|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 04/12/2007 : 11:46:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I find it hard to believe.
Believe me when I tell you that I found it hard to believe as well, but it's true. I've talked to a lot of astronomers, and I've yet to meet one of them that owns the book I suggested, or any of his books for that matter. Don't take my word for it. Ask them. I did. I was stunned at the response.
quote:
My search yielded hndreds of hits for "plasma universe" meaning that lots of journals have articles on the topic. It is impossible to imagine that virtually the entire field simply skips such studies!
Name one person on this board that owns even one of Alfven's books. You might get lucky with Dr. Mabuse, but based on the odds I've seen in the general astronomy population, I'm skeptical that even he owns any of Alfven's books. I know Dave doesn't. I know John doesn't either. If Dr. Mabuse doesn't own one, then probably nobody that has engaged me in these debates has read any of Alfven's books. Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself. Ask them like I did. I'm telling you I was stunned.
Yeah, Michael. I'm talking about articles. In journals. A lot of ideas are presented that way, though you may not be familiar with it. And it's clear that there's a small group of "plasma universe" scholars out there publishing their work. I am sure that penty of people are familiar with the concept.
(ETA: Did you ask them if they own something by Einstein? I don't-- yet I still buy into his ideas! Owning a book is a poor way by which to judge if a person is familiar with a scholar's ideas...) |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 04/12/2007 11:48:30 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 11:52:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Ignorance.
It'll take a lot more than one book to do that.quote:
I don't consider anyone to be a "fool" Dave.
How can you not? You think that they think that magnetic fields just "poof" into existence in a plasma.quote:
I totally resent the way you keep twisting my words like a pretzel and building strawmen out of my statements.
That you consider scientists to be fools is no strawman, Michael. No matter how you deny it, it's quite obvious that you think they're idiots.quote:
My experience is that most mainstream astronomers have not read the book I suggested to you or *any* of his books.
How many have you spoken to?quote:
In fact I've only run into one "critic" that had actually read *any* material from any of Alfven's books.
Yet they're all using the principles Alfven laid out with MHD. Why is it so important they get the material from that one book? By analogy, do you think it's impossible for a person to become an evolutionary biologist without reading Origin of Species?quote:
My opinion is that most mainstreamers are completely ignorant of his work, and have no more knowledge of it than you do right now.
Then how can they be applying MHD at all? Do you think they're all doing something different, but calling it MHD? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 12:04:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Yes, but in Alfven waves in plasma, the magnetic field and the current flow are parallel. That is the difference between a current flowing through a solid and a current flowing through a plasma.
The current flow generated by an Alfven wave will be parallel to the direction of propagation of the magnetic portion of the wave, yes, because of the field-aligned currents. Now show us how simply passing a current through a plasma generates Alfven waves in the first place, why don't you? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 12:04:54 [Permalink]
|
Those "field aligned currents" are what "aligned" the magnetic fields in the first place, and it's the same force that keeps them energized and heats those coronal loops to millions of degrees Dave. There is nothing "impossible" about the current flow patterns changing and the loop being cut off from it's electron flow. In such an instance, the loops disappate and whatever heavy material is present inside the loop comes crashing back down to the surface. There's nothing "impossible" happening in Hinode images, but mainstreamers seem to think it's impossible, field aligned currents or no field aligned currents.
That is because their "curl" can't change. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/12/2007 12:25:44 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 12:09:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Owning a book is a poor way by which to judge if a person is familiar with a scholar's ideas...
Michael doesn't even grasp that having read a book is a poor indicator of how well the material was understood. Imagine what college would be like if that were otherwise: professors could say, "okay, go read your textbook, and I'll see you when it's time for your final exam." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 12:22:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It'll take a lot more than one book to do that.
In your case, on this topic, one book should do the trick.
quote:
How can you not? You think that they think that magnetic fields just "poof" into existence in a plasma.
I just think they are naive and unfamiliar with plasma physics and electrical theory, not stupid.
quote:
That you consider scientists to be fools is no strawman, Michael.
Yes it is Dave. Quote me where I used that term.
quote:
No matter how you deny it, it's quite obvious that you think they're idiots.
Quote me Dave.
quote:
How many have you spoken to?
I think I've now asked a couple dozen of them that question. So far not one of them has read the book I suggested and only one individual claimed to have read any material from any of his books though he didn't claim to own any of Alfven's books.
quote:
Yet they're all using the principles Alfven laid out with MHD.
No they are not. If they were they would not be discussing "magnetic reconnection", nor would they be in pure denial of the role of those "field aligned currents" when it comes to heating up coronal loops.
quote:
Why is it so important they get the material from that one book?
It's the one man, not the one book. The one man created MHD theory Dave.
quote:
Then how can they be applying MHD at all?
Because they treat current flow as "curl".
quote:
Do you think they're all doing something different, but calling it MHD?
Absolutely. Alfven defined the limits of how one could treat various types of plasmas and he carefully explained when one needed to treat the current flow through the plasma as current flow, and when one could treat it as curl. The mainstream didn't listen to that part of what he said and they are therefore applying their limited variation of MHD theories in ways he did not. They are definitely practicing a stripped down version of MHD theory that ignores the role of the current flow, and treats that current flow in oversimplistic ways. Alfven even warned them about oversimplifying MHD theory and they completely ignored him!
The current flow is driving those million degree loops Dave. Those field aligned currents are the energy source of that heat.
What's really telling is that none of you can even explain what is physically unique about "magnetic reconnection" that sets it apart from any other standard plasma interaction. It's all smoke and mirrors Dave. It has all the classic signs of metaphysics. Nobody can define it. Nobody can show a definitive test where only "magnetic reconnection" could be responsible for the energy release. That is because there is no such thing as magnetic reconnection, just as Alfven suggested. If they were more advanced the Alfven in MHD theory, they would be able to explain what magnetic reconnection is all about, and they could demonstrate it. They can't do either of those things. Why then should I believe they know more about this topic than the guy that invented the theory in the first place? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 12:32:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
(ETA: Did you ask them if they own something by Einstein?
Not personally, no.
quote:
I don't-- yet I still buy into his ideas!
I bought into his gravity ideas after reading his book, but I do not agree with what has been done to GR since he died. In that case too, I think the inventor of the theory understood the theory far better in some ways than astronomers understand it today.
quote:
Owning a book is a poor way by which to judge if a person is familiar with a scholar's ideas...)
Not necessarily. MHD theory is not like GR. It's not been around as long, and very few individuals really understand it at this point in time. I know some of his students understand his work, but most of the mainstream is completely ignorant of his work IMO. IMO, they handed him the Nobel Prize and then completely ignored the parts of his work they didn't want to hear. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/12/2007 12:33:43 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 13:32:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Owning a book is a poor way by which to judge if a person is familiar with a scholar's ideas...)
Not necessarily. MHD theory is not like GR. It's not been around as long, and very few individuals really understand it at this point in time. I know some of his students understand his work, but most of the mainstream is completely ignorant of his work IMO. IMO, they handed him the Nobel Prize and then completely ignored the parts of his work they didn't want to hear.
Well, in my opinion, your opinion regarding what scholars think or know of Alfven's ideas aren't particularly valid. But I'm looking into it; no worries. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 13:45:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I just think they are naive and unfamiliar with plasma physics and electrical theory, not stupid.
I didn't say you thought them to be stupid, Michael. Even the term "idiot" didn't mean "stupid" as I used it. Linus Pauling was a brilliant fool when it came to vitamin C.quote:
Yes it is Dave. Quote me where I used that term.
You don't have to use the term to show what you think of them, Michael. That's not a strawman, either.quote:
I think I've now asked a couple dozen of them that question. So far not one of them has read the book I suggested and only one individual claimed to have read any material from any of his books though he didn't claim to own any of Alfven's books.
But were they able to use the principles of MHD?quote:
No they are not. If they were they would not be discussing "magnetic reconnection", nor would they be in pure denial of the role of those "field aligned currents" when it comes to heating up coronal loops.
Yeah, pure denial shows up so often. Like here, here, here, here, here, here and in a whole lot of other places.  The pure, steadfast denial is yours, Michael.quote:
quote:
Why is it so important they get the material from that one book?
It's the one man, not the one book. The one man created MHD theory Dave.
Yes, and it is being applied to the Sun without finding any huge sparks.quote:
quote:
Then how can they be applying MHD at all?
Because they treat current flow as "curl".
You have got to be kidding.quote:
quote:
Do you think they're all doing something different, but calling it MHD?
Absolutely. Alfven defined the limits of how one could treat various types of plasmas and he carefully explained when one needed to treat the current flow through the plasma as current flow, and when one could treat it as curl.
Clearly, you don't have a single clue as to what "curl" is, Michael. The term comes to us from vector calculus, not from Alfven, MHD or plasma physics, and it's nothing more than the rotation of a vector field. All electric fields (including current flows) have a curl, even if it's zero.
Good grief. You don't know what a curl is. You don't know what differential solar rotation is. You don't know basic electromagnetism. You don't know basic helioseismology. You don't even know what a strawman is. Yet you expect everyone to think that you've got an answer to some of the open questions that have vexed solar physicists for decades?!quote:
The current flow is driving those million degree loops Dave. Those field aligned currents are the energy source of that heat.
And the solar scientists seem to think that the field-aligned currents are responsible for some of the heat, but that they can't be the only answer, Michael. Yet you deny that they consider current at all, while being unable to demonstrate that the current flow by itself could generate the observed temperatures.quote:
What's really telling is that none of you can even explain what is physically unique about "magnetic reconnection" that sets it apart from any other standard plasma interaction.
We're not talking about magnetic reconnection anymore, Michael, remember? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 14:20:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Well, in my opinion, your opinion regarding what scholars think or know of Alfven's ideas aren't particularly valid. But I'm looking into it; no worries.
You might ask some people if they've read any of Alfven's books. If you don't mind sharing, I'd love to have you share the results of your survey with us. I'd honestly be curious about the results of such a pole. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 14:39:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yeah, pure denial shows up so often. Like here, here, here, here, here, here
and in a whole lot of other places. The pure, steadfast denial is yours, Michael.
Dave, they are trying to attribute the field aligned currents to something internal to the sun, when in fact the energy comes from the universe. They have the cart before the horse in almost every case I've read to date. I'll go through your list to see if there is anything I missed, and frankly I'm grateful for those links, I'm certainly not in denial of them.
quote:
Yes, and it is being applied to the Sun without finding any huge sparks.
WTF? There you go again Dave, fixating on one word from one sentence from days ago rather than the issue raised. Typical.
quote:
quote:
Absolutely. Alfven defined the limits of how one could treat various types of plasmas and he carefully explained when one needed to treat the current flow through the plasma as current flow, and when one could treat it as curl.
Clearly, you don't have a single clue as to what "curl" is, Michael. The term comes to us from vector calculus, not from Alfven, MHD or plasma physics, and it's nothing more than the rotation of a vector field. All electric fields (including current flows) have a curl, even if it's zero.
Duh! What is with you Dave? I just explained to you how MHD theory is being abused and you completely ignored it. Not only that, you used the term curl to go off on some ridiculous rant about what I know and don't know. Your behaviors are pathetic and that is why it's not even worth discussing this topic with you right now. You're like the hyperactive creationist that has to respond to other peoples conversations and refuses to read the material in question. It's definitely not becoming behavior Dave. There is no point in discussing MHD theory with you until you read Alfven's book. At that point there might be some hope for honest communication between us, but right now our conversations are pointless. You're too busy trying to score ego points to even hear me. You certainly can't understand me because you've never read any of Alfven's books and you don't have any clue how MHD theory is *supposed* to work. All you know about MHD theory is what you can find on Google. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/12/2007 14:42:44 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 15:45:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Well, in my opinion, your opinion regarding what scholars think or know of Alfven's ideas aren't particularly valid. But I'm looking into it; no worries.
You might ask some people if they've read any of Alfven's books. If you don't mind sharing, I'd love to have you share the results of your survey with us. I'd honestly be curious about the results of such a pole.
I find that to be a poor indicator of anything, as I've stated already. However, I have asked some people if they're familiar with the ideas behind the so-called plasma universe as put forward by Alfven. I'll let you know if anyone replies.
And by the way, have you read any critiques of Alfven's ideas? |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 16:17:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
And by the way, have you read any critiques of Alfven's ideas?
I asked Michael if he was aware of any criticism: "Considering the idea has been around for so long, why does it enjoy so little support? There must be some reasons why."
Michael responded:
quote:
Chapman's theories were preferred over Birkeland's ideas until the early 70's. Why? I have no idea why. The math was easier to comprehend? I don't really know why.
The problem here is that there are only two dirty words in astronomy, God and electricity, and there is a greater systemic bias against acknowledging the role of electricity in cosmology.
Why did they give a Nobel prize to Alfv'en and then promptly ignore the later half of his life's work? I don't really know why people make the choices they make.
So, no, I doubt very much he has ever read any criticism of Alfven, since Michael has absolutely no clue why Alfven's ideas, (as interpreted by Michael), don't enjoy wider support. As far as Michael is concerned, there is no explanation for it, unless one asumes "electricity" is a dirty word to cosmologists. In Michael's world, valid criticism simply doesn't exist, nor would he be interested in reading it if it did:
quote:
...the mainstream folks come out and claim that observations from Hinode images show activity that is "impossible" to explain according to their theory, I fail to see why I should be concerned about their reasons for ignoring Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven. I know for a fact that the mainstream theories don't work, so why should I worry about them? Whatever their reasoning might have been, it was evidently flawed reasoning, and the choices they made didn't work out.
As far as he's concerned, his model is a *fact*, so any crticisms are wrong by default and a waste of time to read.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/12/2007 16:20:01 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 16:39:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
(No Michael, I do not own nor have I read the entirety of Alfven's works.)
Well then John, it's a bit like having two creationists agreeing that Darwin claimed we all evolved from apes. You may "interpret" it that way if you like, but if you refuse to read Darwin's work, it's pretty ridiculous to expect me to care what you think about Darwin.
...
You would have to read all the material to really grasp what he's talking about. You two refuse to do that.
...
If you guys wish to remain ignorant of it, I can't stop you, but I sure won't put much value in your opinions about Alfven's work.
...
I suggest you two either buy the books, or quit pretending to know what he meant.
Bollocks. I've never read the entire "The Origin of Species", but I have read (and own, if that matters to you) bucket loads of actual science volumes on evolutionary biology and related matters. Darwin gave us an amazing idea, but you know what, he got some stuff wrong too. Science has continued to improve the theory, and denying that someone can understand a scientific field of endeavour because they wont read your favourite treatise is childish and stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Even a toy plasma ball can begin to emit xrays if the voltage and amperage is cranked up high enough. There is nothing "mysterious" about what's heating the plasma columns. It's called electricity.
There you go again, bringing up your toy plasma ball but failing to respond to any discussion of it that might be uncomfortable for you.
You simply ignore anything that you don't like, and refuse to discuss things unless people bow down to your most revered texts. You're entitled to your opinion, but as things stand, that's all it will ever be, your assertion of your opinion. You're not looking for a discussion, you're recruiting disciples.
I know you'll now go on your merry way, chalking up one more point to your persecution tally. One more person who couldn't offer an alternative to your ideas, you must be getting righter and righter by the minute. (Or arc-second, to emulate your skill at using units of measurement)
If you want a scientific discussion, you're going to have to behave differently. I'll keep reading, and may make an occasional comments, but as far as trying to engage you, Michael, in a scientific debate, I'm done. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 04/12/2007 16:40:36 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 17:24:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
And by the way, have you read any critiques of Alfven's ideas?
I asked Michael if he was aware of any criticism: "Considering the idea has been around for so long, why does it enjoy so little support? There must be some reasons why."
You are a perfect walking, talking, insulting example of why it's such a long and painful process. People like you seem to be totally oblivious to the presence of plasmas of space, and you are utterly ignorant of the behaviors of plasma in general. None the less, you'll sit there and spew rhetoric and act like you're some sort of expert.
The worst part is you won't even consider my suggestion on where to go for some answers. It's actually worse that talking to creationists.
Plasma? What plasma? Sheesh! |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/12/2007 17:25:05 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Surface of the Sun, part 13
