|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 04/06/2007 : 03:10:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Hey, you should work for Foxnews too!
...
Welcome to Foxnews.
There are insults, and then there are insults.
And you sir, went way off the map.
Now you all start behaving, or I'll have the thread closed. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 18:56:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Ya, ya, everyone you meet in cyberspace that disagrees with you is mentally ill.
No, Michael, I'm just considering possibilities as to why you continue to make untrue statements, as I was doing with GK Paul when he made untrue statements. Now read carefully, because it's abundantly clear that you have a very difficult time understanding plain written English. (In trying to find a more effective way to communicate with you, you were actually asked a long long time ago if English is maybe your second language. But you refused to answer that question, too.)...
You radically misrepresented what I said; you made a false statement. You either knew it was a false statement, in which case it was a lie, or you didn't. If you didn't know it was a false statement, you either have a problem understanding what you read or what you write, or you're mentally ill. There are possibly other reasons for your having been unaware of your making a false statement, and I have not excluded those. I have simply broken it down to the most obvious, most logical possibilities. If you can explain in some other way why you make the false statements you make, I'd be interested in hearing it.
quote:
When you stop being such a useless spineless coward and show a little courage and stick out your neck and give me a detailed explanation for coronal loops, I'll be happy to start responding to you and start answering your questions again. If you intend to be a sniveling spineless coward for the rest of your life, get lost.
Okay, Michael, one more time because you clearly have not understood this yet. Nobody, and I mean nobody has any obligation or responsibility to make any alternative explanations of any sort. You are the one making a claim here. Either you can support it, or you can't. Those are the alternatives.
No wonder they put the 30 day limit on your threads over at the BAUT forum. You've been here for a year and a half now and have yet to bring in a single piece of legitimate, quantitative, scientific evidence to support your claims. And whenever anyone asks you for some, you either throw a tantrum like a child, or you repeat some of your stale old non-evidence.
Your threat to deny answers to perfectly legitimate questions unless someone succumbs to your ridiculous demands only shows that you are either wholly irrational and/or you are simply unable to answer the questions. Take note: There is not a single professional in any field of science who would consider your approach remotely reasonable, or even rational.
You've still neglected these issues...- Are you suggesting that where we see generally vertically oriented movement in the helioseismology graphs we're seeing mass moving, and where we see more or less horizontal movement, that would be electrons? If so, how do you differentiate between the mass flow within plasma and the electron flow in a solid material? Please put your reply in scientific, quantitative form so we can apply it in a repeatable way when analyzing other helioseismology data.
- Why have you so far refused to apply the method given to you to determine some specific measurements of the topography of your allegedly solid surface?
- What sort of electrical current and resistance properties are required to produce the thermal characteristics we measure from the Sun? Please provide a quantitative, scientific answer so we can compare it to known values and check it for plausibility.
- What exactly is the material composition, in percentages, actual numbers please, of that supposedly solid surface on the Sun?
- What are the specific temperature characteristics of that allegedly solid surface? Again provide a quantitative reply please, in real numbers, so we can check it for plausibility.
Remember...In science, you are obligated to show your theory works. — Michael Mozina
If you intend to present a theory that nobody has ever heard of before, you'll have to be prepared to answers some questions about it. — Michael Mozina |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2007 : 13:07:38 [Permalink]
|
Michael, if you intentionally make false statements, you are a liar. If you make false statements because you misunderstand what you read or are unable to articulate, you need to learn to communicate better. If you make false statements and believe they're true, not knowing the difference between reality and fantasy, you are mentally ill. If you lie as a matter of habit, you are a pathological liar. There's nothing ambiguous about any of that. I consider various reasons someone makes untrue statements in an effort to understand why. It is a relevant concern, because why you, or others, make false statements has some bearing on the direction of the conversation.
Like in your case, Michael, you have a tendency to make untrue statements. If you're doing it on purpose, and we determine for sure that you are, then we know you're just plain lying, and the conversation will go a certain way. If we determine that you are simply incapable of communicating at the same level as the other participants, then we will try more diligently to make our points clearly and simply. That, giving you the benefit of the doubt, is the tack most of us have taken. If we determine with some certainty that you are mentally ill, evidence of which does exist throughout these threads, then the conversation will take yet another direction. There may be other reasons for your making false statements. I've considered the most likely. If you know why you do it, it could be helpful if you would let us know.
So once more, Michael, since you seem to need things repeated many times before (if ever) they soak in, I've explained why I consider possible reasons for you, Bill scott, or GK Paul making false statements. You all make them. You all have been asked to show that those false statements are true. Oddly, but perhaps most poignantly, you all have flat out refused to do that.
Now as much as I keep trying to move this discussion back to the relevant concerns about your as-of-yet unevidenced conjecture, and as much as you seem unwilling to ever provide any quantitative, legitimate, scientific evidence to support it, here we go again. You're still neglecting these issues...- Are you suggesting that where we see generally vertically oriented movement in the helioseismology graphs we're seeing mass moving, and where we see more or less horizontal movement, that would be electrons? If so, how do you differentiate between the mass flow within plasma and the electron flow in a solid material? Please put your reply in scientific, quantitative form so we can apply it in a repeatable way when analyzing other helioseismology data.
- Why have you so far refused to apply the method given to you to determine some specific measurements of the topography of your allegedly solid surface?
- What sort of electrical current and resistance properties are required to produce the thermal characteristics we measure from the Sun? Please provide a quantitative, scientific answer so we can compare it to known values and check it for plausibility.
- What exactly is the material composition, in percentages, actual numbers please, of that supposedly solid surface on the Sun?
- What are the specific temperature characteristics of that allegedly solid surface? Again provide a quantitative reply please, in real numbers, so we can check it for plausibility.
- Is English your second language? Do you have some known reading comprehension problem?
Remember...In science, you are obligated to show your theory works. — Michael Mozina
If you intend to present a theory that nobody has ever heard of before, you'll have to be prepared to answers some questions about it. — Michael Mozina |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2007 : 14:34:45 [Permalink]
|
So have you always been a verbal abuser or what?
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 08:27:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
So have you always been a verbal abuser or what?
Or what. Just telling it like it is. Might do you some good to stop being so sensitive.
Seems you keep forgetting these, Michael...In science, you are obligated to show your theory works. — Michael Mozina
If you intend to present a theory that nobody has ever heard of before, you'll have to be prepared to answers some questions about it. — Michael Mozina As I said, I've been trying to move this discussion back to relevant, still hanging questions regarding your unsupported notions about the Sun. It's curious that you're so unwilling to bring in any quantitative, legitimate, scientific evidence to support them. But in case you change your mind, how about you address these issues...- Are you suggesting that where we see generally vertically oriented movement in the helioseismology graphs we're seeing mass moving, and where we see more or less horizontal movement, that would be electrons? If so, how do you differentiate between the mass flow within plasma and the electron flow in a solid material? Please put your reply in scientific, quantitative form so we can apply it in a repeatable way when analyzing other helioseismology data.
- Why have you so far refused to apply the method given to you to determine some specific measurements of the topography of your allegedly solid surface?
- What sort of electrical current and resistance properties are required to produce the thermal characteristics we measure from the Sun? Please provide a quantitative, scientific answer so we can compare it to known values and check it for plausibility.
- What exactly is the material composition, in percentages, actual numbers please, of that supposedly solid surface on the Sun?
- What are the specific temperature characteristics of that allegedly solid surface? Again provide a quantitative reply please, in real numbers, so we can check it for plausibility.
- Is English your second language? Do you have some known reading comprehension problem?
Dave listed quite a few questions you've been ignoring, also. You might want to give a go at these, too...quote:
Michael's Unanswered Questions List:- I'd really like to hear how you rationalize being a reasonable person while you extended a single comment I made about Bruce to both Birkeland and Alfven, whom I dealt with separately.
- Are you saying that solar scientists would ignore the fact that magnetic fields don't stop for no reason?
- Supply a reference for Alfven's theory predicting million-degree temperatures in the Sun's corona.
- Have you calculated how much time it took for that field loop seen by Hinode to "collapse" once the "current" was "cut off," Michael?
- What it is about the generation of gamma rays that requires the flow of electrical current?
- How well do the emissions detected by Rhessi on Earth and the Sun match in chronology and relative magnitude?
- How have you measured the accuracy of the prediction that gamma- and X-rays should be seen in the Sun's corona?
- What else does the "electric Sun" theory "accurately predict?"
- Why do you think Alfven was correct?
- How the hell was Birkeland able to create a "plasma atmosphere surrounded by a vacuum?"
- On what page numbers does Birkeland record "sparks," "tornado like structures," and "high energy discharges?"
- Where is the evidence for "Current that runs through the plasma threads of space generates those magnetic fields just like Alfven predicted."
- What sort of evidence should I provide to demonstrate "we don't know?"
- Why do lightning bolts generate gamma rays?
- Why are gamma rays detected in the Sun's corona?
- Weren't you banned on BAUT forums?
- Does Alfven explain why he thinks x-rays in a Skylab photo are "likely caused by "electrical discharges?"
- Why is it that magnetic field lines "cannot make and break connections?"
- Why don't you define "electrical current" for us?
- Hey, Michael, are you 'ManInTheMirror' over at the BAUT forum?
- Why don't you explain why Kosovichev is wrong, or why you're both correct if you switch underlying assumptions?
- Kosovichev measured dozens of tiny density differences in the experiment from which you hijacked a couple of numbers for your allegedly solid layer's depth, but all you can do in the diagrams you posted is suggest the existence of a single one?
- Who said that coronal loops are "electron free?"
- How would that happen? What mechanism of current "suspends" coronal loops? And what are they "suspended" within?
- Who is claiming that the photosphere is capable of creating anything in the corona?
- What does convection have to do with electromagnetic fields up in the corona?
- Where's that insulator?
- What would stop a magnetic field from going over 200,000 km?
- What do you mean "without electron flow?" You just pointed out (and I agree completely) that the dynamo is created by electron flow, so why should I prove something that we both know is wrong, Michael?
- The Sun's corona isn't an insulator, though, is it?
- How do you know there aren't any magnetic field loops deep under the photosphere?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 10:05:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
So have you always been a verbal abuser or what?
Or what. Just telling it like it is. Might do you some good to stop being so sensitive.
I take it that means "Yes"?
quote:
Seems you keep forgetting these, Michael
Birkeland already verified that this theory worked over 100 years ago. Your denial of that fact won't change history, and it won't make his books or his work disappear.
quote:
If you intend to present a theory that nobody has ever heard of before, you'll have to be prepared to answers some questions about it. — Michael Mozina
I've finished fifteen thread and still counting. I'd say I've answered a few questions about the theory over the past year and I also made some key predictions.
quote:
As I said, I've been trying to move this discussion back to relevant, still hanging questions regarding your unsupported notions about the Sun.
They are not "unsupported" notions. Your constant denial dance isn't going to make the gamma rays in the solar and planetary atmosphere go away. It's not going to make those million degree coronal loop disappear. It's not going to make Birkeland's work go away, and it's not going to make Alfven's whole body of work on plasma go away. It's not going to make that "stratification subsurface" go away either!
quote:
It's curious that you're so unwilling to bring in any quantitative, legitimate, scientific evidence to support them.
Alfven' already provided you with a lifetime of math. Evidently you are too damn lazy and too damn arrogant to be bothered to read any of it. What does he know about MHD theory?
*All* ideas in science must be demonstrated. Your position is not right by default. If you can't explain coronal loop activity, then your beliefs aren't scientifically demonstrated or valid. Standard theory can't explain those million degree loops because it's in hardcore denial of the role electricity in astronomy, just like creationists are in denial of evolution. It doesn't matter how much evidence I present to a creationist or to a standard theorist. They are in denial of all forms of evidence. Those gamma rays coming from the solar atmosphere are real, just as the gamma rays that come from discharges in the earth's atmosphere are real. They have a legitimate explanation. You never offered me one. I did offer you a legitimate explanation.
Those fusion reactions going on in the atmosphere where we find neutron capture signature are also real. They have a legitimate scientific explanation, and I have offered you an explanation and I even got it published in the Journal of Fusion Energy. Meanwhile GeeMack sticks his fingers in his ears and screams "I can't hear you". Those powerful magnetic loops simply fizzle out fall back to the surface for a reason, and I've explained why they do that. The folks at Cambridge call these observations "impossible".
Folks have ignored Birkeland for over 100 years, they've ignored Bruce for 60 years, and Alfv'en for 30 years. Something tells me I still have my work cut out for me. That's why I continue to educate myself and I'm reading Alfven's work on plasma physics, and I continue to debate these ideas in public.
You on the other hand are the single biggest coward I've ever met in cyberspace. Like the creationists I've talked with over the years, you don't have any scientific explanations to offer. You certainly cannot explain those million degree loops using standard theory. You therefore spend your whole time blatantly ignoring MHD theory, blatantly disagreeing with the guy with the Nobel Prize, and you continue playing childish games of intimidation.
You're a verbal abuse bully, much like the schoolyard bully. Since this is cyberspace, you resort to a constant stream of verbal abuse when you don't get your way. Whereas a creationist will sometimes villianize their opponent by calling them "evil" or threatening them with hell, you villianize your opponents with claims of stupidity and mental imbalance. It's the only trick you know. You don't have any science to offer anyone, and you can't explain coronal loops so you go for the only trick you know: Verbal abuse.
I pity you, and particularly anyone who works for you, or under you. You have a serious communication problem with other human beings. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/09/2007 10:59:23 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 11:52:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
So have you always been a verbal abuser or what?
Or what. Just telling it like it is. Might do you some good to stop being so sensitive.
I take it that means "Yes"?
I'll write that up as poor communication, because to me, GeeMack didn't sound like saying "Yes?".
quote:
I've finished fifteen thread and still counting. I'd say I've answered a few questions about the theory over the past year and I also made some key predictions.
Since many of us (at least I, GeeMack, Dave_W, furshur, JohnOAS) still appears to be in the dark about the specifics of your answers and key predictions, you seem to have miscommunicated them. Could you please care to try again? If at first you don't succeed, try and try again...
We're still waiting for quality quantitative calculations and statistics.
Just saying that Birkeland's pictures looks so much like satellite photos of the sun isn't a quality statement.
quote:
You have a serious communication problem with other human beings.
You see, I don't agree with you there, Michael.
Since there are so many of us who seem to suffer the same communication problem, it begs the question: does all of us have the same comm. problem, or does the problem lie on your end? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 12:32:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I'll write that up as poor communication, because to me, GeeMack didn't sound like saying "Yes?".
It didn't sound like a resounding "No" either. The behaviors speak for themselves. I've met creationists that were actually very nice people. GeeMack doesn't even have that redeeming quality.
quote:
Since many of us (at least I, GeeMack, Dave_W, furshur, JohnOAS) still appears to be in the dark about the specifics of your answers and key predictions, you seem to have miscommunicated them. Could you please care to try again?
Sure. I "predict" that coronal loop activity is driven by electrical discharges through the plasma. I predict they travel in "funnels" or Alfven "tubes" or "ropes" of twisting plasma as specified mathematically by Alfven in Cosmic Plasma. I "predict" these funnels of current will create different sized "tubes" (one within another) that are separated by the ionization potential of that element. That too was "predicted" in MHD theory, I'm not making it up.
I "predict" that the current flows of space are the primary heat source of the sun, not hydrogen fusion. I predict there is *some* hydrogen fusion taking place in the solar atmosphere, but it's a relatively minor contribution to the total energy output of our sun.
I predict that the flow of current causes the plasma to seek to mass separate by atomic weight and by ionization level. I "predict" that since Hydrogen and Helium form the outermost layers and represent the hottest layers, they are overrepresented in any photon count related to elemental emissions.
Let's see...
I predict that standard theory is going to get it's butt kicked big time by the Hinode images. I predict that we will find behaviors that are consistent with electrical discharges through plasma, and inconsistent with "magnetic reconnection" theory (whatever that actually is). I "predict" that nobody will describe the unique aspect of "magnetic reconnection" that is in any way different from typical induction forces that Alfven talked about 25 years ago.
I predict that none of those discharges will go any deeper into the photosphere than .005R.
I predict that the mass flow patterns found in helioseismology will generally tend to flow horizontally rather than vertically at .995-993R. In short, I predict the existence of a "Stratification subsurface" at .99R.
How many more predictions would you like?
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/09/2007 12:49:54 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 13:10:38 [Permalink]
|
FYI....
For anyone interested in learning about the "structure" of a coronal loop, you can purchase a $20.00 plasma ball from Walmart and get a good idea of how it works. With it turned on, you can literally watch the threading action take place in "light plasma" when you try to run a lot of current through the plasma. Those "threads" that form inside the plasma ball are the same kinds of structures that form coronal loops only there is a lot more current involved. As an FYI, if you use too much current or get the voltage too high, those same plasma filaments inside the plasma ball will begin to emit x-rays just like the coronal loops on the sun.
If you are interested in the mathematical model that describes this "rope" or "tread" or "funnel" that forms in the plasma, you can find it in "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven.
For those of you in denial of electricity in astronomy, you can simply ignore this message too. :) |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 13:17:12 [Permalink]
|
| For one thing, a little more precise definition of what a "Stratification subsurface" really is. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Surface of the Sun, part 13
