Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
How have I walked away from it? I've been pointing out it's benefits in term of explaining that corona you can't explain and explaining that solar wind you can't explain and how it works in a lab to explain these actual physical processes unlike your "magnetic reconnection" nonsense.
Click to expand...

Well, then, go ahead and explain it.

Punch in the numbers.

Figure out the current and voltage differential needed to explain the observed quantity and speed of the solar wind.

Compare that to known processes and other measurements to make sure it doesn't contradict what we have already observed as far as the sun and the solar system.

Work the math according to known physical law so you can show such a thing is possible.

Because you saying that explains it doesn't prove anything, and shows no benefit. Until you can do the math, and show that such an explanation is possible and fits with known data, all you have is your assertion that it explains anything.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Here's the deal zig. You can't explain "acceleration", so you made up a term "dark energy". I've found another example of acceleration that you can't explain. If it is just a placeholder term for human ignorance of the real cause of "acceleration", then that solar wind is a perfect example of "dark energy" driving "acceleration".
Click to expand...

Here is where GeeMack's accusation that you are dishonest rings quite true. You and I were having a discussion about this topic (dark energy) months ago on another thread. We covered a good deal of ground over many days and just when you were no longer able to justify your position (I had maneuvered you into an untenable position) you simply vanished. Now, here you are making the same adolescent comments as if none of that dialogue had ever occurred. Is it amnesia or is GeeMack on the right track? Is this just a game you play to toy around with everyone here? -- I doubt the latter is true -- you're not that smart!
 
Michael Mozina said:
Here's the deal zig. You can't explain "acceleration", so you made up a term "dark energy". I've found another example of acceleration that you can't explain. If it is just a placeholder term for human ignorance of the real cause of "acceleration", then that solar wind is a perfect example of "dark energy" driving "acceleration".
Click to expand...

Seriously, if I were you I'd just quit talking about dark energy at all.

It's comments like these that show you have absolutely ZERO understanding of the concept, what it means, or even how it was derived.

I'll give you a few hints.

First, it wasn't a number just "made up and put in there". There were multiple lines of evidence that pointed to it, all with numbers that closely agreed as to the amounts and magnitudes.

Second, learn what acceleration is attributed to dark energy, and where and how.

Your insistance on bringing this up in order to change the topic from your inability to support your pet theory is tiresome, irrelevant, and just furthers the evidence that you are ignorant of that which you proclaim to be an expert in.
 
Last edited:
Hellbound said:
...because you saying that explains it doesn't prove anything, and shows no benefit. Until you can do the math, and show that such an explanation is possible and fits with known data, all you have is your assertion that it explains anything.
Click to expand...

This seems to be the fundamental aspect of doing real science that Mozina does not understand.
 
Michael Mozina said:
[...]
No PS, this is a matter of historical accuracy and historical reality. Birkeland certainly had a "solar model". I posted the NY times article for you didn't I? It wasn't limited to a "solid surface" concept, it was related to an "electric universe" concept. I'm personally willing to go with "solid" or "rigid". I'm completely and utterly "flexible". Both of those solar models however are "subsets" of a "Birkeland solar model". We could apply a Birkland solar model to a Anaxagoras type sphere. We could also apply it to a plasma layered and "rigid" type surface too. There are a million different possible ways we might try to express a "cathode solar model" but if there is current flow from the sun to the heliosphere, then they are all "Birkeland solar models"!
Click to expand...
(bold added)

Let's look at one of these "Birkeland solar model" shall we?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I should add that I have developed this model using only the simplest formulae/math I could; in fact there's little here beyond arithmetic; some extremely simple algebra; the standard definitions of things like energy, power, and density; and the formula for kinetic energy.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Um, dude, I don't know how to break this to you, ...

The magnetic fields are what you can observe, from our perch 150 million km or so away.

There is no way to observe electric fields or currents from afar (unless, of course, you know something that Alfvén did not know, much less Birkeland).

And in any case, as a keen student of Alfvén, (and Maxwell) you know that E and j can be derived from B and v (don't you?)
Click to expand...

How quickly we forget. I will post this again(3rd time) so that you dont get lost.

We must strictly keep the order of cause and effect. Does the horse pull the cart or does the cart push the horse?

From the last 100 years of electricity we know that electric current is the cause of magnetic fields. A magnetic field can cause an electric current but you need the right conditions(field cutting a conductor).
A moving electron will cause a magnetic field no matter what.

The source of all magnetic fields is an electric current.[1] The way you tell if an electric current is flowing is by measuring the magnetic field(Ammeter).

In a plasma you can also tell by Zeeman splitting or Faraday rotation which tells you the magnetic field strength which then tells you the current flowing.

Ref 1 Identification of a Quasiseparatrix Layer in a Reconnecting Laboratory Magnetoplasma
The source of all magnetic fields in a plasma are current systems, although in experiments some of the current can be in conductors entrained in the plasma. From this perspective it is obvious that reconnection can occur in dynamic current systems. For example, reconnection has been observed in three-dimensional current systems in the aftermath of a collision of two dense plasmas in a background plasma [10]. In the Sun, coronal mass ejections can lead to flux ropes [11] that emerge from the corona and can reach Earth. They may remain anchored on the Sun, or break away to become plasmoids [12]. A single flux rope carries a current which makes the magnetic field surrounding it helical. Two or more adjacent flux ropes can interact via their J  B force. This may lead to merging as was seen in an early experiment [13] in which the process lead to a force free state where the magnetic fields and plasma currents became parallel. A recent experiment using washer stack guns to produce initially parallel current carrying plasmas showed that magnetic field reconnection occurs when two flux ropes merge [14].
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/papers//Lawrence_PhysRevLett_QSL.pdf
 
Perpetual Student said:
This seems to be the fundamental aspect of doing real science that Mozina does not understand.
Click to expand...

Yep. One of the funny things is, real scientists are able to convince one another of highly-counterintuitive stuff. When Maxwell came up with the idea of "displacement current", he didn't spend years waving his hands about it and running into walls of organized opposition. He wrote it down carefully, and other people were able to read it and determine for themselves that it was right. Ray Davis was able to convince everyone that the solar electron-neutrino flux defied their expectations. Steven Hawking was able to convince everyone that black holes emit blackbody radiation.

Science worked for all of these people; their ideas caught on.

There was not, as far as I know, a five-year period where Hawking insisted that black holes emitted radiation, but refused to do any math, refused to draw diagrams, refused to clarify his explanation, and repeatedly insisted that everyone read John Mitchell's 1783 letter to Cavendish, which contained some tangentially relevant speculations.

Michael, you're taking an approach to "science" that you know darn well doesn't work. Stop it. Look at what actual scientists do---it does work---and try to emulate that. Learning basic physics is part of it. Communication is part of it. Math is part of it.
 
Does Birkeland's voltage on the Sun of 600,000,000 volts make it explode

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...
Hi Sol: There is one number in that news article about a lecture by Birkeland: a voltage on the Sun of 600,000,000 volts.
I am fairly sure that this means that the Sun explodes as it seems that would exceed the ~100 Coulombs that is the maximum for a star the same size as the Sun - On the global electrostatic charge of stars claculates a charge of 77 C per solar mass.

But MM should be able to answer this question about part of his model:
First asked 14 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
Does Birkeland's voltage on the Sun of 600,000,000 volts as included in your fantasy* make it explode?

* Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 70 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
Perpetual Student said:
Here is where GeeMack's accusation that you are dishonest rings quite true. You and I were having a discussion about this topic (dark energy) months ago on another thread. We covered a good deal of ground over many days and just when you were no longer able to justify your position (I had maneuvered you into an untenable position) you simply vanished. Now, here you are making the same adolescent comments as if none of that dialogue had ever occurred. Is it amnesia or is GeeMack on the right track? Is this just a game you play to toy around with everyone here? -- I doubt the latter is true -- you're not that smart!
Click to expand...

I haven't been around for a long time, but I've been around long enough to see it happen a number of times.

I actually put the over/under for this thread a dozen or so pages back, so I'm impressed this thread is still going, though it seems to have derailed now.
 
Perpetual Student said:
Here is where GeeMack's accusation that you are dishonest rings quite true.
Click to expand...

I think the whole character assassination thing you guys do is dishonest as all hell! We're even.

You and I were having a discussion about this topic (dark energy) months ago on another thread. We covered a good deal of ground over many days and just when you were no longer able to justify your position (I had maneuvered you into an untenable position) you simply vanished.
Click to expand...

Huhh? PS, I do have a life outside this board and some topics are just not worth dragging out forever and ever and ever. If I "bailed" on any topic it was out of sheer boredom not because I felt I was losing any ground. Any opinion you have to the contrary is simply your own misinformed opinion. If and when you get "dark energy" do anything to anything in a real empirical experiment, wake me up and let me know. Until then it's pure speculation that any thing like it actually exists in nature. We could go round and round forever on that topic because the one thing that would end the discussion instantly is something you simply cannot do, namely get "dark energy" to show up in a lab. It's another of those 'religious math bunny thingies" with you guys. If one "lacks faith" in the idea, you have zip in the way of empirical support. Round and round and round we go pointing at the sky and claiming "evil dark energy did it".
 
Last edited:
brantc said:
How quickly we forget. I will post this again(3rd time) so that you dont get lost.

We must strictly keep the order of cause and effect. Does the horse pull the cart or does the cart push the horse?
Click to expand...

Therein lies the rub. They don't want to admit they have everything backwards and that's the reason Alfven called it "pseudoscience" in the first place.
 
brantc said:
DeiRenDopa said:
Um, dude, I don't know how to break this to you, ...

The magnetic fields are what you can observe, from our perch 150 million km or so away.

There is no way to observe electric fields or currents from afar (unless, of course, you know something that Alfvén did not know, much less Birkeland).

And in any case, as a keen student of Alfvén, (and Maxwell) you know that E and j can be derived from B and v (don't you?)
Click to expand...
How quickly we forget. I will post this again(3rd time) so that you dont get lost.

We must strictly keep the order of cause and effect. Does the horse pull the cart or does the cart push the horse?

From the last 100 years of electricity we know that electric current is the cause of magnetic fields. A magnetic field can cause an electric current but you need the right conditions(field cutting a conductor).
A moving electron will cause a magnetic field no matter what.

The source of all magnetic fields is an electric current.[1] The way you tell if an electric current is flowing is by measuring the magnetic field(Ammeter).
Click to expand...
Not too many "Ammeters" in the photosphere are there brantc? Nor the corona ... but even if there were, how do you suggest anyone could read them?

In a plasma you can also tell by Zeeman splitting or Faraday rotation which tells you the magnetic field strength which then tells you the current flowing.
Click to expand...
And what does HMI use to tell the 3D magnetic field (strength and direction)?

And how do all those papers I referenced go about estimating E and j, from observations of B and v?

Ref 1 Identification of a Quasiseparatrix Layer in a Reconnecting Laboratory Magnetoplasma
The source of all magnetic fields in a plasma are current systems, although in experiments some of the current can be in conductors entrained in the plasma. From this perspective it is obvious that reconnection can occur in dynamic current systems. For example, reconnection has been observed in three-dimensional current systems in the aftermath of a collision of two dense plasmas in a background plasma [10]. In the Sun, coronal mass ejections can lead to flux ropes [11] that emerge from the corona and can reach Earth. They may remain anchored on the Sun, or break away to become plasmoids [12]. A single flux rope carries a current which makes the magnetic field surrounding it helical. Two or more adjacent flux ropes can interact via their J  B force. This may lead to merging as was seen in an early experiment [13] in which the process lead to a force free state where the magnetic fields and plasma currents became parallel. A recent experiment using washer stack guns to produce initially parallel current carrying plasmas showed that magnetic field reconnection occurs when two flux ropes merge [14].
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/papers//Lawrence_PhysRevLett_QSL.pdf
Click to expand...
Better not let MM read this, he'll blow a gasket!

But, in any case, for you we may have to add "derived" to the list of words you, brantc, use differently.

Dude, the Ej Bv bit is about how you make estimates of one pair once you have estimates of the other.

In terms of cause, well, unless you have some other idea (Aether batteries perhaps?), the cause of the Sun's magnetic fields is inextricably tied to the details of the Sun's formation, which in turn is tied to the cause of magnetic fields (and currents) in the ISM (of a spiral galaxy, in this case), which in turn is ... and for that you may find the Shabala et al. paper I referenced earlier a most interesting read ...
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Are we playing squash now?
Click to expand...

There are two things I've noticed about your side over the years, you hate electrical astronomy theories with a passion and you will go to any lengths to oversimplify everything to "magnetism". The problem DRD is you have the magnetic cart before the electric horse. The "current flow' is the power source, not the magnetic field. The magnetic field is a direct result of the current flowing through the thread. The coronal loop is not there hanging out all by it's lonesome as some kind of dense, non moving plasma and a sterile magnetic line. You have *EVERYTHING* backwards and "dumbed down" to "magnetism".
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Therein lies the rub. They don't want to admit they have everything backwards and that's the reason Alfven called it "pseudoscience" in the first place.
Click to expand...
Can you remind me please?

What is the cause of the Sun's magnetic field, according to Alfvén? Being a Nobel Prize winner and all, of course he would have published his model(s) for such a thing, in a relevant peer-reviewed journal (so please, no NYT articles).

Also, remind me please, in the case of currents, one needs a source, an emf, doesn't one? What is that source? And what are the physical processes which produce, and maintain, it?

One more thing: how do you make estimates of E and j, when you are 150 million km away?
 
Perpetual Student said:
This seems to be the fundamental aspect of doing real science that Mozina does not understand.
Click to expand...

The absolutely incredible part is that you are so absolutely on the wrong side of empirical physics. Birkeland didn't just point at something and claim "magnetic dark reconnection did it". Birkeland built physical experiments based on "current flow" and demonstrated that "current flow" created the effects he was interested in, including solar wind and the corona. He then expressed everything in mathematical terms for all the world to read.

Their side plays around exclusively with math, whips up some lame computer model based on what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience", they never reproduced a working corona or demonstrate solar wind with it, yet you buy into the idea hook line and sinker? Hoy! You're on the wrong side of empirical physics PS.
 
Michael Mozina said:
There are two things I've noticed about your side over the years, you hate electrical astronomy theories with a passion and you will go to any lengths to oversimplify everything to "magnetism". The problem DRD is you have the magnetic cart before the electric horse. The "current flow' is the power source, not the magnetic field. The magnetic field is a direct result of the current flowing through the thread. The coronal loop is not there hanging out all by it's lonesome as some kind of dense, non moving plasma and a sterile magnetic line. You have *EVERYTHING* backwards and "dumbed down" to "magnetism".
Click to expand...

Let's look at one of these "current first, magnetic field second" "Birkeland solar models" shall we?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I should add that I have developed this model using only the simplest formulae/math I could; in fact there's little here beyond arithmetic; some extremely simple algebra; the standard definitions of things like energy, power, and density; and the formula for kinetic energy.
 
brantc said:
From the last 100 years of electricity we know that electric current is the cause of magnetic fields. A magnetic field can cause an electric current but you need the right conditions(field cutting a conductor).
A moving electron will cause a magnetic field no matter what.

The source of all magnetic fields is an electric current.[1] The way you tell if an electric current is flowing is by measuring the magnetic field(Ammeter).
Click to expand...
:confused:

My clothes-dryer sports a permanent magnet that depicts a man and woman who appear to be enjoying each other, with this caption: "You remind me of my husband, except you're not buried in the back yard."

I'd have put it on my stainless-steel refrigerator, except it wouldn't stay. Apparently the surface of my refrigerator doesn't provide enough electric current.

How do I hook up the ammeter to measure the electric current on the surface of my clothes-dryer?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
The absolutely incredible part is that you are so absolutely on the wrong side of empirical physics. Birkeland didn't just point at something and claim "magnetic dark reconnection did it". Birkeland built physical experiments based on "current flow" and demonstrated that "current flow" created the effects he was interested in, including solar wind and the corona. He then expressed everything in mathematical terms for all the world to read.
Click to expand...
(bold added)

Pity, then, that his maths turned out to be inconsistent with in situ observations; you know, quantities (not bunny pictures), empirical measurements, and so on (RC, for one, has a long list of the quantitative, empirical failures of Birkeland's model ...)
 
Michael Mozina said:
Here's the deal zig. You can't explain "acceleration", so you made up a term "dark energy". I've found another example of acceleration that you can't explain. If it is just a placeholder term for human ignorance of the real cause of "acceleration", then that solar wind is a perfect example of "dark energy" driving "acceleration".
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
It's already been done:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf
Click to expand...

No, sorry, that doesn't get it.

FIrs,t I'm not going to attempt to wade through a 924 page PDF file to find support for YOUR hypothesis.

As a scientist with a high regard for empiricism, this is something you should already have done, and the numbers should be known to you.

All I'm asking for is a few of the major calculations. NOT some brass ball experiments, I mean numebrs as they actually apply to the sun.

Show me those. IF they're in that PDF, give me page and paragraph numbers.

Otherwise, I can only assume that, like all your other assertions, you expect everyone here to simply take your word for it.

You are being extremely dishonest and arrogant here. This is a good thing, IMO, because it pretty much shows your delusions for what they are: unsupported assertions and wishes.

Give us the data, not more of your hand-waving.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Now in all ""electric universe" concepts" that I have seen, out there on the world-wide internet, the Sun is powered by a "current flow", so in this first "Birkeland solar model", the current must produce ~3.8 x 10^26 W, which is the observed power (energy per second) of the Sun.
Click to expand...

Woah. What makes you think all the energy comes from "current flow" (in terms of all the heat from the sun)?
 
Hellbound said:
Please actually post an answer, not a link.

Frankly, I don't trust you or your links. At the least, give a summary along with the link. As I stated, I'm not going to go through tons of crap to find yoiur answers for you.
Click to expand...

Gah! Those are "my answers" from published papers! If you don't want to take time to read them fine, but don't complain that I didn't answer your question.
 
Hellbound said:
No, sorry, that doesn't get it.

FIrs,t I'm not going to attempt to wade through a 924 page PDF file to find support for YOUR hypothesis.
Click to expand...

From his perspective, it probably sounds like you're asking him to name the line in "Hamlet" that makes it a tragedy. "I don't know which line," he'd say, "but I read the whole thing and it's obviously a tragedy. You want an exact line, read it yourself."

The problem is, Hellbound, that MM doesn't know what supports his hypothesis. He read (or skimmed) various things Birkeland wrote and the gestalt gives him the impression that Birkeland knew it all. He can't tell you which page answers Important Question X About This Model---because MM wasn't thinking about answering questions while reading it. He wasn't reading it to learn details. He just sort of browsed through and basked in the light of 924 pages of smart-sounding stuff.

So what else can he say? "Read Birkeland yourself and you'll see the gestalt that it's a tragedy it's smart-sounding stuff."

Similarly, that's probably why he can't draw a diagram of any of his 3D claims about the Sun. He isn't looking at particular features and thinking, "OK, if the loop exits the photosphere at this point, then it's below it on the left and above it on the right." He's just looking at it and basking in a gestalt of 3-D-ness. Asking for details is missing the point---"look at it yourself".
 
Michael Mozina said:
Woah. What makes you think all the energy comes from "current flow" (in terms of all the heat from the sun)?
Click to expand...
Who said this "It [the "Birkeland solar model"] wasn't limited to a "solid surface" concept, it was related to an "electric universe" concept"?

Now according to a large number of JREF members (mgmirkin, solrey, sol88, Anaconda, Zeuzzz, ...), Don Scott is the most reliable, most comprehensive, most up-to-date definitive source when it comes to "electric universe concepts" (though Wal Thornhill comes a close second).

This is a conclusion backed up by google searches - google "electric universe" (and exclude the music) and you'll find a great many websites confirming the above (and none, that I could find, to the contrary).

Now Don Scott has written a book on this topic, in which he makes perfectly clear that it is external current flows which power the Sun (and indeed all stars); he and Thornhill even had a paper published (by IEEE) on this.

But, as we have seen so many times already, perhaps what you, MM, mean by ""electric universe" concept" is something totally different?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Gah! Those are "my answers" from published papers! If you don't want to take time to read them fine, but don't complain that I didn't answer your question.
Click to expand...

I want YOUR answer, MM, not a link to some other answer.

Because frankly, even if those are papers with your name on them, I don't htink you even understand your OWN theory anough to give the answers.

You've shown no evidence so far, in years of postings and hundreds and hundreds of pages, of being able to put forth ANY rational, quantifiable argument at all for your "model".

I want to see you actually show you have SOME clue of what you're talking about.

So far, what I've seen is you finding a lot of "neat new words" and using them inappropriately because you think they sound "cool", just like my 8 year old does.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Where did you get that idea?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633
Click to expand...
But that can't possibly be a "Birkeland solar model" now can it MM?

I mean, nuclei, gamma rays from solar flares, and so on weren't invented then, were they?

And anyway, as this document makes perfectly clear, the source of the energy that powers the Sun comes from (external) electric currents!
Unlike the SSM, this model isn't limited to a single energy source.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379
Click to expand...

Nor can it, then, possibly be an ""electric universe" concept", can it?

In fact, as Don Scott et al. make perfectly clear, neutron stars cannot exist in any ""electric universe" concept" (not to mention that no "Birkeland solar model" mentions neutron stars ...)
 
Michael Mozina said:
I think the whole character assassination thing you guys do is dishonest as all hell! We're even.



Huhh? PS, I do have a life outside this board and some topics are just not worth dragging out forever and ever and ever. If I "bailed" on any topic it was out of sheer boredom not because I felt I was losing any ground. Any opinion you have to the contrary is simply your own misinformed opinion. If and when you get "dark energy" do anything to anything in a real empirical experiment, wake me up and let me know. Until then it's pure speculation that any thing like it actually exists in nature. We could go round and round forever on that topic because the one thing that would end the discussion instantly is something you simply cannot do, namely get "dark energy" to show up in a lab. It's another of those 'religious math bunny thingies" with you guys. If one "lacks faith" in the idea, you have zip in the way of empirical support. Round and round and round we go pointing at the sky and claiming "evil dark energy did it".
Click to expand...

Here is the problem MM: You are totally unqualified to even have any opinion about dark energy. A layman might choose between alternative theories in an area of leading edge physics (e.g.: because he finds one more intuitive than another or because he has confidence in a particular physicist), but he cannot have is own unsubstantiated theory, if he does not understand the fundamentals of physics, which you have amply demonstrated is your situation. The hubris you manifest by proclaiming you have a theory or even and opinion about dark energy invites the comments you say are "character assassination."
The fact that you do not remember our prior discussion, from which you unceremoniously bailed-out, is a further demonstration of the little regard you have for others, especially those who are knowledgeable in the areas you attempt to feign knowledge.
And, by the way, phrases like "evil dark energy did it" are only a further demonstration of your immaturity and deep intellectual deficit.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Huhh? PS, I do have a life outside this board and some topics are just not worth dragging out forever and ever and ever. If I "bailed" on any topic it was out of sheer boredom not because I felt I was losing any ground.
Click to expand...


And yet for the last five years you've been spreading your crackpot arguments, arguments from ignorance, lies, fraudulent "evidence", and misunderstandings all over the Internet without so much as one new joke in the routine. Seems like as long as you can keep some people on the hook doing your work for you, only to crap on them later when they actually determine that your nutty conjecture can't possibly work, you're happy to plod on. Are you suggesting your boredom comes when everyone stops nipping at your troll bait and just gets down to the business of reminding you how horribly, laughably, ridiculously wrong your arguments are? :rolleyes:
 
Can you cite the empircal physics that show the Sun is a cathode

Michael Mozina said:
Hoy! You're on the wrong side of empirical physics PS.
Click to expand...
Let us see what side of empirical physics you are on Michael Mozina.

You have a religious failth in Birkeland's Tessella experiments where he models solar activities with the electrical discharges from brass ball cathodes. This faith is so large that you ignore the imperial evidence that the Sun is not a brass ball and cannot contain a brass ball. You then go against the dogma of your faith by coming up with your iron crust fantasy*. But in that fantasy the Sun is still a cathode, i.e. absorbs electrons as in the Tessella experiments.

So you will have plenty of empircal observations of all of the electrons flowing into the Sun since this is also something astronomers are interested in.

First asked 14 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
Can you cite the empircal physics that show the Sun is a cathode with the influx of electrons as predicted by your theory?

You will have a small problem with this - the empircal physics shows that the Sun is a source of electrons.
Tom Bridgman's The Electric Sky: Short-Circuited has the empircal physics results of the Ulysses mission which actually measured the solar wind (which contains electrons) from the Sun. The flow is outward :jaw-dropp!
But all is not lost MM: the Ulysses mission did not measure the solar wind over the poles. So you can make your magical electric universe current even more magical and only flow into the Sun at the poles :eye-poppi.

However you still do not have any empircal physics to support that fantasy either.

* 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 70 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Where did you get that idea?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

Unlike the SSM, this model isn't limited to a single energy source.


http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379
Click to expand...
Now I'm quite confused.

If you are - as you have so vehemently proclaimed - talking about a "Birkeland solar model", and if these two preprints are, as you seem to be claiming, in some way derived from a "Birkeland solar model", then aren't you being exceedingly dishonest?

I mean, neither cites anything by Birkeland - book, paper, NYT article - nothing!

If the ideas in the preprints are derived from Birkeland's work, why did you not acknowledge that?!? :confused:

On the other hand, if neither document has anything to do with any "Birkeland solar model", what relevance does either have to the claims you've been making for dozens of pages now? :confused:
 
Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked

This iron crust within the Sun idea of Micheal Mozina is very easy to disprove (big surprise :eye-poppi!): It is thermodynamically impossible since it must be at a temperature of at least 9400 K (as measured within the photosphere) and so be a plasma. This has been pointed out to MM many times over the years. Here are some of the explanations given to him that he continues to not be able to understand:
This alone makes his idea into a complete fantasy and his continued belief with it a delusion and so we could stop there but... The continuous issuing of unsupported assertions, displays of ignorance of physics and fantasies about what he imagines in images are illustrated in this list of unanswered questions. The first question was asked on 6th July 2009.
The question of MM's lies and misinterpretations about Birkeland's book has come up again so I have separated his unsupported assertions about the book. An honest person would just say "I was wrong - Birkeland did not write that" in answer to most of these.
  1. Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
  2. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
  3. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
  4. Is Saturn the Sun?
  5. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
  6. Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind
  7. Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book? (really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)
  8. Are galaxies electrical discharges from magnetized iron spheres (Birkelands "nebulae model")?
  9. Where in Birkeland's book does he state that the Sun is a metal globe?
And the other questions:


  1. What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected?
  2. What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona.
  3. Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
  4. Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question? (No)
  5. More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth
  6. Formation of the iron surface
  7. How much is "mostly neon" MM?
  8. Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?
  9. Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina
  10. Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina.
  11. Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested?
  12. What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model?
  13. What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K?
  14. Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles?
  15. Entire photon "spectrum" is composed of all the emissions from all the layers
  16. Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves?
  17. Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere?
  18. Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer?
  19. What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers?
  20. What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer?
  21. Explain the shape of your electrical arcs (coronal loops)
  22. What is your physical evidence for the silicon in sunspots?
  23. How do MM's "layers" survive the convection currents in the Sun?
  24. Where are the controllable empirical experiments showing the Iron Sun mass separation?
  25. How can your iron "crust" not be a plasma at a temperature of at least 9400 K?
  26. How can your "mountain ranges" be at a temperature of at least 160,000 K?
  27. Where is the spike of Fe composition in the remnants of novae and supernovae?
  28. Which images did you use as your input for the PM-A.gif image, etc.?
  29. Where did your "mountain ranges" go in Active Region 9143 when it got to the limb?
  30. Do RD movies of inactive regions show "mountain ranges"?
  31. Just how high are your "mountain ranges"?
  32. How does your iron crust exist when there are convection currents moving through it?
  33. Why does the apparent height of your "mountain ranges" depend on the timing of source images for the RD process when the light sources and mountains in the images are the same?
  34. Why does the lighting of your "mountain ranges" move depending on the RD process?
  35. Why are the coronal loops in the RD images aligned along your "mountain ranges" rather than between them as expect fro electrical discharges?
  36. Why are the sunspot umbra not "mostly" iron plasma (Fe was also detected by SERTS as was C and a dozen more elements)?
  37. Can you show how you calculated that "3000-3750 KM" figure for the photosphere depth?
  38. How did you determine that the filaments "abruptly end right there"?
  39. Citation for the LMSAL claim that coronal loops all originate *ABOVE* the photosphere?
  40. How did you measure the curvature of penumbral filaments in the Hinode images?
  41. How does your Iron Sun fantasy create the observed magnetic field of the Sun?
  42. Calculation for the depth of the SOT_ca_061213flare_cl_lg.mpg filament?
  43. Can you understand that the photosphere is defined to be opaque?
  44. A comment on MM's ability to interpret images: No little plasma (penumbral) filament!
  45. Where has any one in this thread claimed that the umbra is 2D?
  46. Is Michael Mozina's claim of measuring the curvature of the filaments true?
  47. Do you understand how fluorescent tubes ("neon bulbs") work?
  48. Can you explain why limb darkening does not diisprove your model?
  49. Why is the SERTS data on the corona applicable to sunspots?
  50. Please define a "current carrying plasma" from a textbook.
  51. How does the SERTS data show that all of the neon and silcon in the Sun's atmosphere is highly ionized?
  52. Where does the current from your impossible iron crust come from?
  53. Did you cherry pick the SDO image to support your fantasy? - the answer is yes. MM saw a "green line" in one PR image and ignored its absence in another.
    The SDO image"green line" is a processing artifact as confirmed by the NASA team.
    But anyway
    What went wrong with your counting of pixels in the SDO image?
    Where are your calculations that the SDO artifact has a width of *EXACTLY* 4800 km
  54. This post deserves mentioning: Math Bunnies & Image Bunnies
  55. Can Micheal Mozina understannd simple geometry?
  56. What is wrong with W.D.Clinger's calculation?
    Two recent questions but I fully expect the MM will be able to refute the geometry textbooks :rolleyes: !
  57. Got numbers, Michael Mozina? or What real quantified predictions come from Michael Mozina's Iron Sun fantasy? Is MM's idea complete useless :eye-poppi?
  58. Can you cite the paper where Kosovichev states that "those loops are mass flows" (coronal loops?)?
  59. How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?
  60. Can you understand that the disk radius in RD images depends on solar activity?
  61. Will you yank down your web site as promised after your prediction failed?
  62. Why are you still ignoring that measurements show the chromosphere, etc. above the photosphere?
    (this happens to be one reason why MM is called a crank)
  63. Why was the resolution in the STEREO data not enough to "make a convincing case"? (calculations please :rolleyes: )
Micheal Mozina has a habit of essentially labeling Kristian Birkeland as having no knowledge of physics, e.g. the simple thermodynamics that make an iron crust impossible.
Not really a question, just a list of the symptoms of a crank or crackpot that MM displays
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
Who said this "It [the "Birkeland solar model"] wasn't limited to a "solid surface" concept, it was related to an "electric universe" concept"?

Now according to a large number of JREF members (mgmirkin, solrey, sol88, Anaconda, Zeuzzz, ...), Don Scott is the most reliable, most comprehensive, most up-to-date definitive source when it comes to "electric universe concepts" (though Wal Thornhill comes a close second).

This is a conclusion backed up by google searches - google "electric universe" (and exclude the music) and you'll find a great many websites confirming the above (and none, that I could find, to the contrary).

Now Don Scott has written a book on this topic, in which he makes perfectly clear that it is external current flows which power the Sun (and indeed all stars); he and Thornhill even had a paper published (by IEEE) on this.

But, as we have seen so many times already, perhaps what you, MM, mean by ""electric universe" concept" is something totally different?
Click to expand...

Oh, I thought we were talking about *MY* brand of a "Birkeland solar model". If you want to take the conversation to some other brand of solar model, that's certainly your prerogative, but don't expect to "hang my solar model high" based on the specifications of some other variation of an EU solar model.
 
GeeMack said:
And yet for the last five years you've been spreading your crackpot arguments, arguments from ignorance, lies, fraudulent "evidence"
Click to expand...

Really, I'm actually quite curious now. Please define the term "civil" for me. Somehow in your whacked out world of make believe civility, it's "ok" to refer to Birkeland as a "moron", a "bozo" and claim he was "without a clue" in his understanding of solar physics. You've somehow found it emotionally necessary to refer to me as a "crackpot" 100% of the time on a post per post basis. You've called me a fraud, a liar etc, etc, so many times I've lost count. What "exactly" (be scientifically precise about it) do you define as "civil conversation"? Inquiring minds really want to know?
 
Michael Mozina said:
How have I walked away from it?
Click to expand...

You have consistently failed to explain your cathode model.

I've been pointing out it's benefits in term of explaining that corona you can't explain and explaining that solar wind you can't explain and how it works in a lab to explain these actual physical processes unlike your "magnetic reconnection" nonsense.
Click to expand...

Small problem, Michael: you haven't explained the solar wind. You've only done hand waving. Without numbers, there's no way to tell if your "explanation" actually matches observations at all. If the numbers are wrong, the explanation is wrong. Is your explanation right or wrong? How the hell would you even know if you can't put numbers on anything?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Oh, I thought we were talking about *MY* brand of a "Birkeland solar model". If you want to take the conversation to some other brand of solar model, that's certainly your prerogative, but don't expect to "hang my solar model high" based on the specifications of some other variation of an EU solar model.
Click to expand...


Oh, so you've hijacked Birkeland's name and slapped it on your own crackpot conjecture. It's *YOUR* brand of a Birkeland solar model. Well just how do you think Kristian Birkeland would feel about you dragging his name through the dirt in order to avoid taking responsibility for your own dismal failure?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Oh, I thought we were talking about *MY* brand of a "Birkeland solar model". If you want to take the conversation to some other brand of solar model, that's certainly your prerogative, but don't expect to "hang my solar model high" based on the specifications of some other variation of an EU solar model.
Click to expand...
Um, dude, you do realise, don't you, that your very own website explicitly states that the "electric universe theory" you are referring to is that of Thornhill, Scott, and the Thunderblots website?
For anyone interested in a very good video introduction to plasma cosmology theory, and Electric Universe theory, I highly recommend The Thunderbolt Of The God's Video. that is now viewable on Google. I also highly recommend the Book "The Electric Sky" by Donald E. Scott.
Click to expand...
ETA: it is important to state that, with their normal meanings, a "model" is derived from a "theory" (or perhaps more than one theory).

Putting this another way, every "variation of an EU solar model" - yours, *YOUR* "brand of a "Birkeland solar model"", sol88's, solrey's, iantresman's, ... - is based on the more general, more comprehensive "Electric Universe theory".

But then, as we already know, what you mean by terms like "model", "theory", "current", "cathode", "Birkeland", "solar wind", "photosphere", "corona", and many, many more is known only to you.

The (well one) really sad thing is that you seem almost completely blind to the fact that what you write is pretty close to being unintelligible, not least because you make next to no effort to even try to explain what you mean (wanna start changing that? how about taking up D'rok's request?)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom