Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
GeeMack said:
Michael also thinks Kristian Birkeland was a complete buffoon who didn't have the intelligence to do real science and relied on the same looks-like-a-bunny arguments that Michael relies on. :boggled:
Click to expand...

No, again, I think the relevant term in your sentence applies to you and only to you. Birkeland could explain the solar wind and the corona and he simulated both of them. You're still clueless 100 years later.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Define "pretty good" in terms of how well it works in the lab for me.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask whether you think they are right. Did anyone ever tell you that mainstream, non-PC/EU physicists thought that they substantially understood the solar wind? Yes or no:

"Yes, various people have asserted that the solar wind made sense without PC/EU"

or:

"No, I have never heard anyone bother to claim that the solar wind could be explained without EU/PC"

Yes or no?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Er, no. ...
Click to expand...
Actually you promised to shut down your entire web site if the SDO image you were interested in did not support your fantasy*.
Here is the actual promise:
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
I've been at this for five years now D'rok. I knew *exactly* what I was looking for in the images. That's the image I needed. If there had been no smooth limb darkening right where I predicted it, I would have yanked down my website in a heartbeat. The fact it matches Kosovichev's numbers perfectly means it can only be Birkeland's surface. One test is all it's going to take and I even clearly explained how to go about it.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

Of course your prediction was even worse since that "green line" actually shows "limb brightening" :jaw-dropp !

* Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally 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:
You haven't caught up yet from the last century. What's the point of more writing when you've never bothered to read any of it anyway, not to mention never bothered to read Birkeland's work or Alfven's work? If you won't listen to the guy that wrote MHD theory when he called magnetic reconnection pseudoscience, what are the odds you'll listen to me when I call your opacity math bunny DOA in solar satellite images?
Click to expand...
Pretty good, if you make the call with those upside-down-triangly thingies, drunken letter d's, B, E, j, and v (etc) ... just like Alfvén did.

But then what are the odds that you won't even know how to use the SDO dopplergrams and magnetograms, let alone be able to analyse them to check for consistency wrt your opacity claims (especially the ones which involve "current flows")?
 
Michael Mozina said:
You haven't caught up yet from the last century. What's the point of more writing when you've never bothered to read any of it anyway, not to mention never bothered to read Birkeland's work or Alfven's work? If you won't listen to the guy that wrote MHD theory when he called magnetic reconnection pseudoscience, what are the odds you'll listen to me when I call your opacity math bunny DOA in solar satellite images?
Click to expand...


Oh you've been saying that for a half a decade. But really doesn't it come down to this?...

Michael Mozina said:
Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that [crackpot conjecture] out of your ^ss.
Click to expand...
 
Why is the iron crust iron and not Birkeland's brass

Michael Mozina said:
No. There was a perfectly good reason why Birkeland calculated the mass between the stars based on iron. You don't want to hear it.
Click to expand...
You don't want to hear it or even read his book , Michael Mozina;
I hate to break it to you but he did pull iron out of thin air, but alas you won't be bothered to read his work, e.g. see page 720:
Let us see how thickly we should have to imagine iron atoms, for instance, distributed in space between the sun and the nearest star, a Centauri, if, in a sphere with the distance 4.4 light-years as radius we assumed a mass equal to that of our solar system to be evenly distributed.
Click to expand...

(my emphasis).

Why iron? My guess is that he was thinking about his experiments that included iron magnets. A modern astronomer would do his calculation for hydrogen because that is what they think about most of the time. I would do it fro palladium because that was what I thought about for my thesis.

And this follows a post where you missed the ETA:
Reality Check said:
I will butt in here: He based it on iron as an example (see page 720). That does not change the fact that his spheres were brass.

ETA
Of course the magnets inside the brass spheres were copper wires wrapped around iron cores. So your "iron crust" fantasy* should be an iron core + copper layer + copper & zinc shell fantasy

* Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally 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.
Click to expand...

And:
First asked 14 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
Why is the iron crust iron and not Birkeland's brass, i.e. either a mixed copper & zinc layer or a copper layer and a zinc layer?

In either case your delusion that you can see a iron surface in the TRACE RD image constructed from images of the corona (1000's of kilometers above the photosphere :jaw-dropp ) must be wrong - it si either brass, copper or zinc.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, again, I think the relevant term in your sentence applies to you and only to you. Birkeland could explain the solar wind and the corona and he simulated both of them. You're still clueless 100 years later.
Click to expand...
We know a lot more about the corona and solar wind than Birkeland and so we know that
  1. He did not explain the solar wind. He suggested a composition (and got it right!)
  2. He did not explain the corona.
  3. He never simulated the solar wind.
  4. He never simulated the corona.
You're still clueless.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry DRD but while your math is correct, it starts with an incorrect assumption - Birkeland knew about special relativity. He cites "A. H. LORENTZ, The Theory of Electrons, 1909, p. 212, equation 313." on page 596 of the book where he calculates the speed of his emitted electrons as almost the speed of light (with a "transversal mass" of about 1000 times that of an electron with a small velocity).

If you set Birkeland the problem of calculating the speed of electrons hitting the photosphere from the heliosphere he would get a value less than the speed of light.

Of course the real problem with an electric current providing the observed energy output of the Sun is that we observe neutrinos being emitted that mean that enough fusion is happening to provide that energy.

Thus MM's and the electric universe prediction is either:
  • The sun outputs twice as much energy as is observed or
  • The electric current does nothing measurable.
 
The best explanation for this anomaly is the the sun has a solid surface.


Sun's constant size surprises scientists
(PhysOrg.com) -- A group of astronomers led by the University of Hawaii's Dr. Jeff Kuhn has found that in recent times the sun's size has been remarkably constant. Its diameter has changed by less than one part in a million over the last 12 years.

“This constancy is baffling, given the violence of the changes we see every day on the sun's surface and the fluctuations that take place over an 11-year solar cycle,” commented Kuhn, the associate director of the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy (IfA) who is responsible for Haleakala Observatories.

Kuhn's work is part of worldwide efforts to understand the influence of the sun on Earth's climate. “We can't predict the climate on Earth until we understand these changes on the sun,” he said.
http://www.physorg.com/news192988158.html
 
brantc said:
The best explanation for this anomaly is the the sun has a solid surface.
Click to expand...

:notm

The best explanation is the one that introuduces the fewest additional entities (Occam's razor anyone?).

A solid surface requires numerous additional processes, currently unknown, that explain how is can be solid, how it can maintain shape under that temperature and gravity, how it seems to be undetectable, and numerous other problems with the idea of a solid surface that have been repeatedly pointed out over the last 50 pages of so in this thread.

Can you do any better than MM? Have any actual data, any numbers, anything at all that is quantifiable or supported by the laws of physics? Or is it just more "looks like it to me" "science"?
 
Reality Check said:
Sorry DRD but while your math is correct, it starts with an incorrect assumption - Birkeland knew about special relativity. He cites "A. H. LORENTZ, The Theory of Electrons, 1909, p. 212, equation 313." on page 596 of the book where he calculates the speed of his emitted electrons as almost the speed of light (with a "transversal mass" of about 1000 times that of an electron with a small velocity).

If you set Birkeland the problem of calculating the speed of electrons hitting the photosphere from the heliosphere he would get a value less than the speed of light.

Of course the real problem with an electric current providing the observed energy output of the Sun is that we observe neutrinos being emitted that mean that enough fusion is happening to provide that energy.

Thus MM's and the electric universe prediction is either:
  • The sun outputs twice as much energy as is observed or
  • The electric current does nothing measurable.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that RC (and for the note about Saturn - I'll continue with that a bit later).

I was kinda hoping MM would work this out for himself (at least two other JREF members worked it out), but for some reason he missed it.

I wonder if there's anything else he may have missed? After all, it's a very simple model, based entirely on his specifications, so it should take him no more than, what, 10 minutes to check it out, shouldn't it?
 
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...

I need a set of numbers that specify the moplazma sufficiently that I can compute its opacity. For example:

chemical composition
density
temperature

or

chemical composition
density
average kinetic energy per particle

or

chemical composition
density
initial temperature
applied electric field and/or voltage over distance

Michael Mozina said:
Actually, I gave sol all the SSM elemental numbers to play with and assumed a 6000K ion temp. How did I ignore anything?
Click to expand...

If thats the moplazma, more than 3.5m of it are opaque to EUV light, because part of "6000K ion temp" are the ionization fractions, and nearly all the Ne will be in the first three ionization states.
 
Grrr...any answer to Sol, MM? There are a lot of lurkers that have given you the benefit of the doubt assuming that you would be honest enough to answer direct questions about your theory. You seem to be avoiding making diagrams of your model as well as avoiding describing a realistic model of your transparent plasma...something that can be emperically modelled in a lab. Please, there are real people here that really do want to learn. No need to jerk us around. If you truly believe your theory then be honest enough to address questions about it. There are people here that want to learn from the knowledgeable posters here. Don't you want to be part of that knowledge? Or is this whole thread headed to AAH? <grumble> Sorry for the rant.
 
Plasmas, Currents and Magnetic Fields

brantc said:
The source of all magnetic fields is an electric current.[1]
Ref 1 ... The source of all magnetic fields in a plasma are current systems
Click to expand...
Your statement suffers from two serious weaknesses. First. "current systems" does not mean what you think it means. Second, it is far too simplistic, ignoring the two-way interaction between magnetic fields and charged particles.

What do you think a "current system" is? Or perhaps more appropriately, what do you think an "electric current" is? Most people, when confronted by the words "electric current" will think of a coherent flow of particles, all of which share the same sign of electric charge, as exemplified by the electric current flowing in the wires all around us. But that is not what "current systems" means in the paper you cited. To a plasma physicist a current system is simply any coherent motion of charged particles, even if the moving system of particles is at all times charge neutral, by which I mean that for any given unit volume, the total number of positively charged particles equals the total number of negatively charged particles, such that the net electric charge of the representative volume is zero. Hence, a plasma "current system" might easily not result in any net motion of charge. Those charge neutral currents generate magnetic fields, a fact well know to both theory and experiment. So the idea that you must have a good old fashioned household style electric current to get a magnetic field is simply not true.

They call it electromagnetism for a reason. It's electro and magnetism, they come together as a package, each feeding off of the other. Mechanical energy (like the energy of turbulent motion) in a plasma can be converted to magnetic energy, amplifying a small magnetic field into a large magnetic field. You overlook this amplification mechanism and naively assume that any magnetic field you see must have been directly generated by a non-neutral electric current flowing in place with the magnetic field. But that is well known not too be true. Not only can a plasma amplify a pre-existing magnetic field, but as we saw above, it can generate the field in the first place through dynamo action. So in no instance is any non-neutral electric current ever required in a plasma to get a strong magnetic field.

There is a huge physics literature on this and I find it somewhat amusing that the self-appointed champions of the alternate view are so incredibly ignorant of it. See, for instance, Stellar Magnetism by Leon Mestel, Oxford University Press 1999, 2003. The whole book is obviously on point, but pay special attention to chapter 2 (Theoretical Basis) and chapter 6 (Stellar Dynamos); chapter 4 (Magnetism and Convection) is useful for understanding photospheric magnetic fields in particular. There are plenty of other sources, but that should do for now. If you don't care enough to consult the references I offer, that's your affair. But if you keep repeating things known by physics to be false, while simultaneously ignoring that known physics, then your credibility on the matter is likely to be questionable at the very least.
 
Plasmas, Currents and Magnetic Fields II

Michael Mozina said:
... The problem DRD is you have the magnetic cart before the electric horse. The "current flow' is the power source, not the magnetic field. ... You have *EVERYTHING* backwards and "dumbed down" to "magnetism".
Click to expand...
See my previous post Plasmas, Currents and Magnetic Fields. The one doing the dumbing down around here is you, and you are working hard to be as dumbed down as you can be. In this case you continue to try to sell the dumbed down notion that magnetic fields must come from "electric currents", in the common sense as I outlined in my previous post. It is not true. I find it quite fascinating that, all across the board, every "electric universe" or "electric star" expert I have yet encountered is shockingly ignorant of the physics of electromagnetism. Consider yourself counted amongst them.
 
Solar Surface Fusion? Not Likely. II

Hellbound said:
You've pretty well denied fusion as a factor, MM.
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina said:
Where did you get that idea?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633
Click to expand...

The last time I saw Mozina post a link to this paper, I reacted thusly ...

Tim Thompson said:
The second link is for the paper by Mozina, Ratcliffe & Manuel, and is entitled "Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle". The title is a sham, as the paper in fact does no such thing, and in fact presents no evidence at all related to the CNO cycle. Rather, the authors use the observation of electron-positron annihilation (511 kev line emission) and neutron capture (2.2 Mev line emission) to infer, without justification, that unseen CNO fusion created the positrons and neutrons. it is an insipid paper, which is why nobody ever paid it any mind besides the authors. How it ever got published in any journal is a mystery to me.
Click to expand...

I see no reason to modify my remarks from slightly over one month ago. No astrophysical journal would ever have published such a poorly written paper. Then there is this ...

Tim Thompson said:
Nuclear fusion reactions generate both neutrinos and gamma rays. However, from the sun we see only neutrinos, but none of the gamma rays. If, as you say, "neutrino emission is from fusion activity on the surface of the sun", then the obvious question is ... Where are all the gamma rays that we should see but don't see?
Click to expand...

Just one more example of Mozina willing to completely ignore physics when it gets in the way of his cherished notions.
 
Are We There Yet?

Perpetual Student said:
This thread is currently spinning around and around with no end in sight and without any further purpose. Thanks to many knowledgeable contributors (who I would personally like to thank), it has been very informative from time to time. But Mozina's lack of education, disdain for the methods and standards of science, and his inability to learn are now making it repetitive and tedious. Mozina is a hopeless cause, condemned to a life of ignorance and self delusion. Sadly, many good people here are wasting their time.
Click to expand...
Perpetual Student said:
:eusa_wall:
Click to expand...

I think our friend the student has hit the big point. After years of endeavoring Mozina has yet to score a point. All of the lurkers who have chosen to chime in on this thread have said pretty much the same thing. They wanted to learn, gave Mozina the benefit of the doubt, but came away disillusioned because he could not deliver on his grandiose claims. Mozina has never been able to deliver, and never will be able to deliver. And it's that way on every thread, on every board, year after year. It's always Mozina vs the World but he just doesn't get it. There is nothing to do now but go over the same old tired arguments, repeating the same refutations of the same nonsensical garbage, yada yada yada and so on and so forth ad infinitum. I confess it seems unfair to pick on somebody as defenseless as Mozina, but he so asks for it.
 
Where is your empirical physics counting the gamma rays from a surface CNO cycle

Tim Thompson's post Solar Surface Fusion? Not Likely. II raises a valid point that deserves to immortalized in the list of questions that Michael Mozina is ignoring.

Referring to Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle, Tim states
Tim Thompson said:
The second link is for the paper by Mozina, Ratcliffe & Manuel, and is entitled "Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle". The title is a sham, as the paper in fact does no such thing, and in fact presents no evidence at all related to the CNO cycle. Rather, the authors use the observation of electron-positron annihilation (511 kev line emission) and neutron capture (2.2 Mev line emission) to infer, without justification, that unseen CNO fusion created the positrons and neutrons. it is an insipid paper, which is why nobody ever paid it any mind besides the authors. How it ever got published in any journal is a mystery to me.
Click to expand...
I would say that it's insipid nature is what allowed it to be published!

Tim then points out why a CNO cycle on the surface of the Sun providing any measurable fraction of the Sun's energy is impossible (an early post in response to the OP):
Tim Thompson said:
Nuclear fusion reactions generate both neutrinos and gamma rays. However, from the sun we see only neutrinos, but none of the gamma rays. If, as you say, "neutrino emission is from fusion activity on the surface of the sun", then the obvious question is ... Where are all the gamma rays that we should see but don't see?
Click to expand...


First asked 14 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
Where is your empirical physics counting the gamma rays from a surface CNO cycle as suggested by the paper you co-authored?
 
Let's get empirical.

Here is a selection of things MM has said, concerning the role of "empirical" stuff in the scientific study of the Sun, and astrophysics in general (sources available upon request; I've taken the liberty to make some minor edits, to capture the essence of the point MM is making)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - start of selection - - - - - - - - - - - -
Until you can empirically simulate [X] in real science experiments here on Earth , [X will] come crashing down

[MM] would evidently prefer to wallow around in what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" and play around with [Y], than to look for 'real empirical solutions' to any enigma in [MM's solar models].

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 [Moz-thingies]"

No, just [Moz-thingies] that don't have any empirical justification, like [Z]. They have no empirical basis whatsoever, and no empirical justification whatsoever.

At *least* [x]% of the [Moz-thingies] used in [MM's solar models] today is "made up" and has no empirical support in any lab on Earth.

[MM's solar model is] a an 'empirical' sort of theory so it can all be "lab tested' and has in fact been "lab tested" to a great degree

Literally anything and everything [MM] can't figure out via empirical physics, [MM] chalks up to [Moz-thingies]

If by "done" you mean in gross violation of the laws of physics, no regard for observation, and without respect to empirical experimentation, that's not exactly "comforting"

but when it comes to empirical physics, [MM's solar model] is the "pretender". None of the [Moz-thingies] works in a lab ... I know for a fact that [MM's solar model] works in a lab

the scientific process is supposed to work something like: Observation->Need To Understand That Observation->Empirical Idea->Empirical Experimentation->Numerical Prediction->

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

Now to the central point of this post.

So far I have identified two Moz-thingies, the Moplasma (or Mozplasma), and the Mozode.

As far as I can tell, these Moz-thingies are crucial to MM's solar "model", in the sense that without them the model comes crashing down.

They also do not exist, empirically: they have not been simulated in real science experiments here on Earth; they do not meet the burden of proof from the standpoint of empirical physics in any lab on Earth; they have no empirical basis whatsoever, and no empirical justification whatsoever; they have no empirical support in any lab on Earth; they have in fact not been "lab tested".

Now I'm sure we can all describe the characteristics of the Moplasma (but if anyone would like to summarise them again, be my guest); however, I think only tusenfem and RC have described the Mozode (if there are others who've done so, my apologies).

What, then, is the Mozode?

First and foremost, it is a critically important element in an electric circuit; its electrical nature is essential.

Second, it is spherical, or approximately spherical.

Third, its surface is composed of Moplasma.

Fourth, it emits electrons and protons in equal quantities*.

Fifth, it has a voltage of ~600,000,000 volts, with respect to a hollow sphere which completely encloses it (the Mozode is at the approximate centre of this sphere; this outer sphere may be another Moz-thingie).

Sixth, it has not been simulated in real science experiments here on Earth; it does not meet the burden of proof from the standpoint of empirical physics in any lab on Earth; (yet get the idea).

Have I correctly characterised the Mozode?

Do you, dear reader, know of any other Moz-thingies?

* actually, electrons and positive ions (the ions are predominantly protons and helium ions); what is emitted is neutral, in bulk.
 
Last edited:
Momeperation: MM's version of mass separation (courtesy of O. Manuel) where elements in a plasma completely ignore convection and the actual diffusion rate in the plasma and separate into "mostly" element X layers. This has absolutely no support from controlled empirical experiments in labs here on Earth. Thus by MM-logic, it does not exist even though he states that it does!
 
ben m said:
Random science press release declared to vindicate EU theory---hey hey hey, that's on my bingo card. I win as soon as he posts a terrella photo.
Click to expand...

Funny how it does not support any of Halton Arp’s ideas either, Halton Arp does not believe that black holes and QSOs are related, he also does not believe in cosmological redshift. So a report that black holes (which may have been not the case) are 'ejected' from a galaxy is nothing like Arp.

In could be that the central black hole from another galaxy is still moving around the other black hole after the collision of two galaxies.

Nothing like Halton Arps' craziness.

:D
 
Reality Check said:
Momeperation: MM's version of mass separation (courtesy of O. Manuel) where elements in a plasma completely ignore convection and the actual diffusion rate in the plasma and separate into "mostly" element X layers. This has absolutely no support from controlled empirical experiments in labs here on Earth. Thus by MM-logic, it does not exist even though he states that it does!
Click to expand...
Thanks for this; interesting (though I'd prefer to call it "Mozeperation", in line with Moz-thingie).

This is, I gather, a physical process, rather than a type of physical object or material (the Mo(z)plasma and Mozode are of these latter taxons).

In MM's solar "model", Mozeparation occurs in plasmas that are confined gravitationally (I don't think even MM claims the Sun to be other than gravitationally bound). These plasmas have temperatures of ~a few thousand K to ~a few million K. In elemental composition, there is H, He, Ne, Si, Ca, and Fe (and more?). Mozeparation happens very quickly, with a characteristic time of ~hours, perhaps ~days (in Mo(z)plasmas of the kind found in the corona, chromosphere, and in and under the photosphere of the Sun), per the many "mass flows" in MM's solar "model". The separation by atomic mass if extreme; atomic (actually ionic) species are >99% separated within ~hundreds of km, or less.

None of the above has been simulated in real science experiments here on Earth; it does not meet the burden of proof from the standpoint of empirical physics in any lab on Earth; etc.

Is that about right?
 
Another, possible, Moz-thingie, the Mozcharge (as in discharge of the Moz- kind).

In Birkeland's experiments, electric discharges ("electrical arcs" per MM's website) were photographed. These occurred near/around an iron (brass?) sphere acting as cathode, in a low density unionised gas (does anyone recall the densities and compositions of the gas?), which had temperatures of ~hundreds K.

In MM's solar "model", Mozcharges occur in plasmas like those found in the Sun's corona (and chromosphere? and photosphere?); namely, completely ionised, very low density, ~million K plasmas composed of pure H (or H plus He?), pure Ne, and (perhaps) pure Si. These Mozcharges are thousands, or tens of thousands, of km in length. They occur near/around Mozodes.

None of the above has been simulated in real science experiments here on Earth; it does not meet the burden of proof from the standpoint of empirical physics in any lab on Earth; etc.

Is that about right?
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379
Click to expand...

You do remember that that "paper" was never published, and that neither you nor any of the other authors actually attended that workshop, right? Once again, as long as you continue being dishonest, people will continue to call you out. You can whine all you like that other people are not being civil, but the fact is these are simply empirical observations (in a lab, on Earth) of your behaviour.

Blimp.

brantc said:
The best explanation for this anomaly is the the sun has a solid surface.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but you seem to have missed a rather important point. If you heat a metre long rod of steel by a single degree*, it will increase in length by around 1.15*10-5. That's a fair bit more than one part in a million. So your claim of a solid iron surface on the Sun would actually result in much, much bigger variations in size than are observed, and so is already known to be completely inconsistent with reality.

*Note that this is at 25oC. Oddly enough, no-one's ever measured the thermal expansion coefficient at 6000o.
 
Last edited:
ben m said:
I didn't ask whether you think they are right. Did anyone ever tell you that mainstream, non-PC/EU physicists thought that they substantially understood the solar wind? Yes or no:
Click to expand...

In the sense they demonstrated the process empirically like Birkeland did? No. I've seen computer models of everything from magic inflation to dark energy bunnies, but like all of your "theories", not one of them seems to work empirically in a lab anywhere on Earth.

"Yes, various people have asserted that the solar wind made sense without PC/EU"

or:

"No, I have never heard anyone bother to claim that the solar wind could be explained without EU/PC"

Yes or no?
Click to expand...

No, I have never seen the mainstream demonstrate full sphere solar wind inside of a controlled experiment here on Earth. On the other hand, I have seen Birkeland replicate that process using "current flow". Like I said, computer models don't cut it. I'm an empirical "show me" sort of individual. You guys love to computer model something that Alfven himself rejected outright as pseudoscience. You'll have to provide more than a virtual world computer model based on "pseudoscience". I want to see a working model like Birkeland produced.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Pretty good, if you make the call with those upside-down-triangly thingies, drunken letter d's, B, E, j, and v (etc) ... just like Alfvén did.

But then what are the odds that you won't even know how to use the SDO dopplergrams and magnetograms, let alone be able to analyse them to check for consistency wrt your opacity claims (especially the ones which involve "current flows")?
Click to expand...

Um, what are the odds that "truth" or "reality" depend on my personal math skills? You seem to think I'm somehow obligated to do all this work by myself.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, I have never seen the mainstream demonstrate full sphere solar wind inside of a controlled experiment here on Earth. On the other hand, I have seen Birkeland replicate that process using "current flow". Like I said, computer models don't cut it. I'm an empirical "show me" sort of individual. You guys love to computer model something that Alfven himself rejected outright as pseudoscience. You'll have to provide more than a virtual world computer model based on "pseudoscience". I want to see a working model like Birkeland produced.
Click to expand...


Birkeland again? What an idiot. He forgot to pump up that solar surface to 6000K. But I'm sure if he went in for that looks-like-a-bunny grade school science, the surface temperature of his cute little brass ball wasn't a concern. :p
 
Michael Mozina said:
Um, what are the odds that "truth" or "reality" depend on my personal math skills? You seem to think I'm somehow obligated to do all this work by myself.
Click to expand...


Well it's abundantly clear that nobody is helping you with the math. Every time someone tries you take a dump on them and ignore their results. Say, Michael, how many professional physicists on Earth are supporting your claim that the Sun has a solid iron surface? :D
 
Tim Thompson said:
See my previous post Plasmas, Currents and Magnetic Fields. The one doing the dumbing down around here is you, and you are working hard to be as dumbed down as you can be.
Click to expand...

Not me. Alfven called your ideas "pseudoscience" and the only "experiments" you've done so far require "sustained current flow" to make them work! No full sphere corona like Birkeland. No coronal loops demos like Birkeland. No sustained full sphere particle emissions like Birkeland. Nothing! The whole thing is a giant fail! The best you folks seem to be able to do is create computer models based on stuff Alfven rejected, and pray nobody notices it doesn't work in the lab (without current flow).

In this case you continue to try to sell the dumbed down notion that magnetic fields must come from "electric currents",
Click to expand...

In plasma this light, and fields this powerful, *THEY MUST*. Even in your own models the field is generated by *ELECTRICITY*! Holy cow! You have the magnetic cart before the electric horse and you always ignore the problem.
 
Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:
Pretty good, if you make the call with those upside-down-triangly thingies, drunken letter d's, B, E, j, and v (etc) ... just like Alfvén did.

But then what are the odds that you won't even know how to use the SDO dopplergrams and magnetograms, let alone be able to analyse them to check for consistency wrt your opacity claims (especially the ones which involve "current flows")?
Click to expand...
Um, what are the odds that "truth" or "reality" depend on my personal math skills? You seem to think I'm somehow obligated to do all this work by myself.
Click to expand...
Well, it's your claim (not mine, or anyone else's) :D :p

Let me remind you of that claim: "what are the odds you'll listen to me when I call your opacity math bunny DOA in solar satellite images?"

May I take it, then, that your "call" will be in the form of subjective visual inspection, a.k.a. bunny-picture-science?

If not, then what form will your "call" take?
 
You know, this is really pathetic IMO. I can appreciate the whole resistance to a solid surface, but the lack of scientific integrity as it relates to electrical aspects of solar wind and coronal activities and such is just sad IMO. Birkeland beat you folks to a empirical "explanation" by 100 years. You don't care. You don't want him to be right, you hate all things "EU oriented", and therefore you blindly reject the one known "cause" of such things at the level of empirical physics. Instead of really exploring the idea in earnest, in the lab where it should be done, you play around with computer models based on what Alfven called "pseudoscience". Hoy. That is *SO* sad.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Civil conversation? What planet were you from again?
Click to expand...


How's it coming on this running difference image comparison project, Michael?...

Michael Mozina said:
I think before I spend money on a lawyer, I'll spend some time creating a few RD movies for you first and stuff your arrogant attitude right down your throat. We'll then compare them to what NASA has in their daily archives and see what you come up with for the same time period. Like I said, I have a day job, and you aren't my first priority in life, even with that smug arrogant attitude.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
You know, this is really pathetic IMO. I can appreciate the whole resistance to a solid surface, but the lack of scientific integrity as it relates to solar wind and coronal activities and such is just sad IMO. Birkeland beat you folks to a empirical "explanation" by 100 years. You don't care. You don't want him to be right, you hate all things "EU oriented", and therefore you blindly reject the one known "cause" of such things at the level of empirical physics. Instead of really exploring the idea in earnest, in the lab where it should be done, you play around with computer models based on what Alfven called "pseudoscience". Hoy. That is *SO* sad.
Click to expand...


So how did Kristian Birkeland get that little brass ball up to 6000K without melting it? Because if he was doing what you claim, and if he wasn't using looks-like-a-bunny grade school science like you are, he must have replicated the thermal characteristics. That is *SO* sad. :p
 
GeeMack said:
So how did Kristian Birkeland get that little brass ball up to 6000K without melting it? Because if he was doing what you claim, and if he wasn't using looks-like-a-bunny grade school science like you are, he must have replicated the thermal characteristics. That is *SO* sad. :p
Click to expand...

He didn't have to, nor did he ever limited himself to a solid surface solar model. The fact you *REFUSE* to acknowledge that a Birkeland solar model is a *CATHODE* solar model, not at *SOLID* surface solar model is "SAD". (not to mention dishonest as hell, but what's new)
 
Tim Thompson said:
Your statement suffers from two serious weaknesses. First. "current systems" does not mean what you think it means.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. It means your "circuit reconnection" "experiments" require "electricity" to make them work. Unplug the power cord and nothing happens!
 
Hellbound said:
:notm

The best explanation is the one that introuduces the fewest additional entities (Occam's razor anyone?).

A solid surface requires numerous additional processes, currently unknown, that explain how is can be solid, how it can maintain shape under that temperature and gravity, how it seems to be undetectable, and numerous other problems with the idea of a solid surface that have been repeatedly pointed out over the last 50 pages of so in this thread.

Can you do any better than MM? Have any actual data, any numbers, anything at all that is quantifiable or supported by the laws of physics? Or is it just more "looks like it to me" "science"?
Click to expand...

Sure. Start with that SERTS data we looked at earlier and tell me which specific elements change the most during "active" solar phases?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom