Electric universe theories here.

[Reality Check]

These are some of the questions that MM has been asked and seems incapable of answering other than by spouting unsupported assertions.

1. What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected?
   First asked 6th July 2009
2. A post that seemed to retract his "mountain ranges" on the TRACE 171A RD animation evoked this question:
   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.
   First asked 6th July 2009
3. From tusenfem:
   Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkelands book?
   First asked 7th July 2009
4. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source" and in the same post
5. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
   First asked 7th July 2009
6. Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible?
   First asked 8 July 2009
   See this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.
7. Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
   First asked 10 July 2009
8. Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question?
   First asked 10 July 2009
9. More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth
   First asked 13 July 2009
10. Formation of the iron surface
    First asked 13 July 2009
11. How much is "mostly neon" MM?
    First asked 13 July 2009
12. Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?
    First asked 13 July 2009
13. Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina
    First asked 13 July 2009
14. Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina
    First asked 13 July 2009
    He does link to his copy of Alfvén and Carlqvist's 1966 paper (Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and A theory of Solar Flares). This does not model what we now know a real solar flare acts like.
15. Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested?
    First asked 14 July 2009
16. Is Saturn the Sun?
    First asked 14 July 2009
    (Birkelands Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings but MM compares it to to the Sun).
17. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
    First asked 14 July 2009
    MM has one reply in which is mistakenly thinks that this question is about coronal loops.
18. What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model?
    First asked 17 July 2009
19. What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K?
    (MM states that it is not the photosphere)
    First asked 18 July 2009
20. Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles?
    First asked 18 July 2009
21. How does the "mostly neon" surface emit white light?
    First asked 19 July 2009
22. Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves?
    First asked 22 July 2009

Actual Answers From Michael Mozina:




Unsupported Assertions as Answers from Michal Mozina:

1. How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
   First asked 23rd June 2009
   So far just an unsupported assertion that astronomers have got the visible masses of galaxies wrong (and another reply with his usual "if we cannot detect it on Earth then it does not exist" non-science)
2. Why do the composition of the "mostly neon" photoshere and the corona differ?
   First asked 22nd July 2009
   It is "mass separation" - no actual physics cited or experiments.

 

[tusenfem]

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.

My god! now turbulence is causing filaments? I thought that was the Bennet pinch, that did that. There is no way that turbulence can cause current filamentation. If this is the "science" you want to discuss we might as wel stop, because this whole paragraph does not make any sense. Even in ideal MHD (what is the resistivity in ideal MHD??????) there is turbulence, so how can it be the result of the non superconductive properties of plasmas, what does that even mean? It means you don't know what plasma turbulence is. Where does the turbulence suddenly come from in your model. You have not mentioned turbulence in the last 32 pages, and now suddenly it is your new magical want?

 

[tusenfem]

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

The whole frakking equation has NOTHING to do with photons or particles, only with the magnetic field H. Read Alfven! And how many parts are there in the equation:

P_mag = H² / 8 π

P_mag is the magnetic pressure
H is the magnetic field
8 is the number following 7 and leading 9
π is approximately 3,1415....

So I can take a bar magnet in vacuum and use a magnetometer to measure the magnetic field strength H and from that I can calculate the magnetic pressure, which is completely a field quantity, just as Alfven explains on page 144 of Cosmical Electrodynamics.

I don't know where you were taught electrodynamics and plasma physics, but this is basic stuff.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The whole frakking equation has NOTHING to do with photons or particles, only with the magnetic field H.

First of all, what do you think sustains the magnetic field in light plasma if not moving protons and electrons? Secondly, what is this magnetic field you're describing *OTHER THAN* the photons that carry the field?

I don't know where you were taught electrodynamics and plasma physics, but this is basic stuff.

I learned it from Alfven and he agreed that magnetic fields are in capable of "reconnecting" in any way, shape or form. They lack physical substance and the EM field is a whole continuum, without beginning or end. It is physically incapable of disconnecting from or reconnecting to other magnetic lines. Induction and circuit energy are basic stuff too and Alfven talked *EXTENSIVELY* about how he used circuit energy and the energy in the carrier particles of the EM field to explain solar activity.

Nowhere did he teach "magnetic reconnection" theory, in fact he personally referred to the idea as pseudoscience for I'm sure the reasons I have explained to you now a dozen times over. Since EM field has no physical substance outside of perhaps the kinetic energy of the carrier particles of the EM field (IOW photons), what *ELSE* are you claiming these formulas relate to exactly in terms of actual physics?

 

[Michael Mozina]

My god! now turbulence is causing filaments? I thought that was the Bennet pinch, that did that.

It's all sorts of particle collisions inside the current carrying double layer that do that! There's all sorts of kinetic energy transfers taking place inside the current sheet and while plasma is an "excellent" conductor, it to experiences all sorts of particle collisions. All of this is "basic stuff". I though you knew all this?

Since you disagree with Alfven on so many basic issues, including magnetic reconnection, perhaps I should ask you where YOU learned MDH theory?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Since you disagree with Alfven on so many basic issues, including magnetic reconnection, perhaps I should ask you where YOU learned MDH theory?

Well I think that the fact that the very theory he is talking about, no matter where he learnt it, was created by Alfven himself will be of little significance

 

[Michael Mozina]

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?

Maybe the simply underestimate the number of electrons flowing through a galaxy and it has nothing to do with baryonic material, and everything to do with the non baryonic materials that Alfven suggested?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well I think that the fact that the very theory he is talking about, no matter where he learnt it, was created by Alfven himself will be of little significance

Unfortunately you're undoubtedly correct about that.

 

[Reality Check]

Maybe the simply underestimate the number of electrons flowing through a galaxy and it has nothing to do with baryonic material, and everything to do with the non baryonic materials that Alfven suggested?

You mean the electrons that move, emit radiation and can be detected?
You mean the electrons that collide, emit radiation and can be detected?
You mean the electrons that interact with the ISM, emit radiation and can be detected?
Or are they some other kind of electrons?

 

[tusenfem]

First of all, what do you think sustains the magnetic field in light plasma if not moving protons and electrons? Secondly, what is this magnetic field you're describing *OTHER THAN* the photons that carry the field?

Ahhh nice nitpicking, MM.
I am just talking about the full continuum that is the magnetic field.

I learned it from Alfven and he agreed that magnetic fields are in capable of "reconnecting" in any way, shape or form. They lack physical substance and the EM field is a whole continuum, without beginning or end. It is physically incapable of disconnecting from or reconnecting to other magnetic lines. Induction and circuit energy are basic stuff too and Alfven talked *EXTENSIVELY* about how he used circuit energy and the energy in the carrier particles of the EM field to explain solar activity.

Nowhere did he teach "magnetic reconnection" theory, in fact he personally referred to the idea as pseudoscience for I'm sure the reasons I have explained to you now a dozen times over. Since EM field has no physical substance outside of perhaps the kinetic energy of the carrier particles of the EM field (IOW photons), what *ELSE* are you claiming these formulas relate to exactly in terms of actual physics?

So, did you study in Stockholm? Must be some years ago, because when I was there, Alfven was not teaching anymore.

blah blah blah
Get into the new age dude, get out of the 60s.

I'd read some modern books on plasma physics. But still Alfven nowhere in his books claims that the magnetic pressure (or the magnetic tension for his Alfven waves) comes from particles or from (virtual) photons.

That's what you get from home schooling.

 

[tusenfem]

It's all sorts of particle collisions inside the current carrying double layer that do that! There's all sorts of kinetic energy transfers taking place inside the current sheet and while plasma is an "excellent" conductor, it to experiences all sorts of particle collisions. All of this is "basic stuff". I though you knew all this?

So, you basically have got no idea about turbulence. That could be explained by the fact that that does not appear in Alfven's book, or that Birkeland could not experiment on it, so basically it does not exist. Turbulence CANNOT create current filaments, period. Turbulence is the cascading of energy from large scale to small scale fluctuations (unless it is in 2D then the reverse can happen) eventually heating the plasma, that is "all." Here I put all in quotes, because it is a rather large field of research, but that is the gist of it.

What exactly is the density in a double layer for astrophysical applications? Like in the unwinding flux tube of the A&C paper? Look it up, you might need Raadu or if I am correctly a paper by Carlqvist discussing strong and relativistic double layers. You might be in for a big surprise.

Apparently, I do not know the "basic stuff" that you are claiming here, because it is Michael-Mozina-plasmaphysics, which one cannot study anywhere, but here on JREF through your postings and your website. And unfortunately for you, these were not in the curriculum at Utrecht University, nor was it taught at the Alfven Laboratory of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and also not at the Earth and Space Sciences department of UCLA.

Since you disagree with Alfven on so many basic issues, including magnetic reconnection, perhaps I should ask you where YOU learned MDH theory?

I learned MHD in my 2nd year at college at Utrecht University, and then moved on to plasma physics. You see, MDH is nice, but real men study plasma physics. I do hope you know that MHD is only an approximation of plasma physics (do you know which approximations are made? can double layers exist in MDH?)

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ahhh nice nitpicking, MM.
I am just talking about the full continuum that is the magnetic field.

The full continuum that is the magnetic field is physically incapable of "disconnecting' or "reconnecting' to other magnetic field lines.

So, did you study in Stockholm? Must be some years ago, because when I was there, Alfven was not teaching anymore.

No, I bought and read a couple of his (very expensive) books and I've read and studied most of his papers at this point. Never once did he say "good" things about "magnetic reconnection" theory. He does however slam the idea in a number of places, particularly in some of his papers and in Cosmic Plasma.

blah blah blah
Get into the new age dude, get out of the 60s.

Some "truths" are timeless. Magnetic fields haven't changed since the 60's.

I'd read some modern books on plasma physics.

Oh, I have a few other books on MHD theory and how it relates to astronomy. I have one from Peratt. It never mentions "magnetic reconnection" that I recall.

But still Alfven nowhere in his books claims that the magnetic pressure (or the magnetic tension for his Alfven waves) comes from
particles or from (virtual) photons.

Please explain to me where else this "pressure" comes from if not the plasma particles or the carrier particles of the EM field (photons)?

That's what you get from home schooling.

Here in the US, home schoolers tend to do much better on tests than kids in the public educational system. I can't wait to hear you enlighten me on where this 'pressure' comes from since you evidently reject the only two physical forces in the plasma that can possibly be responsible for that pressure. Please do enlighten me with your superior public educational knowledge of this topic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You mean the electrons that move, emit radiation and can be detected?

How did you intend to "detect' them from millions of light years away again?

You mean the electrons that collide, emit radiation and can be detected?

They they always "collide' and radiate at a level we can see from this distance?

You mean the electrons that interact with the ISM, emit radiation and can be detected?
Or are they some other kind of electrons?

They are the electrons that create all those "magnetic fields" you see in space. What exactly did you figure creates those "slinky" shaped *ELECTRO*magnetic fields?

http://www.universetoday.com/2006/01/12/magnetic-slinky-in-space/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

 

[GeeMack]

[*All making up crap as he goes along and displays of extreme misunderstandings removed. All relevant comments and legitimate support for his fruitcake fantasy remain.*]

I guess we'll be seeing you remove that first running difference chart from your web site now, eh, Michael? After all, it doesn't meet your own standards of acceptable evidence. Or have you come up with that experiment yet? You know, the one that shows how you can see below thousands of kilometers of the Sun's photosphere by looking at graphical representations of calculations done using data obtained from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere? That experiment that meets your own demands that it can be done right here on Earth, no fudge factors, nothing metaphysical, mathematically realistic, physically sound, repeatable, and objective so that other people come to the same conclusion you've reached?

Jesus Christ, Michael, be a man about it already, why don't you? Show us the experiment or admit that you can't. Then you can remove that crazy claim about running difference graphs from your web site. And after you discard that very first lie from your list of "evidence", we can move on and shred the next piece of bogus crap on the list!

(A whining tantrum from Michael will follow. No attempt will be made to address the concern about meeting his own standards. He will steadfastly cling to his right to remain ignorant, and be proud of it.)

 

[Michael Mozina]

I guess we'll be seeing you remove that first running difference chart from your web site now, eh, Michael?

Er, could you at least keep your rantings focused on the right topics of the right threads and stop hijacking every conversation of this thread?

 

[Reality Check]

How did you intend to "detect' them from millions of light years away again?

They they always "collide' and radiate at a level we can see from this distance?

Use science, e.g. astromnomers can detect the intergalactic meduim fro millions of light years away.
All you have to do is give the numbers and an astronomer will be able to tell you. So far all we have is unsupported assertions from you.

The next thing you have to explain is why astronomers cannot detect these enourmous numbers of electrons in the Milky Way.

They are the electrons that create all those "magnetic fields" you see in space. What exactly did you figure creates those "slinky" shaped *ELECTRO*magnetic fields?

http://www.universetoday.com/2006/01/12/magnetic-slinky-in-space/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/helical_orion-2.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Magnetic_rope.png/300px-Magnetic_rope.png

Electrons in stars create most of the magnetic fields in space (you have heard of the Sun's magnetic field?).

Pretty picture MM - pity that you did not read the article:

Astronomers announced today (Thursday, Jan. 12) what may be the first discovery of a helical magnetic field in interstellar space, coiled like a snake around a gas cloud in the constellation of Orion.
"You can think of this structure as a giant, magnetic Slinky wrapped around a long, finger-like interstellar cloud," said Timothy Robishaw, a graduate student in astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley. "The magnetic field lines are like stretched rubber bands; the tension squeezes the cloud into its filamentary shape."

I would say that it is the electrons in the gas cloud that are creating the magnetic field.

It is also not a Birkeland current (which are currents in planetary magnetospheres driven by external sources like stars). As stated in the article:

Astronomers have known for some time that many molecular clouds are filamentary structures whose shapes are suspected to be sculpted by a balance between the force of gravity and magnetic fields. In making theoretical models of these clouds, most astrophysicists have treated them as spheres rather than finger-like filaments. However, a theoretical treatment published in 2000 by Drs. Jason Fiege and Ralph Pudritz of McMaster University suggested that when treated properly, filamentary molecular clouds should exhibit a helical magnetic field around the long axis of the cloud. This is the first observational confirmation of this theory.

So I would call it a Fiege-Pudritz magnetic field.

 

[sol invictus]

The full continuum that is the magnetic field is physically incapable of "disconnecting' or "reconnecting' to other magnetic field lines.

That's just flat-out false. There's no equivocation, no way around it - it's just not true. Here's an explicit counterexample:

[latex]$\vec B(x,y, t) = a(t) y \hat x + b(t) x \hat y$[/latex].

If a and b are constants, nothing changes. But give them any time dependence at all (except a/b is constant) and the field lines reconnect at x=y=0. Draw a picture if you're not capable of doing the math (yes, MM, that means you).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Use science, e.g. astromnomers can detect the intergalactic meduim fro millions of light years away.

The question seems to be "To what level of accuracy?" Suddenly stars are "twice as bright" as first believed? How did you intend to "explain" that without bigger brighter stars, or more "dust" in the ISM?

All you have to do is give the numbers and an astronomer will be able to tell you. So far all we have is unsupported assertions from you.

All they seem to be able to "tell me" is that they can't see matter in distant galaxies that they know is there based on lensing data. That's all they can really say.

The next thing you have to explain is why astronomers cannot detect these enourmous numbers of electrons in the Milky Way.

Well, for one thing, you folks are so intent on *DENYING* the validity of EU theory, you *REFUSE* to see what's in front of your face, like those Birkeland currents flowing through that "slinky" in space. Not once does the article mention the "current flow" that is necessary to sustain such a structure in the plasmas of space.

Electrons in stars create most of the magnetic fields in space (you have heard of the Sun's magnetic field?).

Ya, well, for some reason you seem to believe that "current flow" is somehow limited to *INSIDE* stars. You seem to ignore those million degree discharges in the solar atmosphere altogether. If you can't recognize the electrons driving that million degree parade, what likelihood is there you'll put two and two together and recognize a "Birkeland current" when you see one?

Pretty picture MM - pity that you did not read the article:

I would say that it is the electrons in the gas cloud that are creating the magnetic field.

Where in the article did they mention the term "current flow" or "amperage" or "voltage" or anything that would be required to determine the amount of mass in the electrons that drive that "Birkeland current"? In fact why didn't they just call it a "Birkeland current" *ANYWHERE* in the article? There is not a single mention of any charged particle anywhere in that article. In fact, they either intentionally or unintentionally tried to give credit to to the wrong group.....

However, a theoretical treatment published in 2000 by Drs. Jason Fiege and Ralph Pudritz of McMaster University suggested that when treated properly, filamentary molecular clouds should exhibit a helical magnetic field around the long axis of the cloud. This is the first observational confirmation of this theory.

How about Birkeland's *EMPIRICAL* and theoretical explanation? How about giving Bennett credit and called it a Bennett pinch? Why go out of your way to never mention the term "current"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'd read some modern books on plasma physics. But still Alfven nowhere in his books claims that the magnetic pressure (or the magnetic tension for his Alfven waves) comes from particles or from (virtual) photons.

You know, the more I think about this statement, the more I'm realizing just how utterly detached from physical reality your industry has become. You folks understand math just fine. It's the physics you are utterly clueless about.

MHD theory is all about the study of the particles, movements and properties of plasma. The movement of charged particles creates "magnetic fields', but that EM field is carried by photons. The only "things" that MHD theory describe or can describe are the particles of plasma (the electrons/protons/ect) and the photons that make up the EM field. You don't even seem to understand *WHAT* these formulas relate to in terms of actual physical things like photons and the actual particles of plasma. In terms of actual "physics" and physical things, what exactly *DO* you think these formulas relate to if not the charged particles of the plasma and not the photons of the EM field? Inquiring minds really want to know.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So I would call it a Fiege-Pudritz magnetic field.

Let's put that one to rest. Michael Gmirkin explains this issue in great detail:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/mgmirkin08/090522_mgm.htm

Now this is also a perfect example *WHY* you're missing mass. You're not even looking for it, because you aren't even recognizing it when it's staring you in the face. Instead you seem to think that "magnetic fields" are somehow able to sustain themselves in such a large cloud *WITHOUT* current flow. No wonder you can't find the missing "non baryonic" matter in a galaxy. You refuse to even notice the electrons flowing through the cloud.