|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 04/10/2007 : 12:14:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
We know we can't detect it because we can't see it.
But your "we" does not include me. I see it just fine. I see it in at least three different working satellites systems. You can see it too. It's visible on the very first image on my website.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi
quote:
But as the test showed, there must be additional mass associated with galaxies.
That would still not demonstrate that "dark matter" exists or has any influence on nature. All you know is you're missing some mass. You don't know that it's "dark matter". You only know you can't find it yet. I can.
quote:
This is consistent with what was observed regarding the rotation of galaxies. I'm not sure where the solar system comes into play, since in my (unfortunately limited) reading up on the topic, the solar system hasn't come into the discussion.
Well, each galaxy has string of solar systems. Each solar system is separated by vast distances. Between each solar system is a whole bunch of plasma, but evidently that isn't a significant amount of the mass. If two galaxies pass through one another, the vast distances between suns makes it unlikely that any given solar system will slam directly into any other solar system from the passing galaxy. Every so often there will be a direct hit and stuff will go flying but that would be the exception, not the rule. Again, it's primarily a distance issue, and a directional issue. If all depends on how they "merge" or "pass" one another. The iron aspect is a side issue. The primary issue is distance. In no case would I expect to see most of the mass in the light plasmas between the solar systems. I would expect most of the mass to congregate inside solar systems, and that in many cases whole solar systems will remain intact, and therefore the mass will remain intact. There's no mystery here, and the failure of their assumption has nothing to do with composition, but with distance.
quote:
No, really, you don't understand the problem. If the sun is made of significantly more iron than main stream science claims (and you put it somewhere >50%) then the sun's density must be far greater than we find via d=m/v.
I think it is you that do not yet grasp the problem. It doesn't matter how you try to explain the missing mass, the fact is you have missing mass and it must be *inside* the solar systems, since that is what their work actually *does* demonstrate. The lensing follows the galaxy structure, not the plasma threads.
You too have *exactly* the same problem. You have extra mass to explain inside each solar system. No matter what either of us does to explain this mass, it's going to screw up our understanding of solar mechanics. That is unavoidable. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2007 12:19:25 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 12:33:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Given that, plus the fact that he got himself a Nobel and you don't, plus the fact that you refuse to reference the statement,
Which statement was that? I referenced the most important statement he made related to magnetic reconnection. Which statement were you looking for. I'll be happy to type in a paragraph for you Dave.
quote:
plus the fact that you've gotten other peoples' meaning completely wrong before,
You say that as though you have never done that yourself?
quote:
plus the fact that modern studies are providing evidence for magnetic reconnection,
Which one(s) is that Dave? I'll bet it uses lots of electricity and the moment that the current stops flowing the "magnetic reconnection" terminates.
Ok Dave, define "magnetic reconnection" *exactly* at the atomic level. What is the mechanical difference between magnetic reconnection and induction or some other kind of electrical activity in plasma? Alfven didn't seem to think it even existed, so reading his material has not helped me to understand "magnetic reconnection".
quote:
and I'm forced to conclude that you have misunderstood Alfven's work when you make claims on his behalf. A second, very distant possibility, is that Alfven himself was wrong.
That sounds like a creationist trying to tell me that either I misinterpreted Darwin or Darwin was wrong, even though they never read any of Darwin's material and not the material I've specifically cited. Is that an emotional gut feeling or what? I already quoted you the relevant passage. If you like another, I'm sure I can find it. That one was very "definitive", but there are many such examples in his book Dave.
What I find most fascinating is the fact that you are convinced that either I have misinterpreted his work or he is wrong, and you haven't even read the book yet. Talk about preconceived biases running amuck..... |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2007 12:35:41 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 12:42:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
But your "we" does not include me. I see it just fine. I see it in at least three different working satellites systems. You can see it too. It's visible on the very first image on my website.
Running difference images do not show anything like solid structure or features. Nobody, including you, Michael, can see particular materials or detect particular densities from looking at a running difference graph. You've actually been asked to demonstrate, many times, that you could indeed do that, and you couldn't. We've been through this before. Seems you weren't paying attention. 
Oh, and when you see something that isn't really there, that's called a hallucination. The causes of hallucinations can be generally broken down into the following categories: psychological hallucinations triggered by stress or frustration, hallucinations resulting from sensory deprivation or meditation, hallucinations due to brain damage or mental illness, hallucinations induced by drugs or medications, and hallucinations from environmental causes like poisons, pollens, inhalation of gasses, and such.
But how about these questions that you've still left hanging, Michael...- 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?
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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 13:13:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well *EXCUSE ME*. :) Sometimes I think you intentionally nitpick at a word just to ignore the real issue at times. We're debating the *number* of electrons flowing through the plasma. Is that better?
No, because nobody's debating the number of electrons flowing through the plasma, because you won't quantify how many it is for your theory, Michael. Sound familiar? Of course it does, because the last time I said it, you went off on a tangent about magnetic reconnection without even trying to show that it's somehow related to the number of electrons flowing.quote:
Care to get off the creationist crutch of blind skepticism and explain these million degree loops another way?
I've got no reason to think that Alfven's MHD and the current solar scientists are wrong. You've certainly offered no coherent reasons why they (collectively) might be wrong, but you claim that they are.quote:
Did you order the book I suggested, yes or no?
What does that matter?quote:
Do you have the book, yes or no?
You're asking all the wrong questions, Michael.quote:
If you don't have enough evidence, don't blame me or anyone else for your lack of evidence. Your ignorance is purely self imposed at this point.
I wasn't claiming ignorance, Michael, but instead surety that you have misunderstood your hero's work.quote:
Alfven very clearly explained the threading process that occurs in current carrying plasmas. You can see how it works in a common toy plasma ball. Alfven explains all the math, and clearly explains all the physics involved in the process. He leaves nothing to chance, and he tested all this stuff in real plasma.
And all of that is entirely irrelevant to the point I made.quote:
Now if you don't wish to get this information from the horses mouth, don't whine about how hard it is to find this information on the internet Dave.
Where did I do that? |
- 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 - 04/10/2007 : 13:20:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Oh, and when you see something that isn't really there, that's called a hallucination.
Ya, and it's just my hallucination that this surface that none of us can see in this Lockheed Movie that isn't really there makes all the plasma flows turn and go horizontal at .995R.
When I debate creationists, they tend to admit up front that their scientific understanding is limited and they tend to be nice about things. Have you ever read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Occasionally when debating creationists I've run into someone who's not particularly nice, but even then they don't profess to be any expert on science.
In your case, you seem to fancy yourself as an expert on this stuff, and I'd bet money you've never read that book, or much of Alfven's work. Nevermind the fact he literally wrote the math book on plasma physics. Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance. I can't tell you how many creationist tried to tell me the Nobel prize winning scientist was wrong, but I can assure you none of them ever provided any evidence to back it up.
I already know what a coward you are, and I know for a fact you cannot demonstrate that magnetic reconnection has any merit. If you want any respect from me, you're going to have to stop acting like a child, show a little backbone, and put your ideas on the table. Then we can talk about which ideas are responsible for the observations in dispute.
If you intend to resort to your one trick pony show, I'm going to just start ignoring your questions, and I'll start asking you about your childhood and your parents and they way they treated you, because clearly your verbal abuse is very deep seated, and began a very long time ago, and you refuse to discuss scientific alternatives just like every creationist I've ever met. You're a coward, just a vocal coward. It's an odd combination to be sure. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2007 13:24:05 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 13:43:18 [Permalink]
|
Oh my god. Ok, one more time. Things orbit around the sun. This is because the sun is massive-- very massive. We can calculate the solar mass using a complex formula, using things like G (the graviational constant) and the like.
Once we know the sun's mass, we can measure its density using d=m/v. But if you say that the sun is more than 50% iron then it is going to be much denser. But if the sun is really dense, then something's wrong with our formula, and our understanding of phsics goes out the window.
I don't understand why you keep saying that dark matter is in the solar system or any such, since that's not something I've seen argued anywhere. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 14:15:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, because nobody's debating the number of electrons flowing through the plasma, because you won't quantify how many it is for your theory, Michael. Sound familiar?
I'm educating myself Dave, and I'm learning all about plasma threads and Bennett pinches so that I can start to quantify things for you. I can tell you it's measured in the many millions of electron volts.
quote:
Of course it does, because the last time I said it, you went off on a tangent about magnetic reconnection without even trying to show that it's somehow related to the number of electrons flowing.
In general terms we're talking many millions of electron volts in the largest loops. I won't really be able to give you accurate calculations until I see the Hinode data, and I'm first going to have to understand it. Maybe by the end of summer I can give you reasonable figures based on actual data and Alfven's formulas, but I am working in that direction.
quote:
I've got no reason to think that Alfven's MHD and the current solar scientists are wrong.
One of them must be wrong Dave because Alfven claimed quite emphatically that there was no such thing as magnetic reconnection. The formulas that relate to the magnetic fields are always represented as a full continuum. They cannot "make" or "break" connections like electrical connections.
quote:
You've certainly offered no coherent reasons why they (collectively) might be wrong, but you claim that they are.
I only claim that the Nobel Prize winning scientist was right Dave. I'm on his side. If you have evidence that "magnetic reconnection" exists, at least have the common decency to explain it, because according to everything I've read from Alfven it does not exist.
quote:
quote:
Did you order the book I suggested, yes or no?What does that matter?
Do you have the book, yes or no?
What does education matter? It matters a lot. If you want to discuss MHD theory with me, you'll have to learn about it Dave. I've spent that last many months of my life familiarizing myself with Alfven's theories. If you wish to discuss MHD theory with me, I expect you to be educated. Otherwise it's no better than arguing with a creationist about Darwin's theories when the individual refuses to read any of his work.
quote:
You're asking all the wrong questions, Michael.
Not in this case Dave. I'm trying to figure out how serious you are about understanding these ideas. If it's not worth your time and money to learn about MHD theory, then it's not worth my time discussing the finer points of that theory with you.
quote:
If you don't have enough evidence, don't blame me or anyone else for your lack of evidence.
I have a *lot* more evidence of the existence of current flow *inside* the plasma than you have for "dark" anything, inflaton fields, magnetic reconnection and monopoles put together. If that pitiful on dark matter is any example of "proof", hell, I've "proven" my case a thousand times over! The Rhessi images alone are better "proof" and I'm not even proposing anything that is new to science!
quote:
I wasn't claiming ignorance, Michael, but instead surety that you have misunderstood your hero's work.
You are sure of something that is false, and I have already demonstrated that with the quote I gave you. If you won't educate yourself, don't blame anyone but yourself for your own ignorance Dave. If you haven't even bothered to order the book, don't even think about lecturing me about MHD theory or Alfven's views. That is absolutely irrational behavior on your part.
Alfven was as vehemently opposed to "magnetic reconnection" as I am and he wrote the book on MHD theory.
Dave, here are the cold hard facts:
You can't even define "magnetic reconnection" at an atomic level Dave. You don't know what it is, and you can't define it. You can't explain how or why it is any different than standard induction forces or standard electrical activity in plasma. All you have is a metaphysical slogan, a vague idea and a bad attitude toward educating yourself any further. From my point of view, you might as well be handwaving away Darwin's work without even bothering to read it. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2007 14:33:39 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 14:32:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Oh my god. Ok, one more time. Things orbit around the sun. This is because the sun is massive-- very massive. We can calculate the solar mass using a complex formula, using things like G (the graviational constant) and the like.
So where is the "dark matter" and why can't you produce any here on earth? How come it doesn't interfere with the movements of a solar system?
quote:
Once we know the sun's mass, we can measure its density using d=m/v. But if you say that the sun is more than 50% iron then it is going to be much denser. But if the sun is really dense, then something's wrong with our formula, and our understanding of phsics goes out the window.
I agree that it won't work without considering the other electromagnetic influences on our solar system. I didn't say the idea was without "complications" by the way, I just said it wasn't a metaphysical solution. Now that we know neutrinos have mass, I'll even let you entertain that ideas as "part" of the missing mass as well. If you allow for current to flow through plasma, you can pick up mass that way as well. There are many ways to approach this problem without going off into metaphysics related to "dark matter".
quote:
I don't understand why you keep saying that dark matter is in the solar system or any such, since that's not something I've seen argued anywhere.
It's a natural and logical argument based on the data that is contained in the paper you cited. The lensing did not track with the plasma clouds. The lensing was directly related to the structures of the galaxies themselves. If you look at all the models for "dark matter", it tends to be concentrated in and around *all* the arms of the galaxy and all along the outside edges of the galaxy, not at the core. That really leaves only one place for your dark matter to be located. Your dark matter is following the stars, not the core, and not the plasma clouds from the plasmas released in the collision processes.
What is 'dark matter'? Define it.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2007 14:34:08 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 14:42:43 [Permalink]
|
Here's the simple questions that none of you will answer:
quote:
Ok (anyone), define "magnetic reconnection" *exactly* at the atomic level. What is the mechanical difference between magnetic reconnection and induction or some other kind of electrical activity in plasma? Alfven didn't seem to think it even existed, so reading his material has not helped me to understand "magnetic reconnection".
The reason none of you will answer this question is because there is no answer for it. Nobody knows. It's another of those "trust me because I'm an expert" facades. Not one single human being has ever demonstrated that magnetic reconnection is real, nor has one single human being ever defined it uniquely so that we can even test the concept. Magnetic reconnection is pure metaphysics. I doesn't exist, just like Alfven explained.
There's another more interesting problem with 'magnetic reconnection' as it relates to solar activity. According to that theory, the bulk of the energy release occurs "between" two interacting loops, but all the loops are millions of degrees. Nobody bothered to explain why one loop reaches millions of degrees using "magnetic reconnection". |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2007 14:43:18 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 14:58:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Here's the simple questions that none of you will answer:quote:
Ok (anyone), define "magnetic reconnection" *exactly* at the atomic level. What is the mechanical difference between magnetic reconnection and induction or some other kind of electrical activity in plasma? Alfven didn't seem to think it even existed, so reading his material has not helped me to understand "magnetic reconnection".
Why not read one of the living solar scientists' takes on magnetic reconnection, then?quote:
The reason none of you will answer this question is because there is no answer for it. Nobody knows.
I suspect you just refuse to educate yourself.quote:
It's another of those "trust me because I'm an expert" facades.
Well, that's all we're getting from you regarding Alfven, "trust him, he's an expert." Why do you hold everyone else to a different standard than you hold your hero?quote:
Not one single human being has ever demonstrated that magnetic reconnection is real...
Your ignorance in the face of multiple links is stunning.quote:
...nor has one single human being ever defined it uniquely so that we can even test the concept.
Likewise your iron shell.quote:
Magnetic reconnection is pure metaphysics.
Likewise your iron shell.quote:
I doesn't exist, just like Alfven explained.
Actually, what's in dispute is your claim that Alfven declared magnetic reconnection to be a myth. The quote you provided doesn't say that, as it's chock-full of qualifiers related to location, function and time.quote:
There's another more interesting problem with 'magnetic reconnection' as it relates to solar activity. According to that theory, the bulk of the energy release occurs "between" two interacting loops, but all the loops are millions of degrees. Nobody bothered to explain why one loop reaches millions of degrees using "magnetic reconnection".
Actually, the whole corona contains particles with energies equivalent to over 1,000,000 degrees, Michael (even a Rhessi article you pointed us all to said that it found the most-tenuous plasmas to be at two million degrees), but the whole thing is so tenuous that if you were able to stick your hand in it, nothing would happen. The plasma is so "light" that the word "temperature" loses its normal meaning. |
- 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 - 04/10/2007 : 15:10:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why not read one of the living solar scientists' takes on magnetic reconnection, then?
I have. At the atomic/phyiscal level they can't define it any better than you can. It's "undefined" because it doesn't exist, just like Alfven said.
quote:
I suspect you just refuse to educate yourself.
Then educate me. Show me I'm wrong.
quote:
Well, that's all we're getting from you regarding Alfven, "trust him, he's an expert."
Yes, but between the three of us, he's the only one with a Nobel prize and he is the only father of MHD theory.
quote:
Why do you hold everyone else to a different standard than you hold your hero?
I don't. I expect them to demonstrate their case like everyone.
quote:
Your ignorance in the face of multiple links is stunning.
Alfven's ignorance must be stunning too then.
quote:
Likewise your iron shell.
Huh? As solid is very "unique" compared to the plasma that is expected to be in that convection zone at .995R that turns all the mass flows horizontal instead of letting them pass right through as standard theory actually "predicted". I'd say there are lots of unique properties of an iron crust we can test for.
quote:
Likewise your iron shell.
Oh bull. I can hand you iron. I can hand you electrical energy in the form of a battery. You can't show me one single experiment that identified dark matter, dark energy, magnetic reconnection, inflaton fields or monopoles. Don't even think about lecturing me about metaphysics.
quote:
Actually, what's in dispute is your claim that Alfven declared magnetic reconnection to be a myth. The quote you provided doesn't say that, as it's chock-full of qualifiers related to location, function and time.
No it's not, and it's only one quote among many. But you wouldn't know that because if you can't find it on Google, you won't bother lifting a finger to educate yourself.
quote:
Actually, the whole corona contains particles with energies equivalent to over 1,000,000 degrees,
And nobody can explain how it got that hot sitting on top of a 5800K "black body".
quote:
Michael (even a Rhessi article you pointed us all to said that it found the most-tenuous plasmas to be at two million degrees), but the whole thing is so tenuous that if you were able to stick your hand in it, nothing would happen.
I assume that's another of those things I have to accept on faith?
quote:
The plasma is so "light" that the word "temperature" loses its normal meaning.
Ya, I've noticed everything electrically oriented or plasma oriented loses it normal meaning around astronomers. The plasma inside the plasma ball is light too, but I wouldn't want to touch one of the filaments. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 15:59:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Ya, and it's just my hallucination that this surface that none of us can see in this Lockheed Movie that isn't really there makes all the plasma flows turn and go horizontal at .995R.
Yet you can't get any professional astrophysicist, anyone involved in designing, developing, or operating any of the equipment on any of those satellites, any scientist, researcher, or engineer involved with NASA or LMSAL in any capacity, any professional photographer or photo analyst, or anyone in any other professional field where running difference images are used for any purpose to agree with your assessment. None of those people will agree that you can see anything solid or structural in any of those running difference graphs. And on top of that, not a single one of those people will agree that you can, with any frequency of filtering, see anything at 0.995Rsun, either.
You've even been given some methods for demonstrating at least a minimal plausibility of your claim about those images, Michael, but you're still refusing to do that. There is no legitimate support for your notion about running difference images. So far your opinion has no substantiation and no corroboration. From a scientific perspective, it is worthless.
Also, apparently you've neglected to notice, all that plasma flowing horizontally in the helioseismology graphs is moving, Michael, thousands of kilometers per hour, flowing right on through your "solid" surface as if it weren't even there. Cool trick.
Lots of questions still left hanging, and you're not making much headway chalking them off...- 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?
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 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 16:02:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
So where is the "dark matter" and why can't you produce any here on earth? How come it doesn't interfere with the movements of a solar system?
Don't ask me! When we know more about it, some smart people will write about it. Then I'll post the links here and you'll not bother to read it but disagree anyow. That seems to be the way things work around here.
quote:
quote:
Once we know the sun's mass, we can measure its density using d=m/v. But if you say that the sun is more than 50% iron then it is going to be much denser. But if the sun is really dense, then something's wrong with our formula, and our understanding of phsics goes out the window.
I agree that it won't work without considering the other electromagnetic influences on our solar system. I didn't say the idea was without "complications" by the way, I just said it wasn't a metaphysical solution. Now that we know neutrinos have mass, I'll even let you entertain that ideas as "part" of the missing mass as well. If you allow for current to flow through plasma, you can pick up mass that way as well. There are many ways to approach this problem without going off into metaphysics related to "dark matter".
No one is positing dark matter for how a super-dense iron sun somehow exists given our understanding of d=m/v. And in any case, your answers are just as metaphysical and filled with "I don't knows" as anything you've bitched about from mainstream science.
quote:
quote:
I don't understand why you keep saying that dark matter is in the solar system or any such, since that's not something I've seen argued anywhere.
It's a natural and logical argument based on the data that is contained in the paper you cited. The lensing did not track with the plasma clouds. The lensing was directly related to the structures of the galaxies themselves. If you look at all the models for "dark matter", it tends to be concentrated in and around *all* the arms of the galaxy and all along the outside edges of the galaxy, not at the core. That really leaves only one place for your dark matter to be located. Your dark matter is following the stars, not the core, and not the plasma clouds from the plasmas released in the collision processes.
But if it isn't interfering with planetary orbits around the sun (since that follows Newton's laws without problem) then it stands to reason that in fact, it's not in the solar system. Indeed, your iron sun idea is an invalide substitute for dark matter.
quote:
What is 'dark matter'? Define it.
The definition would be something along the lines of 'a type of matter that does not emit or reflect light (or other EM radiation) but the existance of which is shown via its gravitational influence' though that's just what I've gathered from my limited research.
Obviously this isn't much of a definition, so you can feel free to claim victory here since in Michael-world, only Michael's vague and poorly (or non-) evidenced pet theories are worth considering. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 16:07:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You can't show me one single experiment that identified dark matter, dark energy, magnetic reconnection, inflaton fields or monopoles. Don't even think about lecturing me about metaphysics.
Are you delusional? I just linked an article domonstrating that it is quite certain that dark matter exists. Your best refutation is something about iron suns, but as I've shown, the iron sun does nothing to solve the problem of galactic rotation and likewise throws completely out of whack our understanding of physics on a solar-system scale! |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 16:39:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Are you delusional?
No.
quote:
I just linked an article domonstrating that it is quite certain that dark matter exists.
No. You just linked to a ridiculously boastful article that at best demonstrated that there is "missing mass" that is not accounted for in contemporary theory. You did not demonstrate the existence of "dark matter".
quote:
Your best refutation is something about iron suns,
Yes, but I also included the electron flow and the mass flows from neutrinos which you seem to have utterly ignored.
quote:
but as I've shown, the iron sun does nothing to solve the problem of galactic rotation
Heavy suns would go a long way to explaining galactic rotation, the problem is that it simultaneously screws up the solar system rotation in a big way.
quote:
and likewise throws completely out of whack our understanding of physics on a solar-system scale!
That part is true. Then again, I'm quite convinced that many things that the mainstream thinks of as 'fact' are in fact gross oversimplifications of what is actually going on. I agree that the a heavy sun presents a series of problems which is why my solar model is not heavier or lighter than the contemporary model. I'm simply noting that *if anything* my solar model is likely to be heavier than standard theory and that force of gravity is offset by electromagnetic fields. If you're looking for missing matter that tracks with the solar system, I have several good places to begin looking for it, none of which involve metaphysics of any sort. We have mass from neutrinos that pour off the sun to consider. We have mass within the electrons flowing through the solar system to consider, and we most likely have additional mass in the sun to account for. I certainly see no logical reason to assume the existence of "dark matter" to solve rotation problems or lensing problems related to mass that follows the galaxies solar systems. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2007 16:43:06 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Surface of the Sun, part 13
