|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 04/12/2007 : 17:47:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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!
Uh, that wasn't the question, nor the context of the remarks HH made. I was wondering if there were some important article out there put out by the "anti-Alfven" crowd or some such. Often, when people put out interesting new ideas in a field of study, some sort of rebuttal or the like will soon follow offering the most powerful critiques of the new idea. Since I'm not all that up to date in the latest (or not-so-latest) that astrophysics, I was wondering if you knew or could cite some critiques of Alfven. Obviously not. Your over-the-top reaction, though, is rather unexpected. |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 18:05:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
So I've gotten a reply, which notes: quote:
You are correct in the "plasma universe" model is a pretty non-standard
theory of cosmology and has few adherents these days. I would be a little careful about the word "fringe", though, since not everyone working on this idea is regarded as crazy. Some treat it as a longshot option worth checking out.
So I do apologize for using "fringe" Michael. The email I got was long and went into a discussion of the plasma universe vs the Big Bang model, but it's clear that he's familiar with the idea. We'll see if I get any other replies. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 18:06:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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!
Sheesh is fucking right. According to you, our current scientific understanding of the universe is wrong in almost every respect. I have no idea when we're talking about the universe as it is currently envisioned, or the special Michael Mozina universe in which the Big Bang never happened and "wires" of plasma carry currents across galaxies. So, yes, Michael, I feel it's important for you to define what *you* mean when you say "the plasma which carries currents between galaxies."
You know, for a guy who claims to want to get a message out, you certainly have a shit attitude when it comes to actually providing that information when people request it of you.
|
"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 18:14:54 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 19:50:46 [Permalink]
|
It is your inability to accurately describe reality that is what's really under examination here, Michael. For examples...
The fact that solar scientists have devoted quite a lot of study to currents within plasma (as those links I provided show), while you claim they ignore them.
The fact that solar scientists are examining the role of field-aligned currents in the heating of the corona, while you claim they are in "pure denial" (again, the links).
The fact that Faraday's Law of Induction has been in use for 176 years, while you claim that solar scientists are using MHD because they treat electric current as a curl.
The fact that you think magnetic fields should stop for no reason.
The fact that you attempted to offer a measure of current in electron volts.
I could, of course, go on and on, but it won't do a bit of good, will it, Michael? What makes you a poor scientist, Michael, is your inability to make and report observations accurately. Everything you state as fact is first bent and broken over the dead horse that is your theory, and if it doesn't fit in there somewhere, it is actively denied. So therefore, according to you, astrophysicists are in denial of current, because if they weren't it means that you're wrong. Similarly, if magnetic reconnection were to occur, then we don't need galactic currents to explain the coronal temperature, and that would mean you're wrong so therefore reconnection "is a myth" and you try to blame Alfven for it, despite the fact that you can't follow his math well enough to parrot it properly.
All the while, you can't even guesstimate the size of the currents, nor can you accurately describe the mechanism through which they might produce heat. You beg, plead and bully us to read a book instead, while continually and irrationally demanding a "better" explanation.
Here's the explanation for you, Michael: you have assumed your conclusion to such a great extent that you can no longer see reality. Your conclusion has colored everything so deeply that you're living in a self-induced haze of rationalizations and denial. You're even in denial of your role here as the creationist.
Typical creationist: The mainstream biologists are all wrong when they claim that they can explain all the diversity we see without including something extra, and they're in denial of the glory of God. All the evidence you should need is in his book, if you'd only read it.
Michael Mozina: The mainstream astrophysicists are all wrong when they claim that they can explain the Sun without including something extra, and they're in denial of the glory of Alfven. All the evidence you should need is in his book, if you'd only read it. |
- 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 - 04/13/2007 : 09:52:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
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.
And how many books on MHD theory do you actually own John? Which of them explains the physical/atomic energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection"?
quote:
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.
That might be a valid argument depending on your answers to the questions above. Which book of yours explains magnetic reconnection?
quote:
You simply ignore anything that you don't like, and refuse to discuss things unless people bow down to your most revered texts.
You should hear this from my vantage point John. You and Dave won't read the part of Alfven's work related to magnetic reconnection. You can't define what "magnetic reconnection" actually is, and you insist Alfven was wrong anyway. You don't have any scientific experiments that demonstrate magnetic reconnection. That is not logical behavior. The guy has a Nobel prize for a reason John. You can't just handwave away what he says about plasma physics on a whim. That is irrational behavior.
quote:
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.
Not here I didn't. I came here looking for a scientific critique of my ideas. Unfortunately however, that isn't what's happening at the moment. At the moment we've reached an impasse. I've explained that electrical current and heating processes from resistance is the heat source of those million degree loops. I have countless experiments showing that electrical current can heat plasma to millions of degrees. I have plenty of evidence that electrical discharges release gamma rays and gamma rays are seen in some of these events. I have tons of evidence to support my beliefs that electrical current is responsible for heating the corona.
You guys haven't explained even the basics of "magnetic reconnection". You can't define it. You can't explain it. You can't tell me what is unique about the way it releases energy compared to any other plasma interactions. You can't explain the heat in the corona. You can't explain a coronal loop. You can't explain anything. Even still you're all convinced I'm wrong, and you absolutely all refuse to buy any of Alfven's books.
From my perspective, it is exactly like talking to a creationist that absolutely, positively refuses to even educate themselves or consider anything I've said.
quote:
I know you'll now go on your merry way, chalking up one more point to your persecution tally.
Persecution tally? I come here of my own free volition John. How could I be persecuted here and be victimized here when I am the one who freely chooses to come here? You seem to have a very odd view of my motives, my expectations and my attitude in general. I don't see myself as a victim, and I have no martyr complex about anything that's gone down on this board. As a matter of fact, Kil's has been a perfect host!
quote:
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)
Nothing like cheap shots to make up for what you can't address scientifically. Unlike some of the folks around here John, you are a gentleman, and I usually respect your attitude. Don't go there. It's beneath you.
quote:
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.[/size=2]
I'm pretty much done here now too John. I am going to take the weekend off, and I am going to start posting again over at the Livesciences forums, and maybe the asterisk. This place is not at all conducive to low key, scientifically oriented discussions, and I don't think this place has much more to offer me at this point. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/13/2007 10:17:15 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2007 : 10:04:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It is your inability to accurately describe reality that is what's really under examination here, Michael.
No, what's really under examination here in this thread are the human defense mechanisms of denial.
It doesn't matter to you that the most logical way to heat very light plasma to millions of degrees is electricity. It doesn't matter to you that gamma rays are emitted in the earths atmosphere from electrical discharges *and* they occur in the atmosphere of the sun. It doesn't matter to you that you can't sustain powerful magnetic fields in light plasma without current flow. It doesn't matter to you that Alfven defined the math that explains those stable coronal loops. It doesn't matter to you that those loops release x-rays and neutrons just like electrical z-pinches do in plasma on earth. It doesn't matter to you that the corona is orders of magnitude hotter than the photosphere. None of that matters to you. All that matters to Dave is that Dave is right, and Dave isn't proven wrong, therefore denial is the name of the game. Dave doesn't know what Alfven thinks because Dave has never read the material Alfven wrote about MHD theory. None the less, Dave is still certain Alfven (or Michael) is wrong on this subject. Dave refuses to educate himself. Dave refuses to listen to any argument. Dave has already made up his mind that Michael was wrong or Alfven was wrong *before* even reading the book!
Nothing about your actions are logical, rational or reasonable at this point Dave. You're in total denial of the evidence, and you refuse to educate yourself for fear of busting your own show. It's all about denial Dave, plain and simple.
You can cling to your unknown and undefined "magnetic reconnection" theory until they plant your corpse, but you and I both know you haven't got a better scientific answer. This is all about denial now Dave, not science. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2007 : 10:09:03 [Permalink]
|
Cune.....
I have very much enjoyed our conversations over the last few days, and I just wanted to thank you for making the conversations interesting and keeping things professional. I appreciate your attitude. You're a true gentleman.
It seems to me that it's time to move on from here now. FYI, I will continue to discuss these ideas publicly at the asterisk and on the Livescience forums in case you or anyone else is interested.
http://bb.nightskylive.net/asterisk/viewforum.php?f=8
http://uplink.space.com/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/13/2007 10:11:56 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2007 : 10:26:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No, what's really under examination here in this thread are the human defense mechanisms of denial.
It doesn't matter to you that the most logical way to heat very light plasma to millions of degrees is electricity.
You haven't demonstrated that to be true, Michael. You can claim that it's the "most logical way," but until you cough up the measurements showing that it's possible, your claim is nothing more than an unsupported guess.quote:
It doesn't matter to you that gamma rays are emitted in the earths atmosphere from electrical discharges *and* they occur in the atmosphere of the sun.
Absolutely it matters, but I don't share your opinion that they're caused by the same processes in both places.quote:
It doesn't matter to you that you can't sustain powerful magnetic fields in light plasma without current flow.
I've never once denied that, Michael, we simply disagree on where those currents are located.quote:
It doesn't matter to you that Alfven defined the math that explains those stable coronal loops.
Absolutely it matters, but I'm not convinced that you understand it.quote:
It doesn't matter to you that those loops release x-rays and neutrons just like electrical z-pinches do in plasma on earth.
I have no reason to doubt that z-pinches occur in the corona, Michael.quote:
It doesn't matter to you that the corona is orders of magnitude hotter than the photosphere.
That's the very puzzle that needs to be solved, so of course it matters.quote:
None of that matters to you.
Once again, we see how poorly you do at reporting the facts. "None of that matters to you" is patently false.quote:
All that matters to Dave is that Dave is right...
I've got nothing to be right about, Michael, we're talking about your theory.quote:
...and Dave isn't proven wrong, therefore denial is the name of the game.
Yes, denial is the name of your game, Michael.quote:
Dave doesn't know what Alfven thinks because Dave has never read the material Alfven wrote about MHD theory. None the less, Dave is still certain Alfven (or Michael) is wrong on this subject.
I am absolutely certain that Michael has no clue as to the meaning of anything Alfven wrote, because Michael thinks that an electron volt is a measure of current and that because people are treating current flow as a curl, that means they're using MHD. I don't need to read Alfven to know that Alfven wasn't that stupid.quote:
Dave refuses to educate himself. Dave refuses to listen to any argument.
Michael is projecting.quote:
Dave has already made up his mind that Michael was wrong or Alfven was wrong *before* even reading the book!
As I said, I don't need to read the book to know that Alfven wouldn't have been so ignorant of basic electromagnetism as you've made him out to be, Michael.quote:
Nothing about your actions are logical, rational or reasonable at this point Dave. You're in total denial of the evidence, and you refuse to educate yourself for fear of busting your own show. It's all about denial Dave, plain and simple.
And that's all your projection again, Michael.quote:
You can cling to your unknown and undefined "magnetic reconnection" theory until they plant your corpse, but you and I both know you haven't got a better scientific answer. This is all about denial now Dave, not science.
Yes, your insistence that I am clinging to "magnetic reconnection" is your denial, Michael, of what I have said. It doesn't actually matter, the fact that you have misunderstood Alfven so badly is evidence enough that you are incompetent at solar science. The more you write, here and elsewhere, the more self-evident it becomes that you wouldn't know a solar model if one bit you.
So please, keep on talking, Michael. You are your own worst enemy. |
- 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 - 04/13/2007 : 10:33:35 [Permalink]
|
And Michael, if you'd start actually discussing the science of your theory, instead of using these threads to claim that some other theory is wrong or demand that some other theory be presented, you'd get a lot of actual productive and "mature" discussion. It is your failure to stay on-topic that is the problem. Because strangely enough, from what I've read of your writings at LiveScience and BAUT, it's only here that you demand some other theory be "better" than yours, even though you haven't presented an actual theory (at best, you've got a collection of independent hypotheses).
So you go ahead and set the conditions, Michael. If you follow them, other people will, also. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2007 : 13:16:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Cune.....
I have very much enjoyed our conversations over the last few days, and I just wanted to thank you for making the conversations interesting and keeping things professional. I appreciate your attitude. You're a true gentleman.
It seems to me that it's time to move on from here now. FYI, I will continue to discuss these ideas publicly at the asterisk and on the Livescience forums in case you or anyone else is interested.
http://bb.nightskylive.net/asterisk/viewforum.php?f=8
http://uplink.space.com/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro
Well, I wouldn't say I'm a tue gentleman. Moreover, I'm disappointed that you didn't bother to stick around to talk about your hero Alfven. It's clear that scholars are aware of him and his ideas. (Though I can't say that many own his books-- though, again, it's a pretty poor indicator of if someone is aware of a scholar.) However, by and large, his ideas of a 'plasma universe' (as Alfven explained it) are not largely accepted for a variety ot reasons. In general, the Big Bang better explains things like red shift, CMBR, etc., than does Alfven's model. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2007 : 14:08:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Well, I wouldn't say I'm a tue gentleman. Moreover, I'm disappointed that you didn't bother to stick around to talk about your hero Alfven.
I will be happy to continue discussing Alfven with you at either of those other locations. You are welcome to start a thread on any subject. I'm just tired of trying to discuss it here. There is simply no way to have a mature discussion on this topic on this forum. It keeps deevolving into insults. That is a unique feature of this location.
quote:
It's clear that scholars are aware of him and his ideas. (Though I can't say that many own his books-- though, again, it's a pretty poor indicator of if someone is aware of a scholar.) However, by and large, his ideas of a 'plasma universe' (as Alfven explained it) are not largely accepted for a variety ot reasons. In general, the Big Bang better explains things like red shift, CMBR, etc., than does Alfven's model.
Keep in mind that Alfven did not rule out the possibility of a Big Bang, I think he just found the whole concept of a BB was based on "questionable" science just like I do. Humans need to think in terms of "beginnings" and they don't handle concepts like "eternity" very well. As far as I can tell, the BB theory is just another creation myth with a longer timeline. It may be that our universe had a physical begginning, but the BB theory is based on at least 5, critically important metaphysical (physically undefined) entities. Let me see standard theorists demonstrate 2 or 3 of them and I'll be more interested in BB theory. At the moment it's hard to tell if the idea has any real scientific merit.
Plasma cosmology is actually quite flexible. The Universe could in fact be expanding and accelerating due to EM fields much like the solar wind is accelerated as it approaches the solar sheath. The thing about plasma cosmology is that it is not dependent upon the BB theory or any other part of standard theory. It could be that the universe is expanding. It could be that redshift is more complex than we think. MECO theory even predicts objects that have an intrinsic redshift based on the theory of GR. Lot's of possibilities exist, and you don't have to subscribe to BB theory, nor rule it out to adopt a plasma cosmology viewpoint of the universe. The only thing you *must* do is recognize that currents flow through the plasmas of the universe. Everything else is pretty flexible. You don't have to believe in iron suns, or sun's with a solid surface or anything even remotely associated with my solar theories. Plasma cosmology is really just a large scale extension of plasma physics. Pretty much all bets are off on the big picture questions. You don't need to know or agree with all the big picture questions to entertain the theory of plasma cosmology.
I hope I bump into you at one of the other forums Cune. Gentleman or not, it's been a pleasure talking with you. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2007 : 08:11:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Gentleman or not, it's been a pleasure talking with you.
Funny, I have found these discussions with you an exercise in futility.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2007 : 16:06:28 [Permalink]
|
Oh, and I was so expecting Michael to explain to JohnOAS how a plasma ball is exactly like the Sun, only different. I was so expecting him to point out Alfvén's theory which predicted million degree temperatures in the Sun's corona, and how Birkeland was able to create a "plasma atmosphere surrounded by a vacuum". I was so expecting him to finally let us in on how plasma can move at thousands of kilometers per hour directly through a solid shell of iron as shown in Kosovichev's helioseismology graphs.
I was so expecting Michael to let us in on where Birkeland wrote of "sparks," "tornado like structures," and "high energy discharges". I was so expecting him to finally "shine" in his explanation of the first image on his web site. I was so expecting him to actually explain how he could see through thousands of kilometers of opaque plasma down to a solid surface when nobody else could. I was so expecting him to finally utilize the methods he's been given to demonstrate that what he sees in running difference images are actually even remotely plausible structures and surface features.
Nahhhhh! I was actually so expecting him to do exactly what he did, bail out completely when he had finally ignored the vast majority of questions asked, treated pretty much everyone here like shit again, and lost the balls to hang out and look like a complete fool any longer. Yep, that's what I expected, and I was right.
I expect it'll be pretty close to forever before he applies that math that he's been promising since as long as over a year ago on the BAUT forum. And I expect him to continue on his own site and other forums believing he's providing quantitative descriptions when he uses numbers like "galore" and "huge" and "relatively".
And mostly I expect that if he comes back and reads this he'll throw another tantrum, call me names, and still completely neglect any of the issues mentioned above. Talking kind of sciency has always been more important to Michael than understanding what the hell he's talking about or communicating in such a way that other people understand him. Whining about other people's lack of alternative explanations has always been more important to him than actually supporting his far fetched claims. 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Surface of the Sun, part 13
