Electric universe theories here.

[Reality Check]

...snip...

This is Birkeland said (emphasis added):

Originally Posted by Birkeland
It is by powerful magnetisation of the magnetisable globe that the phenomenon answering to Saturn's rings is produced. During this process, polar radiation and disruptive discharges at the equator such as that shown in fig. 247a (which happens to be a unipolar discharge) may also occur, if the current intensity of discharge is great. If the magnetisation of the globe be reduced (or the tension of the discharge increased) gradually, the luminous ring round the globe will be reduced to a minimum size, after which another equatorial ring is developed and expands rapidly (Fig 247 b).

Figures 247a and 247b are thus analogies of Saturn's rings.
This is on page 661 just above figures 247a and 247b. This paragraph is in a section about the Sun. It is not about the Sun.
Birkeland goes on to speculate that the Sun in an eclipse could display a similar ring as Saturn.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm going to try to skip the parts where we agree, and limit my response to a couple of key points so we focus on these points specifically.

Any sort of double slit experiment suggests that "wave" action takes place and interference patterns emerge at various locations in the experiment, even in "massless" particles. What makes you think you aren't putting the electron neutrino detector inside an area that experiences interference in one type of detector and not necessarily in both types of detectors? It seems to me that you're "jumping the gun" here a bit. How do you know that they detect electron neutrinos evenly at every tested distance?

This all sounds rather like a hand-wavy appeal to quantum weirdness.

But it does not falsify my model anymore than three neutrino types falsified standard solar theory when your side didn't know/believe they oscillated. In fact I don't profess to believe there is a "known" or even a "single' energy source to begin with. I simply noted that according to Birkeland the primary energy source could be fission.

It meant that the SSM and the SM couldn't both be exactly correct. Further experiments and observations have led to a tweaking of the SM. There is no experimental evidence to support the altering of the SM that would bring it in line with a fission hypothesis.

But that in and of itself does not falsify a solar model even if everything you said is absolutely true and above question.

A theory being inconsistent with a multiple pieces of consistent data doesn't falsify the theory?

All we really know for now is that there is an "anomaly" that I can't fully explain based on a fission model *at this moment in time*. It doesn't make one iota of difference as it relates to the satellite images on my website which led me to conclude that the sun has a "crust". Care to explain them in terms of a standard solar theory and cause/effect relationships?

Others have done this.

I guess I accept what you're saying for the time being with the first caveat I mentioned. I don't see how your 'certain' that both types of detectors measure electron neutrinos equally at every distance, and that no interference patterns might emerge in either type of detector.

I can't really comment on this unless you suggest something a bit more... formal. It just reads like "I'll blame quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics is weird".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Lets address this delusion of yours one more time.

Anyone that has to rely upon shock value commentary in *EVERY* post looks pretty desperate after awhile. We already dispelled your 'delusions' about Birkeland using a solid globe.

Running difference animations are computer processed records of changes in the original images.

Every movie taken on a CCD or standard cellphone camera could also be considered a computer processed animation by your definition of terms. So what? I can still pick out stars in a LASCO RD image. I can still identify real planets and comets in a RD Lasco image. Can't you?

Only changes in the original images show up in running difference animations.

Ya, because stuff moves (left to right in this case). You'll always see the stars in the next image because they move between images.

Running = Do the computer processing between the original image and its previous image.

Translation to actual physics: Take last image and subtract from the image the the photon intensity of the previous image from the original image on a pixel by pixel basis. All the light and dark areas are directly related to lighted areas in the original images.

Differences = Take the difference between the original images to create frames of te differences between the original images.

Hey look RC, the stars moved!

Only a complete idiot

Man, what a need you have for the personal insult. It's become a crutch now that you rely on in every post.

would think that a persistent feature in an RD animation is a persistent feature in the original images.

Only someone who knows absolutely nothing at all about RD imaging would think that persistence isn't a function of persistence in the original images. Those stars in the background of a RD image are arrange in "persistent patterns" because they are real objects and really moving (relative to SOHO). The persistence of the background star pattern in the RD image is directly (and I mean directly) related to the persistence of the pattern of the stars in both original images.

Your optical illusion of "rigid features" are actually areas of constant change happening in one location. As Dr Kosovichev has told you

You're still ignoring the implication of the image and his statements and the mass flows seen in 171A along the "transitional region". The original 171A images show *LOTS* of activity along the surface in terms of mass movements that at are easily visible with the naked eye. There is plasma moving back and forth along the loops, *AND* sometimes down along the very same loop. The sub photosphere "mass flow" that Kosovichev describes is directly related to coronal loop activity. It is "structured" by surface terrain features that also structure the mass flows seen in the 171A images. What Kosovichev said was true. The black and white parts of the image do represent mass flows in organized patterns, but the "shape" of that pattern is directly related to the surface features, and they originate *UNDER* not above the photosphere. That's also congruent with the while light images I cited, but then you wouldn't know that.

 

[Reality Check]

Is this the definitive Iron Sun answer - that the core of the Sun is filled with something undergoing fission (uranium, plutonium, something else)?

According to Micheal Mozina's web site this is the definitive Iron Sun answer in "The Birkeland Solar Model: EU Theory And The Plasma Layers Of The Sun".

The Arc
One of the most basic processes of the sun is the electrical arc. The sun's inner fission reactions act as a battery, releasing free protons and electrons, while the surface acts as a giant conductor. As these streams of electrons reach the surface, they ionize ferrite at the surface, pushing it into the silicon layer of the photosphere, which in turn insulates the electrical flow to create giant electrical arcs between surface features.

Of course given MM's inability to commit to an actual Iron Sun model, this will change without notice or supporting evidence.

MM:
You may want to read up about fission. It does not release "free protons and electrons". It releases neutrons and lighter nuclei. The energy from fission can ionize atoms so there will be electrons released but this is not specific to fission.

 

[Reality Check]

Anyone that has to rely upon shock value commentary in *EVERY* post looks pretty desperate after awhile. We already dispelled your 'delusions' about Birkeland using a solid globe.

Yes I made a mistake and acknowledged it.

A delusion is a persistent mistake. That is what you are making about the RD animations whic by definition are records of changes in the original images.

...snipped usual rant...

 

[Michael Mozina]

According to Micheal Mozina's web site this is the definitive Iron Sun answer in "The Birkeland Solar Model: EU Theory And The Plasma Layers Of The Sun".

Of course given MM's inability to commit to an actual Iron Sun model, this will change without notice or supporting evidence.

Um, I've been "committed" now for over five years and committed enough to put up a website on the theory. I'd say that's committed. As it relates to supporting evidence, I can't even get you to review all the materials I have suggested, or read the materials I have suggested. It's no wonder you're hopelessly confused if you think Birkeland's globe was solid.

MM:
You may want to read up about fission. It does not release "free protons and electrons". It releases neutrons and lighter nuclei. The energy from fission can ionize atoms so there will be electrons released but this is not specific to fission.

Ya, ya, and neutrons decay into protons and electrons in about 11 minutes. Ok, I took a few "shortcuts" to make it easier on the reader. Sue me.

 

[Tubbythin]

You may want to read up about fission. It does not release "free protons and electrons". It releases neutrons and lighter nuclei. The energy from fission can ionize atoms so there will be electrons released but this is not specific to fission.

Well, if the neutrons stay free long enough they'll decay to protons, electrons and anti-neutrinos. That's where the "wrong type" of neutrinos come from.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes I made a mistake and acknowledged it.

You acknowledge it with the term "delusion" in the next post? Don't you think it's about time you come down off that high horse of yours before you hurt yourself?

A delusion is a persistent mistake.

It seems to be a "delusion" of yours that you can *NOT* read or review the material in question and understand them well. That seems to be a very persistent mistake you keep making. Have you even bothered to look at those three flare images I suggested in the DVD? I doubt it. That won't stop you from continuing to insult me in post after post.

That is what you are making about the RD animations whic by definition are records of changes in the original images.

It is a "delusion" on your part that there is a physical disconnect between real things seen in the original images (stars, planets, comets, solar events) and what is observed in RD images. We can still see stars in RD images. We see the shadows they left too. It's not a mystery why we see "persistence" in the RD images. It's due to the "persistence" of the features in the original images. No planet in the original images, no bright thingy moving right to left in the RD images. When we see a bright planet in the original images we'll also see the planet in the RD images. The stars create "persistent patterns" in the original images. They also create "persistent patterns' in the RD image. There is no physical disconnect between real things and photon intensity in the RD image. The intensity in the pixels of the RD image is directly related to the intensity and movement of real objects.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, if the neutrons stay free long enough they'll decay to protons, electrons and anti-neutrinos. That's where the "wrong type" of neutrinos come from.

Educate me here on something basic that I seem to be missing. Which type of detector would you expect to observe the "wrong type" of neutrino?

 

[Reality Check]

Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina

According to your web site this is the (current) definitive Iron Sun answer in "The Birkeland Solar Model: EU Theory And The Plasma Layers Of The Sun".

The Arc
One of the most basic processes of the sun is the electrical arc. The sun's inner fission reactions act as a battery, releasing free protons and electrons, while the surface acts as a giant conductor. As these streams of electrons reach the surface, they ionize ferrite at the surface, pushing it into the silicon layer of the photosphere, which in turn insulates the electrical flow to create giant electrical arcs between surface features.

First asked 14 July 2009
Would you like to look up the mean free path of electrons in the Sun's plasma below your iron surface/crust and tell us what this imples for "streams of electrons"?

I guess that it is less than that of photons which is 10 cm at the Sun's core (10¹⁹ collisions to reach the photosphere). So it looks like your "streams of electrons" cannot exist.
But do not worry - you can always handwave and state that some magnetic fields create the streams.

 

[Michael Mozina]

According to your web site this is the (current) definitive Iron Sun answer in "The Birkeland Solar Model: EU Theory And The Plasma Layers Of The Sun".


First asked 14 July 2009
Would you like to look up the mean free path of electrons in the Sun's plasma below your iron surface/crust and tell us what this imples for "streams of electrons"?

I guess that it is less than that of photons which is 10 cm at the Sun's core (10¹⁹ collisions to reach the photosphere). So it looks like your "streams of electrons" cannot exist.
But do not worry - you can always handwave and state that some magnetic fields create the streams.

I can only laugh out loud at the irony of that last comment. I guess since you didn't know that he even had a powerful electromagnet inside the sphere it never even occurred to you that he had to "crank it up" go create the loops. Hoy. That delusions of yours about being an "expert" even without reading or studying sure looks silly from this side of the aisle.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipp...
It is a "delusion" on your part that there is a physical disconnect between real things seen in the original images (stars, planets, comets, solar events) and what is observed in RD images. We can still see stars in RD images. We see the shadows they left too. It's not a mystery why we see "persistence" in the RD images. It's due to the "persistence" of the features in the original images. No planet in the original images, no bright thingy moving right to left in the RD images. When we see a bright planet in the original images we'll also see the planet in the RD images. The stars create "persistent patterns" in the original images. They also create "persistent patterns' in the RD image. There is no physical disconnect between real things and photon intensity in the RD image. The intensity in the pixels of the RD image is directly related to the intensity and movement of real objects.

There is no "physical disconnect" between the original images and the RD animations.
I have never said that there is such a thing.
I and other posters have pointed out to you many times the physical processes in the original images (material changing position and temperature) that correspond to features in the RD animations, i.e. the physical connection between the actual objects and the graphical representation of changes in the objects.

It is your delusion that the features in the RD animation are actual physical objects. They are caused by physical processes. They are not actual "mountain ranges", "peeling stuff', "flying stuff", "stars" and the other optical illustions that have fooled you.
They are graphical illustrations of

• changes in temperature to either side of coronal loops ("mountain ranges").
• changes in temperature and position of CME plasma ("flying stuff").
• changes in temperature and position of plasma ("peeling stuff").
• changing flows around magnetic structures ("angular structures" in Doppler RD animations).
• changing positions of stars ("stars").
• changing positions of planets ("planets")

First asked 10 July 2009
You are an experit in solar RD images (linked to together to frrm animations or movies or AVIs or ...). So it should be easy for you to answer this question which you seem to have missed:

Below is a sketch of a 1 by 5 pixel RD animation where '_' is a blank pixel and '*' is a filled pixel.

• Does the RD animation show flying stuff?
• Is there flying stuff in the original images?

Frame 1: *____
Frame 2: _*___
Frame 3: __*__
Frame 4: ___*_
Frame 5: ____*

 

[Reality Check]

I can only laugh out loud at the irony of that last comment. I guess since you didn't know that he even had a powerful electromagnet inside the sphere it never even occurred to you that he had to "crank it up" go create the loops. Hoy. That delusions of yours about being an "expert" even without reading or studying sure looks silly from this side of the aisle.

I know he did. Now show that the same thing happens in a plasma inside of Birkelands metalic globes (now where are Birkelands images of the insides of his globes ?)

According to your web site this is the (current) definitive Iron Sun answer in "The Birkeland Solar Model: EU Theory And The Plasma Layers Of The Sun".

First asked 14 July 2009
Would you like to look up the mean free path of electrons in the Sun's plasma below your iron surface/crust and tell us what this imples for "streams of electrons"?

I guess that it is less than that of photons which is 10 cm at the Sun's core (1019 collisions to reach the photosphere). So it looks like your "streams of electrons" cannot exist.
But do not worry - you can always handwave and state that some magnetic fields create the streams.

 

[Tubbythin]

Educate me here on something basic that I seem to be missing. Which type of detector would you expect to observe the "wrong type" of neutrino?

The setup at KamLAND is pretty neat. It can detect the radiation from the following reactions:
nubar_e + p -> e⁺ + n + Cherenkov light
e⁺ + e^- -> 2gamma (0.511 MeV)
n+p -> d + gamma (2.2 MeV)

 

[Michael Mozina]

This all sounds rather like a hand-wavy appeal to quantum weirdness.

Well, ok, maybe it's a little hand-wavy as you put it, but the assumption that a missing neutrino automatically equates to an "oscillated" neutrino also sounds a little hand-wavy IMO.

It meant that the SSM and the SM couldn't both be exactly correct. Further experiments and observations have led to a tweaking of the SM. There is no experimental evidence to support the altering of the SM that would bring it in line with a fission hypothesis.

I think before I can even start to address that claim I need you to answer that question I had about detection. I must be missing something basic.

A theory being inconsistent with a multiple pieces of consistent data doesn't falsify the theory?

I could also rightfully say that standard theory is inconsistent with evidence from the fields of heliosiesmology (subsurface stratification at a shallow depth), satellite imaging, and nuclear chemistry data, but evidently you aren't willing to give up standard theory are you?

 

[Tubbythin]

Well, ok, maybe it's a little hand-wavy as you put it, but the assumption that a missing neutrino automatically equates to an "oscillated" neutrino also sounds a little hand-wavy IMO.

It isn't an asumption. That's the whole point. There are multiple pieces of experimental evidence backing it up.

I think before I can even start to address that claim I need you to answer that question I had about detection. I must be missing something basic.

See above post.

I could also rightfully say that standard theory is inconsistent with evidence from the fields of heliosiesmology (subsurface stratification at a shallow depth), satellite imaging, and nuclear chemistry data, but evidently you aren't willing to give up standard theory are you?

You have the right to say it. Doesn't mean its true.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It is your delusion that the features in the RD animation are actual physical objects.

It's like saying that those bright points in the background of Lasco RD images are not actual physical stars. Yes, they are. The "x''s are *REAL* stars that are moving left to right (well, SOHO's actually moving, it's a relative movement). The bright points int he RD image background of a Lasco image are in fact *REAL STARS* just as the bright points in the original last image is a real star. There's no difference in the fact that the stars created the photons we see in both images. We simply "subtract" the photon intensity from the previous image, meaning even the dark areas are related to "Real objects". The only disconnect between bright and dark areas of the image and real objects is in your head. The pixel intensity of the RD image is directly related to real objects.

Your comment about "temperature" changes and movement are true, but the only reason we can observe these things is because they are real object that show real movement in real RD images. The shadows give us an indication of speed and direction. They provide us with a directional component to analyze. In all respects however it is real objects (suns , planets, comets, plasma) that has a real effect on the images. We can see flying plasma in RD Lasco images coming off the sun during CME events, and the shadows give us some indication of direction and speed. If however you don't recognize that you're looking at real things, you're missing a big part of satellite image analysis.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It isn't an asumption. That's the whole point. There are multiple pieces of experimental evidence backing it up.

Just so I'm completely clear, what exactly would you expect to observe differently in these data sets if there was a fission process responsible for most of the energy releases?

 

[Reality Check]

Um, I've been "committed" now for over five years and committed enough to put up a website on the theory. I'd say that's committed. As it relates to supporting evidence, I can't even get you to review all the materials I have suggested, or read the materials I have suggested. It's no wonder you're hopelessly confused if you think Birkeland's globe was solid.

Can you read - I no longer think that Birkeland's globe was solid. You corrected me and I accepted your correction.
Get over it.

Ya, ya, and neutrons decay into protons and electrons in about 11 minutes. Ok, I took a few "shortcuts" to make it easier on the reader. Sue me.

I will not sue you but I will point out a couple of problems:
The first is that these neutrons are inside a plasma under enormous pressure in the Sun's core. There will be some that decay immediately but others will collide with atoms and be absorbed (not decay). This will reduce the production of protons and electrons. This is not really a problem for your idea since you have not produced any testable, falsifiable predictions from it (no mathematics means no numbers and no predictions!). You are free to arbitrary set the production of protons and electrons to anything you like.

The second is that the decay of neutrons produces electron anti-neutrinos. Fusion produces electron neutrinos.
I suspect that scientists at naeutrino observatories can tell the difference.

 

[Reality Check]

It's like saying that those bright points in the background of Lasco RD images are not actual physical stars. Yes, they are. The "x''s are *REAL* stars that are moving left to right (well, SOHO's actually moving, it's a relative movement). The bright points int he RD image background of a Lasco image are in fact *REAL STARS* just as the bright points in the original last image is a real star. There's no difference in the fact that the stars created the photons we see in both images. We simply "subtract" the photon intensity from the previous image, meaning even the dark areas are related to "Real objects". The only disconnect between bright and dark areas of the image and real objects is in your head. The pixel intensity of the RD image is directly related to real objects.

Your comment about "temperature" changes and movement are true, but the only reason we can observe these things is because they are real object that show real movement in real RD images. The shadows give us an indication of speed and direction. They provide us with a directional component to analyze. In all respects however it is real objects (suns , planets, comets, plasma) that has a real effect on the images. We can see flying plasma in RD Lasco images coming off the sun during CME events, and the shadows give us some indication of direction and speed. If however you don't recognize that you're looking at real things, you're missing a big part of satellite image analysis.

They are real objects that show real movement in real original images.
The RD process turns the original images into graphical representations of the changes in the original images.


First asked 14 July 2009
Which of the following statements are wrong and why:

• Running difference animations are records of changes in the original images.
• Persistent dark areas in RD animations are areas of constant decreases (e.g. something changing temperature in one location) in the original images.
• Persistent light areas in RD animations are areas of constant increases (e.g. something changing temperature in one location) in the original images.

First asked 10 July 2009
You are an experit in solar RD images (linked to together to frrm animations or movies or AVIs or ...). So it should be easy for you to answer this question which you seem to have missed:

Below is a sketch of a 1 by 5 pixel RD animation where '_' is a blank pixel and '*' is a filled pixel.

• Does the RD animation show flying stuff?
• Is there flying stuff in the original images?

Frame 1: *____
Frame 2: _*___
Frame 3: __*__
Frame 4: ___*_
Frame 5: ____*