Electric universe theories here.

[Reality Check]

Evidently they can't navigate a DVD menu. They are clearly marked as WL for white light. When you eventually do download the DVD (I'll shame you into it eventually), go to the menu, select "Movie Controls", pick "X Flares Part 1".

You will see the movie in question is marked "2001 April 9 WL". Evidently that view spans several days. The other (close up) view of that flare is marked "April 15 WL".

I strongly suggest that you give up your "argument from ignorance" approach to science and you actually look at the images and read the materials I suggest before you comment on them. Sheesh.

What is the full name of the movie?

I have found the actual movie that contains the frame that you state has a timestamp of "April 15th, 2001, 13:55:01" (ETA on a second look it is actually "April 15th, 2001, 13:55:31".

Movie 32 (description): X14.4 flare in AR9514, 15 April 2001, in 171Å.
Movie 33 (description): X14.4 flare in AR9514, 15 April 2001, in 1600Å.

The second movie is not in "white light" but does include plasma emitting light at the termperature of the photosphere. There is however no frame timestamped "April 15th, 2001, 13:55:01".
It is obvious that you are looking at the first movie (TRACE 171A pass band, i.e. activity in the corona not the photosphere) which does have a frame timestamped at "April 15th, 2001, 13:55:01".

Are you suggesting that there are 2 TRACE spacecraft and that both took images timestamped at "April 15th, 2001, 13:55:01"?

ETA:

The TRACE team is pleased to announce the completion of three TRACE DVDs that together contain almost 400 movies of a variety of phenomena. They are arranged into three themes: active regions, flares, and filaments (with a few quiet-Sun bonus movies on-line only). The individual movie files are available on-line as QuickTime movies. Altogether, the movies claim over 200 GB of disk space, with individual file sizes ranging from a few MB up to 4 GB. The DVD img files (1.5-3.6 GB) are also available on-line; these may be downloaded and played, or burned onto DVD, using machines that are capable of DVD playing and writing (a fourth DVD img file contains SOHO/MDI magnetograms from launch until 2005); the DVDs show all TRACE movies in the collection, sorted by topic and date, with all materials rescaled to the available screen size of 640x480 pixels; the QT movies often show a substantial field of view with more pixels.

If you give me the individual movie filename that contains the "white light flare" then I will download it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Spoken by a true champion of the argument from ignorance technique.

Now when do you figure to take down that running difference graph

Oh the irony.

 

[GeeMack]

You know before you even "hint" at calling me a liar don't you think you really should review the materials I suggest? Don't you think you owe me an apology? I was neither incompetent or a liar, but you could not possibly know that because you didn't do your homework (AGAIN!).

But, Michael, you are a proven liar. Don't be so sensitive about it.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Physical Things II

So let me just be clear about this: You, Michael Mozina, explicitly agree that magnetic fields and electric fields are not physical things? Is that really true?

No.

OK. So, if you do not accept the statement ... "magnetic fields and electric fields are not physical things.", then why did you make the statement ...

The only physical things that exist in plasma are electrons, ions and photons.

That statement appears to be an exact contradiction to your answer "no" to my question. So now I have no idea what you mean or what you think. So please explain in language as clear & precise as you can muster. If in fact you do think that magnetic and electric fields are physical things, then why did you exclude them from the list of physical things in a plasma?

 

[GeeMack]

Oh the irony.

That didn't answer the question, nor did it address the issue. Your continued ignorance is noted. But I'll keep trying, because watching you squirm like a little girl scared of a spider is somewhat entertaining in itself.

When do you intend to either take down the running difference graph or show the method you use to see something physical in it? You know, that something which can't exist according to the known laws of physics? That something which you claim exists thousands of kilometers from where the data was obtained that was used to create the graph?

Come on, crackpot, explain every last pixel of that graph in a way that supports your claim, since several other people have explained every last pixel of that graph in a way that clearly refutes your claim. And from you, not a single response, either qualitative or quantitative, that didn't amount to a whiny insistence that you're right because you say so. That's pussy science, Michael. If you really have something, you should stop with the crying and prove what you claim, or take down the graphic and shut the hell up about it.

Once more the question is, can you show the objective method you use to perform this impossible vision feat you claim you can do, or if not, when do you intend to take down the graph?

 

[Michael Mozina]

What is the full name of the movie?

I don't know. It's not separated into individual files on the DVD. The WL images may not be something you can download separately.

FYI, I'm sure that you have found other wavelength movies of the same date. That's why I referred to the 30:04 minute mark of the DVD the first time. That is because the DVD has many 171, 1600A and WL images of the same flare events. They are many different wavelength images of the exact same flares.

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK. So, if you do not accept the statement ... "magnetic fields and electric fields are not physical things.", then why did you make the statement ...?

What is the carrier particle of the EM field?

 

[Tim Thompson]

DVD Images II

FYI the image is certainly on the DVD.

OK, I was misreading the table of contents.

It is dated (on the left bottom corner of the image) April 15th, 2001, 13:55:01.

OK, I see that frame (this is a poor quality video, very noisy & saturated).

The reason why I'm sure it's coming through the photosphere should be clear to you when you observe the shape of the light emissions at the bases of the loops and their connection to the sunspots in that image.

Sorry, the reason is not at all obvious. I see nothing to indicate to me that the image background or floor is in fact the photosphere.

Yes there are white light images on the DVD (all of the movies with "WL" in the title look like white light images to me). However, none of them show any flare activity that I can see. This is to be expected, as flares should be invisible in white light. You can verify this for yourself, if the sun cooperates, by viewing the sun through white light & H-alpha filters at the same time. I have done this many times, and the flares visible in H-alpha are never visible in white light.

The movie & frame you selected are clearly EUV and not white light.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But, Michael, you are a proven liar. Don't be so sensitive about it.

Ya, just like I'm a liar about the existence of the WL flare images on the DVD eh?

 

[Reality Check]

This comment about lying and incompetence comes from the guy that hasn't even bothered to download or watch the DVD yet. Talk about incompetence. Holy cow.

You know before you even "hint" at calling me a liar don't you think you really should review the materials I suggest? Don't you think you owe me an apology? I was neither incompetent or a liar, but you could not possibly know that because you didn't do your homework (AGAIN!).

The comment about your lying comes from a guy who has seen all of the lies on your web site, e.g. the one about you seeing your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust that is 4800 km below the photosphere in TRACE RD animations that are constructed from images of activity in the transition zone and corone (1000's of km above the photosphere).

The comment about your incompetence comes from a guy who has seen that you cannot specify the location of your flare in shuch a awy that 2 people who have looked at the DVD can find it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The movie & frame you selected are clearly EUV and not white light.

Tim, this is absolutely not true. The flare is found in two places on the DVD, both of which are clearly marked "WL" for white light. There is only a single frame in each of the images where the loops are clearly visible. If you don't like the resolution of the first one, try the second (short) one. It's a "close up" of the longer image and the loops are *CLEARLY* visible in that image. Tell me when you find it and well discuss the footprints we observe in the image and the shape of those footprints.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The comment about your incompetence comes from a guy who has seen that you cannot specify the location of your flare in shuch a awy that 2 people who have looked at the DVD can find it.

Er, when someone can't use a simple DVD menu, and doesn't pay close attention to details, that's somehow my fault? I even specified the timelines of where the flare was visible in white light in both places of the video down to a few second window of time. I'm sorry if they can't use a pause button effectively too, but I assure you that there is a single frame of both videos that shows the loops in white light and they are clearly coming up *THROUGH* the photosphere.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Physical Things III

OK. So, if you do not accept the statement ... "magnetic fields and electric fields are not physical things.", then why did you make the statement ...

What is the carrier particle of the EM field?

I will answer "photon" and then you will say that's why you did not mention magnetic & electric fields, because you intend them to be included as photons. And you will be wrong.

Photons are invariably electromagnetic, meaning that all photons are equal parts electric & magnetic fields, one oscillating with the other. However, a static electric or magnetic field obviously is not made of photons ("static" = not moving; "photon" = moving at the speed of light; and neither an electric field nor a magnetic field is equal parts each). So it is clearly possible to have both electric & magnetic fields in a plasma, without the field being constructed out of photons.

Moreover, if you are going to agree that a magnetic field is a physical thing, then what prevents it from changing its topology in an act of magnetic reconnection?

 

[Reality Check]

Er, when someone can't use a simple DVD menu, and doesn't pay close attention to details, that's somehow my fault? I even specified the timelines of where the flare was visible in white light in both places of the video down to a few second window of time. I'm sorry if they can't use a pause button effectively too, but I assure you that there is a single frame of both videos that shows the loops in white light and they are clearly coming up *THROUGH* the photosphere.

The 2 viewers of the videos did pay "close attention to details". Neither saw what you say you saw.

To stop your whining about pepole not looking at your "white light flare" emerging from under the photosphere, I am downloading the DVD myself. I suspect it will be a waste of time since I should not trust a person like yourself with a web site packed full of delusions.

 

[Reality Check]

Er, why is #7 still on your list? Let me guess? You didn't actually read the paper I cited for you or Bruce's work, or Alfven's work on this topic?

The question was
First asked 10 July 2009

Michael Mozina:
From your web site and what you have stated here, it looks like you have an idea that coronal loops are electrical discharges from your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface.
AFAIK The only evidence that you have presented is that they look like the electrical discharges in the experiments that Birkeland did.

Is my impression correct?

If so could you present your calculation of the X-ray spectrum from the electrical discarges so that we can see if it matches the observed X-ray spectrum.

Otherwise we will have to assume that the X-ray spectrum from the electrical discharges is like all other observed electrical discharges - narrow bands of emission (a real astronomer may want to confirm this).
So I would expect electrical discharges on the Sun that heat plasma to have an X-ray spectrum that has a broad background with spikes of emission.
This is a problem for your idea because the observed X-ray spectrum is broad band and typical of heated plasma alone.

1. What paper did you cite that calculates the X-ray spectrum from solar electrical discharges and matches it to observed X-ray spectrum?
2. Where does Bruce calculate the X-ray spectrum from solar electrical discharges and match it to observed X-ray spectrum?
3. Where does Alfven calculate the X-ray spectrum from solar electrical discharges and match it to observed X-ray spectrum?

 

[Reality Check]

Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere

Micheal Mozina:
You seem to have missed this and the follow up question a few posts later.
First asked 30 July 2009
You assert that the photosphere is "mostly neon". You have still not told us what "mostly" means but we will ignore this for now.

What physical properties of the photosphere show that it contains "mostly neon" rather than for example "mostly fluorine"?

It cannot be the spectrum of neon since neon glows reddish-orange in discharge tubes (it has emission lines mostly in the red ared of the visible spectrum).
P.S. Fluorescent lights (which you cited before) emit white light light from the fluorescence of the phosphor in their coatings which is excited by light from mercury (they can contain neon as a filler gas).

 

[Michael Mozina]

The 2 viewers of the videos did pay "close attention to details". Neither saw what you say you saw.

Excuse me, but let's look at the facts for a moment.....

In spite of a very comprehensive DVD menu, Tim didn't even look through the DVD long enough to figure out that there were white light images on the DVD. Tusenfem seemed to accept the fact these were in fact white light images on the DVD, but even with a date stamp on the images, and explicit instructions on which white light images to watch, neither of them seems to be able to find the flare, let alone the images directly before or after the flare.

The rest of you are evidently too damn lazy to even download and look at the images for yourself and you're evidently happy to act like sheep and take your information 2nd hand without even so much looking at the images for yourself out of pure scientific curiosity.

This whole process has only reinforced my suspicions that you folks aren't very attentive to details when it comes to satellite imagery, nor particularly inquisitive. How the hell can we discuss a running difference image in a high energy wavelength if you can't even find a flare in a white light image, even with explicit instructions on where to find it?

To stop your whining about pepole not looking at your "white light flare" emerging from under the photosphere, I am downloading the DVD myself.

It's about freaking time.

I suspect it will be a waste of time since I should not trust a person like yourself with a web site packed full of delusions.

This coming from the guy that hasn't even seen the images.......or read or commented on any of Alfven's work or Bruce's work on these subjects.

Hoy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Come on, crackpot,...

Were you verbally abused as a child or what?

 

[Humanzee]

You know - I should just keep lurking in this thread as I have no experience in astrophysics. But I am curious MM what evidence would disprove the iron sun theory? And what would you consider the strongest evidence. OK, back to lurking.

 

[Humanzee]

Oh, and thanks for the posted links, all.