Electric universe theories here.

[Zeuzzz]

Never wrestle with a pig.

... You'll both get dirty but only the pig will enjoy it. Depends who's the pig in the situation

 

[Michael Mozina]

Errm, Michael. The Navier-Stokes equations involve pressure. You have illustrated to us all excellently how you have no understanding of what pressure is. Why should we possibly think you could teach us anything about this?

You mean besides the fact that pressure is caused by 'physical' things?

 

[Ziggurat]

Alfven accounts for them as the movement of particles in circuits.

He can describe it however he likes, but the movement of particles is not an input into, or an output of, ANY MHD equation.

Why? Bruce made many such calculations and predictions. Did you read them? What's wrong with them?

Did Bruce predict the sun was made of a solid shell? Did he claim that this shell experienced cathode refrigeration via the solar winds? If so, then you are free to post his numbers to quantify the parameters of that model. But I don't think he did, and I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase trying to hunt those numbers down. If he did, you should be able to find the numbers much more quickly than I could. If not, then whatever it is that Bruce did, it doesn't quantify your model.

Because I see zero evidence that calculations or predictions matter one iota to you.

Of course not. That's why I've actually done those calculations, and posted them. Because they don't matter to me. Who, exactly, do you expect to believe this argument?

If so, you would be happy with Bruce's presentation of solar discharge processes

Did he calculate the parameters of your proposed cathode refrigeration? No, I don't think he did. Go on, prove me wrong.

It seems to me that the only reason you want me to bark math for you is in the hope you can find an error in my math and thereby ridicule EU theory.

I don't need you to do the math in order to ridicule EU theories. I can do the math myself for that. In fact, I have. On multiple occasions. No, my request for you to present numbers has a different purpose.

I'd like to see you deal with Bruce's numbers or Birkeland's numbers or Alfven's numbers.

Neither of them proposed the solar wind as a mechanism for cathode refrigeration to keep the sun's solid shell from vaporizing.

Twist and turn, twist and turn. You can't quantify any of your ideas. Not even using other people's numbers. Which I would be OK with, if you ever did that. But you haven't.

 

[Michael Mozina]

He can describe it however he likes, but the movement of particles is not an input into, or an output of, ANY MHD equation.

Really?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/A Three Ring Circuit Model OfThe Magnetosphere.pdf
How did the aurora form again according to Alfven?

Did Bruce predict the sun was made of a solid shell?

No, he predicted that discharges occur in the solar atmosphere. I can't fight every battle at once. Let's focus on the things that are easy to see and that are well documented mathematically for awhile, shall we?

Twist and turn, twist and turn. You can't quantify any of your ideas. Not even using other people's numbers. Which I would be OK with, if you ever did that. But you haven't.

I did do that. I did that with Bruce's work and Alfven's work as it relates to solar discharge activity. You refuse to read it or address it, and it's clearly the most "visible" and obvious thing visible on the sun in the higher energy wavelengths. If you can't pick out "flyiing electrons and flying ions" in a satellite image, there is no way in hell I'll ever teach you how to pick out the surface. Baby steps. Lets start with the solar discharges. Did you ever download the DVD and look at the frame about thirty minutes in on April 15th, 2001, at 13:55:01?

 

[Reality Check]

Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere

Lets return to the Iron Sun model and see if Micheal Mozina can actually quantify any of his ideas.
First asked 30 July 2009
You assert that the photosphere is "mostly neon". You have still not told us what "mostly" means but we will ignore this for now.

What physical properties of the photosphere show that it contains "mostly neon" rather than for example "mostly fluorine"?

It cannot be the spectrum of neon since neon glows reddish-orange in discharge tubes (it has emission lines mostly in the red ared of the visible spectrum).
P.S. Fluorescent lights (which you cited before) emit white light light from the fluorescence of the phosphor in their coatings which is excited by light from mercury (they can contain neon as a filler gas).

 

[Ziggurat]

Really?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/A Three Ring Circuit Model OfThe Magnetosphere.pdf
How did the aurora form again according to Alfven?

Bwahahahahaha! Let me quote from that article, bottom of the 1st page:

"Since the magnetopause layer has a thickness on the order of the ion gyroradius, it is not possible within the constraints of conventional megnetohydrodynamics to derive this current system in terms of the adjacent plasmas."

In other words, he's stepping outside of MHD at the very beginning of the paper. Unlike you, Alfven understands that MHD is a continuum approximation, and so he understands its limitations. So how, precisely, is this paper supposed to support your position about how MHD treats individual particle behavior?

I did do that. I did that with Bruce's work and Alfven's work as it relates to solar discharge activity.

Nowhere does Alfven make any predictions of, or even provide any description of, your proposed cathode refrigeration. I doubt Bruce does either.

Lets start with the solar discharges. Did you ever download the DVD and look at the frame about thirty minutes in on April 15th, 2001, at 13:55:01?

I have no intention of wasting my bandwidth downloading a DVD. Especially if the only contents are pictures which other posters indicate show nothing, based on techniques that you have demonstrated you don't understand. And none of which would actually quantify any of the fundamental parameters of the cathode refrigeration model you are proposing, even if your interpretation of them was correct.

And you still haven't quantified a single one of your ideas.

 

[Tim Thompson]

DVD Images

The specific DVD file I would like you to download is the one that is marked "FlaresDVD.img". ... http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/bigmovies/DVDs/

Have you watched the DVD yet?

Yes, but I don't know what I am supposed to be looking for. The master menu shows "X Flares Part 1", "X Flares Part 2", "Filament Flares" and "Flare Evolution" Lots of stuff. So which menu am I supposed to look in to see the magic? Each of the menu entries is arranged by date, so I need to know the menu and the date.

The last I heard, Tim had not burned the image to DVD yet or seen the images I cited or selected and had not seen the April 15th 2001 image with the 13:55:01 time stamp.

The file "FlaresDVD.img" does not have any video with that date. I also note that you have so far specified time stamps 13:55:01, 15:55:01 and 13:51:01. So was I supposed to download something other than the file you specified? And what are the real date & time stamp supposed to be?

I also repeat (emphasis mine) ...

A) the bases of the loops light up the photosphere as they come through the photosphere and the loop comes up *THROUGH* the photosphere.
B) the mass ejections from a flare blow material up and through the photosphere during the flare process.

What makes you think you are looking at the photosphere? The base I see is the chromosphere, not the photosphere.

Of course, the base I see might just as well be the bottom of the transition zone, or top of the chromosphere. But what I really want to address is that you identify the base of all the images as the photosphere in a very matter-of-fact manner, as if it were already determined. I want to know how you know that it is in fact the photosphere. Is that just a blind assertion on your part, or is there some real reason for saying so?

The images in the FlaresDVD file do not look like white light to me, they all look like EUV images. But I can't verify that at the moment, as the "about the DVD" information does not say.

 

[Tubbythin]

You mean besides the fact that pressure is caused by 'physical' things?

Huh? The answer seems to bare no resemblance to my question.

 

[Tubbythin]

Not so.

OK. Please explain how it wasn't tautological.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Physical Things?

The only physical things that exist in plasma are electrons, ions and photons.

So let me just be clear about this: You, Michael Mozina, explicitly agree that magnetic fields and electric fields are not physical things? Is that really true?

 

[Tubbythin]

That's the whole point, you won't find one. The properties of the "particles" matter. We may not understand why the fluid isn't rigid, but the fact it's not rigid is what allows for "tsunamis" to form in the liquid. You can be ignorant of the "particles" of water that are in the tsunami and still project the speed of the tsunami, but were it not for the "particles" in the water, and the fact they aren't "solid', you wouldn't have anything to study.

So you agree that we don't need to know anything about particles to model tsunamis?

They are "modeled with" the things you mentioned. You've simply "homogenized" the particle interaction process.

... so the individual particles are completely ignored.

I mean something is creating serious particle acceleration in the process you are calling "magnetic reconnection". What is the 'physical cause' of this acceleration? Physical *things* and only physical things can "disconnect" and 'reconnect". Even the carrier particle of the EM field is itself a "particle".

What's a "physical thing"?

Yet Alfven applied these equations to individual particles.

Are you forgetting what I was responding to? I'll remind you:

These formulas all relate to one of three things, electrons, ions and the carrier particles of the EM field. Period. That's all there is to choose from.

Which approximates the physical behaviors of physical particles.

They approximate the behaviour of fluids.

 

[Reality Check]

Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer

First asked 30 July 2009
The post below evokes another question.
According to you all of the elements in the Sun are "mass separated" into layers according to their mass, e.g. your iron crust, "mostly neon" photosphere, etc.
Fluorine is lighter than neon. Thus you must expect that there is a layer of fluorine above your "mostly neon" photosphere, i.e. in the chromosphere, transition zone or corona.

What is your physical evidence for this "mostly fluorine" layer?

For example: how much fluorine does spectroscopy show in the corona from the absorption lines in the photosphere light?

Lets return to the Iron Sun model and see if Micheal Mozina can actually quantify any of his ideas.
First asked 30 July 2009
You assert that the photosphere is "mostly neon". You have still not told us what "mostly" means but we will ignore this for now.

What physical properties of the photosphere show that it contains "mostly neon" rather than for example "mostly fluorine"?

It cannot be the spectrum of neon since neon glows reddish-orange in discharge tubes (it has emission lines mostly in the red ared of the visible spectrum).
P.S. Fluorescent lights (which you cited before) emit white light light from the fluorescence of the phosphor in their coatings which is excited by light from mercury (they can contain neon as a filler gas).

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you agree that we don't need to know anything about particles to model tsunamis?

I really can't see how you got that impression from my response. At *MINIMUM* you would have to know there is some difference between solids and liquids. Yes, I suppose one could remain completely oblivious as to the particle aspects of atoms and do some mathematical modeling but then you wouldn't have a clue what's *physically* happening inside the wave at the level of particle physics. In other words, you'd be ignorant of important cause/effect relationships, particularly why solids and liquids behave differently.

... so the individual particles are completely ignored.

No, they are "compensated for" inside the formulas with descriptions like "density" (of particles).

What's a "physical thing"?

A "physical thing" is something that shows up in a controlled empirical experiment like an electron, an ion, a photon, a neutrino, etc.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So let me just be clear about this: You, Michael Mozina, explicitly agree that magnetic fields and electric fields are not physical things? Is that really true?

No. FYI the image is certainly on the DVD. It is dated (on the left bottom corner of the image) April 15th, 2001, 13:55:01. The reason why I'm sure it's coming through the photosphere should be clear to you when you observe the shape of the light emissions at the bases of the loops and their connection to the sunspots in that image.

 

[Reality Check]

No. FYI the image is certainly on the DVD. It is dated (on the left bottom corner of the image) April 15th, 2001, 13:55:01. The reason why I'm sure it's coming through the photosphere should be clear to you when you observe the shape of the light emissions at the bases of the loops and their connection to the sunspots in that image.

Hi MM: For some reason the people who have downloaded FlaresDVD.img can find no documentation that the images are in visible light (and so are of the photosphere). Tim Thompson states "they all look like EUV images".

You must have found documentation that the images are in visible light.
Could you please post a link to them ot point out where the documentation is in the DVD?

ETA:
Rather than trusting your dubious citations I went to the TRACE web site. The files that make up the DVD are listed in folders under http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/bigmovies/
And the only files I can find for April 15th, 2001 are:
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/bigmovies/filaments/T171_2001Apr15SurgeN0_Cap.mov
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/bigmovies/filaments/T171_2001Apr15SurgeWO_Cap.mov

Guess what MM? T171 = the TRACE 171A pass band, i.e. activity in the corona not the photosphere. Most of the DVD files are for the 171A or 195A pass bands.

But it looks like you are just incompetent rather then lying about the movie.
There is a list of movies that includes:

Movie 32 (description): X14.4 flare in AR9514, 15 April 2001, in 171Å.
Movie 33 (description): X14.4 flare in AR9514, 15 April 2001, in 1600Å.

The second movie is not in "white light" but does include plasma emitting light at the termperature of the photosphere. There is however no frame timestamped "April 15th, 2001, 13:55:01".
It is obvious that you are looking at the first movie (TRACE 171A pass band, i.e. activity in the corona not the photosphere) which does havve a frame timestamped at "April 15th, 2001, 13:55:01".

Both movies show loops forming an arcade and then an explosion from the arcade.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you agree that we don't need to know anything about particles to model tsunamis?

You know, the more I think about the way you worded this question, and they way this conversation has gone recently, the more I realize it sort of exemplifies the problem with your "understanding" of things at the level of actual particle physics.

Sure, someone probably *COULD* remain ignorant as to the cause of the movement of the water and correctly manipulate mathematics at the macroscopic level. That doesn't mean one is *obligated* to remain ignorant as to the actual "cause" at the level of particle physics for all time. By understanding that water is composed of particles (molecules) that are in a liquid form, we have a deeper, broader, and "greater" understanding of the whole physical process. Sure, one can manipulate the formulas of the waves and have no understanding of this events at the level of particle physics, but that's my whole complaint about you folks. You *INSIST* that we remain ignorant of the fact that the water is composed of particles, and that plasma is made of particles too. My whole point is that you *DON'T* understand the physics at the level of particle physics because you *WON'T* look at the "particle" side of MHD theory. Yes, Alfven describe the "particle" orientation of MHD theory as viewed from the perspective of E rather than B, what he called the "field" side of MHD theory.

While I seriously doubt I could ever teach you anything about the math, I can explain to you what your math relates to at the level of particle physics because I'm willing and able to see the water as particles and the plasma as group of various particles. So was Alfven.

 

[sol invictus]

By understanding that water is composed of particles (molecules) that are in a liquid form, we have a deeper, broader, and "greater" understanding of the whole physical process.

Obviously. The fact that you need to say that, that you think we - or anyone - doesn't agree with that, is.... yet more evidence of how totally you fail to grasp this topic.

Sure, one can manipulate the formulas of the waves and have no understanding of this events at the level of particle physics, but that's my whole complaint about you folks. You *INSIST* that we remain ignorant of the fact that the water is composed of particles, and that plasma is made of particles too.

MHD insists on that, not us. That's what MHD is. That's what the "H" means. That's why it's an approximation rather than an exact theory.

All you have to do is glance at the MHD equations to see that this is the case. And even for someone incapable of understanding equations, it's obvious from the fact that the complete equations for hydrodynamics were written down before the molecular nature of water was understood.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hi MM: For some reason the people who have downloaded FlaresDVD.img can find no documentation that the images are in visible light (and so are of the photosphere).

Evidently they can't navigate a DVD menu. They are clearly marked as WL for white light. When you eventually do download the DVD (I'll shame you into it eventually), go to the menu, select "Movie Controls", pick "X Flares Part 1".

You will see the movie in question is marked "2001 April 9 WL". Evidently that view spans several days. The other (close up) view of that flare is marked "April 15 WL".

I strongly suggest that you give up your "argument from ignorance" approach to science and you actually look at the images and read the materials I suggest before you comment on them. Sheesh.

 

[GeeMack]

I strongly suggest that you give up your "argument from ignorance" approach to science and you actually look at the images and read the materials I suggest before you comment on them. Sheesh.

Spoken by a true champion of the argument from ignorance technique.

Now when do you figure to take down that running difference graph from your web site, Michael? You can't show the experiment that supports your ridiculous claim about seeing something physical in that graph, something which, even if it existed, would be thousands of kilometers away from where the data for the graph was taken. The thing you think you see would be, according to your own claim, below several thousand kilometers of opaque plasma, which would render it invisible under any circumstances. And it has been well established that the graph itself is just a visual representation of a series of simple mathematical calculations, not a picture. Yet you claim to see something, a solid physical thing in it. But oddly enough, you aren't willing or able to support that claim with any more than whining and crying?

I'm sure you'll agree that claiming something as evidence when in fact it isn't, is dishonest. Take down the running difference graph or show us the objective method you use to see that stuff so many thousands of kilometers away from the source data used to make the graph, Michael. Then when you support your claim, or get past that huge error and take that graphic down, we can move on to the next item. Why is this so tough for you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

But it looks like you are just incompetent rather then lying about the movie.

This comment about lying and incompetence comes from the guy that hasn't even bothered to download or watch the DVD yet. Talk about incompetence. Holy cow.

You know before you even "hint" at calling me a liar don't you think you really should review the materials I suggest? Don't you think you owe me an apology? I was neither incompetent or a liar, but you could not possibly know that because you didn't do your homework (AGAIN!).