Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

Really, this is just too rich to pass up. First, as already demonstrated by others, Peratt's work on galaxy formation is in fact dead wrong, since it is seriously contradicted by observations of galaxy structure. But really, the big deal here is this: "the physics is based upon real forces of nature". Now, the last time I checked, gravity certainly counts as a "real force of nature" in any practical sense (setting aside literal interpretations of general relativity & etc.).

Ok, fine. You are formally welcome to apply the concept of gravity to every KNOWN AND IDENTIFIED* form of mass in the universe. No invisible gnomes will be considered however.

The appeal to dark matter is nothing more or less than the direct appeal to gravity.

No, an appeal to gravity alone tells me that your mass estimation techniques related to guestimating the mass in a galaxy are off by a mile!

It's the simplest and most obvious solution to the problem of reconciling known physics with observations. This does not guarantee that it is right. But ignoring the serious possibility of dark matter would be an exceptionally stupid thing to do.

Fine. I will accept that there is "missing mass" to be "explained". Now explain to me how you're sure that any new forms of exotic material are required to explain these specific observations.

I might ask: What makes you think they're wrong?

SUSY particle theory is purely theoretical in nature with zip in the way of empirical support. What makes you think it's right?

Gravity is certainly a known force of nature, so why is it so bizarre to use gravity to estimate the mass of a galaxy?

Go right ahead and use gravity to calculate the screw ups you made when estimating the amount of mass in a galaxy. Don't come to me however and claim your mass estimates were correct because clearly they are not correct.

Really, you are on the warpath against an idea that is so simple & so obvious that it is simply astonishing to me that anyone can stretch their reliance on pure & unadulterated prejudice to such extremes.

It's simple, obvious, and entirely "made up" Tim. You can't tell me that you already know from distant lensing data that A) your galaxy mass estimates were accurate, or that B) any new exotic forms of matter were in any way involved in these VERY distant observations.

So what if we don't see it in a "controlled laboratory experiment"? Who cares?

Then "Invisible elephants did it and here's the math" is a valid scientific answer Tim.

How do you know that exotic forms of matter are involved in these observations which are light years away from us, and which preclude us from having any control mechanisms to verify your claims?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're not asking for the moon, but you are asking for something challenging.

Why exactly should or would it be challenging if this stuff is 5 times or so more plentiful than ordinary matter?

Practically by definition dark matter is hard to directly detect.

As far as I can tell edd, those "definitions" were entirely contrived in an ad hoc manner based on what you needed to fill an otherwise epically failed theory about galaxy mass estimation.

We're trying very hard to give you the evidence you want, but it is a long way from trivial to give it to you.

Evidently I just have to take your word for it that it should be anything other than trivial edd. It's supposedly many time more abundant than the dirt in my yard, so why would it be difficult to find a single gram of this stuff? Logically it should be damn near impossible to miss the stuff, or at least the influences of this stuff here on Earth. It's gravitational effects on Earth alone should be staggering and damn obvious.

This does not mean that dark matter does not exist.

What evidence do you have that it does exist and that you accurately guestimated the mass of a galaxy?

And we are all keen to get the direct detections everyone wants - but don't expect your ludicrous requests of grams of the stuff to be given to you on a plate.

It's only "ludicrous" because you made up the various properties as you needed them based on what would fit into your otherwise dead theory of galaxy mass estimation techniques. I see no evidence that any of these properties were not entirely contrived by your industry to fit things as you needed them to fit. You certainly didn't identify these properties based on laboratory evidence.

There's good reason to think we will find it,

There's no reason to think that, it's simply an act of faith on your part in the final analysis. There could be many ways that you blew the mass estimates, and this notion of "dark matter" *REQUIRES* that your mass estimates be accurate.

far better reason to think that than to think that any of this electric universe nonsense holds water.

Compared to the faith it takes to believe in inflation, DE and DM, EU theory is certainly not "nonsense". It's 'lab tested' in fact. That's far more than I can say for A) inflation which can now *NEVER* be seen on Earth, B) DE which can only show up when no mass is around evidently, or C) mythical dark matter which is so abundant it's supposedly dwarfs the mass of ordinary matter but you can't find a single gram of the stuff, EU theory is an empirical breath of fresh air. You are welcome to your faith of course, but don't call it "science" unless you can backup your claims with empirical support. Birkeland demonstrated his beliefs had merit. Right or wrong they work in a lab and they can therefore be compared to events in space in an ordinary scientific manner. No acts of faith are required.

I don't know how you can actually miss the "signs" of electricity in space edd. That "current flow" you call "solar wind" is composed of moving charged particles. Those million degree coronal loops are discharges in the solar atmosphere and emit the same wavelengths of light as discharges in the Earth's atmosphere and the atmospheres of other bodies in space. How can you miss all that?

 

[edd]

Why exactly should or would it be challenging if this stuff is 5 times or so more plentiful than ordinary matter?

Gravity is weak.

As far as I can tell edd, those "definitions" were entirely contrived in an ad hoc manner based on what you needed to fill an otherwise epically failed theory about galaxy mass estimation.

Yes that's not an entirely unfair comment. However, claiming electromagnetism as a cure for it is crazy. Your ideas are so much deeper epic fail it is hard to find comic internet jargon to fit them.

Evidently I just have to take your word for it that it should be anything other than trivial edd. It's supposedly many time more abundant than the dirt in my yard, so why would it be difficult to find a single gram of this stuff?

The dirt in your yard interacts with different sets of forces. You cannot possibly engage in this conversation without being aware of this.

Yes, it's weird. Yes, it's not something we want to bring into our idea of the universe without evidence. BUT THE EVIDENCE IS THERE.

Logically it should be damn near impossible to miss the stuff, or at least the influences of this stuff here on Earth. It's gravitational effects on Earth alone should be staggering and damn obvious.

You've not worked the numbers then have you? Or would you like to prove me wrong on how galactic scale smooth distributions of dark matter have influences on the gravity of your back yard?

What evidence do you have that it does exist and that you accurately guestimated the mass of a galaxy?

Doesn't need repeating. Those that see the value of it have accepted it. You haven't.

To repeat, I understand that you find the need for a dark sector uncomfortable. Noone really wants it, but the evidence is overwhelmingly against your point of view.

 

[Reality Check]

Because it is the one force of nature that has been observed to create all the observations in question. It's the one force of nature that has been shown to:

A) heat plasma to millions of degrees naturally in an atmosphere.
B) pinch free neutrons from plasma (observe in Rhessi images and in the lab)
C) sustain high plasma temperatures for hours on end.
D) sustain "loops" in an atmosphere of a terella in a vacuum
E) create jets from a terella in a vacuum.
F) create "flying electrons and electric ions of all kinds"
G) release gamma rays in the atmosphere of bodies in the solar system.
H) release x-rays in the atmosphere of multiple bodies in the solar system.\
I) create filamentary shapes in plasma.
J) create huge energy releases in plasma in explosive double layer events.
K) accelerate charged particles to high speeds.

How long of a list would you like? Electrical energy sure fits all the evidence.

Magnetic fields also fit all of these.
Give us some numbers from your theory, e.g. what is the X-ray specturm from your electic discharges and how does it fit observations.

The only "delusion" here is that you "explained' anything. You never mentioned a single cause/effect relationship, not a single observed phenomenon with your single exception about the flying stuff coming from the CME. You did get that right. You also correctly identified the coronal loops and coronal material as the source of the original images, but you incorrectly claimed there were *NO* light sources in RD image and you seem to be oblivious to the fact that the movement of the surface between images will generate lots of important features in the image, like the shadowing, etc. If you can't identify any real cause/effect relationships, you didn't *EXPLAIN* anything. If you don't focus on a specific observation, by frame, location, etc, it is absolutely irrational to believe you "explained" any detail of the image.

Learn to read MM.
We have stated what all of the features in the RD - they are records of changes. That is what every specific observation, by frame, location, etc. is.

Your "mountain range" delusion is merely areas of increasing temperature on one side of the flares and areas of decreasing temperatures on the other side of the flares. The fact that this is happening around the relatively constant flares (but note the "mountain ranges" that pop up during the RD animation) makes it look as of there are persistent structures.

Anyone who's put a RD image together also know that it is a false statement to claim there are no light sources. All the light, all the light in both images comes from the sun and is a result of a process on the sun. That is also true of every pattern we observe in a RD image. You folks have missed far too many of the mechanical aspects of what a RD image is to even take you seriously at this point. A child can also see the flying stuff in the image, the peeling along the right, the angular features in the image. A child can't explain them of course, but neither can you.

The "mechanical aspects" of an running difference animation are easy - each frame is the record of changes between two of the original images. \

There are no light sources in the result because an RD image is no longer a photograph. Photographs have light sources. There might be records of changes in the positions and intensity of light sources in the RD animation.

A young child could be fooled into thinking that the RD animation have "mountain ranges" in them because they do not know better. An older child would know:

• An RD animation only shows changes in position or intensity (temperature). Thus any persistent feature is something that is always changing temperature but is not changing position.
• The "shadows" in the animation point in various directions. This means that a deluded person could say that there were multiple "light sources" but that child would see that there are not multiple "shadows".
• "Mountain ranges" erupt out of the background during the animation.

Then there is your delusion that the RD animation is of "mountain ranges" on a hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface that is 4800 km below the photosphere.
This is a result of your continued ignorance of basic physics that allows you to be deluded into thinking that the 171 Angstrom pass band filter used to take the original images can look into the photosphere.
Trace pass bands:

 

[Reality Check]

Since Michael Mozina is spewing his unfounded assertions:

No, an appeal to gravity alone tells me that your mass estimation techniques related to guestimating the mass in a galaxy are off by a mile!

it is time for repeat of the dark matter questions.

Hopefully sometime in the next few decades he will actually answer them .
(P.S. mass is not estimated in miles ).

First asked on 23rd June. 2009.
No real response yet (5th July 2009 and counting).

How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?

• galaxy rotation curves (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
• the motion of galxies in galactic clusters (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
• the actual measurement of the mass density of galactic clusters showing that about 2% is in the galaxies and IGM (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, indirect measurement)
• the two actual measurements of the separation of dark matter from normal matter:
  • NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (Bullet Cluster)
  • another observation (MACS J0025.4-1222)
    (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, direct measurements of the separation of dark and normal matter)
• A bit of supporting evidence is that the Millennium Run used the Lambda-CDM model to replicate the large-scale structure of the universe. CDM = Cold Dark Matter.

So far we have seen

• Michael Mozina's usual inability to understand what empirical means with his "empirical measurments of an *CONTROLLED* experiment" nonsense.
• His personal opinion that somehow astronomers have underestimated the visible mass of galaxies. That would have to by a factor of 50 or more.

The last point demands more questions:
First asked 25 June 2009.
No real response yet (5th July 2009 and counting).

Would you like to explain how the astronomers got the mass so wrong, e.g.

• What visible matter are they not accounting for?
• How is the mass of the visible matter they are accounting for measured incorrectly?
• Is the Sun two times heavier than orbital mechanics say that it is? 10 times? 50 times? 100 times? Or greater?

Perhaps this just your personal opinion unsupported by any empirical evidence just because you cannot understand the evidence for dark matter?

 

[GeeMack]

Michael, in all the years of you hollering and whining about that ridiculous solid surface Sun crap, not one single professional in any field related to any legitimate science has agreed with your claim. Why is that? Tens of thousands of people believe crazy things like the Earth is only 6000 years old. Millions of them believe space aliens visit the Earth. Thousands think there are living bigfoot type creatures roaming the woods of North America, and thousands more accept as reality a prehistoric monster swimming in Loch Ness in Scotland. Yet not a single solitary legitimate science professional, researcher, or educator on the face of this planet accepts your ludicrous conjecture. Why?

 

[tusenfem]

Well, well, well, up to now no working model for the electric universe has been presented.

• I have not obtained an answer from MM on where exactly Birkeland calculates the dragging of the ions by the electrons, and I did go through lots of math pages in the book and wrote it down here.
• I have not obtained an answer from either Sol88 or MM or Zeuzzz on how the water in a comet gets created from solar wind protons and nucleus oxygen ions
• I have not obtained an answer about how EDM works on an electric comet
• I have not obtained an answer on what "particle reconnection is
• I have not obtained an answer on how induction can change the topology of the magnetic field in the following way that is from anti-parallel field to this X-configuration
• I have not obtained even the smallest acknowledgement from PU/PC/EU/ES/EC proponents that mainstream does not abhor electric fields and elelctric currents
• I would love to be explained how Birkeland's fission of uranium in the Sun leads to electricity (whatever electricity is)
• I would love to know why a failed model like Peratt's is being deified, when all observational evidence is lacking
• How does the "stars are z-pinches" model work, and what evidence is there and what is driving the currents for these z-pinches (I realise that this is somehow a mini-version of Peratt's galaxy creation mechanism)
• I would like to know ... well, that is about enough questions

Basically, I have not received squad from the PU/PC/EU/ES/EC apart from things that are already in mainstream, but the PU/PC/EU/ES/EC proponents have not got the foggiest

 

[Michael Mozina]

Magnetic fields also fit all of these.

Baloney. Which *NATURAL* "event" in the Earth's atmosphere that causes all the aforementioned items is the the result of "magnetic fields" to the exclusion of electrical discharge?

Give us some numbers from your theory,

Give us a physical demonstration of your theory. Where can I go on Earth to see a *NATURAL* event that is due to magnetism, that is going to emit x-rays and gamma rays and such?

e.g. what is the X-ray specturm from your electic discharges and how does it fit observations.

Electrical discharges are used to generate x-rays in your dentists office. You have to plug it in of course because it requires "electricity' (you know, those flowing charged particle thingies that make stuff work) .

Learn to read MM.

You're going to have to learn to do some real experimentation, show real cause effect relationships, and figure out that that there is in fact a light source associated with both original images, specifically the discharges (or whatever you prefer) in the solar atmosphere that release such high energy photons. When you get that far, we might actually have a rational discussion. As it stands, your childish and cartoon like understanding of a RD image is preventing us from having a rational or real scientific discussion on this topic.

We have stated what all of the features in the RD - they are records of changes.

Well, we all agree that they can and do show us changes over time, but you've failed to acknowledge that the whole surface is rotating between images and therefore the "outlines" we observe are in part due to the light sources simply rotating to the right.

That is what every specific observation, by frame, location, etc. is.

This statement is a childish and stupid cop out. There are actual physical processes that cause the light to be emitted, that cause the CME event, that generate the shapes we observe in the image, etc. There are specific events that occur in the image that have specific cause/effect relationships associated with them, like that "flying stuff" we observe in all the images from the CME event. To actually "explain" this image you will need to focus on and explain (cause/effect and everything) all the important events in the image. You haven't touched nary a single one of them. You mentioned the flying stuff being associated with the CME. That's about as far as you ever got. GM blew so many important aspects of RD imaging that he's into minus territory in the credibility scale. You're hanging in there by your fingernails, but only by your fingernails. Let's see you do some real science stuff, and address some of the specific events in the image, like the peeling along the right, the angular persistent features, etc.

Your "mountain range" delusion is merely areas of increasing temperature on one side of the flares and areas of decreasing temperatures on the other side of the flares.

In the sense that the shadows in the image are caused by the rotation of the sun, and the light sources are moving left to right, ok, I agree, shadows are generated this way. The rest of your rant is pointless until you address some of the other important aspects of the image, like persistent angular features, etc.

The "mechanical aspects" of an running difference animation are easy - each frame is the record of changes between two of the original images.

That is only a layman's explanation of the general process. That is not a specific explanation related to a specific event associated with specific frames and locations in the image. You're tossing out a general explanation of RD imaging that you might have read on LMSAL's website and claiming you somehow explained *THIS SPECIFIC* image. That's not how it works. You've only explain the some of the fundamental issues, but you actually explained them incorrectly. There are two light sources, not *NO* light sources. Each original image is lit and visible due a specific *PROCESS* on the sun. It's a solar related and generated photon that hits each and every pixel of each original image. The solar process called "rotation" combined with the length of time between images will determine the total amount of movement in the image, as will any changes in the solar processes that generated the photons in each original image.

There are no light sources in the result because an RD image is no longer a photograph.

It does not matter if it is a "photograph" by your standards. It still has two original light sources, both of which are solar generated in origin. It's probably the exact same set of original light sources too because whatever caused the light in the first image is likely to be causing the same light in the second image as well. There is one set of solar light sources moving left to right in the image. To say there are "NO" light sources is irrational and physically incorrect. All the photons came from the sun, and the rotation of the sun between images will have a large effect on image.

Photographs have light sources. There might be records of changes in the positions and intensity of light sources in the RD animation.

Those "changes" you're talking about are 90% the result of rotation alone, and only maybe 10% of the actual changes we observe in a RD image are due to changes in the light source between shots.

A young child could be fooled into thinking that the RD animation have "mountain ranges" in them because they do not know better.

A 'child" might think there are no light sources. A scientist understands that the sun is the light source of both original images and the RD image as well, mostly due to rotation between images.

An older child would know:

• An RD animation only shows changes in position or intensity

• 
  
  An older child would understand that the sun is rotating between the images, and the light sources are staying relatively constant throughout the image.
  
  

  (temperature).

  
  Temperature changes on the order of several OOM's here on Earth are the direct result of electrical discharges in the atmosphere. That something a child learns as they grow older.
  
  

  Thus any persistent feature is something that is always changing temperature but is not changing position.

  
  That is not so. You are not considering the rotation aspect at all. It's changing in part simply due to rotation, not because anything actually changed much in temperatures between images.
  
  

  [*]The "shadows" in the animation point in various directions.

  
  Which side are they on typically? Hint: The sun is rotating between shots.
  Until you start to acknowledge that the sun is simply rotating in between images, and that rotation shows up in the specific features in the image, we can't get very far. You're going to have to sit down and create a couple of RD images yourself like I did with those STEREO RD images on my blog page to start to understand some fundamental processes (like rotation) that have a specific effect on these images.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Let me recap:
1) Magnetic reconnection is a valid and well accepted physical process, well described in theory, and well observed in controlled laboratory experiments. It's validity is beyond question.

Hi Tim. If you have an answer to all my questions in the thread i started specifically on magnetic reconnection please post them there (Magnetic reconnection and physical processes) I think you will find many of the links and sources in that thread to be of interest, and showing that the debate over magnetic reconnections validity is indeed a question worthy of consideration. There has been no consensus reached in that thread, and only (less than) half of my original queries in the OP have been answered.

 

[Reality Check]

Baloney. Which *NATURAL* "event" in the Earth's atmosphere that causes all the aforementioned items is the the result of "magnetic fields" to the exclusion of electrical discharge?

Baloney. This is teh Sun not the Earth. Even an idiot can tell that there is some differences between the two.

You're going to have to learn to do some real experimentation, show real cause effect relationships, and figure out that that there is in fact a light source associated with both original images, specifically the discharges (or whatever you prefer) in the solar atmosphere that release such high energy photons. When you get that far, we might actually have a rational discussion. As it stands, your childish and cartoon like understanding of a RD image is preventing us from having a rational or real scientific discussion on this topic.

You need to learn to read.
The original images had light sources.
The RD animation process removed constant light sources and leaves only changes in light sources.

Well, we all agree that they can and do show us changes over time, but you've failed to acknowledge that the whole surface is rotating between images and therefore the "outlines" we observe are in part due to the light sources simply rotating to the right.

You have failed to show that the scientists are so stupid that they do not compensate for the rotation of the Sun.
You have faield to see that your delusional "shadows" point in various directiosn and are not the multiple "shadows" that a child would expect from multiple "light sources".
In addition your delusional "mountain ranges" do not drift across the animation.

...snipped MM's usual spewing of lies and delusions...

 

[Michael Mozina]

Gravity is weak.

That's not much of an answer IMO. Your mythical particles are always located "somewhere out there" where they seem to have *NO* direct effect on humans at all. Only when we get "somewhere out there" do you expect to find any of that material? Why wouldn't it lump together with ordinary matter, and if it doesn't lump with ordinary matter, why does it "lump" at all? Why doesn't a chunk of this stuff ever blow right though Earth and disturbing any of the gravity wave experiments presently in process?

Yes that's not an entirely unfair comment. However, claiming electromagnetism as a cure for it is crazy. Your ideas are so much deeper epic fail it is hard to find comic internet jargon to fit them.

It can't be considered "crazy" to suggest that a force of nature that is known to be many orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity might have an effect on physical bodies in space. That's not "crazy", that is simply an "idea" that may or may not pan out. It's not "crazy" because there are logical reasons for suggesting the idea that are not simply 'made up" here in my head, but that work in a lab.

When you talk about "dark" stuff however that conveniently can't be found in a lab, that sounds pretty "crazy" from my perspective. Astrologers start with that premise too.

The dirt in your yard interacts with different sets of forces. You cannot possibly engage in this conversation without being aware of this.

Woah. It's not a *COMPLETELY* different set of forces in the sense that gravity must still be a factor. The other "completely" different forces you came up with were ad hoc constructs to fit your theory, not due to something you learned in a laboratory experiment. You conveniently make it impossible for me to validate or falsify your theory here on Earth.

Yes, it's weird. Yes, it's not something we want to bring into our idea of the universe without evidence. BUT THE EVIDENCE IS THERE.

From the perspective of a skeptic, all you've got is *EVIDENCE* to support in lensing data is the fact that your galaxy mass calculations are *WAY* off the mark, and they are not even in the ballpark. IMO it's time to go back to the drawing board as it relates to galaxy mass calculations, and forget the gap filler.

You've not worked the numbers then have you?

Frankly I don't care about your numbers because they are:

A) impossible to verify in a lab.
B) impossible to verify any time, ever.
C) directly linked to one and only one scientific theory on the whole planet, namely LAMBDA-Gumby theory.
D) unsupported in the lab by direct experiments done to date and there have been extensive collider experiments done to date.

To repeat, I understand that you find the need for a dark sector uncomfortable. Noone really wants it, but the evidence is overwhelmingly against your point of view.

From my personal point of view, a "dark sector" might simply be composed of burned out solar remnants and standard matter. I have no faith at all that any sort of unique form of matter is necessary *ONLY* to explain distant events that are many, many, many light years away. There's no way I can see that far with enough accuracy to really know what might be there. I don't have any rational reason however to simply *ASSUME* that whatever is there *CANNOT BE* ordinary matter. You simply *ASSUMED* this and went off on a wild tangent IMO.

 

[Reality Check]

Which side are they on typically? Hint: The sun is rotating between shots.
Until you start to acknowledge that the sun is simply rotating in between images, and that rotation shows up in the specific features in the image, we can't get very far. You're going to have to sit down and create a couple of RD images yourself like I did with those STEREO RD images on my blog page to start to understand some fundamental processes (like rotation) that have a specific effect on these images.

Are you blind?
The "shadows" are on all sides except the upper right. Their direction is fairly constant.

Theay are not "shadows". They are records of the constant reduction of temperature in the original images (as explained to a certain delusional individual many times before).

If they were real shadows then they would rotate with any rotation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Baloney. This is teh Sun not the Earth. Even an idiot can tell that there is some differences between the two.

Nobody said they were exactly the same, but in the sense that the atmosphere of each body in insufficient to explain gamma-rays and x-rays sustained in the atmosphere, they are more alike than different. Whereas electricity has been shown to have this effect on bodies in space in a "NATURAL" setting, you are *ASSUMING* this same process does not occur on the sun. Why?

You need to learn to read.
The original images had light sources.

All of which came from the sun.

The RD animation process removed constant light sources and leaves only changes in light sources.

The whole thing moved to the right. So what? It's not a huge mystery why those changes occurred, and why the shadows got created, etc. Stop making this an impossible process to comprehend. It's not. Anyone can do it. They can't however miss the fact that the light sources (plural) are all related to the sun, and processes on the sun, and there are *MANY* light sources, not *NO* light sources.

You have failed to show that the scientists are so stupid that they do not compensate for the rotation of the Sun.

I wasn't talking about scientists in general, I was talking about you specifically. I think even GM got that one right in a previous conversation. You seem to *INSIST* there are temperature changes necessary to observe features in this image. That is false. Rotation alone will create "features" in the image.

You have faield to see that your delusional "shadows" point in various directiosn and are not the multiple "shadows" that a child would expect from multiple "light sources".

You don't even begin to understand what I've said to you. The light isn't coming *EXCLUSIVELY* from the largest discharges in the image, but from discharges all along the contours of the crust of the sun. There is not a single light source, or a small number of light sources for that matter, but an incredible number of discharges occurring in the atmosphere, not all of which are larger than 350 kilometers in size! I've explained that before, but evidently you can't hear that part for some reason.

In addition your delusional "mountain ranges" do not drift across the animation.

The rigid and persistent features in that RD image are centered in the image specifically so that they do not move. Compare and contrast that with the SOHO RD images in the SOHO archives where the surface rotates in the image. Someone selectively and intentionally cropped and centered the rigid features in the image.

Due to the alignment process, where rotation is compensated for in the image, only the "flying stuff" from the CME event, and the parts of the surface peeled from the surface move in the image. We do end up seeing some areas of temperature differences.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Are you blind?
The "shadows" are on all sides except the upper right. Their direction is fairly constant.

As you watch this image for a *LONG* while, you'll find that most of the shadows are located on the "leeward" side of the various structures as determined by the flow of plasma in the atmosphere. That "flying stuff" we observe after the CME event shows us the direction of movement of plasma in the atmosphere. It's blowing from the bottom right toward the upper left during the image, but as you can see from the plasma flow it's "windy" and not always the same direction for each and every particle of plasma.

FYI, there are some specific observations about this particular image (including shadowing features) that suggest to me that it is an "averaged" image in some way, not simply a standard "difference" image by the way. Most "difference" images show a clear movement process, in other words shadows are *ALWAYS* found on the left side of bright background stars in LASCO images. The fact that the shadowing features are less obvious in this specific image suggest it may not be a simple difference image, but rather an averaged difference image where each pixel is averaged over time. There are however some obvious features however where shadows are on the left on this image due to the rotation process itself, just like any ordinary difference image.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, well, well, up to now no working model for the electric universe has been presented.

Baloney. Birkeland built a working solar system in a lab.

I have not obtained an answer from MM on where exactly Birkeland calculates the dragging of the ions by the electrons, and I did go through lots of math pages in the book and wrote it down here.

Are you telling me that the flow of cathode electrons will have no influence on the movement of positively charged ions in a lab?

[*]I have not obtained an answer from either Sol88 or MM or Zeuzzz on how the water in a comet gets created from solar wind protons and nucleus oxygen ions

Why are you dragging me personally into the comet theory side of this issue? That's really not my gig. I would assume that the oxygen atoms come from the comet's surface and electrically interact with the protons in the solar wind.

I have not obtained an answer on what "particle reconnection is

It's where a charged proton meets a charged electron and they "reconnect' at the level of actual physics. I've yet to hear your side of the aisle explain what is physically unique about 'magnetic reconnection" that can be physically demonstrated to be unique and different from ordinary electrical interactions in plasma. How did you determine for instance that "magnetic reconnection" is different from ordinary current sheet acceleration, and/or standard induction processes?

I have not obtained an answer on how induction can change the topology of the magnetic field in the following way that is from anti-parallel field to this X-configuration

That X point you're talking about is simply a "short circuit" point, and the *TOTAL CIRCUIT ENERGY* will have a direct influence on the outcome of what occurs there. Furthermore, it is not the "magnetic lines' that are actually changing, it is the "current flow" that is "inside" that "magnetic line" that changes direction and therefore the topology of the "lines" follow suit. The "magnetic lines" are there *ONLY BECAUSE* the current flow is there sustaining the field. If there was no current flow, you'd have not "magnetic line" or any energy to release at the intersection point. A NULL point in a pure "magnetic line" has no energy at all at the NULL point that it could possibly pass on to a charged particle. There's no energy at a null point of magnetic lines, but lots of energy at a point of "short circuit".

I have not obtained even the smallest acknowledgement from PU/PC/EU/ES/EC proponents that mainstream does not abhor electric fields and elelctric currents

You downplay their importance to the point of absurdity. Everything in the media an in the published papers talks about "magnetic" this, "magnetic" that, never "electromagnetic" this, or "current flow". They talk about charge particle flow as through they are neutral atoms, much as you treat solar wind. It's CURRENT FLOW that occurs between the surface and the heliosphere just as Birkeland *DEMONSTRATED IN A LAB* over 100 years ago! Gah. You're industry is so screwed up, it's almost hopeless.

 

[Reality Check]

Nobody said they were exactly the same, but in the sense that the atmosphere of each body in insufficient to explain gamma-rays and x-rays sustained in the atmosphere, they are more alike than different. Whereas electricity has been shown to have this effect on bodies in space in a "NATURAL" setting, you are *ASSUMING* this same process does not occur on the sun. Why?

I am not assuming that electrical fields ("electricity?) do not occur on the Sun. That is silly and no scientist would or does this. There is a thing called electromagnetism. If you have magnetic fields (as in coronal loops) then you have electrical fields also.

I do know a little about plasmas.
I do know that electrical (and ionic) currents in plasmas are caused by charge being separated.
I do know that charge separations in plasmas are limited to a few tens of Debye lengths:

Hannes Alfven pointed out that: "In a low density plasma, localized space charge regions may build up large potential drops over distances of the order of some tens of the Debye lengths. Such regions have been called electric double layers. An electric double layer is the simplest space charge distribution that gives a potential drop in the layer and a vanishing electric field on each side of the layer. In the laboratory, double layers have been studied for half a century, but their importance in cosmic plasmas has not been generally recognized.".

I do know that the Debye length of the photosphere is of the order or meters.
I do know that flares and coronal loops extend for 1000's of kilometers.

You still have not presented any evidence that the flares and coronal loops are electrical discharges on the Sun.
Please do so - remember to give the citations to the published papers.

..snipped "shadows" delusion stuff...

This is all moot because of your ignorance of basic physics has lead you to your biggest delusion:
That the TRACE detector when using the 171A pass band filter can see anything below the chromosphere. The physical fact that it cannot means that your delusional "mountain ranges" are in the corona and do not exist.

 

[GeeMack]

Michael, your willful ignorance is showing. You "missed" this one for, what, the twelfth time?

Michael, in all the years of you hollering and whining about that ridiculous solid surface Sun crap, not one single professional in any field related to any legitimate science has agreed with your claim. Why is that? Tens of thousands of people believe crazy things like the Earth is only 6000 years old. Millions of them believe space aliens visit the Earth. Thousands think there are living bigfoot type creatures roaming the woods of North America, and thousands more accept as reality a prehistoric monster swimming in Loch Ness in Scotland. Yet not a single solitary legitimate science professional, researcher, or educator on the face of this planet accepts your ludicrous conjecture. Why?

 

[Reality Check]

Talking about electrical currents and plasmas, I think that this post by ben m in reply to Micheal Mozina in the Magnetic Reconnection thread applies:

And I get the feeling that you keep coming back to "current flow" because you want to justify putting large electrostatic fields in space. Let's just head that off at the pass, shall we?

We've agreed (repeatedly) that magnetic fields are generated by currents. Not very surprising; it's all B = del cross J as usual. Tell me J and I'll tell you B, and vice versa, modulo a constant of integration. Where are those Js coming from? You want them to come from J = sigma E, Ohm's law, or F = qE. And you want those Es to come from charge separation. Is that a fair statement?

You've got Maxwell's equations in front of you: grad E = rho (charge separation) and curl E = -dB/dt. Standard astrophysics isn't "there's no E in space", standard astrophysics is "there's usually no grad E in space". Space charge separations are small, rare, and generally transient. You get currents in plasma because of changing, usually turbulent, magnetic fields; those currents generate their own changing fields, which generate more currents, and this generates complex plasma dynamics and waves in the absence of charge separation. That's standard astrophysical plasmas: Grad E ~= 0. Curl E != 0. Curl B != 0. Not "J=0", not "there's no plasma", not "plasma is unimportant", not "the current is bunched into discrete ropes or lines". Is that clear? If you've got a coherent objection to mainstream astrophysics at all, that objection is "I think that grad E != 0 configurations are an important/dominant source of currents" Is that a fair statement? "You ignore currents" is a false premise. "Maxwell's Equations don't apply" is ... well, let me just say wrong.

Since dB/dt implies some sort of B to begin with, we need a "primary" source of currents. You want to put big charge separations on or near the Sun to push a "primary" Ohm's Law (nor Coulomb's Law) current around. This would be sort of a reasonable wacky hypothesis ... if you, MM, had shown us that you were *generally quite good* with Maxwell's Equations, and that *your best effort* at getting non-Ohms-law currents had failed and that this idea worked better. Instead, you've shown us that someone who doesn't understand Freshman E&M also doesn't understand where solar currents come from. Anyway, there's a perfectly good mainstream explanation for where solar surface fields come from. Why don't you read up on it, with your newfound understanding of E&M, and explain it to us? Give us the Devil's Advocate version before you launch into what you think are its flaws.

As an other exercise---there's one very common piece of lab equipment (ubiquitous in teaching labs, found in specialized research labs) in which an electric current is created, but *not* driven by an electric field (though such a field happens to be present) or a changing magnetic field. Can you name it? It's tangentially relevant to the mainstream heliomagnetic and geomagnetic models.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, your willful ignorance is showing. You "missed" this one for, what, the twelfth time?

What did you expect me to say to an appeal to authority fallacy that is based upon blind conjecture? When did you personally take a pole?

 

[Zeuzzz]

I agree MM, the fallacies employed by some of those arguing against you are quite a spectacle. I just ignore posts like that one with emotive overtones, and reply to the posts that raise genuine scientific queries.