Electric universe theories here.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
Indeed light is emitted from these rings, just not visible light. The emission however is related to "current flow", not the particles themselves. They are not "self luminous" anymore than a florescent bulb is "Self luminous" in the absence of electricity.

It's getting busy at work. I'll deal with the rest of your post as I get time. You will however note that nothing "self luminates" in Birkeland's work. It's all driven by electrical currents.
Click to expand...
Um, is there a prize for shooting oneself in the foot?

If there is, you certainly deserve it MM! :p :D

Birkeland's terrella model of Saturn's rings were photographed using emulsions of the time. AFAIK the active ingredient was a silver halide. Silver halides are (most) sensitive to light in the blue part of the spectrum, with significant sensitivity from the near UV into the mid-visual (they are particularly insensitive to red light, which is why dark rooms of old had red lights).

In the photographs reproduced in his publication, Birkeland's 'Saturn' terrella clearly shows a self-luminous (set of) rings ... the rings shine by their own light, not by light reflected from the (model) Saturn (and certainly not by the light reflected from the Sun).

The real Saturn rings shine, in the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that Birkeland's photographs were sensitive to, by light reflected from the Sun, and, to a considerably lesser extent, by light reflected from Saturn itself (which is just light reflected from the Sun).

IOW, Birkeland's model of Saturn's rings fails (the source of the rings' light, detected by us here on Earth and space probes near and far, is the Sun, not electrical activity in, or around, the rings themselves).

(It also fails in terms of the theory - you know, equations, numbers, that sort of thing - but as you, MM, are functionally incompetent wrt this sort of thing, you cannot be expected to even understand the failure of Birkeland's ideas in this regard, much less be able to discuss it).
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Really? Which *specific* "standard theory" actually "predicted" the existence of a "stratification" subsurface located at around .995R?

In fact that "stratification subsurface" can be seen in Doppler and RD images of the solar atmosphere.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/171surfaceshotsmall.JPG
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/tsunami1.JPG

We can actually observe that stratification subsurface in the tsunami image as the wave passes over the photosphere.

How about you "experts" step up to the plate and show us which standard model predicted these "rigid subsurface features" (crust) which we observe in these RD and Doppler images?

In fact this region is supposed to be an open convection zone according to standard theory.
Click to expand...
That is ignorant of you MM.
A couple of seconds on Google gives: Hydrostatic stratification. Or read some of the 10,000 papers on 'stratification of the stellar structure' found in Google Scholar.
 
This forum...

DeiRenDopa said:
Perhaps you wrote in haste?

Perhaps you did actually present "Bruce's work" in this forum?
Click to expand...

This is the kind of stuff that annoys me no end. You intentionally cite my website, but none of you actually ever read the content. Why should I have to duplicate myself here to you and in every single forum where we have talked? You've been aware of my website now for 4 years now or so, and the link to Bruce's work has always been there. If you intend to criticize my website, you should at least avail yourself of the information it contains *BEFORE* you starting running with the pack from a place of pure ignorance. Are you actually ignorant of Bruce's work or just looking for some way to skirt the subject? You *NEVER* address the data head on. Instead you fixate on the trivial, and ignore the whole issue entirely. What's wrong with Bruce's work DRD?

If you are ignorant of his work, is that your fault or mine?
 
Michael Mozina said:
[...]
DeiRenDopa said:
In Birkeland's own writings, he proposes that the Sun emits relativistic electrons (using today's terms; the solar wind is composed of relativistic electrons). His published work includes pages and pages on the derivation of this idea (quantitatively, using equations etc), backed up by pages and pages of reports of his terrella experiments.
Click to expand...
What he proposes is that the sun acts as a cathode compared to interstellar space.
Click to expand...
Well, if he did, then his model is inconsistent with subsequent observations (including solar wind in situ ones), and so it failed.

However, as has been known for many decades now, the solar wind does not consist of relativistic electrons.
Click to expand...

The solar wind most certainly does contain electrons DRD, and protons and other charged particles exactly AS HE *PREDICTED* 100 YEARS AGO. The notion of "relativistic electrons" is simply "spin" on your part. They were "real electrons" in his experiments.
Click to expand...
Here is as clear an example of your incompetence wrt understanding Birkeland's work MM.

You see he spent quite a few pages in his published work estimating the speed of the electrons (as we'd call them today), and there's no wiggle room for doubt here ...

... except, of course, if you don't understand that part of his published work, because you are ignorant of the physics and math it is built upon ...

... and we all know that you, MM, are that ignorant.

Perhaps the only open question is why you refuse to acknowledge your own gross ignorance ... why is it that you are so proud of your ignorance, MM?
[...]

Nice how you attempt to exclude solar system functions from the rest of the cosmos. I hate to break it to you, but the same things that apply here in this solar system also apply elsewhere in the galaxy and have an effect on the rest of the galaxy and the rest of the universe. Since you folks can't even explain solar wind,
Click to expand...
Translation: I, MM, haven't a clue about any of the contemporary models, and certainly cannot understand even simple differential equations ... so of course I, MM, don't understand the plasma physics-based explanations of the solar wind ...

you don't have a single clue about how "cosmology" works even at the local level, let alone at larger scales.

What I'd like to see you or anyone else here do is "explain" that RD and Doppler image using standard solar theory.
Click to expand...
But MM, don't you see? It wouldn't matter if the explanation anyone presented were the most awesome piece of theory+derivation since Newton, or were complete gibberish, you wouldn't be able to understand it (and couldn't tell the difference anyway).

Remember the egg you got on your face wrt the Casimir effect? Do you really want to go through that humiliation again?

Which standard solar theory predicted the existed of a rigid stratification subsurface? What are those rigid features in those images DRD?
Click to expand...
"Rigid" huh? :confused:

Dare I ask how you define "rigid"?

And how may an independent third party verify your "rigid" conclusion?

Let me guess .... by looking at the pictures! :jaw-dropp

But wait! ... I can see a horsie over here!! Oh, and look!!! There's a cute little bunny wabbit!!!!

You can run from the real data or but you can't hide. Birkeland *PREDICTED* there to be a "surface" located at a shallow depth under the photosphere.
Click to expand...
He did?

Reference please. And if the 900+ page document, page number(s).

Your model does not. Heliosiesmology demonstrates there is one and Birkeland was correct.

[] You're ignoring his whole solar model. Why? Because he was right, and you can't explain those images, that's why.

I know Birkeland was right now because in 4 years, not one of you has been man or woman enough to stand up to the plate and explain these solar images in a "better" scientific way using a standard solar model.
Click to expand...
And of course nothing in Birkeland's published work can be used to explain them either, quantitatively ... despite your many years and millions (?) of words of trying.

Why?

Because you don't understand what Birkeland wrote MM, and you don't understand the images, and you can't accept that a scientific understanding requires you to acquire a certain minimal competence with some parts of math.

You can belittle Birkeland's work all you like, but he didn't have a "religion", he created a "working model", something you folks have *NEVER* done and never could hope to do. More importantly he "predicted" key observations that your model does not, including fast solar wind, high energy coronal loops, high speed plasma jets, and a host of other observations that we have seen in solar satellite images. His model was correct and correctly predicts key satellite based heliosiesmology data.

[...]
Click to expand...
We've been over this before MM, several times.

The only person who thinks this is you, and you have been unable - despite several years' of trying - to provide a quantitative demonstration of your claims.

'I think this looks like a duck (in this image), therefore it is a duck' is not physics, it is not astronomy ... when you can demonstrate that you have left this kind of nonsense behind, we may be able to start to have a meaningful discussion.
 
Reality Check said:
That is ignorant of you MM.
A couple of seconds on Google gives: Hydrostatic stratification. Or read some of the 10,000 papers on 'stratification of the stellar structure' found in Google Scholar.
Click to expand...

Which specific one or more of these papers *PREDICTS* (not postdicts later on) a "stratification subsurface" to exist at exactly the depth it was found via heliosiesmology? All current solar models "predicted" this to be an open convection zone. What are those "rigid features" seen in Kosovichev's Doppler image and in the LMSAL RD images doing sitting in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone?
 
A relatively recent paper which knocks much of MM's hero Bruce's work for six (i.e. it shows, in great detail, that Bruce's models are inconsistent with the relevant observations): Radiative MHD simulation of sunspot structure (link is to the abstract of the preprint).

Now for MM to appreciate just how devastating this paper, and the ones it cites, and the ones which cite it, are to Bruce's ideas (per what's on MM's website), he (MM) would need to understand MHD, and to understand that he'd have to understand some math that we all know is way beyond him (today) ... oh, and having read and understood some of Alfvén's papers, on MHD, would be helpful too.

Now if you want a nice piccie to go with this MM, why not check out this UCAR webpage? Oh, and be sure to note that there is no rigid surface ...
 
DeiRenDopa said:
But MM, don't you see? It wouldn't matter if the explanation anyone presented were the most awesome piece of theory+derivation since Newton, or were complete gibberish, you wouldn't be able to understand it (and couldn't tell the difference anyway).
Click to expand...


Thanks, DeiRenDopa. This bears repeating.

And it reminds us of something we must always consider when engaged in a discussion with Michael Mozina. He is apparently unable to process explanations offered to him that require any understanding of math or physics, or any legitimate scientific concern for that matter. Therefore he will simply blow off every explanation like a fart in the wind, then continue asking the same stupid questions and spewing the same nonsensical replies. It's a perfect set-up for him. In the crackpot world inside his head, he can't understand reality, and consequently he can't be wrong, and nobody else can be right.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Well, if he did, then his model is inconsistent with subsequent observations (including solar wind in situ ones), and so it failed.
Click to expand...

No, it did *NOT* fail. His model (their model actually) was right on the money in terms of the flow of charged particles from the sun to the heliosphere and into the Earth's aurora. It was right on the money in terms of predicting at constant and spherical release of energy from the sun in terms of charged particle flow. It was right on the money in virtually every detail. Yes, he "guessed' at the amount of currents involved in particular solar processes, but his realization that they were influenced by EM fields and particle flow coming from the sun was exactly right.

You see he spent quite a few pages in his published work estimating the speed of the electrons (as we'd call them today), and there's no wiggle room for doubt here ...
Click to expand...

Why are you fixated on the "speed" of the particles when they range anywhere from a 1/3 of the speed of light to less than a mere 1 million miles an hour or so? Why aren't you noticing they are there just as he predicts?

Birkeland could not know the density of the interstellar medium, he had no nifty equipment in space to show him any data on this topic. What he did do however is "predict" the flow of high speed charged particles from the surface of the sun into space, and past the Earth which power the Earth's aurora. You're quibbling about "speed" and ignoring that the "process" was accurate. How typical of your nitpick mentality.

Perhaps the only open question is why you refuse to acknowledge your own gross ignorance ... why is it that you are so proud of your ignorance, MM?
Click to expand...

What is grossly ignorant is for you to ignore that he correctly identified the process the drives the solar wind, he simply missed a few of the "details' related to density and speed or the amount of current flow? The process was correctly identified and experimented with. Since he could not know the exactly conditions in space, he missed some of the math. He describes both the physics and the math, and of course all you care about is the math, to the absolute exclusion of the physics. Typical. You're in a cult that slaps math to any label. What else would I expect but for you to ignore the physics altogether?

Translation: I, MM, haven't a clue about any of the contemporary models, and certainly cannot understand even simple differential equations ... so of course I, MM, don't understand the plasma physics-based explanations of the solar wind ...
Click to expand...

Translation: You think all knowledge is related to a differential equation, when in fact most knowledge comes as *UNDERSTANDING THE PHYSICAL PROCESS*, not comprehending the math. The math is a detail as it relates to conceptually understanding the concept. You won't and refuse to acknowledge the physical process he "predicted". You therefore fixate on only a few math equations, and ignore the physics and physical understanding entirely.

Remember the egg you got on your face wrt the Casimir effect? Do you really want to go through that humiliation again?
Click to expand...

You only humiliate yourself. No such thing as a "negative pressure" has ever existed in any vacuum that has ever existed in "reality".

"Rigid" huh? :confused:

Dare I ask how you define "rigid"?
Click to expand...

I define it in the conventional sense. That feature I circled in the Doppler image is "rigid" in terms of it's lifetime, whereas the photosphere is clearly not rigid and the wave passes through the photosphere. That wave in the photosphere leaves the rigid features under the wave undisturbed. Why is that feature "rigid"?

'I think this looks like a duck (in this image), therefore it is a duck' is not physics, it is not astronomy ... when you can demonstrate that you have left this kind of nonsense behind, we may be able to start to have a meaningful discussion.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but "pattern recognition' is an integral part of science, and always has been. If it looks like electricity, heat's plasma to millions of degrees like electricity, accelerates particles from the sun like electricity, lights up the atmospheres of every planet like electricity, lights up aurora round many planets like electricity, it's probably electricity. Get over the notion that every piece of "knowledge" is mathematical in nature. Most knowledge is not in that format and most knowledge requires an understanding of the "PROCESS".
 
Michael Mozina said:
Which specific one or more of these papers *PREDICTS* (not postdicts later on) a "stratification subsurface" to exist at exactly the depth it was found via heliosiesmology? All current solar models "predicted" this to be an open convection zone. What are those "rigid features" seen in Kosovichev's Doppler image and in the LMSAL RD images doing sitting in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone?
Click to expand...
You really do not read your citations do you?
Look at the papers cited by Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle by Sandrine Lefebvre, Alexander Kosovichev. Try for example "Schou, J. et al., 1997, ApJ, 489, L197" or any standard textbook on stellar physics (something else you are ignorant of - somehow this does not surprize me :rolleyes:).
 
Michael Mozina said:
Really? Which *specific* "standard theory" actually "predicted" the existence of a "stratification" subsurface located at around .995R?

In fact that "stratification subsurface" can be seen in Doppler and RD images of the solar atmosphere.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/171surfaceshotsmall.JPG
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/tsunami1.JPG

We can actually observe that stratification subsurface in the tsunami image as the wave passes over the photosphere.

How about you "experts" step up to the plate and show us which standard model predicted these "rigid subsurface features" (crust) which we observe in these RD and Doppler images?

In fact this region is supposed to be an open convection zone according to standard theory.
Click to expand...

Nice pictures of the Sun but...
These are measurments of an *UNCONTROLLED* experiment (the Sun). By your criteria these are not empirical and so should be ignored.

Can you give us a clue when you are going to remove this non-empirical data from your web site :D ?

To be serious:
You have already done the standard crackpot thing of redefining the English language (empirical actually includes observations of uncontrolled things like the Sun)

You are probably confirming your status as a crackpot by stating half of your criteria for observations to be "empirical". The rest of the criteria will on the lines of "anything that supports my crackpot idea". If not then you will find it impossible to exclude astronomical observations such as the evidence for dark matter.
 
Michael Mozina:
Since it took you some weeks to find the standard defintion of pressure durig a discution in another thread, I will repeat the question I asked you before with a trime stamp. Will it take months or years befor you actually answer the question?

First asked on 23rd June. 2009:

How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
  • galaxy rotation curves (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
  • the motion of galxies in galactic clusters (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
  • the actual measurement of the mass density of galactic clusters showing that about 2% is in the galaxies and IGM (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, indirect measurement)
  • the two actual measurements of the separation of dark matter from normal matter:
  • A bit of supporting evidence is that the Millennium Run used the Lambda-CDM model to replicate the large-scale structure of the universe. CDM = Cold Dark Matter.
N.B. The above evidence is based on empirical data (as defined in MM's web site, e.g. the solar data and images). But we can expect MM to spew his "empirical measurments of an *CONTROLLED* experiment" non-science yet again.
 
Wow Helioseismology is amazing!
Have a look at the movie on this page containing visual backup material (available until 1 July) for the AAS/SPD press conference about why sunspots are late in this cycle (via this Bad Astronomy blog entry).
This movie reveals motions of the Sun's interior as measured with helioseismology on data from GONG and SOHO/MDI. East to west motion is color coded: blue is slow, red is fast. A red band in the outer third of the Sun moves slowly down from near each pole toward the equator; that band is the jet stream that is associated with sunpot emergence and the solar cycle. As of early 2009 the Cycle 24 jet streams have just reached N/S 22 degrees latitude, and new sunspots are beginning to emerge.
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
Nice pictures of the Sun but...
These are measurments of an *UNCONTROLLED* experiment (the Sun). By your criteria these are not empirical and so should be ignored.
Click to expand...

No, they should be "explained" using "KNOWN" forces of nature. Just don't try to explain these images with invisible elves and we'll be fine.

Can you give us a clue when you are going to remove this non-empirical data from your web site :D ?
Click to expand...

All of Birkeland's work was *EMPIRICAL*. These are simply "uncontrolled observations" that were "predictions" of his theories.

To be serious:
You have already done the standard crackpot thing of redefining the English language (empirical actually includes observations of uncontrolled things like the Sun)
Click to expand...

Only a crackpot would not see the difference between an "uncontrolled observation" and "controlled experiment". Birkeland "experimented" with his models, and used *control mechanisms* in his experiments to verify *CAUSE* and *EFFECTS* related to EM fields in space. The satellite images are simply "UNCONTROLLED OBSERVATIONS" that are PREDICTED by his *CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS*. Do you understand this distinction, yes or no?
 
Reality Check said:
You really do not read your citations do you?
Look at the papers cited by Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle by Sandrine Lefebvre, Alexander Kosovichev. Try for example "Schou, J. et al., 1997, ApJ, 489, L197" or any standard textbook on stellar physics (something else you are ignorant of - somehow this does not surprize me :rolleyes:).
Click to expand...

You really are being evasive which only confirms my belief that you don't know what you're talking about. This was not a "prediction" that came *BEFORE* the paper. This is an *OBSERVATION* related to their technique. Do you understand this distinction, yes or no?
 
Reality Check said:
Michael Mozina:
Since it took you some weeks to find the standard defintion of pressure durig a discution in another thread, I will repeat the question I asked you before with a trime stamp. Will it take months or years befor you actually answer the question?

First asked on 23rd June. 2009:

How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
Click to expand...

I have already explained to you that all these papers and observations actually demonstrate is that your "gas model" solar theory is woefully flawed and incapable of accurately "predicting" the mass of any particular galaxy. In short your solar theories are hopelessly flawed, which is exactly why they require 96% "gap filler" to make things work right.

The very notion that one can "prove" the existence of "dark matter" from an uncontrolled observations is pathetic. At the most one might provide "evidence" to support the notion of "missing mass" from these observations. This only demonstrates to me how useless your solar theories are at actually "predicting" the mass of a galaxy. In other words, your whole belief system is predicated upon a flawed solar model, so you fill the gaps with metaphysical mumbo jumbo that defies empirical support. Dark matter doesn't exist. It's a figment of your imagination. You can't produce a single gram of the stuff and your missing mass is related to the fact that suns are not mostly made of hydrogen and helium.

There is an important scientific principle here at stake as well. You certainly will never "prove" anything in your lifetime. You certainly will never see "proof" of dark matter from an uncontrolled observation in your lifetime. At best you may see evidence that you *interpret* as some sort of evidence of "missing mass". All this demonstrates is that you can't accurately guestimate the mass of a galaxy based on your current solar models. That is certainly no surprise to me.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
Thanks, DeiRenDopa. This bears repeating.

And it reminds us of something we must always consider when engaged in a discussion with Michael Mozina. He is apparently unable to process explanations offered to him that require any understanding of math or physics, or any legitimate scientific concern for that matter.
Click to expand...

You've never offered me any explanations based on actual "physics" as in things you can actually physically demonstrate here and now. In fact your entire belief system is predicated on *FAITH*, not *PHYSICS*. Math related to invisible elves is meaningless junk, integration or no integration. Fancy math doesn't negate the need to *PHYSICALLY QUALIFY* your beliefs.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I'm willing to concede that there are differences between his "rings" and the rings on Saturn. This however is not a "disproof" of his concepts or his work. The very placement of material is most likely related to the EM currents he was proposing. Again, this one issue does not in any way negate any of the rest of his work in any way. If that is best you've got when you dismiss his life's work, that is utterly pitiful.
Click to expand...


And in what way does your model say where they are most likely placed?

How does it work?

How does it compare to the gravitational model?

How would the data allow you to tell the difference ebwteen the two models?

It is about the useful predictions of the models is it not?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
A relatively recent paper which knocks much of MM's hero Bruce's work
Click to expand...

I haven't had time to read the whole paper yet, but I did a quick search of the PDF and not once is the name BRUCE ever even mentioned. Where did they "knock" his specific work, or is that your way of implying that any *OTHER* explanation you put forth automatically negates *all* of his work?

for six (i.e. it shows, in great detail, that Bruce's models are inconsistent with the relevant observations): Radiative MHD simulation of sunspot structure (link is to the abstract of the preprint).

Now for MM to appreciate just how devastating this paper, and the ones it cites, and the ones which cite it, are to Bruce's ideas (per what's on MM's website), he (MM) would need to understand MHD,
Click to expand...

I will bet money you *STILL* have not even bothered to read "Cosmic Plasma" or the paper I cited from Bruce.

and to understand that he'd have to understand some math that we all know is way beyond him (today) ... oh, and having read and understood some of Alfvén's papers, on MHD, would be helpful too.
Click to expand...

I've read two of Alfven's books on MHD theory, one where he explains it in a basic sense, and one where he applies it to space. Which of his books and papers have you even actually read?

Now if you want a nice piccie to go with this MM, why not check out this UCAR webpage? Oh, and be sure to note that there is no rigid surface ...
Click to expand...

Even in my model the sunspots are caused by upwelling of silicon plasma through another neon layer of plasma. It's no surprise to me that sunspots are not "solid". Duh.
 
Are any of you critics man or woman enough to actually "explain" those two solar images using standard solar theory, yes or no?
 
171surfaceshotsmall.JPG

tsunami1.JPG
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Then you have a big problem because you can't distinguish between "magic garbage" and "dark energy". Neither one of them shows up in an empirical test and you can slap the same exact math to either label.
Click to expand...
Actually evidence for dark energy does. You've given links to such things. Just because you don't understand the meaning of the word empirical, doesn't make a theory you haven't even got the faintest idea about wrong.

Nope. It also has a "qualitative requirement" that you seem to completely ignore. Math related to invisible elves is irrelevant without some evidence that such things actually exist in nature, no matter how many times you point at the sky and claim: "Invisible elves did it, here's the math".
Click to expand...
We have a very good theory of gravity. It is called general relativity. It has been tested to very high precision. We have a very good theory of electromagnetism. It has been tested probably to a greater precision than any other theory in the history of physics. These are two of the benchmarks of quantitative science. Together with empirical observations, these tell us that there must be some unobserved matter in the universe. That does not interact through the EM force. We call it dark matter. And there must be something causing the universe's expansion to accelerate. We call it dark energy. These two things are based, as I've just explained (but its worth repeating) on two of the best tested theories in physics. And that is tested quantitatively. I'm struggling to see that your above comment could be much more wrong.

You forgot to *QUALIFY* your theory first! You can't even directly "measure" anything by way, you *ASSUME* measurements from a host of *ASSUMPTIONS* that are themselves highly subjective.
Click to expand...
Simply not true. For example, from our known theories of gravity and electromagnetism (which you'll remember are tested to extraordinary precision) ,we can do pretty good calculation of the required density and distribution of dark matter, for example.

This would be great if you did it the way Birkeland did it, and used real control mechanisms and real scientific experiments to test your ideas in a QUALIFICATION sort of way. Since you can't even tell me where "dark energy" comes from, how would you even create a "control mechanism" for it?
Click to expand...
I don't really know what you mean by a "QUALIFICATION sort of way". And what do you mean by "where [it] comes from"? I don't know why the charge of an electron is ~ 1.6*10-19 C either. But I can perform a bloody good test, with controls, to determine that this value is in fact accurate.

You can't. You therefore can't distinguish between "magic energy" and "dark energy" because the math could be applied to *ANYTHING*, including magic elves.
Click to expand...
This is nonsensical. Do you understand what the word quantitative means? Yes or no?

Then you don't mind if I call you theory "Magic Lambda-religion theory" do you?
Click to expand...
I don't really care. It just illustrates the fact that you are utterly incapable of making a scientific argument and have to resort to name calling. Its a bit pathetic really.

You can slap math to all the invisible forces you like, but you can't demonstrate any of them actually exist in nature. It's therefore pointless to point at the sky and just make stuff up.
Click to expand...
But nobody is just pointing at the sky and making stuff up. Except you perhaps. People are using some of the most advanced scientific equipment mankind has been able to produce to compare observations of the cosmos with our understanding of some of the best tested theories in physics. And the conclusion that these people are coming to is that there must be more to the cosmos than meets the eye. And rather than just sitting back and giving up, people are then using these observations to make predictions about these things that aren't immediately obvious. And by testing these theories by making quantitative measurements and comparing them with their quantitative theory they can test how well theory gels with observation/experiment. And when these theories work, when they match with observation and experiment, this is called "scientific advancement".
You, on the other hand, are taking theories which do not match experiment and saying that they must be right because they produce pretty pictures. But that isn't science. Pretty pictures is art. Science is quantitative. And the "theories" you propose either have no quantitative component or fall at the first hurdle. This is the antithesis of science.

All you can demonstrate with these references is that you grossly *and I mean grossly* underestimate the mass of a galaxy. You can't demonstrate any of this is related to any form of exotic "dark matter".
Click to expand...
Simply not true. We know how gravity works - that's general relativity. We know what "normal matter is" - that's the Standard model (of particle physics). We know how the particle's of the Standard model interact. We know from observations that the particle's that make up the Standard model cannot be responsible for the "dark matter" because the observations do not agree with the way the standard model particles interact. We know this quantitatively. Therefore, we are pretty certain that the particle's that comprise dark matter cannot be part of the Standard model. Particle's that are not part of the Standard model are, by definition, exotic. Therefore we can be pretty certain that dark matter is exotic.

All you can demonstrate is the failure of your own galaxy mass estimates this way, nothing more.
Click to expand...
Not at all. We know from GR and observation that dark matter cannot be due to MACHOS (except for a small percentage). We know from our lab based experiments that it cannot be clumps of normal matter. Therefore it must, almost certainly, be something exotic.

The only way you could hope to demonstrate SUSY particles in a lab, but alas they don't show up in a lab,
Click to expand...
1) Not all exotic dark matter theories == SUSY.
2) That should be "they haven't shown up in a lab yet". This of course does not mean they don't exist any more than the proton didn't exist before its discovery. All it means is we cannot be certain about there existence...

nor does "Dark energy" or "inflation faeries" or any of the stuff you guys put faith in.
Click to expand...
Correct on DE. The Sun doesn't show up in a lab either. Neither does the Whirlpool galaxy. These are things that are too big to show up in a lab. Its exactly the same for dark energy. If you conclude dark energy doesn't exist because it doesn't show up in a lab then one would probably have to conclude the same about the Sun. I suggest you try to learn about the concept of "scale". Its a very useful concept in physics. (And in art too, for that matter.)
Inflation faeries are something you made up. They don't exist because they are part of your subconcious. Please try to understand the difference between the real world and the things you make up in your head. It would make you seem a lot less like a crackpot.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Are any of you critics man or woman enough to actually "explain" those two solar images using standard solar theory, yes or no?
Click to expand...


That solid surface of the Sun crap has been done to death, Michael. You don't really want to embarrass yourself again, do you? If you don't have a shred of dignity, if you really do want to get trounced one more time, if you truly want to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, to anyone who doesn't already know, how totally scientifically incompetent you are (is there anyone?), you should start another thread.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, they should be "explained" using "KNOWN" forces of nature. Just don't try to explain these images with invisible elves and we'll be fine.
Click to expand...
So only "KNOWN" forces of nature are loowed? How do forces in nature get "KNOWN" if they start off as unknown?

You mean invisible elves like an iron sun?

Michael Mozina said:
All of Birkeland's work was *EMPIRICAL*. These are simply "uncontrolled observations" that were "predictions" of his theories.

Only a crackpot would not see the difference between an "uncontrolled observation" and "controlled experiment". Birkeland "experimented" with his models, and used *control mechanisms* in his experiments to verify *CAUSE* and *EFFECTS* related to EM fields in space. The satellite images are simply "UNCONTROLLED OBSERVATIONS" that are PREDICTED by his *CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS*. Do you understand this distinction, yes or no?
Click to expand...
Yes: An empirical preduiction comes true!
We can expect MM to spew his "empirical measurments of an * CONTROLLED* experiment" non-science yet again.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
You really are being evasive which only confirms my belief that you don't know what you're talking about. This was not a "prediction" that came *BEFORE* the paper. This is an *OBSERVATION* related to their technique. Do you understand this distinction, yes or no?
Click to expand...
I do. The predictions are in the standard textbooks on stellar physics which you are ignorant of.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I have already explained to you that all these papers and observations actually demonstrate is that your "gas model" solar theory is woefully flawed and incapable of accurately "predicting" the mass of any particular galaxy. In short your solar theories are hopelessly flawed, which is exactly why they require 96% "gap filler" to make things work right.
Click to expand...
Learn to read MM - the post is nothing about "gas model" solar theory.

Michael Mozina said:
The very notion that one can "prove" the existence of "dark matter" from an uncontrolled observations is pathetic. At the most one might provide "evidence" to support the notion of "missing mass" from these observations. This only demonstrates to me how useless your solar theories are at actually "predicting" the mass of a galaxy. In other words, your whole belief system is predicated upon a flawed solar model, so you fill the gaps with metaphysical mumbo jumbo that defies empirical support. Dark matter doesn't exist. It's a figment of your imagination. You can't produce a single gram of the stuff and your missing mass is related to the fact that suns are not mostly made of hydrogen and helium.
Click to expand...
Then you agree with: "The very notion that one can "prove" the existence of an "iron sun" from an uncontrolled observations is pathetic".
Thank you Michael Mozina :D !
Your ignorance is showing yet again (and your inability to read). Therew is no "missing mass" It has been measured and so it is not missing.

What has stellar physics got to do with measuring the mass of a galaxy? We measure the mass of stars and gas, do some multiplication and addition and there is the mass of a galaxy. Add the galactic masses to get the mass of a galctic cluster. Measure the motion of galaxies and see that there is mass that we have not measured. Use gravitational lensing to mesure the actual mass in the cludter and see tha most of the mass if not in the galaxies but is distributed as a massive sphere of stuff that does not emit light or interact except through gravity.

Michael Mozina said:
There is an important scientific principle here at stake as well. You certainly will never "prove" anything in your lifetime. You certainly will never see "proof" of dark matter from an uncontrolled observation in your lifetime. At best you may see evidence that you *interpret* as some sort of evidence of "missing mass". All this demonstrates is that you can't accurately guestimate the mass of a galaxy based on your current solar models. That is certainly no surprise to me.
Click to expand...
We can say exactly the same thing about your "Iron Sun" idea:
There is an important scientific principle here at stake as well. You certainly will never "prove" anything in your lifetime. You certainly will never see "proof" of iron sun from an uncontrolled observation in your lifetime. At best you may see evidence that you *interpret* as some sort of evidence of "stratification ". All this demonstrates is that you can't accurately guestimate the structure based on your current solar models. That is certainly no surprise to me.
 
Michael Mozina:
Since it took you some weeks to find the standard defintion of pressure durig a discution in another thread, I will repeat the question I asked you before with a trime stamp. Will it take months or years before you actually answer the question rather than sput you usual non-science about uncontrolled experiments?
Guess what:
Newtonian dynamics have been confirmed in controlled experiments.
Maxwell's equations have been confirmed in controlled experiments.
General Relativity has been confirmed in controlled experiments.

First asked on 23rd June. 2009:

How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
  • galaxy rotation curves (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
  • the motion of galxies in galactic clusters (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
  • the actual measurement of the mass density of galactic clusters showing that about 2% is in the galaxies and IGM (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, indirect measurement)
  • the two actual measurements of the separation of dark matter from normal matter:
  • A bit of supporting evidence is that the Millennium Run used the Lambda-CDM model to replicate the large-scale structure of the universe. CDM = Cold Dark Matter.
N.B. The above evidence is based on empirical data (as defined in MM's web site, e.g. the solar data and images). But we can expect MM to spew his "empirical measurments of an *CONTROLLED* experiment" non-science yet again. And he has :eye-poppi !
 
A good article from the Starts With a Bang blog on the removal and replacement of WFPC2 on the Hubble telescope: The Camera that Changed the Universe: Part 4. This is about gravitational lensing and has this good image of the surface mass density of (maybe cluster 0024+1654 - unfortunately no source is cited):
mass_recon0024_500.jpg

What this shows you is that yes, there are spikes where the individual galaxies are. But the cluster is dominated by this giant spherically-distributed mass that's present everywhere, both where there are galaxies and where there aren't. And that has got to be dark matter.
Click to expand...
If anyone here recognizes the source of the image I would be interested.

BTW: Micheal Mozina, this is an empirical measurement using the known properties of light - telescopes work, light is bent by mass (e.g. by the Sun, in the optical images of cluster 0024+1654 and other examples of gravitational lensing).
 
Reality Check said:
Learn to read MM - the post is nothing about "gas model" solar theory.
Click to expand...

Come on, use your head! It has *EVERYTHING* to do with standard solar theory. You *ASSUME* all those little points of light inside of a galaxy are made of mostly hydrogen and helium. They are not. They are mostly made of iron and nickel and all the the stuff of meteorites. This "mass underestimation" is directly related to your solar theories.

Then you agree with: "The very notion that one can "prove" the existence of an "iron sun" from an uncontrolled observations is pathetic".
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The very *BEST* I could ever hope to do is provide *EVIDENCE* of a surface crust via uncontrolled observations. I've never claimed I could "prove" anything. Science is about providing evidence, not "proof".

Thank you Michael Mozina :D !
Your ignorance is showing yet again (and your inability to read). Therew is no "missing mass" It has been measured and so it is not missing.
Click to expand...

Ok, so we know that the methods you use to calculate the mass of stars and therefore the mass of galaxies is pitifully flawed. It's falsified in fact by these observations. You blew it with your solar model from the start. Now you know how badly you blew it, so you're stuffing the gaps with metaphysical gap filling, dark evil matter.

We measure the mass of stars and gas, do some multiplication and addition and there is the mass of a galaxy.
Click to expand...

All that multiplication that you are doing is based upon the premise that a sun is mostly hydrogen and helium. Your premise about what each point of light represents in terms of mass is utterly flawed. You therefore grossly underestimate the mass of a galaxy. Why stuff the gaps now with a bunch of metaphysical gap filler?

Add the galactic masses to get the mass of a galctic cluster. Measure the motion of galaxies and see that there is mass that we have not measured. Use gravitational lensing to mesure the actual mass in the cludter and see tha most of the mass if not in the galaxies but is distributed as a massive sphere of stuff that does not emit light or interact except through gravity.
Click to expand...

All you will have achieved is to find out exactly HOW BADLY YOU UNDERESTIMATED THE MASS OF A GALAXY. So what? That shows me nothing even remotely like evidence of "dark matter", let alone "proof". Give me a break.

We can say exactly the same thing about your "Iron Sun" idea:
There is an important scientific principle here at stake as well. You certainly will never "prove" anything in your lifetime.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I accept this fact, whereas you do not. You seem to be under the delusion you can point at the sky with a little math and conjure up invisible elves.

You certainly will never see "proof" of iron sun from an uncontrolled observation in your lifetime.
Click to expand...

That is also a true statement. I have however seen a working empirical model of an iron sun that included working coronal loops, working jets, spherical emissions of charged particles, aurora, etc. What will you ever show me that will convince me that your "dark matter" isn't iron and nickel inside suns that are not mostly hydrogen and helium?

At best you may see evidence that you *interpret* as some sort of evidence of "stratification ".
Click to expand...

Indeed. None of you seem to be man or woman enough to even explain you "interpretation" of these images in a public environment. You're all scared to death to even "interpret" the details of these images.

All this demonstrates is that you can't accurately guestimate the structure based on your current solar models. That is certainly no surprise to me.
Click to expand...

Birkeland "predicted" that there would be "rigid features" underneath the plasma photosphere. Everything he "predicted" was based upon "working models" of things that show up in a lab, like electrons, and cathode rays, and electricity. None of his stuff was "made up in his head". He didn't just point at the aurora and claim "dark voodoo energy did it, see here's the math" like you guys. He built real experiments with actual "control mechanisms' based on actual things like electrons and plasma and metal. Your whole industry has forgotten the importance of empirical tests, complete with control mechanisms. You folks have convinced yourselves you can conjure up invisible elves from point at the sky exercises as long as the math fits, and you never have to physically demonstrate any of it here on Earth in your lifetime. That is called "religion".
 
Reality Check said:
So only "KNOWN" forces of nature are loowed? How do forces in nature get "KNOWN" if they start off as unknown?

You mean invisible elves like an iron sun?
Click to expand...

Iron exists in the sun, even by your own theory. Invisible elves are the next door neighbors of the dark energy gnomes that far out dark energy to fill the gaps of your otherwise completely falsified theory.

Yes: An empirical preduiction comes true!
Click to expand...

What is really very sad from my perspective is that you seem to believe it is rational to undervalue the importance of empirical testing and controlled experimentation. Your industry is so far from any other branch of science that you've completely lost touch with everyone except your inbred little cult. Anyone and everyone that doubts your dogma is either sentenced to virtual execution and or public personal ridicule. None of your focus on the actual images or the science, you just sling mud and hope nobody notices how pathetic you look. A real scientist would take those two images, role up their sleeves, put their cards on the table and explain *ALL THE DETAILS* in that image for all the world to see. Only then could you demonstrate to me you actually have superior "wisdom". You aren't a scientist, so that won't be forthcoming from you or anyone else here for that matter. You're cowering in fear, not explaining the image. That tells me everything I need to know.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Um, is there a prize for shooting oneself in the foot?

If there is, you certainly deserve it MM! :p :D

Birkeland's terrella model of Saturn's rings were photographed using emulsions of the time. AFAIK the active ingredient was a silver halide. Silver halides are (most) sensitive to light in the blue part of the spectrum, with significant sensitivity from the near UV into the mid-visual (they are particularly insensitive to red light, which is why dark rooms of old had red lights).

In the photographs reproduced in his publication, Birkeland's 'Saturn' terrella clearly shows a self-luminous (set of) rings ... the rings shine by their own light, not by light reflected from the (model) Saturn (and certainly not by the light reflected from the Sun).
Click to expand...

The term "self luminous" is false. The "currents" provide the light, not the material in the rings. They just provide the physical infrastructure to emit the light but the source of energy for that light is "current flow". It's an electric light show.

It does in fact emit light cause by currents including those ring currents I cited earlier. All Birkeland may have "missed" was the specific wavelength of light which they emit.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Enlighten me then. *WHICH SPECIFIC* textbook "predicted" a "stratification subsurface" that would be located at or around .995R?
Click to expand...


Easy. None. There is no such thing, your propensity for delusional thinking notwithstanding. But really, again I'd like to remind you, if you insist on making complete fool of yourself with that surface of the Sun lunacy, please open a new thread.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Iron exists in the sun, even by your own theory. Invisible elves are the next door neighbors of the dark energy gnomes that far out dark energy to fill the gaps of your otherwise completely falsified theory.
Click to expand...
We have as good evidence that dark matter exists as we do the iron exists in the Sun. We even use our knowledge of the properties of light to do the detections (in once case absorption spectrum, in the other case bending of light by mass).
So if you state that dark matter does not exist then you must also believe that iron does not exist in the Sun.

What is the "otherwise completely falsified theory" of dark matter?
List the evidence that falsified the existence of dark matter.

Michael Mozina said:
What is really very sad from my perspective is that you seem to believe it is rational to undervalue the importance of empirical testing and controlled experimentation. Your industry is so far from any other branch of science that you've completely lost touch with everyone except your inbred little cult. Anyone and everyone that doubts your dogma is either sentenced to virtual execution and or public personal ridicule. None of your focus on the actual images or the science, you just sling mud and hope nobody notices how pathetic you look. A real scientist would take those two images, role up their sleeves, put their cards on the table and explain *ALL THE DETAILS* in that image for all the world to see. Only then could you demonstrate to me you actually have superior "wisdom". You aren't a scientist, so that won't be forthcoming from you or anyone else here for that matter. You're cowering in fear, not explaining the image. That tells me everything I need to know.
Click to expand...
A real scientist would ignore you completely as a crackpot.
A real scientist know that images are nice but data is better. The images are easy to explain - they are sunspots and the surface of teh Sun. So what? What has this to do with dark matter.
(another sign of a crackpot - derailing conversations).

I do not undervalue the importance of "empirical testing" and controlled experimentation.
Controlled experimentation allows scientists to explore the basics of science in areas that they know about. Controlled experiemts allow the extremely precise confirmation of QED and the many tests of Special Relativity.

Unlike you I also know the value of observation.
Uncontrolled experiments (observations) allow scientists to discover things about the universe that they would otherwise not find out. This includes the existence of dark matter.
I wonder how many controlled experiments on gravity Newton did? Or did he use those non-empirical non-scientific (according to Michael Mozina) observations of Kepler and others?

Uncontrolled experiments (e.g. cosmic rays, black holes, galactic jets) allow scientists to test theories at extreme values of their parameters - things that they cannot do in controlled experiments.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Enlighten me then. *WHICH SPECIFIC* textbook "predicted" a "stratification subsurface" that would be located at or around .995R?
Click to expand...
The textbooks predicted stratification. The data gave a number to it.

ETA: First prediction of stratification in the Sun was in 1870:
Great Moments in Solar Physics 3
1870: The internal structure of the sun
Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century, ideas regarding the internal constitution of the sun and stars ranged high and wide. By the 1860's, the spectroscopic work of Kirchoff and collaborators had offered strong evidence that at least the solar atmosphere was in gaseous form, and quite hot at that, but ideas regarding the solar interior remained in the realm of pure speculation. This first began to change with the groundbreaking work Jonathan H. Lane (1819-1880), who in 1870 published a paper in the American Journal of Science and Arts (vol. 50, p. 57) presenting a first mathematical model of the solar interior. Lane assumed that the sun's interior was gaseous and chemically homogeneous throughout, and in a state of hydrostatic equilibrium, whereby the inward gravitational pull of the sun's mass is everywhere balanced by an outward gradient in gas pressure. Further assuming that thermal equilibrium enforced by convective motions would lead to an adiabatic stratification, Lane obtained mathematical relationships describing the rise of density and temperature as one moves from the surface towards the sun's center
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I have already explained to you that all these papers and observations actually demonstrate is that your "gas model" solar theory is woefully flawed and incapable of accurately "predicting" the mass of any particular galaxy. In short your solar theories are hopelessly flawed, which is exactly why they require 96% "gap filler" to make things work right.

The very notion that one can "prove" the existence of "dark matter" from an uncontrolled observations is pathetic. At the most one might provide "evidence" to support the notion of "missing mass" from these observations. This only demonstrates to me how useless your solar theories are at actually "predicting" the mass of a galaxy. In other words, your whole belief system is predicated upon a flawed solar model, so you fill the gaps with metaphysical mumbo jumbo that defies empirical support. Dark matter doesn't exist. It's a figment of your imagination. You can't produce a single gram of the stuff and your missing mass is related to the fact that suns are not mostly made of hydrogen and helium.

There is an important scientific principle here at stake as well. You certainly will never "prove" anything in your lifetime. You certainly will never see "proof" of dark matter from an uncontrolled observation in your lifetime. At best you may see evidence that you *interpret* as some sort of evidence of "missing mass". All this demonstrates is that you can't accurately guestimate the mass of a galaxy based on your current solar models. That is certainly no surprise to me.
Click to expand...

Now how are you going to do that. the mass of visible objects is easy to estimate, as is the mass of the interstellar medium. So how do you think they should estimate the mass of galaxies? What method changes do you propose?

So, as i asked you before.

How do you explain the actual roatation curves of galaxies and the star clusters that orbit them?

There are not enough MACHOs by current observations. So how do you explain the acceleration of the objects beyond that predicted from the visible material?
 
Reality Check said:
The textbooks predicted stratification. The data gave a number to it.
Click to expand...


By a "stratification subsurface", Michael usually means the solid iron surface he sees in his hallucinations. It's pretty safe to say that no textbook predicted that, if only for the simple fact that there is no legitimate scientific evidence to suggest that such a thing actually exists.
 
GeeMack said:
By a "stratification subsurface", Michael usually means the solid iron surface he sees in his hallucinations. It's pretty safe to say that no textbook predicted that, if only for the simple fact that there is no legitimate scientific evidence to suggest that such a thing actually exists.
Click to expand...
You are right. I forgot to translate from MM-speak to English.
 
Dancing David said:
Now how are you going to do that. the mass of visible objects is easy to estimate, as is the mass of the interstellar medium. So how do you think they should estimate the mass of galaxies? What method changes do you propose?
Click to expand...


Easy. You're figuring the mass of galaxies using how gravity bends light, and you come up with all that apparent extra mass you can't explain. So you name the magic surplus "dark matter". And that's where you're as wrong as wrong can be. Instead of inventing "dark matter" fairies as an excuse for the extra mass, divide it up into the necessary amount of iron and nickel to make the surfaces of all those stars solid like a bunch of giant meteors. No need for "dark matter" pixies. Plus there's the proof for the solid surface of the Sun theory. Send a few bazillion volts of electricity careening throughout the universe, zap the stars, they burn like the flash of an arc welder, and, well, let there be light! Everyone in the astrophysics industry actually already knows this, but they're too afraid to admit it for fear of losing their funding. Next question? ;)
 
Reality Check said:
The textbooks predicted stratification. The data gave a number to it.

ETA: First prediction of stratification in the Sun was in 1870:
Great Moments in Solar Physics 3
(emphasis added)
Click to expand...

Which model prior to their paper "predicted" a stratification at around .995R or even a shallow depth under the photosphere? I'm sure you figured it's layered in some manner, but where did predict those rigid outlines just under the photosphere that we observe in Nickel ion doppler images and RD images? Suggesting to me that some ancient model predicted a layering of some sort somewhere in the core is meaningless. Where was there a prediction of a "stratification" that can have a visual effect on shallow doppler images and RD images? That whole regions is supposed to be an open convection zone according to gas model solar theory. The whole thing is supposed to be homogeneously mixed, where iron and nickel ions supposedly stays relatively mixed with hydrogen and helium. How's that supposed to happen with a stratification subsurface that is rigid and blocks the flow of plasma?

I still see nothing in the way of a better "Explanation" being offered for these images. Real scientists would respond with real answers to the actual images in question and they would put some serious options on the table. Since you evidently don't have any serious alternatives, nor any explanations for these images, you'll continue to attack the individual and avoid the data altogether.

You guys are like a wizard of oz deal where you keep repeating "pay no attention to those rigid features in those images, or that man behind the curtain......"
 
GeeMack said:
By a "stratification subsurface", Michael usually means the solid iron surface he sees in his hallucinations.
Click to expand...

Ya, and Doppler images, and running difference images......

It's pretty safe to say that no textbook predicted that, if only for the simple fact that there is no legitimate scientific evidence to suggest that such a thing actually exists.
Click to expand...

You mean except for those RD images and that Doppler image and the nuclear chemistry data, and those coronal loops predicted by Birkeland, and that solar wind predicted by Birkeland and those jet predicted by Birkeland and those pesky auroras "explained" by Birkeland.

Did you care to show any backbone in terms of actual science and explain just these two images, or did you intend to simply live in fear and hurl petty insults for the rest of your life? If you really have a better "explanation", lets hear it. Got one?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom