still project the speed of the tsunami, but were it not for the "particles" in the water, and the fact they aren't "solid', you wouldn't have anything to study.

They're not ignored. They're replaced with homogenised, macroscopic quantities like pressure (!), conductivity, density

They are "modeled with" the things you mentioned. You've simply "homogenized" the particle interaction process.

What do you mean by "physically reconnecting"?

I mean something is creating serious particle acceleration in the process you are calling "magnetic reconnection". What is the 'physical cause' of this acceleration? Physical *things* and only physical things can "disconnect" and 'reconnect". Even the carrier particle of the EM field is itself a "particle".

Nope. Maxwell's equations relate to electric and magnetic fields.

Yet Alfven applied these equations to individual particles.

The Navier-Stokes equations relate to fluids as macroscopic entities.

Which approximates the physical behaviors of physical particles.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Did I say that? No, of course not. But either that difference won't matter, or the continuum model will break down. But within a continuum model like MHD, no such differences will be accounted for.

Alfven accounts for them as the movement of particles in circuits.

All irrelevant to the continuum model.

It's a "continuum" of "particles".

I'm not asking you for formulas, Michael. I'm asking you for numbers. You know, the things that quantify those "real physical properties". I'm asking you to make a quantitative prediction about the real physical properties that are behind your ideas.

Why? Bruce made many such calculations and predictions. Did you read them? What's wrong with them?

And you consistently refuse to do so. Why?

Because I see zero evidence that calculations or predictions matter one iota to you. If so, you would be happy with Bruce's presentation of solar discharge processes, or you would have picked out the flaw in his math. You (collectively) did neither. The same is true of Alfven's presentation of solar and magnetospheric events. He did calculations. Did you read them or respond to them or pick out the flaw in his calculations?

It seems to me that the only reason you want me to bark math for you is in the hope you can find an error in my math and thereby ridicule EU theory. That would be irrational behavior of course, but you all seem intent on doing it anyway. I'd like to see you deal with Bruce's numbers or Birkeland's numbers or Alfven's numbers. Since you won't, why should I believe that my math will suddenly sway you?

If you've already made any such predictions, why not share them?

Bruce did that. Did he share them for you? Did you address his material at all?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes Michael. If you define "reconnection" as something that must happen with particles then it is tautologically true that reconnection must happen with particles. This, however, gets you nowhere.

Not so. This gets me to the point that you will be forced to accept that "magnetic reconnection" and "particle reconnection" are exactly the same physical process.