Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (3)

[RealityCheck01]

Still waiting for you to quote me about a hollow sun theory.

Still waiting for you to actually read and understand a post before lying about its contents, Michael!
Quote the science, or quit making up fantasies, Michael!

Total fantasies about the Sun:
The photosphere has a temperature of ~5700.
The temperature has been measured to increase with depth
Thus 8th July 2009: Your hypothetical solid iron surface has been in thermal contact with at least one object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for about 4.57 billion years.

17th April 2010: Why this iron crust thermodynamically impossible


Quite a fantasy, Michael, because
Michael's idea predicts that the Sun has no central energy source (and is thus hollow)!
is about your idea's predictions not your prediction.
And total arrogance - you seem to think that you are the only one allowed to make up fantasies about your fantasies !

Put up or shut up. Quote the science, or quit making up fantasies, Michael.

(added emphasis since you cannot understand what I wrote)

 

[RealityCheck01]

I'm also still waiting for you to cite the name of the author that used the term "impossible" with respect to electrical discharges in plasma. I'm also waiting for you to tell me when I can expect you to actually *read* a textbook on plasma physics.

I'm also still waiting for you to cite the name of the author that used the term "possible" with respect to electrical discharges in plasma.
I'm also waiting for you to tell me when I can expect you to actually *understand* a textbook on plasma physics given that (as I recall) you have little knowledge of the calculus needed.
I'm also waiting for you to tell me when I can expect you to actually *understand* that what we are talking about is so basic that a textbook on plasma physics is not needed.
I'm also waiting for you to tell me when you will realize how insanely bad it is to deny scientific definitions such as the solar transition region.

 

[Michael]

Your impossible fantasies were published in a crank paper, Michael.

Your beliefs weren't published *at all*. Alfven's papers were published in *many* reputable publications, and so were mine. You're just back to taking the low road in debate.

When can I expect you to actually read Alfven's book or Peratt's book or *any* book on MHD theory?

You haven't debunked anything RC, you've blatantly born false witness against me starting with *your* hollow sun claims. As long as you *never read* any textbook on PC theory, it's pointless to discuss *anything* related to plasma physics with you. You clearly know *nothing* about it, which is why you won't and can't name any author that used the term "impossible" with respect to electrical discharges in plasma. It's also why you *always* cite your *own* posts, and *never* cite *external* authors to support your erroneous claims.

 

[Michael]

I'm also still waiting for you to cite the name of the author that used the term "possible" with respect to electrical discharges in plasma.

I already quoted Dungey for you. You're the one with no reference and no author to name.

I'm also waiting for you to tell me when I can expect you to actually *understand* a textbook on plasma physics given that (as I recall) you have little knowledge of the calculus needed.

More false witness behaviors from a guy that has no concept of honest debate.

I'm also waiting for you to tell me when I can expect you to actually *understand* that what we are talking about is so basic that a textbook on plasma physics is not needed.

You're wrong of course about the need for education which is of course why you're wrong about electrical discharges in plasma. Education is a good thing. Your ignorance is no particular skin off my nose *except* for your personal need for cyberstalking. Were it not for the constant misrepresentation of my statements and beliefs, your own ignorance of this topic wouldn't be a problem. Since you refuse to educate yourself and you continuously bear false witness against me while you relentlessly cyberstalk me around the internet, it's a problem.

I'm also waiting for you to tell me when you will realize how insanely bad it is to deny scientific definitions such as the solar transition region.

It's insanely bad to deny the fact that the flux ropes are *already radiating* at a million plus degrees *before* they exit the surface of the photosphere, and *before* they go flying off into the upper atmosphere. The "transition region" is irrelevant to the heat source of flux ropes as *every* SDO image demonstrates.

 

[RealityCheck01]

False. During sunspot activity, we see *decreases* in surface temperature, often over *1000 degrees* cooler.

Your ignorance of sunspots is showing, Michael - they are constantly cool, a tiny bit of the Sun and on the photosphere (no whether near your imaginary iron surface).
So the point remains that you made up some fantasies about the Sun being cool about for solid iron:
The photosphere has a temperature of ~5700.
The temperature has been measured to increase with depth
Thus 8th July 2009: Your hypothetical solid iron surface has been in thermal contact with at least one object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for about 4.57 billion years.

All *your* claims relate to *your* claim about the opacity of the photosphere.

17th April 2010: Why this iron crust thermodynamically impossible
All *my* claims relate to *scientific* measurements of the opacity of the photosphere.

I did that already RC. I got my papers published.

Quote the science, or quit making up fantasies, Michael!
You have never published a paper supporting your fantasies with science. You were a co-author on a crank paper. You managed to fool your other authors (who were probably the ones who actually "got" the papers published).

Quote me about a hollow sun, or quit bearing false witness against me, one or the other.

Still unable to understand simple English, Michael !
Quote the science, or quit making up fantasies, Michael, or quit bearing false witness against me, one or the other!

Quite a fantasy, Michael, because
Michael's idea predicts that the Sun has no central energy source (and is thus hollow)!
is about your idea's predictions not your predictions.
And total arrogance - you seem to think that you are the only one allowed to make up fantasies about your fantasies !

 

[Michael]

Your ignorance of sunspots is showing, Michael - they are constantly cool, a tiny bit of the Sun and on the photosphere (no whether near your imaginary iron surface).

False (as always). They contain both *hotter* and cooler materials.

So the point remains that you made up some fantasies about the Sun being cool about for solid iron:

The only fantasies being told are you fantasies about a hollow sun. You simply *lied* about it! How low will you go oh great cyberstalker?

Quote the science, or quit making up fantasies, Michael!
You have never published a paper supporting your fantasies with science.

Liar.

You were a co-author on a crank paper.

False. I was co-author of *five* papers, none of which were "crank" papers. You're the crank that can't even represent the facts correctly, starting with the *number* of papers I've published in *different* publications.

You managed to fool your other authors (who were probably the ones who actually "got" the papers published).

Imagine me claiming the same thing about your *one* published paper that wasn't even on this topic. Who cares what you think when you can't even represent the facts *honestly* and simply make up your own false claims about my beliefs on the fly?

You're a angry hater and an ignorant hater by choice. You're also a two bit cyberstalker that spends all their time stalking *one individual* all over the internet simply to *lie* about their beliefs and statements with *never educating* yourself to the topic by reading a single book on MHD theory. You're like the angry atheist trying to debate Christian theology without ever bothering to read the Bible, and by bearing false witness about anything that is said.

 

[Michael]

Oh ya,...

And you're not even an astronomer, nor have you published anything even *remotely* related to this topic. You haven't read even a single textbook on MHD theory, and you can't name a single author that used the term impossible with respect to discharges in plasma.

You can't even acknowledge Dungey's use of the term electrical discharge in relationship to solar flares so you simply go into pure denial of the *published* materials that *falsify* your claims.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I already quoted Dungey for you. You're the one with no reference and no author to name.
...plenty of ranting and insults snipped...

I already quoted Dungey for you. You're the one with no understanding of the simple English in his paper and no citations to support your assertion.
From Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.
11th October 2011: Peratt's definition of electrical discharge
Peratt and Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma which you constant bear false witness about by quote mining.
5th February 2011: Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning?
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?
26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any textbook?

Since you cannot even click on links and have an abysmal memory:
18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection

Originally Posted by Dungey (1953 paper)
A 'discharge' will be a region [of a large mass of ionized gas in a more or less complicated state of motion] in which the electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field, so that all the electrons are moving in the same direction with large velocities.

It's insanely bad to deny the fact that the flux ropes are *already radiating* at a million plus degrees *before* they exit the surface of the photosphere

It's insanely bad to deny the fact that the flux ropes are *only radiating* at a few thousand degrees *before* they exit the surface of the photosphere, and *before* they go flying off into the upper atmosphere when they are observed to

• *only radiate* at a few thousand degrees *just after* they exit the surface of the photosphere.
• *radiate* at a few 10 thousand degrees *just after* they exit the chromosphere.
• heat up to *radiate* at about a million degrees *as* they exit the cross the solar transition region.

The solar transition region is relevant to the heat source of the plasma in magnetic flux ropes as that is the region where they heat up.

Of course it is also insanely bad to deny the fact that the solar transition region is defined as the region between the chromosphere and corona.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Oh ya,...

And you're not even an astronomer, nor have you published anything even *remotely correct* or demonstrating that you know even the basics about the Sun (hint: solar flares are not iron mountain ranges ).
I have published something that is *remotely correct*.
I am not ignorant enough to look at images of solar flares and think that they make up iron mountain ranges!

You keep on lying about Dungey's use of the term electrical discharge in relationship to the magnetic reconnection that he stated causes solar flares:
18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
13th January 2011: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different!
8th November 2011: Citing Dungey means that cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection!

 

[Michael]

And you're not even an astronomer, nor have you published anything even *remotely correct* or demonstrating that you know even the basics about the Sun (hint: solar flares are not iron mountain ranges )

False. My beliefs *were* published. Your beliefs are pure lies you tell to yourself (and others) about my beliefs.

The really *pitiful* part of your "debunking" routine is that every author I published with agreed upon the term "rigid" rather than solid, making your claims about thermodynamics a moot point. You're *assuming* a "solid" when we specifically only discussed a *rigid* set of features on a deeper layer of the atmosphere in our *published* work.

Your whole cyberstalking routine is based upon a blatant *misrepresentation of my published statements, and a deep ignorance of MHD theory *by choice*.

You keep on lying about Dungey's use of the term electrical discharge in relationship to the magnetic reconnection that he stated causes solar flares:

1958IAUS....6..135D Page 135

You're the one stuck on the denial go round that can only site *his own* posts. You can't even name any author that used the term "impossible" with respect to electrical discharges in plasma. You're stuck in denialville.

Name one author RC that actually used the term "impossible" with respect to electrical discharges in plasma. You can't! You won't. You'll keep citing your own posts instead, and pretending that nobody notices your game.

 

[Michael]

I already quoted Dungey for you.

You ignored what he said. He specifically said that electrical discharges *can and do* occur in plasma. You're in denial of his *published* claims that *falsify* your erroneous statements, and you refuse to cite any author that agrees with you and used the term "impossible" with respect to discharges in plasma. This issue is a clear example of your pure denial routine. All the published authors disagree with the *unpublished* ex-IT guy. The unpublished ex-IT guy can't even find a name of an author that used the term "impossible" with respect to discharges in plasma.

You're the one with no understanding of the simple English in his paper and no citations to support your assertion.

His simple English was "electrical discharges". You can't handle English apparently.

You still can't even cite an author RC, so who do you really think you're fooling? We all know you've never read a single textbook on plasma physics. We all know you and Clinger are clueless about the *need* for a "release of stored energy" (Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma) in a "reconnection" event. You're both clueless *by choice*

It's insanely stupid to be wasting my time talking to a hater that refuses to educate themselves, and that constantly bears false witness against me.

The *insanity* it takes to cyberstalk an individual around the internet *bearing false witness against them* is really something you should look at. Don't you even have a real life somewhere?

 

[RealityCheck01]

One last post for the night for eveyone to digest :
On 7th November 2011, Michael was pointed to Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov which has section available on Google Books called

4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum
​

Strangely enough this section describes magnetic reconnection in a vacuum ! It ends up stating that "Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process" and notes what happens if charged particles (e.g. a plasma) are there as a bridge to the next section.

Even stranger, the next section is

4.4.3 Reconnection in plasma
​

What will blow peoples mind and emphasize Michael's ability to completely deny science (or even English!) for fantasies is his denial that section 4.4.2 is about reconnection in vacuum .
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section IX
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VIII
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VII
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VI.
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section V
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section IV
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section III
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section II
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section

 

[RealityCheck01]

..usual ranting and insults snipped...
1958IAUS....6..135D Page 135

The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Critics
Wow - a totally ignorant citation, Michael, because this is where Dungey states that "The defining feature of a discharge in this context is a large current density".
18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
13th January 2011: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different!
8th November 2011: Citing Dungey means that cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection!

 

[Michael]

One last post for the night for eveyone to digest :
On 7th November 2011, Michael was pointed to Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov which has section available on Google Books called

4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum​

​

What RC failed to mention is that *I own and have read* that book by Somov, whereas RC has not. The "vacuum" that Somov describes in that section *includes* moving charged particles in the vacuum whereas Clinger tried to *exclude* them *entirely* and claim that he got "reconnection" anyway, even with no *particle acceleration*. Somov *includes* particles and particle acceleration in his "vacuum", whereas Clinger (and RC) did not. That's the part RC never mentioned. Of course he never read that book either and he didn't mention that part either.

Typical hater nonsense.

 

[Michael]

The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Critics
Wow - a totally ignorant citation, Michael, because this is where Dungey states that "The defining feature of a discharge in this context is a large current density".

So what? It's apparently not *impossible* for electrical discharges to occur in plasma according to Dungey, and you've never cited any author that even used the term "impossible" with respect to electrical discharges in plasma! You're trying to toy around with terms and pretend that you're clever. You're not clever nor educated *by choice*.

There you go again relentlessly *citing yourself* instead of providing us with the name of any published author that used the term "impossible" with respect to electrical discharges in plasma.

You're *so* predictable. You won't give us a name because you can't. Who do you think you're kidding?

 

[RealityCheck01]

[/indent]What RC failed to mention ...

What Michael lies about is what my post states:

Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov which has section available on Google Books called

4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum
​

Strangely enough this section describes magnetic reconnection in a vacuum ! It ends up stating that "Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process" and notes what happens if charged particles (e.g. a plasma) are there as a bridge to the next section.

Even stranger, the next section is

4.4.3 Reconnection in plasma
​

What will blow peoples mind and emphasize Michael's ability to completely deny science (or even English!) for fantasies is his denial that section 4.4.2 is about reconnection in vacuum

(my emphasis added)
The section has charge particles in the last 2 sentences of section 4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum after a couple of pages with just a vacuum.

Michael is just regurgitating the stuff he came up in:
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section IX
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VIII
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VII
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VI.
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section V
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section IV
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section III
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section II
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section

 

[RealityCheck01]

You ignored what he said. He specifically said that electrical discharges *can and do* occur in plasma.
...usual ranting and insults snipped...

Dungey specifically stated that "electrical discharges" *can and do* occur in plasma and then he defined what the term "electrical discharges" means (something you still deny that he did!). That definition is different even from your quote mining of Peratt's definition.

The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Critics
This is where Dungey states that "The defining feature of a discharge in this context is a large current density".
18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
13th January 2011: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different!
8th November 2011: Citing Dungey means that cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection!

and Peratt:
11th October 2011: Peratt's definition of electrical discharge
Peratt and Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
5th February 2011: Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning?
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?
26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any textbook?

 

[Michael]

The section has charge particles in the last 2 sentences of section 4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum after a couple of pages with just a vacuum.

The key difference is that Somov *included* charged particles, unlike you and Clinger. It's *possible* to deflect and move and accelerate charged particles with magnetic fields in a "vacuum" that *includes* charges particles. In a vacuum *without* charged particles, that's *physically impossible* to do! That's the key physical difference. Somov's vacuum *included* charged particles, whereas Clinger did not. No acceleration of charged particles means no energy transfer from the field took place, and no "reconnection" took place.

You're constantly regurgitating *your own* posts because you can't even name any authors that used the term "impossible" with respect to electrical discharges in plasma. You aren't fooling anyone by constantly quoting yourself. You're in hard core denial of the fact you can't name an author that ever used the term impossible with respect to discharges in plasma.

You haven't read Somov's books either, so that's just pure nonsense too.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Sources about MR in a vacuum that Michael of course denies:
MR in a vacuum is described in Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
MR in a vacuum is mentioned in the scientific literature:

• Magnetic reconnection on the sun, Priest 1990 (MR in a vacuum)
• Aspects of Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection (vacuum reconnection)
• The origins of electrical resistivity in magnetic reconnection (MR in vacuum)

MR in a vacuum is a simple derivation from Maxwell's equations: to W.D. Clinger's simple derivation of magnetic reconnection

 

[RealityCheck01]

And the questions he still cannot answer:
MM: Why did Somov split "Reconnection in vacuum" from "Reconnection in plasma"?
Asked on 18th March 2012 MM What does "In a vacuum, magnetic reconnection is a trival process..." mean?
Asked on 18th March 2012