|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 03/27/2007 : 09:22:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
And this is a page which explains, (listen up, Michael, this'll kill ya) in scientific terms, from a scientific perspective, including relevant mathematical support, descriptions of related physics, and links to additional resources, that plasma cosmology and the electric Sun "theory" are bullshit. 
No, it does not. All that link, and your childish comments demonstrate is the innate prejudice and dogma that prevents astronomers from recognizing the obvious. Electrical currents generate heat and release photons. There are massive examples of such energy releases here on earth. In labs here on earth we've created plasma temperatures in the billions of degrees. On the other hand, astronomers of today prefer to bury their head in the sand, and ignore what is staring them right in the face.
Those that oppose the status quo are ridiculed by the ignorant, taunted, harassed and belittled until they conform.
FYI, I've talked to Tim personally on several occasions. I like him a lot. While he's a very nice guy, he's not the final be-all-end-all of astronomy. Get over it. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/27/2007 09:24:38 |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 09:53:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
On the other hand, astronomers of today prefer to bury their head in the sand, and ignore what is staring them right in the face.
Sort of like what you do when you're asked honest questions and refuse to answer them in favor of following up on ad homs! |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 10:05:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
On the other hand, astronomers of today prefer to bury their head in the sand, and ignore what is staring them right in the face.
Sort of like what you do when you're asked honest questions and refuse to answer them in favor of following up on ad homs!
Excuse me? What "honest question" did you ask me that refused to answer? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 10:11:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Crashing loops
Another surprise sighting is that of giant magnetic field loops crashing down onto the Sun's surface as if they were collapsing from exhaustion, a finding that Golub describes as "impossible". Previously, scientists thought they should emerge from the Sun and continue blowing out into space.
That particular observation is certainly not "impossible" if the electrical circuit breaks, and the loops then collapses. Then again, when you absolutely and positively refuse to acknowledge the role of electricity in these events, I suppose it may seem "impossible" alright. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 10:21:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
On the other hand, astronomers of today prefer to bury their head in the sand, and ignore what is staring them right in the face.
Sort of like what you do when you're asked honest questions and refuse to answer them in favor of following up on ad homs!
Excuse me? What "honest question" did you ask me that refused to answer?
Christ. The thread's not that long. On the first page, in response to your comment "how can you even look at such images and not recognize the roll of electrical current in solar atmospheric activity," I asked, "why, exactly, does that have to be the case?" |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 10:29:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Christ. The thread's not that long. On the first page, in response to your comment "how can you even look at such images and not recognize the roll of electrical current in solar atmospheric activity," I asked, "why, exactly, does that have to be the case?"
I've answered that question in previous posts. There is nothing "impossible" about electrical connections being made and broken. These solar observations are only "impossible" based on *current theory*. Electrical currents make and break themselves all the time. Plasma has been heated to *billions* of degrees in a lab using current flow. Only current flow (and the termination of current flow) will explain these kinds of observations, because that is what causes them.
I already put my ideas on the table. You folks are the ones who have refused to offer any other method to explain these high temperature, high energy state events. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/27/2007 10:30:48 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 10:46:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Christ. The thread's not that long. On the first page, in response to your comment "how can you even look at such images and not recognize the roll of electrical current in solar atmospheric activity," I asked, "why, exactly, does that have to be the case?"
I've answered that question in previous posts. There is nothing "impossible" about electrical connections being made and broken. These solar observations are only "impossible" based on *current theory*. Electrical currents make and break themselves all the time. Plasma has been heated to *billions* of degrees in a lab using current flow. Only current flow (and the termination of current flow) will explain these kinds of observations, because that is what causes them.
I already put my ideas on the table. You folks are the ones who have refused to offer any other method to explain these high temperature, high energy state events.
That wasn't the question. You suggested that anyone looking at the images in question had to see the "roll of electrical current in solar atmospheric activity." I asked you to follow up. Your rather lame reply, it seems was 'it's not impossible,' which is a far cry from 'it's obvious,' no? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 12:10:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
That wasn't the question. You suggested that anyone looking at the images in question had to see the "roll of electrical current in solar atmospheric activity."
Electrical current is the natural choice to explain million degree plasma. That's how we create such hot plasma here on earth.
quote:
I asked you to follow up. Your rather lame reply, it seems was 'it's not impossible,' which is a far cry from 'it's obvious,' no?
Not really. When you see a lightning bolt, wouldn't you say it's pretty obvious that electrical current is involved?
What other process(es) would you suggest even *could be* responsible for such high energy plasma emissions? |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 12:23:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
That wasn't the question. You suggested that anyone looking at the images in question had to see the "roll of electrical current in solar atmospheric activity."
Electrical current is the natural choice to explain million degree plasma. That's how we create such hot plasma here on earth.
quote:
I asked you to follow up. Your rather lame reply, it seems was 'it's not impossible,' which is a far cry from 'it's obvious,' no?
Not really. When you see a lightning bolt, wouldn't you say it's pretty obvious that electrical current is involved?
What other process(es) would you suggest even *could be* responsible for such high energy plasma emissions?
Since I'm trained in ancient Mesopotamian history and language, I only say it's "obvious" that an electrical curren is involed in the creation of a lighting bolt because I read it somewhere. Otherwise, I'd not be able to explain it. To be sure, I can read up on it in the journals and try and work through the math or conduct some experiments (anyone have a kite?) and the like, but I don't think it's worth my time all things considered.
The sun is going to be even more difficult for me to explain; I have no real training in such things and would have to consult some text books to learn about plasma and such. So for you to ask me how I might "explain" some image from the sun is kind of stupid. Of course I can't. Similarly, I don't ask you to translate Sumerian.
That said, I do have some understanding of the universe, and I do pay attention of what scientists say (since it's their job, I assume they have a vested interest in trying to be as correct as possible) and so when they talk about things like hydrogen and helium, I tend to think they're right.
We had a discussion long ago about the universe and the elements that dominate the universe and I have seen no compelling reason to think that iron suns can fit into that.
(ETA: I just watch some of the links you gave, and it doesn't even look like lightening; I find it impossible to be convinced of any of your arguments based on "look at this image") |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 03/27/2007 12:31:13 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 13:15:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Since I'm trained in ancient Mesopotamian history and language, I only say it's "obvious" that an electrical curren is involed in the creation of a lighting bolt because I read it somewhere.
Ok, so we both know of at least one way to create multimillion degree plasma, and that lightning bolts are an example of very high temperature plasma.
Got any other suggestions about what might be creating million degree plasma that moves at lightning leader speeds, and might be present in the solar atmosphere?
quote:
Otherwise, I'd not be able to explain it.
Well, don't feel bad because I certainly can't explain it either without electricity.
quote:
To be sure, I can read up on it in the journals and try and work through the math or conduct some experiments (anyone have a kite?) and the like, but I don't think it's worth my time all things considered.
All I'm saying is that the most scientifically obvious way to explain very high temperature plasma is by noting that electricity probably has a role in the process.
quote:
The sun is going to be even more difficult for me to explain; I have no real training in such things and would have to consult some text books to learn about plasma and such.
Wait a minute. Don't sell yourself short. You know that electricity *could* be the cause don't you?
quote:
So for you to ask me how I might "explain" some image from the sun is kind of stupid. Of course I can't. Similarly, I don't ask you to translate Sumerian.
If you seem to think my ideas are "stupid", then it become beholden upon you to demonstrate that some other force is involved in these high energy emissions. Otherwise I see little to discuss. I don't profess to be much of an expert on Sumerian culture or language, but I certainly do at least speak the language of plasma physics, and this is ultimately a question that is directly related to plasma physics.
quote:
That said, I do have some understanding of the universe, and I do pay attention of what scientists say (since it's their job, I assume they have a vested interest in trying to be as correct as possible) and so when they talk about things like hydrogen and helium, I tend to think they're right.
Nobody is doubting that there is hydrogen and helium involved in these emissions. In fact these particular emissions come from the solar atmosphere and have little to do with any other aspect of my solar surface theories. In fact these discharges are not even predicated on their being a solid surface in the final analysis, but they are directly and undeniably related to electrical discharges through plasma.
quote:
We had a discussion long ago about the universe and the elements that dominate the universe and I have seen no compelling reason to think that iron suns can fit into that.
Likewise I have no compelling reason to believe that suns are mostly hydrogen and helium or that they do not mass separate like every other plasma separates in the presence of strong magnetic fields.
quote:
(ETA: I just watch some of the links you gave, and it doesn't even look like lightening; I find it impossible to be convinced of any of your arguments based on "look at this image")
Observation is the only thing that even allows us to conduct science at all. Looking at the "pretty image" is an integral part of doing science. Comparing what we see in images of distant objects to events we see on earth is also a natural part of astronomy. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/27/2007 13:19:10 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 13:24:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist...
I just watch some of the links you gave, and it doesn't even look like lightening; I find it impossible to be convinced of any of your arguments based on "look at this image"
And basically that's all he's got. Probably why not a single professional astrophysicist on Earth has come over to Michael's side, not one, never. Oh that, and the conspiracy against the advance of science by those who would have us remain entrenched in the status quo. Oh, woe is Michael, for the want of that unattainable Nobel Prize in Physics. If only it weren't for that damned conspiracy, the one which, by the way, he hasn't been able to support with any more evidence than he has his nutty fantasy about a solid surfaced Sun.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 14:02:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
And basically that's all he's got.
Ya, that and a thousand lab tests that show you can heat plasma to millions of degrees with electrical current. What have you got by the way? Did you even attempt to explain it another way?
quote:
Probably why not a single professional astrophysicist on Earth has come over to Michael's side, not one, never.
Evidently you haven't read any of the three papers I did with Hilton Ratcliff?
quote:
Oh that, and the conspiracy against the advance of science by those who would have us remain entrenched in the status quo.
What exactly *is* the "status quo" anyway? How did you intend to explain those Hinode images?
quote:
Oh, woe is Michael, for the want of that unattainable Nobel Prize in Physics.
I don't "want" for anything in my life thanks.
quote:
If only it weren't for that damned conspiracy, the one which, by the way, he hasn't been able to support with any more evidence than he has his nutty fantasy about a solid surfaced Sun.
A nutty fantasy about electricity is better than being stuck with a personality like yours for the rest of my life. Yikes, you must be a trip to work with or live with. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 14:05:12 [Permalink]
|
| If you're going to continue with your pety insults Geemack, at least show a little courage and offer me a valid scientific alternative to work with. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/27/2007 14:42:26 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 15:11:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Ok, so we both know of at least one way to create multimillion degree plasma, and that lightning bolts are an example of very high temperature plasma.
Got any other suggestions about what might be creating million degree plasma that moves at lightning leader speeds, and might be present in the solar atmosphere?
Why not ask the trained scientists who study such things? I mean, when you say, "don't feel bad because I certainly can't explain it either without electricity," my answer is to go to grad school for a few years and I bet some really smart people can clue you in to at least some of the problem. (I'd also say that I honest to god don't "feel bad" that I can't "explain" some image of the sun.)
quote:
All I'm saying is that the most scientifically obvious way to explain very high temperature plasma is by noting that electricity probably has a role in the process.
I'm unconvinced. The earth isn't the same as the sun. I am skeptical that you can site a terrestrial phenomenon and use it to inform us about a solar one without demonstrating how the analogy is valid.
quote:
quote:
The sun is going to be even more difficult for me to explain; I have no real training in such things and would have to consult some text books to learn about plasma and such.
Wait a minute. Don't sell yourself short. You know that electricity *could* be the cause don't you?
On the sun? No. No, I don't.
quote:
If you seem to think my ideas are "stupid", then it become beholden upon you to demonstrate that some other force is involved in these high energy emissions. Otherwise I see little to discuss. I don't profess to be much of an expert on Sumerian culture or language, but I certainly do at least speak the language of plasma physics, and this is ultimately a question that is directly related to plasma physics.
Tut tut. I didn't say your ideas are stupid. I said that it's stupid to expect me to come up with some refutation of your assertions. Likewise, I won't ask you to try and refute my interpretation of some Sumerian passage. And if I did, your inability to refute it would hardly be proof that I'm right.
quote:
quote:
We had a discussion long ago about the universe and the elements that dominate the universe and I have seen no compelling reason to think that iron suns can fit into that.
Likewise I have no compelling reason to believe that suns are mostly hydrogen and helium or that they do not mass separate like every other plasma separates in the presence of strong magnetic fields.
Then you're at odds with the rest of the scientific community, and you'll have to try pretty hard to show me otherwise. But that's a debate for another thread...
quote:
(ETA: I just watch some of the links you gave, and it doesn't even look like lightening; I find it impossible to be convinced of any of your arguments based on "look at this image")
Observation is the only thing that even allows us to conduct science at all. Looking at the "pretty image" is an integral part of doing science. Comparing what we see in images of distant objects to events we see on earth is also a natural part of astronomy.
[/quote][/quote] Obviously. But even a superficial CNN piece on, for instance, oceans on Titan, or water on Mars take time to discuss why the observations suggest X, and how the comparison is valid. For something even more controversial, I'd expect more than "look at this picture"!
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 16:58:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Why not ask the trained scientists who study such things?
I have. Their answers don't add up.
quote:
I mean, when you say, "don't feel bad because I certainly can't explain it either without electricity," my answer is to go to grad school for a few years and I bet some really smart people can clue you in to at least some of the problem. (I'd also say that I honest to god don't "feel bad" that I can't "explain" some image of the sun.)
You seem to be under a serious misconception. It's not just *me* that can't explain them, LMSAL and NASA can't either. They admit to as much. In fact in that article they describe some of what they see as being "impossible" based on their current theories. In other words their theories don't work, and now they know it too. Those smart people are scratching their collective heads just like you and me. The mystery of why the corona reaches millions of degrees has not only been a mystery to me (in the past), but to everyone in solar astronomy.
quote:
I'm unconvinced.
What other option was there to choose from?
quote:
The earth isn't the same as the sun.
They don't have to be exactly the same, but they are two bodies that occupy the same solar system. If earth experiences electrical discharges in it's atmosphere, why wouldn't the sun also experiences such atmospheric discharges?
quote:
I am skeptical that you can site a terrestrial phenomenon and use it to inform us about a solar one without demonstrating how the analogy is valid.
I'm skeptical that there are even other "logical" alternatives to choose from. I chose one very obvious way to explain high temperature plasma. If you've got a "better" answer, I'm all ears.
quote:
The sun is going to be even more difficult for me to explain; I have no real training in such things and would have to consult some text books to learn about plasma and such.
Well, I can tell you that what you will read in those books will not prepare you for these Hinode images because even the experts are scratching their heads. You'll also need to think outside (their) box if you're going to find real answers.
quote:
On the sun? No. No, I don't.
The sun has "relatively" high temperature plasma in it's atmosphere, does it not? Plasma that has been electrified in labs here on earth can reach *billions* of degrees Kelvin, can it not?
quote:
Tut tut. I didn't say your ideas are stupid. I said that it's stupid to expect me to come up with some refutation of your assertions. Likewise, I won't ask you to try and refute my interpretation of some Sumerian passage. And if I did, your inability to refute it would hardly be proof that I'm right.
Ok. Let's try this analogy. Suppose you offered me *a* translation of a Sumerian passage. Now suppose your translation of that passage wasn't necessarily in agreement with any other Sumerian expert's interpretation of that passage. Let's further suppose that nobody else, and none of the so called "experts" really had an interpretation of that passage to offer me, they just claimed it couldn't be interpreted by their method of interpretation. Suppose now that I told you that I reject your interpretation without even studying your interpretation, or the Sumerian language, only because the so called "experts" assured me that the passage could not be interpreted? Would you accept that from me?
quote:
Then you're at odds with the rest of the scientific community,
So? The rest of the scientific community is claiming what they observe is "impossible".
quote:
and you'll have to try pretty hard to show me otherwise. But that's a debate for another thread...
We'll leave the whole "solid surface" issue out of this discussion and focus only on the electrical discharges going on in the atmosphere. Technically it's possible to have discharges and no solid surface so you don't have to buy into the whole package all at once. :)
quote:
Obviously. But even a superficial CNN piece on, for instance, oceans on Titan, or water on Mars take time to discuss why the observations suggest X, and how the comparison is valid. For something even more controversial, I'd expect more than "look at this picture"!
Well, I could point you to a bunch of different experiments where electrical discharges in plasma released x-rays and created high energy photons. Would that help? I can show you instances where gamma rays are seen coming from discharges on earth, and also from discharges in the solar atmosphere. Would that help convince you?
Electrical currents in plasma have been well studied by folks like Alfven and his students. In fact Alfven wrote the book on plasma cosmology. If you really want to study solar activity and cosmology, I suggest you read *those* textbooks, not the textbooks used by the individuals that are now scratching their collective heads. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/27/2007 17:01:29 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
New "Impossible" findings on the Sun
Topic Locked
