Dismiss Notice

Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
  • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
  • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
  • Access to private conversations with other members.

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (3)

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Michael, Jun 22, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Wow - now you imagine actual numbers of charged particles stated in that section, Michael!
    But you are right - he starts with zero charged particles (and no uncharged particles, i.e. a vacuum) and that is fewer than 1 or many :doh:.

    Michael: What does "In a vacuum, magnetic reconnection is a trivial process..." mean?
    Asked on 18th March 2012 - 586 days and counting!
     
  2. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
  3. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    We can read that you are "a two bit liar" since I never said that you stated anything about a hollow Sun, Michael. It is your idea that predicts a hollow Sun :doh:!
    Michael's idea predicts that the Sun has no central energy source (and is thus hollow)!
    2nd December 2012 - 327 days and counting!
    Can you understand the highlighted text Michael?
    Can you understand the text of the post, Michael?

    You missed the actual question in the post, Michael:
     
  4. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    18,513
    Likes Received:
    67
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Christian
    I "imagined" nothing. He used the term 'current'. Current takes the form of a *charged particle in motion*.

    FYI, if it were a couple of *wires*, they wouldn't move, so your analogy falls flat on it's face. Assuming they actually did *move*, any person that knows anything about solid state physics already knows that's called *magnetic attraction* in solids, and *induction* in solids.

    No. He starts with two *currents* flowing through a vacuum. Think in terms of *two rivers of plasma* flowing through the vacuum.

    There goes your "wire" claim. You're right, he never said squat about *uncharged* particles in the vacuum, so your wire claim is totally bogus.

    Are you ever going to quote me where *I* (not you) claimed that the sun was hollow, or are you just going to let everyone see how incapable of telling the truth you are?

    Ya know....

    Topics change but haters are all alike in terms of the *behaviors*. They never actually *read* or take the time to actually understand the materials under discussion, or respond to the actual material itself. They don't understand it, and like you they absolutely *refuse* to educate themselves. They're belligerent and ignorant. In your particular case you've taken to the internet stalker category as well.

    When oh when can we expect you to read a textbook on MHD theory oh great clairvoyant physicist?

    When oh when will I see a quote from my lips about a hollow sun oh great protector of 'truth'?
     
  5. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    18,513
    Likes Received:
    67
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Christian
    arXiv.org Search

    All those papers were published. Your fantasies could *never* be published.

    FYI, they all talk about a *rigid* (not solid) surface, so get over your thermodynamic nonsense. It's an *irrelevant* argument in terms of anything *published* in the scientific world.

    When oh when can we expect you to read a textbook on MHD theory oh great clairvoyant physicist?

    When oh when will I see a quote from my lips about a hollow sun oh great protector of 'truth'?
     
  6. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    18,513
    Likes Received:
    67
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Christian
    Apparently you didn't actually *read* (let alone comprehend) my papers either. Why should that surprise me?

    When are you going to read a textbook on MHD theory RC? This is the question all haters refuse to answer and the question you have refused to answer for over two years now. When can I expect you to stop living in ignorance and fear and actually answer the question?
     
  7. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    FYI: Your denial of Somov's section on MR in vacuum does not excuse you, Michael!
    In my practical example of MR in vacuum (wires plus a vacuum chamber) the wires generate the currents that produce the magnetic field. There are no free charged particles. It is a vacuum chamber :doh:!

    Michael, MR happens in the vacuum away from the currents :doh:!
    Pointed out here on 24th October 2013.
    Pointed out on JREF a lot!
    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

    And as anyone with basic mathematical skills can see Magnetic Reconnection by W.D. Clinger starts with Maxwell's equations and no plasma or charged particles (4 idealized currents) and gets MR.

    Actually Somov starts with two *idealized currents* flowing through a vacuum. No mention of wires, beams of charged particles or even plasma.

    Think of the idiocy of claiming that reading plasma physics textbooks means that you understand about plasma, Michael, when you make an ignorant statement like that :p.
    Plasmas contain equal amounts of electrons and ions. Flowing plasma are not current just like moving rocks are not electrical currents.
     
  8. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Michael: Was your mention of MR and "monopoles" about any fantasy that MR is impossible because it needs monopoles or was it to do with the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper?
    First asked 24th October 2013 - 6 days and counting.
     
  9. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Apparently you are obsessed with lying about me - I read the crank papers that you were a coauthor of and contributed an obvious fantasy about solar flares being mountain ranges.
    Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!
    If anyone else wants a laugh :D, here are the published papers:
    That has nothing to do with: Michael's idea (which has not been published!) predicts that the Sun has no central energy source (and is thus hollow)!
    2nd December 2012 - 333 days and counting!
    Your idea has basically taken Dr. Oliver Manuel dumb "sorting" idea and made it even dumber. He could argue that his layers were at the center of the Sun so that all we can see are thousands of kilometers of hydrogen plasma. Your idea has an imaginary solid iron layer ~4000 km below the surface of the Sun leading to the conclusion that the Sun is hollow..

    Quote the science, or quit making up fantasies, Michael!

    Michael: What does "In a vacuum, magnetic reconnection is a trivial process..." mean?
    Asked on 18th March 2012 - 592 days and counting!

    P.S.
    Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.
     
  10. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
  11. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    18,513
    Likes Received:
    67
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Christian
    You're the one in denial of the two *currents* the Somov places inside the vacuum, and the *movement* of the particles in that vacuum. I'm in denial of nothing. You're the one trying to stuff the term "wire" into the vacuum, where none is stated nor required.

    In *solids*, the terms that you're struggling to find are apparently *magnetic attraction* (with or without the movement of matter), and/or induction. You have not described *magnetic reconnection* which is *by definition* a process involving *plasma* and the acceleration of plasma particles via the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy.

    You really do need to read a textbook on plasma physics to comprehend plasma physics. You're "I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express' routine isn't cutting it I'm afraid.

    You and Clinger *forgot* plasma. You *forgot* to read a book on plasma physics. You *forgot* to bother educating yourselves to the topic of discussion (in this case plasma physics), so you have no idea what you're talking about.

    No, it doesn't happen "away from' the currents, it happens *to* the currents! The currents *move*. That's what you and Clinger cannot do without a charged particle to your name.

    It was pointed out a JREF that not a single hater has clue what they're talking about. The fact you all sat there and claimed Clinger created "magnetic reconnection" in a vacuum devoid of any charged particles demonstrated that point in flying colors. It also demonstrated that you're personally quite clueless by choice.

    When can I expect to see Clinger's nonsense *published*? Never! Clinger *excluded* charged particles from his vacuum whereas Somov *included* them. Whereas Somov move the charged particles as a result of reconnection, Clinger just has a stupid Null point that does exactly nothing.

    The two currents moved too, or did you just ignore that point entirely?

    Somov's example is consistent with the WIKI definition of reconnection. It's a process *in plasma*, that results in plasma movement.

    You apparently read the term 'vacuum' and that's all you read or understood.

    Clinger absolutely *did not* start or include any plasma, nor did he get any plasma movement out of his silly *NULL*! Clinger's stuff is just pure NULL point, empty space nonsense on a stick.

    We're all here waiting with baited breath for you to tell us when we can expect you to pickup and read a real textbook on plasma physics RC. You certainly don't cut it as the clairvoyant physicist. :D
     
  12. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    This inane demand again, Michael :p!
    I could reply with: When are you going to read and understand a textbook on plasma, Michael :D?

    The demand is inane because we are not discussing MHD theory.
    Michael:
    Can you understand the inanity of a demand to read an irrelevant textbook?
    The demand is inane because you have not even been able to understand the English in in a textbook on MHD theory, Michael. Reconnection in vacuum means there is a vacuum and reconnection happens in it :doh:!

    The demand is inane because reading a textbook is not even close to understanding the subject of the textbook.
    I could read a textbook on MHD theory and have a good chance at understanding it because I have the prerequisite (but rusty) skills needed to understand it:
    • Calculus
    • Electromagnetic theory
    • Fluid dynamics
    • Mechanics
    As far as I know you, Michael, do not even know calculus since you cannot understand Magnetic Reconnection by W.D. Clinger enough to point out any mathematical errors in it.

    The prerequisites that allow understanding of a textbook are only the first step. You are ignoring the process that students go through to learn science, e.g.
    • Assignment of the textbook to read.
    • Lectures covering the textbook subject.
    • Taking notes during the lectures (and writing them up in full!).
    • Doing textbook exercises.
    • Experiments relating to the textbook subject.
    • Tests :D!
    • Being a teaching assistant and teaching other students the subject (been there - done that :)).
     
  13. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    18,513
    Likes Received:
    67
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Christian
    If you had read and understood the work, you wouldn't need to resort to pitiful childish insults, and you wouldn't be rambling on about hollow suns or thermodynamic problems that simply do not exist in any published paper I've been involved in.

    You have published *no* papers in astronomy, nor have you read a single textbook related to the topic of plasma physics, in spite of the fact that 99+ percent of the universe is in the plasma state. You have some *fantasy* about being experts on topics that you simply no nothing about, and have no desire to learn about.

    You 'debunked' Birkeland's cathode sun theory the way a creationist "debunks" evolutionary theory and radiometric dating methods. Ignorance, denial, lather rinse repeat.
     
  14. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Michael thinks that the currents in Somov's 'Reconnection in vacuum' move. But as anyone can see the position of the currents are 2 dots on his 2-D diagram and do not move. Somov changes the amount of current.
    ETA: That is wrong - I am thinking of Magnetic Reconnection by W.D. Clinger explanation of MR in a vacuum.

    ETA2: There is a small "delusion" though, Michael!
    In reply to Michael, MR happens in the vacuum away from the currents :doh:!
    You stated
    That is definitely wrong as Somov's caption states.
    The MR in a vacuum does not move the currents. It is the displacement of the currents that causes the MR. No displacement of the currents, no MR.

    IOW: Care to explain the phrase 'the final state after they have been drawn nearer by a driven displacement' for us oh great master of the English language?
    I would say it means that a displacement (driven by something) has caused the currents to get closer and change the magnetic field into its final state.

    At the end of the chapter, Somov mentions the effect that the changing magnetic field due to the changing current would have on charge particles. He then goes onto 'Reconnection in plasma'.

    Michael, MR happens in the vacuum away from the currents :doh:!

    Please tell me that you do not even know what a vacuum chamber is, Michael!
    In my practical example of MR in vacuum (wires plus a vacuum chamber) the wires generate the currents that produce the magnetic field. There are no free charged particles. It is a vacuum chamber :doh:!

    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
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2013
  15. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Errors in Micheal's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong)!
    Here is me showing that I read and understood the work (thanks for the opportunity to fix spelling errors!).
    Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong II

    The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass
    1. Michael, you have the non-scientific requirement that things be detected in the lab before they can exist, e.g. dark matter. This is non-scientific because it does not exist in science. Science allows things to exist when their existence can be deduced from observations and the laws of physics, e.g. quarks have never been detected in the lab.
      What if we follow your little fantasy though?
      The materials (protons and electrons compressed into neutrons) that neutron stars should be made of have never been detected in the lab thus neutron stars (according to you) cannot exist. They are "mythical sky entities"! In this case it is hypocritical of you to cite a theory that you cannot believe in.
    2. The minimum mass of a typical neutron star is 1.4 solar masses (otherwise it is a white dwarf star!) . The minimum mass expected of a neutron star is ~1 solar mass (Determination of the mass of the neutron star in SMC X-1, LMC X-4 and Cen X-3 with VLT/UVES).
      Michael pointed out that there are theoretical papers about lower mass neutron + quark stars but see the first point and realize that this citation is even worse because these hypothetical objects have never been observed. For example, A model of low-mass neutron stars with a quark core
    3. A neutron star has a very high surface gravity of up to 100,000,000,000 times that of Earth. Add a solar plasma and that plasma is plated onto the neutron star !
    4. A neutron star has a very high surface gravity of up to 100,000,000,000 times that of Earth. Add a solar plasma and as it is plated onto the surface of the neutron star , is crushed to fusion temperatures and pressures thus blowing up the Sun .
    5. A neutron star has a very strong magnetic field and spins. Add a solar plasma and we have a pulsar. The Sun is not emitting gigantic jets of electromagnetic radiation consistent with a pulsar .
    6. His proposed composition (basically that found in meteorites) of the Sun leads to a star that is not the Sun!
    7. More of Dr. Oliver Manuel's errors in his Iron Sun idea, basically bad nuclear physics and my second point above.
    8. His layers are ruled out by helioseismology which agree with the standard solar model - a relatively smooth increase in density with depth, not dozens of abrupt changes in density.
    9. His layers are ruled out in the photosphere by the fact of convection - granules.
    10. His layers are ruled out in the convection zone by ... convection!
      See below.
    11. His layers are ruled out in the convection zone by the measurement of convection!
      For example: Anomalously Weak Solar Convection
    12. His figure 1 ("The top section is a "running difference" image of the Sun's iron-rich sub-surface
      from the Trace satellite using a 171 Å filter sensitive to Fe (IX) and Fe (X) emissions.") is just physically wrong. He either included it without thinking about the physics involved or is ignorant of a simple bit of physics: The TRACE instrument 171 A passband is collecting light from >160,000 K plasma in the transition zone, i.e. above the photosphere. Ditto for the bottom 4 images in the 195 A passband (>500,000 K plasma).
      Errors in Micheal's site XIV (no mountain ranges in TRACE RD movie)!
    13. The paper was written in 2006 when the solution to the solar neutrino problem (neutrino oscillation) had been known for 5 years. But Manuel states that as a problem in his conclusion based on a citation to a 1988 book!
    Dr. Oliver Manuel would not have written The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass if he has known some basic astrophysics that rules out the sorting by atomic mass:
    Convection zone
    Sun's convection zone

    The links in 6 and 7 are from a poster (ben m) on JREF whose research interests mostly overlap Dr. Oliver Manuels
     
  16. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    18,513
    Likes Received:
    67
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Christian
    It's actually an *insane* request that you expect me to believe your statements about plasma physics *rather than* the author of MHD theory, as well as every other published author on the topic.

    It's *insane* of you to keep slamming your head against a tank, hoping to win a tank fight *completely unarmed*. I have no idea why you keep doing that, but you keep doing it.

    Imagine a discussion involving evolutionary theory where one side suggests the person read an actual textbook on the topic, and the other side calls it an 'inane demand'? Education is not an 'inane demand'. It's actually an *expectation* before you start attacking individuals in cyberspace over topics you know *nothing* about.

    ...."You're right, I probably should go educate myself on this topic." But *noooooooooooooo*! You go right back to pure denial, and pure personal attack.

    Case in point....

    His English was quite clear when he added currents and made them move RC. You're grasp of English ends at the doorstep of denial of those currents and the movement of those currents. You therefore keep parroting the term "vacuum" and pretending you're the clairvoyant physicist.


    Yawn. More denial on your part since I explained to you that I took calculus in High School. Denial and personal attacks are your only self defense mechanisms apparently, especially since you've taken 'education' off the table.

    Unlike me, you and Clinger ended your EM education in solid state physics, and Clinger's textbook never mentioned the term 'magnetic reconnection' according to Clinger himself. Clinger left out the *physics* part of *plasma physics*, specifically he left out the charged particles. The error isn't always mathematical in nature, and that is again one of those points that you simply ignore.

    You won't even pick up a textbook, so what do you know? Your claims don't even pass the Wiki smell test RC:

    Magnetic reconnection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Your Laurel and Hardy routine at JREF ignored the highlighted *requirements* of 'reconnection'.

    Don't you think that everyone here is starting to question your personal integrity when you refuse to even tell us when we might expect you to read a textbook on plasma physics before trying to debate the topic in cyberspace?
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2013
  17. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    It is *insane* of you to lie about what this author of MHD theory, as well as every other published author on the topic, wrote without backing it up, Michael.

    But if you want me to call your demand insane that I will:
    Michael: Can you understand the insanity of a demand to read an irrelevant textbook?
    (as per Michael's demand - replace 'inane' with 'insane' in that post!)
    First asked 29th October 2013 - 0 days and counting.
     
  18. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    18,513
    Likes Received:
    67
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Christian
    Somov thinks the same thing on page 103, figure 4.17:

    Cosmic Plasma Physics - B.V. Somov - Google Books

    [​IMG]

    As anyone can see the position of the currents and they *do* move!

    Explain that caption and how they are drawn nearer without movement again?

    Get a grip RC. You're just pulling these false claims out of your back pocket. Go read a read textbook and then we'll talk. Right now you're just making a complete fool out of yourself and you don't have a hater posse to save you from yourself here.
     
  19. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    18,513
    Likes Received:
    67
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Christian
    [​IMG]
     
  20. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    18,513
    Likes Received:
    67
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Christian
    Care to explain the term 'drawn nearer' for us oh great master of the English language?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...