Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some new things I've learned about the Mozplasma and Mozeparation.

Dear reader, you'll recall that "the SERTS space program" is what MM thinks provides iron-clad proof (sorry, couldn't resist) for both the composition of the Mozplasma and Mozeparation in action.

Unfortunately, the link on his website, allegedly to SERTS, doesn't work; in addition, nowhere does he cite any papers published (in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal) by the SERTS team/program, so there seems to be no way to independently validate what he says (sound familiar?).

However, there are many 'SERTS papers' (my quick check found >80; likely there are more) and this 1994 one ("Extreme ultraviolet spectrum of a solar active region from SERTS") contains, in Table 4, a list of EUV lines observed and identified, sorted by ion and transition (why MM ignored all the other papers reporting VUV and EUV spectroscopic observations of the Sun I have no idea; they include the following: EIS/Hinode, SOHO/SUMER, EUNIS, SPIRIT/CORONAS-F, and CDS/SOHO).

Ranked by the number of isoelectronic sequences found, the elements detected are:

Fe (9)
Mg (5)
Ni (5)
S (5)
Si (5)
Al (4)
Ca (4)
Ne (4)
Ar (3)
Cr (3)
O (3)
Mn (2)
Na (2)
C (1)
Co (1)
He (1)
K (1)
Ti (1)
Zn (1)

Now the full sentence (the only one?), on his website, where MM references SERTS is as follows: "The SERTS space program has also documented the entire range of ferrite ion emissions, not to mention ions from calcium magnesium, chromium, manganese, aluminum, silicon, neon, and helium from these arcs"

So why are Ni, S, Ar, O, Na, C, Co, K, Ti, and Zn omitted?

It gets considerably more curious.

Consider these sentences by MM, in this very thread:
"It depends on what elements we mix into the neon and there's pretty much every elements in the SERTS data inside every layer." (source)
"Yes, and likewise the elements in the neon also give of light." (source; I think he meant to write "Yes, and likewise the elements in the neon layer also give off light."
"I already said for the record that I could see through at least 2000KM and probably at least 3000KM of neon, and my model has a *THICKER* silicon plasma layer under that if you read through my website!" (source)
"You see all those various ionization states of neon, oxygen, silicon, etc, at all different temperatures" (source)
"I would expect a mixture of elements in every layer"(source)
"Something however keeps the mass flows "fixed" if very "rigid" patterns and produces energy releases that are highly consistent with volcanic activity, including the sulfur excesses you'll find in the SERTS data during the sun's "active" phases, along with an increase in Nickel" (source)

So MM explicitly recognises that O, Ni, and S are in the various plasma layers (but still missing are Ar, Na, C, Co, K, Ti, and Zn).

The really strange part of MM's Mozplasma, the various layers, starts with this statement: "The sun has a solid and electrically conductive crust that is covered by a series of mass separated plasma layers, starting with calcium, silicon, neon, helium and finally a layer of hydrogen that ultimately ignites in the corona.", and the accompanying diagram says "All layers arranged by atomic weight".

So how did MM arrive at just five/six layers? Why not 10 (add Mg, Cr, Mn, and Al)? or 13 (add O, Ni, and S)? or 20 (add Ar, Na, C, Co, K, Ti, and Zn)?

And if, indeed, the elements are "mass separated" "by atomic weight", why is iron at the bottom, and not cobalt, nickel, or zinc? Why does a neon layer lie underneath the helium one, and not a carbon or oxygen one (or both)?

And if the elements are "mass separated" "by atomic weight", how come "there's pretty much every elements [sic] in the SERTS data inside every layer"?

Finally, the truly magical nature of the Mozplasma is revealed ... it is tens of thousands of km deep, has ~20 elements present, at "various ionization states [...] at all different temperatures", and is transparent to VUV and EUV light! :eek: :jaw-dropp

There's also these doozies: "Birkeland started with a hollow metallic sphere, turned it into a cathode, added a plasma atmosphere, added lots of control mechanisms and evaluated wavelengths to try to understand what he was seeing." (source) - Birkeland "added a plasma atmosphere"?!? and he did EUV and VUV spectroscopy?!? The mind boggles.

"You folks still ridicule Alfven and he agreed in electric sun theory. Did you forget him? Did you forget Donald Scott? Did you forget Dr. Charles Bruce? Did you forget Anthony Perrat? How many "scientists" are you willing to ignore to make up such silly statements?" (source) - Alfvén not only agreed with "the electric sun theory", but he did so before Scott even published it?!? The man was obviously both an oracle and a prophet :p

"Even if it turns out that the sun does not have a "solid", but only a "rigid" layer of iron plasma, it would still be a "Birkeland solar model" so long as it acts as a cathode and discharges to the heliosphere." (source) - of course real cathodes emit only electrons; in MM's solar "model" the Birkeland cathode is replaced by a magic Moz-physics bunny, the Mozode.

"Just as Dr. Birkeland predicted, the sun has a solid, electrically conductive surface that is composed of iron ferrites and Nickel composites" (MM's website) - I don't think the word "ferrites" appears anywhere in Birkeland's works (nor "Nickel composites"); time to add "predicted" to the list?
 
Keep it civil please. Address the argument, not the arguer.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode
 
Paravolt said:
I belive if the sun is shining due to electrical processes - it shurely must be a part of a larger electrical circuit with electrons flowing in Bircelands currents (twisted plasma-ropes carrying charge).
Click to expand...
Have any of these ever been observed (by remote observation) or detected (by in situ space probes)? And, for avoidance of doubt, I mean "twisted plasma-ropes" carrying sufficient charge to power the Sun.

My best guess is that there should be an electrical "input" in the polar regions and a "output" on the rest of the sphere - but the where the solar wind organizes itself close to one plane resembling the spiraling arms of a "galaxy".
Click to expand...
As when a qualified doctor diagnoses a patient's illness (or condition), scientists do not "guess"; instead they rely upon empirical evidence, which can be independently verified. When it comes to the "model" or "theory" which enters into the diagnosis, I'm pretty sure qualified doctors depend just as much on papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals as astrophysicists do. And those doing research pretty quickly identify, and publish, inconsistencies (etc).

Do you have anything more than a guess?

I'm not that into the different EU solar models - but shurely there would need to be a electrical circuit one way or another - so not to accumulate charge.
Click to expand...
Yes, you're right.

Unfortunately, the most widely promoted "EU solar model" - that of Scott (and Thornhill) - is quite explicit on this ... the Sun (and stars in general) are cathodes (or, occasionally, anodes), and there is no 'return circuit' (charge accumulation is inevitable) - check out this website for more details.

MM's solar "model" - which we are, supposedly, focusing on in this thread - relies on something which has never been seen in any lab experiment on Earth, the Mozode; it's a quite magical electric device which ensures that charge does not accumulate, but which nonetheless is a critical electrical component that is otherwise just a cathode.
 
Last edited:
FYI.....

Most EU solar models have *SOME* internal power, albeit a small percentage in some cases. I'm not sure if anyone actually promotes a fully externally powered solar model.
 
How exactly would an iron sun form? How and where would the elements that form the iron sun be created?
 
I may have misunderstood something here.

The electric universe model seems to require a flow of electrons charging up the sun thereby powering it?
Where do those electrons come from?
Where do they go?
Where is the energy coming from?

A regular capacitor does not (in theory) consume power when charging, it just stores energy, and there are electrons leaving the other side/plate.

I have noticed that the model is proved wrong by lots of orders of magnitude, but how is it supposed to work?
 
Toke said:
I have noticed that the model is proved wrong by lots of orders of magnitude, but how is it supposed to work?
Click to expand...

No answer has ever been forthcoming. I think they just have faith that somehow it'll all work out.
 
Ziggurat said:
No answer has ever been forthcoming. I think they just have faith that somehow it'll all work out.
Click to expand...

I see, kind of disappointing.
Guess MM is not the only one of the type.
(I was just kind of hoping there were more to it.)
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI.....

Most EU solar models have *SOME* internal power, albeit a small percentage in some cases. I'm not sure if anyone actually promotes a fully externally powered solar model.
Click to expand...


Notice that quantitatively that would be "most", "*SOME*", "a small percentage in some cases", and "fully". :p
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
FYI.....

Most EU solar models have *SOME* internal power, albeit a small percentage in some cases. I'm not sure if anyone actually promotes a fully externally powered solar model.
Click to expand...
You jest, surely.

You, of all people, must be familiar with the infamous Thornhill "The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars", aren't you?

And as you are, you are also fully aware that this relies on a certain D. Scott's book, particularly wrt what powers the Sun (and stars), aren't you?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. Our sun is part of a much larger galactic circuit.
Click to expand...
Which Birkeland simulated, in his lab, right?

And in this new, fully revised and updated MM solar "model", what is the role of the Mozode? of the heliosphere (or heliopause or heliosheath)? Where, and how, do charges enter the heliosphere? exit the heliosphere? How is the heliopause (or heliosheath) connected to the Sun, in terms of electric current?
 
Toke said:
I see, kind of disappointing.
Guess MM is not the only one of the type.
(I was just kind of hoping there were more to it.)
Click to expand...
There's a great deal of detailed, quantitative debunking of Electric Sun ideas on Tom Bridgman's blog, here.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's really only a waste of time because none of you seem even the least bit interested in "understanding" a Birkeland solar model. Instead it's been a exercise in pure denial. It's like Birkeland never existed, and never wrote about a solar model *EVER*. In fact GM has been claiming for years that Birkeland didn't even *HAVE* a solar model and NONE of you set him straight. Not one of you.
Click to expand...
Well I will.
GeeMack: Birkeland did have a "solar model". It consisted of
  • Sunspots look like the pattern of discharges from a brass ball in my Tessella experiment.
  • Flares look like this other pattern of discharges from a brass ball in my Tessella experiment.
  • I see stuff on the glass walls of my vacuum chamber. So the Sun must also eject stuff. I think this stuff is electrons and ions.
Of course you, me, most other posters and every scientist in the world knows that this is not a scientific model. It is a set of observations and suggestions that they relate to the Sun.
The only thing Birkeland got right was the last one - the Sun ejects the stuff known as the solar wind.

The rest of "Birkeland's solar model" are Michael Mozina's lies and mistrpresentations about the book:
  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?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Some new things I've learned about the Mozplasma and Mozeparation.

Dear reader, you'll recall that "the SERTS space program" is what MM thinks provides iron-clad proof (sorry, couldn't resist) for both the composition of the Mozplasma and Mozeparation in action.

Unfortunately, the link on his website, allegedly to SERTS, doesn't work; in addition, nowhere does he cite any papers published (in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal) by the SERTS team/program, so there seems to be no way to independently validate what he says (sound familiar?).
Click to expand...

FWIW, about 2400 posts back, MM posted a link to a SERTS paper from 1990: Photospheric abundances of Oxygen, Neon, and Argon derived from the XUV spectrum of a coronal flare (post 1529)

I don't feel that it validates MM's model (and I think I've been pretty clear about that over the last few weeks), but he did post a link.
 
Last edited:
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?
  10. Why is the iron crust iron and not Birkeland's brass?
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: )
  64. Where is your empirical physics counting the gamma rays from a surface CNO cycle?
  65. Why do you keep citing a pre-print from 2006 that has never been published and was supposed to be presented in a workshop that that neither you nor any of the other authors actually attended?
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
I will also record MM's delusions about running difference movies and Kosovichev's movie of plasma flows. (I wonder if MM knows that this is a permanent record that anyone with access to Google will find?)
 
Last edited:
I'm not a scientist so I don't pretend to make a scientific theory here or a solar model. Thats why I call it guesswork. It's the best I can do on this matter.

But it would be nice for me to contribute with some ideas to this thread.

So lets go further.

1. Is there an example of high energy / high density plasma containing Neon and other elements that under any conditions will be permeable to 171Å radiation/photons - or any other radiation/photons? In case there is - what are the characteristics of that plasma, and what will they let trough? I don't think MM's hypothesis of a iron containing crust on the sun depends on the photosphere plasma being purely Neon.

After reading trough most of this tread I get the impression that it is simply not possible. I understand MM did believe he say some real proof of his theory in that SDO image that started this thread - people with strong ideas jump easily to hasty conclusions. And I guess it would have been a proof if that green light had not been a photo-filter effect. On the other hand - people well placed within the ruling paradigm will generally be kind of blind to see weaknesses of their own theories - even when obvious to others.


2. Could there be an iron crust on the sun even if we can not see it? Could it be solid iron trough? I understand that the laws of thermodynamics will not allow for it if we accept the common assumption that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. So basically we have a test here. If the sun has a solid crust it is not billion years old. If anyone think they know the sun is 4,5 billion years old - they are happy within their paradigm and kind of blind. We know almost nothing for sure about the pre-history of the solar system and the universe - its all theory and hypothesis based on some assumptions that are not nessesarily true.

3. If the sun is a fusion reactor can someone with 14million degrees in the core - Can someone explain to me why it is kind of stable - why will it not explode as a hydrogen bomb - why will the surface after 4.5 years still be quite cool. I don't expect an answer to this here - but is it fair to say that common solar theory has some difficulties to explain certain thing about what we observe of the sun. They had to assume a neutrino change of state recently - I belive. Solar cycles- anyone? Even professional solar physicists admit that there are some local electric phenomena on the surface of the sun.

4. If the sun is electric it surly has to be part of a larger electric circuit. Ultimately every galaxy would be part of that electric circuit. Even if it means we can not explain the source of universal electric power - it should be possible to make predictions to test for this hypothesis locally in our solar system - and also apply the preditions to what we can observe in the universe. After all what we observe is mostly some kind of electromagnetical radiation and magnetic fields - these are phenomena where electricity is known to play a crucial role here on earth - why not in the universe? How do we produce X-rays here on earth? By gravity waves and collision of winds of matter? Black holes? Or electricity?

5. The cosmology of today has some obvious problems when they have to invent all kinds of extra-forces to get the math straight. The assumption that gravitation is the only major force at work in the universe is weak.The assumption that the universe is electrically neutral is weak. If electricity is allowed for there will be some obvious easier explanations for some observed phenomenas - like for instance "pulsars / neutron stars" - If the pulse is because of an electrical discharge phenomena (kind of like lightning) one does not have to assume that gravity could press electrons into protons (which appears to me as an insane idea anyway)
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
There's a great deal of detailed, quantitative debunking of Electric Sun ideas on Tom Bridgman's blog, here.
Click to expand...

Thanks, bookmarked.
It looks worse than I thought, not having studied it, I expected it to have at least something going for it.
 
Reality Check said:
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.[...]
Click to expand...


In five years of Michael's prattling on various forums all over the Internet I haven't yet seen any support to the argument that this inane conjecture was actually described by Kristian Birkeland. I have seen many arguments which were obviously lies or which were determined to be lies once the research was done. Oh, and all the research was done by other people. I don't think honesty enters into his argument in any substantial way.
 
GeeMack said:
In five years of Michael's prattling on various forums all over the Internet I haven't yet seen any support to the argument that this inane conjecture was actually described by Kristian Birkeland. I have seen many arguments which were obviously lies.....
Click to expand...

More "civil" dialog on your part Dr. Denial?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A00E0DA133BE633A25750C2A9649C946296D6CF

Oh look, he *DID* have a model after all! Now of course he didn't use "brass" when calculating the mass of the universe but instead he used "iron". Then again you're in pure denial of that point too. You will stoop to any low to call me a liar. You're the liar GM. Birkeland had a solar model. It was an *ELECTRIC* solar theory. Deal with it.
 
Paravolt said:
2. Could there be an iron crust on the sun even if we can not see it?
Click to expand...

There's nowhere on the sun cool enough for solid (or liquid) iron, so there couldn't be a crust. Also, the sun's density is far below that of solid iron, so any solid iron crust would have to be a relatively small sphere near the center. A hollow iron shell is even more problematic than a solid iron sphere, which is saying a lot.
 
Paravolt said:
2. Could there be an iron crust on the sun even if we can not see it? Could it be solid iron trough? I understand that the thermodynamic will not allow for it if we accept the common assumption that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. So basically we have a test here. If the sun has a solid crust it is not billion years old.
Click to expand...
An iron crust is ruled out by thermodynamics for all ages of the Sun.

3. If the sun is a fusion reactor can someone with 14million degrees in the core - Can someone explain to me why it is kind of stable - why will it not explode as a hydrogen bomb
Click to expand...
The temperature in the core is well below the Coulomb barrier. As a consequence, fusion can only occur via tunneling and only for protons in the high energy tail of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. Moreover, the primary reaction: p + p -> d + e+ nue. This involves a quark flavour change and thus can only go through the weak interaction. In short, the cross section for the reaction is absolutely tiny.

- why will the surface after 4.5 years still be quite cool. I dont expect an answer to this here - but is it fair to say that common solar theory has some difficulties to explain certain thing about what we observe of the sun. They had to assume a neutrino change of state I believe recently.
Click to expand...
This was never "assumed". It was hypothesized when the number of neutrino's observed was less than expected. We now know beyond all reasonable doubt, from multiple sources of evidence that neutrino oscillations do occur.

5. The cosmology of today has some obvious problems when they have to invent all kinds of extra-forces to get the math straight. Their assumption that the universe is electrically neutral is weak.
Click to expand...
This is false. If it were not close to electrically neutral it would be very obvious.

The assumption that gravitation is the major force of the universe is weak.
Click to expand...
Nope. Its an inevitable consequence of the lack of gravitaional charge shielding.

If electricity is allowed for there will be some obvious easier explanations for some observed phenomenas - like for instance "pulsars / neutron stars" - If the pulse is because of an electrical discharge phenomena (kind of like lightning) one does not have to assume that gravity could press electrons into protons (which appears to me as an insane idea anyway)
Click to expand...
Easier explanations maybe, but also completely wrong.
 
Paravolt said:
2. Could there be an iron crust on the sun even if we can not see it? Could it be solid iron trough? I understand that the thermodynamic will not allow for it if we accept the common assumption that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. So basically we have a test here. If the sun has a solid crust it is not billion years old. If anyone think they know the sun is 4,5 billion years old - they are happy within their paradigm and kind of blind. We know almost nothing for sure about the pre-history of the solar system and the universe - its all theory and hypothesis based on some assumptions that are not nessesarily true.
Click to expand...

Technically yes, it could have a crust, but the atmosphere might not be ionized to the point that we can "see' it in the iron ion lines. It is also possible it has an iron plasma layer that is not actually "solid", just "rigid" when compared to the behaviors of the photosphere. The only thing it *must* do is discharge to the heliosphere to be a cathode solar model (Birkeland solar model).
 
Paravolt said:
2. Could there be an iron crust on the sun even if we can not see it? Could it be solid iron trough? I understand that the thermodynamic will not allow for it if we accept the common assumption that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. So basically we have a test here. If the sun has a solid crust it is not billion years old. If anyone think they know the sun is 4,5 billion years old - they are happy within their paradigm and kind of blind. We know almost nothing for sure about the pre-history of the solar system and the universe - its all theory and hypothesis based on some assumptions that are not nessesarily true.
Click to expand...

It would be quite strange if the earth were far older than the sun, and we can date the earth to more than 4 billion years old with very high confidence. We can even date life on earth to more than 3 billion years.

But let's suppose for a moment that we can't have confidence in these estimates of the sun's age. What happens if it's much younger than that? How old can the sun be and NOT have an iron surface melt? I think I ran the numbers once and got about 200,000 years. The sun might not be 4.5 billion years old, but it's a lot older than 200,000 years. You can run the numbers yourself and figure out a bound.

3. If the sun is a fusion reactor can someone with 14million degrees in the core - Can someone explain to me why it is kind of stable - why will it not explode as a hydrogen bomb - why will the surface after 4.5 years still be quite cool. I dont expect an answer to this here - but is it fair to say that common solar theory has some difficulties to explain certain thing about what we observe of the sun. They had to assume a neutrino change of state I believe recently.
Click to expand...

First off, the fusion process in the sun is NOT the same as the fusion process in nuclear bombs. Nuclear bombs use deuterium-tritium fusion, but there is very little of either in the sun. Fusing hydrogen to hydrogen is much harder, so it happens much more slowly. Secondly, and more importantly for your question, the sun has a negative feedback mechanism. The hotter the core gets, the less dense it gets, and that leads to lower gravitational pressure. Both lower pressure and lower density will decrease the rate of fusion. You need positive feedback to get runaway fusion. You can do that in a bomb because the increased temperature provides positive feedback, and the fusion rate is fast enough that the positive feedback dominates. But hydrogen-hydrogen fusion in the sun is too slow, so negative feedback from expansion dominates.

Secondly, the giant temperature gradients exist because the sun is BLOODY THICK. Consider any material that you want to transmit heat through. The rate of heat transport through the material is proportional to the temperature gradient, which is the temperature difference divided by the thickness. Make the material thicker, and you need to make the temperature gradient larger to support the same energy transfer rate. The sun is far thicker than the entire earth. The core is VERY well insulated.

And lastly, neutrino oscillations have been observed here on earth. The neutrino flux from the sun was a puzzle for a while before these oscillations were observed, but it's well understood now.

4. If the sun is electric it surly has to be part of a larger electric circuit. Ultimately every galaxy would be part of that electric circuit. Even if it means we can not explain the source of universal electric power - it should be possible to make predictions to test for this hypothesis locally in our solar system - and also apply the tests to what we can observe in the universe.
Click to expand...

We can't test a model that isn't quantified. So feel free to quantify such a model. I can tell you that we can measure galactic magnetic fields, and they're quite small, so there isn't that much current flowing around out there.

Their assumption that the universe is electrically neutral is weak.
Click to expand...

No, actually, it isn't. It's quite strong.

The assumption that gravitation is the major force of the universe is weak.
Click to expand...

Again, this is not so.

If electricity is allowed for there will be some obvious easier explanations for some observed phenomenas - like for instance "pulsars / neutron stars" - If the pulse is because of an electrical discharge phenomena (kind of like lightning) one does not have to assume that gravity could press electrons into protons (which appears to me as an insane idea anyway)
Click to expand...

Why is that an insane idea? We see the reverse process all the bloody time. Neutrons decay into a proton, an electron, and an electron antineutrino. So combining an electron and a proton will obviously lead to a neutron and an electron neutrino. Simple particle conservation, nothing insane about it.

And pulsars are very well explained by current models, including the regularity of their pulse rate AND the slow decay of that rate. Electrical discharges, in contrast, are notoriously noisy, and you've got no model of the actual discharge process. Where are the charges? Why are they discharging? What causes the discharge? How much energy is being discharged? You're basically asking to substitute an incredibly successful model with hand waving. Why would anyone prefer that?
 
Paravolt said:
1. Is there an example of high energy / high density plasma containing Neon and other elements that under any conditions will be let 171Å radiation/photons - or any other radiation trough for that matter? In case there is - what are the charachteristics of that plasma. I dont think MM hypothesis of a iron containing crust depends on the photosphere plasma being purely Neon.
Click to expand...
No.
In fact it (AFAIK) it is the other way around. A neon plasma is much more opaque to all wavelengths than a hydrogen plasma of the same density.
The problem is that MM wants to create a Mozplasma that lets his iron crust fantasy* be visible through 1000's of kilometers of Mozplasma. But sol invictus put Mozplasma version 1.0 (and 2.0?) though an opacity calculator and found that it had an optical depth of meters, i.e. light intensity decreased by 1/e each time that the light went through 3.5 meters (by memory).

Paravolt said:
2. Could there be an iron crust on the sun even if we can not see it? Could it be solid iron trough?
Click to expand...
There can be no solid iron under the photosphere. The photosphere is ~6000 K and the boiling point of iron is ~3100 K. In addition the temperature of the photosphere increases with depth as shown by limb darkening meaurements to~9400 K in a few hundred kilometers. This is consistent with an internally heated SU and so teh tempertaure would be even greater at 4800 km where MM wants his iron crust fantasy* to be.

Paravolt said:
3. If the sun is a fusion reactor can someone with 14million degrees in the core - Can someone explain to me why it is kind of stable - why will it not explode as a hydrogen bomb - why will the surface after 4.5 years still be quite cool. I dont expect an answer to this here - but is it fair to say that common solar theory has some difficulties to explain certain thing about what we observe of the sun. They had to assume a neutrino change of state I believe recently.
Click to expand...
The core of the Sun is a enormous number of hydrogen bombs going off every second. The reason the Sun does not explode is because the "bombs" are burried under an evem more enormous mass of plasma.
The surface is relatively cool for the same reason that a room with a heater in it is relatively cooler than the heater. There is basically an inverse square law (1/r^2) with the heating fro a point source like the core of the Sun.
There is no assumption of a "neutrino change of state". There are the measurements of neutrino oscillations from neutrinos from both the Sun and reactors. That is backed up by theory that suggests a very small mass for neutrinos.

Paravolt said:
4. If the sun is electric it surly has to be part of a larger electric circuit. Ultimately every galaxy would be part of that electric circuit. Even if it means we can not explain the source of universal electric power - it should be possible to make predictions to test for this hypothesis locally in our solar system - and also apply the tests to what we can observe in the universe.
Click to expand...
This really needs to be taken to Electric universe theories here. But...
The Sun is not electric.
There is no evidence of "universal electric power".
There have been plenty of tests of this hypothesis in the solar system:
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
There's a great deal of detailed, quantitative debunking of Electric Sun ideas on Tom Bridgman's blog, here.
Click to expand...

Paravolt said:
5. The cosmology of today has some obvious problems when they have to invent all kinds of extra-forces to get the math straight. Their assumption that the universe is electrically neutral is weak. The assumption that gravitation is the major force of the universe is weak. If electricity is allowed for there will be some obvious easier explanations for some observed phenomenas - like for instance "pulsars / neutron stars" - If the pulse is because of an electrical discharge phenomena (kind of like lightning) one does not have to assume that gravity could press electrons into protons (which appears to me as an insane idea anyway)
Click to expand...
This really needs to be taken to Electric universe theories here. But...
You have some misconceptions here.

There are no "extra-forces to get the math straight". These are
  • The many observations of dark matter (see my signature).
  • The observation of dark energy.
  • The more theoretical but scientifically valid inflationary period of the early universe.
Gravity is not the major force in the universe. The strong nuclear force os many, many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.

Gravity however is the dominant force over large distances because it is
  • long range (unlike the nuclear forces).
  • always attractive and so cannot be shielded (unlike electromagnetism).
There is no assumption that the universe is electrically neutral. If the universe was electrically charged on cosmological scales there would be obvious effects, e.g. radiation from the electrons accelerated by these cosmological charges.
Pulsars and neutron stars have physically realistic explanations. Electrical ideas about them are not physically realistic.
The fact that gravity can press "electrons into protons" is easy to grasp - all you need is enough mass (Chandrasekhar limit).

* 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.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to start calling you two the liar, liar pants on fire club. Don't you guys ever get tired of the character assassination routines? What exactly was his "cathode" discharging to RC?
 
FYI, Paravolt, the point of the RD disk size prediction I made earlier in this thread directly relates back to the ionization state of the atmosphere. If the atmosphere is highly ionized we should see the RD image fit nicely inside the chromosphere boundary. If it is not as highly ionized as I presume then the RD disk will fit just outside of that boundary.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Why is that an insane idea? We see the reverse process all the bloody time. Neutrons decay into a proton, an electron, and an electron antineutrino. So combining an electron and a proton will obviously lead to a neutron and an electron neutrino. Simple particle conservation, nothing insane about it.
Click to expand...

Moreover we see electron capture (ie p + e-->n+nue)by proton-rich unstable nuclei all the time in competition with beta+ decay. In fact, when the mass difference between the original and resultant nucleus is less than 1.022 MeV we get exclusively electron capture.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I'm going to start calling you two the liar, liar pants on fire club. Don't you guys ever get tired of the character assassination routines? What exactly was his "cathode" discharging to RC?
Click to expand...
His anode which was the walls of the chamber if I remember rightly (but sometimes he swapped them around).

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).

We are not assassinating your character. You are commiting character suicide by lying about and misrepresenting the contents of Birkeland's book. As I stated before:
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?
  10. Why is the iron crust iron and not Birkeland's brass?
Click to expand...
I and other posters have read Birkeland's book and know that you have lied, e.g. I can fnd no mention at all of fission in it (searchable PDF's are great!).
 
Reality Check said:
His anode which was the walls of the chamber if I remember rightly (but sometimes he swapped them around).
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about his experiments RC. How evasive can you be? Where did his solar cathode discharge to RC?

I and other posters have read Birkeland's book and know that you have lied, e.g. I can fnd no mention at all of fission in it (searchable PDF's are great!).
Click to expand...

The problem is you have to know what you're searching for RC and since you've never read the book you wouldn't know. Try searching for "uranium". You'll also note from the NY Times article that he entertained the idea of a transmutation of elements - fusion.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom