Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

Except, of course, for all of these:

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. 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.
Click to expand...

You've got a lot of lab work to do to overturn these well-tested theories. Best get busy. Or, you could continue to pay lip service to empirical science by making crap up on subjects you don't understand. Your call.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Where have you been? I posted a movie for you and everything based on the very IDL routines you cited! Get over yourself.
Click to expand...


Oh, I thought you were going to actually explain why each pixel is the color that it is, you know, in numbers, like a real scientist would do? But that's okay, if "understanding" running difference imagery means, to you, cranking up a script to make three dozen frames for a cute little bogus video, then I think we can put the word "understand" on the list of words you don't understand. Is that okay with you? :D
 
Birkeland's cathode solar model will eventually prevail IMO mainly due to that solar wind you simply do no wish to 'simulate' in a real 'experiment" (because you can't). That corona is also something that Birkeland reproduced and imaged in his lab. These physical processes are directly related to his 'aurora' experiments as well. The whole thing is based upon pure empirical physics and it works in a lab. Your stuff only works in virtual world computer simulations based on what Alfven called "pseudoscience". Alfven rejected your brand of MHD theory entire and preferred a "circuit" orientation of MHD theory as he applied that theory to objects in space. He did that to keep everything congruent with electrical engineering principles, because first a foremost he was an electrical engineer. He realize the magnetic fields form as a complete and full continuum, without beginning, and without end, and without the ability to "disconnect" or "reconnect' to any other magnetic line. Only in "virtual pseudoscience" do any of your theories actually do anything useful. Put them in the lab however, and they don't work without "electricity".
 
Michael Mozina said:
Birkeland's cathode solar model will eventually prevail IMO mainly due to that solar wind you simply do no wish to 'simulate' in a real 'experiment" (because you can't).
Click to expand...


So how did Birkeland get that little brass ball heated up to 6000K without melting it? Your continued ignorance is starting to look like you don't want to answer that one, Michael. You know you could just say, "I don't know." Or better yet, "It would have been impossible for him to actually replicate conditions on the surface of the Sun because he could never have achieved the temperatures necessary to do it." But that would be like, a little too honest, don't you think? :p

I predict a smarmy flippant reply, and total ignorance of the substantive issue I raised.
 
D'rok said:
Except of course, for all of these:



You've got a lot of lab work to do to overturn these well-tested theories. Best get busy. Or, you could continue to pay lip service to empirical science by making crap up on subjects you don't understand. Your call.
Click to expand...

You have that exactly backwards D'rok. The "lip service to empirical science" is coming exclusively from their side of the aisle when it comes to "explaining" the most important aspects of solar physics. Instead of taking their ideas into the lab, and testing them out like Birkeland did, in real life experiments. they build "computer models" based on a theory that Alfven hismself rejected his entire life!

When I see them actually replicate some of Birkeland's empirical experiments with solar wind, coronal loops, "jets", coronal activity, etc, then and only then will they move beyond "lip service" to empirical physics.

The bottom line D'rok is that the sun does *NOT* have to be solid to act as a cathode in space. Birkeland understood that and therefore he didn't limited himself to any particular solar model. Even in my own papers, there was a concerted effort made not to "limit" ourselves to a single approach. The notion that you can simply "write off" a cathode solar model based on a thermodynamic objection is pure nonsense. Birkeland's cathode solar model would work with or without a "solid surface". That whole thermodynamic objection only actually applies to the solid aspects of my own personal theory, not to a "Cathode solar model' in a more general sense.

Birkeland not only "explained" full sphere solar wind activity, he simulated in a lab in the conventional empirical manner. Have them show you where they did that with their theory.
 
GeeMack said:
So how did Birkeland get that little brass ball heated up to 6000K without melting it? Your continued ignorance is starting to look like you don't want to answer that one, Michael. You know you could just say, "I don't know." Or better yet, "It would have been impossible for him to actually replicate conditions on the surface of the Sun because he could never have achieved the temperatures necessary to do it." But that would be like, a little too honest, don't you think? :p
Click to expand...

That part that seems to be "too honest", the "truth" that you can't seem to handle is the fact that Birkeland's solar model is *NOT* dependent upon a solid surface and never was dependent upon a solid surface. You can't handle the truth.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You have that exactly backwards D'rok. The "lip service to empirical science" is coming exclusively from their side of the aisle when it comes to "explaining" the most important aspects of solar physics. Instead of taking their ideas into the lab, and testing them out like Birkeland did, in real life experiments. they build "computer models" based on a theory that Alfven hismself rejected his entire life!

When I see them actually replicate some of Birkeland's empirical experiments with solar wind, coronal loops, "jets", coronal activity, etc, then and only then will they move beyond "lip service" to empirical physics.

The bottom line D'rok is that the sun does *NOT* have to be solid to act as a cathode in space. Birkeland understood that and therefore he didn't limited himself to any particular solar model. Even in my own papers, there was a concerted effort made not to "limit" ourselves to a single approach. The notion that you can simply "write off" a cathode solar model based on a thermodynamic objection is pure nonsense. Birkeland's cathode solar model would work with or without a "solid surface". That whole thermodynamic objection only actually applies to the solid aspects of my own personal theory, not to a "Cathode solar model' in a more general sense.

Birkeland not only "explained" full sphere solar wind activity, he simulated in a lab in the conventional empirical manner. Have them show you where they did that with their theory.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously trying to take the position that all of those items in Cuddles' post are not supported by empirical testing?
 
Michael Mozina said:
That part that seems to be "too honest", the "truth" that you can't seem to handle is the fact that Birkeland's solar model is *NOT* dependent upon a solid surface and never was dependent upon a solid surface. You can't handle the truth.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the point. The Sun does not have a solid surface on top---even in your crazy model, you've been telling us all about the 3000km sea of non-solid neon; you seem to think (but are remarkably uninterested in the fact) that this plasma is indeed at 6000K. All of Birkeland's experiments were with cold, bare metal surfaces.

When did Birkeland show how a 6000K gravitationally-bound plasma (not a solid surface) can emit a wind? I don't remember that experiment. (ETA: The point, of course, is not "let me dig through some papers and try to find something close enough". The point is you have a double standard. You slap the "empirical" label willy-nilly on statements you happen to like, even if they're as silly as "electric current turns normal plasma into Mozplasma". That's what you're doing with poor Birkeland. You slap the non-empirical label on statements you happen not to like---justifying yourself by selectively ignoring experiments, claiming experiments are wrong, or getting the physics wrong and casually dismissing everything as irrelevant. In other words: "A vague visual analogy between two phenomena, reported only in a 1903 newspaper report of a lecture? Empirical proof! A billion dollars' worth of satellite, built by NASA/MIT/JPL/LBNL, with data published in reputable journals by people using Maxwell's Equations? La la I can't hear you, and if they used Maxwell's equations then it's just math bunnies so that's not empirical at all." )



You never answered my question. Have you ever, in your crackpot career, heard a mainstream scientist claim that mainstream science did have a model for the wind?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
That part that seems to be "too honest", the "truth" that you can't seem to handle is the fact that Birkeland's solar model is *NOT* dependent upon a solid surface and never was dependent upon a solid surface. You can't handle the truth.
Click to expand...


Why do you keep up this uncivil tirade towards me? I'm just the one pointing out that either Birkeland was a complete moron or you're wrong about what he did. He couldn't have done what you say if he didn't replicate 6000K thermal characteristics, solid or plasma. Unless you're going to go with the idea that he was a brainless buffoon who engaged in a brand of "science" that was wholly dependent on the visual appearances of something.

And it does look like you're finally bailing out on that completely ludicrous crackpot conjecture about the Sun having a solid surface. What's the matter, Michael, did all these mean old real scientists pop your little solid iron surface balloon argument? :p
 
One more Moz-thingie, the Mozwind (as in solar wind of the Moz- kind).

In the MM solar "model", a Mozode emits electrons and various positive ions; the Mozode has a voltage of 600,000,000 volts relative to a hollow sphere which surrounds it (the Mozode is at, or near, the centre).

Approximately 1% of the way from the Mozode to the surrounding sphere, the electrons and positive ions exhibit two distinct behaviours: there is a fast wind, which moves at ~750 km/s and has a temperature of ~800,000 K; and a slow wind, which moves at ~400 km/s and has a temperature of ~1,300,000 K (there are also composition differences).

This is the Mozwind.

The Mozwind 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; etc.

Is that about right?
 
Michael Mozina said:
The bottom line D'rok is that the sun does *NOT* have to be solid to act as a cathode in space. Birkeland understood that and therefore he didn't limited himself to any particular solar model.
Click to expand...


So now you're saying Birkeland didn't have a solar model. Jesus H. Christ, Michael. This whole discussion would go more smoothly if you would make up your mind about these things instead of changing your position every time someone shows just how totally inane your arguments are. :D
 
GeeMack said:
Why do you keep up this uncivil tirade towards me?
Click to expand...

What??????????? The only one who's really been "uncivil" around here is you, and really only you. Everyone else says what they feel, and "occasionally' it's "personal", but you go "personal" in every post. How many times did you claim I didn't have the math skills to balance a checkbook? How many times have you called me a "fraud"? Honestly, please put the term "civil" on your list of words I have no clue about because like your definition of "opaque", the terms you use seem to be from a completely different planet.

I'm just the one pointing out that either Birkeland was a complete moron or you're wrong about what he did.
Click to expand...

Let's recap, shall we? Remember when you told me that Oliver told you that he "flat out denied" that he claimed the sun was "solid"? Remember how I told you that I "flat out denied' it too, and explained why we used the term "rigid" rather than "solid"? Remember that whole conversation? Hilton and Oliver convinced me to be "true" to Birkeland's work and not "limit" his theory to a single subset of that theory. In other words a cathode solar model is in no way limited to a solid surface model. I "capitched" because it made our paper "truer" to Birkeland's original work and original intent. Get it? Deal with it.

Nobody is "bailing out" of anything. In order to answer sols remaining questions, I need a better handle on the "current flows" that are directly involved in flowing through that "layer" of neon. Get it? I can't go to the next step without dealing with the current flow directly. You can't handle that part of the debate, so now you're getting all flustered. No doubt the "crackpot" claims will become fast and furious, along with your accusations about how *I* am being "uncivil" towards you. Hoy. You are a head trip and a half.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
One more Moz-thingie, the Mozwind (as in solar wind of the Moz- kind).

In the MM solar "model", a Mozode emits electrons and various positive ions; the Mozode has a voltage of 600,000,000 volts relative to a hollow sphere which surrounds it (the Mozode is at, or near, the centre).

Approximately 1% of the way from the Mozode to the surrounding sphere, the electrons and positive ions exhibit two distinct behaviours: there is a fast wind, which moves at ~750 km/s and has a temperature of ~800,000 K; and a slow wind, which moves at ~400 km/s and has a temperature of ~1,300,000 K (there are also composition differences).

This is the Mozwind.

The Mozwind 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; etc.

Is that about right?
Click to expand...


You mean when you actually put some numbers on it, make it quantitative, we find out that pretty much everything Michael claims about Birkeland's experiments is wrong? Like his argument is based on a complete misunderstanding of scientific reality, or maybe... even... a lie? Holy mackerel! Who woulda guessed? :eek:
 
Michael Mozina said:
What??????????? The only one who's really been "uncivil" around here is you, and really only you.
Click to expand...


How's it coming on that 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...
 
Yet another Moz-thingie, Moztronium (as in neutronium of the Moz- kind).

In astrophysics, and particle physics, there is a state of (baryonic) matter called nuclear degenerate matter. Observed objects called neutron stars are composed of this form of matter.

In the MM solar "model", the Sun is powered by a ~0.1 sol-mass neutron star of Moztronium at its core^.

Moztronium 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; it has no empirical support in any lab on Earth; etc.

In fact, MM cannot produce *a single gram* of Moztronium; no lab on Earth have ever produced even a gram of it (and you certainly can't go to Tesco to buy some!)

Is that about right?

^ well, it is so powered on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays it is powered by a giant intergalactic Birkeland current; on Sundays is it powered by magic inflation dark energy bunnies magic Moz-physics bunnies
 
D'rok said:
Are you seriously trying to take the position that all of those items in Cuddles' post are not supported by empirical testing?
Click to expand...

What exactly on his list do you personally believe somehow falsifies a generic brand of a cathode solar model? I'll admit the surface may not be a 'solid', it may only be "rigid' (as in more dense) than the neon.

I have carefully explained the six step process that I personally need to go through to "falsify" or verify at least major parts of this solar model. The RD image that emerges must fit inside the surface of that convecting layer, or I have to do some soul searching.

The cathode aspects of this solar model however would still be applicable, even *IF* that "prediction" doesn't "pan out" all that well. Even in that case, I couldn't simply "assume" that *NO* brand of a "cathode solar model" was applicable to what I was observing.

I guess about all I can tell you is that unless and until they can empirically duplicate and replicate the 'predictions" of Birkeland's experiments in real experiments of their own that do not require "current flow" between a cathode sun and an anode heliosphere, I will still continue to support an "electric" solar model for the rest of my life. I guess that probably makes no sense to you, but as I've said, I'm more attached to a "cathode sun" than I am attached to a "solid surface solar model". The term "rigid" in those papers was not accidental, but rather it was intended to keep the work as true to Birkeland's original intent as possible.
 
GeeMack said:
How's it coming on that comparison project, Michael?...
Click to expand...

More denial on your part now? I already used those RD routines you cited and the IDL language they are based on to create RD images, the images you said I could not create. I already did that for you. I'm now waiting to get my hands on the high resolution FITS files form SDO, and I'm going through Hinode images in the mean time. I'm done doing your homework assignments, and I'm spending my time on what *I* want to spend it on, not what *YOU* would like me to spend it on. Get it?
 
GeeMack said:
You mean when you actually put some numbers on it, make it quantitative, we find out that pretty much everything Michael claims about Birkeland's experiments is wrong? Like his argument is based on a complete misunderstanding of scientific reality, or maybe... even... a lie? Holy mackerel! Who woulda guessed? :eek:
Click to expand...
I'm merely taking MM at his (oft repeated) word.

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

The "Observations" are very certain (from the observed power of the Sun, to its spectrum, to features we observe from our perch ~150 million kms distant - images, dopplergrams, magnetograms, etc - to the solar wind outside the Earth's magnetosphere, to ...).

Ditto the "Need To Understand That Observation".

MM's "Empirical Idea" is also very clear; it's MM's solar "model".

However, all the Moz-thingies I've described so far* fail the "Empirical Experimentation" step.

* subject to the correction of any errors I may have made, and any necessary amendments or updates (esp from MM himself)
 
GeeMack said:
You mean when you actually put some numbers on it, make it quantitative, we find out that pretty much everything Michael claims about Birkeland's experiments is wrong? Like his argument is based on a complete misunderstanding of scientific reality, or maybe... even... a lie?
Click to expand...

A lie? You really think that is civil conversation? Really? How can you whine about me being uncivil to you when you call me a liar or a fraud just about every single day? Honestly GM, what planet are you from anyway? Who do you think buys your song and dance routine anyway? Civil? Hoy.

The only "lie" around here is that I ever personally limited myself to *A SINGLE* subset of Birkeland's solar theories, or that Birkeland's solar theories are somehow limited to a solid surface. That's *YOUR* strawman, and YOUR lie, not mine. I said "rigid" in those papers, not "solid". I defy you to find the term "solid' in any of them.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I'll admit the surface may not be a 'solid', it may only be "rigid' (as in more dense) than the neon.
Click to expand...

So does your 'rigid' mean anything other than 'more dense?' That may clear things up a bit; many of us didn't see how going from 'solid' to 'rigid' changed anything, but if you simply meant 'more dense,' then I think we're all pretty confortable with the idea that as you go farther below the photosphere, the density goes up. I think we'd all assumed that 'rigid' meant the material had some resistance to static (as in non-dynamic, not as in static electricity) shear or tension.
 
Michael Mozina said:
That part that seems to be "too honest", the "truth" that you can't seem to handle is the fact that Birkeland's solar model is *NOT* dependent upon a solid surface and never was dependent upon a solid surface. You can't handle the truth.
Click to expand...
That may be so.

However, the MM solar "model" - which is what we are discussing (if that's an appropriate description) - is dependent on:

* Mozplasma
* Mozode
* Mozeparation
* Mozcharge
* Mozwind
* Moztronium

(and, no doubt, other Moz-thingies, such as magic inflation dark energy bunnies magic Moz-physics bunnies).

Strangely, none of these Moz-thingies has any empirical justification, none have been simulated in real science experiments here on Earth, and none meet the burden of proof from the standpoint of empirical physics in any lab on Earth.

Curious, huh? :)
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
A lie? You really think that is civil conversation? Really? How can you whine about me being uncivil to you when you call me a liar or a fraud just about every single day? Honestly GM, what planet are you from anyway? Who do you think buys your song and dance routine anyway? Civil? Hoy.

The only "lie" around here is that I ever personally limited myself to *A SINGLE* subset of Birkeland's solar theories, or that Birkeland's solar theories are somehow limited to a solid surface. That's *YOUR* strawman, and YOUR lie, not mine. I said "rigid" in those papers, not "solid". I defy you to find the term "solid' in any of them.
Click to expand...


Nice tantrum, Michael. :rolleyes:

So I see you're abandoning the claim that the Sun has a solid iron surface. Why don't you have the honesty and integrity to just say it, flat out? Is it too much to expect that kind of decency and honesty out of you? I mean, I can understand why you'd be embarrassed after claiming so positively and so vigorously for all these years that the Sun does have a solid surface, but now that you've changed your mind, how about a clear statement to that effect?

Oh, and nothing about a solid or rigid surface was a subset of Birkeland's notion of the Sun. We all know it, and worst of all, you know it. And your argument implying that it was is a lie.
 
dasmiller said:
So does your 'rigid' mean anything other than 'more dense?' That may clear things up a bit; many of us didn't see how going from 'solid' to 'rigid' changed anything, but if you simply meant 'more dense,' then I think we're all pretty confortable with the idea that as you go farther below the photosphere, the density goes up. I think we'd all assumed that 'rigid' meant the material had some resistance to static (as in non-dynamic, not as in static electricity) shear or tension.
Click to expand...

The major difference is that the current flow would create a series of "double layers" in a cathode solar model that were somewhat separated by the element. The dynamic nature of the environment means there are particles flowing through every layer, but overall there should be "layers" where density gradients change rapidly underneath of the surface of the photosphere.

I would personally expect that any sort of iron layer would be entirely embedded inside the neon layer. The loops will carry iron up and through the neon, and the ionization state of the neon will matter in terms of where we first observe the iron lines. A low ionization state would mean the iron lines don't become visible until they exit the neon, whereas a high ionization that would leave us with a "disk" that fits inside the surface of the photosphere, in RD images. That's why the whole RD thing is important to me. I need to be sure of the ionization states of various plasma double layers.
 
GeeMack said:
Nice tantrum, Michael. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This coming from the guy that has already called me liar today, and what, it's only 11:00 or so my time. You could set new records today at the rate you're going. Well, probably not actually. You've set some big time records on the "liar liar" thing.

So I see you're abandoning the claim that the Sun has a solid iron surface.
Click to expand...

No, I am busting your bogus claim that Birkeland's cathode model is limited to a solid surface model or that I have committed myself exclusively to a single solar model.

Why don't you have the honesty and integrity to just say it, flat out?
Click to expand...

You do not even know what those words mean either. Add them to your "opaque/civil" list of words you don't comprehend.

Oh, and nothing about a solid or rigid surface was a subset of Birkeland's notion of the Sun. We all know it, and worst of all, you know it. And your argument implying that it was is a lie.
Click to expand...

You are the only liar among us GM. You've called Birkeland a bozo. Don't lie and pretend to defend his good name. It only makes you look like the worlds biggest hypocrite, as does every claim you make about *ME* being "uncivil" to you, or "me" throwing a "tantrum". You're a walking talking temper tantrum on parade.
 
Michael Mozina said:
A low ionization state would mean the iron lines don't become visible until they exit the neon, whereas a high ionization that would leave us with a "disk" that fits inside the surface of the photosphere, in RD images. That's why the whole RD thing is important to me. I need to be sure of the ionization states of various plasma double layers.
Click to expand...

a) Why not in non-RD images, Michael? You spent 30 pages pointing at iron-line emission features in a normal image, not subtracted from anything (except the PR guy's photoshop filter) and you have not explained why this method got dropped from your repertoire.

b) Disk? What disk? The sun isn't a disk, it's a sphere. The image is a disk. What's the geometry that translates the 3D reality into the 2D image? DRAW A DIAGRAM ALREADY. It's not just me who has asked.

c) It's strange that you have explicitly, repeatedly, used emission line data to tell you other things' ionization states. The presence of 171A light tells you that some iron is Fe X or whatever; you were perfectly happy to cite SERTS emission lines to tell you that some neon is Ne IV and Ne V and so on. But as soon as I show you another spectrum showing all of the H I, He I, He II, Ca I, Ca II, OH, H2O, etc., you regress to this bizarre claim. "NOW you don't learn anything about the ionization state from looking at the ionization states", you say, "NOW the only way (!) to learn anything about the ionization state is this bizarre RD limb procedure I invented out of thin air a few days ago and can't actually explain." Nice double standard there, Michael. You explicitly ignore any data that doesn't support you.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
In order to answer sols remaining questions, I need a better handle on the "current flows" that are directly involved in flowing through that "layer" of neon. Get it? I can't go to the next step without dealing with the current flow directly.
Click to expand...
Why has it taken you, what, five years to get to this MM?

In particular, how come you have not - AFAICS - availed yourself of the thousands of high-resolution magnetograms of the Sun that are freely available? I mean, as Alfvén is such a hero of yours, and as you've read his collective works as assiduously as those of Birkeland, you know full well that you can get some robust bounded estimates of current flows from magnetograms (you may also need dopplergrams, but they are available too), and you must surely know how to go about this, right? :p
 
Michael Mozina said:
The major difference is that the current flow would create a series of "double layers" in a cathode solar model that were somewhat separated by the element. The dynamic nature of the environment means there are particles flowing through every layer, but overall there should be "layers" where density gradients change rapidly underneath of the surface of the photosphere.

I would personally expect that any sort of iron layer would be entirely embedded inside the neon layer. The loops will carry iron up and through the neon, and the ionization state of the neon will matter in terms of where we first observe the iron lines. A low ionization state would mean the iron lines don't become visible until they exit the neon, whereas a high ionization that would leave us with a "disk" that fits inside the surface of the photosphere, in RD images. That's why the whole RD thing is important to me. I need to be sure of the ionization states of various plasma double layers.
Click to expand...


First, dasmiller was asking you to make yourself clear on the distinction between "solid" and "rigid". You're willful ignorance of his actual question is noted.

And more importantly, you do not have the qualifications to understand what a running difference image is, what it shows, why and how it is made, where the data comes from that is used to make it, and what the results of making one means. You simply do not have those qualifications. You apparently have some sort of bizarre dependence on that wholly incorrect, unqualified, and unfounded opinion, and any argument you make based on that opinion is ludicrously wrong.
 
Michael Mozina said:
This coming from the guy that has already called me liar today, and what, it's only 11:00 or so my time. You could set new records today at the rate you're going. Well, probably not actually. You've set some big time records on the "liar liar" thing.

No, I am busting your bogus claim that Birkeland's cathode model is limited to a solid surface model or that I have committed myself exclusively to a single solar model.

You do not even know what those words mean either. Add them to your "opaque/civil" list of words you don't comprehend.

You are the only liar among us GM. You've called Birkeland a bozo. Don't lie and pretend to defend his good name. It only makes you look like the worlds biggest hypocrite, as does every claim you make about *ME* being "uncivil" to you, or "me" throwing a "tantrum". You're a walking talking temper tantrum on parade.
Click to expand...


For the record, your uncivil personal attack here is noted.
 
ben m said:
Why not in non-RD images, Michael?
Click to expand...

The RD images are simply more definitive IMO. That averaged high cadence RD image process that created that first image on my website is the one I'm mostly interested in. That should tell me if light is actually coming up and through that convecting layer. The basic images can be "interpreted' in a number of subjective ways, but the RD images should fit inside the convecting surface, or I have some major rethinking to do.
 
dasmiller said:
But the question was whether you meant "rigid" to mean anything other than "more dense." Did you?
Click to expand...

Yes. I would expect that the next "layer" is mostly silicon and that the plasmas are mass separated into various elements, not all the elements convecting in the same layer.
 
Michael Mozina said:
What exactly on his list do you personally believe somehow falsifies a generic brand of a cathode solar model? I'll admit the surface may not be a 'solid', it may only be "rigid' (as in more dense) than the neon.
Click to expand...
You really haven't been paying attention at all have you? Tim has gone to great lengths to show how your model is thermodynamically impossible. There are reams and reams of posts from Sol, Tusenfem, Ben et al on how your claims about plasma, electricity, mass separation, geometry, etc. all are conclusively disproven by real science with a real empirical pedigree.

I have carefully explained the six step process that I personally need to go through to "falsify" or verify at least major parts of this solar model. The RD image that emerges must fit inside the surface of that convecting layer, or I have to do some soul searching.

The cathode aspects of this solar model however would still be applicable, even *IF* that "prediction" doesn't "pan out" all that well. Even in that case, I couldn't simply "assume" that *NO* brand of a "cathode solar model" was applicable to what I was observing.

I guess about all I can tell you is that unless and until they can empirically duplicate and replicate the 'predictions" of Birkeland's experiments in real experiments of their own that do not require "current flow" between a cathode sun and an anode heliosphere, I will still continue to support an "electric" solar model for the rest of my life. I guess that probably makes no sense to you, but as I've said, I'm more attached to a "cathode sun" than I am attached to a "solid surface solar model". The term "rigid" in those papers was not accidental, but rather it was intended to keep the work as true to Birkeland's original intent as possible.
Click to expand...
Nothing you do when you interpret an image falsifies anything. On the contrary, your interpretations are falsified because they violate known physics - physics that has that empirical pedigree that you so admire. For your interpretations to falsify known physics, you have to overcome all of the empirical, experimental pedigree upon which it is based. Get in the lab and get busy!

And it is patently obvious even to a layperson that Birkeland's terella experiments were not meant to model the sun. If you think there is something there worth exploring, then get in the lab and get busy! You are acting like a petulant hypocrite.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The RD images are simply more definitive IMO. That averaged high cadence RD image process that created that first image on my website is the one I'm mostly interested in. That should tell me if light is actually coming up and through that convecting layer. The basic images can be "interpreted' in a number of subjective ways, but the RD images should fit inside the convecting surface, or I have some major rethinking to do.
Click to expand...
(bold added)

How do you know it's "convecting" MM?

What do you mean when you use the term "convecting" MM?

In terms of the "MM scientific process"*, haven't you omitted the "Empirical Experimentation" step?

* "the scientific process is supposed to work something like: Observation->Need To Understand That Observation->Empirical Idea->Empirical Experimentation->Numerical Prediction->"
 
Michael Mozina said:
The RD images are simply more definitive IMO. That averaged high cadence RD image process that created that first image on my website is the one I'm mostly interested in. That should tell me if light is actually coming up and through that convecting layer. The basic images can be "interpreted' in a number of subjective ways, but the RD images should fit inside the convecting surface, or I have some major rethinking to do.
Click to expand...


Again I'll point out that your qualifications to understand solar imagery of any type have been challenged, and you have been unable to demonstrate that you possess any such qualifications. What you see in that image on your web site is an optical illusion as explained by Dr. Neal Hurlburt, the fellow at LMSAL responsible for the acquisition, production, and analysis of that image. As for providing "evidence" of a solid or rigid surface, it is fraudulent because it does no such thing.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You've called Birkeland a bozo.
Click to expand...

You know what? I bet every 19th century scientist would sound like a bozo if there was some crackpot ignoring his best work (on aurorae) and hammering away over and over again on his premature and now-discredited speculations.

Imagine that there was someone who spent five years on a discussion board insisting that Newton PROVED ALCHEMY and you're all idiots for not recognizing it; that LEWIS PROVED ATOMS ARE CUBES and anyone who says otherwise is pushing math bunnies; and so on. Newton and Lewis would start to look like bozos too, after five years of that constant nonsense.

Every 19th century scientist made mistakes, Birkeland included. The ones further ahead of the data---like the ones doing space physics before spaceflight---made more errors than the safer ones. Let the errors die quietly, Michael, that's what happened to everyone else's. Let Birkeland be remembered for his excellent aurora work and let's forget about the sad and misguided planet-formation and solar theories.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Yes. I would expect that the next "layer" is mostly silicon and that the plasmas are mass separated into various elements, not all the elements convecting in the same layer.
Click to expand...

I understand about your belief that the elements are layered, but I'm having trouble connecting that to my question about what you mean by "rigid." Does it simply mean "more dense," or (as this answer seems to imply) does it mean "more dense and of homogenous composition?" Does "rigid" have any connection to the more conventional definitions related to resistance to tension and static shear?
 
No Iron "Surface" for the Sun

brantc said:
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. ...
Click to expand...

Here is the research paper that is the basis of the news report.

One solar cycle of solar astrometry with MDI/SOHO
Emilio, Kuhn & Bush; Solar and Stellar Variability: Impact on Earth and Planets, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, IAU Symposium, Volume 264, p. 21-32, February 2010
Abstract: In this work we describe the method and results of precise solar astrometry made with the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI), on board the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), during one complete solar cycle. We measured an upper limit to the solar radius variation, the absolute solar radius value and the solar shape. Our results are 22 mas peak-to-peak upper limit for the solar radius variation over the solar cycle, the absolute radius was measured as 959.28 ± 0.15 arcsec at 1 AU and the difference between polar and equatorial solar radii in 1997 was 5 km and about three times larger in 2001.

And here is the response from Cuddles:

Cuddles said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have to agree, although I think the problem for a solid surface is actually rather larger than one would expect simply from this response alone. As has already been pointed out numerous times, a solid or "rigid" iron surface are both strongly ruled out by elementary thermodynamics, a branch of physics which brantc & Mozina seem to hold in utter contempt. But it stands unchallenged anyway.

However, compare the results reported above to the results reported here:

On the Variability of the Apparent Solar Radius
Chapman, Dobias & Walton; Astrophysical Journal 681(2): 1689-1702, July 2008
Abstract: Full-disk photometric solar images at a wavelength of 672.3 nm have been obtained daily since 1986 using the CFDT1 (Cartesian Full Disk Telescope No. 1). An analysis of these images from 1986 through the end of 2004 December has shown a peak-to-peak variation in the geocentric north-south solar radius of 0.136+/-0.01, approximately in phase with the solar cycle. The multiple correlation coefficient squared is R2=0.0404 (R=0.2). While this correlation coefficient is small, due to the large number of data points (N=4042), the level of significance is less than 0.02. The radius had a maximum value near the times of maximum activity for solar cycles 22 and 23.

The SOHO MDI Instrument observes the sun at a wavelength of 676.78 nm, the center wavelength of a neutral Nickel absorption feature in the photosphere. This wavelength is not too far from the 672.3 nm reported here. Yet the ground based measurements show a variability in apparent solar radius of nearly 14%. These variations are geocentric, so changes due to the changing Earth-sun distance have been removed. These observations appear to me to be inconsistent with the observations reported above by Emilio, Kuhn & Bush. So I will withhold an ultimate judgement until this apparent conflict is resolved.

However, it should be fairly obvious that the solar radius is not fixed, but still variable even in the research pointed to by brantc. One would not normally appeal to a solid surface to explain a smaller than expected cycle of expansion & contraction. But with a little physical insight, as Cuddles gives us, normal thermal expansion would actually imply a larger than observed change in radius. But of course there are no measurements of thermal expansion of iron at 6000 Kelvins, since iron is a vapor at such temperatures. So one must wonder exactly why a solid iron surface is supposed to be the "best explanation" for anything that is observed to happen at temperatures where physics requires iron to be a vapor. Hence, I think the rejection of the claim by brantc is in order.

But see also this ...

Variability of the solar shape (before space dedicated missions)
Rozelot, Damiani & Lefebvre; journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 71(17-18): 1683-1694, December 2009
Abstract: Shrinking or expansion of the solar shape and irradiance variations are ultimately related to solar activity. We give here a review on existing ground-based or space solar radius measurements, extending the concept to shape changes. We show how helioseismology results allow us to look at the variations below the surface, where changes are not uniform, putting in evidence a new shallow layer, the leptocline, which is the seat of solar asphericities, radius variations with the 11-yr cycle and the cradle of complex physical processes: partial ionization of the light elements, opacities changes, superadiabaticity, strong gradient of rotation and pressure. Based on such physical grounds, we show why it is important to get accurate measurements from scheduled dedicated space missions: PICARD, SDO, DynaMICCS, ASTROMETRIA, SPHERIS. Such measurements will provide us a unique opportunity to study in detail the relationship between global solar properties and changes in the Sun's interior.

Here we see a recent example from a long list of helioseismology research which quite conclusively proves that there cannot be any solid surface below the visible photosphere of the sun. Curiously, Mozina claims quite the contrary, that helioseismology does reveal a solid, or at least "rigid" surface below the visible photosphere, commonly citing Lefebvre & Kosovichev, 2005 as a justification, despite the obvious fact that the paper actually directly rules out a solid or rigid surface of any kind.

So, we have both thermodynamics and helioseismology ruling out a solid or rigid surface. We have brantc claiming a "solid" surface explains expansion and contraction better than a non-solid surface. And we have Mozina insisting that the data from helioseismology which rules out a rigid surface actually requires it (and he is apparently the only living person who interprets the data in that way). Any reasonably intelligent person must be quite exasperated by such insane devotion to the physically impossible.
 
D'rok said:
And it is patently obvious even to a layperson that Birkeland's terella experiments were not meant to model the sun. If you think there is something there worth exploring, then get in the lab and get busy! You are acting like a petulant hypocrite.
Click to expand...


That speaks to my earlier comment about the total and complete lack of adding a single shred of new material to the crackpot claim over the last five years. No lab work. No experiments. No taking a couple of math or science classes. No reading any of the textbooks that have been suggested by Tim Thompson, among others. No fleshing it out with mathematical support. Not even any new ways to phrase the crackpot conjecture. Literally everything you're reading here has been put forward as arguments on various forums all over the Internet for a half a decade. And as arguments, they're all crap. Nothing is changed. Nothing has advanced. Not one bit of actual work has been done to support this insane claim.

And I'll bet a $20 bill that Michael will be back to calling his mythical surface "solid" before he even leaves this forum. You've probably noticed how he's done a lot of dancing around evading the issue and refusing to actually say it's not solid. :rolleyes:

Say it, Michael: "The surface of the Sun is not solid."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom