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

[Michael Mozina]

Damn that pesky math.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501334

You ignore all the maths you don't wish to read. "Discharges? What discharges? Maths to support an electric sun theory? What maths?" Denial is really an ugly thing.

It has, no doubt, screwed more crackpots out of their rightfully deserved Nobel prizes than anything other than their general incompetence, lack of qualification, dishonesty, and complete inability to support their conjectures objectively and quantitatively. Damn that math!

​

I see that you still have an emotional need to include the term 'crackpot' in every post, and an emotional need to deny those pesky Chinese maths, not to mention Alfven's maths, Mann's maths, Dungey's maths, etc,etc, ect. Damn that math!

 

[D'rok]

I briefly scanned the thread...

What a surprise. Despite the fact that tusenfem put forth an exceptional amount of effort to meet you on your own ground, the best you can do is brush him off and go back to your talking points, all of which are addressed with pinpoint citations to Birkeland in the thread that you can't be bothered to read.

You are a real piece of work.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You sure did. Then you abandoned the discussion rather than work with tusefenfem to develop a circuit reconnection model, despite the great lengths he went to to help get you started diagramming the thing.

No. I have never "abandoned" any discussion here. I occasionally "let the lie' for awhile, but I've continuously discussed these ideas IN MANY THREADS for over five years now. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that we went through those 'empirical experiments' and I showed that they were CURRENT DRIVEN events from beginning to end, and the "reconnection" occurred between two current carrying filaments, or two "circuits". There's nothing in those experiments to support the idea that "magnetic reconnection" occurred and direct evidence that "current reconnection" did occur!

Science hard. Assertion easy.

ETA: Here we go:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6764190#post6764190

[/QUOTE]

What about it? t's, HOW question is easily answered. As the plasma threads twist and form different shapes and connection points, all you have to do is break up the various part of the "circuits" into their logical, physical "smaller parts". There's nothing magical about it. Mann and Onel already did it!

 

[Michael Mozina]

What a surprise. Despite the fact that tusenfem put forth an exceptional amount of effort to meet you on your own ground, the best you can do is brush him off and go back to your talking points, all of which are addressed with pinpoint citations to Birkeland in the thread that you can't be bothered to read.

You are a real piece of work.

Oh for crying out loud, I'm at work at the moment. So what if he put in work. I put in work to find you materials that you refuse to read, yet you dare pass judgement on me? Take the log out of your own eye and then you can remove the splinter from mine. Have you read Alfven's work for yourself yet?

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, I already asked t the most relevant question from that thread you suggested that I read. Evidently t was *ENTIRELY OBLIVIOUS* to the fact that all the experiments that Birkeland references *REQUIRED* a discharge from a cathode terella to the anode box around the terella. That seems a pretty blatant and bone head mistake for someone that professes to be an 'expert' on Birkeland's work and their relevancy (or not) to solar physics.

 

[D'rok]

No. I have never "abandoned" any discussion here. I occasionally "let the lie' for awhile, but I've continuously discussed these ideas IN MANY THREADS for over five years now. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that we went through those 'empirical experiments' and I showed that they were CURRENT DRIVEN events from beginning to end, and the "reconnection" occurred between two current carrying filaments, or two "circuits". There's nothing in those experiments to support the idea that "magnetic reconnection" occurred and direct evidence that "current reconnection" did occur!



What about it? t's, HOW question is easily answered. As the plasma threads twist and form different shapes and connection points, all you have to do is break up the various part of the "circuits" into their logical, physical "smaller parts". There's nothing magical about it. Mann and Onel already did it!

I've been following your farce on and off for years. If you put a tiny fraction of the effort into doing some actual work that you currently put into making unsupported assertions, you might have a measure of credibility.

You are making novel hypotheses about various physical phenomena, therefore you must do the work to support thoses hypotheses. You consistently refuse to do so. Tusenfem has done more actual work on your own project in that single post than you have in all the years you have been beating your drum on the internet.

Truly pathetic.

 

[D'rok]

FYI, I already asked t the most relevant question from that thread you suggested that I read. Evidently t was *ENTIRELY OBLIVIOUS* to the fact that all the experiments that Birkeland references *REQUIRED* a discharge from a cathode terella to the anode box around the terella. That seems a pretty blatant and bone head mistake for someone that professes to be an 'expert' on Birkeland's work and their relevancy (or not) to solar physics.

Go back to that thread and Ctrl-F for the word "anode". Then tell tusenfen you are sorry for always pissing all over him.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I've been following your farce on and off for years.

In other words, you've never actually read Birkeland's work for yourself as I suggested. You've never read Alfven's books on these topics either. You only "occasionally" pop in to hurl the occasional personal attack my way, and then run like hell again, never once actually reading the materials I suggested.

If you put a tiny fraction of the effort into doing some actual work that you currently put into making unssuported assertions, you might have a measure of credibility.

If you put in a tiny fraction of effort reading the materials I suggested, I might actually care what you think and you might have some credibility with me. Since you won't lift a finger to educate yourself "properly", I don't really care what you think of me.

You are making novel hypotheses about various physical phenomena, therefore you must do the work to support thoses hypotheses.

I don't deny that fact.

You consistently refuse to do so.

Oh boloney! I've rounded you up DOZENS of papers and links to books, few if any of which your personally have read or commented on. Did you read that paper on plasma discharge pinches that I just posted? Do you know of a "better" way to produce gamma rays from plasma?

Tusenfem has done more actual work on your own project in that single post than you have in all the years you have been beating your drum on the internet.

That's pure baloney. He evidently hasn't even noticed that all the critical experiments Birkeland cites in relationship to solar physics *REQUIRES THE CATHODE SPHERE TO DISCHARGE TOWARD THE ANODE BOX.*. For someone that professes to be an "expert" on Birkeland's work and how it may or may not relate to solar physics, that's frigging unbelievable, not to mention down right inexcusable.

Truly pathetic.

Truly pathetic indeed.

 

[D'rok]

Oh for crying out loud, I'm at work at the moment. So what if he put in work. I put in work to find you materials that you refuse to read, yet you dare pass judgement on me? Take the log out of your own eye and then you can remove the splinter from mine. Have you read Alfven's work for yourself yet?

I am neither qualified to nor capable of evaluating the work of plasma physicists (or any kind of physicist). The difference between you and me is that I don't represent myself in any way as having such qualifications or capabilities.

 

[D'rok]

If you put in a tiny fraction of effort reading the materials I suggested, I might actually care what you think and you might have some credibility with me.

No you wouldn't and no I wouldn't. Evidence: how you behave towards all the people who do put in the effort.

My only role is to hold you accountable for that.

Since you won't lift a finger to educate yourself "properly", I don't really care what you think of me.

When will you undertake to get a proper physics education? Can we expect you to announce your enrollment in an academic program at a reputable school sometime soon?

Or are you just going to continue ignoring everyone who has such an education so that you can do a pissing contest with me?

Get to work, Mozina.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here's what I found:

So, where does this bring us?

I think the following. Birkeland experimented with his terrellas, and also wanted to make a link to things he observed on the sun. Now, from what he wrote in the now-discussed paper, he does think that there are positive and negative corpuscules emitted by the Sun. However, I do think that Birkeland did not mean that the Sun is a cathode (though maybe in his book he may state otherwise I need to check that) because "cathode" is always accompanied by "ray" and as an experimental scientist working with electricity all the time, I am sure Birkeland also understood that cathodes do not emit positive corpuscules. I am, therefore, also not sure whether the New York Times reporter has written it up wrongly or that Birkeland was indeed mistaken about the depositing of platinum on objects connected to the anode.

This tells me two things about T's understanding of Birkeland's experiments at the time. A) he was clueless about the wiring and B) he was clueless as to the depositing of materials on the anode. That's not real impressive IMO. If he had taken the time to read the book , he'd understand the series of experiments in question. Since he doesn't understand them, it's clear he had not read the book to that point in time.

Have you rectified that problem yet tusenfem, yes or no?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I am neither qualified to nor capable of evaluating the work of plasma physicists (or any kind of physicist). The difference between you and me is that I don't represent myself in any way as having such qualifications or capabailities.

No, the real difference between us is that I have taken the time to educate myself and you have not. I have read Birkeland's book for myself and you have not. I have read Alfven's books on plasma physics and you have not. I've read Dungey's work for myself and you have not. I've read that Chinese paper for myself. I've done a LOT of reading and learning over the year, and you refuse to do so.

That's the primary difference between us.

 

[D'rok]

No, the real difference between us is that I have taken the time to educate myself and you have not. I have read Birkeland's book for myself and you have not. I have read Alfven's books on plasma physics and you have not. I've read Dungey's work for myself and you have not. I've read that Chinese paper for myself. I've done a LOT of reading and learning over the year, and you refuse to do so.

That's the primary difference between us.

Actually, I did read Dungey's work and a fair bit of the others. But that's beside the point. I recognize my limits. You do not. Where I do not understand, I accept that there is a void. Where you do not understand, you fill that void with your own fantasises and call yourself educated.

Get real.

 

[ben m]

All of the time we spent typing out explicit, exact fields that included magnetic field line reconnection (with no "circuit" rearrangement whatsoever) sure was time well spent, wasn't it?

 

[D'rok]

No you wouldn't and no I wouldn't. Evidence: how you behave towards all the people who do put in the effort.

My only role is to hold you accountable for that.

Here's what I found:



This tells me two things about T's understanding of Birkeland's experiments at the time. A) he was clueless about the wiring and B) he was clueless as to the depositing of materials on the anode. That's not real impressive IMO. If he had taken the time to read the book , he'd understand the series of experiments in question. Since he doesn't understand them, it's clear he had not read the book to that point in time.

Have you rectified that problem yet tusenfem, yes or no?

QED

 

[tusenfem]

I briefly scanned the thread, and I think he mentions the book later on, evidently oblivious to the fact that his whole series of experience is directly related to a "cathode" terella. It doesn't seem that t even read the actual experiments and how they work. He also seem oblivious to the fact that the "zodiacial light' that Birkeland refers to the the CORONA we observe during a lunar eclipse of the sun.

Sorry, but Birkeland was looking for an explanation of the zodiacal light, only you may confuse this with the sun's corona, but then what do you know?

You did not personally read the materials for yourself, and it's clear that t had no clue that the whole series of experiments that Birkeland referred to required the sun to act as a "cathode" compared to "space".

I am glad that your expertise on Birkeland puts me straight. At this point I probably have read more of B than you.

I'm doing so right here, right now. T is also participating in this thread. The first thing I want to hear him explain is how he could possibly have missed the fact that the whole series of experiments that Birkeland refers to required the sphere to be a CATHODE, and discharges toward the anode chamber? How could you possibly miss that t?

How could you possibly think that you understand (plasma)physics, m?
If you would actually have read the thread, instead of scanned it, you might have found more useful information about when the terrella was an anode and when a cathode etc. etc.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm doing so right here, right now. T is also participating in this thread. The first thing I want to hear him explain is how he could possibly have missed the fact that the whole series of experiments that Birkeland refers to required the sphere to be a CATHODE, and discharges toward the anode chamber? How could you possibly miss that t?

Those experiments where Birkeland was working to figure out how the aurora works on Earth? With that terrella, or "little Earth"? Uh, yeah. We'll pass on that bogus and oft repeated distortion of the truth to support some cockamamie notion about the Sun being powered by electricity.

(Prediction: The response to this post will be a complaint about the poster rather than any quantitative objective support for the crackpot electric Sun conjecture.)

 

[tusenfem]

FYI, I already asked t the most relevant question from that thread you suggested that I read. Evidently t was *ENTIRELY OBLIVIOUS* to the fact that all the experiments that Birkeland references *REQUIRED* a discharge from a cathode terella to the anode box around the terella. That seems a pretty blatant and bone head mistake for someone that professes to be an 'expert' on Birkeland's work and their relevancy (or not) to solar physics.

The only question in the B thread you asked was "what is sputtering."
And READ the thread, don't just scan it, read Birkeland in French and English, and maybe, just maybe you may learn something.

 

[tusenfem]

Here's what I found:



This tells me two things about T's understanding of Birkeland's experiments at the time. A) he was clueless about the wiring and B) he was clueless as to the depositing of materials on the anode. That's not real impressive IMO. If he had taken the time to read the book , he'd understand the series of experiments in question. Since he doesn't understand them, it's clear he had not read the book to that point in time.

Have you rectified that problem yet tusenfem, yes or no?

Apparently, you like to quote stuff and then just only pick out the little small piece that you need (nothing new, you did that in the discharge discussion with Peratt's words, just read far enough till you can interprete it to your liking). If you had yellowed a bit more, then you find my reason why Birkeland could not have thought that the Sun was an anode because I go on with: because "cathode" is always accompanied by "ray" and as an experimental scientist working with electricity all the time, I am sure Birkeland also understood that cathodes do not emit positive corpuscules.

I am sure you can point out to me book, page and line number where Birkeland states that the Sun is a cathode. The reasons for his experiments with an anode or cathode terrella are in the other thread, it's rather hard to create a Sun in the lab, therefore B had to use things that he could experiment with, in this case a metal ball with a magnet inside. However, we KNOW that the solar wind is not driven electrically like circuit, because the electrons and ions move at the same velocity in the same direction. That is so much of basic electrodynamics, heck it is basic electrotechnics (circuit theory) that it is staggering you still come up with this nonsense.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No you wouldn't and no I wouldn't. Evidence: how you behave towards all the people who do put in the effort.

I don't know. Who's actually "put in the effort"? Has t even read Birkeland's book yet? Have you? If you have not, and yet you accuse me of putting in no effort, do you believe you've behaved fairly towards me?

My only role is to hold you accountable for that.

Your whole role seems to be about ego battles, not about science.

When will you underake to get a proper physics education?

I did. I read Birkeland's work and Alfven's work and Peratt's work and Dungey's work and that Chinese paper for myself. When did you intend to get a proper physics education?

Can we expect you to announce your enrollment in an academic program at a reputable school sometime soon?

Is that an appeal to authority fallacy or what?

Or are you just going to continue ignoring everyone who has such an education

Who's read Birkeland's book and Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma? Only two other individuals I know of on the planet have read Alfven's book, Tim and tusenfem. Tusenfem HAD NOT read Birekeland's book (clearly) and I have no idea if Tim's taken the time to even read Birkeland's whole book. It's long. Tim and t have NOT cited any real flows in Alfven's work on coronal loop activity for instance, so what exactly am I "ignoring" in your opinion?

so that you can do a pissing contest with me?

No, you chose to engage me and you did so in a very derogatory way.

Get to work, Mozina.

Work is a two way street. I've done a lot of work already just in rounding up the right materials. I can talk to you about Birkeland's work, or that Chinese paper till I'm blue in the face, but if you refuse to read it for yourself, and all you ever do is bitch, what is there to talk about from the standpoint of science?