Electric universe theories here.

[DeiRenDopa]

Indeed light is emitted from these rings, just not visible light. The emission however is related to "current flow", not the particles themselves. They are not "self luminous" anymore than a florescent bulb is "Self luminous" in the absence of electricity.

It's getting busy at work. I'll deal with the rest of your post as I get time. You will however note that nothing "self luminates" in Birkeland's work. It's all driven by electrical currents.

Um, is there a prize for shooting oneself in the foot?

If there is, you certainly deserve it MM!

Birkeland's terrella model of Saturn's rings were photographed using emulsions of the time. AFAIK the active ingredient was a silver halide. Silver halides are (most) sensitive to light in the blue part of the spectrum, with significant sensitivity from the near UV into the mid-visual (they are particularly insensitive to red light, which is why dark rooms of old had red lights).

In the photographs reproduced in his publication, Birkeland's 'Saturn' terrella clearly shows a self-luminous (set of) rings ... the rings shine by their own light, not by light reflected from the (model) Saturn (and certainly not by the light reflected from the Sun).

The real Saturn rings shine, in the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that Birkeland's photographs were sensitive to, by light reflected from the Sun, and, to a considerably lesser extent, by light reflected from Saturn itself (which is just light reflected from the Sun).

IOW, Birkeland's model of Saturn's rings fails (the source of the rings' light, detected by us here on Earth and space probes near and far, is the Sun, not electrical activity in, or around, the rings themselves).

(It also fails in terms of the theory - you know, equations, numbers, that sort of thing - but as you, MM, are functionally incompetent wrt this sort of thing, you cannot be expected to even understand the failure of Birkeland's ideas in this regard, much less be able to discuss it).

 

[Reality Check]

Really? Which *specific* "standard theory" actually "predicted" the existence of a "stratification" subsurface located at around .995R?

In fact that "stratification subsurface" can be seen in Doppler and RD images of the solar atmosphere.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/171surfaceshotsmall.JPG
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/tsunami1.JPG

We can actually observe that stratification subsurface in the tsunami image as the wave passes over the photosphere.

How about you "experts" step up to the plate and show us which standard model predicted these "rigid subsurface features" (crust) which we observe in these RD and Doppler images?

In fact this region is supposed to be an open convection zone according to standard theory.

That is ignorant of you MM.
A couple of seconds on Google gives: Hydrostatic stratification. Or read some of the 10,000 papers on 'stratification of the stellar structure' found in Google Scholar.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This forum...

Perhaps you wrote in haste?

Perhaps you did actually present "Bruce's work" in this forum?

This is the kind of stuff that annoys me no end. You intentionally cite my website, but none of you actually ever read the content. Why should I have to duplicate myself here to you and in every single forum where we have talked? You've been aware of my website now for 4 years now or so, and the link to Bruce's work has always been there. If you intend to criticize my website, you should at least avail yourself of the information it contains *BEFORE* you starting running with the pack from a place of pure ignorance. Are you actually ignorant of Bruce's work or just looking for some way to skirt the subject? You *NEVER* address the data head on. Instead you fixate on the trivial, and ignore the whole issue entirely. What's wrong with Bruce's work DRD?

If you are ignorant of his work, is that your fault or mine?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

In Birkeland's own writings, he proposes that the Sun emits relativistic electrons (using today's terms; the solar wind is composed of relativistic electrons). His published work includes pages and pages on the derivation of this idea (quantitatively, using equations etc), backed up by pages and pages of reports of his terrella experiments.

What he proposes is that the sun acts as a cathode compared to interstellar space.

Well, if he did, then his model is inconsistent with subsequent observations (including solar wind in situ ones), and so it failed.

However, as has been known for many decades now, the solar wind does not consist of relativistic electrons.

The solar wind most certainly does contain electrons DRD, and protons and other charged particles exactly AS HE *PREDICTED* 100 YEARS AGO. The notion of "relativistic electrons" is simply "spin" on your part. They were "real electrons" in his experiments.

Here is as clear an example of your incompetence wrt understanding Birkeland's work MM.

You see he spent quite a few pages in his published work estimating the speed of the electrons (as we'd call them today), and there's no wiggle room for doubt here ...

... except, of course, if you don't understand that part of his published work, because you are ignorant of the physics and math it is built upon ...

... and we all know that you, MM, are that ignorant.

Perhaps the only open question is why you refuse to acknowledge your own gross ignorance ... why is it that you are so proud of your ignorance, MM?

[...]

Nice how you attempt to exclude solar system functions from the rest of the cosmos. I hate to break it to you, but the same things that apply here in this solar system also apply elsewhere in the galaxy and have an effect on the rest of the galaxy and the rest of the universe. Since you folks can't even explain solar wind,

Translation: I, MM, haven't a clue about any of the contemporary models, and certainly cannot understand even simple differential equations ... so of course I, MM, don't understand the plasma physics-based explanations of the solar wind ...

you don't have a single clue about how "cosmology" works even at the local level, let alone at larger scales.

What I'd like to see you or anyone else here do is "explain" that RD and Doppler image using standard solar theory.

But MM, don't you see? It wouldn't matter if the explanation anyone presented were the most awesome piece of theory+derivation since Newton, or were complete gibberish, you wouldn't be able to understand it (and couldn't tell the difference anyway).

Remember the egg you got on your face wrt the Casimir effect? Do you really want to go through that humiliation again?

Which standard solar theory predicted the existed of a rigid stratification subsurface? What are those rigid features in those images DRD?

"Rigid" huh?

Dare I ask how you define "rigid"?

And how may an independent third party verify your "rigid" conclusion?

Let me guess .... by looking at the pictures!

But wait! ... I can see a horsie over here!! Oh, and look!!! There's a cute little bunny wabbit!!!!

You can run from the real data or but you can't hide. Birkeland *PREDICTED* there to be a "surface" located at a shallow depth under the photosphere.

He did?

Reference please. And if the 900+ page document, page number(s).

Your model does not. Heliosiesmology demonstrates there is one and Birkeland was correct.

[] You're ignoring his whole solar model. Why? Because he was right, and you can't explain those images, that's why.

I know Birkeland was right now because in 4 years, not one of you has been man or woman enough to stand up to the plate and explain these solar images in a "better" scientific way using a standard solar model.

And of course nothing in Birkeland's published work can be used to explain them either, quantitatively ... despite your many years and millions (?) of words of trying.

Why?

Because you don't understand what Birkeland wrote MM, and you don't understand the images, and you can't accept that a scientific understanding requires you to acquire a certain minimal competence with some parts of math.

You can belittle Birkeland's work all you like, but he didn't have a "religion", he created a "working model", something you folks have *NEVER* done and never could hope to do. More importantly he "predicted" key observations that your model does not, including fast solar wind, high energy coronal loops, high speed plasma jets, and a host of other observations that we have seen in solar satellite images. His model was correct and correctly predicts key satellite based heliosiesmology data.

[...]

We've been over this before MM, several times.

The only person who thinks this is you, and you have been unable - despite several years' of trying - to provide a quantitative demonstration of your claims.

'I think this looks like a duck (in this image), therefore it is a duck' is not physics, it is not astronomy ... when you can demonstrate that you have left this kind of nonsense behind, we may be able to start to have a meaningful discussion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is ignorant of you MM.
A couple of seconds on Google gives: Hydrostatic stratification. Or read some of the 10,000 papers on 'stratification of the stellar structure' found in Google Scholar.

Which specific one or more of these papers *PREDICTS* (not postdicts later on) a "stratification subsurface" to exist at exactly the depth it was found via heliosiesmology? All current solar models "predicted" this to be an open convection zone. What are those "rigid features" seen in Kosovichev's Doppler image and in the LMSAL RD images doing sitting in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

A relatively recent paper which knocks much of MM's hero Bruce's work for six (i.e. it shows, in great detail, that Bruce's models are inconsistent with the relevant observations): Radiative MHD simulation of sunspot structure (link is to the abstract of the preprint).

Now for MM to appreciate just how devastating this paper, and the ones it cites, and the ones which cite it, are to Bruce's ideas (per what's on MM's website), he (MM) would need to understand MHD, and to understand that he'd have to understand some math that we all know is way beyond him (today) ... oh, and having read and understood some of Alfvén's papers, on MHD, would be helpful too.

Now if you want a nice piccie to go with this MM, why not check out this UCAR webpage? Oh, and be sure to note that there is no rigid surface ...

 

[GeeMack]

But MM, don't you see? It wouldn't matter if the explanation anyone presented were the most awesome piece of theory+derivation since Newton, or were complete gibberish, you wouldn't be able to understand it (and couldn't tell the difference anyway).

Thanks, DeiRenDopa. This bears repeating.

And it reminds us of something we must always consider when engaged in a discussion with Michael Mozina. He is apparently unable to process explanations offered to him that require any understanding of math or physics, or any legitimate scientific concern for that matter. Therefore he will simply blow off every explanation like a fart in the wind, then continue asking the same stupid questions and spewing the same nonsensical replies. It's a perfect set-up for him. In the crackpot world inside his head, he can't understand reality, and consequently he can't be wrong, and nobody else can be right.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, if he did, then his model is inconsistent with subsequent observations (including solar wind in situ ones), and so it failed.

No, it did *NOT* fail. His model (their model actually) was right on the money in terms of the flow of charged particles from the sun to the heliosphere and into the Earth's aurora. It was right on the money in terms of predicting at constant and spherical release of energy from the sun in terms of charged particle flow. It was right on the money in virtually every detail. Yes, he "guessed' at the amount of currents involved in particular solar processes, but his realization that they were influenced by EM fields and particle flow coming from the sun was exactly right.

You see he spent quite a few pages in his published work estimating the speed of the electrons (as we'd call them today), and there's no wiggle room for doubt here ...

Why are you fixated on the "speed" of the particles when they range anywhere from a 1/3 of the speed of light to less than a mere 1 million miles an hour or so? Why aren't you noticing they are there just as he predicts?

Birkeland could not know the density of the interstellar medium, he had no nifty equipment in space to show him any data on this topic. What he did do however is "predict" the flow of high speed charged particles from the surface of the sun into space, and past the Earth which power the Earth's aurora. You're quibbling about "speed" and ignoring that the "process" was accurate. How typical of your nitpick mentality.

Perhaps the only open question is why you refuse to acknowledge your own gross ignorance ... why is it that you are so proud of your ignorance, MM?

What is grossly ignorant is for you to ignore that he correctly identified the process the drives the solar wind, he simply missed a few of the "details' related to density and speed or the amount of current flow? The process was correctly identified and experimented with. Since he could not know the exactly conditions in space, he missed some of the math. He describes both the physics and the math, and of course all you care about is the math, to the absolute exclusion of the physics. Typical. You're in a cult that slaps math to any label. What else would I expect but for you to ignore the physics altogether?

Translation: I, MM, haven't a clue about any of the contemporary models, and certainly cannot understand even simple differential equations ... so of course I, MM, don't understand the plasma physics-based explanations of the solar wind ...

Translation: You think all knowledge is related to a differential equation, when in fact most knowledge comes as *UNDERSTANDING THE PHYSICAL PROCESS*, not comprehending the math. The math is a detail as it relates to conceptually understanding the concept. You won't and refuse to acknowledge the physical process he "predicted". You therefore fixate on only a few math equations, and ignore the physics and physical understanding entirely.

Remember the egg you got on your face wrt the Casimir effect? Do you really want to go through that humiliation again?

You only humiliate yourself. No such thing as a "negative pressure" has ever existed in any vacuum that has ever existed in "reality".

"Rigid" huh?

Dare I ask how you define "rigid"?

I define it in the conventional sense. That feature I circled in the Doppler image is "rigid" in terms of it's lifetime, whereas the photosphere is clearly not rigid and the wave passes through the photosphere. That wave in the photosphere leaves the rigid features under the wave undisturbed. Why is that feature "rigid"?

'I think this looks like a duck (in this image), therefore it is a duck' is not physics, it is not astronomy ... when you can demonstrate that you have left this kind of nonsense behind, we may be able to start to have a meaningful discussion.

Excuse me, but "pattern recognition' is an integral part of science, and always has been. If it looks like electricity, heat's plasma to millions of degrees like electricity, accelerates particles from the sun like electricity, lights up the atmospheres of every planet like electricity, lights up aurora round many planets like electricity, it's probably electricity. Get over the notion that every piece of "knowledge" is mathematical in nature. Most knowledge is not in that format and most knowledge requires an understanding of the "PROCESS".

 

[Reality Check]

Which specific one or more of these papers *PREDICTS* (not postdicts later on) a "stratification subsurface" to exist at exactly the depth it was found via heliosiesmology? All current solar models "predicted" this to be an open convection zone. What are those "rigid features" seen in Kosovichev's Doppler image and in the LMSAL RD images doing sitting in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone?

You really do not read your citations do you?
Look at the papers cited by Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle by Sandrine Lefebvre, Alexander Kosovichev. Try for example "Schou, J. et al., 1997, ApJ, 489, L197" or any standard textbook on stellar physics (something else you are ignorant of - somehow this does not surprize me ).

 

[Reality Check]

Really? Which *specific* "standard theory" actually "predicted" the existence of a "stratification" subsurface located at around .995R?

In fact that "stratification subsurface" can be seen in Doppler and RD images of the solar atmosphere.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/171surfaceshotsmall.JPG
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/tsunami1.JPG

We can actually observe that stratification subsurface in the tsunami image as the wave passes over the photosphere.

How about you "experts" step up to the plate and show us which standard model predicted these "rigid subsurface features" (crust) which we observe in these RD and Doppler images?

In fact this region is supposed to be an open convection zone according to standard theory.

Nice pictures of the Sun but...
These are measurments of an *UNCONTROLLED* experiment (the Sun). By your criteria these are not empirical and so should be ignored.

Can you give us a clue when you are going to remove this non-empirical data from your web site ?

To be serious:
You have already done the standard crackpot thing of redefining the English language (empirical actually includes observations of uncontrolled things like the Sun)

You are probably confirming your status as a crackpot by stating half of your criteria for observations to be "empirical". The rest of the criteria will on the lines of "anything that supports my crackpot idea". If not then you will find it impossible to exclude astronomical observations such as the evidence for dark matter.

 

[Reality Check]

Michael Mozina:
Since it took you some weeks to find the standard defintion of pressure durig a discution in another thread, I will repeat the question I asked you before with a trime stamp. Will it take months or years befor you actually answer the question?

First asked on 23rd June. 2009:

How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?

• galaxy rotation curves (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
• the motion of galxies in galactic clusters (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
• the actual measurement of the mass density of galactic clusters showing that about 2% is in the galaxies and IGM (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, indirect measurement)
• the two actual measurements of the separation of dark matter from normal matter:
  • NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (Bullet Cluster)
  • another observation (MACS J0025.4-1222)
    (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, direct measurements of the separation of dark and normal matter)
• A bit of supporting evidence is that the Millennium Run used the Lambda-CDM model to replicate the large-scale structure of the universe. CDM = Cold Dark Matter.

N.B. The above evidence is based on empirical data (as defined in MM's web site, e.g. the solar data and images). But we can expect MM to spew his "empirical measurments of an *CONTROLLED* experiment" non-science yet again.

 

[Reality Check]

Wow Helioseismology is amazing!
Have a look at the movie on this page containing visual backup material (available until 1 July) for the AAS/SPD press conference about why sunspots are late in this cycle (via this Bad Astronomy blog entry).

This movie reveals motions of the Sun's interior as measured with helioseismology on data from GONG and SOHO/MDI. East to west motion is color coded: blue is slow, red is fast. A red band in the outer third of the Sun moves slowly down from near each pole toward the equator; that band is the jet stream that is associated with sunpot emergence and the solar cycle. As of early 2009 the Cycle 24 jet streams have just reached N/S 22 degrees latitude, and new sunspots are beginning to emerge.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nice pictures of the Sun but...
These are measurments of an *UNCONTROLLED* experiment (the Sun). By your criteria these are not empirical and so should be ignored.

No, they should be "explained" using "KNOWN" forces of nature. Just don't try to explain these images with invisible elves and we'll be fine.

Can you give us a clue when you are going to remove this non-empirical data from your web site ?

All of Birkeland's work was *EMPIRICAL*. These are simply "uncontrolled observations" that were "predictions" of his theories.

To be serious:
You have already done the standard crackpot thing of redefining the English language (empirical actually includes observations of uncontrolled things like the Sun)

Only a crackpot would not see the difference between an "uncontrolled observation" and "controlled experiment". Birkeland "experimented" with his models, and used *control mechanisms* in his experiments to verify *CAUSE* and *EFFECTS* related to EM fields in space. The satellite images are simply "UNCONTROLLED OBSERVATIONS" that are PREDICTED by his *CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS*. Do you understand this distinction, yes or no?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You really do not read your citations do you?
Look at the papers cited by Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle by Sandrine Lefebvre, Alexander Kosovichev. Try for example "Schou, J. et al., 1997, ApJ, 489, L197" or any standard textbook on stellar physics (something else you are ignorant of - somehow this does not surprize me ).

You really are being evasive which only confirms my belief that you don't know what you're talking about. This was not a "prediction" that came *BEFORE* the paper. This is an *OBSERVATION* related to their technique. Do you understand this distinction, yes or no?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina:
Since it took you some weeks to find the standard defintion of pressure durig a discution in another thread, I will repeat the question I asked you before with a trime stamp. Will it take months or years befor you actually answer the question?

First asked on 23rd June. 2009:

How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?

I have already explained to you that all these papers and observations actually demonstrate is that your "gas model" solar theory is woefully flawed and incapable of accurately "predicting" the mass of any particular galaxy. In short your solar theories are hopelessly flawed, which is exactly why they require 96% "gap filler" to make things work right.

The very notion that one can "prove" the existence of "dark matter" from an uncontrolled observations is pathetic. At the most one might provide "evidence" to support the notion of "missing mass" from these observations. This only demonstrates to me how useless your solar theories are at actually "predicting" the mass of a galaxy. In other words, your whole belief system is predicated upon a flawed solar model, so you fill the gaps with metaphysical mumbo jumbo that defies empirical support. Dark matter doesn't exist. It's a figment of your imagination. You can't produce a single gram of the stuff and your missing mass is related to the fact that suns are not mostly made of hydrogen and helium.

There is an important scientific principle here at stake as well. You certainly will never "prove" anything in your lifetime. You certainly will never see "proof" of dark matter from an uncontrolled observation in your lifetime. At best you may see evidence that you *interpret* as some sort of evidence of "missing mass". All this demonstrates is that you can't accurately guestimate the mass of a galaxy based on your current solar models. That is certainly no surprise to me.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Thanks, DeiRenDopa. This bears repeating.

And it reminds us of something we must always consider when engaged in a discussion with Michael Mozina. He is apparently unable to process explanations offered to him that require any understanding of math or physics, or any legitimate scientific concern for that matter.

You've never offered me any explanations based on actual "physics" as in things you can actually physically demonstrate here and now. In fact your entire belief system is predicated on *FAITH*, not *PHYSICS*. Math related to invisible elves is meaningless junk, integration or no integration. Fancy math doesn't negate the need to *PHYSICALLY QUALIFY* your beliefs.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm willing to concede that there are differences between his "rings" and the rings on Saturn. This however is not a "disproof" of his concepts or his work. The very placement of material is most likely related to the EM currents he was proposing. Again, this one issue does not in any way negate any of the rest of his work in any way. If that is best you've got when you dismiss his life's work, that is utterly pitiful.

And in what way does your model say where they are most likely placed?

How does it work?

How does it compare to the gravitational model?

How would the data allow you to tell the difference ebwteen the two models?

It is about the useful predictions of the models is it not?

 

[Michael Mozina]

A relatively recent paper which knocks much of MM's hero Bruce's work

I haven't had time to read the whole paper yet, but I did a quick search of the PDF and not once is the name BRUCE ever even mentioned. Where did they "knock" his specific work, or is that your way of implying that any *OTHER* explanation you put forth automatically negates *all* of his work?

for six (i.e. it shows, in great detail, that Bruce's models are inconsistent with the relevant observations): Radiative MHD simulation of sunspot structure (link is to the abstract of the preprint).

Now for MM to appreciate just how devastating this paper, and the ones it cites, and the ones which cite it, are to Bruce's ideas (per what's on MM's website), he (MM) would need to understand MHD,

I will bet money you *STILL* have not even bothered to read "Cosmic Plasma" or the paper I cited from Bruce.

and to understand that he'd have to understand some math that we all know is way beyond him (today) ... oh, and having read and understood some of Alfvén's papers, on MHD, would be helpful too.

I've read two of Alfven's books on MHD theory, one where he explains it in a basic sense, and one where he applies it to space. Which of his books and papers have you even actually read?

Now if you want a nice piccie to go with this MM, why not check out this UCAR webpage? Oh, and be sure to note that there is no rigid surface ...

Even in my model the sunspots are caused by upwelling of silicon plasma through another neon layer of plasma. It's no surprise to me that sunspots are not "solid". Duh.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Are any of you critics man or woman enough to actually "explain" those two solar images using standard solar theory, yes or no?

 

[Michael Mozina]