Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
Find your own links, but answer parts A) and B) please.
Click to expand...

So I guess you do not have the papers.
Please tell me where in "the book" Birkie says there is that much iron, I am willing to spend some time on Birkie but I am not going to search his tome to find where that is stated.
Once more MM tactics, don't help anyone, just "look in the book."

So I found "Archives de Sciences Physiques et Naturelles" from 1916 in pfd (T 41), where Birkie asks: "Les rayons corpusculaire du soleil qui penetrent dans l'athmosphere terrestre sont-ils negatifs ou positives?"

So I think I will take a look at that. TaDa
 
DeiRenDopa said:
The list is now so long it's not easy to spot the word you're after by merely skimming.

Maybe time to sort it alphabetically, GM?
Click to expand...


Yes. And I added "electric universe" because even if Michael understands what it means, he is certainly unable to explain it so that anyone else can understand. So...

The terms Michael uses, the definitions of which he clearly does not understand include, but are not limited to:

  • blackbody
  • cathode
  • chromosphere
  • current flow
  • electric universe
  • empirical
  • gravity
  • idiosyncratic
  • limb darkening
  • model
  • nuclear chemistry
  • opaque
  • photosphere
  • rigid
  • solar model
  • sputtering
  • theory
If Michael's arguments contain any of these words or phrases, we can accept the arguments as meaningless gibberish because he has demonstrated that he doesn't have the qualifications to understand them.​
 
Michael Mozina said:
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".
Click to expand...

Where is your proof of any sort of your refrigeration and sheilding? You know that one that says you have a 'rigid' and volcanic surface of iron below a layer of 6,000° plasma?

And then how your electric sun can have a flow away from it of all three ion types?

Hmmmm? Ah.
 
MM - Just what are Birkeland's cathode-ray pencils in modern terms

Michael Mozina said:
Well, let's put it this way. Empirical physics works. You can laugh at it all you like, but Birkeland had no trouble at all "explaining' (and simulating) high speed solar wind composed of both positive and negative particles.
Click to expand...
Every one agrees that empirical physics works.

For example:
  1. Birkeland predicted a solar wind composed of both positive and negative particles. He did not predict any speed for this solar wind.
    But you can prove me wrong:
    Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind
  2. That solar wind was detected.
  3. Thus Birkeland's prediction has been shown to be empirically correct.
The problem is when you ignorantly place "high speed" in front of "solar wind". The only speed he predicted was for his cathode rays from sunspots. That was a dismal failure because he predicted "a velocity very little short of that of light" (short by 45 metres a second!)

MM - Just what are Birkeland's cathode-ray pencils in modern terms?
First asked 28 December 2009
Michael Mozina,
Just what are Birkeland's cathode-ray pencils in modern terms?
They are not the solar wind which is both protons and electrons.
They are not flares which are both protons and electrons.
They are not CME which are both protons and electrons.

Also the maximum speed measured in these phenomena was half the speed of light in one CME event. But Birkeland predicts that his cathode-ray pencils will "a velocity very little short of that of light".
MM - you may have ignored Birkeland's math but he does actually calculate this speed:
Page 596
We thus find that the velocity of the corpuscular rays should be mu = beta.c = c - c/x , i. e. only 45 metres less than the velocity of light.

You previously gave a link to the singlar CME event.
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by Reality Check
As for your link - the speed of particles in solar storms is typically much less than the speed of light.
Solar flare: "Most proton storms take two or more hours from the time of visual detection to reach Earth's orbit. A solar flare on January 20, 2005 released the highest concentration of protons ever directly measured,[3] taking only 15 minutes after observation to reach Earth, indicating a velocity of approximately one-half light speed.".

This was a A New Kind of Solar Storm and not typical of solar storms. It was the only storm of this type to be confirmed in 2005 (a proton storm in February 1956 is suspected to be similar).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
The real Achilles heel is the notion that the photosphere is "opaque" at around 500km. There is simply no observational support for that claim.
Click to expand...
Your ignorance is astounding: There is observational evidence that the photosphere blocks light according to its optical depth: limb darkening.


This means that the photosphere is increasingly opaque until it blocks essentially all light. Your iron crust will get less than 1 photon a year through the photosphere.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Out of curiosity did you even select images of a planet where atmospheric activity was present?
Click to expand...


It's reasonable to add "atmosphere" because of the above comment about Jupiter for god's sake. :D And the term "running difference" must also be on the list of course.

The terms Michael uses, the definitions of which he clearly does not understand include, but are not limited to:

  • atmosphere
  • blackbody
  • cathode
  • chromosphere
  • current flow
  • electric universe
  • empirical
  • gravity
  • idiosyncratic
  • limb darkening
  • model
  • nuclear chemistry
  • opaque
  • photosphere
  • rigid
  • running difference
  • solar model
  • sputtering
  • theory
If Michael's arguments contain any of these words or phrases, we can accept the arguments as meaningless gibberish because he has demonstrated that he doesn't have the qualifications to understand them.​
 
Michael Mozina said:
Sorry, but I'm a big fan of empirical physics.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly the irony we keep pointing out. You claim to be a fan of empirical physics, but you don't actually understand what those words mean. Every part of your "theory" (which is not actually a theory by any standards) directly contradicts well established empirical science or exactly the type you claim to be a fan of. On the other hand, you are unable to give a single example of anything empirical that it is actually based on.

Some examples:
Iron. This has been studied for hundreds of years. Its thermal and structural properties are extremely well known. Based entirely on empirical science done in labs on Earth, the known properties of iron conclusively prove that there cannot be a solid shell of iron making up part of the Sun. You claim to like empirical science, but it proves you utterly wrong.

Plasma. This has not been studied for quite so long as iron, but it is still fairly well understood. Things like dependence of ionisation on temperature, emission and absorption, the effects of currents and electromagnetic fields, and plenty more, have all been studied empirically in labs on Earth. And all that empirical science conclusively proves that it is not possible for your imagined transparent, highly ionised, cool plasma to exist. Once again, the empirical science you pretend to like proves you wrong.

Electricity. This is again very well understood. The behaviour of charged particles, relationship between electricity and magnetism, Coulomb's law, all of this is known because of empirical science in labs on Earth. And that empirical science proves that it is not possible for the Sun to carry the large electric charge your claims require. Once again the empirical science you pretend to like proves you wrong.

Thermodynamics. Again something that has been well understood for a long time. The behaviour of large numbers of particles and the relationships between temperature, pressure, density, volume, and so on have all been studied extensively using empirical science in labs on Earth. And once again, it proves that pretty much everything you say about the Sun is physically impossible.

In contrast to the vast amounts of empirical science in labs on Earth (you know, that stuff you lie about being a fan of) that not only proves you utterly wrong, but also shows you up as a complete crackpot, what do you have on your side? Well, so far you've pointed to a few photoshopped PR images. To start with, neither the satellites nor the things they take pictures of are on Earth, so obviously you don't really mean that part. Since the manipulation they've undergone destroys a large part of the important data, especially if you don't know the exact details of the processing, they hardly count as empirical. And of course, looking at manipulated, compressed images and counting pixels is certainly not any kind of science.

So what are we left with? On one side, there are reams of empirical science tested in labs on Earth, on the other there is nothing more than your own fevered imaginings. Of course, you won't understand this at all, but it is painfully clear to every single other person who has ever read your posts that you are lying every time you claim to like empirical science, because you have never once based anything you have said on empirical science, instead ignoring it whenever it rears its ugly head to shoot down yet another of your insane claims.

As if that weren't enough, even other crackpots don't agree with you. Even the people who for some reason agreed to put your name on a couple of papers don't actually agree with your conclusions. In case you hadn't noticed, this thread was started by someone else who believe in an iron Sun and electric universe, yet he went to great lengths to make it clear that he doesn't agree with you before he abandoned the thread to your hijack. It's not a conspiracy of mainstream physicist, as if such a thing could even make sense. It's every single person in the entire world who thinks you are wrong.

Also, it was a blimp.

GeeMack said:
It's reasonable to add "atmosphere" because of the above comment about Jupiter for god's sake. :D And the term "running difference" must also be on the list of course.

The terms Michael uses, the definitions of which he clearly does not understand include, but are not limited to:

  • atmosphere
  • blackbody
  • cathode
  • chromosphere
  • current flow
  • electric universe
  • empirical
  • gravity
  • idiosyncratic
  • limb darkening
  • model
  • nuclear chemistry
  • opaque
  • photosphere
  • rigid
  • running difference
  • solar model
  • sputtering
  • theory
If Michael's arguments contain any of these words or phrases, we can accept the arguments as meaningless gibberish because he has demonstrated that he doesn't have the qualifications to understand them.​
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to suspect we might get somewhere a bit faster if we add words like "the" and "and" to the list. It's not just science Michael seems to have a problem with, he simply doesn't use the same language as anyone else. Or live in the same reality for that matter.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Well, actually the composition and the ionization states of the Moplasma :) was pretty well defined. The temperature, well, not so much. :(
Click to expand...
Well, good, I must have missed that. Something must be missing, though, because Sol was all ready to calculate the opacity of the Moplasma again after the first go around didn't meet your expectations. You've said you trust his calculations, why don't you give him whatever he needs to do the calculations? If you believe your theories are correct, you must believe that it will turn out to be transparent when the numbers are run. I was under the impression that we already know the temperature of the sun, not sure why this would be a variable.
 
Marcus said:
Well, good, I must have missed that. Something must be missing, though, because Sol was all ready to calculate the opacity of the Moplasma again after the first go around didn't meet your expectations. You've said you trust his calculations, why don't you give him whatever he needs to do the calculations? If you believe your theories are correct, you must believe that it will turn out to be transparent when the numbers are run. I was under the impression that we already know the temperature of the sun, not sure why this would be a variable.
Click to expand...

"Strike one" was simply caused by the fact that they had the sun "unplugged". :) I realized initially that the ionization states would be critical to this model, and that's pretty much what happened in terms of the Moplasma idea. In order to proceed however, it requires a fully understanding of the plasma ion and electron temperatures, and that's more information that I can provide at the moment. It's not that I would not like to proceed, I just don't know how to give sol better information.
 
Dancing David said:
Oh, so know you don't like all the empirical tests that that figure is based upon, You know all the ones in labs here on earth?

that figures MM.
Click to expand...

I would say that unlike cosmology theories, the SSM is a purely "empirical" theory DD. It's got no "dark energy", although that's nearly a miracle since supposedly 70% of the universe is composed of the stuff. I'm sure if you mixed all those ingredients together and checked it out, that the physics works out fine in the lab. I simply see no visual evidence in any ground based or satellite based images that suggest that is how that surface really works.

I don't actually have any beef with the SSM in terms of empirical physics 'theory'. I'm sure it works fine on paper. I simply don't think nature is that "simple'.

Keep in mind DD that Birkeland not only 'explained' continuous high speed solar wind, he "empirically predicted" it based on actual experiments with real control mechanisms. He simulated the effects and wrote all about it. Tusenfem is *still* confused about the fact that a cathode solar model emits both positive and negative particles 100 years later. That's the kind of "lost knowledge" that makes this process so difficult, along with the EU bias that is so thick you have to cut it with a knife.

IMO sooner or later it's inevitable that some sort of cathode solar model will prevail, if only to explain that solar wind activity. Sooner or later the SSM will have to be modified in a way that actually includes "electricity" because that is what sustains the solar wind activity.

It may not be that the sun has a solid surface, but the sun is definitely a cathode, and the heliosphere acts as the anode. All the physics in the solar system works exactly as Birkeland predict it would work with his cathode solar model.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
No. Any emissions by the atom takes place in discrete units too. The wavelength is related to those valance shell transitions. The term "continuum" as you are using it is a pure ruse and has nothing to do with how atoms emit photons. The atoms emit photons in discrete wavelengths and absorb in discrete wavelengths and that is how we identify various elements in spectrometry.
Click to expand...

Hi Michael,

Remember this? This is you telling us (very confidently) that you knew how photoionization worked and that we were all mistaken about it.

Remember what happened? It turned out that you were wrong. You'd made a mistake putting together the physics in your head---a mistake that inadvertently ignored both basic atomic theory (i.e. math) AND all of the experiments confirming that theory. It was not that you set out to say "Now I will ignore some experiments", but rather that your mistaken mental model indeed had the result of disagreeing with experiments.

Remember that? What did it feel like? Did it feel like "these mainstream physicists are lined up against me and getting things wrong as usual"? Did you feel (briefly) confident in your rightness?

Now, Michael, take every other time I've told you you were wrong. They're all just like that ionization-spectrum time. You're not very good at physics, so you make very basic mistakes. Those mistakes (a) make you misunderstand your own model and (b) contradict well-known physics. The photoionization mistake was simple and short-lived; your other mistakes (on iron properties, solar spectra, basic thermo, basic E&M, spherical geometry, reconnection, etc.) are equally simple and equally wrong. Get used to the idea.
 
Marcus said:
Well, good, I must have missed that. Something must be missing, though, because Sol was all ready to calculate the opacity of the Moplasma again after the first go around didn't meet your expectations. You've said you trust his calculations, why don't you give him whatever he needs to do the calculations? If you believe your theories are correct, you must believe that it will turn out to be transparent when the numbers are run. I was under the impression that we already know the temperature of the sun, not sure why this would be a variable.
Click to expand...

After he learned how opaque neon is to EUV radiation, Michael wanted to specify the ionization state of every ion in the plasma in such a way that less than .001% was in any of the first three states (because the higher states are harder to ionize and so contribute less to the opacity). But one cannot simply pass a law that says "All neon must be quadruply ionized!" Instead, one must use the laws of physics, which tell us the thermal equilibrium populations of ions (and they aren't that).

So, perhaps the plasma isn't at equilibrium. Perhaps that's because of electrical currents running through it. But Michael never provided any information about these currents (if he had, I could have calculated the opacity). That may be because he was told that these currents are simply going to heat the plasma, leading quickly to a new equilibrium and a different thermal population. They aren't going to quadruply ionize all the neon. And if they did, the sun wouldn't be a 6000K black body radiator.

All Michael has to do is tell me the conditions necessary to create some of his Moplazma in a lab. It doesn't have to be even really feasible experimentally - all I need to know is what the experimental conditions would need to be. But he can't, because centuries of empirical lab-based science tells us it's impossible to have a plasma remotely like the one he wants that's anywhere close to transparent enough for his purposes.

Anyway, it sounds as though - at least for the moment - Michael has abandoned his iron surface idea and moved on to "the sun is a cathode". Now we just have to extract from him what he thinks a "cathode" is.
 
ben m said:
Hi Michael,

Remember this? This is you telling us (very confidently) that you knew how photoionization worked and that we were all mistaken about it.

Remember what happened? It turned out that you were wrong. You'd made a mistake putting together the physics in your head---a mistake that inadvertently ignored both basic atomic theory (i.e. math) AND all of the experiments confirming that theory. It was not that you set out to say "Now I will ignore some experiments", but rather that your mistaken mental model indeed had the result of disagreeing with experiments.

Remember that? What did it feel like? Did it feel like "these mainstream physicists are lined up against me and getting things wrong as usual"? Did you feel (briefly) confident in your rightness?

Now, Michael, take every other time I've told you you were wrong. They're all just like that ionization-spectrum time. You're not very good at physics, so you make very basic mistakes. Those mistakes (a) make you misunderstand your own model and (b) contradict well-known physics. The photoionization mistake was simple and short-lived; your other mistakes (on iron properties, solar spectra, basic thermo, basic E&M, spherical geometry, reconnection, etc.) are equally simple and equally wrong. Get used to the idea.
Click to expand...

You'll notice ben that when I realized my mistake, I corrected it quickly, and explained why I made that mistake. I simply wasn't paying attention to the bound/unbound parts of your statements. You'll notice I wasn't worried about that "problem" however due to the ionization states of neon in the SERTS data. It wasn't even a critical issue in this solar model ben. It was a simple mistake and I acknowledged it once I got it.

The same is true of every part of this solar model ben. It's possible that some parts of this solar model will not work out as I 'predicted". It's possible some of the SDO images will ultimately falsify some or most of this theory. What's never going to get falsified about this theory are the electrical aspects of this theory ben. None of you can actually explain solar wind activity because you refuse to include "current flow'. It's that same arrogance you accuse me of that has your whole industry living in the dark ages ben. Everything you don't actually understand in terms of empirical physics, you simply chalk up to "dark" stuff away you go on the metaphysical path to mathematical oblivion.

About all I can do ben is explain how this model works, wait and see how things work out, and wait for you folks to finally acknowledge "current flows" in space. Sooner or later that will happen, but maybe not in my lifetime at the rate you're going. Birkeland never lived to even see his auroral predictions verified. At the rate you're going it will take you another 70 years to figure out that the sun is a cathode. I'm not going to wait around for you to figure that out and live in the dark ages with you. You're welcome to that type of life, but that's just not for me ben. I see from Birkeland's experiments that your industry has missed at least one key ingredient of this universe. It's called "electricity".
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
About all I can do ben is explain how this model works...
Click to expand...

But that's just it, Michael.

You can't.

For dozens of pages people have been asking you how your model works, and you can't come up with an answer.

You can tell us what you want it to look like, but you so far have not been able to give any explanation, consistent with known and well-tested laws of physics, as to how it actually works.

You just declare, by fiat, that this is how it is and it would work if all these atoms were in these specific states (ignoring the fact that such a configuration is impossible), or that this is visible through 80,000 km of plasma (which is impossible), and similar other declarations.

If you could tell us how it works, I think everyone here would be very grateful.
 
sol invictus said:
After he learned how opaque neon is to EUV radiation, Michael wanted to specify the ionization state of every ion in the plasma in such a way that less than .001% was in any of the first three states (because the higher states are harder to ionize and so contribute less to the opacity). But one cannot simply pass a law that says "All neon must be quadruply ionized!" Instead, one must use the laws of physics, which tell us the thermal equilibrium populations of ions (and they aren't that).

So, perhaps the plasma isn't at equilibrium. Perhaps that's because of electrical currents running through it. But Michael never provided any information about these currents (if he had, I could have calculated the opacity).
Click to expand...

FYI sol, I don't think that is fair. I provided you with Birkeland's numbers and that's the best I can do right now. That doesn't mean I've stopped trying.

Anyway, it sounds as though - at least for the moment - Michael has abandoned his iron surface idea and moved on to "the sun is a cathode". Now we just have to extract from him what he thinks a "cathode" is.
Click to expand...

The only reason I went down the cathode path is because you folks don't seem to understand that the electrical aspects are what make both a 'rigid" and "solid" surface solar model subsets of a "Birkeland solar model". Whether the iron is in a solid or a plasma state isn't really critical to a cathode solar model.
 
Dancing David said:
Where is your proof of any sort of your refrigeration and sheilding? You know that one that says you have a 'rigid' and volcanic surface of iron below a layer of 6,000° plasma?

And then how your electric sun can have a flow away from it of all three ion types?

Hmmmm? Ah.
Click to expand...

Just as the standard model "predicts' that there is a 'layer" under the chromosphere that is "more opaque" and "cooler" than the chromosphere, this model predicts that same thing about the neon layer. It's just *a* layer in a multiple layer model and the heat is moving constantly away from the surface and is carried away from the surface by the "current flow" that moves out toward the heliosphere. The neon is not "opaque". It therefore isn't necessarily going to pass a whole lot of heat back at the surface.
 
tusenfem said:
So I guess you do not have the papers.
Please tell me where in "the book" Birkie says there is that much iron, I am willing to spend some time on Birkie but I am not going to search his tome to find where that is stated.
Once more MM tactics, don't help anyone, just "look in the book."

So I found "Archives de Sciences Physiques et Naturelles" from 1916 in pfd (T 41), where Birkie asks: "Les rayons corpusculaire du soleil qui penetrent dans l'athmosphere terrestre sont-ils negatifs ou positives?"

So I think I will take a look at that. TaDa
Click to expand...

Enjoy your reading. I don't believe that you'll be claiming that Birkeland's solar theories predicted only one kind of particle coming from the sun after reading that paper.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
* your persistent ignoring of simple, straight-forward requests for explanations (e.g. "solar wind acceleration" and "coronal loop activity")
Click to expand...

What? I already explained the relevant points and pointed you to the lab work that "predicted" these solar activities. The fact you folks *insist* on ignoring that work is exactly why you can't "explain" solar wind! You refuse to consider the *ONE* known cause of such activity.

The one thing none of you will accept and that you all insist on *NEVER* accepting is the electrical nature of this universe. As long as you continue to ignore all those important "predictions" of Birkeland's solar theory, and you ignore those solar observations, there isn't much more I can do to save you from your own self imposed ignorance. What do you want me to do exactly DRD, recreate Birkelend's experiments for you personally?
 
nescafe said:
GR describes the interaction between spacetime and mass/energy. Among the things it describes are gravitationally bound systems. It also describes systems that are not gravitationally bound. An example of such a system is the observable Universe.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo to me. If you can't get your "dark" stuff to accelerate a single atom in a lab, what makes you think it's the "cause" of any form of acceleration? You don't see the problem with claiming that this thing you created only happens 'somewhere out there" where humans can never get to?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
The list is now so long it's not easy to spot the word you're after by merely skimming.

Maybe time to sort it alphabetically, GM?
Click to expand...

While you're at it, add the term "civil" to that list. I have no clue how you folks define that term, particularly GM's definition of that term. It's a lot like his definition of "opacity". It seems to be his own personal definition, not something you'd actually find in a dictionary.
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI sol, I don't think that is fair. I provided you with Birkeland's numbers and that's the best I can do right now. That doesn't mean I've stopped trying.
Click to expand...
Okay, so all he needs are the conditions necessary to create the Moplasma in a lab. You said you already know the composition, if there is an outrageous voltage running through it that would blow up a real sun, no problem, he can still use the numbers.
 
Cuddles said:
And this is exactly the irony we keep pointing out. You claim to be a fan of empirical physics, but you don't actually understand what those words mean.
Click to expand...

Sure I do. It means they work in a lab. Birkeland didn't just "guess" that solar wind might be composed of high speed charged particles, he *EXPLAINED WHY* they were composed of high speed charged particles and *simulated* the process in a lab. To this day you folks cannot produce a full sphere acceleration of plasma from a sphere and you have no clue to explain something Birkeland "predicted" via empirical physics.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo to me.
Click to expand...
Just like your solar model does to pretty much everyone else.

Michael Mozina said:
If you can't get your "dark" stuff to accelerate a single atom in a lab, what makes you think it's the "cause" of any form of acceleration?
Click to expand...

Dark energy is just a label standing in for whatever is causing the rate at which the Universe is expanding to increase, Michael. Reading more into it than that is not called for right now. We know, based on numerous observations, that the Universe is expanding, and that its rate of expansion is increasing. Our models of the Universe must take that fact into account, and those models are best described in the framework of General Relativity.

Michael Mozina said:
You don't see the problem with claiming that this thing you created only happens 'somewhere out there" where humans can never get to?
Click to expand...
Nope -- the vast majority of the Universe is "somewhere out there" where humans can never get to -- we can only infer what is happening from our observations and make sure that all those inferences are consistent with each other and with whatever tests we can perform. It kinda sucks when our models are not directly testable, but those are the breaks.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
You'll notice ben that when I realized my mistake, I corrected it quickly, and explained why I made that mistake. I simply wasn't paying attention to the bound/unbound parts of your statements. You'll notice I wasn't worried about that "problem" however due to the ionization states of neon in the SERTS data.
Click to expand...

But the SERTS data showed neon in the whole range of ionization states, not just the ones that you wanted. Using the SERTS data to show that solar Ne is all in high ionization states is like using using the Hindenberg to show that dirigibles are safe.

It wasn't even a critical issue in this solar model ben. It was a simple mistake and I acknowledged it once I got it.

The same is true of every part of this solar model ben.
Click to expand...


(I won't say it)
 
Marcus said:
Okay, so all he needs are the conditions necessary to create the Moplasma in a lab. You said you already know the composition, if there is an outrageous voltage running through it that would blow up a real sun, no problem, he can still use the numbers.
Click to expand...

The problem is that I can set parameters of energy states of elements to match the energy range of the neon, but that is a bit like "cheating' as ben and sol have both commented on. It "works" to some degree, but it's not exactly something I can justify without knowing a lot more about the current flows involved and the various temperatures and densities of different plasma layers. The 94A absorption is useful information in this model because it makes sense that a neon atmosphere would absorb that wavelength. I'm just not sure exactly how to use that info to calculate temperatures just yet.
 
Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:
* your persistent ignoring of simple, straight-forward requests for explanations (e.g. "solar wind acceleration" and "coronal loop activity")
Click to expand...
What? I already explained the relevant points and pointed you to the lab work that "predicted" these solar activities.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry MM, I can find no such posts (I searched this entire thread).

Can you point me to the key posts please?
The fact you folks *insist* on ignoring that work is exactly why you can't "explain" solar wind! You refuse to consider the *ONE* known cause of such activity.
Click to expand...
Let's take it step by step, shall we?

Start with a clear, unambiguous definition of "solar wind acceleration" and "coronal loop activity".

With that in hand, we can go to the next step.
The one thing none of you will accept and that you all insist on *NEVER* accepting is the electrical nature of this universe. As long as you continue to ignore all those important "predictions" of Birkeland's solar theory, and you ignore those solar observations, there isn't much more I can do to save you from your own self imposed ignorance. What do you want me to do exactly DRD, recreate Birkelend's experiments for you personally?
Click to expand...
Well, as you'll see in my next post, you will be delighted to know that the SDO will provide you with all the data you could ever want, regarding the electrical nature of the Sun, and, specifically, estimates of the currents flowing through the corona, chromosphere, and upper part of the photosphere (of course, you'll have to translate all this into the idiosyncratic terms; as a kindness to your readers, please provide a detailed translation when you do).
 
dasmiller said:
But the SERTS data showed neon in the whole range of ionization states, not just the ones that you wanted. Using the SERTS data to show that solar Ne is all in high ionization states is like using using the Hindenberg to show that dirigibles are safe.
Click to expand...

Actually, the peak was *way* above the Ne+4 energy state. By the time we get to the +2 energy state there's almost no neon emissions. The silicon tends to work much the same way by the way. I'd love to see an NE+3 or +4 image of the sun. I suspect it would look exactly as I predicted, and not as you predict. In other words I would predict that the entire surface of the photosphere is "lit up" in those wavelengths, whereas your theory would suggest that the activity was limited to the coronal loops. One visual test would falsify one of our models. ;)
 
nescafe said:
Dark energy is just a label standing in for whatever is causing the rate at which the Universe is expanding to increase, Michael. Reading more into it than that is not called for right now.
Click to expand...

?????

You evidently read a *LOT* more into it when you claim that 70+ of the universe is made of the stuff, and it has no effect on gravitationally bound systems. You've made a whole *HOST* of assumptions about this "dark energy" you invented out of thin air. For instance, how do you know it does cause "solar wind acceleration" too?
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI sol, I don't think that is fair. I provided you with Birkeland's numbers and that's the best I can do right now.
Click to expand...

No you didn't. You linked to a NYT abstract of an article about a talk Birkeland gave. It didn't contain any of those numbers (actually I'm not sure it contained any numbers at all).
 
sol invictus said:
No you didn't. You linked to a NYT abstract of an article about a talk Birkeland gave. It didn't contain any of those numbers (actually I'm not sure it contained any numbers at all).
Click to expand...

How about specifying which numbers you still need from me that you couldn't get from that article I cited?
 
Michael Mozina said:
?????

You evidently read a *LOT* more into it when you claim that 70+ of the universe is made of the stuff, and it has no effect on gravitationally bound systems. You've made a whole *HOST* of assumptions about this "dark energy" you invented out of thin air. For instance, how do you know it does cause "solar wind acceleration" too?
Click to expand...

You have me confused with your own strawmen. I carefully avoided making any claims about what dark energy is beyond a placeholder for whatever is accelerating the expansion of the Universe and I flat out stated that dark energy has nothing to do with solar wind acceleration. Your assumptions otherwise are not justified by everything else in this thread so far.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You'll notice ben that when I realized my mistake, I corrected it quickly, and explained why I made that mistake. I simply wasn't paying attention to the bound/unbound parts of your statements.
Click to expand...

a) Yep. In this case you *realized* your mistake. In many other cases, you have merely *not yet* realized your mistakes.

b) "I wasn't paying attention to the bound/unbound parts of your statements". That was actually very telling, Michael. You read part of a post trying to explain physics to you. It was physics you didn't actually know, although it's basic sophomore-level atomic physics. You COULD HAVE said---and a real scientist would have said, "Huh, it sounds like this commenter has some independent knowledge of atomic physics; I realize that I lack that knowledge, I should hit the books before I put my foot in my mouth." Instead you said, "I will read this post all by itself, try to interpret what it says, and decide whether I disagree with it." And that absurdly-inadequate snippet of attempted self-education gave you the confidence to tell everybody that they were wrong.

That's the problem, Michael. Your half-baked denial of photoionization, while it lasted, was a mistake arising from your own crappy physics background, your careless and self-serving half-reading of attempts to explain things to you, and your unfailing assumption that everyone else is wrong. It was a microcosm of your entire contrarian career.
 
Michael Mozina said:
How about specifying which numbers you still need from me that you couldn't get from that article I cited?
Click to expand...

Michael: anything. Please cite any conditions whatsoever that you think are Mozplasma-generating conditions. They don't have to be "the exact conditions you think are on the Sun".

Remember, Michael, Sol's (and everyone's) view is that Mozplasma is utterly impossible. That it fundamentally violates the laws of thermodynamics---that there is no possible current, voltage, density, and composition that will magically suppress low-ionization states without heating the plasma to a hundred thousand degrees. If we are wrong, you can prove us wrong by providing a counterexample. Provide the counterexample, please.

But you're telling us you can't come up with a counterexample? In that case you have no grounds for thinking we're wrong.
 
In preparation for a post in which I will show MM - and all other readers - how and why SDO will allow MM (and anyone else) to test his ""cathode" solar model", quantitatively, here is a selection of MM posts of direct relevance (bold is added, in all cases)

- - - - - - - - - - start of selection - - - - - - - - -

It "works" to some degree, but it's not exactly something I can justify without knowing a lot more about the current flows involved (source)

That would be "physics" in general, starting with the fact that iron and hydrogen will not stay "mixed" in an electromagnetic environment. I've showed you the mass flows up and through the surface of the photosphere in Hinode images galore. I've shown your tons of images that disprove the "opacity' argument and you refuse to even consider them. I'm sorry you feel as you do, but I assure you that physics (of mass movement) is on my side. We live inside of an electric universe PS. (source)

Various amounts of mass flows from the surface (wherever that might be) to the heliosphere could in fact change the various sizes of the plasma layers depending on the current flow going on at that time. I would in fact expect them to be a bit different during active vs. quiet times. (source)

You'll also notice the distinct twisting effect of a "Birkeland current" in that large twister coming off the limb. That twisted shape is a direct result of the "current flow" through that plasma. (source)

The various ionization states are simply related to the current flow inside the loops. (source)

No, I *KNOW* that it's wrong because you and those authors never bothered to include any "current flow" in your model. (source)

You guys/gals "hate" the whole EU concept with such a passion, it really doesn't matter what I propose as long as it includes "current flow". You'll never consider it. (source)

Well, I am technically only trying to use that image to verify Kosovichev's data. The fact it fits so perfectly, right down to the best margin of errors I could extract from each method sure bolsters my confidence in those numbers. I need to see the RD images and FITS files to really tell anything else about the images in question. The best I could hope to do is utilize that image to verify that 4800-6000km figure that Kosovichev's data suggested. At that 4800km point, the mass flows all go from vertical to horizontal, indicating the point at which the mass flows are related to "current flow' through the shell rather than related to the ion mass flow of the "tornado" under the sunspot. It just cannot be a "coincidence" that these numbers work out to within 24KM at the low end, and 40-60Km at the high end. Somehow those numbers must be related. It think I even know how they are physically related, specifically by the dark opaque surface we see all along the limb of the public release composite image at point A. (source)

You *HATE* EU theory with a passion, but the only way to fix *any* plasma solar theory is going to require that you add electrical current to your theory. Wow. That's going to be quite the ego fry for you. (source)

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. (source)

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. (source)

Like Skwinty mentioned, I'm simply trying to get these folks to look outside their box, but alas it's a like tilting at windmills at this point. I'm very hopeful that SDO will change all that, but we'll see. (source)

- - - - - - - - - - end of selection - - - - - - - - -

It's important that you all set your expectations realistically.

As we have learned, most, if not all, the key terms in MM's posts have meanings which differ - sometimes radically - from their usual, textbook physics, meanings ... at least, what MM writes makes no sense at all unless he intends the key words to have different meanings.

In my next post I'll outline how data from SDO will be able to do almost everything MM wants (per the above selections) ... but only if key words have their standard meanings.

And what key words might they be?

Here are some of the most important: "current flow(s)", "mass flow(s)", ""Birkeland current"", "ion mass flow", and "model".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom