CME's, active regions and high energy flares

Michael Mozina said:
Excuse me? This was *YOUR* claim:
Click to expand...


No. Regardless of your dishonest effort to shift the burden of proof, you have unambiguously made the claim that electrical discharges are, or are a major causative component of solar flares and CMEs. It is, regardless of your dishonesty, your claim.

I have provided you with direct evidence (math and everything) on this topic. What evidence do you have that Bruce was wrong, Carlqvist was wrong, Alfven was wrong, Birkeland was wrong, etc? How are you *CERTAIN* that *NO ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES PROCESSES* are involved in flares? According to Alfven the filament itself is a CURRENT CARRYING FILAMENT and part of a CIRCUIT that ERUPTS.
Click to expand...


Alfvén was wrong, or you're misinterpreting his position because of your complete lack of qualification to understand solar physics at any level. And Birkeland never made the claims that you continue to dishonestly attribute to him. Way to treat the dead guys, Michael.

An electrical discharge occurs when there is a failure in an electrical circuit or a breakdown of an insulator. The solar atmosphere is plasma, a conducting medium. There is no insulating medium to breakdown. There is no discharge. This has been explained to you many times right here in this thread at several levels from complicated physics to grade school science. It can't be made any simpler.

So, like I said twice now, only to be met with your continued ignorance...

There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs. If you believe otherwise, you will need to prove that there are electrical discharges in the conducting medium of a plasma. That will require a complete rewrite of the physics of electricity and/or plasma. Don't forget to make your paper thorough, objective, and quantitative. Include all the relevant math, you know, calculations with real numbers.

And like I've asked many times, again to be met with your continued ignorance...

Would Birkeland have pussied out if he wasn't able to support a claim? If Alfvén made a claim and wasn't able to support it, would he have mouthed off then slinked away? Or would they have just admitted that they were unable to support the claims?

Oh, and do you figure to ever support your claim that you have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs? Or can we take it you've turned your back on that don't have the honesty to admit it? And how about that claim that dark filament eruptions cause CMEs? Are you going to support that like a real scientist would do, or are you going to ignore that and walk away like an embarrassed school kid might do when he runs his mouth but can't back his claim?
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
No. Regardless of your dishonest effort to shift the burden of proof,
Click to expand...

No GM, it was *YOUR* claim. How do you KNOW that no discharge processes are involved in solar flares? You've never even READ Alfven's book!

you have unambiguously made the claim that electrical discharges are, or are a major causative component of solar flares and CMEs.
Click to expand...

And I have provided you with ample evidence to support that position.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986stpr.rept..409A

It's you that seem to believe yourself to be more important to MHD theory than Alfven, more important to solar physics that Bruce and Birkeland, etc. So far, all we know is that you made a claim and you have no idea if it's correct, in fact it is not correct. Instead of dealing with Bruce's material head on, you ignored it outright.

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm

And you also ignored Dungey. Why? Let me guess? It doesn't jive with:

There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs.
Click to expand...

When did you intend to support your ridiculous claim with real evidence?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1958IAUS....6..135D
 
GeeMack said:
Alfvén was wrong, or you're misinterpreting his position because of your complete lack of qualification to understand solar physics at any level.
Click to expand...

Except I've read his book and papers whereas you seem to be the clairvoyant Alfven expert.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1946Obs....66..263B
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969SoPh....7..377C
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?1988Ap&SS.144...73C
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005ChJAA...5...57W&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c03905
http://www.chjaa.org/2005/2005_5_1p57.pdf
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n2n3151r56j623gr/
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1958IAUS....6..135D
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina said:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1974ApJ...190..467L
Click to expand...
Your citations reveal that you are incapable of understanding what you read:
And now
 
Michael Mozina said:
No GM, it was *YOUR* claim. How do you KNOW that no discharge processes are involved in solar flares? You've never even READ Alfven's book!
Click to expand...


No. Regardless of your incessant and dishonest effort to shift the burden of proof, and regardless of your temper tantrum, it was your claim that electrical discharges are involved in solar flares and CMEs. If you are now prepared to admit that you can't support that claim, do it. Until you can support it, it's reasonable to state that the truth of your claim has not been demonstrated, and it's reasonable to state that in the form of: There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs.

And I have provided you with ample evidence to support that position.
Click to expand...


No evidence you've provided has shown that the solar atmosphere is anything other than a plasma. Plasma is a conductor. In order to have an electrical discharge you need an insulator to fail or break down. A discharge doesn't occur in a conductor. If you believe you can prove that there are electrical discharges in the conducting medium of a plasma it will require a complete rewrite of the physics of electricity and/or plasma. If you choose to undertake that task, don't forget to be thorough, objective, and quantitative. Include all the relevant math, you know, calculations with real numbers.

It's you that seem to believe yourself to be more important to MHD theory than Alfven, more important to solar physics that Bruce and Birkeland, etc. So far, all we know is that you made a claim and you have no idea if it's correct, in fact it is not correct. Instead of dealing with Bruce's material head on, you ignored it outright.
Click to expand...


Show that the contemporary consensus position on the physics of electricity and the physics of plasma are so incorrect as to allow for an electrical discharge in a conducting medium. Until you can, it is reasonable to say that you have failed to support your claim, and it is reasonable to say that in the form of: There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs.

And you also ignored Dungey. Why? Let me guess? It doesn't jive with:
Click to expand...


Solar science didn't stop advancing 50 years ago. The solar atmosphere is made up of a conducting medium. An electrical discharge requires an insulator. You have yet to demonstrate that electricity and/or plasma works differently on the Sun than it does everywhere else.

When did you intend to support your ridiculous claim with real evidence?
Click to expand...


I'm not making a claim, your dishonest effort to shift the burden of proof notwithstanding. You claim that CMEs and solar flares are, or are caused by, electrical discharges. Contemporary physics shows your claim is wrong. Your inability and/or lack of willingness to provide contemporary resources and your lack of qualifications to understand the resources you do provide is noted. (See Reality Check's notes in the above posts.)

And still you're dishonestly attempting to divert the subject away from the topic of this thread. You've made some relevant claims and they won't go away no matter how steadfast your ignorance. You may start with any of these you like, but the first couple seem most relevant...

  • You have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs.
  • Dark filament eruptions cause CMEs.
  • There is no transition region in the Sun's atmosphere.
  • Magnetic reconnection doesn't happen.
  • Birkeland "predicted" solar wind and proposed it was caused by simple electricity.
  • Birkeland developed a solar model that mathematically explained the Sun's density, material makeup, thermal characteristics, luminosity, and mechanical function.
  • The folks who designed, built, launched, and operate the various solar satellites including GOES, Yohkoh, SOHO, Trace, RHESSI, STEREO, SDO, etc., don't understand solar physics as well as you do.
You may of course be honest and acknowledge that you're abandoning any or all of them, but continuing to ignore them is unscientific. Would Birkeland have pussied out if he wasn't able to support a claim? If Alfvén made a claim and wasn't able to support it, would he have mouthed off then slinked away? Or would they have just admitted that they were unable to support the claims?
 
Michael Mozina said:
GeeMack said:
Alfvén was wrong, or you're misinterpreting his position because of your complete lack of qualification to understand solar physics at any level.
Click to expand...
Except I've read his book and papers whereas you seem to be the clairvoyant Alfven expert.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter what you've read if you don't possess the qualifications to understand it. And after being challenged time and again, you haven't yet shown that you have any such qualifications.

I also said...

GeeMack said:
And Birkeland never made the claims that you continue to dishonestly attribute to him. Way to treat the dead guys, Michael.
Click to expand...

Your failure to understand solar physics isn't Alfvén's responsibility. It's not Birkeland's responsibility. It's not Bruce's responsibility. Those guys are dead. Science has progressed since they were involved in the process. Much of what they believed has been shown to be wrong. And most of what you attribute to them was simply not their actual positions. That, I'm sure you'll agree, is dishonest.
 
Last edited:
jhunter1163 said:
Please discuss the Electric Sun hypothesis in the appropriate thread.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163
Click to expand...


Okay Michael, we're over 950 posts into this thread and it still looks like your original claim of having a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs was simply not true. As far as we can tell your "predictions" are just guesses based on what you see in some satellite images. Your argument appears to be that you see existing activity and "predict" the activity will continue to exist.

It also looks like there is no valid scientific support for your claim that dark filament eruptions cause CMEs. You've given us unqualified assertions, arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, other logical fallacies, and several statements that were shown to be flat out falsehoods, but you have yet to show that claim is even remotely reasonable, much less true.

So please describe your supposed quantitative and objective method, the method you claim to have for "predicting" CMEs. And please describe quantitatively and objectively how dark filament eruptions supposedly cause CMEs.

And don't just point to obscure sources and expect people to read them and come to the same conclusions you've reached. In over a half a decade and tens of thousands of your posts, millions of your words on various forums, nobody has ever agreed that your sources are valid support for your claims or come to the same conclusions as you. That method of argument has a near 100% failure rate, is asking other people to do your work for you, and as far as scientific discussions go, is entirely dishonest. If you reference other sources, give us the source, page, and paragraph, and explain in an objective way how it supports your claim. Describe how any included math applies to your claim. These outrageous claims belong to you. Any grade school child knows it's your responsibility to support them.

And if you are unable to support your claims, that you have a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs or that dark filament eruptions cause CMEs, please be honest enough to admit that you can't so we can leave those issues behind.
 
Reality Check said:
That's it! Hello!
I would exactly explain every single coronal loop reaching millions of degrees using valid science, not using physically impossible electrical discharges
Click to expand...

And what MM does not realise is that "millions of degrees" is not even a keV, which is zilch in any astrophysical plasma.
 
GeeMack said:
Okay Michael, we're over 950 posts into this thread and it still looks like your original claim of having a quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs was simply not true. As far as we can tell your "predictions" are just guesses based on what you see in some satellite images. Your argument appears to be that you see existing activity and "predict" the activity will continue to exist.

It also looks like there is no valid scientific support for your claim that dark filament eruptions cause CMEs. You've given us unqualified assertions, arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, other logical fallacies, and several statements that were shown to be flat out falsehoods, but you have yet to show that claim is even remotely reasonable, much less true.
Click to expand...


So Michael, can we take your ignorance to mean you've abandoned these claims?
 
Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

Another week, yet another a reminder for you MM:
What is your methodology that gives you the numbers that you quote?
(12 October 2010)

Where in Birkeland's work does he describe the mechanisms behind CME?
N.B. as mentioned before this just a request for a citation.
(19 October 2010)

If we see a CME in a LASCO image can we tell what color the filament that erupted was?
IOW: What are the physical propeties of a CME associated with a dark filament that make the CME different from the CME associated with any other kind of filament.
(22 October 2010)

Michael Mozina, Please give your citations for solar Birkeland currents
(22 October 2010)

Please give your citations to the darkness of filaments being "relevant" (significant?) in terms of "mass flow prediction"
(22 October 2010)

What is your evidence for a difference in dark/bright filament eruption distribution?
(22 October 2010)

Micheal Mozina: Cite your prediction of "1 M class and 4 class flares"
(26 October 2010)

Citations for "filament eruptions are a major part of CME forecasting"
(29 October 2010)
This is you asserting that "Filament eruptions are a major part of CME forecasting and filament driven CME's directly effect space weather" without any evidence.

What is your method of classifying active regions
(29 October 2010)
You assert that you have a method of classifying active regions so you should be able to tell us it. My guess: you look at the AR in real time and pick the one looks most active as the most active AR and are fooled into thinking that is "classification".

In case anyone thinks that your "predictions" work all the time:
Micheal Mozina's Oct 10, 2010 "prediction" fails

And the eternal question: Why should we trust the interpretations of solar images by a person who has made so many mistakes in interpreting them?

Can you post your list of predictions and the results?
(1 November 2010)

Have you read any of the citations to the Joselyn & McIntosh 1981 paper?
(1 November 2010)

Do you understand yet that that SolarMonitor always displays NOAA predictions (not observations).
or as you call them: *OBSERVATIONS*
(16 November 2010)

Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor?
(10 November 2010: 17 days and counting)
The answer is obviously no. This is unfortunate.
Michael Mozina stated that SolarMonitor "postdicted" NOAA predictions to fit observations, i.e. faking the NOAA data. This is impossible because
And yet for some reason, Michael Mozina cannot admit his mistake and do the honest action of stating that he was wrong and retracting the statements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom