Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

[Michael Mozina]

There are tens of thousands of things I have not read (Aristotle's Physics, for example). Although, old papers and books may contain some insights, I know that there are more reliable modern sources for a layman like me. Science is a continually progressing body of knowledge; clinging to sacred texts is a hallmark of religion, not science.

Alfven wrote hundreds of papers and at least two books. Peratt wrote a book and many papers as well. Bruce wrote several papers. Dungey wrote papers. How many of those papers and books (related to this topic) have you even read, let alone commented on?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Alfven wrote hundreds of papers and at least two books. Peratt wrote a book and many papers as well. Bruce wrote several papers. Dungey wrote papers. How many of those papers and books (related to this topic) have you even read, let alone commented on?

Have you read Einstein's The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity? And more importantly, have you studied the mathematics required to understand it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Have you read Einstein's The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity?

Not for many years, but yes, although I had read most of his papers separately before hand. You can find a link to it in English here in fact:

http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf

And more importantly, have you studied the mathematics required to understand it?

I've studied Calculus. I'm not sure that quite qualifies me as an "expert" on the topic of GR however. I would say that Einstein's basic theories are actually easier for me personally to follow than most of what is written about GR today.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Not for many years, but yes, although I had read most of his papers separately before hand. You can find a link to it in English here in fact:

http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf



I've studied Calculus. I'm not sure that quite qualifies me as an "expert" on the topic of GR however. I would say that Einstein's basic theories are actually easier for me personally to follow than most of what is written about GR today.

Wonderful, then please explain to me the meaning of:

[latex]G_\mu_\nu +\Lambda g_\mu_\nu = \dfrac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_\mu_\nu [/latex]

and the significance of each term. Please don't cut and paste equations from elsewhere. Feel free to use LaTeX. I promise to do my best to follow your analysis.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wonderful, then please explain to me the meaning of:

[latex]G_\mu_\nu +\Lambda g_\mu_\nu = \dfrac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_\mu_\nu [/latex]

and the significance of each term. Please don't cut and paste equations from elsewhere. Feel free to use LaTeX. I promise to do my best to follow your analysis.

I have already provided you with the appropriate Wiki links (and Einsteins papers) that explain Einstein's field equations. Your "math test" on GR isn't even related to this thread and please stop hijacking my threads. If you really want help with GR, I suggest you ask sol. He's certainly more qualified on that particular topic than I am.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let me remind you again, lest you forget. GR does not rise or fall on my personal mathematical explanations of GR. Likewise PC/EU theory doesn't rise and fall on my math skills. Do you comprehend that PS?

 

[GeeMack]

Why should I worry about a brilliant response when I can't get you two to even comment on the relevant materials like Alfven's use of circuits?

You two aren't even creative IMO. You keep irrelevantly fixating on my math skills and he keeps stuffing his response with the terms "lie", "crackpot", "crank" or "dishonest". Between the two of you it's one non stop personal attack that is completely devoid of any scientific substance or scientific response. Why did Alfven describe these same solar events using "circuits" and exploding double layers?

I can't think of a reason to get very far into a scientific discussion with anyone who refuses to, or is wholly incapable of understanding the science being discussed. If and when there is evidence that such an understanding exists among the crackpots, cranks, and electric Sun proponents in general, I will gladly participate more fully in that part of the discussion.

But until that unlikely situation comes to pass, it's reasonable to continue to point out the lies, the arguments from incredulity, ignorance, and other logical fallacies, the ridiculous misunderstandings, the ludicrous unsupported claims, the amateur looks-like-a-bunny silliness, the dishonest misrepresentation of dead scientists' work, and all the other non-science the crackpots try to fraudulently pass off as real science. Since there isn't any honest, legitimately scientific support for the nutty claims, no scientific rebuttal is required.

My expertise is in graphics, solar satellite imagery for purposes of these discussions, and when those issues are misunderstood or dishonestly used to support the crackpot claims, I will certainly correct them. That's what being a skeptic is all about. It's valid, legitimate, and as scientific as necessary given the lack of science coming from the cranks. And it's exactly what puts the "E" in JREF.

But in the spirit of discussing the actual claims...

For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

... that one hasn't been scientifically supported, not even remotely. If there is objective quantitative evidence to suggest that claim is true, now would be a good time to start bringing it into the conversation.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Let me remind you again, lest you forget. GR does not rise or fall on my personal mathematical explanations of GR. Likewise PC/EU theory doesn't rise and fall on my math skills. Do you comprehend that PS?

Yes, quite well. However, your credibility does "rise or fall on (your) math skills" since modern physics uses primarily mathematics for demonstration and analysis. Consequently, your lack of math skills disqualifies you from having any standing whatsoever in physics.
PC/EU theory can only exist for those who lack the mathematical skills to understand its failings. Cling to your sacred texts; science is clearly beyond you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I can't think of a reason to get very far into a scientific discussion with anyone who refuses to, or is wholly incapable of understanding the science being discussed.

I couldn't agree more. When you've read *AND COMMENTED ON* the relevant materials, let me know.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, quite well. However, your credibility does "rise or fall on (your) math skills" since modern physics uses primarily mathematics for demonstration and analysis.

So how about answering my questions about Alfven's use of circuits?

Consequently, your lack of math skills

What lack of math skills? What exactly do you know about my personal math skills and how are they relevant to this topic *SPECIFICALLY* and SPECIFICALLY which equation?

 

[Michael Mozina]

My expertise is in graphics, solar satellite imagery for purposes of these discussions,

Your expertise in graphics is interesting considering you have absolutely no respect for pure observation. Your comment: "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" pretty much disqualified you immediately from having any expertise whatsoever in solar physics.

 

[Ziggurat]

Let me remind you again, lest you forget. GR does not rise or fall on my personal mathematical explanations of GR.

No, but it does rise and fall on its own mathematical merits.

What are the mathematical merits of PC/EU theory? There are none. Even the most basic, simple, and fundamental quantities cannot be calculated, not even within an order of magnitude.

The problem isn't simply that YOU don't know any math (though that is a problem because you can't understand or discuss much physics because of this deficiency), the problem is that nobody advocating these ideas seems to be able to do any math.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I have already provided you with the appropriate Wiki links (and Einsteins papers) that explain Einstein's field equations. Your "math test" on GR isn't even related to this thread and please stop hijacking my threads. If you really want help with GR, I suggest you ask sol. He's certainly more qualified on that particular topic than I am.

I studied that Wiki article some time ago, thank you. I am asking you to demonstrate your skills in tensor calculus and differential geometry with respect to GR by telling me a bit about the significance of the terms in that equation. By the way, you talking about hijacking a thread is laughable, since that is your prime modus operandi on these threads

 

[GeeMack]

So how about answering my questions about Alfven's use of circuits?

Dishonestly attempting to avoid the responsibility of the burden of proof noted.

What lack of math skills? What exactly do you know about my personal math skills and how are they relevant to this topic *SPECIFICALLY* and SPECIFICALLY which equation?

Specifically no electric Sun crackpot has been able to describe a model that can even work, quantitatively and objectively, according to the known laws of physics and the observed characteristics of the Sun. No electric Sun crank is able to demonstrate that he/she even has the math skills necessary to understand the relevant physics quantitatively (that's the math part) or describe the alleged electric Sun "model" quantitatively (that's math, too), therefore any claims they might make cannot possibly be scientifically substantiated. Without the skills to mathematically describe a valid working model, the dishonest pretense of having such a model can be discarded like worn out socks.

ETA...

No, but it does rise and fall on its own mathematical merits.

What are the mathematical merits of PC/EU theory? There are none. Even the most basic, simple, and fundamental quantities cannot be calculated, not even within an order of magnitude.

The problem isn't simply that YOU don't know any math (though that is a problem because you can't understand or discuss much physics because of this deficiency), the problem is that nobody advocating these ideas seems to be able to do any math.

... to reiterate the point I made above.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, but it does rise and fall on its own mathematical merits.

That is true.

What are the mathematical merits of PC/EU theory?

Have you commented personally on *ANY* of the references I have cited in either this thread, or the one it was spun from?

There are none.

False. There are evidently none that *YOU* have personally read or commented on. That seems to be a basic theme around here. I provide references, you folks never read them, and more denial ensues.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I am asking you to demonstrate your skills in tensor calculus and differential geometry with respect to GR

That has nothing to do with this topic PS. Quit hijacking my thread!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Dishonestly attempting to avoid the responsibility of the burden of proof noted.

Your dishonest attempt to not read or respond to any of the materials presented to date is noted.

 

[Michael Mozina]

the problem is that nobody advocating these ideas seems to be able to do any math.

Did you even read Dungey's paper?

 

[Ziggurat]

Did you even read Dungey's paper?

Did Dungey argue that the sun was powered by anything other than core fusion?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Did Dungey argue that the sun was powered by anything other than core fusion?

No. Why would he? Did Bruce? Alfven?