Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

However, it is now done. I have seen the flares in white light & EUV, and I have seen all the frames.

Sure, but then my next "concern" is how much time and effort you put into analyzing those three consecutive images? Did you notice that the photosphere changes between the image right before the flare image and the flare image? Did you notice which direction the plasma went? I don't really know. I respect you a great deal on many levels Tim, but you'll have to explain to me *WHY* you interpret things differently.

I have seen all of the images you wanted me to see, and all the frames, so far as I know. I disagree with your interpretation of the images.

Then please explain *why* you think that way.

Indeed, I will say that your reliance on the images is your primary weakness.

Whereas I would say your callous disregard for imagery analysis is your primary weakness. I suppose I'll have to wait to hear you explain why you disagree with my interpretation.

It is as I said before, you have to rely on a subjective interpretation of the images to make your point.

How is that different than any other interpretation? You don't "subjectively" apply your math skills?

There is nothing in the images, not in any frame, which is sufficient to differentiate between your hypothesis and that of mainstream physics,

Well, it's not even all together clear exactly what the "mainstream" position is as it relates to the location of the bases of the loops. Nasa's animations make it clear they expect these loops to originate under the photosphere. LMSAL seems certain they start ABOVE the photosphere. Whom shall I believe based on that image Tim?

It is not enough simply to promote an alternative hypothesis. You must provide a means to simultaneously verify your hypothesis and falsify the competition (in this case, the mainstream physics). I see nothing that does this.

I can falsify LMSAL's position with the three images on that video and they are the one's that put that video together. Likewise I can verify the validity of that animation by the folks at NASA based on the three same images.

You have argued strenuously all along that the EUV images show the photosphere,

No, actually I believe the 1600A images are showing us the calcium plasma surface which is located *UNDER* the photosphere IMO, not over top of the photosphere as LMSAL claims. LMSAL has *EVERYTHING* screwed up IMO as it relates to locations of various layers. They have the calcium mixed with helium in the chromosphere, but if you look at CAII images and Helium images during sunspot activity, helium images don't show any sunspots whereas the CA images typically look a lot like the surface of the photosphere, but not *EXACTLY* the same as the photosphere. In other words there is a similar pattern in both the CAII and white light wavelengths that doesn't show up in He wavelengths.

and it has been one of the major points of contention all along. But now you simply brush all of the aside and admit that the EUV images do not show the photosphere?

I admit that they do not show the photosphere. In fact I defy you to quote me where I claimed they show the same part of the solar atmosphere.

If you are going to say that, is there anything left to talk about?

Sure. I think RC's list is over twenty or so questions long now.

I though that was the point you were trying to make, it is certainly the point you told me you were trying to make.

No, the point I was trying to make is that the bases of the loops are not located above the photosphere as LMSAL claims, but rather they begin far below the photosphere as that NASA animation suggests.

In any case, that the magnetic loop crosses through the photosphere has never been a point of contention; it is well known that they do, and that the loops extend well below the photosphere.

Explain that to LMSAL. They they have the bases of the loops located in the chromosphere.

The real point of contention is "where does the flare start?"

Well, it clearly starts *UNDER* the photosphere because we see the whole set of loops in that image and we can see where those loops cross the surface of the photosphere and light up the photosphere. The bases of the loops *CANNOT* be located above the photosphere.

Is it below, in, or above the photosphere?

It begins (sometimes ends) significantly "below" the photosphere as that Doppler image and the heliosiesmology data demonstrates.

Given only the videos & frames you have specified, all 3 alternatives are clearly possible. We need more information, aside from the images, to make a conclusion.

No way Tim. The only location that is feasible is BELOW the photosphere. The ejection of material from the photosphere demonstrates that point. Pay *CLOSE* attention to the surface of the photosphere in the center of those loops in the image before the flare and of the flare. If you're doing your homework "properly", you'll see physical changes in the surface of the photosphere during the flare process.

 

[sol invictus]

But what does that mean when the number of modes is infinite, and the amplitudes are varying continuously?

The number of modes is infinite at high energies only, if we've in finite volume - but at high energies the quantization of occupation numbers means the modes aren't occupied at all (just as in the resolution of the UV catastrophe for photons in a hot box). As for amplitudes varying continuously, that's an artifact of the classical approximation. In an exact treatment they don't vary continuously.

One might interpret amplitudes as some sort of probability of having a photon in a mode, but in fact even there, you'd need to do an integral over a range of modes in order to get a nonzero value. But I don't think you can get a single number answer for the total number of photons unless you decide on some sort of average frequency for the photons you're considering.

Your question was how many photons make a 1T magnetic field, right? To answer that we'll need to restrict the field to a finite volume, say 1 cubic meter. Imposing boundary conditions on the edges, the mode spectrum is discrete, so it's a sum rather than an integral. Assuming that sum is dominated by the fundamental mode, I suppose the answer is simply one Tesla squared (energy density) times the volume (meter cubed) divided by the energy of a photon in the fundamental (inverse meter in natural units), which gives about 10^29 photons (ignoring some pis).

Ah, this and the subsequent conversation are aspects of the issue I had not thought of before. Most interesting. But certainly very few people, even very few physicists are likely to automatically think of static fields, or even non-static fields (i.e., waves in a magnetic field or Alfven waves) in terms of photons. I think its use by Mozina needlessly confuses the issue.

Yes, absolutely. It's completely unnecessary. Or more precisely, it's simply a wrong way to think about the problem. It's akin to thinking about tsunamis in terms of dihydrogen monoxide, a topic we've recently tried to explain to him.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In other words, your objection is purely semantic. Which is what I said. You are now explicitly acknowledging what you just denied. Quite impressive.

Let's see.

You are now willing to admit that the following terms are all interchangeable terms:

Magnetic reconnection
Particle reconnection
Circuit reconnection

Is that true?

Was that also true three weeks ago?

Why would you intentionally choose a term that is neither consistent with particle physics theory or electrical engineering when you have two "better" terms to choose from?

 

[Ziggurat]

The number of modes is infinite at high energies only, if we've in finite volume

But generally speaking we're not in a finite volume.

Your question was how many photons make a 1T magnetic field, right? To answer that we'll need to restrict the field to a finite volume, say 1 cubic meter. Imposing boundary conditions on the edges, the mode spectrum is discrete, so it's a sum rather than an integral. Assuming that sum is dominated by the fundamental mode, I suppose the answer is simply one Tesla squared (energy density) times the volume (meter cubed) divided by the energy of a photon in the fundamental (inverse meter in natural units), which gives about 10^29 photons (ignoring some pis).

And here we see the problem: in order to get a meaningful number, we had to basically pick a wavelength, but that choice was essentially arbitrary and meaningless. Choose a different wavelength and you'll get a different number. Which is part of why nobody actually treats static fields as being composed of photons: it's a terrible way to approach such a problem, which was what any real effort to answer my question would reveal, as yours did.

Of course, Michael couldn't have done any of this anyways, which was also part of the point of my question. Not that additional proof of his inability to do calculations was necessary.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Of course, Michael couldn't have done any of this anyways, which was also part of the point of my question. Not that additional proof of his inability to do calculations was necessary.

And of course everyone knows that the validity of EU theory (or any scientific theory) rises and falls on my personal maths skills......

 

[Ziggurat]

Let's see.

You are now willing to admit that the following terms are all interchangeable terms:

Magnetic reconnection
Particle reconnection
Circuit reconnection

Is that true?

I make no claims about the interchangeability of those terms. I don't need to. All I need to do is recognize what you are claiming. And what you are claiming is not that magnetic reconnection is wrong, but that it is mislabelled. Which is a semantic objection.

Why would you intentionally choose a term that is neither consistent with particle physics theory or electrical engineering when you have two "better" terms to choose from?

It doesn't matter what terminology I would choose. I had no hand in it, and I can't go back in time and change it. The existing terminology is what it is.

 

[Ziggurat]

And of course everyone knows that the validity of EU theory (or any scientific theory) rises and falls on my personal maths skills......

Fortunately for us all, nothing rises or falls on your math skills, except perhaps your own credibility as someone qualified to say anything about physics. But perhaps that counts as part of nothing.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Fortunately for us all, nothing rises or falls on your math skills, except perhaps your own credibility as someone qualified to say anything about physics. But perhaps that counts as part of nothing.

The problem of course is that I have already "done math" for DRD (on other forums) and for others in cyberspace. Did I get any credit from anyone for my efforts? What point was there in explaining to you how many photons were required? Did sol's explanation convince you of anything or change your opinions in any way?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I make no claims about the interchangeability of those terms. I don't need to.

Yes you do. If you and I are going to communicate effectively, you will have to be able to alternate between Alfven's presentation of "circuits" in plasmas and what you are calling "a magnetic line with current flow inside the line". Since you are *STILL* unwilling to do that, your resistance to agreeing with me demonstrates that this is more than just a problem with semantics. If it was, you would have simply agreed and that would have been that.

All I need to do is recognize what you are claiming. And what you are claiming is not that magnetic reconnection is wrong, but that it is mislabelled. Which is a semantic objection.

It "could be" a semantic objection *IF* you could make the 'jump" from "magnetic lines with particle flow inside the line" and a "circuit". Since you can't do that, I can't communicate with you at all.

It doesn't matter what terminology I would choose. I had no hand in it, and I can't go back in time and change it. The existing terminology is what it is.

A bad term is always going to be a bad term. Why continue to go down a stupid path that is guaranteed to create unnecessary confusion just because you did so in the past?

 

[Michael Mozina]

But generally speaking we're not in a finite volume.

So you were not really interested in the answer when you asked the question. All you intended to do from the start was to bitch about the answer when (assuming) you did get an answer and make someone waste their time. I'm glad it was sol and not me.

 

[Ziggurat]

The problem of course is that I have already "done math" for DRD (on other forums) and for others in cyberspace.

I'm not going to chase you to other forums. You have done nothing here. But more damningly, you've done nothing on your own website. Despite the fact that the ideas you promote would be revolutionary if correct, you cannot be bothered, even after YEARS of writing about this stuff, to perform even the most basic calculations of the fundamental properties of your own model. That's just pathetic, really. You've wasted so much of your life, with nothing to show for it.

What point was there in explaining to you how many photons were required? Did sol's explanation convince you of anything or change your opinions in any way?

The exercise of arriving at an answer would have revealed why it's bloody stupid to try to think about static fields in terms of photons. Sol already knew that and decided to give it a go anyways, but I was hoping that you might figure that out yourself. But that hope was in vain: you never have, and probably never will, calculate a single thing on this forum. Nor were you able to learn from someone else doing the calculation for you. But that's par for the course.

 

[Ziggurat]

So you were not really interested in the answer when you asked the question.

Sure I was. But far more than the number, I was interested in your understanding of the question, and how you solved it. Sol's response shows that he understands the problem. But of course, you didn't answer the question, because you couldn't. You keep going on and on about how magnetic fields are made up of photons, but you've got no clue about what that actually means.

All you intended to do from the start was to bitch about the answer

What you quoted was in response to Sol's statement about the number of modes, not the number of photons. Do you understand the difference? Hell, do you even understand why finite versus infinite volumes changes the number of modes? No, I don't suppose you do.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sure I was. But far more than the number, I was interested in your understanding of the question, and how you solved it.

I thought sol's method was pretty clever. I never gave it two seconds of thought however because I knew damn well you weren't actually interested in the answer.

Sol's response shows that he understands the problem.

Evidently he understands it much better than you do too. Sol evidently has many redeeming qualities.

But of course, you didn't answer the question, because you couldn't.

You are confusing the term "could" with "would". If I though it might make the slightest amount of difference to you I might have bothered to put some effort into the idea. Since you won't even download and watch a video, why should I waste my time on you?

You keep going on and on about how magnetic fields are made up of photons, but you've got no clue about what that actually means.

Unlike you, I actually do grasp the physics. Unlike sol, I'm not into doing busy work math. Notice that his answer didn't matter to you one iota? What difference did it make to anyone that you got your answer?

What you quoted was in response to Sol's statement about the number of modes, not the number of photons. Do you understand the difference? Hell, do you even understand why finite versus infinite volumes changes the number of modes? No, I don't suppose you do.

I don't suppose you even care that it doesn't matter on iota that my math skills or lack thereof have no bearing on the issue at all. It don't suppose it matters to you that you have your answer and yet you are still not happy or convinced of anything based upon that answer.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm not going to chase you to other forums.

I never asked you to. I've just been down this road before.

You have done nothing here.

BS. I provided you with numbers from Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven on several topics and you ignored all of it.

But more damningly, you've done nothing on your own website.

My website? Did you read any of the papers I was involved in?

The exercise of arriving at an answer would have revealed why it's bloody stupid to try to think about static fields in terms of photons.

It is not stupid. In fact at the level of subatomic physics, that is in fact the way QM views it. The carrier particles of the EM field is thought to be the photons. You'll have to blame the folks that wrote QM.

Sol already knew that and decided to give it a go anyways, but I was hoping that you might figure that out yourself.

Ya, and I was hoping you'd actually watch that video and analyze those images too. I guess we're all disappointed eh?

But that hope was in vain: you never have, and probably never will, calculate a single thing on this forum.

Since I answer most of these posts at work between tech calls and programming, that's probably a fair assumption. I do think however that an update of my website is in order and I'll have to think about some of these questions and see if they warrant some effort. I'll be honest, your question about heat flow warrants a response, but I want to focus on those million degree loops and satellite images for the time being.

Nor were you able to learn from someone else doing the calculation for you. But that's par for the course.

Actually, that isn't true. I did enjoy and appreciate sol's solution. It's a pity it was a waste of breath and effort and it had no meaning to either of you whatsoever.

 

[sol invictus]

But generally speaking we're not in a finite volume.

We're not?

If you want to know how many photons make up a uniform 1T field that fills an infinite universe, the answer is... infinity, and that's what we would find from this treatment. If it's a finite lump of field in an infinite universe, I think we'll still get a finite answer, even though the spectrum is continuous... (...but I'd need to think about that. It should boil down to this giving an integrable probability density for the mode numbers. And you'd have to be careful about how precisely you asked the question - measured with any instrument with finite energy resolution, the number of photons would be finite. Perhaps measured with an instrument with infinite energy resolution, it's not - but then again such an instrument might detect an infinite number of photons even in a vacuum, and it's physically impossible to build one in any case.)

And here we see the problem: in order to get a meaningful number, we had to basically pick a wavelength, but that choice was essentially arbitrary and meaningless.

I don't think it's arbitrary. I believe my answer is approximately correct for the problem as I stated it - a 1T field confined to a meter cubed of volume, with zero field outside. To get the precise answer for that configuration, one simply needs to do that sum more carefully - which will yield a finite answer, perhaps given some reasonable prescription concerning the high frequencies (and in any case a problem there could only arise if the edges of the field are infinitely sharp, which of course they can't be in a physical configuration). If you gave me a different field configuration, I'd get a different answer, of course - but the procedure is well-defined as far as I can see.

Of course, Michael couldn't have done any of this anyways, which was also part of the point of my question. Not that additional proof of his inability to do calculations was necessary.

Absolutely. But we shouldn't let someone's ignorance, laziness, and stupidity stand in the way of an interesting discussion.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't suppose you even care that it doesn't matter on iota that my math skills or lack thereof have no bearing on the issue at all. It don't suppose it matters to you that you have your answer and yet you are still not happy or convinced of anything based upon that answer.

You don't understand the answer, Michael. And it's the understanding of the answer which is important.

And frankly, I don't care much that you didn't answer this question. You have far more glaring failures to contend with. And it's not even a matter of you being unwilling to answer my questions: you are unwilling to quantify any of your own ideas, even on your own website. There could be people out there who might believe you, but want to see the actual quantitative predictions that flow from your ideas. Since folks like sol and me are obviously just brainwashed by the giant physics conspiracy, who's going to give them the real numbers, Michael? Since you've spent so much time and effort developing your theory, and your website, why can't you actually follow through and quantify anything?

It's really just sad that you never have.

 

[Ziggurat]

We're not?

No, generally we're not.

If you want to know how many photons make up a 1T field that fills an infinite universe, the answer is... infinity, and that's what we would find from this treatment.

Yes, we would. But I had in mind a more physically realistic scenario, such as a 1 Tesla field in one location which dies off as we move away. In such a physically realistic field configuration, we have no boundaries, and there are no discrete modes.

I don't think it's at all arbitrary. I believe my answer is approximately correct for the problem as I stated it

It's not an arbitrary answer for the way you stated the question. But the way you stated it is arbitrary, because there's no reason you needed to pick a 1 m³ volume given how the question was originally posed. Which was part of my point: the statement that a magnetic field is "made up" of photons suggests something about the decomposition of a field into individual photons which just isn't so. You and I know it isn't, but I really don't think Michael does. I think his understanding is shallow enough to think that X number of photons means Y field strength, and that's all there is to it. It was perhaps foolish of me to think that he could be educated on the issue by considering this problem, though.

 

[Ziggurat]

BS. I provided you with numbers from Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven on several topics and you ignored all of it.

No you didn't. You posted links to papers of theirs. Not the same thing. Furthermore, none of their papers address YOUR claims about the solid surface of the sun, or cathode refrigeration.

My website? Did you read any of the papers I was involved in?

Yes. And nowhere do the papers talk at all about your solid shell, or cathode refrigeration. Those are YOUR ideas. If correct, they would be revolutionary. So why don't you quantify your ideas to see if they make any sense whatsoever?

 

[sol invictus]

Yes, we would. But I had in mind a more physically realistic scenario, such as a 1 Tesla field in one location which dies off as we move away. In such a physically realistic field configuration, we have no boundaries, and there are no discrete modes.

Right. Perhaps you missed the part of my post where I addressed that? (I edited it shortly after posting; you might not have seen it).

I don't think an infinite universe/continuous spectrum changes anything, although I acknowledge my argument is no longer so transparent in that case. But it's still true the FT is dominated by modes with wavelength around a meter. It's just that the question - how many photons are there - becomes ill-defined in the sense that one may need to specify how the measurement is being made. If it's made with an instrument with an energy resolution around an inverse meter, I think the answer is more or less exactly as I said. If it's made with an instrument with a much finer energy resolution, I think the answer is still as I said, although I agree it's less obvious.

It's a baby version of the the kind of IR divergences that arise in QCD if you're not careful how you define jets. And I think the answer is similar - any finite energy resolution will give essentially the same answer for the total number of photons, because the number of photons in each bin will fall as the number of bins increases (since the FT of the B-field should be interpreted as a probability density for the occupation number, and the integral of the density is finite and independent of the energy resolution).

But perhaps there are some weakly divergent terms... I'd have to do a calculation to be sure. What do you think?

 

[Dancing David]

The problem of course is that I have already "done math" for DRD (on other forums) and for others in cyberspace. Did I get any credit from anyone for my efforts? What point was there in explaining to you how many photons were required? Did sol's explanation convince you of anything or change your opinions in any way?

[/lurk]
That was one question.

Excuse me MM, you said that the allegedly solid layer of iron in the sun is cooled by the electrons coming off of the iron surface, or that the quantity of electrons is so high they carry away the heat radiation. How many electrons would that take?
[/lurk]