Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

You mean that solar model that spewed its spare electrons into space which then coalesced into planets? That solar model?

It wasn't the electrons that coalesced into planets GM. Are you really trying to claim that not one single atom that exists on Earth today originally came from the sun?

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is all nonsense and you are all dead wrong! I'm sticking with Anaxagoras: the sun is a giant flaming ball of metal, even larger than the Peloponnese.
He didn't need math bunnies, nuclear fusion, thermodynamics, magnetic currents, convection and all the other silly stuff you all talk about here! Some day I'm going to learn some math and show the world!

PS, astronomy today is strung together with metaphysical and physically impossible "math bunnies". When they can't quantify something with known laws of physics, they simply 'make up' whatever then need. Can't explain acceleration? Add "dark energy"! Can't explain faster than light expansion? Toss in a liberal helping of dead "inflation" genies. Need to simplify a solar model? Just claim that the outside "surface" is "opaque" to every single wavelength under the sun. That's how this industry works PS. They have such a strong need to quantify everything they see that they really don't care about empirical physics in terms of supporting what they're claiming. If it gets in the way of their quantification process, forget empirical physics!

In the case of the SSM, the "math bunny" that they created relates to their "opacity' claim. If that one claim goes down in flames, so do major parts of the SSM.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Out of curiosity, I wonder what charge the Sun will have accumulated, in the ""cathode solar model"" I presented in my last post?

Well, in that model, 1.8 x 10^41 electrons arrive at the photosphere every second. We know (or can safely assume, I think) that the Sun has remained pretty much the same, in terms of its brightness, for all of recorded human history, 5,000 years let's say.

Now the electron's charge is -1.6 x 10^-18 C (coulombs), and there are 1.6 x 10^11 seconds in 5,000 years.

So the Sun will have accumulated ~5 x 10^33 C in that time.

That seems rather a lot of charge; what happens when you put that much charge into a sphere of radius 700,000 km, composed of some mixture of iron, silicon, neon, helium, and hydrogen?

(someone please check my arithmetic)

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is a ridiculous and dishonest argument. It's grade school science, at best, and an argument from ignorance by definition. Your argument that Birkeland was the originator of your very own crackpot conjecture is disingenuous and a despicable display of contempt.

What's "dishonest" is you calling him a clueless Bozo in one post and them *PRETENDING* to care about his "good name" in the next post. You don't care about Birkeland's reputation. You're just using the whole argument as another way for you to stuff the term "liar" or some other "not civil" statement into you post. You are a complete and total hypocrite and you have no interest in honoring his good name. You called him a clueless Bozo! You're a trip dude.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No. This is a lie.

No, your pretense of honoring Birkeland's good name is a lie. You called him a Bozo without a clue. You aren't fooling anyone GM.

There is no subset of a Birkeland solar model which includes a rigid (read: waffling for solid) surface. There simply is not. There is nothing historically accurate about it.

*ANY* cathode solar model is a subset of a Birkeland solar model. PERIOD. Deal with it and quit being so blatantly hypocritical. You can't call him a bozo in one post and pretend to honor his work in the next. It only makes you look ridiculous.

 

[ben m]

It's called sputtering.

Michael, it's amazing how reliably you wander blindly into things I have direct research experience with. You think the solar wind is leaving the Sun because of sputtering? Seriously? What's the beam, and what's the target?

 

[ben m]

In the case of the SSM, the "math bunny" that they created relates to their "opacity' claim. If that one claim goes down in flames, so do major parts of the SSM.

Geez. Apparently "applying the laws of thermodynamics and optics to the Sun" is now a math bunny. "Inventing an never-before-observed and incalculable population-inverted state of neon" is Mozina-style 'empirical science'. Got it.

Why don't you review the mainstream evidence for the "opacity claim", Michael. Then you can debunk it point by point. Start with Milne, 1921. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1921MNRAS..81..361M

 

[dasmiller]

PS, astronomy today is strung together with metaphysical and physically impossible "math bunnies". When they can't quantify something with known laws of physics, they simply 'make up' whatever then need.

Oh, there's nothing simple about it. The introduction of dark matter, dark energy, and inflation involved (and still involves) huge amounts of effort by large numbers of extremely intelligent people, all working to find simple, testable models that are consistent with observations. Admittedly, "simple" is in the eye of the beholder.

Can't explain acceleration? Add "dark energy"! Can't explain faster than light expansion? Toss in a liberal helping of dead "inflation" genies.

And your superior approach would be to stare at PR pictures of acceleration and FTL expansion until you had an epiphany?

Need to simplify a solar model? Just claim that the outside "surface" is "opaque" to every single wavelength under the sun.

"Just claim?" They base it on detailed plasma models (well-validated in laboratory experiments), backed up by huge amounts of observational data. The fact that you have a different observational interpretation based on PR images does not, IMO, invalidate the observational work done by thousands of highly-trained professionals who have devoted their careers to this sort of thing.

That's how this industry works PS. They have such a strong need to quantify everything they see that they really don't care about empirical physics in terms of supporting what they're claiming. If it gets in the way of their quantification process, forget empirical physics!

Quantification is part of the description of the empirical physics. To suggest that they are separate fields of endeavor is . . . weird.

In the case of the SSM, the "math bunny" that they created relates to their "opacity' claim. If that one claim goes down in flames, so do major parts of the SSM.

So, to be clear - you believe that the photosphere is not opaque because you can see through it in RD images, and because there are features that last >8 minutes? Or is there other evidence?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The lurkers should understand that there is no such thing as a "Birkeland solar model".

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

Bull!

 

[Dancing David]

It's called sputtering.

http://www.ajaint.com/whatis.htm

Apparently you can't or won't read your own sources!

You still are stuck where you were in the past an 'electric sun' can not produce all three types of positive, neutral and negative particles.

A technique used to deposit thin films of a material onto a surface (a.k.a. "substrate"). By first creating a gaseous plasma and then accelerating the ions from this plasma into some source material (a.k.a. "target"), the source material is eroded by the arriving ions via energy transfer and is ejected in the form of neutral particles - either individual atoms, clusters of atoms or molecules. As these neutral particlesare ejected they will travel in a straight line unless they come into contact with something - other particles or a nearby surface. If a "substrate" such as a Si wafer is placed in the path of these ejected particles it will be coated by a thin film of the source material.

Epic is the fail.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

It's called sputtering.

Michael, it's amazing how reliably you wander blindly into things I have direct research experience with. You think the solar wind is leaving the Sun because of sputtering? Seriously? What's the beam, and what's the target?

I'm not MM, but from what he's posted recently, I'd guess that "the beam" is those ~1.8 x 10^41 electrons which hit the photosphere every second, at 700 million metres per second. They arrive ~normal to the photosphere's surface (see my posts above for a first pass set of estimates, based on MM's own words).

"the target" is a bit more tricky; however, I think it might be the ""rigid"" neon plasma which is what "the photosphere" is composed of (I'm not sure where I need to put double quote marks, wrt neon plasma, nor whether that term is the one MM has actually used).

 

[Dancing David]

In the sense I've "given him credit" for this solar model perhaps, but I personally have never limited his cathode solar model to a solid surface model. That's GM's strawman so he can keep calling me a "liar" in every post.

Stop calling the 'electric sun' model Birkeland's, you have never shown that at all.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Apparently you can't or won't read your own sources!

You still are stuck where you were in the past an 'electric sun' can not produce all three types of positive, neutral and negative particles.


Epic is the fail.

The only epic fail is you not bothering to ever read Birkeland's work. He even wrote whole papers about positive and negative particles in the solar wind.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Stop calling the 'electric sun' model Birkeland's, you have never shown that at all.

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

Do a little reading today DD. Did you see the term "cathode" in that article?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm not MM, but from what he's posted recently, I'd guess that "the beam" is those ~1.8 x 10^41 electrons which hit the photosphere every second, at 700 million metres per second. They arrive ~normal to the photosphere's surface (see my posts above for a first pass set of estimates, based on MM's own words).

"the target" is a bit more tricky; however, I think it might be the ""rigid"" neon plasma which is what "the photosphere" is composed of (I'm not sure where I need to put double quote marks, wrt neon plasma, nor whether that term is the one MM has actually used).

FYI, the primary target is the heliosphere.

 

[Dancing David]

Okay so in a newpaper article the author of the news paper article say Birkeland said that the stars have negatibe charges and that this created the planets. And that teh sources is 600,000,000 volts.

Okay fair enough, so what keeps repulsion from blowing apart the sun?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Okay so in a newpaper article the author of the news paper article say Birkeland said that the stars have negatibe charges and that this created the planets. And that teh sources is 600,000,000 volts.

Okay fair enough, so what keeps repulsion from blowing apart the sun?

Gravity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Out of curiosity, I wonder what charge the Sun will have accumulated, in the ""cathode solar model"" I presented in my last post.

Since it gives off both positive *and* negative particles, what makes you think it "accumulates" a charge?

 

[Cuddles]

He does not examine or consider the content of the experiments or observations is any way. He rejects them at once, for the sole & single reason that they do not support his own subjective preconception. That is neither science by any stretch, nor is it even particularly intelligent.

This is perhaps the saddest part of all. Michael is at least consistent in his rejection of maths. He knows he can't do it or understand it, and never pretends otherwise. No matter what point he is arguing, maths will always be dismissed as irrelevant. However, Michael has always made a big song and dance about empirical science. Hand in hand with his rejection of maths has always been the justification that the maths is rejected because it conflicts with observations and laboratory experiments.

Yet here we see that Michael actually has no interest in the empirical parts either. Any observations or experiments that disagree with his imagination are either dismissed out of hand or, more commonly, simply ignored entirely. The word "liar" has been thrown around a few times already in this thread, and it's hard to think of any other word to describe someone who constantly claims to only respect empirical science, but refuses to actually acknowledge any when it is presented to him.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is perhaps the saddest part of all. Michael is at least consistent in his rejection of maths.

No, just "maths" that don't have any empirical justification, like those dark energy maths and those inflation maths. They have no empirical basis whatsoever, and no empirical justification whatsoever.

He knows he can't do it or understand it, and never pretends otherwise.

It's not a matter of "understanding" or not "understanding", it's a matter of "belief" or lack thereof. I lack belief in "dark energy gnomes", so stuffing them into a math formula is pointless IMO.

No matter what point he is arguing, maths will always be dismissed as irrelevant.

Not true. I didn't claim that math related to ionization states and absorption was irrelevant. Some math is critical. Some math is simply 'made up'. At *least* 96% of the math used in astronomy today is "made up" and has no empirical support in any lab on Earth.

However, Michael has always made a big song and dance about empirical science.

Like "empirical physics" is every going to go out of style? Sorry, but I'm a big fan of empirical physics. It brought me this computer, my car, my TV, etc. It's those inflation genies that never show up in a lab that I don't buy into.

Yet here we see that Michael actually has no interest in the empirical parts either. Any observations or experiments that disagree with his imagination are either dismissed out of hand or, more commonly, simply ignored entirely. The word "liar" has been thrown around a few times already in this thread, and it's hard to think of any other word to describe someone who constantly claims to only respect empirical science, but refuses to actually acknowledge any when it is presented to him.

That wouldn't all sound so ironic if you weren't all trying to deny that Birkeland had a solar model. The denial routine seems to come exclusively from your side of the aisle.