Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

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.

Ditto on the Electricity generates magnetic fields issue. There's a "cause/effect" relationship here that you have backwards. Current flow causes the magnetic field to form in our atmosphere. Ditto on the sun. You seem to insist magnetic fields do all the work when in nature it is the *CURRENT FLOW* that generates the magnetic field. Why are you putting the cart before the horse?

I do know a little about plasmas.
I do know that electrical (and ionic) currents in plasmas are caused by charge being separated.

And Birkeland created charge separation even on a cathode sphere. The key issue here is Birkeland created a working model of these discharge processes. When did you ever see a full sphere full of arcs like this from "magnetic reconnection" theory?

I do know that charge separations in plasmas are limited to a few tens of Debye lengths:

Why did Birkeland's sphere generate loops in the atmosphere? How is current flow in plasma in any way limited to a Debye length?

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.

You'd have to demonstrate your case and address any of the three other images I provided to support your case. The only "delusion" here is your belief that a very thin plasma like a photosphere will block light on every single wavelength. Even in your own model there would be nothing to prevent us from seeing the arc down to the surface of the photosphere and to whatever depth it actually penetrates the photosphere. Do you figure that happens in the first inch or two?

The fact that you and GM rely upon the term "delusion" so often and that you both of you avoid the specific details of this image like the plague only demonstrates to me how pathetic you've become. You've got nothing in terms of scientific explanations to offer, and therefore the personal attack is your only pitiful means of debate.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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:

What exactly did you expect me to say about it? Birkeland identified the original current source (fission). He identified a discharge process between the surface and the heliosphere and even simulated coronal loops, jets, solar wind, etc. What did you guys do to demonstrate any of your claims in a physical way in controlled experimentation?

 

[GeeMack]

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?

I thought it would be interesting to see your reasoning as to why not a single physics professional or educator on Earth agrees with your lunatic solid surface Sun fantasy. I contend that you haven't ever provided any objective evidence to support your crazy idea, and the fact that not another soul accepts your analysis bears that out. I contend that if you're correct, given not a single professional supporter, you're the single most incompetent communicator who ever claimed to be a scientist. I contend that if there was even the remotest possibility that you're correct, at least one person who is qualified to describe the physics involved would be willing to work with you and get a piece of that Nobel prize sitting just inches outside your grasp.

But what did I expect? I expected you to avoid the question because it would require you to acknowledge a very uncomfortable truth, that being that you're wrong and that you've wasted several years of your life pursuing a flight of fancy, a mere delusion.

 

[GeeMack]

What exactly did you expect me to say about it? Birkeland identified the original current source (fission). He identified a discharge process between the surface and the heliosphere and even simulated coronal loops, jets, solar wind, etc. What did you guys do to demonstrate any of your claims in a physical way in controlled experimentation?

When are you going to demonstrate that a running difference compilation made from a series of 171Å images of the coronal region of the Sun can show a surface thousands of kilometers below under the photosphere. Your standards require a lab tested, right here on Earth, controlled experiment that shows that to be true. If not, you're wrong. Oh that's right, your own standards don't apply to your own crazy idea of evidence.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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

[...]

Baloney.

Whatever Birkeland 'built' 'in a lab', it was NOT 'a working solar system'!

After all, Eris was not discovered back then, was it?

 

[Reality Check]

What exactly did you expect me to say about it? Birkeland identified the original current source (fission). He identified a discharge process between the surface and the heliosphere and even simulated coronal loops, jets, solar wind, etc. What did you guys do to demonstrate any of your claims in a physical way in controlled experimentation?

Citations from his book and published papers please.

As far as I can see everything that you say Birkeland "identified", Birkeland actually speculated about and produced experimental analogies.

Scientists have demonstrated the actual processes in solar physics in empirical experiments.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I thought it would be interesting to see your reasoning as to why not a single physics professional or educator on Earth

That statement is simply a false statement on your part, no matter how many times you repeat it. You really are just "winging" your whole ad hom speal, insult by insult, unsupported statement after unsupported statement. You can't figure out the first thing about a RD image because you're clueless when it comes to the process. If you were not clueless you would not have made so many bonehead mistakes on just the basics. Flying plasma? What flying plasma? Sheesh. You're pathetic when it comes to actual "science".

Having not sat down with the whole population of Earth to explain my ideas, it's no surprise that most folks do not understand them, let alone agree with them.

I've not wasted my life in any way. I've spent four years attempting to get you folks to sit down and address these images, and what I've learned in that four years has been invaluable. The whole collective lot of you seems to have not one single specific explanation in terms of cause effect relationships, and specific events in specific frames of these images. None of you has stepped up scientifically to offer an explanation of these images in any detail based on gas model theory. None of you seem to be able to hang in there as it relates to heliosiesmology findings of a "stratification subsurface" sitting in what is supposed to be on open convection zone that keeps iron mixed with hydrogen. Your whole belief system is held together with so many irrational beliefs it's not funny. I've learn a lot in the last four plus years, and it's been worth every minute of these discussions, even if only to satisfy my own curiosity.

I once believed that your collective here might have something of scientific value to offer but what I've learned is exactly the opposite is true. There are a few folks like DD, Tim, some folks from space.com, and a few others that have been scientifically curious and "fair" scientific skeptics. The rest of you engage in underhanded debate tactics that are highly reminiscent of what one might expect from any cult on any topic. Lynch the heretic mentality seems to be your personal specialty for instance. You haven't a clue how to explain any specific detail in the images because you don't even understand the process at a rudimentary level.

I also learned that your so called "experts" seem to specifically unwilling to come out to any forum and explain this image in any detail, not one of them. I've tried to solicit a response on many forums, and it pretty much always goes down exactly as it's going down here. That's probably because it's such a small inbred little community and there aren't many "experts" in the first place, and those folks like you only debase the conversation to the point of absurdity.

As I've said, you are the single least ethical debator in cyberspace. I've never met anyone with less ethics, less real "scientific curiosity" on any forum anywhere, including several religious oriented websites I have posted to. That's really saying something. If you didn't include a personal insult every single post, you wouldn't sound so utterly pathetic.

Do you really thing nobody in cyberspace is going to notice how you, RC, DRD and everyone else here has run from every specific observation in this specific image? Do you think they aren't going to notice how unethical your style is? Do you really think they will fail to miss how cowardly you've been when it comes to focusing on anything specific in any specific frame of the image? How deluded are you anyway?

 

[D'rok]

That statement is simply a false statement on your part, no matter how many times you repeat it. You really are just "winging" your whole ad hom speal, insult by insult, unsupported statement after unsupported statement. You can't figure out the first thing about a RD image because you're clueless when it comes to the process. If you were not clueless you would not have made so many bonehead mistakes on just the basics. Flying plasma? What flying plasma? Sheesh. You're pathetic when it comes to actual "science".

Having not sat down with the whole population of Earth to explain my ideas, it's no surprise that most folks do not understand them, let alone agree with them.

I've not wasted my life in any way. I've spent four years attempting to get you folks to sit down and address these images, and what I've learned in that four years has been invaluable. The whole collective lot of you seems to have not one single specific explanation in terms of cause effect relationships, and specific events in specific frames of these images. None of you has stepped up scientifically to offer an explanation of these images in any detail based on gas model theory. None of you seem to be able to hang in there as it relates to heliosiesmology findings of a "stratification subsurface" sitting in what is supposed to be on open convection zone that keeps iron mixed with hydrogen. Your whole belief system is held together with so many irrational beliefs it's not funny. I've learn a lot in the last four plus years, and it's been worth every minute of these discussions, even if only to satisfy my own curiosity.

I once believed that your collective here might have something of scientific value to offer but what I've learned is exactly the opposite is true. There are a few folks like DD, Tim, some folks from space.com, and a few others that have been scientifically curious and "fair" scientific skeptics. The rest of you engage in underhanded debate tactics that are highly reminiscent of what one might expect from any cult on any topic. Lynch the heretic mentality seems to be your personal specialty for instance. You haven't a clue how to explain any specific detail in the images because you don't even understand the process at a rudimentary level.

I also learned that your so called "experts" seem to specifically unwilling to come out to any forum and explain this image in any detail, not one of them. I've tried to solicit a response on many forums, and it pretty much always goes down exactly as it's going down here. That's probably because it's such a small inbred little community and there aren't many "experts" in the first place, and those folks like you only debase the conversation to the point of absurdity.

As I've said, you are the single least ethical debator in cyberspace. I've never met anyone with less ethics, less real "scientific curiosity" on any forum anywhere, including several religious oriented websites I have posted to. That's really saying something. If you didn't include a personal insult every single post, you wouldn't sound so utterly pathetic.

Do you really thing nobody in cyberspace is going to notice how you, RC, DRD and everyone else here has run from every specific observation in this specific image? Do you think they aren't going to notice how unethical your style is? Do you really think they will fail to miss how cowardly you've been when it comes to focusing on anything specific in any specific frame of the image? How deluded are you anyway?

This is an Internet forum for skeptics that happens to have some knowledgeable science types as members. If you really want to test your ideas out against the scientific mainstream, why don't you do so?

Astronomers and physicists aren't cloistered away in monasteries. Every university has a faculty page with contact information for professors and researchers. I imagine many private research facilities do the same. Send some emails. If you get brushed off, try someone else. It's a big, interconnected world out there. Some qualified person will eventually be patient enough to listen and explain things to you. You're wasting your time in here.

 

[Reality Check]

Ditto on the Electricity generates magnetic fields issue. There's a "cause/effect" relationship here that you have backwards. Current flow causes the magnetic field to form in our atmosphere. Ditto on the sun. You seem to insist magnetic fields do all the work when in nature it is the *CURRENT FLOW* that generates the magnetic field. Why are you putting the cart before the horse?

Why are you ignorant of processes oin plasma?
In solids it is often true that current flow produces magnetic fields, e.g. the current in asolenoid produces their magnetic fields. This is something any first year physics student knows about.

Plasmas are not solids. Their physical propoerties are different. This is something any first year physics student knows about.
They cannot have electric currents (your "*CURRENT FLOW*") that extend over more than a few Debye lengths, i.e. a few metres in the Sun's photosphere (and that is probably generous).

And Birkeland created charge separation even on a cathode sphere. The key issue here is Birkeland created a working model of these discharge processes. When did you ever see a full sphere full of arcs like this from "magnetic reconnection" theory?

He did. Everyone knows this.
Only an idiot would think that a charge spearation on a metallic sphere has anything to do with charge separation in a plasma.
Are you an idiot Michael Mozina?

Why did Birkeland's sphere generate loops in the atmosphere?

Because the Earth's atmosphere is not the Sun's - it is not a plasma!

How is current flow in plasma in any way limited to a Debye length?

Once more for thesimple minded:
Current flows need charge speration. Charge separation is limited in plasmas to a few tens of Debye lengths.

You'd have to demonstrate your case and address any of the three other images I provided to support your case. The only "delusion" here is your belief that a very thin plasma like a photosphere will block light on every single wavelength. Even in your own model there would be nothing to prevent us from seeing the arc down to the surface of the photosphere and to whatever depth it actually penetrates the photosphere. Do you figure that happens in the first inch or two?

The RD animation has been explained (you are deluded by your preconceptions into seeing "mountain ranges" below the photosphere in an animaion that records chnages in the corona).
The Doppler image has been explained by Dr. Kosovichev on your web site:

The consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions.
We know this from the simultaneous measurements of solar magnetic field, made by SOHO. These are not solid structures which would not have mass flows that we see.
These images are Doppler shift of the spectral line Ni 6768A.
The Doppler shift measures the velocity of mass motions along the line of sight. The darker areas show the motions towards us, and light areas show flows from us. These are not cliffs or anything like this. The movie frames are the running differences of the Doppler shift. For the illustration purpose, the sunquake signal is enhanced by increasing its amplitude by a factor 4.

What was the third image?

The fact that you and GM rely upon the term "delusion" so often and that you both of you avoid the specific details of this image like the plague only demonstrates to me how pathetic you've become. You've got nothing in terms of scientific explanations to offer, and therefore the personal attack is your only pitiful means of debate.

It is not a personal attack. It is a factual description of the ideas that you have.
We have offered the scientific explanations in this forum.
Many people have offered the scientific explanations in other fora.
The lead scientists (Dr. Neal Hurlburt and Dr. Kosovichev) involved in the acquisition of the images that you are mistaken about have offered the scientific explanations.
You have known the scientific explanations of the images for many years.

But you persist in asking for people to explain it to you yet again. When offered the scientific explanations you just ignore them and ask the same inane questions again.

This persistent ignorance turns your ideas from misinterpretations into delusions. It turns you from a person who is ignorant of physics (and possibly willing to learn about it) into a person who is deluded into thinking that they are right regardless of the actual science. This is sounds like narcissistic personality disorder but I prefer to refer to you as yet another delusional crackpot.

 

[GeeMack]

Do you really thing nobody in cyberspace is going to notice how you, RC, DRD and everyone else here has run from every specific observation in this specific image? Do you think they aren't going to notice how unethical your style is? Do you really think they will fail to miss how cowardly you've been when it comes to focusing on anything specific in any specific frame of the image? How deluded are you anyway?

Actually I think they're noticing that every one of us here, and many many more, have explained your precious running difference images down to the last pixel (or accept my explanation as valid if they haven't offered one of their own). I think they're noticing, obviously by the responses you've been getting for several years, that you're a liar and you're ignorant. I think they're noticing, again by their responses to your inane claim, that you've got a serious problem with your perception of reality, a serious lack of understanding of physics, a serious misunderstanding of the scientific process, an irrational approach to what you consider evidence, a serious inability to understand or apply math as necessary to support or disprove your crazy claim, and seriously impaired communication skills demonstrated clearly by your lack of ability to get anyone to understand what the hell you're talking about most of the time. That's what I'm sure they notice, on boards you've joined (and sometimes been banned from) in the past, and on this forum right here.

And I've got news for you. Those other people you seem to appreciate that talk all sciency, they aren't giving your crap any more credence than I am. They're telling you you're wrong just like everyone else is. It's the depth of your ignorance that prevents you from seeing it. Nobody, not one single soul on Earth in the field of physics thinks the Sun has a solid iron surface. Not one. And you haven't provided an iota of objective evidence to suggest it does. You lost this before you even started. You're just too wrapped up in your fantasy to know that you're a loser.

But in the interest of fairness, how about you take another shot at coughing up some evidence. (Now that'd be a first!) Where can we find the write-up of that controlled experiment that shows how you can see thousands of kilometers below the Sun's photosphere in a computer processed difference graph of sequential source images gathered with equipment that only images the transition region and corona? You know, that controlled experiment without which even you must admit your claim is completely useless?

BTW, you're a nut, Michael. Love watching you throw those tantrums of yours. Makes you look like a real scientist it does, yesiree! Because you know how real scientists, when asked for evidence, ignore the request and instead write several paragraphs crying like a little girl about being picked on by the mean old skeptics. What a hoot!

 

[Sol88]

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

Point 2

NASA IBEX Spacecraft Detects Neutral Hydrogen Bouncing Off Moon

The solar wind, the supersonic stream of charged particles that flows out from the sun, moves out into space in every direction at speeds of about a million mph. The Earth's strong magnetic field shields our planet from the solar wind. The moon, with its relatively weak magnetic field, has no such protection, causing the solar wind to slam onto the moon's sunward side.

Read asteroids, comet and moons without magnetosphere as well!!!

From its vantage point in high earth orbit, IBEX sees about half of the moon — one quarter of it is dark and faces the nightside (away from the sun), while the other quarter faces the dayside (toward the sun). Solar wind particles impact only the dayside, where most of them are embedded in the lunar surface, while some scatter off in different directions. The scattered ones mostly become neutral atoms in this reflection process by picking up electrons from the lunar surface.

This is only half right, which is typical of a mainstream press release, electrons "stick" to the nightside, ions "slam" into the dayside i.e The night side is negatively charged and the day side positively!!!


maybe you have seen this pic before

The combined scattering and neutralization processes now observed at the moon have implications for interactions with objects across the solar system, such as asteroids, Kuiper Belt objects and other moons. The plasma-surface interactions occurring within protostellar nebula, the region of space that forms around planets and stars — as well as exoplanets, planets around other stars — also can be inferred.

And COMETS Tusenfem, do try and keep up sport!

Oh and I see it's all "mainstream" now we knew that all along

That is my friends is PURE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!!!!!

As for point 3 see point 2! That is EDM a more energetic form of NASA/ESA's "sputtering"!!

And the BOOYA moment, from one of the comments on the UT page

# Jon Hanford Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Ditto Astrofiend's and T Larsson OM's comments completely! These are entirely relevant questions in regards to quantitative measurements of these quantitative observations. No conspiracy theory needed here.The entire world wants to know, on an iPod, if possible!

Do a little dance, make a little love, let's get down tonight!!!!



Watches Tusenfems head

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is an Internet forum for skeptics that happens to have some knowledgeable science types as members. If you really want to test your ideas out against the scientific mainstream, why don't you do so?

No offense, but this particular topic is not something that most folks have:
A) a lot of interest in to start with.
B) a lot of experience as it relates to satellite images, equipment and the technical limitations of this equipment.
C) a lot of interest in reading enough materials to make an educated and fully informed decision.

This particular image is also heavily processed and therefore it is not a "simple" image to comprehend or to explain to someone with no knowledge of the equipment used, or the technique used to create the image. It can of course *sound* simple enough to a layman, but it takes time to physically explain these images and observations in terms of cause effect relationships, specific physical details, individual observations in individual frames, etc. Most folks just aren't that "into" the topic in the first place. Those that are interested have hopefully followed the conversation, but again that does not mean that they have read the materials suggested by either side, or that they have fully understood the arguments in scientific detail.

Astronomers and physicists aren't cloistered away in monasteries.

Well, they live a pretty sheltered life and aren't used to any real criticism, I can tell you that much. Why aren't they here "explaining" the details of this specific RD image? Please don't tell me any details of this image have been explained here in any way. They have not even address or specified any frame or any specific observation. Even some of GM basic statements about the RD imaging process were simply false and yet you can't personally tell the difference, can you? You're even following along and trying to be helpful and make an honest effort to understand the topic. I realize that you're really trying, but I also realize that you don't have a lot of experience with these images, and you aren't likely to take my side immediately if ever. Like I said, it's no offense personally, but to understand this image, it takes time and real effort, and nobody here seems willing to put in either time or effort into any specific detail of the image.

Every university has a faculty page with contact information for professors and researchers. I imagine many private research facilities do the same. Send some emails. If you get brushed off, try someone else. It's a big, interconnected world out there. Some qualified person will eventually be patient enough to listen and explain things to you. You're wasting your time in here.

I've actually already done that in the past and I've received several responses as well. Dr. Kosovichev has been a real professional by anyone's standards and has emailed me on multiple occasions with answers to my specific questions. He has even sent me additional Doppler images of similar events. I feel quite honored that he's put in the time to do all that for me.

Stein Vidar Hagfors Haugan from the SOHO program also spent a lot time and back and forth emails with me in the early days explaining the RD imaging process and how that process affected the _DIT files in the archives. I know for a fact that LMSAL had three different internal servers looking over my website in the first few months it was online. I've also been out here debating these ideas in cyberspace for about 4 years now. I've even published several papers with a few other scientists in that time. It's not as though I've been cloistered away either.

For me this public debate process has not ever been a waste of time in any way. I've learned a lot over the last few years. I needed to know if these ideas would hold up to public scrutiny. I needed to know if there were additional "explanations" for that RD image that might be "better" than the ones that I came up with. I needed to figure out many aspects of Birkeland's solar model that were not obvious to me at the beginning. These public conversations (well, not necessarily this one specifically) have helped me to do that. It has also taken me awhile to figure out how to even begin to effectively communicate these ideas and I still obviously have a lot to learn. I've had to learn to deal with different types of "skeptics". It is certainly not a waste of time IMO, it is just a pity that folks like GM have to drag the conversation into the sewer all the time.

Since this website afforded me the opportunity to openly discuss these issues with a few folks that I actually do admire (like Tim and DD) in an open and honest manner, I thought it might be worthwhile to find out if they more to offer me in terms of actual science and scientific explanations. Even knowing that they don't have any such answers to offer me is useful information IMO.

It's a pity that these conversations can't stay focused on the science and the images, but that isn't my fault or my choice. I'll be happy to address these images and the details of the images, but a serious scientific discussion of this image cannot begin with "flying stuff? what flying stuff", or we really can't discuss them at all. Some rudimentary understanding of the technical process will be required to sort out the BS like "NO" light sources are involved, and false statements like that. If one sits down and creates a few RD images for themselves, it's possible to refute some of the silly commentary, but most folks have neither the time nor inclination do do such a thing and therefore even knowing who's telling the truth and whole lying through their teeth because nearly impossible to determine.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually I think they're noticing that every one of us here, and many many more, have explained your precious running difference images down to the last pixel (or accept my explanation as valid if they haven't offered one of their own).

Dude, you aren't even capable of citing *ANY* specific pixel in ANY specific frame of *ANY* explanation you've offered. You're utterly deluded if you think you "explained" ANY specific pixel of this image.

 

[Reality Check]

...snip...

Yet another silly post from Sol88.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're just too wrapped up in your fantasy to know that you're a loser.

I would only be a "loser" if I "gave up" because of ignorant bozos like you that attack individuals rather than idea and have nothing of science to offer. Fortunately that is never going to happen.

When did you intend to explain *ANY* specific pixel of *ANY* specific frame?

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped MM's usual ignorance and delusions...

MM: When did you intend to explain *ANY* specific pixel of *ANY* specific frame?
Start with pixel (1,1) on frame 1.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hoy......

I think RC and GM have set new lows for the number times you've resorted to ad homs and personal insults. If you two really don't have anything more to offer on these images, why are you wasting your breath on me? You must know by now that your personal attacks are pointless and they only demonstrate to me that you're in pure desperation mode at this point and have nothing of science to offer me. Do you two have anything specific about the image to offer (by frame and location), or shall we just do another round of pointless insults?

 

[Michael Mozina]

In solids it is often true that current flow produces magnetic fields, e.g. the current in asolenoid produces their magnetic fields. This is something any first year physics student knows about.

Except you refuse to note the order of things at every turn.

Plasmas are not solids.

They are excellent conductors however.

Their physical propoerties are different. This is something any first year physics student knows about.

You mean like they conduct current and form filaments in the plasma when there is certain types of current present?

They cannot have electric currents (your "*CURRENT FLOW*") that extend over more than a few Debye lengths, i.e. a few metres in the Sun's photosphere (and that is probably generous).

Anyone who's ever looked at a discharge in the Earth's atmosphere knows that you're full of it. Discharges can span many miles.

 

[D'rok]

No offense, but this particular topic is not something that most folks have:
A) a lot of interest in to start with.
B) a lot of experience as it relates to satellite images, equipment and the technical limitations of this equipment.
C) a lot of interest in reading enough materials to make an educated and fully informed decision.

This particular image is also heavily processed and therefore it is not a "simple" image to comprehend or to explain to someone with no knowledge of the equipment used, or the technique used to create the image. It can of course *sound* simple enough to a layman, but it takes time to physically explain these images and observations in terms of cause effect relationships, specific physical details, individual observations in individual frames, etc. Most folks just aren't that "into" the topic in the first place. Those that are interested have hopefully followed the conversation, but again that does not mean that they have read the materials suggested by either side, or that they have fully understood the arguments in scientific detail.



Well, they live a pretty sheltered life and aren't used to any real criticism, I can tell you that much. Why aren't they here "explaining" the details of this specific RD image? Please don't tell me any details of this image have been explained here in any way. They have not even address or specified any frame or any specific observation. Even some of GM basic statements about the RD imaging process were simply false and yet you can't personally tell the difference, can you? You're even following along and trying to be helpful and make an honest effort to understand the topic. I realize that you're really trying, but I also realize that you don't have a lot of experience with these images, and you aren't likely to take my side immediately if ever. Like I said, it's no offense personally, but to understand this image, it takes time and real effort, and nobody here seems willing to put in either time or effort into any specific detail of the image.



I've actually already done that in the past and I've received several responses as well. Dr. Kosovichev has been a real professional by anyone's standards and has emailed me on multiple occasions with answers to my specific questions. He has even sent me additional Doppler images of similar events. I feel quite honored that he's put in the time to do all that for me.

Stein Vidar Hagfors Haugan from the SOHO program also spent a lot time and back and forth emails with me in the early days explaining the RD imaging process and how that process affected the _DIT files in the archives. I know for a fact that LMSAL had three different internal servers looking over my website in the first few months it was online. I've also been out here debating these ideas in cyberspace for about 4 years now. I've even published several papers with a few other scientists in that time. It's not as though I've been cloistered away either.

For me this public debate process has not ever been a waste of time in any way. I've learned a lot over the last few years. I needed to know if these ideas would hold up to public scrutiny. I needed to know if there were additional "explanations" for that RD image that might be "better" than the ones that I came up with. I needed to figure out many aspects of Birkeland's solar model that were not obvious to me at the beginning. These public conversations (well, not necessarily this one specifically) have helped me to do that. It has also taken me awhile to figure out how to even begin to effectively communicate these ideas and I still obviously have a lot to learn. I've had to learn to deal with different types of "skeptics". It is certainly not a waste of time IMO, it is just a pity that folks like GM have to drag the conversation into the sewer all the time.

Since this website afforded me the opportunity to openly discuss these issues with a few folks that I actually do admire (like Tim and DD) in an open and honest manner, I thought it might be worthwhile to find out if they more to offer me in terms of actual science and scientific explanations. Even knowing that they don't have any such answers to offer me is useful information IMO.

It's a pity that these conversations can't stay focused on the science and the images, but that isn't my fault or my choice. I'll be happy to address these images and the details of the images, but a serious scientific discussion of this image cannot begin with "flying stuff? what flying stuff", or we really can't discuss them at all. Some rudimentary understanding of the technical process will be required to sort out the BS like "NO" light sources are involved, and false statements like that. If one sits down and creates a few RD images for themselves, it's possible to refute some of the silly commentary, but most folks have neither the time nor inclination do do such a thing and therefore even knowing who's telling the truth and whole lying through their teeth because nearly impossible to determine.

So if you have corresponded with the pros, what did they say about your analysis of the images? Did they agree that the images show rigid, persistent features? If not, why did you not accept their explanations?

From an observer's perspective here, I see Tim and DD politely saying you're full of it and I see RC and GM impolitely saying you're full of it. But all of them have taken the time and effort to try and explain things. As a non-scientist, my only tool for determining who is correct on these issues is critical-thinking. Cheap shots aside, they have made cogent arguments backed by relevant authorities. (Appeal to authority is a valid informal logic technique). You haven't. This makes them persuasive, and makes you unpersuasive.

 

[Reality Check]

Except you refuse to note the order of things at every turn.

What is the order of things and why does it turn?

They are excellent conductors however.

That is sort of right - they have plenty of free electrons that can only travel short distances, e.g. ~metres in the photosphere.

You mean like they conduct current and form filaments in the plasma when there is certain types of current present?

No. Plasmas do not conduct current. They are not wires. They are electrically conductive (there is a difference) because they have a lot of free electrons.
Plasmas can form filaments in magnetic fields (e.g. galactic jets).

Anyone who's ever looked at a discharge in the Earth's atmosphere knows that you're full of it. Discharges can span many miles.

Anyone who's ever looked at a discharge in the Earth's atmosphere knows that you're full of it.
Only an idiot would think that the Earth's atmosphere is a plasma. Thank you for confirming that you are an idiot.