DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
Two more:
* sputtering
* gravity
I suspect current (or something similar, like current flow) will soon be added:
Michael Mozina said:
Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...
- Thread starter brantc
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fusion solar power
- Status
* sputtering
* gravity
I suspect current (or something similar, like current flow) will soon be added:
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
Thanks for the clarification.
What particles are impacting this target? At what rates (particles per second per square metre)? speeds?
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
If it (the ""photosphere"", acting as ""cathode"") "gives off both positive *and* negative particles" then it's not a cathode (thanks for the clarification).
Perhaps more of a concern - in terms of being on the same page wrt key words - if the Sun "gives off both positive *and* negative particles", there cannot be a "current flow from the sun to the heliosphere", by definition of current flow. So it would seem that "current flow" is yet another of those key terms which have a special meaning when you use them.
May I ask: when you use the terms "cathode" and "current flow", what do you mean?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,306
The mathematical theory of gravity has an empirical basis. The mathematical theory of thermodynamics has an empirical basis. The mathematical theory of electromagnetism has an empirical basis. But you won't touch any of that stuff with math. You are the first person I've ever interacted with who was actively math-phobic.
Screw dark energy. It's not relevant to the sun. Thermodynamics is. Gravity is. Electromagnetism is. And you are ignorant of all of them.
And 72% of all statistics are made up. You're comedy gold, Michael.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Oh, I missed this one!
This is perfect!
I say we forget about all the rest for now and focus on this!
Since MM put forth this statistic, one can assume he's done due diligence as to making sure it's accurate (one can be wrong, but one can assume).
So, MM, how about it?
Start by giving us a list of the math used in astronomy (just the major formulas should do, unless you feel more detail is needed).
Then you can go item by item and tell us which ones lack any empirical support.
This should be fun!
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
On Kristian Birkeland and Solar Models III
Mozina is either stupid or dishonest, take your pick. Birkeland, as far as I know, never once in his career published a model of the sun. He made some remarks about what he thinks is going on there, but never really concerned himself greatly with it. He was far more interested in his ideas about electrical activity in interplanetary space, and especially the interaction of Earth's magnetic field with electric currents in space. Mozina knows this quite well, which is why the best he can come up with is a review article from the New York Times. I took Mozina to task over his serious misrepresentation of Birkeland and his work in my earlier posts "On Kristian Birkeland and Solar Models" and "On Kristian Birkeland and Solar Models II". Of course Mozina ignored it, as is his habit whenever confronted with uncomfortable facts. Here is an excerpt from the first post ...
Mozina may use words from the English language, but he has crafted his own "Mozina language" using those words, such that under normal circumstances it can be impossible to understand what he means. In this case, he seems to think that the word "model" applies to any loose collection of words he can find. So, some anonymous reporter from the New York Times sits in on a lecture by Birkeland and writes a review of what he heard. We get a few bits & pieces filtered through the reporter and suddenly we are confronted with the epic Birkeland Model for the sun. I don't think so. We are in fact confronted with a reporter's version of what he thinks Birkeland said while talking about the sun, amongst numerous other topics.
Mozina knows very well that nobody would pay attention to the Mozina Model for the sun, so he wraps himself in Birkeland's name in an effort to steal for himself some of the respect Birkeland gets. It's an effort to convince the unwary reader that since it's Birkeland's model we should be falling all over ourselves to worship it, since Birkeland was really smart, and it would be deeply pretentious of any of us here to even suggest that Birkeland was wrong about anything. Well, not only do I assert that Birkeland was wrong about a lot of things, I will even go so far as to openly assert that I, the one and only Tim Thompson, as I sit here and type, know a great deal more about space physics that Birkeland ever did.
OK, all in favor of voting me the most arrogant slob on the web, raise your hands. But let me first point out that it has been 100 years or more since Birkeland did his thing with terrelas and aurorae. Lots of scientists every bit as smart as Birkeland have been working on space physics and the sun. They have discovered over that time that Birkeland was ahead of his time and very insightful in his understanding of the cause of auroral phenomena. They have also discovered that many of his guesses and assumptions about space electricity and the sun were wrong. They were not wrong because Birkeland was an idiot, the were wrong because he and everyone else simply lacked enough raw factual knowledge to come up with correct ideas. You win some and you lose some, it happens to us all, even Nobel Prize winners. I have read & studied several of those books, and have even co-authored a paper in the field myself (Bolton, et al., 1989 and also Klein, Thompson & Bolton, 1989).
It is dishonest and disingenuous and self serving and nothing more or less than that, for Mozina to continually call his Mozina Model of the sun by Birkeland's name. This judgement can be altered easily enough by simply pointing out the science journal paper in which Birkeland (and not a newspaper reporter) documents his own, real, official, Birkeland Model of the sun. I suspect the Mozina would already have done this if he knew of such a paper. The fact that all he can do is cite some review article in the New York Times tells me that no such paper exists. Find it & cite it, or stop talking crap about Birkeland.
Stop calling the 'electric sun' model Birkeland's, you have never shown that at all.
Mozina is either stupid or dishonest, take your pick. Birkeland, as far as I know, never once in his career published a model of the sun. He made some remarks about what he thinks is going on there, but never really concerned himself greatly with it. He was far more interested in his ideas about electrical activity in interplanetary space, and especially the interaction of Earth's magnetic field with electric currents in space. Mozina knows this quite well, which is why the best he can come up with is a review article from the New York Times. I took Mozina to task over his serious misrepresentation of Birkeland and his work in my earlier posts "On Kristian Birkeland and Solar Models" and "On Kristian Birkeland and Solar Models II". Of course Mozina ignored it, as is his habit whenever confronted with uncomfortable facts. Here is an excerpt from the first post ...
Mozina may use words from the English language, but he has crafted his own "Mozina language" using those words, such that under normal circumstances it can be impossible to understand what he means. In this case, he seems to think that the word "model" applies to any loose collection of words he can find. So, some anonymous reporter from the New York Times sits in on a lecture by Birkeland and writes a review of what he heard. We get a few bits & pieces filtered through the reporter and suddenly we are confronted with the epic Birkeland Model for the sun. I don't think so. We are in fact confronted with a reporter's version of what he thinks Birkeland said while talking about the sun, amongst numerous other topics.
Mozina knows very well that nobody would pay attention to the Mozina Model for the sun, so he wraps himself in Birkeland's name in an effort to steal for himself some of the respect Birkeland gets. It's an effort to convince the unwary reader that since it's Birkeland's model we should be falling all over ourselves to worship it, since Birkeland was really smart, and it would be deeply pretentious of any of us here to even suggest that Birkeland was wrong about anything. Well, not only do I assert that Birkeland was wrong about a lot of things, I will even go so far as to openly assert that I, the one and only Tim Thompson, as I sit here and type, know a great deal more about space physics that Birkeland ever did.
OK, all in favor of voting me the most arrogant slob on the web, raise your hands. But let me first point out that it has been 100 years or more since Birkeland did his thing with terrelas and aurorae. Lots of scientists every bit as smart as Birkeland have been working on space physics and the sun. They have discovered over that time that Birkeland was ahead of his time and very insightful in his understanding of the cause of auroral phenomena. They have also discovered that many of his guesses and assumptions about space electricity and the sun were wrong. They were not wrong because Birkeland was an idiot, the were wrong because he and everyone else simply lacked enough raw factual knowledge to come up with correct ideas. You win some and you lose some, it happens to us all, even Nobel Prize winners. I have read & studied several of those books, and have even co-authored a paper in the field myself (Bolton, et al., 1989 and also Klein, Thompson & Bolton, 1989).
It is dishonest and disingenuous and self serving and nothing more or less than that, for Mozina to continually call his Mozina Model of the sun by Birkeland's name. This judgement can be altered easily enough by simply pointing out the science journal paper in which Birkeland (and not a newspaper reporter) documents his own, real, official, Birkeland Model of the sun. I suspect the Mozina would already have done this if he knew of such a paper. The fact that all he can do is cite some review article in the New York Times tells me that no such paper exists. Find it & cite it, or stop talking crap about Birkeland.
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
But, but, but ...
Can't you see, Zig, it's got nothing to do with math!
It's the most basic, elementary logic!!
Follow along with me here ...
"This cat is black, therefore all swans are white!"
"Some astrophysicists use the concept of dark energy, therefore the standard solar model is wrong!"
And on top of that, Birkeland *proved*, 100 years ago now, that dark energy doesn't exist! *AND* he did so using *empirical* experiments!! In his lab!!!
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Great. Start with any modern day "Lambda-CDM" model and tell me how much of that theory (percentage wise) is composed of ordinary elements from the periodic table, electrons, neutrinos, and other things that have been verified in the lab. Then tell me how much of that theory is based *STRICTLY* upon "dark" stuff, and things that fail to show up in experiments on Earth.
Gravity.
Ah yes, gravity. Does gravity have some magic property that it "prevents things from exploding"? No, oddly enough.
Last time I heard, gravity was well-described by some EQUATIONS---Newton's Law of Gravitation is a good one in this case---which tell you (if you do the math) how much force acts on a given object in a given location. From there, Newton's Second Law tells you where the object goes.
Did Newton's Laws tell you that gravity can hold charged particles to the Sun in the presence of 6,000,000 V? If so, let's see your calculation. If not, you're guessing that this will work out in your favor. This is stupid. As it turns out (the calculation takes about 60 seconds) you guessed WRONG.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A00E0DA133BE633A25750C2A9649C946296D6CF
It's the "as far as I know" part of your sentence that got you in trouble.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,306
YOU made the claim, Michael. The burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence for YOUR claim. It's not anyone else's responsibility to do your work for you.
Or you could just man up and admit you pulled that number out of your backside.
Oh, and you seem to have seriously confused astronomy with cosmology. They aren't synonymous. Either that, or you're just moving goalposts.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Well MM that is a problem for the electric sun model, not the standard model.
How do you get the different ions, with the electric sun?
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
Tim (and others, including myself) may not consider a reporter's notes from a lecture to constitute a published model.
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
Oh, I don't think it's an "either-or" thing . . .
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Where was the lecture held? In front of whom?
Did you ever personally bother to read his book or are you just kinda running with the pack on blind faith?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Oh, that's rich. It's *YOUR* theory, not mine, and you can't possibly meet that burden of proof from the standpoint of empirical physics in any lab on Earth. It's all "point at the sky and add invisible math bunnies".
That's not a publication---it's a newspaper article where an unnamed reporter recounts something Birkeland said in a lecture. Do you know the difference between a publication and a speech? Do you know the difference between "publishing a article" and "giving a speech that a reporter takes some notes about"? For all you know it was a lecture about terrella experiments and aurorae; and at the end someone asked a question about the Sun; and Birkeland said "That's an interesting question; I can only share my roughest speculations ... ", and those speculations caught the reporter's ear. You don't know, do you? Nor do you care.
In this as in everything else, Michael, you have an extraordinary ability to pick out the least reliable sources available and trust them unquestioningly. You seem to imprint on them, like a baby goose identifying the first random thing it sees as its mother.
An anonymous telegram to a newspaper? That's mama! You're totally sold on it! (Well-respected solar physics textbooks, 100 years of mainstream publications? You've never read a word of it and don't care to.) The solar limb seen in iron line emissions? THAT'S mama and you're devoted to it heart and soul! (Any other spectrum whatsoever? "Why are you hounding me to do all this homework?")
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
As a rebuttal to Tim's claim that Birkeland didn't publish a model, you provided a link to a NYT article written by a reporter who'd attended a lecture. I was responding to your posting of that link. If the NYT article is not the basis for your Birkeland model, why did you post that link?
And as far as running with the pack, I did my own analysis of the strength of an iron shell (even if it was cool, it would have the structural integrity of a nice chardonnay), did my own photoshopped sun picture (which you never pointed out as a fake), made my own difference image (that sunset-as-archipelago picture), and coded up that spherical-shells model to see just what various combinations of transparent and solid layers would look like (the transparent layer would have a gradient that doesn't appear in the SDO image).
I've done more rigorous, independent analysis of your model than you have; I really wouldn't consider it 'running with the pack' so much as independently reaching the same conclusions that the others have reached.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
So read his book ben. Read some of his papers. Do a little "research" into EU theory for a change. Read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven.
When I first started this little project I really could relate to the concerns about a "solid" surface solar model. Even I hedged my bets between solid and 'rigid' in terms of what I have published. What I really did not expect however was such irrational resistance to the whole concept of electricity in space. The whole industry of astronomy has an irrational phobia related to *all* EU ideas, not just some of them. You would evidently prefer to wallow around in what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" and play around with "dark energy" in math formulas, than to look for 'real empirical solutions' to any enigma in astronomy. The whole "electricity in space" is like your personal brand of "satan" in your little metaphysical religion. I guess that's because you all live if mortal fear that electrical current might in fact replace the need for your metaphysical friends if you only put half as much effort into *TRYING* to make it work as you do in bashing the concept publicly. Honestly ben, your whole industry is a house of cards that is about to take a fall. I really doubt the SSM will survive SDO. It's just too full of those physics and math goodies you folks love to analyze to miss all the clues.
Sooner or later you'll wake up from what will eventually be known as the "dark ages" of astronomy. It will change as soon as your industry lets go of it's fear of electricity.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I posted it because anyone can take the time to read it. If you want the long version, try this one:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf
If you aren't happy with that link, try typing "Birkeland cathode sun" into Google or Bing.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17007668/...ectric-Phenomena-in-Solar-Systems-and-Nebulae
FYI, this is a link to the part of Birkeland's book where he explains how his theories relate to solar physics. His book is *LOADED* with math by the way, not to mention loaded with lot's of empirical support based on laboratory testing. His methods were not "Oh look, lights in sky, "Dark energy did it!"".
FYI, this is a link to the part of Birkeland's book where he explains how his theories relate to solar physics. His book is *LOADED* with math by the way, not to mention loaded with lot's of empirical support based on laboratory testing. His methods were not "Oh look, lights in sky, "Dark energy did it!"".
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
If you really want me to, I will, but that doesn't apply to this conversation.
We're talking about astronomy, not cosmology.
So what, specifically, is this 96% of math that is not based on empirical evidence? Because, quite frankly, the whole cosmological situation, while built on the basis of astronomy (as well as a host of other disciplines), is not astronomy. Nor is it used at all in determining the composition or structure of a star.
So, can you list a few examples of incorrect astronomical maths? I mean, if 96% of them are wrong and/or not evidence based, it should be no problem to list a dozen or so.
You do know what maths are jused in astronomy and where they came from, right? What am I saying, of course you do! You'd have to in order to ethically and correctly make the claim that 96% of them are worthless.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,306
Michael, your solar model has come crashing down around your feet. Trying to change the subject to cosmology and making claims with statistics you pull out of your backside isn't going to fool anyone. This thread isn't about cosmology, it's about the sun.
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
Where's the GM post where he describes MM's behaviour?
The one about deflecting, changing the topic, (deliberately?) not answering (nearly all) hard questions, etc? And then starting all over again, a few months' later ...
The one about deflecting, changing the topic, (deliberately?) not answering (nearly all) hard questions, etc? And then starting all over again, a few months' later ...
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Well H, it you're going to distinguish between them, you're right. I can't say solar physics isn't based on real physics. It is. It's not like those dark math bunnies that only appear "somewhere out there". There is in fact a firm physical basis for the SSM, even based on my own criteria.
Unfortunately for you (IMO anyway) all of those solar theories are based upon the concept that iron and hydrogen will stay mixed together. It's based upon concepts that will now have to pass serious high resolution scrutiny. I don't see any visual evidence whatsoever that the "opaque" concept is going to fly. Even in that Hinode image I posted earlier, and that gband image I posted earlier, there's no visual justification for that 500Km arbitrary figure related to "opacity". That will only work if in fact all elements do stay mixed, and I see no visual evidence that is likely. I see evidence from the field of nuclear chemistry that your methods of determining composition are not accurate. I see heliosiesmology data of "stratification" that is likely related to plasma separation. I see neon and silicon ionization states galore in that SERTS data that standard theory simply doesn't explain.
IMO the whole SSM was based on that "opacity" claim to make it easier to apply math to distant objects. If however it's not that "simple", then most of your astronomy beliefs will also need to be adjusted. I can see from that million mile per hour solar wind that you cannot explain that your theories need some "electricity" to make them work, even if you're emotionally attached to the sun being a plasma cathode rather than a solid cathode.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Nothing has come crashing down anywhere except in your head Zig. Sooner or later you will have to turn to Birkeland's work to explain the SDO images and data sets. I'm not even personally emotionally attached to a "rigid" or a "solid" solar model, just a "cathode" solar model. Until you can empirically simulate the solar wind that Birkeland simulated in real science experiments here on Earth without using "current flow" to make it work, only then will Birkeland's cathode solar model come crashing down, and only then will anything I have published to date come "crashing down". Get real.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
So.
You lied (or were simply ignorant of the meaning of the words you were using) when you claimed 96% of the math used in astronomy was incorrect.
I'll go further. You are also lying if your claim is that 96% of the math used in cosmology is incorrect, because MOST of the math it uses is the same math used in astronomy and other disciplines, well-supported by evidence and experiment.
Additionally, you've been lying and dodging the entire time in this thread when you've continually dismissed everyone else's "math bunnies", which are based on the very same math you now say is legitimate. And yet you disregarded it, ignored it, and insulted those who tried to show you youre errors.
So, by your own words, you are willing to disregard math not because it isn't based in evidence, but simply because it doesn't support the anmswer you want. You disregard evidence, not because it is incorrec,t but because you simply don't want to (are incapable of) admitting you are wrong.
Thanks for clearing that up so quickly.
nescafe
Caffeinated Beverage
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 862
Dark energy has nothing to do with star formation or powering stars after they are formed. If you must rail on against dark energy, please start a new thread.
Mister Earl
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 3,504
I've never seen a set of goalposts moved so much. The amount of wear and tear on them is incredible.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
How about his behaviors? GM called Birkeland a "Bozo" without a clue in terms of solar physics. In the next post he's trying to defend Birkeland's good name? Talk about irrational and hypocritical behaviors! You guys/gals just let all that stuff slide like it's perfectly normal behavior.
He also whines about the conversation being "uncivil" after calling me a fraud and a liar so many time I lost count. Please. Don't even get me started.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Right, it was individual atoms and molecules.
Birkeland apparently considered three kinds of stuff was being spewed from the Sun. They were colloidal corpuscles, collections of molecules, and separate atoms. These things were thrown into space, some never to return, others returned to the Sun by gravity, and the fewest of them coalesced to form new planets. What a moron that Birkeland was, don't you think? Oh, and I got that from your own source. If you'd actually read the material you wave around you'd be able to avoid those ridiculously foolish arguments of yours. Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Actually you cannot demonstrate they are not related. You claim "dark energy" makes up 70% or the universe and causes acceleration. The solar wind is accelerating. Is that "dark energy" too?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Er, no. I think you're the moron.
Let's see:
1) Magic ionization state of neon? You made it up. Never seen in any lab.
2) A hot shell around a cold object that doesn't violate thermo? You made it up. Never seen in any lab.
3) Magic non-Newtonian gravity that "holds down" charged particles in a 6MV potential? You made it up. In real labs, electrostatic forces and gravity add up according to Newton's Laws.
4) A stack of plasma layers, none of which are actually at 6000K, that magically add up to 6000K blackbody radiation? Never seen. In real labs, radiation obeys the well-known radiation laws and no other.
You see, Michael, when physicists proposed the dark energy hypothesis, we checked whether it was consistent with lab physics. It is. Adding dark energy to the equation does NOT suddenly change the results of all of Newton's, Faraday's, Rutherford's, Draper's, Eotvos's, and Joule's experiments. We didn't make it up and then assume it was right. We made it up---hypothesized it---and then tested it against everything we've ever measured. It's consistent with everything. The null hypothesis, "all of the laws of physics as usual EXCEPT dark energy=0" is consistent with everything except precision cosmology data.
You, Michael, are making hypotheses which are already known to be false. You invented a new ionization state for neon---but if you compare this hypothesis to 19th and 20th century thermodynamics experiments you find that it doesn't work. You invented the hypothesis "solar gravity prevent a high-voltage ions from accelerating outwards", but if you compare this hypothesis to Coulomb's and Cavendish's experiments you find that they contradict. You invented a new hypothesis "the sum of the spectra of 2000K iron and 2,000,000K neon is the same as a 6000K blackbody", but this hypothesis is already known to be false.
Practically everything you say about the Sun, Michael, is a new and crazy hypothesis that directly contradicts lab experiments. That's much, much worse than proposing a hypothesis (like "MOND is the correct theory of gravity") that contradicts cosmology; and it's much, much, much, much worse than proposing a hypothesis (like "dark energy exists") whose only failing is that it's very difficult to test.
Seriously, Michael---if you want to respect lab experiments, start with the experiments that established the blackbody. Then take a look at the experiments that established Maxwell's Equations. Then try, I dunno, Newton's Force Laws. Your sun hypothesis is calling all of those experiments wrong in one way or another.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
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
- sputtering
- gravity
- cathode
- current flow
Michael, you should make a point of eliminating those words and phrases from your posts. And as we find more terms which you don't understand, we'll add them to the list and you can cease using them, too. It will make this whole communication thing much better for everyone if we get rid of the parts of your arguments that are causing confusion.
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,306
Sure it has. Hell, even you know that, which is why you've backed off your previous claims of a solid surface for the sun.
Hardly.
So your attachment to the "cathode" solar model (which isn't a model at all, just a vague collection of ideas) is emotional. Not surprising, since it sure as hell isn't logical.
Once again, you have revealed your misconception of science. Suppose theory A explains one observation. If I show that theory B explains that observation too, that doesn't disprove theory A. So "simulating" solar winds without current flow would NOT invalidate Birkeland's model.
But the power output of the sun does invalidate Birkeland's model. Birkeland has no sensible explanation for where the energy to power the sun comes from. This is hardly surprising, since it comes from fusion and fusion was not known during Birkeland's time. So I don't fault the guy. But I do fault you, because you should know better. But you don't. Because you're clueless about physics, and refuse almost every opportunity to learn.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Appologies if this has already been addressed, but aren't the electrons then moving faster than the speed of light?
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Could you please explain to me how you figure it is "civil" conversation to refer to Birkeland as a "moron' and a clueless "bozo", but when one of those terms is directed back at you, it's somehow 'uncivil' on *my* part? You made me choose between the two of you! Don't blame me for the outcome.
- Status