Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reality Check said:
FYI Marcus,
Michael Mozina has been lying about the contents of Birkeland's book for many months on this forum (and perhaps years on other forums).
Click to expand...
So, MM says he isn't claiming Birkeland believed in an iron sun. I think this is incorrect, that he has made this claim, but I don't know where to find the appropriate post, there are just so many. Do you know where one is?

I realize you guys have throughly debunked his various ideas, I just wanted to pin down this particular point.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/25/55/64/PDF/ajp-jp4199707C408.pdf

The lurkers should understand that a Birkeland solar model is not dependent upon a solid surface, rather it is an electrically oriented solar model where the sun acts as a "cathode" in space, and discharges to the heliosphere.
...snipped electric universe fantasies...
Click to expand...
The lurkers should understand that there is no such thing as a "Birkeland solar model".
There are various ignorant people who think that his Terrella ("little Earth"!) experiments are a model of the Sun. They have never read or understood his book. As far as I know, Birkeland always stated that his experiments were an analogy of solar activity such as sunspots. After his mistaken interpretation of Satrurn's rings as electrical he goes onto the Sun in the "ON POSSIBLE ELECTRIC PHENOMENA IN SOLAR SYSTEMS AND NEBULAE" chapter starting at page 661.

If you were to take the Terrella experiements as physically simulating the Sun (and ignore all solar physics in the past 90 years) then the Sun is a solid metal globe - something Michael Mozina denies - where the surface is the photosphere - something Michael Mozina also denies. Michael Mozina's iron crust fantasy* is 4800 km below the photosphere.


The ignorance comes in citing someone who made several good speculations based on the knowledge of the universe and physics at the time (1910's) that have been disproven by modern physics such as fusion and modern observations
  • Nebula are galaxies not electrical phenomena.
  • Saturn's rings are not electrical phenomena.
  • Comet tails are gas from the comet nucleus.
  • Zodiacal light is not electrical discharges emitted by the Sun.
  • There are no electron emissions from sunspots forming pencils containing electrons traveling almost the speed of light.
  • We know what sunspots are and that they have nothing to do with the Terrella experiments.
  • Any charge large enough to make the Sun a cathode with any measurable effect, also makes the Sun explode.
* Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
Last edited:
phunk said:
Michael, when you call a 200000km deep convection zone a "light convecting surface", which definition of "light" are you using?
Click to expand...

It is probably a layer with "light plasma," the definition of which I asked MM at least a dozen times, but never got an explanation.
 
Marcus said:
So, MM says he isn't claiming Birkeland believed in an iron sun. I think this is incorrect, that he has made this claim, but I don't know where to find the appropriate post, there are just so many. Do you know where one is?

I realize you guys have throughly debunked his various ideas, I just wanted to pin down this particular point.
Click to expand...
By calling his fantasy "Birkeland solar model" he is claiming that Birkeland did believe in an iron sun fantasy (that did not even exist 90 years ago :eye-poppi), for example:
Michael Mozina said:
...snip... I'm into the "prediction" stage of the Birkeland solar model now. ..snip...
Click to expand...

Just search for "Birkeland solar model" in this thread. MM keeps mentioning this as a support for his fantasy.
Or "Can you understand the stupidity of defaming Birkeland's good name?" where I call him out about this behaviour.

It is possible that Birkeland actually thought that the Sun was a giant cathode. This is not ruled out in the book.
It is very unlikely that he thought that there was solid iron anywhere in the Sun since he knew the termperature of the Sun and thus thermodynamics ruled out any solid material anywhere in the Sun.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Birkeland's whole concept was based on 'current flow" and "electricity" and "anodes" and "cathodes". These are the core components of a "Birkeland solar model". With them he created "aurora" around "planets". He created a constant flow of both positive and negatively charged particles.
Click to expand...

Please explain me in detail this, for this unedumacated sterile magnetic space plasma physicist.

If the Sun is a cathode, why does it emit negatively and positively charged particles?

And don't point to Birkeland, please explain it in your own wondrous electric universe words.
 
Michael Mozina said:
My papers actually describe a different "subset" of a Birkeland solar model that has a "rigid" surface not a "solid" surface. It does not matter which of those models you choose, they are both "Birkeland solar models". This is an issue of historical accuracy.
Click to expand...


No. This is a lie. There is no subset of a Birkeland solar model which includes a rigid (read: waffling for solid) surface. There simply is not. There is nothing historically accurate about it.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Did you read the NY times article I posted earlier? I can round it up again for you if you like? What do you mean "if he had one"? Talk about pure denial.
Click to expand...


You mean that solar model that spewed its spare electrons into space which then coalesced into planets? That solar model?
:dl:​
 
Michael Mozina said:
No PS, this is a matter of historical accuracy and historical reality. Birkeland certainly had a "solar model". I posted the NY times article for you didn't I? It wasn't limited to a "solid surface" concept, it was related to an "electric universe" concept. I'm personally willing to go with "solid" or "rigid". I'm completely and utterly "flexible". Both of those solar models however are "subsets" of a "Birkeland solar model". We could apply a Birkland solar model to a Anaxagoras type sphere. We could also apply it to a plasma layered and "rigid" type surface too. There are a million different possible ways we might try to express a "cathode solar model" but if there is current flow from the sun to the heliosphere, then they are all "Birkeland solar models"!
Click to expand...


Not only was Birkeland's solar model not "limited to a 'solid surface' concept", there was no such solar model that embraced such a concept at all. For you to infer that there was is a dishonest distortion of the truth and a despicable slam against the departed Kristian Birkeland.
 
posted by Michael Mozina
The same way I could toss out all those beautiful epicycles related to the movements of planets around the Earth. If the math isn't all that useful, what's the point of clinging to it?
Click to expand...
Hi Michael, I have tried to just stay back, but this it too prime!

What replaced those mathematical epicycles?

Kepler's mathematical ellipses!
 
Michael Mozina said:
A solid surface model is simply a solid surface model, volcanoes and everything. A "rigid" solar model is a plasma layered solar model, with more dense and "rigid" plasma under the surface of the neon layer you call a photosphere, but it may not have a "solid" surface.
Click to expand...


Nobody is calling the photosphere a "neon layer" but you, Michael. For you to infer that as already being accepted is dishonest. It is not true. It also shows once again that you do not understand the term "photosphere" and you should avoid using it. It makes your arguments look absolutely foolish.

To my knowledge Birkeland never committed himself to either a solid surface or a plasma type environment. He understood the behaviors of plasma and it's not clear to me that he "wrote off' any idea. All his physical experiments were based on a metallic sphere, so there is a an "element" of assumption that one tends to come to. In other words he does tend to imply it's probably a metallic iron sphere, but like any good scientist, he left all options on the table. He was far more interested in promoting the electrical aspects (cathode aspects) of his solar theory, not necessarily trying to limit the concept to a solid surface solar model.
Click to expand...


Your comparison of Birkeland's little brass ball to a metal surfaced solar model is like suggesting the RMS Titanic was made of polystyrene plastic because I have one like that on my bookshelf. That is a ridiculous and dishonest argument. It's grade school science, at best, and an argument from ignorance by definition. Your argument that Birkeland was the originator of your very own crackpot conjecture is disingenuous and a despicable display of contempt.
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
Blackbody, and any terms or phrases including blackbody.
Click to expand...


Obviously we must add "rigid" to the list, too. So the terms Michael uses, the definitions of which he clearly does not understand include, but are not limited to:

  • photosphere
  • chromosphere
  • opaque
  • limb darkening
  • idiosyncratic
  • empirical
  • solar model
  • blackbody
  • rigid
We know if Michael's arguments contain any of these terms, we can accept them as meaningless gibberish, because although lord knows how hard we've tried to help him understand this stuff, it has been a near futile effort.

Michael, try to narrow your arguments to eliminate the use of those words and phrases if you would. And as we find more terms which you don't understand, we can add them to the list and you can cease using them. It will make this whole communication thing much better for everyone if we prune the parts of your arguments that are causing confusion.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
All his physical experiments were based on a metallic sphere, so there is a an "element" of assumption that one tends to come to. In other words he does tend to imply it's probably a metallic iron sphere, but like any good scientist, he left all options on the table. He was far more interested in promoting the electrical aspects (cathode aspects) of his solar theory, not necessarily trying to limit the concept to a solid surface solar model.
Click to expand...

I do not think that Birkeland ever made the assumption that the Sun was a metallic sphere, unless you can show some proof of this, it can be swept into the wastebucket of MM solar model ideas.

The only reason why Birkeland used a metal sphere is because he wanted to understand how electric currents create e.g. the aurora and to mimic the processes seen on the Sun, at comets or at Saturn. To quote from the paper just linked to by MM:

Rypdal & Brundtland said:
(Page C4-117)
In two gas discharge set-ups, he produced results which he interpreted as current whirls around a metallic sphere painted with phosphorescent material, with an electromagnet inside. The spheres in each case simulated the Earth with its magnetic field. The currents were created by a cold cathode discharge between electrodes in the tube, and were seen on the terrella as illuminations of the phosphorescent paint and as wedges of light
with embedded rays in the rarefied gas. He could see two narrow rings of light around the poles of the sphere which was interpreted as aurora in miniature.

(Page C4118)
Ten different terrellas are described with diameters from 2.5 to 36 cm. In the first experiments, performed in the autumn of 1900, Birkeland used two terrellas, 5.0 and 7.5 cm in diameter. The electromagnets with core and windings were shaped as spheres and surrounded with a thin crust of brass covered with a coat of barium platinocyanide. Birkeland was well aware that he could not achieve quantitative similarity to natural magnetic conditions.
...
All the other terrella experiments of Birkeland were described in the treatise from the third arctic expedition [2], which covers his lab work from 1901-1913. Many of the experiments were performed with terrellas where the coil and thus the magnetic axis were tilted relative to the vertical axis.
During the experiments he was able to rotate the terrellas around the vertical axis, and in this way he studied the effect of the eccentricity of the Earth's magnetic poles on the aurora.
When first starting systematic terrella experiments he used cylindrical tubes, with a volume of approximately 12 liters, as shown in Fig. 3. Experiments in this tube were also used for comparison with the orbit calculations of Carl St~irmer. For direct comparison with experiments wire models were made for visualization of the trajectories in space, as shown in Fig. 4.
Click to expand...

Then there is a little confusion there, because Birkeland switched from having separate anode, which role was later taken over by the terrella.

Rypdal & Brundtland said:
(Page C4-118)
When simulating the aurora in the laboratory Birkeland had to give the terrella some sort of atmosphere. This problem was solved in various ways. In the early weak discharges the surface of the terrella was covered with a phosphorescent paint that produced visible light when hit by the rays.
Later he described another method that made it easier to observe rays in the surrounding space. By running a high current through the magnetizing coil, the terrella surface became hot and gave off gas. He then reduced the magnetic field to the desired value, ignited the discharge, and took pictures. A third method was to cover the surface with a thin layer of pump oil, which evaporated during the dicharge.
Click to expand...

Note that the terrella is still an anode as the electrons need to go there to produce the aurora in the "liberated" gas.

Then to investigate the zodiacal light, which he also presumed to be a discharge (however it is reflected light off dust) he

Rypdal & Brundtland said:
(Page C4-119)
This experimental set-up was very similar to the one for the aurora, but the polarity of the discharge was changed. The terrella, which was without phosphorescent coating, was now negative and served as the cathode, simulating the Sun. He used one or two aluminium discs for anodes.
Click to expand...

Then he starts to look at solar phenomena, with the same cathode terrella.

Rypdal & Brundtland said:
(Page C4-121)
During earlier experiments he had seen that disruptive discharges could radiate from points on the cathodic terrella surface. With a low gas pressure, a vefy high discharge current and with no magnetic field around the terrella, he could create arcs from points on the surface to the anode disc and chamber walls.
...
These point discharges, which were spread all around the surface of the terrella, were interpreted by Birkeland as small sunspot models. He observed that the spots were easier to make when the surface was rough. When introducing magnetic field on the terrella, he observed that the spots were
grouped in two zones at a certain northern and southern magnetic latitude. By increasing the field the zones moved closer to the equator of the sphere. At increasing magnetic field the sunspots turned into luminous bands which coalesced at the equator.
After running discharges, he took out the terrella and studied it in a microscope, and observed small craters where the spot discharges had been. This observation supported his hypothesis that mass is thrown out from the Sun during solar flares. Some of this atomic dust, falls back to the
surface of the Sun, some disappears into Space, and some will end up orbiting the Sun, and slowly clump together and form planets. He considered the asteroid belt as masses halfway in the process from solar dust to planets.
Click to expand...

So, in the end, Birkeland saw what was happening on the metal sphere and then interpreted it, not by saying that the Sun is a metal sphere, but that
Sun spots are discharge endings where atomic dust is flung away from the Sun. This atomic dust then forms the planets. I think we can safely assume that Birkeland knew that the planets are not made out of iron (actually his terrella sphere was made of brass, because ....) and therefore would never have concluded that there is an iron sphere in the Sun.

He may have been paranoid at the end of his life, but he was not stupid.
 
Michael Mozina said:
...snip...
He understood the behaviors of plasma and it's not clear to me that he "wrote off' any idea.
...snip....
Click to expand...

A bit more ignorance from you, Michael Mozina.
  • The term plasma was not invented until 1928.
  • What Birkeland understood was his experiments using electrical discharges.
  • I have seen no evidence of plasma in his experiments. I would guess (and it is a guess) that some of them would have plasma generated.
  • Birkeland did not write off any idea that was supported by observations or controlled empirical experiments.
    He would have immediately written off your fantasy* since he knew that the Sun had a temperature of ~6000 K. The fact that temperature is measured to increase within the photosphere with depth is just confirmation that your idea is wrong.
* Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
I do not think that Birkeland ever made the assumption that the Sun was a metallic sphere, unless you can show some proof of this, it can be swept into the wastebucket of MM solar model ideas.

The only reason why Birkeland used a metal sphere is because he wanted to understand how electric currents create e.g. the aurora and to mimic the processes seen on the Sun, at comets or at Saturn. To quote from the paper just linked to by MM:
Click to expand...
Another interesting fact from that paper: Terrella experiments are being done today (at least in 2007): The Collisionless Terrella Experiment.
I wonder why they are not trying to simulate the Sun with this Terrella :rolleyes:!
 
tusenfem said:
So, in the end, Birkeland saw what was happening on the metal sphere and then interpreted it, not by saying that the Sun is a metal sphere, but that Sun spots are discharge endings where atomic dust is flung away from the Sun. This atomic dust then forms the planets. I think we can safely assume that Birkeland knew that the planets are not made out of iron (actually his terrella sphere was made of brass, because ....) and therefore would never have concluded that there is an iron sphere in the Sun.
Click to expand...


I had the opportunity to communicate with one of the coauthors of that paper, Terje Brundtland, back in 2006 when Michael was actually claiming that Birkeland's terrella was made from iron. I also communicated with Truls Lynne Hansen of the Tromsø Geophysical Observatory. He was responsible for reconstructing Birkeland's terrella experiment from the original parts and has held the terrellas in his own hands. Both of them informed me that the original terrellas were usually made from brass. Here is what Mr. Brundtland said...

Terje Brundtland said:
Birkeland's terrellas were normally made from brass. In at least one case he used a small brass-terrella coated with barium platinocyanide, in another he described a large (24 cm) brass-terrella with a smooth, silver-coated surface. He also performed experiments with this terrella when covered by two hemispherical shells of aluminum.
Click to expand...


It would seem reasonable to use brass, or even aluminum, because of their ease of working into a shell, because of their electrical conductivity, and/or because neither has any significant magnetic properties. Of course Birkeland had the option to use iron. He chose not to. And of course he didn't believe the Sun was covered in a shell of brass or aluminum any more than he believed it was covered in a shell of iron.
 
Tim Thompson said:
The bottom line is that it is Mozina, and not "this particular crew" who explicitly rejects observation and its role in science. He always rejects observations contrary to his prejudice, and what he does definitely is not observation in any serious sense. It's a good thing Mozina likes to look at images, because unfettered imagination is the only thing he has to offer.
Click to expand...

Hear Hear ! Well said Sir.:cool:
 
This is all nonsense and you are all dead wrong! I'm sticking with Anaxagoras: the sun is a giant flaming ball of metal, even larger than the Peloponnese.
He didn't need math bunnies, nuclear fusion, thermodynamics, magnetic currents, convection and all the other silly stuff you all talk about here! Some day I'm going to learn some math and show the world!
 
GeeMack said:
Michael Mozina said:
No PS, this is a matter of historical accuracy and historical reality. Birkeland certainly had a "solar model". I posted the NY times article for you didn't I? It wasn't limited to a "solid surface" concept, it was related to an "electric universe" concept. I'm personally willing to go with "solid" or "rigid". I'm completely and utterly "flexible". Both of those solar models however are "subsets" of a "Birkeland solar model". We could apply a Birkland solar model to a Anaxagoras type sphere. We could also apply it to a plasma layered and "rigid" type surface too. There are a million different possible ways we might try to express a "cathode solar model" but if there is current flow from the sun to the heliosphere, then they are all "Birkeland solar models"!
Click to expand...
Not only was Birkeland's solar model not "limited to a 'solid surface' concept", there was no such solar model that embraced such a concept at all. For you to infer that there was is a dishonest distortion of the truth and a despicable slam against the departed Kristian Birkeland.
Click to expand...
(bold added)

Let's take a look at one of these ""cathode solar model"s".

Start with "from the sun": let's assume it's the cathode, i.e. the place to which electrons flow; let's also assume that the actual cathode is the photosphere, which is 700,000 km from the centre of the Sun (we can adjust the numbers a bit later).

Next, "to the heliosphere": let's assume this is the surface of a sphere, whose radius is 100 au, with the Sun at its centre.

Now in all ""electric universe" concepts" that I have seen, out there on the world-wide internet, the Sun is powered by a "current flow", so in this first ""cathode solar model"", the current must produce ~3.8 x 10^26 W, which is the observed power (energy per second) of the Sun.

How does the "current flow" produce this power? Let's assume it does so by converting the kinetic energy of the electrons into electromagnetic radiation, on (or at) the photosphere. We won't worry ourselves about how this happens ("electrical processes" perhaps), for now.

Let's keep it simple and assume that electrons arrive at the photosphere at the same rate as they leave the heliosphere - x electrons leave the heliosphere in one second, and x electrons arrive at the photosphere in one second. In other words, electrons are neither created nor destroyed between the heliosphere and photosphere, and that the current flow is a steady one.

So, how many electrons leave the heliosphere every second? Well, the electron density there is 10 million per cubic metre, and the electrons are moving at 6 million metres per second (again, we can adjust the numbers later), so across each square metre of heliosphere surface there will be 60 trillion electrons crossing every second. Now the heliosphere's surface is ~3 x 10^27 square metres, so 1.8 x 10^41 electrons depart for the photosphere every second.

How fast are these electrons moving when they reach the photosphere? Well, let's keep it very simple and use the physics of Birkeland's day; specifically the part of Newtonian physics which says that the kinetic energy of a body moving at speed v is half its mass times v squared. Now the mass of an electron is 9.1 x 10^-31 kg, and every second 1.8 x 10^41 electrons give up their kinetic energy for light. So we have a simple equation (Ne is the number of electrons, m the mass of an electron, and v its speed):

1/2 mv^2 * Ne = 3.8 x 10^26

which, when we plug in the numbers, gives us the speed of the electrons as 700 million metres per second.

Before I proceed to check this model against empirical reality (i.e. results of experiments in the lab), I'd like MM to check my model for any flaws, errors, shortcomings, etc.

Of course, every other JREF member reading this is more than welcome to do so too, but if you could, please limit your comments to any mistakes I may have made in my math.

I should add that I have developed this model using only the simplest formulae/math I could; in fact there's little here beyond arithmetic; some extremely simple algebra; the standard definitions of things like energy, power, and density; and the formula for kinetic energy.
 
Marcus said:
Okay, so you're not claiming that Birkeland believed in your iron sun, and therefore not defaming him as being clueless about thermodynamics. Fair enough. The only problem is, I could have sworn you invoked his name as believing in the iron sun before.
Click to expand...

In the sense I've "given him credit" for this solar model perhaps, but I personally have never limited his cathode solar model to a solid surface model. That's GM's strawman so he can keep calling me a "liar" in every post.
 
GeeMack said:
You mean that solar model that spewed its spare electrons into space which then coalesced into planets? That solar model?
Click to expand...

It wasn't the electrons that coalesced into planets GM. Are you really trying to claim that not one single atom that exists on Earth today originally came from the sun?
 
Perpetual Student said:
This is all nonsense and you are all dead wrong! I'm sticking with Anaxagoras: the sun is a giant flaming ball of metal, even larger than the Peloponnese.
He didn't need math bunnies, nuclear fusion, thermodynamics, magnetic currents, convection and all the other silly stuff you all talk about here! Some day I'm going to learn some math and show the world!
Click to expand...

PS, astronomy today is strung together with metaphysical and physically impossible "math bunnies". When they can't quantify something with known laws of physics, they simply 'make up' whatever then need. Can't explain acceleration? Add "dark energy"! Can't explain faster than light expansion? Toss in a liberal helping of dead "inflation" genies. Need to simplify a solar model? Just claim that the outside "surface" is "opaque" to every single wavelength under the sun. That's how this industry works PS. They have such a strong need to quantify everything they see that they really don't care about empirical physics in terms of supporting what they're claiming. If it gets in the way of their quantification process, forget empirical physics!

In the case of the SSM, the "math bunny" that they created relates to their "opacity' claim. If that one claim goes down in flames, so do major parts of the SSM.
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, I wonder what charge the Sun will have accumulated, in the ""cathode solar model"" I presented in my last post?

Well, in that model, 1.8 x 10^41 electrons arrive at the photosphere every second. We know (or can safely assume, I think) that the Sun has remained pretty much the same, in terms of its brightness, for all of recorded human history, 5,000 years let's say.

Now the electron's charge is -1.6 x 10^-18 C (coulombs), and there are 1.6 x 10^11 seconds in 5,000 years.

So the Sun will have accumulated ~5 x 10^33 C in that time.

That seems rather a lot of charge; what happens when you put that much charge into a sphere of radius 700,000 km, composed of some mixture of iron, silicon, neon, helium, and hydrogen?

(someone please check my arithmetic)
 
GeeMack said:
That is a ridiculous and dishonest argument. It's grade school science, at best, and an argument from ignorance by definition. Your argument that Birkeland was the originator of your very own crackpot conjecture is disingenuous and a despicable display of contempt.
Click to expand...

What's "dishonest" is you calling him a clueless Bozo in one post and them *PRETENDING* to care about his "good name" in the next post. You don't care about Birkeland's reputation. You're just using the whole argument as another way for you to stuff the term "liar" or some other "not civil" statement into you post. You are a complete and total hypocrite and you have no interest in honoring his good name. You called him a clueless Bozo! You're a trip dude.
 
GeeMack said:
No. This is a lie.
Click to expand...

No, your pretense of honoring Birkeland's good name is a lie. You called him a Bozo without a clue. You aren't fooling anyone GM.

There is no subset of a Birkeland solar model which includes a rigid (read: waffling for solid) surface. There simply is not. There is nothing historically accurate about it.
Click to expand...

*ANY* cathode solar model is a subset of a Birkeland solar model. PERIOD. Deal with it and quit being so blatantly hypocritical. You can't call him a bozo in one post and pretend to honor his work in the next. It only makes you look ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
It's called sputtering.
Click to expand...

Michael, it's amazing how reliably you wander blindly into things I have direct research experience with. You think the solar wind is leaving the Sun because of sputtering? Seriously? What's the beam, and what's the target?
 
Michael Mozina said:
In the case of the SSM, the "math bunny" that they created relates to their "opacity' claim. If that one claim goes down in flames, so do major parts of the SSM.
Click to expand...

Geez. Apparently "applying the laws of thermodynamics and optics to the Sun" is now a math bunny. "Inventing an never-before-observed and incalculable population-inverted state of neon" is Mozina-style 'empirical science'. Got it.

Why don't you review the mainstream evidence for the "opacity claim", Michael. Then you can debunk it point by point. Start with Milne, 1921. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1921MNRAS..81..361M
 
Michael Mozina said:
PS, astronomy today is strung together with metaphysical and physically impossible "math bunnies". When they can't quantify something with known laws of physics, they simply 'make up' whatever then need.
Click to expand...

Oh, there's nothing simple about it. The introduction of dark matter, dark energy, and inflation involved (and still involves) huge amounts of effort by large numbers of extremely intelligent people, all working to find simple, testable models that are consistent with observations. Admittedly, "simple" is in the eye of the beholder.

Can't explain acceleration? Add "dark energy"! Can't explain faster than light expansion? Toss in a liberal helping of dead "inflation" genies.
Click to expand...

And your superior approach would be to stare at PR pictures of acceleration and FTL expansion until you had an epiphany?

Need to simplify a solar model? Just claim that the outside "surface" is "opaque" to every single wavelength under the sun.
Click to expand...

"Just claim?" They base it on detailed plasma models (well-validated in laboratory experiments), backed up by huge amounts of observational data. The fact that you have a different observational interpretation based on PR images does not, IMO, invalidate the observational work done by thousands of highly-trained professionals who have devoted their careers to this sort of thing.

That's how this industry works PS. They have such a strong need to quantify everything they see that they really don't care about empirical physics in terms of supporting what they're claiming. If it gets in the way of their quantification process, forget empirical physics!
Click to expand...

Quantification is part of the description of the empirical physics. To suggest that they are separate fields of endeavor is . . . weird.

In the case of the SSM, the "math bunny" that they created relates to their "opacity' claim. If that one claim goes down in flames, so do major parts of the SSM.
Click to expand...

So, to be clear - you believe that the photosphere is not opaque because you can see through it in RD images, and because there are features that last >8 minutes? Or is there other evidence?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
It's called sputtering.

http://www.ajaint.com/whatis.htm
Click to expand...

Apparently you can't or won't read your own sources!

You still are stuck where you were in the past an 'electric sun' can not produce all three types of positive, neutral and negative particles.
A technique used to deposit thin films of a material onto a surface (a.k.a. "substrate"). By first creating a gaseous plasma and then accelerating the ions from this plasma into some source material (a.k.a. "target"), the source material is eroded by the arriving ions via energy transfer and is ejected in the form of neutral particles - either individual atoms, clusters of atoms or molecules. As these neutral particlesare ejected they will travel in a straight line unless they come into contact with something - other particles or a nearby surface. If a "substrate" such as a Si wafer is placed in the path of these ejected particles it will be coated by a thin film of the source material.
Click to expand...

Epic is the fail.
 
ben m said:
Michael Mozina said:
It's called sputtering.
Click to expand...
Michael, it's amazing how reliably you wander blindly into things I have direct research experience with. You think the solar wind is leaving the Sun because of sputtering? Seriously? What's the beam, and what's the target?
Click to expand...
I'm not MM, but from what he's posted recently, I'd guess that "the beam" is those ~1.8 x 10^41 electrons which hit the photosphere every second, at 700 million metres per second. They arrive ~normal to the photosphere's surface (see my posts above for a first pass set of estimates, based on MM's own words).

"the target" is a bit more tricky; however, I think it might be the ""rigid"" neon plasma which is what "the photosphere" is composed of (I'm not sure where I need to put double quote marks, wrt neon plasma, nor whether that term is the one MM has actually used).
 
Michael Mozina said:
In the sense I've "given him credit" for this solar model perhaps, but I personally have never limited his cathode solar model to a solid surface model. That's GM's strawman so he can keep calling me a "liar" in every post.
Click to expand...

Stop calling the 'electric sun' model Birkeland's, you have never shown that at all.

:D
 
Dancing David said:
Apparently you can't or won't read your own sources!

You still are stuck where you were in the past an 'electric sun' can not produce all three types of positive, neutral and negative particles.


Epic is the fail.
Click to expand...

The only epic fail is you not bothering to ever read Birkeland's work. He even wrote whole papers about positive and negative particles in the solar wind.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
I'm not MM, but from what he's posted recently, I'd guess that "the beam" is those ~1.8 x 10^41 electrons which hit the photosphere every second, at 700 million metres per second. They arrive ~normal to the photosphere's surface (see my posts above for a first pass set of estimates, based on MM's own words).

"the target" is a bit more tricky; however, I think it might be the ""rigid"" neon plasma which is what "the photosphere" is composed of (I'm not sure where I need to put double quote marks, wrt neon plasma, nor whether that term is the one MM has actually used).
Click to expand...

FYI, the primary target is the heliosphere.
 
Okay so in a newpaper article the author of the news paper article say Birkeland said that the stars have negatibe charges and that this created the planets. And that teh sources is 600,000,000 volts.

Okay fair enough, so what keeps repulsion from blowing apart the sun?
 
Dancing David said:
Okay so in a newpaper article the author of the news paper article say Birkeland said that the stars have negatibe charges and that this created the planets. And that teh sources is 600,000,000 volts.

Okay fair enough, so what keeps repulsion from blowing apart the sun?
Click to expand...

Gravity. :)
 
Tim Thompson said:
He does not examine or consider the content of the experiments or observations is any way. He rejects them at once, for the sole & single reason that they do not support his own subjective preconception. That is neither science by any stretch, nor is it even particularly intelligent.
Click to expand...

This is perhaps the saddest part of all. Michael is at least consistent in his rejection of maths. He knows he can't do it or understand it, and never pretends otherwise. No matter what point he is arguing, maths will always be dismissed as irrelevant. However, Michael has always made a big song and dance about empirical science. Hand in hand with his rejection of maths has always been the justification that the maths is rejected because it conflicts with observations and laboratory experiments.

Yet here we see that Michael actually has no interest in the empirical parts either. Any observations or experiments that disagree with his imagination are either dismissed out of hand or, more commonly, simply ignored entirely. The word "liar" has been thrown around a few times already in this thread, and it's hard to think of any other word to describe someone who constantly claims to only respect empirical science, but refuses to actually acknowledge any when it is presented to him.
 
Cuddles said:
This is perhaps the saddest part of all. Michael is at least consistent in his rejection of maths.
Click to expand...

No, just "maths" that don't have any empirical justification, like those dark energy maths and those inflation maths. They have no empirical basis whatsoever, and no empirical justification whatsoever.

He knows he can't do it or understand it, and never pretends otherwise.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of "understanding" or not "understanding", it's a matter of "belief" or lack thereof. I lack belief in "dark energy gnomes", so stuffing them into a math formula is pointless IMO.

No matter what point he is arguing, maths will always be dismissed as irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Not true. I didn't claim that math related to ionization states and absorption was irrelevant. Some math is critical. Some math is simply 'made up'. At *least* 96% of the math used in astronomy today is "made up" and has no empirical support in any lab on Earth.

However, Michael has always made a big song and dance about empirical science.
Click to expand...

Like "empirical physics" is every going to go out of style? Sorry, but I'm a big fan of empirical physics. It brought me this computer, my car, my TV, etc. It's those inflation genies that never show up in a lab that I don't buy into.

Yet here we see that Michael actually has no interest in the empirical parts either. Any observations or experiments that disagree with his imagination are either dismissed out of hand or, more commonly, simply ignored entirely. The word "liar" has been thrown around a few times already in this thread, and it's hard to think of any other word to describe someone who constantly claims to only respect empirical science, but refuses to actually acknowledge any when it is presented to him.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't all sound so ironic if you weren't all trying to deny that Birkeland had a solar model. The denial routine seems to come exclusively from your side of the aisle.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom