Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
It's called sputtering.

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

MMM strange, your link says that ions are accelerated to the coated plate and kick off neutrals! If the neutral hits something it can get ionized, and then the ion will be accelerated again to the plate (as it is a cathode). There is no way in the universe that you get a cathode to emit both positive and negative charges, that is basic electricity.

So, once more you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
tusenfem said:
MMM strange, your link says that ions are accelerated to the coated plate and kick off neutrals! If the neutral hits something it can get ionized, and then the ion will be accelerated again to the plate (as it is a cathode). There is no way in the universe that you get a cathode to emit both positive and negative charges, that is basic electricity.

So, once more you have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Dude, it's you that don't have a clue what you're talking about. Birkeland wrote whole papers related to both positive and negative ions in the solar wind. Look it up!
 
Mister Earl said:
I've never seen a set of goalposts moved so much. The amount of wear and tear on them is incredible.
Click to expand...

What moving goalposts? You guys claim that the vast majority of the universe is made of "dark energy" and causes acceleration. That solar wind is accelerating to a million miles an hour or more. Is that caused by "dark energy" too? How do you know that's it's not also a form of "dark energy"?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Dude, it's you that don't have a clue what you're talking about. Birkeland wrote whole papers related to both positive and negative ions in the solar wind. Look it up!
Click to expand...


Then Birkeland didn't know what a cathode was either. What an idiot he was don't you think? :D
 
Michael Mozina said:
Unfortunately for you (IMO anyway) all of those solar theories are based upon the concept that iron and hydrogen will stay mixed together.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with that concept, Michael? This is not something we made up to match the solar model, it's something you expect from ****'s Law of Diffusion. Are you saying ****'s Law of Diffusion is wrong? Did you find an error in one of Sylvie Vauclair's papers? (ETA: the filter is editing out the name of Adolph ****, spelled Foxtrot India Charlie Kilo)

Again, "Michael Mozina tried and failed to form a mental picture of it" does not count as a problem with the concept.

I will add this to your list of explicit denunciations of basic physics. Your solar model presumes that there's an error in Newton's Laws, Coulomb's Law, the Saha equation, the 2nd Law of Thermodyanamics, and ****'s Law of Diffusion.

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".
Click to expand...

HINODE? What? The 500km figure is based on visible-wavelength data that's been available since the 19th century. The 500km opacity length gives you the observed visible spectrum at the limb. I've said it a million times, Michael: go outside and look up. See that yellow-white thing in the sky? It's emitting yellow-white light. That light is important and scientists have been studying it for a long, long time. See http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1921MNRAS..81..361M

That will only work if in fact all elements do stay mixed, and I see no visual evidence that is likely.
Click to expand...

a) You don't see it if you don't look for it.
b) You're wrong to think this is important to you; a perfectly mass-separated pure-hydrogen atmosphere---remeber, hydrogen will "float" in this crazy scenario---is just as opaque to 171A light as the pure-neon atmosphere.

(Of course, given that you've invented pure-neon-unobtanium for your atmosphere, why do you care about the mixing? Go ahead and invent normal-mixed-solar-metallicity unobtanium, it makes exactly as much sense.)


I see evidence from the field of nuclear chemistry that your methods of determining composition are not accurate.
Click to expand...

Add to the list of words Michael doesn't understand: "nuclear chemistry". Measuring an atomic emission/absorption line spectrum and determining the composition of the emitter---that's not nuclear chemistry, Michael.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Dude, it's you that don't have a clue what you're talking about. Birkeland wrote whole papers related to both positive and negative ions in the solar wind. Look it up!
Click to expand...

Sputtering, Michael. Did Birkeland say that the solar wind was sputtered off the Sun's surface? Where did you pull sputtering out of?

I do think you simply don't know what sputtering is, but I'm not interested in trying to correct you. You know what I'm interested in? A DIAGRAM OF THE 3D GEOMETRY YOU THINK YOU CAN SEE AT THE SOLAR LIMB.
 
ben m said:
Add to the list of words Michael doesn't understand: "nuclear chemistry". Measuring an atomic emission/absorption line spectrum and determining the composition of the emitter---that's not nuclear chemistry, Michael.
Click to expand...


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
  • nuclear chemistry
If Michael's arguments contain any of these words or phrases, because he has demonstrated that he doesn't have the qualifications to understand them, we can accept the arguments as meaningless gibberish.
 
GeeMack said:
This one?...
That's his argument by misdirection. Here's how he typically applies it: Troll some knowledgeable people into doing a bunch of work he's clearly not qualified to do himself, only to spit on them in the end by adding a couple more impossible assumptions to the mix and expecting them to start over. I've seen him use this technique to take people on rides for pages and pages, then literally ignore all their responses and jump to another topic as if it never happened.

It's a rework of the old stand-by, argument by shifting the burden of proof, but with the addition of kicking people in the teeth after they've invested a lot of time and effort into trying to help him. Like a good con man he'll toss in an occasional insincere thank-you or coy apology, but unlike a good con man, Michael's use of this method to milk a failed argument is pretty transparent. It's a dishonest and manipulative way to work an argument, and one of his most often employed. It might be second only to his preferred method, argument by looks-like-a-bunny.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yep, thanks.

Right now we seem to be doing a fast-forward through topic #2 ("a "cathode" solar model", double quotes optional) while desperately seeking to get onto topic #3 ("play around with "dark energy" in math formulas").

I rather like the way Mister Earl put it ("I've never seen a set of goalposts moved so much. The amount of wear and tear on them is incredible."), followed by a classic MM comment ("What moving goalposts? You guys claim that the vast majority of the universe is made of "dark energy" and causes acceleration. That solar wind is accelerating to a million miles an hour or more. Is that caused by "dark energy" too? How do you know that's it's not also a form of "dark energy"?"). :D

As Zig put it "You are the first person I've ever interacted with who was actively math-phobic". :p
 
Michael Mozina said:
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!"".
Click to expand...

Yeah, Mikey, we know this technique. Just because you (also) don't like dark energy and lambda-cmd etc. you just reject all of physics, even though all that you need was long developed before any of that stuff was thought about.

You only need Maxwell, Newton, maybe a wee bit of Alfvén, to work your electric sun model. That is all empirical work, but you won't go there, because if you really did go there, you would find that it all does not work. Just like you backed away further and further in the opacity discussion when you found you were falsified how ever you turned and twisted.

Your model of the iron Sun is dead, Mikey, forget about it, it is useless. Now maybe dark energy will also be shown to be rubbish, but that will not show your model right, when DE is wrong.

So put up your ante, Mikey, show us something significant. Don't hide behind Birkie, do the math, I have gone through it waaayyyy back in this thread. But you, you won't touch it, you only take a pic and say ohhhh prettyyyyyy, me likes pretty picsies.
 
tusenfem said:
Yeah, Mikey, we know this technique. Just because you (also) don't like dark energy and lambda-cmd etc. you just reject all of physics,
Click to expand...

No. I only reject "pseudoscience" and "non physics", as in things that fail to show up in controlled experimentation.

Somewhere along the line, your industry forgot that an honest "I don't know" is better than simply "my magic dark math bunny did it". Somewhere along the way, it will have to work it's way back to 'empirical physics" and that will lead you right back to Birkeland and all his physical experiments with electricity and cathode solar models.
 
Michael Mozina said:
[...]
Humanzee said:
I should be honest though and say I don't see how your model improves on current solar science. [...]
Click to expand...
It explains solar wind acceleration and IMO it explains coronal loop activity a lot more elegantly than standard theory. It's a an 'empirical' sort of theory so it can all be "lab tested' and has in fact been "lab tested" to a great degree. The notion that we live inside of an electric universe might indeed "do away with" many of the enigma's of space that we now attribute to "dark" things. IMO that would also be a huge step forward in terms of empirical physics.
Click to expand...
(bold added)

I'm not sure - haven't asked the questions, for one thing - but we may have to add "solar wind acceleration", "coronal loop activity", and "explains" (or "explains elegantly") to the list.

Straight question MM: in what sense does your model (in Humanzee's words) explain "solar wind acceleration" and "coronal loop activity"?

Please start with describing what you mean by "solar wind acceleration" and "coronal loop activity", preferably by citing some relevant papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals.

NOTE: I am not asking about "standard theory" (just your own model), nor am I asking about "elegantly" (whether "a lot more" or not).
 
Michael Mozina said:
No. I only reject "pseudoscience" and "non physics", as in things that fail to show up in controlled experimentation.

Somewhere along the line, your industry forgot that an honest "I don't know" is better than simply "my magic dark math bunny did it". Somewhere along the way, it will have to work it's way back to 'empirical physics" and that will lead you right back to Birkeland and all his physical experiments with electricity and cathode solar models.
Click to expand...


And those atoms flying off the Sun that we empirically detect forming planets? Yes, Birkeland had it all figured out. :p Oh, and I can call him a moron and criticize your arguments as being dishonest when you blame him for the failure of your crackpot conjecture. No hypocrisy there. I don't think it's any more appropriate, or honest, for you to defame an imbecile than to defame a genius.

Now back to the topic... How's it coming along with that, how'd you put it, doing a little math to destroy mainstream solar theory, Michael?

Michael Mozina said:
Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Dude, it's you that don't have a clue what you're talking about. Birkeland wrote whole papers related to both positive and negative ions in the solar wind. Look it up!
Click to expand...

Mikey, baby, YOU were talking about sputtering when I asked how a cathode can emit both positive and negative charges.

Birkie looked at his terrella and saw "impact craters" and thought that is how Sun spots look like on the Sun. However, if the Sun were a cathode, it cannot EVER emit both positive and negative charges.

Then you come with the stupid notion of sputtering, with which I am well familiar near e.g. the Galilean satellites. And you may be happy to know that ions can also be sputtered off the surface. HOWEVER, if the surface is a cathode, then the positive ions will not escape but will be pulled back, so NO ESCAPE OF IONS POSSIBLE. Get it into your thick head, it is basic electricity.

Birkie has indeed talked about positive and negative corpuscules from the Sun, however, he would also have known that the positive corpuscules would not be able to escape if the Sun were a cathode.

You have no idea what your babbling about, with every page in this thread that becomes clearer and clearer.

Please give me the links of Birkelands published papers, i.e. in REAL journals and not in the New York Times, you seem to be familiar on where one can find them. (I think the important ones are in French.)
 
GeeMack said:
And those atoms flying off the Sun that we empirically detect forming planets? Yes, Birkeland had it all figured out. :p Oh, and I can call him a moron and criticize your arguments as being dishonest when you blame him for the failure of your crackpot conjecture.
Click to expand...

What's that line? Oh ya:

"For the record your incivility is noted. "
 
tusenfem said:
Mikey, baby, YOU were talking about sputtering when I asked how a cathode can emit both positive and negative charges.

Birkie looked at his terrella and saw "impact craters" and thought that is how Sun spots look like on the Sun. However, if the Sun were a cathode, it cannot EVER emit both positive and negative charges.
Click to expand...

I think you need to do some reading and take up French if necessary. :) He wrote all about this t, and how it all applied to his experiments, including the coating of materials from the surface of the sphere at a great distance from the sphere. If you never read any of his work, you'll keep stating the same false statements over and over again. He *VERIFIED* this stuff in a lab t, it's not "speculation".
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/25/55/64/PDF/ajp-jp4199707C408.pdf

Ben, have you even been reading the links I have provided on Birkeland? That pdf will allow you to search for any word in the document. Type in "sputtering".
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina, are you aware that Birkeland was long dead by the time that paper was published?

You obviously cannot understand this paper as well as Birkeland's book as sputtering is only mentioned in regard to planets, e.g. to form Saturn's rings:
A constant electrzc radiatzon from the planet is accompanied by an ejection of tiny material particles he called electric evaporation, and these particles form the rings. The laboratory analogy to this evaporation is what today is called sputtering. Terrella-experiments simulating zodiacal light and rings of Saturn are shown in Fig. 5
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
Michael Mozina, are you aware that Birkeland was long dead by the time that paper was published?

You obviously cannot understand this paper as well as Birkeland's book as sputtering is only mentioned in regard to planets, e.g. to form Saturn's rings:
Click to expand...

RC, have you even bothered to sit down and read his book cover to cover yet? You could have done so a couple dozen times over by now. Yes? No? Parts? What?
 
t....

In his book, Birkeland calculates that there is more mass between the stars in the form of iron than exist in the stars themselves.

A) Where did he figure all that iron came from in his calculations?

B) How did the iron he used in his calculations get out of the gravity well of the star in the first place?
 
GeeMack said:
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
  • nuclear chemistry
Click to expand...

Astronomy, cosmology, probably cathode.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No. I only reject "pseudoscience" and "non physics", as in things that fail to show up in controlled experimentation.

Somewhere along the line, your industry forgot that an honest "I don't know" is better than simply "my magic dark math bunny did it". Somewhere along the way, it will have to work it's way back to 'empirical physics" and that will lead you right back to Birkeland and all his physical experiments with electricity and cathode solar models.
Click to expand...

dark energy and lamda-cmb etc is NOT my industry.

I do plasma(astro)physics and space physics in the good tradition of Birkeland and Alfvén, sending satellites into space and to planets (Earth, Venus, Jupiter, Mercury) and measuring the magnetic field (variations) and the plasma properties and come to a coherent view of what is happening. You can't get any more empirical than that, e.g. measuring when and where the frozen in condition in a plasma breaks down. Or how currents flow in the magnetosphere that have direct impact on the observed aurora, etc. etc. etc.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A00E0DA133BE633A25750C2A9649C946296D6CF

Bull!
Click to expand...
Bull!
There is no such thing as a Birkkeland solar model that supports your fantasy*. That news article (:jaw-dropp) states the Birkeland has the opoinion (not a scientific model) that the Sun was charged to 600,000,000 volts. We now know that that means that the Sun just exploded!

* 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.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Somewhere along the line, your industry forgot that an honest "I don't know" is better than simply "my magic dark math bunny did it".
Click to expand...

And yet, the astrophysics community openly admits that coronal heating isn't well-understood. Why didn't they make up something to cover that?


AFAIK, no reputable scientist is using any dark matter or dark energy to explain anything about the sun (with the possible exception of "why is it's orbiting around the center of the galaxy so fast?").

Since this thread is about the sun, and nobody (not us, not you) believes that dark matter or dark energy are relevant to describing the sun, why do you keep bringing it up?
 
Michael Mozina said:
I think you need to do some reading and take up French if necessary. :) He wrote all about this t, and how it all applied to his experiments, including the coating of materials from the surface of the sphere at a great distance from the sphere. If you never read any of his work, you'll keep stating the same false statements over and over again. He *VERIFIED* this stuff in a lab t, it's not "speculation".
Click to expand...

Oh I can read French allright, just give me the links.
And I have done experiments in the lab on plasmas so ...
And how can you say I never read his work? I frakking went through a whole chapter here in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
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?
Click to expand...

Of all the ridiculous statements MM has made, this is near the top.
 
Michael Mozina said:
t....

In his book, Birkeland calculates that there is more mass between the stars in the form of iron than exist in the stars themselves.

A) Where did he figure all that iron came from in his calculations?

B) How did the iron he used in his calculations get out of the gravity well of the star in the first place?
Click to expand...

WHERE in his book.
If you "quote" Birkie, then at least tell us where in his tome, just like I did when I discussed his work.
 
tusenfem said:
Yeah, Mikey, we know this technique. Just because you (also) don't like dark energy and lambda-cmd etc. you just reject all of physics, even though all that you need was long developed before any of that stuff was thought about.

You only need Maxwell, Newton, maybe a wee bit of Alfvén, to work your electric sun model. That is all empirical work, but you won't go there, because if you really did go there, you would find that it all does not work. Just like you backed away further and further in the opacity discussion when you found you were falsified how ever you turned and twisted.

Your model of the iron Sun is dead, Mikey, forget about it, it is useless. Now maybe dark energy will also be shown to be rubbish, but that will not show your model right, when DE is wrong.

So put up your ante, Mikey, show us something significant. Don't hide behind Birkie, do the math, I have gone through it waaayyyy back in this thread. But you, you won't touch it, you only take a pic and say ohhhh prettyyyyyy, me likes pretty picsies.
Click to expand...
(bold added)

[MM mode]

But tus, Maxwell, and even my second hero Alfvén, is full of math bunnies! :blush:

I mean, all those upside-down-triangly thingies, and the drunken letter d's, and all that nonsense about B being a totally different thing than B. I mean, get real!

Now if Maxwell had "taken" some nice piccies of solar wind acceleration, or limb dimming at "171 nm", now that I'd be interested in! :)

Besides, DRD already did the math for me, on my Birkie's "cathode" solar model, and as far as I can tell it's perfect (I didn't need to know anything about upside-down-triangly squiggles, and although it took me a full hour to work out what v was from the equation*, I got it in the end. And wow! I never realised that the electrons would zip along so fast! 700 million metres per second! That's, gosh, more than a trillion miles an hour, isn't it!)

[/MM mode]
* 1/2 mv^2 * Ne = 3.8 x 10^26 (Ne = 1.8 x 10^41; m = 9.1 x 10^-31)
 
Michael Mozina said:
Actually you cannot demonstrate they are not related.
Click to expand...
Current models show that dark energy does not apply to any gravitationally bound structure. Any structure the size of a galactic supercluster or smaller is gravitationally bound, and effectively not affected by dark energy. Stars (including the Sun!) are much, much smaller than galactic superclusters. QED.

Michael Mozina said:
You claim "dark energy" makes up 70% or the universe and causes acceleration.
Click to expand...
Accelerated expansion of spacetime. Not really the same thing as acceleration in the usual sense.

Since spacetime in our local vicinity is not expanding (that whole gravitationally bound thing, ya know), dark energy is irrelevant when talking about the Sun.

Michael Mozina said:
The solar wind is accelerating. Is that "dark energy" too?
Click to expand...
Nope, radiation pressure and the antics of the Sun's magnetic field (said antics not fully understood yet) should be sufficient explanations for the solar wind, including whatever acceleration it has.
 
dasmiller said:
And yet, the astrophysics community openly admits that coronal heating isn't well-understood. Why didn't they make up something to cover that?
Click to expand...

A better question is: "Why don't you use Birkeland's suggestion and solve your solar wind problem while you're at it?". I can tell you the answer too. You're all petrified to publish anything related to electricity in space.

Hoy.
 
tusenfem said:
Oh I can read French allright, just give me the links.
And I have done experiments in the lab on plasmas so ...
And how can you say I never read his work? I frakking went through a whole chapter here in this thread.
Click to expand...

Find your own links, but answer parts A) and B) please.
 
Michael Mozina said:
A better question is: "Why don't you use Birkeland's suggestion and solve your solar wind problem while you're at it?". I can tell you the answer too. You're all petrified to publish anything related to electricity in space.

Hoy.
Click to expand...
A better question is: "Why don't you use Birkeland's suggestion and really solve our solar wind problem when the Sun turns out to not exist?".

Another question: "Why are you ignorant of the fact that astronomers often publish papers related to electricity in space?"

Hoy
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Then it has no business being stuffed into a GR formula now does it?
Click to expand...
Yeah, can we please - pretty please? - stop talking about opacity, 2D and 3D geometry, light neon plasmas, blackbody radiation, the photosphere, image artifacts, rigid RD movies, the Sun, ... ?

The sooner we skedaddle away from that topic, the better IMO ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom