Electric universe theories here.

[Dancing David]

Do you have the list of the "statistically insignifficant 'proofs' of dark matter"?
I would be interested in them since I have never heard of any statistically insignifficant evidence for dark matter.

Zeuzzz, correct me please if I remember incorrectly!

I believe this is Zeuzzz's response to the trashing Halton Arp's bad methodology received. Since the statitical methodology that Arp used was bad and did not rise above the level of noise, even though sample and control mechanism could have been used, this deflated part of the alternative consmology for Zeuzzz.

And since then he has been throwing around the statistics argument, now I doubt you will get an answer to why the data for the 'dark matter' hypothesis is not statistically valid.

It is just sort of a smear that he thinks approximates the critique of Arp.

So Zeuzzz, where is the statitical model for the use of data that supports the 'dark matter' hypothesis and how is it incorrect in methodology?

Remember it is a methodological error, lack of random sampling and controls in a statistical arguement that was Arp's mistake. He did not use other methods to show his hypothesis was in alignment with the data. And in fact he could have easily set up a control sample with the more recent data available. Which would have shown immedeatly if he had sample noise, sample bias or accurate effects.

So where is the statistical argument for 'dark matter' and how is the methodology flawed?

 

[Dancing David]

Rather paradoxically, you need not look any further than your very own signature to find the "statistically insignifficant evidence for dark matter" I am referring to!

How do they use statistics and how is the methodology flawed, what mistakes were there in the statistical protocol?

 

[Dancing David]

Perhaps. Or not. Lets not try to drive needless dividing lines between people on intellectual capacity, eh?

I think all of the above has been aswered before RC.





.....

That is not a statistical error, that is a category or hypothesis error, so how do you demonstrate that the hypotesis is wrong? Or an error in measurement methodology.

1. How do they under sample baryonic matter for example?

 

[GeeMack]

I often think the same thing about you and those solar images that you keep avoiding like the plague.

You must be talking about those images that have been explained right down to the pixel by everyone else except you, those explanations that you've ignored and that DeiRenDopa seems to pretty much agree with (therefore not avoiding them, and demonstrating once again that you are, by definition, an ignorant liar). Yes, those images that you are clearly unable to explain yourself, Michael. Why is each pixel the color that it is in your revered running difference graph? In all your years of staring at the graph, it seems you'd be able to explain at least one single pixel, but you can't. Why the silence?

And don't you think it's time you provide us with that lab tested method that you use to see something almost 5 million meters below an opaque plasma layer by looking at difference graphs created using data obtained from millions of meters above that opaque plasma? Of course you'll make sure that experiment can be done right here on Earth, with no fudge factors, nothing metaphysical, mathematically reasonable, repeatable, physically sound, and objective so that other people can reach the same conclusion that you've reached.

Yes, or no, Michael. Do you have such an experiment?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You must be talking about those images that have been explained right down to the pixel by everyone else except you,

You must be the only person on the whole planet that is deluded enough to believe that *anyone*, myself included, has the ability to explain *every* pixel of every frame in that in that image. I guess that's because as long as you've explained the math, "everything" has been "explained", solar "physics" be damned.

I'm sorry, but your credibility ended the moment you said "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" and you started believing you'd "explained" every pixel of every frame without ever mentioning a single solar event, a single cause/effect relationship at the level of solar physics, a single frame or a single event in that frame. You are without a doubt the most deluded and unethical individual I've ever met in cyberspace on any forum anywhere. You're quite an interesting specimen on irrational and unethical human behaviors.

 

[GeeMack]

[*Snipped out everything that was just a whining tantrum and left everything of substance.*]

Hey, Michael! Yeah, you, the one who is in a constant state of ignorance. Don't you think it's time you provide us with that lab tested method that you use to see something almost 5 million meters below an opaque plasma layer by looking at difference graphs created using data obtained from millions of meters above that opaque plasma? Of course you'll make sure that experiment can be done right here on Earth, with no fudge factors, nothing metaphysical, mathematically reasonable, repeatable, physically sound, and objective so that other people can reach the same conclusion that you've reached.

Yes, or no, Michael. Do you have such an experiment?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ahhhh we're at the beginning again. The reason why we call it magnetic reconnection is because of the topology change of the magnetic field.

That is absolutely no excuse. The topology change is a direct result of the change in *current flow* inside of two *circuits*. It has nothing to do with "magnetic fields' "reconnecting". It has everything to do with wiring changes in the plasmas, not simply changes in the magnetic field topology. Magnetic fields form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end. They lack physical substance and are physically *INCAPABLE* of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other 'magnetic line". That terminology is terrible. It also misses the circuit energy entire and that a major problem.

Now, you are probably right that magnetic field lines have no "substance"

The only "substance" in the loops are the "particles" inside the loops and the kinetic energy they posses. That kinetic energy can get passed to other particles at the point of "reconnection'. Induction might play a role. Since magnetic field form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end, there is no possibility that any energy comes as a result of "magnetic reconnection".

but these U or V shaped lines do have energy stored in them, the so called magnetic tension.

Ok, so we know that "induction" is also possible during this reconnection event. "Induction" already has a proper scientific name.

Alfvén only discusses the magnetic pressure (Cosmical Electrodynamics, page 144) but the tension comes from the same equation, and indeed the tension of the magnetic field lines were at the base of his ground braking paper on what we now call Alfvén waves.

That "pressure" is carried by real moving charged "particles", not just "magnetic lines"!

Then show us how it works, MM! I have no paper describing your so-called circuit reconnection applied to any (astro/space)physical object.

You have Alfven's paper. What's wrong with that? Where did you see him try to explain flares and CME events in terms of "magnetic reconnection" in that paper? Did you see the term "circuits" and "short-circuit"?

Alfvén (unfortunately) also lost all his money in a pyramid scam. Are you going to do the same, because he did that?

Is personal attack and character assassination the only tricks you folks know? Assuming that is even true, what the hell does that have to do with MHD theory? Slumming are we?

The unwinding of a flux tube in the Alfvén & Carlqvist paper is the only I can remember that you cited.

So what's wrong with it in terms of the electrical circuitry aspects of their presentation? How about that short circuit analogy?

And that has nothing to do with reconnection.

Even the short circuit analogy?

That is YOUR claim about Alfvén's abilities, not mine. I claim that YOU, Michael Mozina are incapable of producing such a model.

So what if that is true? The validity of *ALFVEN's* work is not predicated, nor has it *EVER* been predicated upon the math skills of "Michael Mozina". You won't find my name in *ANY* of his papers, not a single one. So what?

Turbulence is always driven, it does not just come and go, there is an enormous pile of literature on that (start with the Voros et al. paper that I linked to, and look at the references). The problem with you is that you only have ONE method to do EVERYTHING. Everything has to be an electrical current,

No. Everything has to be logical and scientifically accurate. Circuits and particle "reconnect". Magnetic lines have no beginning and no end and no substance and are physically incapable of disconnecting from or reconnecting to any other magnetic line.

and if it is not, than you just redefine what an electrical current is (e.g. equal amounts of positive and negative charge moving at the same speed in the same direction).

Any movement of any charged particle in any direction is technically a "current flow" that will create a "magnetic field".

Well, too bad you put your money on the wrong guy, guess your money is going to disappear too.

I've never been attached to money. It's comes and goes in life. I'm more interested in "truth', "timeless truth". Alfven's work has stood the tests of time and it will continue to stand the test of time. You personally use and rely upon it's validity. You simply used a poor term that is in fact "pseudoscience" just as Alfven said. That will always be true too. Magnetic lines will always lack physical substance. They will always form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end. Your term is irrational and inaccurate and it will *FOREVER* be irrational and inaccurate even if the math is right.

Once more, sit on it, MM. I know electric currents in space, read my papers.

No you don't. You think you do, but if you did in fact "understand" them you wouldn't treat Alfven's work as "heresy" that cannot be discussed on your website for more than 30 days. You clearly speak from both sides of your mouth and your actions speak louder than you words here.

If you "understood" currents in space, you would "understand' that magnetic lines aren't "reconnecting". Circuits and particles and current flow streams are "reconnecting".

[QUOET]How do you know that? Are you an expert on turbulence too, nowadays?
Oh brother, the bloody plasma ball again.[/QUOTE]

That "plasma ball" you keep ignoring shows you that "turbulence" is a direct result of "current flows" in the plasma. When you turn off the current, the "turbulence" simply dissipates in almost an instant. If you want to sustain the "flux tubes" in the plasma, you need "sustained current flow". Those coronal loops are sustained for hours on end so there is no way in hell they are powered by "turbulence". You can't understand currents in space, because you don't understand currents on Earth in that plasma ball you keep ignoring.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hmmm... I wonder if scam artists have ever considered specifically targeting physicists who start losing it. Could be a lucrative "target" audience for them.

I wonder if character assassination techniques are required in your little cult's curriculum? Shall we bash Einstein next for rejecting QM?

 

[tusenfem]

That is absolutely no excuse. The topology change is a direct result of the change in *current flow* inside of two *circuits*. It has nothing to do with "magnetic fields' "reconnecting". It has everything to do with wiring changes in the plasmas, not simply changes in the magnetic field topology. Magnetic fields form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end. They lack physical substance and are physically *INCAPABLE* of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other 'magnetic line". That terminology is terrible. It also misses the circuit energy entire and that a major problem.

Sorry MM, you are wrong here, and you NEVER EVER have shown us a working model of the process of changing circuits and induction. You keep on ignoring all the questions that I put to you, probably because you cannot answer them. And if you would really read any of the papers on reconnection you would know that there are currents flowing, they even have a specific name: Hall currents, but hey why keep up to date.

The only "substance" in the loops are the "particles" inside the loops and the kinetic energy they posses. That kinetic energy can get passed to other particles at the point of "reconnection'. Induction might play a role. Since magnetic field form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end, there is no possibility that any energy comes as a result of "magnetic reconnection".

The field lines have no substance, but they are an obstacle enough to e.g. pick up newly ionized ions, and have the strength to stop the solar wind at the nose of the Earth's magnetosphere.

Oh and now it is "induction may play a role," is it? Starting to get doubts? The first crack in the 60s bastion?

And the full and complete continuum comment is just trying to sound profound. Do you really think that in that pic I linked to that the plasma physicists think there are only, what is it 8?, field lines? Those lines are a visualization tool, dear Michael, have you not understood that yet?

Ok, so we know that "induction" is also possible during this reconnection event. "Induction" already has a proper scientific name.

A it may play a role, and now it is "also possible", what is it MM. Induction is a specific process, and it is not reconnection.

That "pressure" is carried by real moving charged "particles", not just "magnetic lines"!

What kind of stupid claim is that MM? Magnetic pressure is H²/8π in Alfvén's units and this is pressure of the FIELD and has NOTHING to do with particles. Are you now saying that Alfvén is wrong??????

You have Alfven's paper. What's wrong with that? Where did you see him try to explain flares and CME events in terms of "magnetic reconnection" in that paper? Did you see the term "circuits" and "short-circuit"?

Michael Mozina I will now try to explain to you for the last time. Alfvén & Carlqvist discuss a loop in which there is, what they call, a "discharge" which later is replaced by a double layer (see Raadu monograph, which I am sure you have, if not I will send you the pdf). There is energy release through the unwinding of the loop, but NOTHING is ejected in that model. Please point out to me where in that paper A&C claim that they create a CME, or the ejection of a magnetic cloud. Now, Raadu put the two models next to eachoter in one figure. Left the unwinding loop of A&C and on the right the ejection process by Kaastra. Can you see the difference between the two?

Is personal attack and character assassination the only tricks you folks know? Assuming that is even true, what the hell does that have to do with MHD theory? Slumming are we?

I am just telling something everyone knows (at least in Sweden, and no I am not Swedish). It's just that you seem to be so addicted to Alfvén, that if it is good enough for him it is good enough for you, well a little critical thinking does not hurt, MM.

So what's wrong with it in terms of the electrical circuitry aspects of their presentation? How about that short circuit analogy?
Even the short circuit analogy?

How about reading my last three posts on this topic, where I painstakingly explain the model of A&C to you, and you probably skip because you think you know it all already.

The "short circuit" is the creation of a double layer, like I said read my posts, I do go through that model in detail.

So what if that is true? The validity of *ALFVEN's* work is not predicated, nor has it *EVER* been predicated upon the math skills of "Michael Mozina". You won't find my name in *ANY* of his papers, not a single one. So what?

But Alfvén never discussed the model of circuit reconnection or particle reconnection that you claim, unless you can show me a paper that does it and the A&C paper does not discuss the process that mainstream calls reconnection, as I showed here in my posts and as Raadu shows in his monograph on double layers (and Raadu was a good colleague of Alfven at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and probably one of the most knowledgeble persons about double layers).

The "so what" is about the fact that you hide behind your heros and you just don't want to get your hands dirty. If I really believed in something, I would take pen and paper and write down the model and show these heretic unbelievers they are full of it and I am right. That's the route to take MM.

Turbulence is always driven, it does not just come and go, there is an enormous pile of literature on that (start with the Voros et al. paper that I linked to, and look at the references). The problem with you is that you only have ONE method to do EVERYTHING. Everything has to be an electrical current,

No. Everything has to be logical and scientifically accurate. Circuits and particle "reconnect". Magnetic lines have no beginning and no end and no substance and are physically incapable of disconnecting from or reconnecting to any other magnetic line.

What does this have to do with my description of turbulence and with the fact that for you everything has to be an electric current. There are processes that do not depend on electric currents, and turbulence is one of them. It is, e.g. powered by strong flows (bulk plasma flows, which are not currents) as is described e.g. in this paper or in this paper.

Any movement of any charged particle in any direction is technically a "current flow" that will create a "magnetic field".

But if a proton and an electron flow at the same velocity in the same direction, then it is NOT a current. The definition of electic current is:

[latex]
{\bf J} = \Sum_{\alpha} n_{\alpha} q_{\alpha} {\bf v}_{\alpha}
[\latex]

so don't come with these kind of childish ways of trying to get your way.

And what kind of magnetic field does a single moving charged particle create?

I've never been attached to money. ... Your term is irrational and inaccurate and it will *FOREVER* be irrational and inaccurate even if the math is right.

whatever

No you don't. You think you do, but if you did in fact "understand" them you wouldn't treat Alfven's work as "heresy" that cannot be discussed on your website for more than 30 days. You clearly speak from both sides of your mouth and your actions speak louder than you words here.

If you "understood" currents in space, you would "understand' that magnetic lines aren't "reconnecting". Circuits and particles and current flow streams are "reconnecting".

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha whatever! I don't discuss on my website, I don't even have a website anymore (geocities is disappearing). I discuss currents in space plasmas in various locations, and sometimes I not only speak out of both sides of my mouth, I also talk out of my neck.

That "plasma ball" you keep ignoring shows you that "turbulence" is a direct result of "current flows" in the plasma. When you turn off the current, the "turbulence" simply dissipates in almost an instant. If you want to sustain the "flux tubes" in the plasma, you need "sustained current flow". Those coronal loops are sustained for hours on end so there is no way in hell they are powered by "turbulence". You can't understand currents in space, because you don't understand currents on Earth in that plasma ball you keep ignoring.

You don't even understand that a plasma ball is not even filled with plasma!
Forget it MM, now suddenly we have to discuss turbulence in a plasma ball. Interesting that this comes up now, I guess you are even getting tired yourself of all your stale claims.

Coronal loops are absolutely nothing like a plasma ball. Sorry, but get your (astro)physics knowledge up to date first before you discuss again.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sorry MM, you are wrong here,

No, it's you that are wrong here. Alfven called your theory pseudoscience for a very specific reason, specifically because magnetic fields are physically incapable of 'disconnecting' or 'reconnecting' to any other magnetic line. It is a physical impossibility.

and you NEVER EVER have shown us a working model of the process of changing circuits and induction.

Oh for crying out loud, Birkeland and his team built you a working lab model 100 years ago which you utterly ignore.

You keep on ignoring all the questions that I put to you, probably because you cannot answer them.

Let's just assume that is all true. So what? Birkeland could answer them and did answer them and you really don't care. Alfven did that too. You don't care about that either. In fact you personal persecute his work in cyberspace and treat it as "heresy".

And if you would really read any of the papers on reconnection you would know that there are currents flowing, they even have a specific name: Hall currents, but hey why keep up to date.

Why not keep it up to date in terminology then and call it "Hall current reconnection"?

I want to hear this answer before I go one single line further into your last response. This should be a real doosie of a rationalization.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What kind of stupid claim is that MM? Magnetic pressure is H2/8π in Alfvén's units and this is pressure of the FIELD and has NOTHING to do with particles. Are you now saying that Alfvén is wrong??????

Um, which part of the equations are you claiming is not a direct result of the carrier particle of the EM field or some other physical particle?

 

[derekmcd]

Shall we bash Einstein next for rejecting QM?

It's a popularized misconception that Einstein rejected quantum mechanics. What he rejected and tried to reconcile where some of the philosophical implications concerning determinism versus randomness. I'd also note that Einstein understood quantum mechanics as well as any physicist of his generation.

A closer parallel for your argument would be Einstein versus black holes. This is something he, flat out, rejected. He accepted the math, but denied their reality. Were he alive today, I believe he would accept them given the observational evidence that supports their existence.

As for the Birkeland versus Chapman argument, I think if you dig through the history of aurorae, you will find they both made significant contributions despite both, ultimately, modeling it wrong.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Energy Source Of The Solar Wind.pdf

How about this paper?

 

[Michael Mozina]

A closer parallel for your argument would be Einstein versus black holes. This is something he, flat out, rejected.

Thanks for the feedback.

As for Chapman and Birkeland, yes, I have already learned a great deal by studying the differences between them. I give you great credit for asking the right question of me.

 

[GeeMack]

[*All nonsense, irrelevance, whining, and blathering removed. Everything substantial that actually provides support for any of Michael's crackpot claims is left intact.*]

Oh, you-hoo, Michael! Demonstrating your profound ignorance again, I see. But really, all your ideas are testable. You've said it yourself. And your ability to see things in visualizations created from data taken thousands upon thousands of kilometers from where you think you're seeing those things, through a few million meters of opaque plasma no less, is one of your ideas. So you might want to address this... Provide us with that lab tested method that you use to see something almost 5 million meters below an opaque plasma layer by looking at difference graphs created using data obtained from millions of meters above that opaque plasma? Of course you'll make sure that experiment can be done right here on Earth, with no fudge factors, nothing metaphysical, mathematically reasonable, repeatable, physically sound, and objective so that other people can reach the same conclusion that you've reached.

How about it, Michael. Do you have such an experiment?

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/601/2/L195/17925.text.html

FYI Tim, I'd like you to read this presentation. I believe that my inability to capture individual images from the DVD is related copy protection in the DVD player, not the screen capturing software. I also suspect it's completely unnecessary. I'll look for some other online white light images to make my case and I'll try a different player program too as I get time. I'm sure I can make my case that the discharge process traverses the photosphere.

 

[tusenfem]

No, it's you that are wrong here. Alfven called your theory pseudoscience for a very specific reason, specifically because magnetic fields are physically incapable of 'disconnecting' or 'reconnecting' to any other magnetic line. It is a physical impossibility.

And like you said, Einstein rejected QM, so shall we throw that out with the bath water too?

I don't frakking care what Alfvén claimed about Rx, I look at the data from experiments and from measurements in space, and they are all in favour of magnetic reconnection.

You don't know what happens in the electron diffusion region near the Xline, because there B goes to 0 something has to happen when magnetic flux is continued to be transported to that region.

Oh for crying out loud, Birkeland and his team built you a working lab model 100 years ago which you utterly ignore.

Ah right, I remember, Birkeland studied solar flares! And substorms in the Earth's magnetotail. Sorry I forgot all about those experiments.

So, now back to Earth. THERE IS NO MODEL DESCRIBING WHAT MAINSTREAM CALLS MAGNETIC RECONNECTION IN E.G. THE EARH'S MAGNETOTAIL WITH CIRCUIT, PARTICLE AND INDUCTION RECONNECTION. you are just hiding behind your heros, Michael. Now, come around, away from behind their backs, and show us your model, it is your claim that your kind of "reconnection" can work. Alfven did not describe it and Birkeland most definitely did not describe it.

Let's just assume that is all true. So what? Birkeland could answer them and did answer them and you really don't care. Alfven did that too. You don't care about that either. In fact you personal persecute his work in cyberspace and treat it as "heresy".

Then I guess I will go John Edward and have him channel Birkeland.
These claims are rediculous, MM, and it is unworthy, but it IS a confirmation that you are incapable.

Why not keep it up to date in terminology then and call it "Hall current reconnection"?

I want to hear this answer before I go one single line further into your last response. This should be a real doosie of a rationalization.

Because these fields do not always appear. If there is a strong guide field, then this Hall field disappears. You are just trying to find some way to show that your delusion in some way can be justified by mainstream, and then claim, "see I was right all along."

 

[tusenfem]

Um, which part of the equations are you claiming is not a direct result of the carrier particle of the EM field or some other physical particle?

Why don't you show me where Alfvén claims that magnetic pressure comes from particles!

And for your information, the carrier particle of the EM field is the photon!

I am claiming that when Alfvén writes that he uses the magnetic pressure in his book (Cosmical Electrodynamics, page 144) which is equal to H²/8π. Even a magnetic field in a vacuum has this pressure. It has NOTHING to do with particles or are you saying that Alfven is wrong in his book?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The "short circuit" is the creation of a double layer, like I said read my posts, I do go through that model in detail.

That's probably the place to begin a serious discussion because we both agree on that point. That double layer form between two dissimilar charges. It's "circuit reconnection" and there is 'particle reconnection' taking place inside the double layer. Turbulence is the result of the "non superconductive properties" of plasma. It forms filaments in the double layer, just like in the plasma ball and those tornado like filaments create a z-pinch effect inside the double layer and it get's "noisy". All of these events are a direct result of a "short circuit' across the double layer. It's "circuit reconnection", not "magnetic reconnection" and the total circuit energy will dictate the particle emissions from the z-pinch and particle collision processes inside the noisy double layer.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why don't you show me where Alfvén claims that magnetic pressure comes from particles!

And for your information, the carrier particle of the EM field is the photon!

So which part of that equation is unrelated to either a photon or a particle of plasma?