Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

15%20April%202001%20WL.gif


Oh look, Birkeland was right! And of course this has all been confirmed by other authors that you probably won't read or respond to.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0384
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Oh look, Birkeland and his friends predicted disruptive electric discharges from the sun, focused around sunspots, 50 years before I was born! Now go ahead and and keep bending the truth and continue to demonstrate the lack of ethics that pervades your industry today. You're the perfect poster child of the willfully ignorant astronomer. You refuse to read anything presented to you. You don't respond to the material and you don't think before you stick your foot in your mouth. You don't want to learn and you refuse to educate yourself on your own without your EU mommy shoving the material down your throat. In short you're ignorant because you *WANT* to remain ignorant and you want to blame someone for your ignorance.
Click to expand...


Okay, so you can't quote Birkeland, show the math, reference a specific document, page, and line where he described the physics behind that high speed solar wind. You can't point out the real physical experiments with real control mechanisms where he generated million degree coronal loops. Why didn't you just say so?
 
GeeMack said:
Okay, so you can't quote Birkeland, show the math, reference a specific document, page, and line where he described the physics behind that high speed solar wind. You can't point out the real physical experiments with real control mechanisms where he generated million degree coronal loops. Why didn't you just say so?
Click to expand...

You wouldn't know of course because you don't actually read anything I provide you with, but he used a "scale model" you twit. Nobody ever said he created million degree loops in a lab. I said he PREDICTED them.
 
GeeMack said:
Okay, so you can't quote Birkeland, show the math, reference a specific document, page, and line where he described the physics behind that high speed solar wind.
Click to expand...

Oh for crying out loud. At least do a search for my sig line in that pdf document. It will take you right to the part of the book where Birkeland and his friends "predict" high speed solar wind and Birkeland *EXPLAINS WHY* the solar wind accelerates to high speeds. Hint: It's called "charge attraction".
 
Michael Mozina said:
You wouldn't know of course because you don't actually read anything I provide you with, but he used a "scale model" you twit. Nobody ever said he created million degree loops in a lab. I said he PREDICTED them.
Click to expand...


So you claim. Have a quote and a reference?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Oh for crying out loud. At least do a search for my sig line in that pdf document. It will take you right to the part of the book where Birkeland and his friends "predict" high speed solar wind and Birkeland *EXPLAINS WHY* the solar wind accelerates to high speeds. Hint: It's called "charge attraction".
Click to expand...


Like I said, you can't quote Birkeland, show the math, reference a specific document, page, and line where he described the physics behind that high speed solar wind. Thanks for proving my point.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ya right. You point Rhessi and Fermi at Earth and they both see gamma rays coming from "discharges" in the Earths atmosphere. You point the same equipment at the solar atmosphere, see the same gamma rays and claim "magnetic reconnection did it". Now it is somehow all my fault that not a single one of you can explain the unique physical energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection" or show that it is any different than ordinary EM interactions in plasma. It's all my fault I suppose that you can't empirically duplicate Birkeland's work with spheres with "magnetic reconnection" too?
Click to expand...

Gravity, MM. A few posts ago you took issue with a post about gravity. Do you have a citation for a mainstream source that tries to explain the corona using gravity?
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, I just love how you folks want to attempt to explain everything that you observe in space *without* current flow. It's so cute. It's just adorable how you all ignore that high speed solar wind, those million degree coronal loops and jets that were all empirical "predictions" of Birkeland's experiments (real physical experiments with real control mechanisms).
Click to expand...

Again: you replied to a post whose claims were:

1) Newton's Law of Gravity gives a force that drops as 1/r^2
2) the Biot-Savart give as force that drops as 1/r^2
3) 1/r^2 attraction, under appropriate but non-filamenty initial conditions, is easily shown to result in filamentary structures

Do you disagree with one of these statements? They're all true, straightforward scientific questions, whose truth does not depend on whether or not they're important to cosmology.
 
ben m said:
Gravity, MM. A few posts ago you took issue with a post about gravity. Do you have a citation for a mainstream source that tries to explain the corona using gravity?
Click to expand...

I take exception to your reliance upon only gravity and magnetism to the exclusion of current flow. Astronomers tend to resort to what Alfven called "pseudoscience" to explain *some* of the energy releases in the corona as "magnetic reconnection" events. None of the papers I've read so far seem to be able to explain why a single coronal loop reaches millions of degrees, nor do they explain those return currents that folks in Europe are starting to observe in satellite images. None of those paper explain a full sphere release of high speed solar wind, whereas Birkeland empirical models not only predict this behavior, the he personally experienced it during his experiments. He had to clean the "soot" from the walls of the experiments due to the build up of metal particles on the glass. Evidently atoms from his sphere made their way off the sphere and to the glass due to the discharge process between the sphere and the chamber walls.
 
GeeMack said:
Like I said, you can't quote Birkeland,
Click to expand...

I just did!

show the math,
Click to expand...

Why? You don't care about math. I handed you three new solar physics papers that describe the currents in the solar atmosphere, all of which are loaded with math, and you simply handwaved them away and never read a single paper! What's the point of trying to have a rational conversation with someone who does not act rationally or logically?

reference a specific document,
Click to expand...

I linked you to the document. I think you're setting a new record in this post for the number of direct lies you told in a single post.

page,
Click to expand...

Never read page 662 eh?

and line where he described the physics behind that high speed solar wind. Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

Thanks for not looking up my sig line like I suggested and thanks for not reading the other materials that I cited for you. You simply demonstrated my point that you are ignorant by choice and you remain that way so that you can blame others for your willful ignorance. What a stellar example you are of open minded astronomer.....NOT! Sheeesh. No wonder this country is so backwards in science.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Oh look, I was right. You didn't read any of the three papers I cited or respond to even one thing in any of the three papers I provided you with.
Click to expand...


And you still aren't able to quote Birkeland, show the math, reference a specific document, page, and line where he described the physics behind the high speed solar wind. And you still can't cite a specific Birkeland experiment that demonstrated million degree coronal loops. Let us know when you're willing to actually respond to the issues being raised, eh? :rolleyes:
 
Reality Check said:
No one claims that gravity heats coronal loops to millions of degrees or creates the solar wind speed. Theories for the coronal heating problem and solar wind speed involve a little thing called electromagnetism that you may (or may not :rolleyes:) have heard of.
It's simply fascinating to me that you (Michael Mozina) can be this incompetent at math and physics yet "resist" the obvious to the point of absurdity.
Click to expand...

Show me one published paper in a major US publication that describes this an an ELECTROmagnetic process rather than a "magic-magnetic" event with no mention of current flow or voltages or amps. Alfven called current "magnetic reconnection" theories "pseudoscience" and I'm certain that Alfven understood MDH theory better than you do. He agreed with Birkeland and Bruce and the authors of those three papers I just cited. As it relates to coronal loop activity, they all claim that "electrical discharges did it", not "magnetic reconnection".
 
Michael Mozina said:
Show me one published paper in a major US publication that describes this an an ELECTROmagnetic process rather than a "magic-magnetic" event with no mention of current flow or voltages or amps. Alfven called current "magnetic reconnection" theories "pseudoscience" and I'm certain that Alfven understood MDH theory better than you do. He agreed with Birkeland and Bruce and the authors of those three papers I just cited. As it relates to coronal loop activity, they all claim that "electrical discharges did it", not "magnetic reconnection".
Click to expand...

Yes, Alfven understood MHD better than I do, and better than you do.

Alfven did NOT understand MHD better than the entire faculty and staff of the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, the MIT Astrophysics Division space plasma lab, the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, the Berkeley Space Science Laboratory, etc.

My conclusion is that Alfven was mistaken and his successors (with, I might add, access to much better numerical equation solvers) are right.
 
Chopped Liver?

Michael Mozina said:
Show me one published paper in a major US publication that describes this an an ELECTROmagnetic process ...
Click to expand...
Here's one (emphasis mine) ...
Electric currents and coronal heating in NOAA active region 6952; Metcalf, et al., The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 428, no. 2, pt. 1, p. 860-866, June 1994.
Abstract: We examine the spatial and temporal relationship between coronal structures observed with the soft X-ray telescope (SXT) on board the Yohkoh spacecraft and the vertical electric current density derived from photospheric vector magnetograms obtained using the Stokes Polarimeter at the Mees Solar Observatory. We focus on a single active region: AR 6952 which we observed on 7 days during 1991 December. For 11 independent maps of the vertical electric current density co-aligned with non-flaring X-ray images, we search for a morphological relationship between sites of high vertical current density in the photosphere and enhanced X-ray emission in the overlying corona. We find no compelling spatial or temporal correlation between the sites of vertical current and the bright X-ray structures in this active region.

Why only US publications? What are Europeans, "chopped liver"?
 
Brits don't count?

Michael Mozina said:
Show me one published paper in a major US publication ...
Click to expand...
What about non-US publications? Brits don't count? Once again, emphasis mine ...
Electric fields in solar magnetic structures due to gradient-driven instabilities: heating and acceleration of particles; Vranjes & Poedts, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 400, Issue 4, pp. 2147-2152.
Abstract: The electrostatic instabilities driven by the gradients of the density, temperature and magnetic field are discussed in their application to solar magnetic structures. Strongly growing modes are found for some typical plasma parameters. These instabilities (i) imply the presence of electric fields that can accelerate the plasma particles in both perpendicular and parallel directions with respect to the magnetic field vector, and (ii) can stochastically heat ions. The perpendicular acceleration is to the leading order determined by the E × B drift acting equally on both ions and electrons, while the parallel acceleration is most effective on electrons. The experimentally confirmed stochastic heating is shown to act mainly in the direction perpendicular to the magnetic field vector and acts stronger on heavier ions. The energy release rate and heating may exceed for several orders of magnitude the value accepted as necessary for a self-sustained heating in the solar corona. The energy source for both the acceleration and the heating is stored in the mentioned background gradients.
 
More Coronal Electric Currents

Michael Mozina said:
Show me one published paper in a major US publication ...
Click to expand...
Here's another one. Emphasis mine ...
A Technique for Measuring Electrical Currents in the Solar Corona; Steven Spangler, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 670, Issue 1, pp. 841-848, November 2007
Abstract: A technique is described for measuring electrical currents in the solar corona. It uses radioastronomical polarization measurements of a spatially extended radio source viewed through the corona. The observations yield the difference in the Faraday rotation measure between two closely spaced lines of sight through the corona, a measurement referred to as differential Faraday rotation. It is shown that the expression for differential Faraday rotation is proportional to the path integral ∮nB b.dot ds, where n is the plasma density, and B is the coronal magnetic field. The integral is around a closed loop (Amperian loop) in the corona. If the plasma density is assumed roughly constant, the differential Faraday rotation is proportional to the current within the loop, via Ampere's Law. The validity of the constant density approximation is discussed, and two test cases are presented in which the associated error in the inferred current is small, of the order of tens of percent or less. The method is illustrated with observations of the radio source 3C 228 with the Very Large Array (VLA) in 2003 August. A measurement of a differential Faraday rotation "event'' on 2003 August 16, yields an estimate of 2.5×109 A in the Amperian loop. A smaller event on August 18 yields an enclosed current of 2.3×108 A. The implications of these currents for coronal heating are briefly discussed.
 
Alfven was wrong!!

Michael Mozina said:
Alfven called current "magnetic reconnection" theories "pseudoscience" ...
Click to expand...
Alfven was wrong and you are wrong to believe him. It's not my fault you don't know enough physics, and have no desire to learn enough physics, to figure it out for yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom