Electric universe theories here.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
Yes please!
Continue to demonstrate your ignorance of physics and your inability to learn or comprehend basic physics to all the readers of this forum!
Continue to lie about the fact that we have explained every frame and location in the RD animation.

But if you want:
Pixel (1,1) on frame 1 = the change between pixel (1,1) on the 2 original images.
Pixel (1,2) on frame 1 = the change between pixel (1,2) on the 2 original images.
Pixel (1,3) on frame 1 = the change between pixel (1,3) on the 2 original images.
etc.

Now you explain every frame and location in the RD animation.
 
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.


And more crying like a baby. Wahhh. :)

Name a pixel, any pixel. Do you like Row 114, Column 78? Maybe Row 92, Column 312? I'll be happy to explain it, one more time. But I'll explain it right after you point us to the controlled experiment, one we can replicate, that lets us see thousands of kilometers below the photosphere using difference graphs made from images of 171Å wavelength emissions obtained from the coronal region. Of course ideally this would be an experiment we can do right here on Earth, as you insist that is the only valid way to obtain evidence. And it must be objective, meaning other people must be able to reach the same conclusion as you. Or barring that, admit that no such experiment or evidence exists.
 
And more crying like a baby. Wahhh. :)

You really are the single strangest character I've met in cyberspace. It doesn't matter how many times you're shown to be wrong, you just keep bouncing back for more.

Name a pixel, any pixel. Do you like Row 114, Column 78?

Let's try a whole observation at once, like the peeling effect we observe along the right maybe? Better yet, how about you "explain" the persistent angular features for us? Let me guess? What angular persistent features?

I'll be happy to explain it, one more time. But I'll explain it right after you point us to the controlled experiment, one we can replicate, that lets us see thousands of kilometers below the photosphere using difference graphs made from images of 171Å wavelength emissions obtained from the coronal region.

How about showing me any physical test demonstrating how a mostly hydrogen/helium atmosphere is going to block *ANY* iron ion wavelength of light over any distance? Hell, I can observe lightening bolts on Earth many miles away and it's atmosphere is many times thinker than the photosphere.

Of course ideally this would be an experiment we can do right here on Earth, as you insist that is the only valid way to obtain evidence.

Fine. Show me a how a discharge process is going be swallowed up by some light hydrogen and helium atoms. Go right ahead.,


And it must be objective, meaning other people must be able to reach the same conclusion as you. Or barring that, admit that no such experiment or evidence exists.

An obvious process we can all observe here on Earth is a discharge in our own atmosphere. We can see it from miles away because it emits visible light in spite of the atmosphere between us and the discharge. The atmosphere of the sun is even lighter than our own atmosphere, so what makes you think it will block all wavelengths of light in mere meters?

Give me any objective reason to believe that a mostly hydrogen and helium mixture is going to block all light of every wavelength instantly?

The only "objective" test I've seen done was done by a guy from 100 years ago named Birkeland. He created discharges visible in the atmosphere of his spheres without any trouble at all. He discovered they would congregate at the "bumps' of the sphere by the way. What other kind of "test" did you have in mind?
 
Last edited:
Yes please!
Continue to demonstrate your ignorance of physics and your inability to learn or comprehend basic physics to all the readers of this forum!
Continue to lie about the fact that we have explained every frame and location in the RD animation.

But if you want:
Pixel (1,1) on frame 1 = the change between pixel (1,1) on the 2 original images.
Pixel (1,2) on frame 1 = the change between pixel (1,2) on the 2 original images.
Pixel (1,3) on frame 1 = the change between pixel (1,3) on the 2 original images.
etc.

Now you explain every frame and location in the RD animation.

If that is really the best job you can do as it relates to the analysis of this image, I'm sorry, but I'd fire you. I'm not interested in the mechanical details of the imaging process, I'm interested in the solar processes that generate these changes. Can you describe the solar processes responsible for specific events, like those angular patterns, yes or no?
 
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?
Actually you are the one who is in pure desperation mode.

You cannot take the fact that you unable to comprehend the simple physics behind the TRACE detector use of the 171A pass band filter. That simple physics means that that the TRACE 171A images are all of activity in the transition zone or higher (i.e. thousands of kilometers above the photosphere).

Here it is again:
The 171A pass band was selected so that astronomers would detect activity in the transition zone and corona without being overwhelmed by the radiation from the photosphere. They could (and do with their other filters) look at at the Sun in other bands - including visible light. The 171A pass band detects matter that has an temperature between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K. This means that matter emitting light in a near balck body spectrum (like the photosphere) needs to have an effective temperature between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K in order to be detected.

Look at the photosphere section of the Wikipedia Sun article. There is a diagram to the right of the measured spectral irradiance (power/area) versus wavelength of the photosphere showing that it has an effective temperature of ~6000 K.

MM:
  • Where is 171A on this diagram and what is the value of spectral irradiance at that wavelength?
  • Make a guess at just how much radiation the TRACE 171A pass band filter is going to detect from the photosphere at that spectral irradiance?
  • I happen to know that there is at least one other spectral irradiance diagram (at different scales) on the web that shows a tiny amount of radiation in the 171A pass band from the photosphere. Can you find it?
  • Can you find a paper that actually puts a number to the amount of 171A radiation from the photosphere to support your assertion that it can be detected?
 
If that is really the best job you can do as it relates to the analysis of this image, I'm sorry, but I'd fire you. I'm not interested in the mechanical details of the imaging process, I'm interested in the solar processes that generate these changes. Can you describe the solar processes responsible for specific events, like those angular patterns, yes or no?
Yes we can and we have many times - flares and CME (RD annimation), magnetic fields for the Doppler, etc.

Can you tell us the solar processes responsible for allowing material heated to < 6000 K (photosphere) or < 2000 K (your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface) show up in a detector designed to detect material heated to > 160,000 K?
 
What is the order of things

Electrical discharges in the atmosphere (of Earth) generate magnetic fields in the Earth's amosphere.

and why does it turn?

Beats me, but somewhere between our atmosphere and the solar atmosphere you have electricity and magnetism standing on their head. Magnetic lines don't "disconnect" or "reconnect" here on Earth, but electricity flows between things in our atmosphere and generates plasma temperatures that rival those in the solar atmosphere.

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

Currents in plasma can flow for miles as in any ordinary lightning bolt. There is no limit to the length of the discharge and they have been seen to flow between the sun and the earth as giant "magnetic ropes" when Alfven described as "Bennett Pinch"es in plasma. I'm afraid this idea of yours in particular is fatally flawed. Plasma filaments can form over great distances.

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.

The plasma filaments in an ordinary plasma ball are in fact just like "wires" that conduct electrical current between the glass sphere and the inner sphere. They do form "wires" that conduct electrical energy. If you knew anything about plasma it should be that plasma can form current carrying filaments that can travel great distances.

Plasmas can form filaments in magnetic fields (e.g. galactic jets).

Where does that happen here in the Earth's atmosphere? Why would you *ASSUME* that magnetism is somehow the motive force rather than electron flow?

Only an idiot would think that the Earth's atmosphere is a plasma. Thank you for confirming that you are an idiot.

No plasma is 100% ionized and the Earth's atmosphere does contain plasma inside that discharge, and in the aurora and inside clouds, etc. Only an idiot resorts to idiotic name calling in every single post. You two need to grow up.
 
Yes we can and we have many times - flares

Oh give me a break RC, you won't even explain the first cause/effect relationship and explain what heats a single "coronal loop". That isn't an "explanation", that an "observation" at best case. At least you aren't going "what flying stuff", but it's only a baby step forward at best.

and CME (RD annimation),

That CME is the direct result of an electrical discharge process. As long as you aren't going to acknowledge that part, what else would you attribute it to exactly? Keep in mind that whatever you come with has to spew plasma from the whole surface all day every day.

magnetic fields for the Doppler, etc.

Evidently you actually read my web page to get that response from Kosovichev (I put it there), but you failed to address my posted rebuttal to that "explanation" in any way. Why is that?

Can you tell us the solar processes responsible for allowing material heated to < 6000 K (photosphere)

I'm going to go with Birkeland's "surface to the heliosphere" discharge process on that one.

or < 2000 K (your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface) show up in a detector designed to detect material heated to > 160,000 K?

The iron in the iron surface is only going to show up when it gets peeled from the surface and ionized in a discharge event. Sometimes that can span many kilometers. Sometimes it doesn't span more than a couple of kilometers and that would show up as a single "dot" in an images of such low resolution. Until you start to acknowledge some of my actual beliefs and statements, it's tough to have a normal conversation with you. I know that you're capable of doing better than GM, but you'll have to at least *TRY* to understand my position rather than to build strawmen from my statements.

I'm not claiming that surface iron is showing up in these images. I'm saying pieces of the surface, including iron are being peeled from the surface in these discharge events. That iron flows along the coronal loops, large and small. Not all loops are large enough to span several pixels in this image. Many small individual loops may exist and ionize iron in any given pixel.
 
Electrical discharges in the atmosphere (of Earth) generate magnetic fields in the Earth's amosphere.
Yes they do. So what has this to do the Sun's astmosphere?

Beats me, but somewhere between our atmosphere and the solar atmosphere you have electricity and magnetism standing on their head. Magnetic lines don't "disconnect" or "reconnect" here on Earth, but electricity flows between things in our atmosphere and generates plasma temperatures that rival those in the solar atmosphere.
That is because plasma is not air.


Currents in plasma can flow for miles as in any ordinary lightning bolt. There is no limit to the length of the discharge and they have been seen to flow between the sun and the earth as giant "magnetic ropes" when Alfven described as "Bennett Pinch"es in plasma. I'm afraid this idea of yours in particular is fatally flawed. Plasma filaments can form over great distances.
Magenetic ropes are .... magnetic ropes.
Plasma dfilaments can form over great distance (1000's of light years). They are not electic currents. They are filaments of plasma formed by magnetic fields.

The plasma filaments in an ordinary plasma ball are in fact just like "wires" that conduct electrical current between the glass sphere and the inner sphere. They do form "wires" that conduct electrical energy. If you knew anything about plasma it should be that plasma can form current carrying filaments that can travel great distances.
First the Sun is the Earth and now it is a toy plasma globe? Make up your mind MM :rolleyes: !
Plasma globes have filaments and conduction between the ball and their glass. How many 1000 kilometer plasma globes heated to thousnads of K have you seen?

Where does that happen here in the Earth's atmosphere? Why would you *ASSUME* that magnetism is somehow the motive force rather than electron flow?
No assuption - the physisc of plamas states this.

There you go again with your idiotic "Earth's atmosphere". The Sun's atmosphere is not the Earth's atmosphere.

No plasma is 100% ionized and the Earth's atmosphere does contain plasma inside that discharge, and in the aurora and inside clouds, etc. Only an idiot resorts to idiotic name calling in every single post. You two need to grow up.
When you stop demonstrating that you are ignorant of physics and delusional, I will stop labeling you as ignorant of physics and delusional.

When you stop being idiotic enough to think that features of the Earth's atmosphere have to be replicated in the Sun's atmosphere without any evidence, I will not have to label you as an idiot.

All you have to do is learn and comprehend some basic physics.
All you have to do is stop being obsessed with trying to apply inappropriate physics to the Sun and apply the actual plasma physics.
 
...snip..
The iron in the iron surface is only going to show up when it gets peeled from the surface and ionized in a discharge event. Sometimes that can span many kilometers. Sometimes it doesn't span more than a couple of kilometers and that would show up as a single "dot" in an images of such low resolution. Until you start to acknowledge some of my actual beliefs and statements, it's tough to have a normal conversation with you. I know that you're capable of doing better than GM, but you'll have to at least *TRY* to understand my position rather than to build strawmen from my statements.

I'm not claiming that surface iron is showing up in these images. I'm saying pieces of the surface, including iron are being peeled from the surface in these discharge events. That iron flows along the coronal loops, large and small. Not all loops are large enough to span several pixels in this image. Many small individual loops may exist and ionize iron in any given pixel.
So your web site (and many of your posts) lie whan you claiim "mountain ranges" in the RD animations?

You are still deluded in thinking that the RD animation contains any information about your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible, solid iron surface.

ETA:
This posting imples that you are giving up on your claim that the solid iron surface can be seen in 171A light. Instead it is just "pieces of the surface" as they get ionized in the corona that are being detected.
Is that right?
 
Last edited:
Got any rough future predictions mike for your iron sun theory? Would be interested.
 
So if you have corresponded with the pros, what did they say about your analysis of the images?

Well, the gentleman I mentioned from SOHO seemed to believe that the loops must be "backlit" by some process lower in the atmosphere and seemed to reject the notion they were heated internally. That seemed to be a show stopper from my perspective.

Did they agree that the images show rigid, persistent features? If not, why did you not accept their explanations?

Kosovichev was willing to accept some sort of persistence and rigidity as it relates to the Doppler image. We did not discuss the RD image per se. His basic response and explanation is posted on my website, along with my rebuttal. Essentially he believed that magnetic fields were creating the persistent features, but he never really addressed the three dimensional aspects very well IMO. To his credit however he was the only one to really discuss these features openly, and he spent a great deal of valuable time answering many of my questions about his images and his work in general. I like him a great deal even if we did not agree on the cause of the rigid features. I would say that it is fair to say that he acknowledged their existence and simply explained them differently.

From an observer's perspective here, I see Tim and DD politely saying you're full of it

Actually, Tim seems to be quiet at the moment, and he has not put any effort that I am aware of at actually explaining the image. I think that is a pity IMO since these images are what led me to believe as I do, and if they intend to change my mind, they will have to deal with the images in some detail.

I do however have a great deal of respect for Tim because when Tim says your *IDEAS* are full of it, he explains why in scientific detail. He doesn't beat around the bush or worry about personal issues or personal attacks. He focuses on science and only on the science and that is what a scientist should do. DD is the same way. So are most folk actually. GM and RC are in a class by themselves. While DRD is more violent (she's slit my public throat at least twice now), her/his actions are far more logical and rational in most instances.

and I see RC and GM impolitely saying you're full of it.

They however don't focus on the scientific reasons for their beliefs. Instead they simply resort to a constant barrage of personal insults, none of which are focused on IDEAS, but rather on the INDIVIDUAL. Tim and DD never stoop to that sort of pitiful behavior.

But all of them have taken the time and effort to try and explain things.

Tim and DD have been pretty quiet on this image as far as I know. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken. Tim and I are not as far apart as you seem to think in many respects, but I have no idea what he things about this specific image. That is also true of DD. Even if we don't agree on anything, I do enjoy discussing the ideas with them because I know that they will focus on IDEAS, not people. That's always a more productive conversation.

GM hasn't "explained" anything in spite of his outrageous statements to the contrary. He's cited no cause/effect relationships, no physical process of the sun responsible for anything in the image, and he's made several false statements which I know for a fact are incorrect and blow his credibility to hell. He's never explained any item of any frame of any parts of these images other than to *INCORRECTLY* attempt to explain the mechanics of RD imagery.

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.

Their *EXPLANATIONS* should leave no doubt as to their authority. Without such explanations, their authority remains in question. Until I hear their explanations for angular persistent features I really have no idea if they even disagree with many parts of my basic beliefs. I know for a fact that they would not be so ignorant as to claim "what flying stuff". I would however need a real 'explanation' to work with before I could make any decisions and their title is meaningless to me if they cannot explain the images.

(Appeal to authority is a valid informal logic technique). You haven't. This makes them persuasive, and makes you unpersuasive.

Well, that's certainly the intent, but it's also a fallacy in debate for good reason. I could be right even without "authority". Likewise they could be wrong even with it. Unless you have both sets of "explanations", you could not know if one was right or one was wrong based on their title or their level of authority. If you've ever had a boss, you know that sometimes they are wrong even with that "authority".
 
Got any rough future predictions mike for your iron sun theory? Would be interested.
So would everyone here. But we will have to wait until MM learns some physics.

Just for my interest:
You seem to have a lot of physics knowledge. Do you think that the TRACE detector using a 171A pass band filter can detect any radiation from the photosphere or below?
 
Yet another silly post from Sol88.


Silly?

@ RC ETA: where is the ice/volatiles on a comets surface? Where is the OH coming from?

EU said from the solar wind interaction with the comets nucleus, you said no, NASA IBEX says yes, go figure????

Yup, it's official the EU paradigm is being co adopted by the "mainstream" on the sly, brilliant science that!

So far EC has explained most of mainstream surprises wrt comets more than adequately! even a few PREDICTIONS for good scientific measure, which btw means squat to the establishment because their snowball(beit dirty/muddy/flufy or icey) IS correct!

No "mainstreamers" here like to comment on it?
 
So your web site (and many of your posts) lie whan you claiim "mountain ranges" in the RD animations?

You are still deluded in thinking that the RD animation contains any information about your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible, solid iron surface.

Did you actually listen to my last explanation? I'm not suggesting that the surface itself emits this light, but that the surface contours show up in these images due to their different discharge rates and processes. Did you hear that part or are you still confused into believing that I think the surface itself emits this light?
 
Here is the TRACE website. This is what TRACE can see @ 17.1nm.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodoverview.html

As you can see it can also see coronal loops. They must be hot enough. It can also see the foot prints of the loop. The loops BEGIN under the photosphere.

The reason for the loops shape is the right hand rule.

There is no other reason for their existence other than to equalize charge between 2 points on a surface.

If you are seeing the loop footprint you are see under the photosphere.

If you use the TOPS data base you will that find in a plasma the density of the photosphere there is a non extinction point at about UV.
That means UV passes through.

If you use a model that incorporates thermionic emission then that solves 99% of all the problems with the solar wind, heavy ion acceleration etc.
 
Last edited:
Yes they do. So what has this to do the Sun's astmosphere?

It works that way there too, as well as on every other planetary body in the solar system.

That is because plasma is not air.

No plasma is composed of 100% ionized particles. Most plasmas are "dusty" and even the atmosphere of Earth can and does at times act as a "dusty plasma" It contains ionized particles too, just not as many of them as the photosphere.

Magenetic ropes are .... magnetic ropes.

Hannes Alfven on the topic of magnetic ropes from his book Cosmic Plasma:

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

In other words, it's a "current carrying filament undergoing a "Bennett pinch".

Plasma dfilaments can form over great distance (1000's of light years). They are not electic currents.

Yes, it's the currents that form them in the first place which is why we find helix shaped magnetic fields in them, otherwise known as "Birkeland currents".

They are filaments of plasma formed by magnetic fields.

The filaments are "pinched" by the magnetic fields that are "caused" by the current flow through the filament. Turn off the electricity and the party is over.

First the Sun is the Earth and now it is a toy plasma globe? Make up your mind MM :rolleyes: !

I love how you guys ignore the obvious comparisons. A plasma globe demonstrates that filamentary threads are a direct result of "current flow" inside the plasma. It's not the "magnetic lines" that power the ball, it is "electrical current" that powers the ball.

Plasma globes have filaments and conduction between the ball and their glass. How many 1000 kilometer plasma globes heated to thousnads of K have you seen?

I've seen evidence of magnetic ropes connecting the sun to the Earth. What exactly should I be looking for here if not nature for answers?

No assuption - the physisc of plamas states this.

Baloney. Magnetic fields are not the only things to make plasma move. You've chosen one part of a two part process. And *EM* field is capable of moving plasma in a highly efficient manner and electrical current is what causes the filaments to form in plasma. While the magnetic field acts to constrict the flow into a small thread, the current flow drives the parade. Turn off the switch and the magnetic field dissipates almost instantly.

There you go again with your idiotic "Earth's atmosphere". The Sun's atmosphere is not the Earth's atmosphere.

They are not as different as you think. They both radiate as substantially less than the 160,000 degrees necessary to emit 171A light or gamma rays or x-rays, yet both atmospheres emit that light.

When you stop demonstrating that you are ignorant of physics and delusional, I will stop labeling you as ignorant of physics and delusional.

When you stop wallowing in the gutter and show off some knowledge of physics let me know. So far you're totally missing some key points as it relates to what you claim to know something about. That "solar wind" isn't just composed of neutral atoms, it's composed of fast moving charged particles, in other words, "current flow". We're sitting in the middle of a discharge process between the sun and the heliosphere and you seem to be utterly oblivious to this fact.

When you stop being idiotic enough to think that features of the Earth's atmosphere have to be replicated in the Sun's atmosphere without any evidence, I will not have to label you as an idiot.

Rhessi has already provided us with such evidence. It sees gamma rays from the Earth's atmosphere which have been traced to discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. It also sees gamma rays from the bases of coronal loops.

All you have to do is learn and comprehend some basic physics.

All you need to do is learn some new debate tactics. Your heavy reliance upon personal insults is making you look bad and pitifully desperate.

All you have to do is stop being obsessed with trying to apply inappropriate physics to the Sun and apply the actual plasma physics.

The "actual plasma physics" I'm talking about was all lab tested over 100 years ago. You aren't talking about "actual" plasma physics, you're talking about make believe plasma physics that only works in a computer simulation, not in the real world.
 
Did you actually listen to my last explanation? I'm not suggesting that the surface itself emits this light, but that the surface contours show up in these images due to their different discharge rates and processes. Did you hear that part or are you still confused into believing that I think the surface itself emits this light?
Then I was right - the "mountain range" on the "surface" comment on your we site is a lie.

What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona.
 
Alright, enough of this. You keep blabbering on about real experiments in controlled environments like it's the best since since sliced bread. We get the point. It's not a valid complaint.

If you got the point, you would realize it's a valid complaint. Since you don't see it as a valid complaint, I don't think you really do get the point. Empirical physics is the best thing since sliced bread. It allows us to determine actual cause/effect relationships in real world circumstances. It also allows us to "test" ideas in real life with real control mechanisms.

Have you even performed an observation outside of the lab?

Ya, it's nearly a full moon tonight. :)

You keep repeating yourself louder and louder like it'll mean something. Well, it doesn't.

Papers pass the peer review process because they are well-written and well thought-out, not because the "industry" (which doesn't make sense because you don't make a lot of money doing this...) likes patting itself on the back.

From a skeptics point of view, it sure looks that way. There seems to be a rush to come up with new and improved versions of "dark" stuff, and inflation variations galore. None of you seem to be the least be concerned that none of these things show up in a lab.

We understand what experiments are. We've done them in labs. I did them frequently as an undergrad, and I'm sure the others who have taken any college classes at all have done it too. So kindly knock it off. We know how to do experiments. You must have a very hard time accepting that. :soapbox

Well, when I see you folks look down at Birkeland's work, or Alfven's cosmology theories or Bruce's solar discharge theories I start to wonder if you've spent too much time away from the lab. You seem to have very little appreciation for the amount of skepticism there is for the things that hold your beliefs together, and you seem to show little interest in demonstrating any part of your theories in real life experiments. It's all paper and math and computer modeling with no regard for how nature actually functions. We point Rhessi at the Earth and we observe gamma rays from discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. We point the same exact piece of gear at the sun, observe gamma rays in it's atmosphere and you guys exclaim "magnetic reconnection did it". Come on. Your whole industry suffers from an acute case of "OMG we forget to test our theories in a lab".

Birkeland had no trouble creating high energy discharges in the atmosphere of his terella. He "predicted" their existence based on what he learned in the lab in fact in the "tried and true", "better than sliced bread" approach to "empirical physics". That's what real science is all about.

Now you're welcome to believe in any number of dark and evil entities and any number of dead inflation deities, but they have never and will never have any effect on any experiment on Earth. In all the time LIGO has been in operation, not one bit of "dark matter" has shown up, not once. Dark energy seems to be physically shy around objects with mass, and inflation is dead and can never be physically "tested" in any empirical sense. Your beliefs are more akin to a religious belief system than real "science". Nothing like "dark energy" shows up in the particle physics, but lots of "electrons" show up in the lab.

I really wish you did "get it", but since you think it's "ok" to believe in dark energy, dark matter and inflation theories of all kinds *WITHOUT* even the hope of ever creating experiments to verify your claims make me seriously doubt that you actually do get it. I wouldn't mind so much that you believed in these things if you weren't attempting to exclude other theories from the classroom and from publication in mainstream publications. I see lots of material from Scott, Peratt and others published in EEIE publications, but never in the astrophysical journal or anything "mainstream". Why is that?
 
Then I was right - the "mountain range" on the "surface" comment on your we site is a lie.

You didn't hear me or understand me or you would realize it's not a "lie". The contours we observe are a direct result of the surface contours and we do in fact see the outlines of mountains in these images.

What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona.

How is Birkeland''s terella "thermodynamically impossible"? You keep stating the most irrational things. His "discharge loops" and cathode rays didn't instantly melt his sphere did they?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom