|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 04/10/2007 : 16:49:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Is English your second language? Do you have some known reading comprehension problem?
So which of your parents do you emulate or is it both? I don't think I've ever met anyone with such low self esteem and such pitiful communication skills. Who raised you? |
 |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 17:15:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
So which of your parents do you emulate or is it both? I don't think I've ever met anyone with such low self esteem and such pitiful communication skills. Who raised you?
As usual, you didn't answer the question. Its relevance goes to your ability to present your claim in some credible manner. Since you haven't been able to do that yet, I figured we might be able to understand you better if we know the cause of your problem in communicating.
Regarding my communication skills, everyone involved in these conversations, except you, Michael, has apparently understood everything I've said. If anyone other than you had trouble understanding my comments, I'd consider your insult criticism valid. But that doesn't seem to be the case. It logically follows that if you're having trouble understanding me, and nobody else is, you have deficient communication skills. That idea is further supported by the fact that you're asked repeatedly to reiterate, explain, define, and repeat most of what you've said. It is regularly noted how you misunderstand what you've read. You regularly misrepresent what other people have written. The rest of us understand each other pretty well. You're the odd man out.
These questions remain unanswered...- 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 |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 04/10/2007 19:33:29 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 17:46:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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".
Talk about oversimplifications! It's not just missing mass, Michael. You have to read more than the first sentence of the abstract to fully understand the argument.
quote:
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.
My bad-- I thought you didn't like to talk about unsupported, untested, hypothetical ramblings.
quote:
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.
I am not convinced that you've put forward any compelling case for the first point, while the second is obvious.
quote:
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.
This just sounds like a guess or a hunch. How is this any different from anything you so often dismiss?
quote:
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.
Grrrr. No one is looking for missing matter that tracks with the solar system.
quote:
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.
Well if this is your "logic" then of course not. It's quite clear that you really aren't understanding the problem. The solar system works fine according to our understanding of Newtonian physics. Indeed, when you postulate things like "neutrinos pour[ing] off the sun" it suggests that you already think that Newtonian physics is wrong in how it describes the motion of planets around the sun!
Your position is very confusing. On the one hand, you acknowledge that the rotation of galaxies doesn't conform to what's expected under standard Newtonian physics. But on the other hand, you also seem to think that the orbits of the planets around the sun (and, I assume, the moon around the earth) are not being properly measured, since you want to introduce new mass to the equation. No one else has a problem with planetary rotation! The whole thing doesn't make sense!!  |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 17:56:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Apart from the presence of a sphere, and some plasma, how far do you really want to take this analogy?
All the way John, all the way. It's not really just an "analogy", it's more of a "simulation" of exactly what's really going on.
...
It's not just an analogy. It's a working small scale prototype.
Great, a few quick questions then:
1. Could you also provide some estimate for the frequency of the current, after all, it is AC right?
2. The reason for the movement of the streamers in a plasma ball is essentially thermally induced convection. The geometry of a plasma ball is such that the dominant gravitational field (that of the earth)is essentially flat and passing vertically through the system. I'm missing the correlation with your model, could you please explain.
3. The two electrodes for a plasma ball are internal to the device, with the dielectric extended to the extremities of the device. How does this work in your model?
4. A Plasma ball is essentially a capacitor being charged/discharged repeatedly, with one electrode at it's geometric centre, and the other electrode separated by the dielectric comprised of the semi-evacuated chamber and the spherical shell. Current flows, understandably from the centre electrode via the dielectric to the other electrode. This explains the radial streamers quite well. I don't understand the where the correlating electrodes and dielectric are in your model and how they result in arc shaped streamers.
5. The voltages, currents, pressures and densities of a plasma ball are quite well known. You've said it all scales well, so you should be able to provide some reasonable numbers for your model. (Scaling up from a typical desktop plasma ball to something the size of the sun, you can kick-start your estimates based on potentials of the order of 10^13 Volts and power consumption around 10^30 Watts. )
I'll address the other, longer post later. I never realised your model could be so accurately represented by something as well understood as a plasma ball. This should make life much easier.
Unless, of course by ""simulation" of exactly what's really going on" you meant, "it has the words "plasma" and "ball" in it, allows for some grossly oversimplified comparisons of pictures, and is otherwise entirely different in nature.
Edited to fix font size. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 04/10/2007 18:01:26 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 18:45:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
1. The primary energy source for the heating of the sun's atmosphere is external to the sun.
Yes, though the sun does generate *some* energy locally. For instance you can see fusion reactions occurring in the solar atmosphere in Rhessi images. The current flow is the catalyst of the energy release but the energy release is local as well.
Fine, so we can largely ignore the internal source(s), at least for order of magnitude calculations.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
4. Have you done any calculations as to the magnitude of this current?
As it relates to coronal loops, yes. As it relates to total electron flow through the system, no, I have not not personally done so.
Why the hell not? Seriously, if you've got one set of parameters, it can't be that hard for you to at least estimate the other. I'd really like to see your estimates for the current flowing through the loops, by the way, do you have a link?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Given that you claim to have numbers for the temperatures and make-up of the suns atmosphere, this ought to be fairly straightforward. Very rough, few orders of magnitude type calculations would serve as a reality check.
That plasma ball is also a "reality check". It allows us to see in the real world what Alfven described in his book. He notes that when current is passed through plasma, it tends to form filament channels that "flow" inside the system. He describes the math in the book I suggested earlier, but you can see that threading action in action up close and personal in a cheap plasma ball. The physics is the same, but the scales are much larger. The thing about MHD theory is that it scales very well.
You seriously think "I don't have to actually model my model, because we already have something with the same geometry and some plasma in it" is even remotely acceptable from a scientific point of view?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
5. Has anyone directly observed these (speculatively) massive currents through the sun with other instrumentation?
They directly observe the *magnetic fields* that flow parallel to the current because those are much easier to detect. How would you suggest we directly measure the current flow inside of a coronal loop?
I'm not talking about the currents in the loop, I'm talking about the net current flowing through the sun required for this model to be plausible.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
So now Kristian Birkeland has demonstrated that a model (your model, by your own words) works, and managed to do so decades before the development of this alleged model.
Well, sort of. I spent many months putting together my model based on satellite images alone. I had not heard of Dr. Manuel, nor had I seen the lab work of Kristian Birkeland. I had heard of Alfven but I was mostly ignorant of his work.
The model I came up with was based purely on observation and interpretations of direct observations.
Where's the model? Your website is not a model.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
This ought to be pretty easy to confirm. Would you care to provide links to the scientific solar models developed by yourself and Kristian Birkeland, so that we can do a comparison?
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/
You've posted this before, and I've read large chunks of it. Again, where is the model?. Yes Birkeland mentions the word sun, yes he has some pictures of current flows induced on spheres. I can, however, find no solar model.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Pot, meet kettle. If you're going to play the "not likely" card, how about a little more evidence that the "iron sun scenario" is anything but incredibly unlikely. I believe you yourself expressed some doubt about it's merit in recent times.
I don't even have to do that since they did it for me. In the final analysis they completely and utterly disproved their own assumption. The bulk of the mass follows the stars, not the dust between the stars.
The already demonstrated this John.
They already demonstrated that your iron sun model is something other than vanishingly unlikely? Links please.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If you allow for current to flow through plasma, you can pick up mass that way as well.
I must've missed that bit in physics, current flow in plasma "picks up" mass? Do you mean it attracts mass, or creates mass? Please try to use scientific terminology when discussing science. (I dont mind an "I hear you" response, but please address the actual question as well).
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The very first image on my website is a picture of this iron, and it exists right under the photosphere at about .993R. It's "dark" in the sense that it doesn't emit much light, but it's not metaphysical in origin. There is nothing mysterious about it from my perspective.
As GeeMack has pointed out quite recently, you are the only one that I am aware of who believes these images show pictures of a surface. Do you really want to address that issue again?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
Except that you can't deal with all the extra problems your massy surface would incur, even assuming you could demonstrate it's existence, but somehow maintain that it's a better explanation than dark matter. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 20:42:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
As usual, you didn't answer the question.
And as usual, like any good creationist, you refused to support *any other* position, and you refuse to have an adult conversation. There is really nothing else I'd care to discuss with you at this point since you refuse to put any other science on the table. We might as well find out why you're such a flaming jerk to everyone who disagrees with you. The subject matter seems to be irrelevant, and the behavior is unique to you. I figure we have nothing better to talk about at this point.
quote:
Its relevance goes to your ability to present your claim in some credible manner. Since you haven't been able to do that yet, I figured we might be able to understand you better if we know the cause of your problem in communicating.
Great. I was thinking the same thing about you.
quote:
Regarding my communication skills, everyone involved in these conversations, except you, Michael, has apparently understood everything I've said.
Oh, I've "understood" you perfectly, it's just that I haven't always agreed with you. You seem to have an intolerance for people who stand up to you and who disagree with you.
Why do you feel the need to villianize others as you do and verbally abuse others in ever single post? Why do you feel the need to be rude and verbally abusive in every single post? I've met a lot of individuals, but I've never met someone that feels the need to insult individuals like that.
I've shown you my theory works. In fact Birkeland demonstrated that it works over 100 years ago. You on the other hand are doing the creation dance. You can't explain those gamma rays, or those million degree coronal loops. You haven't got a clue. All you know how to do is villianize other individuals and be obnoxious. Just like any creationist you run like a coward from the real science, and you hide behind verbal abuse and handwaves. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 20:58:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I can tell you it's measured in the many millions of electron volts.
Surely you know that an electron volt is a measure of energy, and not a measure of the number of electrons passing through some medium. Besides which, it would take nearly a trillion electron volts to make a single joule of energy (you eat the equivalent of quadrillions of electron volts for lunch). Hell, a million electron volts is less energy than is released by the fission of a single U-235 atom. Your obvious misunderstanding of the proper units to use when discussing the nature of your theory offers broad insight into why you are having so many problems here, Michael.
But even more entertaining than that was what was in a later post:quote:
Alfven's ignorance must be stunning too then.
I can state without hesitation or equivocation that Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén is most assuredly completely ignorant of the experimental results confirming the existence of the magnetic reconnection phenomena which were published after his death, yes.
Alfven is no longer making claims that magnetic reconnection is a myth, Michael, you are doing it for him because he has been dead for 12 years now. He isn't able to refute the experimental results, because he isn't able to do anything. But you aren't able to refute the experimental results, either, so you simply pretend that they don't exist and that nobody has ever referred the articles to you.quote:
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.
Except that nobody ever has tested for it, and you're so completely ignorant of fluid dynamics that you think two fluid flows should simply "pass right through" each other.quote:
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.
You cannot hand me an iron shell almost as large as the Sun, Michael. Nor can you hand me lightning bolts the size of Jupiter. You can't even hand me a 24-cm terrela surrounded by plasma surrounded by vacuum.quote:
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...
That's your rebuttal? To simply deny the obvious?quote:
...and it's only one quote among many.
Prove it.quote:
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.
Once again, rather than provide a mature, scientific argument, you simply go for the personal attack (whether it's true or not, and you don't know).quote:
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".
Thanks for admitting that you can't explain it, either.quote:
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?
You should know it already if you're going to claim you understand the theories of Alfven and have sufficient knowledge to effectively criticize the standard model. How much energy can a million-degree plasma which is more than a thousand times less dense than sea-level air impart to a human hand, Michael? Show your work.quote:
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.
That's because you know that several watts would pass through just a few square millimeters of your skin, causing a significant burn. But the energy density in the solar corona is orders of magnitude lower than 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 : 21:18:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Fine, so we can largely ignore the internal source(s), at least for order of magnitude calculations.
Well, I'm not so sure about that. Maybe we can ignore it, probably we can ignore it, but only at some risk of missing how the sun actually integrates and connects with the whole circuit. By and large though I would say we can assume the internal energy sources are "minimal" as it relates to the suns total energy output.
quote:
Why the hell not? Seriously, if you've got one set of parameters, it can't be that hard for you to at least estimate the other.
What kind of resistance level (of the solar material) would you attempt to use?
quote:
I'd really like to see your estimates for the current flowing through the loops, by the way, do you have a link?
Not yet, but I've found some interesting material on the early Hinode data from the folks at LMSAL. I'm hoping to be able to put together some very scientifically supportable calculations relatively soon. I'd like to actually get my hands on the Hinode data before I go too far out on a limb. I'll keep you posted.
quote:
You seriously think "I don't have to actually model my model, because we already have something with the same geometry and some plasma in it" is even remotely acceptable from a scientific point of view?
No, that's not what I meant. I meant that we can assume that Alfven's models work as predicted, because we can do a reality check against what really happens in plasma when we try to pass a lot of current through light plasma. It forms filaments that spiral inward due to magnetic forces. Whatever numbers we come up with must use his formulas and they must be based on the actual magnetic fields strengths of the loops as recorded by Hinode or SST. I'm reviewing the early material right now, but I do not have full access to the data yet and I won't have full access to the data for almost two more months.
IMO these numbers could be modeled mathematically and they should be modeled mathematically based on the magnetic field strengths recorded by these new instruments. That should give us some really useful postdicted figures of the current flow inside a coronal loop. Hang in there, I'm working on it. I've had a lot to learn about MHD theory but I'm getting there.
quote:
I'm not talking about the currents in the loop, I'm talking about the net current flowing through the sun required for this model to be plausible.
Oh. Well, that's a much more complicated figure to calculate if you ask me, mainly because you need to know the resistance of the sun to know how much current flow it takes to generate that much heat. That seems like a much more "made up" figure to me, no matter how you try to do the math. That one will take me awhile.
quote:
Where's the model? Your website is not a model.
It's the best model I've got at the moment John. There are any number of useful predictions I can make with that model, from a layered atmosphere, to an electrically driven heat source for the outer atmosphere. It can predict the cause of sunspots etc. It's certainly falsifiable, and it certainly explains the theory behind everything I believe to be true, even if the math isn't all there yet. Some of the math related to the nuclear chemistry evidence is already there. Some of the mathematical relationships that relate to Helioseismology techniques that revealed a "stratification subsurface" are also well defined. Some of the other things are not so well defined mathematically, but that will change over time. In the mean time there are ample ways of verifying or falsifying the model that I have presented. The fact you are in denial of the fact that it is my "model" won't make it go away. It certainly won't make Birkeland's work go away or Alfven's work go away either.
quote:
You've posted this before, and I've read large chunks of it. Again, where is the model?. Yes Birkeland mentions the word sun, yes he has some pictures of current flows induced on spheres. I can, however, find no solar model.
You seem to have your own special need to define what a solar "model" should be John. I'm not impressed with the standard solar model because it can't explain anything beyond the photosphere. It can't even explain below the photosphere accurately either or it would have actually "predicted" that stratification subsurface at .995R. Standard theorists haven't even found a useful posticted explanation for it that I'm aware of.
quote:
They already demonstrated that your iron sun model is something other than vanishingly unlikely? Links please.
Isn't twisting people's words fun?
quote:
I must've missed that bit in physics, current flow in plasma "picks up" mass?
They didn't teach you that electrons have mass? They didn't teach you that increasing the density of electrons inside the plasma would add mass to the plasma?
quote:
Do you mean it attracts mass, or creates mass?
I mean it holds the mass of the higher number of electrons when there is current running through it.
quote:
Please try to use scientific terminology when discussing science. (I dont mind an "I hear you" response, but please address the actual question as well).
Point noted and taken. I've gotten myself in trouble with loose terminology on a number of occasions. I do hear you.
quote:
As GeeMack has pointed out quite recently, you are the only one that I am aware of who believes these images show pictures of a surface. Do you really want to address that issue again?
That is not true. There may not be many folks at NASA and LMSAL that believe me, but others do believe me. Others *certainly* believe me about the electrical nature of the solar atmosphere. It all depends on how you twist words and how you play games with who believes what. Fortunately science isn't a popularity contest.
quote:
Except that you can't deal with all the extra problems your massy surface would incur, even assuming you could demonstrate it's existence,
Actually, the surface isn't really much of a problem, its what's probably underneath that is the problem. A relatively thin iron shell need not even change the overall mass of the sun. The shell isn't really a problem. In fact a solid surface solves a lot more problems than it creates, including providing an explanation for that first image on my website and that stratification subsurface seen at .995R.
quote:
but somehow maintain that it's a better explanation than dark matter.
Yes. Iron and Nickel are know to exist in nature and can be tested in any standard scientific experiment right here, right now. Electricity is also know to exist in nature and isn't shy around the laboratory either. "Dark matter" on the other hand only shows up on math equations and never in controlled test on earth though it makes up more mass than the normal "matter" we play with in experiments here on earth. Why is dark matter so shy around a lab, and what exactly is it? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2007 23:06:48 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 21:27:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I can state without hesitation or equivocation that Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén is most assuredly completely ignorant of the experimental results confirming the existence of the magnetic reconnection phenomena which were published after his death, yes.
What you can't state without hesitation or equivocation is which definite test that might have been, or what magnetic connection actually is.
I'm not even going to get into the MHD discussion with you if you won't read his work. It's exactly like talking to a creationist about Darwin's theories when they refuse to even read them for themselves. You may want to play irrational games, but I have better things to do.
I knew when I put out any figure related to current flow you'd go ballistic and offtrack immedately and that's exactly what you did.
Just like all the creationists on earth that deny the validity of science and scientific methods, you can ignore Alfven's work till you're dead for all I care. It's really no skin off my nose Dave. Don't expect me to hold your hand about Alfven's work, or to let you butcher it or cludge it because unlike you I've actually read it.
I must say your denial routine is getting old Dave. You don't have a better answer. You don't know what magnetic reconnection actually is. You can't cite me a definitive test where magnetic reconnection was demonstrated either before Alfven's death or after. You're whole arguement is smoke and mirrors and it's based on willful, intentional ignorance of Alfven's work! Hoy Vey. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 21:42:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Talk about oversimplifications! It's not just missing mass, Michael.
Yes, it is. Some of that missing mass might be in the form of neutrinos. Some might be in the form of electrons, and some might be in the form of normal matter and it could be right under our noses. You have no idea why that lensing effect is tracking the galactic infrastructure, you only know that the lensing (and missing mass) does track with the solar system infrastructure.
quote:
You have to read more than the first sentence of the abstract to fully understand the argument.
A good skeptic would know that the first sentence should never have been written that way, and they certainly never "proved" that "dark matter" had anything to do with that lensing effect.
quote:
My bad-- I thought you didn't like to talk about unsupported, untested, hypothetical ramblings.
No, I'm specifically noting that there are many logical explanations as to why we might be missing mass and an iron sun is only one option.
quote:
I am not convinced that you've put forward any compelling case for the first point, while the second is obvious.
Go find yourself a standard "map" of where they think dark matter has to exist inside a galaxy to make that galaxy rotate correctly. You'll find that the bulk of the mass cannot be near the center, or all in one location (like the core). In other words your "dark matter" has to be spread out all throughout the galaxy for things to workout properly. That paper you cited does actually demonstrate one thing. It demonstrates that lensing mass is mostly related to solar systems, not the plasma between the solar systems. That means that your "dark matter" must track with the solar systems and be a part of them. Funny that we've never seen any on earth if it makes up more mass than normal matter don't you think?
quote:
This just sounds like a guess or a hunch. How is this any different from anything you so often dismiss?
It's one thing to have a guess or a hunch about something that is known to exist and can be shown to exist. It's quite another thing entirely to have a "hunch" that we need to invent a new form of mass or a new form of energy that we can't test for here on earth! There are entirely different kinds of hunches.
quote:
Grrrr. No one is looking for missing matter that tracks with the solar system.
Where is the missing mass? Why wouldn't it interact with solar systems if it's spread throughout the whole galaxy, and it's not contained in the plasma sheets? Where would you suggest we look for "dark matter"?
quote:
Well if this is your "logic" then of course not. It's quite clear that you really aren't understanding the problem. The solar system works fine according to our understanding of Newtonian physics. Indeed, when you postulate things like "neutrinos pour[ing] off the sun" it suggests that you already think that Newtonian physics is wrong in how it describes the motion of planets around the sun!
In the sense that it's a gross oversimplification of what's really going on and in the sense that it was more or less replaced with GR, yes, I do think it's obsolete and somewhat oversimplified. That doesn't mean that I believe it isn't useful.
quote:
Your position is very confusing. On the one hand, you acknowledge that the rotation of galaxies doesn't conform to what's expected under standard Newtonian physics.
Ok. I'll accept that we can't describe the rotation of galaxies without acknowledging the role of current flow. I don't have a problem accepting that GR alone does not work to correctly describe all the movements of a galaxy.
quote:
But on the other hand, you also seem to think that the orbits of the planets around the sun (and, I assume, the moon around the earth) are not being properly measured, since you want to introduce new mass to the equation. No one else has a problem with planetary rotation! The whole thing doesn't make sense!!
I don't really think it makes a lot of sense to suggest that current theory is useless. It certainly is useful, not useless. That doesn't mean that I believe it accurately or fully explain what we see in space. Gravity and Newtonian concepts have their place. They simply don't and can't explain the whole system because the system is more complex than that.
My position is consistent, at least internally even if it may not seem that way from the outside looking in. There is in fact a method to my madness.  |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2007 21:43:23 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 21:48:22 [Permalink]
|
| Which *specific* lab test(s) demonstrate that Alfven was wrong about magnetic reconnection Dave? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 22:45:00 [Permalink]
|
FYI John, this is a short spreadsheet I put together for Nereid at the Asterisk forum several months ago. A relatively thin crust based on Kosovichev's measurements, that has the density of something like Olivine, really need not have any major impact on the total mass of the sun. The only "complication" I can really think of that might be presented by crust would be related to the energy source. Since that is external to the sun itself (for the most part) the actual surface presents no real problems, only perceived problems. It does however solves some problems, including the stratification subsurface data, and the consistent patterns we see in running difference images. A surface explains many more things than it creates complications. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2007 22:46:48 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 08:20:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Which *specific* lab test(s) demonstrate that Alfven was wrong about magnetic reconnection Dave?
You've asked a typical creationist question, Michael. I don't think Alfven was wrong. It's my position that you don't understand what Alfven was saying. You think he meant "magnetic reconnection is a myth," but my hypothesis is that you are wrong. |
- 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 - 04/11/2007 : 09:17:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
What you can't state without hesitation or equivocation is which definite test that might have been...
Of course not, because "definite test" has no meaning in physics.quote:
...or what magnetic connection actually is.
The fact that you don't know but keep repeating the "it's a myth" mantra is what's funny here.quote:
I'm not even going to get into the MHD discussion with you if you won't read his work.
What a fantastic rationalization you've got there.quote:
I knew when I put out any figure related to current flow you'd go ballistic and offtrack immedately and that's exactly what you did.
You didn't put out any figure related to current flow, but instead one related to a tiny bit of energy, having nothing to do with the number of electrons in any coronal loop.quote:
Just like all the creationists on earth that deny the validity of science and scientific methods, you can ignore Alfven's work till you're dead for all I care.
And just like the creationists, you're projecting.quote:
It's really no skin off my nose Dave. Don't expect me to hold your hand about Alfven's work, or to let you butcher it or cludge it because unlike you I've actually read it.
Hmm...Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
- A Fish Called Wanda Seems to sum up the situation here quite well, Michael. It really doesn't matter if you've read Alfven's work or not if you fail to understand it.quote:
I must say your denial routine is getting old Dave. You don't have a better answer. You don't know what magnetic reconnection actually is. You can't cite me a definitive test where magnetic reconnection was demonstrated either before Alfven's death or after. You're whole arguement is smoke and mirrors and it's based on willful, intentional ignorance of Alfven's work! Hoy Vey.
You just feel absolutely free to make stuff up, don't you, Michael? I wish I shared your lack of integrity, 'cause life in general would be so much easier without any ethics to get in the way. |
- 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 - 04/11/2007 : 09:46:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
FYI John, this is a short spreadsheet I put together for Nereid at the Asterisk forum several months ago. A relatively thin crust based on Kosovichev's measurements, that has the density of something like Olivine, really need not have any major impact on the total mass of the sun. The only "complication" I can really think of that might be presented by crust would be related to the energy source. Since that is external to the sun itself (for the most part) the actual surface presents no real problems, only perceived problems. It does however solves some problems, including the stratification subsurface data, and the consistent patterns we see in running difference images. A surface explains many more things than it creates complications.
Except that your calculations are drastically inconsistent with your claims, because the mass of the shell and the core in your spreadsheet total less than 17% of the total mass of the Sun, while you've claimed that the Sun is at least 50% iron (meaning most of the iron is somewhere else besides the shell or the core, and not "mass separated" like it should be). How did you arrive at the 10% figure for the mass of the core, and its alleged 4.15 km radius, anyway? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Surface of the Sun, part 13
