CME's, active regions and high energy flares

Here's how Alfven defines a 'magnetic rope' in Cosmic Plasma:

"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents. A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine.
 
Michael Mozina said:
That's all you ever want to talk about....me...me....me. You're like my own little personal online stalker.
Click to expand...


You make outrageous claims. Your arguments attempting to support those claims are an odd combination of lies, unqualified assertions, arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, appeals to authority, and various other logical fallacies. Nobody else is making those inane arguments. If someone were, I'd be pointing out their lies, I'd be showing how their arguments are ridiculous, and I'd be reminding them that their claims are unsupported. Don't take it personally.

I don't need to speak for Alfven, he did that himself on many occasions and I've posted his statements on these topics many times now. If you don't understand the meaning of "pseudoscience", look it up. If you don't understand what a "Bennett Pinch" is, look it up. Those were his words, not mine, and he consistently held those positions up till the day he died!
Click to expand...


On electric Universe and plasma cosmology issues Alfvén had some misunderstandings about physics which have since been shown wrong by scientists engaged in legitimate and more contemporary research. But more importantly, Alfvén's mistakes have been wildly misinterpreted by a bunch of cranks, crackpots, scientist wannabes, incompetents, and nutcases like the folks who run those silly EU/PC web sites. It doesn't matter whether you're presenting their arguments as yours, or passing off your arguments as theirs, either way they are failed arguments.

Stop hijacking the thread and stop going below the belt. If you aren't interested in my explanations when I hand them to you on a silver platter, what can I do for you? Why are you here anyway if you have no desire to hear my answers?
Click to expand...


Your explanations so far are comprised of lies, unqualified assertions, arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, appeals to authority, and various other logical fallacies. Arguments like that, even when served on a silver platter, are worthless.

Now let's see, you still have some claims you haven't begun to explain in a quantitative, objective, and legitimately scientific way. You may start with any of these you like...

  • You have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs.
  • Dark filament eruptions cause CMEs.
  • There is no transition region in the Sun's atmosphere.
  • Magnetic reconnection doesn't happen.
  • Birkeland "predicted" solar wind and proposed it was caused by simple electricity.
  • Birkeland developed a solar model that mathematically explained the Sun's density, material makeup, thermal characteristics, luminosity, and mechanical function.
  • The folks who designed, built, launched, and operate the various solar satellites including GOES, Yohkoh, SOHO, Trace, RHESSI, STEREO, SDO, etc., don't understand solar physics as well as you do.
Alternatively you may be honest and acknowledge that you're abandoning any or all of them. Of course in science ignoring them is, for practical purposes, the same thing as abandoning them. And that's where we are now.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Did you even bother reading the 2nd paragraph of the first paper? How is his approach to a magnetic rope any different from the one I'm using other than what he calls it?
Click to expand...
I read the entire paper: No mention of Birkeland currents. No citations to Birkeland.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
That's just a silly statement from my perspective since I chose a different solar model than the one that Alfven used. I personally prefer Birkeland's solar approach over Alfven's solar theories. ;)
Click to expand...
Then you are a deluded since Birkeland' does not have a solar "approach" ;).

Michael Mozina said:
IMO your collective love of 'pseudoscience' hasn't progressed an inch since the day Alfven died. It's still more of the same tired old "Oh look how good it works on the computer simulation, we don't need to "test" it in the lab". All the MR experiments used "current flow" to make them work in the lab. No current flow, no flowing filaments, and no "magnetic/circuit reconnection". To this very day, you collectively cannot even explain what is "physically" unique about "magnetic reconnection' that is distinct from ordinary induction and/or ordinary particle collisions in a current sheet.
Click to expand...
Abysmal ignorance, Michael Mozina:
  • Magnetic reconnection is tested in many labs.
  • Many of the MR experiments use currents ("current flow") to create plasma. No currents in those experiments = no plasma.
You lie: To this very day, we collectively have explained that "induction and/or ordinary particle collisions in a current sheet" cannot create magnetic reconnection. See the many posts in Magnetic reconnection and physical processes, e.g.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Here's how Alfven defines a 'magnetic rope' in Cosmic Plasma:
Emphasis mine.
Click to expand...
Here's how Alfven defines a 'magnetic rope' in Cosmic Plasma:
"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents. A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.

Note that there is no mention of Birkeland in this quote.
Thus Alfven implicitly rules out the role of Birkeland currents in his defintion of magnetic ropes.

P.S.
Michael Mozina, Please give your citations for solar Birkeland currents
(22 October 2010)

Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor?
(10 November 2010: 9 days and counting)
 
Last edited:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/xray_5m.html

It should also be noted that at no time during the filament eruption process did the X-ray spectrum spike or show anything substantial (C or larger) that might explain that mass flow. The filament provided the mass and the filament eruption CAUSED the CME. :) It also demonstrates that dark filament eruptions have a direct affect on space weather that is unrelated to EM spikes in active regions.

FYI, that eruption happened so fast (less than 24 hours), and the data set is so small, it's probably going to change (increase) the full filament eruption percentages for that particular filament classification.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
I read the entire paper: No mention of Birkeland currents. No citations to Birkeland.
Click to expand...

You did not answer my question. Let me ask you again with the emphasis highlighted for you.

How is his approach to a magnetic rope any different from the one I'm using other than what he calls it?
 
Reality Check said:
Then you are a deluded since Birkeland' does not have a solar "approach" ;).


Abysmal ignorance, Michael Mozina:

[*]Magnetic reconnection is tested in many labs.
Click to expand...
Been there and done that already. It's "tested" by running two "circuits" of current carrying plasma filaments into one another and we can watch the "circuit topology" change over time. That's "circuit reconnection" and has nothing to do with magnetic lines disconnecting or reconnecting to other magnetic lines.

Alfven describes these magnetic ropes as *CURRENT CARRYING CIRCUITS*. The mainstream points RHESSI at the Earth and sees x-rays and gamma rays from *DISCHARGES* in the Earth's atmosphere. It points the same device at the sun, sees those same high energy signatures and claims "magnetic reconnection did it". Baloney. Electrical discharges work in nature and they work in the lab, and your beloved "magnetic reconnection" is nothing more than "circuit reconnection" with a stupid name. Magnetic lines form as a complete and full continuum, without beginning and without end and without the ability to "disconnect" or "reconnect" to any other magnetic line. Circuits disconnect and reconnect all the time in nature.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
On electric Universe and plasma cosmology issues Alfvén had some misunderstandings about physics which have since been shown wrong by scientists engaged in legitimate and more contemporary research.
Click to expand...

Boloney. We've even been through the papers and seen how they *ASSUME* that the electric field is stable even *WHILE THE FILAMENT IS SHRINKING IN DIAMETER*. We've seen how they run two "circuits" of energy into to one another and how the "circuit topology" changes over time. Not a single one of you can explain the physically unique aspect of "magnetic reconnection" that is unique and different from ordinary induction and ordinary particle collisions in a current sheet.

Alfven understood the particle orientation of MHD theory. The mainstream only understand the field or B orientation of MHD theory and they attempt to apply it like a sledgehammer to everything they see in nature, including *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE PROCESSES* that have have nothing to do with magnetic lines disconnecting or reconnecting.

Your explanations so far are comprised of lies,
Click to expand...

The only liar in this thread is you. Even RC has more credibility than you do.

unqualified assertions,
Click to expand...


Oh, I've already demonstrated that I can accurately and consistently predict both types of flares. My qualifications are demonstrated right in this thread. You haven't demonstrated anything in this thread related to any sort of knowledge about solar physics. All you've done is demonstrated that your personal attack approach to debate is your single claim to fame. You do it better than anyone I've ever met. Happy with yourself?

arguments from ignorance,
Click to expand...

You and RC have been arguing from ignorance from the start! Mass flow? What mass flow? Dark filaments? What dark filaments? Hoy. The two of you are incredibly ignorant and *WILLFULLY* ignorant which is frankly inexcusable IMO.

arguments from incredulity,
Click to expand...


You mean like "I can't figure it out so "dark magical matter and energy did it"? Please! Your industry hasn't a leg to stand on.

appeals to authority,
Click to expand...
Pfft. Compared to you? :)

FYI, I have not "abandoned" anything. I've given you some clear insights into the categories I use, the way the system works and I've applied it real time to real filaments. What is very clear however is that you aren't even remotely interested in learning anything, or having an honest, open, *SCIENTIFIC* conversation on this topic.
All you are interested in is character assassination and arguing. I'm bored of you.
 
Last edited:
Quantified guessing....

Well, DF00001 hasn't changed categories. It is still categorized MF-1A-LS (Medium size,1 active connection,low in the atmosphere and slow in terms of mass movement inside the filament), but I didn't see any brightening/minor mass ejections yesterday like I did the day before so I'm demoting it back to where it started in terms of partial filament eruption potential. It has about a 20 percent chance of a partial eruption for the next 24 hours, and about 10 percent chance of a full eruption during that same time frame. FYI so that we are all clear. I'll just post my 'predictions' in the morning before work and my workday begins, around 8:30AM my time +-.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Boloney. We've even been through the papers and seen how they *ASSUME* that the electric field is stable even *WHILE THE FILAMENT IS SHRINKING IN DIAMETER*. We've seen how they run two "circuits" of energy into to one another and how the "circuit topology" changes over time. Not a single one of you can explain [...]
Click to expand...


It may be that not a single one of us can explain it *TO YOU* because, as we've demonstrated many, many times over the past several years, you do not appear to possess the qualifications you claim to understand this stuff.

Alfven understood the particle orientation of MHD theory. The mainstream only understand the field or B orientation of MHD theory and they attempt to apply it like a sledgehammer to everything they see in nature, including *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE PROCESSES* that have have nothing to do with magnetic lines disconnecting or reconnecting.
Click to expand...


There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs. The actual science of this has been explained to you many times, in detail, in various forms from grade school simple to professional physicist complex. None of your arguments has indicated any understanding of that fact.

The only liar in this thread is you. Even RC has more credibility than you do.
Click to expand...


Your uncivil personal attack is noted as usual. I've already mentioned that calling someone a liar on the JREF Forum without specifically pointing out the lie is a violation of the forum rules.

Oh, I've already demonstrated that I can accurately and consistently predict both types of flares. My qualifications are demonstrated right in this thread. You haven't demonstrated anything in this thread related to any sort of knowledge about solar physics. All you've done is demonstrated that your personal attack approach to debate is your single claim to fame. You do it better than anyone I've ever met. Happy with yourself?
Click to expand...


Mostly you have demonstrated that you can consistently guess that existing solar activity is likely to continue to exist. You've demonstrated that you can consistently guess that increasing solar activity is likely to continue to increase. You have never demonstrated, regardless of your claims, that you have any qualifications, expertise, or relevant scientific knowledge in the area of solar physics.

Oh, and I've already explained that my attacking your inane arguments isn't attacking you. Any idiot can come to this forum and make ridiculous unfounded, unqualified, and unsupported crackpot conjectures. It is likely they'll have their claims and arguments vigorously and thoroughly shredded. If they lie, someone is likely to point out their lies. If they claim qualifications, someone is likely to challenge that claim, particularly if their other comments are contrary to what would be expected if they indeed possessed those qualifications. That's how it works here. If you don't like it, demonstrate your claimed qualifications and offer up a legitimately scientific, well supported, argument.

You and RC have been arguing from ignorance from the start! Mass flow? What mass flow? Dark filaments? What dark filaments? Hoy. The two of you are incredibly ignorant and *WILLFULLY* ignorant which is frankly inexcusable IMO.
Click to expand...


Your continued uncivil and dishonest misrepresentation of Reality Check's and my position is noted. And "in your opinion"? The qualifications you claim to understanding solar physics have been repeatedly challenged, and since you've not been able to demonstrate that you possess any such qualifications, your opinion may be dismissed.

You mean like "I can't figure it out so "dark magical matter and energy did it"? Please! Your industry hasn't a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...


Again... Your qualifications to properly understand the astrophysics involved in the dark matter / dark energy issue have been challenged many times, and you haven't yet been able to show that you are qualified to make credible comments on the subject. So again... Your opinion is unfounded and unqualified and may therefore be dismissed.

Pfft. Compared to you?
Click to expand...


Apparently you misunderstand the "argument from authority" logical fallacy. You can find a decent description on Wiki or in several other locations on the web.

FYI, I have not "abandoned" anything. I've given you some clear insights into the categories I use, the way the system works and I've applied it real time to real filaments. What is very clear however is that you aren't even remotely interested in learning anything, or having an honest, open, *SCIENTIFIC* conversation on this topic.
Click to expand...


If you want a scientific conversation, start one. Maybe consider that you have made and refused to scientifically support several various scientific claims in this thread, including but not limited to the following:
  • You have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs.
  • Dark filament eruptions cause CMEs.
  • There is no transition region in the Sun's atmosphere.
  • Magnetic reconnection doesn't happen.
  • Birkeland "predicted" solar wind and proposed it was caused by simple electricity.
  • Birkeland developed a solar model that mathematically explained the Sun's density, material makeup, thermal characteristics, luminosity, and mechanical function.
  • The folks who designed, built, launched, and operate the various solar satellites including GOES, Yohkoh, SOHO, Trace, RHESSI, STEREO, SDO, etc., don't understand solar physics as well as you do.
The claims that seem most relevant to this thread are that you have an objective, quantitative method for "predicting" CMEs, and that dark filament eruptions cause CMEs. If you want a scientific conversation, suppose you describe that method for "predicting" CMEs, or admit that you have no such method. If you want a scientific conversation, suppose you describe the physics quantitatively and objectively to support your claim that dark filaments cause CMEs. Provide citations to relevant supporting resources. Or have the scientific honesty and decency to admit that you can't support that claim. That's how scientific conversations go, Michael.

All you are interested in is character assassination and arguing. I'm bored of you.
Click to expand...


I actually have an interest in solar physics and astrophysics. I learn a lot when participating in these threads. So your comment, "All you are interested in...," is another lie.
 
GeeMack said:
It may be that not a single one of us can explain it *TO YOU* because, as we've demonstrated many, many times over the past several years, you do not appear to possess the qualifications you claim to understand this stuff.
Click to expand...

Well, there's your first lie of this post. Alfven certainly had the qualifications to understand this stuff and he rejected your nonsense as pseudoscience too. He embraced the E field orientation that I embrace and applied that particle orientation of MHD theory to events in space just like I do.

There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs.
Click to expand...

That's you're second lie? Shall I continue? Absolutely nothing you say can be trusted to be accurate, NOTHING!
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
Mostly you have demonstrated that you can consistently guess that existing solar activity is likely to continue to exist.
Click to expand...

Another lie. I could not "guess" and be right as often as I have been right. Your lie is clearly demonstrated too. That large flare I predicted 20 minutes before it occurred was the *FIRST C OR BETTER FLARE IN 12 DAYS!*. It was the first M class flare in 90 days.

No You've demonstrated that you can consistently guess that increasing solar activity is likely to continue to increase. You have never demonstrated, regardless of your claims, that you have any qualifications, expertise, or relevant scientific knowledge in the area of solar physics.
Click to expand...

Another lie. In this very thread I have successfully predicted both types of flares, and you have done nothing. You have shown incredible ignorance in terms of mass flow. You've shown no interest in any real conversation. You simply spew misinformation and outright lies by the truckload. Never once have you demonstrated that you can predict anything related to solar events. All you know how to do is lie and lie often.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Well, there's your first lie of this post. Alfven certainly had the qualifications to understand this stuff and he rejected your nonsense as pseudoscience too. He embraced the E field orientation that I embrace and applied that particle orientation of MHD theory to events in space just like I do.
Click to expand...


Alfvén wasn't god. He made some mistakes. His mistakes have been properly and scientifically refuted. He died 15 years ago. If he was remotely correct, there has been plenty of time for legitimate solar physicists to work out the bugs in his conjectures, but no such luck. Nobody working in the field of plasma physics thinks his plasma cosmology ideas were worth a damn. And even if he was right, which he wasn't, it was your demonstrated lack of qualifications that I mentioned, not Alfvén's. My comment goes uncontested. It wasn't a lie. Now if you are able to actually demonstrate that you do have the necessary qualifications to speak with some level of expertise or authority on issues of solar physics, now would be a fine time to do that. Otherwise your claim that I am lying is unfounded.

That's you're second lie? Shall I continue? Absolutely nothing you say can be trusted to be accurate, NOTHING!
Click to expand...


You call this a lie? "There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs." Interestingly there appears to be only one person on Earth who claims otherwise, and that person has never offered any legitimate scientific support for the claim. In order for you to substantiate your accusation that I am lying you'll need to demonstrate objectively, scientifically, and quantitatively that there is indeed an electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs. Make sure you bring in appropriate references and cite all your relevant sources. Until you do that, your claim that I am lying is unfounded.

Michael Mozina said:
Another lie. I could not "guess" and be right as often as I have been right. Your lie is clearly demonstrated too. That large flare I predicted 20 minutes before it occurred was the *FIRST C OR BETTER FLARE IN 12 DAYS!*. It was the first M class flare in 90 days.
Click to expand...


Big deal. You see some activity on the Sun and you "predict" that it will continue to be activity. It doesn't matter how often you do it. Since you have never shown that you have an objective quantitative method for making your "predictions", from a scientific perspective they will be dismissed as guesses. You could present your supposed objective quantitative method, if you had one, but until you do your claim that I am lying is unfounded.

Another lie. In this very thread I have successfully predicted both types of flares, and you have done nothing. You have shown incredible ignorance in terms of mass flow. You've shown no interest in any real conversation. You simply spew misinformation and outright lies by the truckload. Never once have you demonstrated that you can predict anything related to solar events. All you know how to do is lie and lie often.
Click to expand...


And once more, in order for you to substantiate your claim that I'm lying you'd have to demonstrate that you do indeed possess the necessary qualifications, expertise, or relevant scientific knowledge in the area of solar physics to claim that your personal opinions are any kind of support for your arguments. You certainly haven't done that yet, not so as anyone here has noticed.

So you've called me a liar four times in the above posts without actually supporting your accusations. But your continued desire to call me a liar and the associated incivility is, as usual, noted.

Now do you figure to ever get around to supporting the claims you've made in this thread?
 
GeeMack said:
Alfvén wasn't god.
Click to expand...

Sure, but then neither are you. Let me see your Nobel Prize in MHD theory GM? Alfven did in fact 'write the book' on how MHD theory is properly applied to objects and plasmas in space. As far as I know, you've never even read Cosmic Plasma for yourself. I want to hear you give me a truthful answer now, with no dodging and no weaving. Have you or have you not even bothered to read "Cosmic Plasma" for yourself?

Assuming I'm wrong about you being too lazy to have actually done so, please point out even one mistake, chapter and verse.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
You call this a lie? "There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs."
Click to expand...

Yes, that is a *HUGE LIE*.

Reread the definition of a magnetic rope GM:

"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents. A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennett_pinch

Pinches occur naturally in electrical discharges such as lightning bolts,[6] the aurora,[7] current sheets,[8] and solar flares.[9]
Click to expand...

Liar. Whether it's willful ignorance, or just ignorance, it's still a lie.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Sure, but then neither are you. Let me see your Nobel Prize in MHD theory GM? Alfven did in fact 'write the book' on how MHD theory is properly applied to objects and plasmas in space. As far as I know, you've never even read Cosmic Plasma for yourself. I want to hear you give me a truthful answer now, with no dodging and no weaving. Have you or have you not even bothered to read "Cosmic Plasma" for yourself?
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure I haven't read any amount of Alfvén for at least ten years. But my intimacy with his work isn't at issue here. I'm not making the ridiculous claims, so I have no responsibility to support them. "Cosmic Plasma" was written thirty years ago. More contemporary research doesn't support Alfvén's plasma cosmology ideas. In that particular regard, he has become largely irrelevant.

Assuming I'm wrong about you being too lazy to have actually done so, please point out even one mistake, chapter and verse.
Click to expand...


The science of astrophysics doesn't stand still. It didn't stop in 1917 when Birkeland died. It didn't stop in 1979 when Bruce died. And it didn't stop in 1995 when Alfvén died. In the thirty years since "Cosmic Plasma" was written, the sciences of astrophysics and cosmology have plodded forward happily without him. And in all that time, with many thousands of physicists and tens of thousands of graduate and postgraduate students scratching their collective heads to explain how the Universe works, nobody has figured out how to get plasma cosmology to jive with actual empirical observations. Tough luck for those PC/EU crackpots, eh? Do you suppose they're just slower than real scientists? Stupider? Wrong?

If you believe you are smarter than all the professional physicists on the planet, you do the research to show that plasma cosmology offers the best explanation to fit the currently observed data. Write your paper. Make sure it's thorough, objective, and oh, don't forget to do the math. Physics is described in mathematical terms. Real numbers. Real calculations. Everything is quantitative. Do not forget to do the math.

Now how about you get back to the topic of this thread and fulfil your responsibility of supporting or abandoning these claims you've made. Start with the first one, please, as it's most relevant. Support it or abandon it...
  • You have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs.
  • Dark filament eruptions cause CMEs.
  • There is no transition region in the Sun's atmosphere.
  • Magnetic reconnection doesn't happen.
  • Birkeland "predicted" solar wind and proposed it was caused by simple electricity.
  • Birkeland developed a solar model that mathematically explained the Sun's density, material makeup, thermal characteristics, luminosity, and mechanical function.
  • The folks who designed, built, launched, and operate the various solar satellites including GOES, Yohkoh, SOHO, Trace, RHESSI, STEREO, SDO, etc., don't understand solar physics as well as you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom