Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

I will answer "photon"

And we will have to both agree on that point.

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

It would be redundant.

And you will be wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force

So really, it's the whole QM theory you oppose, not just me?

The electromagnetic force operates via the exchange of messenger particles called photons and virtual photons. The exchange of messenger particles between bodies acts to create the perceptual force whereby instead of just pushing or pulling particles apart, the exchange changes the character of the particles that swap them.

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?

When magnetic fields generate kinetic energy in a different circuit, it is called "induction". This "reconnection" process is taking place between two twisting tornado like filaments in plasma that are carrying "current flow" through them. It's like having the I-5 and 10 freeways meet at a 90 degree angle with no on-ramps at rush hour. Particles (plasma particle cars) are going to collide all over the place and induction (people flying) may occur as well. Why call it "people reconnection" when most of the mass and kinetic energy in located in the cars?

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

Hmmm. That is a good question actually. As for falsification, I guess when I first started out, what I was really "looking for" was someone to "explain" these images in a "better" scientific manner with a standard solar model than I could come up with based on a Birkeland solar model.

I certainly believe(d) there "could be" a "better" scientific explanation for these images. Since it was the satellite images that ultimately "convinced me" of the validity of Birkeland's model, I suppose that's the "strongest" evidence IMO. Those white light loops for instance demonstrate that the bases of the coronal loops begin *under* not above the surface of the photosphere. That really isn't surprising since that is something that even NASA seems to agree with in their simulations of flares.

I personally believe that the strongest evidence is found in the satellite images, not necessarily one or two specific images, but in the sum total of all the RD and standard images on all the various wavelengths. I would say that the heliosiesmology data is a close second as it relates to evidence, because that subsurface stratification is "predicted" to exist at that location in standard solar theory. It is however "predicted" in a Birkeland solar model. Bruce's work and Alfven's work on solar discharges is probably the third lynch pin, but their work isn't predicated upon a solid surface model, just an "electrically active" model. I'd say Dr. Manuel's work is highly relevant as well. I suppose that is the order I would assign to the various pieces of evidence.

I'd say the three most important image on my website are the Kosovichev Doppler image, the RD LMSAL image and that composite Trace/Yohkoh image on the front page. Between the three of them it's possible to make a pretty strong case for the location of the bases of the loops being located under the photosphere. The mass flows we observe in raw 171A images are highly congruent with Kosovichev's comments about mass flows in the Doppler image. The trace/yohkoh composite image demonstrates that while the photosphere blocks x-rays, it's not all that efficient at blocking light from iron ions. That composite Birkeland/Yohkoh image on the first page also demonstrates that the physics works in a lab.

I was *extremely* disappointed when I realized that no one was going to really address the satellite images. It's frustrating having these conversations with folks that won't even bother looking at the images in question, let alone try to "explain" them based on physical science and physical modeling. Even when I've asked rudimentary questions like "What's that flying stuff in the RD image?", I get ridiculous responses like "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" and tons of verbal abuse. That is probably the most discouraging part of these conversations. I really wanted to focus on the satellite images, but more often than not these folks go off on some tangent and never address the actual images. That is *HIGHLY* disappointing IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Bwahahahahaha!

Er, you never answered my question. What *POWERS* the aurora according to Alfven, and how does that current get generated in his opinion?

I have no intention of wasting my bandwidth downloading a DVD.

That sounds about right. You folks are couch potato scientists.

Especially if the only contents are pictures which other posters indicate show nothing,

To my knowledge they haven't even seen the flare yet in white light. That's pathetic. You're evidently content being a sheep without much curiosity of your own eh?

based on techniques that you have demonstrated you don't understand.

I understand how to download images and watch them. You don't seem to even understand the importance of doing so. I can see now why you folks don't have a clue about solar physics. You don't actually "study it" or study solar satellite imagery. You simply spend your days swiping away at the whole concept of EU theory from a place of self imposed blind ignorance and yell "Bwahahahahahaha" when you can't explain squat.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

This coming from a guy who is ignorant of basic science like

• the fact that images taken in the 171 Angstrom pass band by the TRACE spacescraft can only see plasma that have been heated to a temperature of between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K. That plasma is above the photosphere, not 4800 km below the photosphere.
• the fact that a < 2000 K iron "crust" cannot exist when it is sandwiched betwwen a ~6000 K photospher and a ~13,600,00 K core.
• the fact that a running difference animation is a representation of the changes in the original images. Thus any persistant features are records of changes in the original images. You cannot say whether a feature in an RD animation actually exists as the same feature in the original images until you inspect the original images. So there are RD animations with
  • "stars" corresponding to moving stars.
  • "mountain ranges" that are actually areas of cooling and heating plasma on either sides of flares.
  • "flying stuff" which is moving plasma from a CME that is also changing temperature.
  • "peeling stuff" which is moving plasma from a CME that is also changing temperature.
• the standard textbook definition of presure (also available on Wikipedia). Just how many weeeks did it take you to find it?

Hoy.

 

[Reality Check]

I'd say the three most important image on my website are the Kosovichev Doppler image, the RD LMSAL image and that composite Trace/Yohkoh image on the front page. Between the three of them it's possible to make a pretty strong case for the location of the bases of the loops being located under the photosphere. The mass flows we observe in raw 171A images are highly congruent with Kosovichev's comments about mass flows in the Doppler image. The trace/yohkoh composite image demonstrates that while the photosphere blocks x-rays, it's not all that efficient at blocking light from iron ions. That composite Birkeland/Yohkoh image on the first page also demonstrates that the physics works in a lab.

That is so delusional.

• The RD LMSAL "image" is in the 171A pass band. The images taken in the 171 Angstrom pass band by the TRACE spacescraft can only see plasma that have been heated to a temperature of between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K. That plasma is above the photosphere, not 4800 km below the photosphere.
• The Kosovichev Doppler image is of stationary flows in the photosphere as stated by Dr. Kosovichev on your own web site.
  

  I must note here that Dr. Kosovichev is a VERY, very nice person, but he in NO WAY endorses my views about there being a "solid" surface on the sun. In a recent email from Dr. Kosovichev, he explained these features in the following quote:
  "The consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions.
  We know this from the simultaneous measurements of solar magnetic field, made by SOHO. These are not solid structures which would not have mass flows that we see.
  These images are Doppler shift of the spectral line Ni 6768A.
  The Doppler shift measures the velocity of mass motions along the line of sight. The darker areas show the motions towards us, and light areas show flows from us. These are not cliffs or anything like this. The movie frames are the running differences of the Doppler shift. For the illustration purpose, the sunquake signal is enhanced by increasing its amplitude by a factor 4."

• The trace/yohkoh composite image does not demonstarate that "the photosphere blocks x-rays, it's not all that efficient at blocking light from iron ions". The TRACE image is in the 171A pass band and as the TRACE scientists state is 1,000-1,500 miles above the Sun's visible surface (the photosphere).y. The Yohkoh is image soft X-rays emitted from plasma above the "moss" in the TRACE image which is in turn above the photosphere.
• The Birkeland image is an analogy for the rings of Saturn as Birkeland himself states. The first image he refers to (fig 247a) is what you have. The second image (fig 247b) is the devalopmento of figure 247a into an equatorial ring.
• Then there is the weirdness of comparing a visible light image (Birkeland) to a soft X-ray image (Yohkoh) just beacuse they look alike.
  Are you so lazy that you cannot find a visible lght image of the Sun that looks like Birkeland's anaalogy to Saturn's rings?
  Or is it that visible lght images of the Sun do not look like figure 247a? I doubt that because I have seen a few that do.

I was *extremely* disappointed when I realized that no one was going to really address the satellite images. It's frustrating having these conversations with folks that won't even bother looking at the images in question, let alone try to "explain" them based on physical science and physical modeling. Even when I've asked rudimentary questions like "What's that flying stuff in the RD image?", I get ridiculous responses like "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" and tons of verbal abuse. That is probably the most discouraging part of these conversations. I really wanted to focus on the satellite images, but more often than not these folks go off on some tangent and never address the actual images. That is *HIGHLY* disappointing IMO.

That is a lie.
Many people in this forum and several others have have analyzed
Kosovichev Doppler image, the RD LMSAL image and that composite Trace/Yohkoh image. None of them have agreed with you.

You on the other hand cannot answer a question about a simple RD animation. So here it is yet again.
First asked 10 July 2009
Below is a sketch of a 1 by 5 pixel RD animation where '_' is a blank pixel and '*' is a filled pixel.

• What does the RD animation show?
• Is whatever the RD animation shows in the original images?

Frame 1: *____
Frame 2: _*___
Frame 3: __*__
Frame 4: ___*_
Frame 5: ____*



The leading scientist in the TRACE mission has stated that your interpretation of the TRACE RD animation is wrong.
GeeMack is a bit agressive but sums up the situation quite well:

Interesting. Dr. Hurlburt from LMSAL, the guy who was responsible for making that image said you're wrong. Reality Check said you're wrong. He said there is no picture of terrain in a running difference image. He actually seems to be in virtually complete agreement with my assessment of the details of the image. Everyone else who ever participated in these crazy trolling sessions with you has agreed with my explanation, too. Maybe I'm just a vastly superior communicator, eh? Maybe I'm wrong but I'm so good at persuading people that they buy my line? Maybe you're right but your communication skills are crap and you simply have no ability to explain things in a way that people understand?

Oddly enough, in all these year of you displaying your ignorance, if there ever has been anyone who buys into your fruitcake crackpottery, not one single person has been willing to step up and publicly agree that you're seeing a solid surface. What's wrong? Are they too embarrassed at the thought of looking like as much of a loser as you? Or are there no such people?

And still you haven't explained one single tiny detail of the running difference image. You've stomped your feet and hollered that you see a surface. When asked to give some details you stomp your feet more and holler louder. Honestly, Michael, (and I know I'm going out on a limb asking a proven liar like you to be honest), do you think that's how real scientists make progress?

How about these things you've been intentionally ignoring. How high are the mountains in the running difference image? How deep are the valleys? And what objective, quantitative method do you use to determine this? Or will you simply acknowledge that you don't know how high, or how deep, and that there isn't an objective method for coming up with answers to these?

A couple of people have looked for the one "white light flare" you cite. They have not found it and are of the opinion that the movies are not white light images. I will be confirming this soon.
After all the flare is totally obvious to even the blind at April 15th, 2001, 13:55:01 in the movie, isn't it MM ?

 

[Reality Check]

These are some of the questions that MM has been asked and seems incapable of answering other than by spouting unsupported assertions.

1. What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected?
   First asked 6th July 2009
2. A post that seemed to retract his "mountain ranges" on the TRACE 171A RD animation evoked this question:
   What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona.
   First asked 6th July 2009
3. From tusenfem:
   Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkelands book?
   First asked 7th July 2009
4. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source" and in the same post
5. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
   First asked 7th July 2009
6. Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible?
   First asked 8 July 2009
   See this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.
7. Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
   First asked 10 July 2009
8. Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question?
   First asked 10 July 2009
9. More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth
   First asked 13 July 2009
10. Formation of the iron surface
    First asked 13 July 2009
11. How much is "mostly neon" MM?
    First asked 13 July 2009
12. Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?
    First asked 13 July 2009
13. Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina
    First asked 13 July 2009
14. Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina
    First asked 13 July 2009
    He does link to his copy of Alfvén and Carlqvist's 1966 paper (Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and A theory of Solar Flares). This does not model what we now know a real solar flare acts like.
15. Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested?
    First asked 14 July 2009
16. Is Saturn the Sun?
    First asked 14 July 2009
    (Birkelands Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings but MM compares it to to the Sun).
17. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
    First asked 14 July 2009
    MM has one reply in which is mistakenly thinks that this question is about coronal loops.
18. What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model?
    First asked 17 July 2009
19. What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K?
    (MM states that it is not the photosphere)
    First asked 18 July 2009
20. Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles?
    First asked 18 July 2009
21. How does the "mostly neon" surface emit white light?
    First asked 19 July 2009
22. Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves?
    First asked 22 July 2009
23. Evidence for the existence of "dark" electrons
    First asked 28 July 2008
    Seems to think that 3 pixel differences (full Sun image) or 10's of pixels (limb image) are not detectable. Astronomers would disagree.
24. MHD also treats plasmas as particles and circuits according to Alfven
    First asked 29 July 2009
    Can you give a citation to where Alfven states that he derives the equations of MHD from collections of particles rather than a fluid?
25. Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere?
    First asked 30 July 2009
26. Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer?
    First asked 30 July 2009

Actual Answers From Michael Mozina:


Unsupported Assertions as Answers from Michal Mozina:

1. How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
   First asked 23rd June 2009
   So far just an unsupported assertion that astronomers have got the visible masses of galaxies wrong (and another reply with his usual "if we cannot detect it on Earth then it does not exist" non-science).
   Now he is on about dark electrons (see above) as an example of matter that cannot be detected!
2. Why do the composition of the "mostly neon" photoshere and the corona differ?
   First asked 22nd July 2009
   It is "mass separation" - no actual physics cited or experiments.

 

[Reality Check]

What is your physical evidence for these "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers?

First asked 30 July 2009
According to you all of the elements in the Sun are "mass separated" into layers according to their mass, e.g. your iron crust, "mostly neon" photosphere, etc.
Li, Be, B, C, N and O are lighter than neon. Thus you must expect that there are layers of Li, Be, B, C, N and O above your "mostly neon" photosphere, i.e. in the chromosphere, transition zone or corona.

What is your physical evidence for these "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers?

For example: how much Li, Be, B, C, N and O does spectroscopy show in the corona from the absorption lines in the photosphere light?

Your excuse might be that there is not enough Li/Be/B/C/N/O to form a layer. But then you have to establish that there is enough of the other elements to form a layer, e.g. iron and neon.

 

[Reality Check]

What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer?

First asked 30 July 2009
According to you all of the elements in the Sun are "mass separated" into layers according to their mass, e.g. your iron crust, "mostly neon" photosphere, etc.
Elements also have isotopes. For example deuterium is an isotope of hydorgen. Thus you must expect that there ia a layers of deuterium above your "mostly neon" photosphere, i.e. in the chromosphere, transition zone or corona.

What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer?

For example: how much deuterium does spectroscopy show in the corona from the absorption lines in the photosphere light?

Your excuse might be that there is not enough deuterium to form a layer. But then you have to establish that there is enough of the other elements to form a layer, e.g. iron and neon.

 

[Tubbythin]

I really can't see how you got that impression from my response. At *MINIMUM* you would have to know there is some difference between solids and liquids. Yes, I suppose one could remain completely oblivious as to the particle aspects of atoms and do some mathematical modeling but then you wouldn't have a clue what's *physically* happening inside the wave at the level of particle physics. In other words, you'd be ignorant of important cause/effect relationships, particularly why solids and liquids behave differently.

Tsunamis are a macroscopic phenomenon. Molecules are microscopic. Not considering microscopic entities that make up macroscopic entities is normal. Imagine you were playing tennis for example. At the most fundamental level you, the racket you're holding, the net, the court you're standing on and the air you're breathing in are all made up of atoms and molecules. But when your opponent serves, you're not trying to calculate the effect that every single atom in you and you're surroundings has on where the macroscopic entity you call the ball will end up are you? I wouldn't really call it ignorant not taking into account the entities on a molecular scale. Would you?

No, they are "compensated for" inside the formulas with descriptions like "density" (of particles).

But its not the density of the individual particle is it?

A "physical thing" is something that shows up in a controlled empirical experiment like an electron, an ion, a photon, a neutrino, etc.

What about a virtual photon?

 

[Tubbythin]

You know, the more I think about the way you worded this question, and they way this conversation has gone recently, the more I realize it sort of exemplifies the problem with your "understanding" of things at the level of actual particle physics.

Sure, someone probably *COULD* remain ignorant as to the cause of the movement of the water and correctly manipulate mathematics at the macroscopic level. That doesn't mean one is *obligated* to remain ignorant as to the actual "cause" at the level of particle physics for all time. By understanding that water is composed of particles (molecules) that are in a liquid form, we have a deeper, broader, and "greater" understanding of the whole physical process.

Sure. But you're never going to be able to model an entire Tsunami at the level of H₂O molecules. Do you have any comprehension of how many molecules are in just one cubic millimetre of water?

Sure, one can manipulate the formulas of the waves and have no understanding of this events at the level of particle physics, but that's my whole complaint about you folks. You *INSIST* that we remain ignorant of the fact that the water is composed of particles, and that plasma is made of particles too.

No we don't. I know these things perfectly well.

My whole point is that you *DON'T* understand the physics at the level of particle physics because you *WON'T* look at the "particle" side of MHD theory.

There is no ""particle" side of MHD theory". The Navier-Stokes equations involve inherently macroscopic quantities.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

[/lurk]
Two frames, why not thousands MM, the phenomena you think you can explain should be a little more obvious.

You still have yet to show that the basics of your theory even work.

1. Electrons towing an even mix of positive ions.
2. cathode refrigeration.

Where is the data, where are the lab tests MM?
[lurk]

 

[GeeMack]

Were you verbally abused as a child or what?

I use the term crackpot because you are a crackpot, Michael. Everyone with even a remote understanding of the physics you've brutally butchered to suit your inane fantasy would agree that by every reasonable definition of the word, you are a crackpot. I understand how you wouldn't consider terms like liar, crackpot, and ignorant especially complimentary, but seriously, they are accurate descriptors of your position and your approach. What? Would you have people describe your position with terms like scientific, rational, or cogent?

​

It's interesting that you choose to ignore (remember the word "ignorant" and see again how it applies) the many, many issues of substance that continue to haunt you in this thread. It's beginning to look like you actually can't explain, in detail, even that very first graphic on your web site. If you can't explain that and show how it actually objectively supports your fruitcake fantasy, how can you possibly move beyond that and expect anything else you say to be remotely credible?

So try again, and this time, unless you really are all mouth, focus on the relevant issues that would actually allow you to make a persuasive case for your ridiculous claim. Remember, you haven't convinced one single professional scientist on this entire planet. You've got a lot of work to do. You can start here...

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?

If you didn't get this from reading the above, read it over and over again until you do: So far you've never been able to explain in detail, objectively, how that LMSAL running difference graph actually shows what you claim it shows. You've never been able to explain how it even can, given that it's just a graphic visualization of a series of mathematical computations created from data that was obtained thousands of kilometers from the "stuff" you claim to see. So the question is, can you explain it, every last pixel like I have, and show objectively that it is indeed a depiction of a solid surface on the Sun? And if not, when will you take it down from your web site?

 

[Michael Mozina]

[/lurk]
Two frames, why not thousands MM,

It won't be found in "thousands' of images (yet) because it's obviously a pretty rare event. Most loop activity takes place under the photosphere in the first place and rarely do we catch it in a discharge in white light with a footprint pattern that helps us to analyze the image. This is an important observation. FYI, most of these images are 10-12+ minutes apart.

the phenomena you think you can explain should be a little more obvious.

Why? Many things in nature are "rare". Even seeing a lightning bolt isn't typically an everyday event from most folks. Discharge processes in particular can change pretty quickly.

FYI, much as this conversation has been fun, it's crunch time at work for the next few weeks. I'm going to be bowing out of here for awhile, and posting infrequently if at all so that I can complete my programming to get ready for the upcoming school year.

I will likely delay my return to give myself time to finish up a new website page to address some of the questions you folks have thrown and me here, and I am particularly anxious to finish my analysis page of the RD image.

You folks also clearly need some time to regroup here, and do a little research if you expect to have a serious conversation. I should not have to explain how to find the appropriate material beyond what I have already done. IMO we're beating our heads against the wall now because nobody seems to want to address the electrical aspects on this model (which is easier to quantify and explain) and instead I'm being bombarded with all sorts of questions related to every topic under the sun. It seems to me that we need "focus" this conversation on one thing at a time and begin with the coronal loops. They are the brightest things in the solar system at the high energy wavelengths and they literally stick out like a giant million degree sore thumb.

Something powers those babies and heats them up to a million degrees or more. Both Bruce and Alfven attributed these events to "electrical discharges" in plasma. This certainly occurs here on Earth all the time. They have 'quantified' their presentations as well and I have provided you all with ample links to their work. Someone here needs to address that information and actually look at these satellite images. I can't make you do your homework, but until you do, there isn't much more to talk about IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

There is no ""particle" side of MHD theory". The Navier-Stokes equations involve inherently macroscopic quantities.

There are two ways to look at events in plasma, from the E or B perspective. Alfven refers to the B orientation as the "field" orientation of MHD theory. He refers to the E orientation as the "particle" or "circuit" orientation. This is his "lingo", not mine.

Alfven constantly began his descriptions of the particle side of MHD theory with a single particle and talked about it's travel path related to the EM field. He would then move to a "many" particle approach and move to drawing "circuits" related to the travel path of the group of moving charged particles. I'm not making this up, you can check it out for yourself.

I asked tusenfem and later sol and DRD to explain what these formulas are actually meant to relate to so that they would realize that these formulas attempt to model the movement of real particles and real "circuits" and real "current flows" of actual "physical particles". IMO there is a whole level of particle physics that you're simply "missing" evidently. It's like you folks only understand the "B" orientation or field orientation of MHD theory, but you are completely oblivious to the E orientation or what Alfven calls the "particle" orientation of MHD theory. I couldn't even count the number of times that Alfven used the term "circuit" in relationship to plasmas in space. Today that is a "dirty word" in this industry, a word that everyone is afraid to utter lest they be "cast out" from the flock.

I really don't think you folks grasp what is going on at the level of particle physics. You don't seem to understand that at the level of actual physics, this is a transfer of kinetic energy between physically "real" particles of energy. I think you have a great grasp of math, and a wonderful understanding of some areas of physics. When it comes to particle physics however, your whole group seems like a fish out of water and you have no idea what these formulas relate to at the most fundamental levels of physics. This is really a "kinetic energy in motion' process between real particles, specifically electrons, ions and photons. Induction is induction. Particles collide. MHD attempts to correctly predict and model the movements of these collections of particles. Yes you can treat them as a "collective", but they do act "individually".

 

[Michael Mozina]

What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer?

You, Tim, Zig and tusenfum have convinced me that it is time for me to "move on" for awhile and focus on making a living for the next few months. If you're too damn lazy to download a video and watch it, I can't really help you. I really don't know why you feel compelled to argue your points from a place of pure ignorance. It's *SO* frustrating. The four of you need to decide if you're serious. If so, you'll download the images and watch them, and specifically find the image I cited, and the image right before that one, and right after that image and you will study all three images *VERY* closely. If not, oh well.

I realized before this conversation began that your collective isn't particularly attentive to detail, but the whole group of you can't seem to locate a single white light image with two weeks of my help trying to explain it to you! Most of you won't even be bothered to actually get the image and look at it! That isn't "science", that is "couch potato pseudoscience" and self imposed ignorance.

If you want to continue our conversation, it has to be *ONE ISSUE AT A TIME*, starting with the coronal loops and why they reach millions of degrees. We can talk about all the other aspects of this solar model once you've address those loops. There's no point in getting dragged into a million different sub conversations. We can only tackle this one issue at a time, and I'm going to require that you do some homework if you expect me to respond to you in the future.

Let me know when you've finally "seen the light' in the form of a white light loop on April 15, 2001 at 13:55:01.

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM: Were you verbally abused as a child or what?

I use the term crackpot because you are a crackpot, Michael. Everyone with even a remote understanding of the physics you've brutally butchered to suit your inane fantasy would agree that by every reasonable definition of the word, you are a crackpot. I understand how you wouldn't consider terms like liar, crackpot, and ignorant especially complimentary, but seriously, they are accurate descriptors of your position and your approach.

Should I take that as a "Yes"?

 

[Ziggurat]

I really don't know why you feel compelled to argue your points from a place of pure ignorance. It's *SO* frustrating.

I'm still waiting for you to quantify a single one of your beliefs, Michael.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm still waiting for you to quantify a single one of your beliefs, Michael.

I'm still waiting for you to respond to BRUCE's quantifications, or Alfven's quantifications related to solar discharges. What's the point in doing more math for you if you won't deal with the math that has already been presented?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm still waiting for you to respond to BRUCE's quantifications, or Alfven's quantifications related to solar discharges.

Neither of them proposed the cathode refrigeration that you have. So none of the quantitative work that they did can answer the questions I have about your model.

What's the point in doing more math for you if you won't deal with the math that has already been presented?

Because the math that has been presented doesn't relate to the ideas you have put forward.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Small (but important) correction for Humanzee

FYI, I left out an important word from my previous response Humanzee. It should have read:

I would say that the heliosiesmology data is a close second as it relates to evidence, because that subsurface stratification is *NOT* "predicted" to exist at that location in standard solar theory. It is however "predicted" in a Birkeland solar model.

Sorry for any confusion.