Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[tusenfem]

It's called sputtering.

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

MMM strange, your link says that ions are accelerated to the coated plate and kick off neutrals! If the neutral hits something it can get ionized, and then the ion will be accelerated again to the plate (as it is a cathode). There is no way in the universe that you get a cathode to emit both positive and negative charges, that is basic electricity.

So, once more you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Michael Mozina]

For the record your incivility is noted.

I think I'll start repeating that exact same phrase right back at you every time you call me a liar, a fraud, a crackpot, and crank and include that laughing dog "crutch" of yours. How's that sound?

 

[Michael Mozina]

MMM strange, your link says that ions are accelerated to the coated plate and kick off neutrals! If the neutral hits something it can get ionized, and then the ion will be accelerated again to the plate (as it is a cathode). There is no way in the universe that you get a cathode to emit both positive and negative charges, that is basic electricity.

So, once more you have no idea what you are talking about.

Dude, it's you that don't have a clue what you're talking about. Birkeland wrote whole papers related to both positive and negative ions in the solar wind. Look it up!

 

[Michael Mozina]

I've never seen a set of goalposts moved so much. The amount of wear and tear on them is incredible.

What moving goalposts? You guys claim that the vast majority of the universe is made of "dark energy" and causes acceleration. That solar wind is accelerating to a million miles an hour or more. Is that caused by "dark energy" too? How do you know that's it's not also a form of "dark energy"?

 

[GeeMack]

Dude, it's you that don't have a clue what you're talking about. Birkeland wrote whole papers related to both positive and negative ions in the solar wind. Look it up!

Then Birkeland didn't know what a cathode was either. What an idiot he was don't you think?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Then Birkeland didn't know what a cathode was either. What an idiot he was don't you think?

No. Again, I believe that your own term applies to you, not to him.

 

[ben m]

Unfortunately for you (IMO anyway) all of those solar theories are based upon the concept that iron and hydrogen will stay mixed together.

What's wrong with that concept, Michael? This is not something we made up to match the solar model, it's something you expect from ****'s Law of Diffusion. Are you saying ****'s Law of Diffusion is wrong? Did you find an error in one of Sylvie Vauclair's papers? (ETA: the filter is editing out the name of Adolph ****, spelled Foxtrot India Charlie Kilo)

Again, "Michael Mozina tried and failed to form a mental picture of it" does not count as a problem with the concept.

I will add this to your list of explicit denunciations of basic physics. Your solar model presumes that there's an error in Newton's Laws, Coulomb's Law, the Saha equation, the 2nd Law of Thermodyanamics, and ****'s Law of Diffusion.

Even in that Hinode image I posted earlier, and that gband image I posted earlier, there's no visual justification for that 500Km arbitrary figure related to "opacity".

HINODE? What? The 500km figure is based on visible-wavelength data that's been available since the 19th century. The 500km opacity length gives you the observed visible spectrum at the limb. I've said it a million times, Michael: go outside and look up. See that yellow-white thing in the sky? It's emitting yellow-white light. That light is important and scientists have been studying it for a long, long time. See http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1921MNRAS..81..361M

That will only work if in fact all elements do stay mixed, and I see no visual evidence that is likely.

a) You don't see it if you don't look for it.
b) You're wrong to think this is important to you; a perfectly mass-separated pure-hydrogen atmosphere---remeber, hydrogen will "float" in this crazy scenario---is just as opaque to 171A light as the pure-neon atmosphere.

(Of course, given that you've invented pure-neon-unobtanium for your atmosphere, why do you care about the mixing? Go ahead and invent normal-mixed-solar-metallicity unobtanium, it makes exactly as much sense.)

I see evidence from the field of nuclear chemistry that your methods of determining composition are not accurate.

Add to the list of words Michael doesn't understand: "nuclear chemistry". Measuring an atomic emission/absorption line spectrum and determining the composition of the emitter---that's not nuclear chemistry, Michael.

 

[ben m]

Dude, it's you that don't have a clue what you're talking about. Birkeland wrote whole papers related to both positive and negative ions in the solar wind. Look it up!

Sputtering, Michael. Did Birkeland say that the solar wind was sputtered off the Sun's surface? Where did you pull sputtering out of?

I do think you simply don't know what sputtering is, but I'm not interested in trying to correct you. You know what I'm interested in? A DIAGRAM OF THE 3D GEOMETRY YOU THINK YOU CAN SEE AT THE SOLAR LIMB.

 

[GeeMack]

Add to the list of words Michael doesn't understand: "nuclear chemistry". Measuring an atomic emission/absorption line spectrum and determining the composition of the emitter---that's not nuclear chemistry, Michael.

The terms Michael uses, the definitions of which he clearly does not understand include, but are not limited to:

• photosphere
• chromosphere
• opaque
• limb darkening
• idiosyncratic
• empirical
• solar model
• blackbody
• rigid
• sputtering
• gravity
• cathode
• current flow
• nuclear chemistry

If Michael's arguments contain any of these words or phrases, because he has demonstrated that he doesn't have the qualifications to understand them, we can accept the arguments as meaningless gibberish.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

This one?...

That's his argument by misdirection. Here's how he typically applies it: Troll some knowledgeable people into doing a bunch of work he's clearly not qualified to do himself, only to spit on them in the end by adding a couple more impossible assumptions to the mix and expecting them to start over. I've seen him use this technique to take people on rides for pages and pages, then literally ignore all their responses and jump to another topic as if it never happened.

It's a rework of the old stand-by, argument by shifting the burden of proof, but with the addition of kicking people in the teeth after they've invested a lot of time and effort into trying to help him. Like a good con man he'll toss in an occasional insincere thank-you or coy apology, but unlike a good con man, Michael's use of this method to milk a failed argument is pretty transparent. It's a dishonest and manipulative way to work an argument, and one of his most often employed. It might be second only to his preferred method, argument by looks-like-a-bunny.

Yep, thanks.

Right now we seem to be doing a fast-forward through topic #2 ("a "cathode" solar model", double quotes optional) while desperately seeking to get onto topic #3 ("play around with "dark energy" in math formulas").

I rather like the way Mister Earl put it ("I've never seen a set of goalposts moved so much. The amount of wear and tear on them is incredible."), followed by a classic MM comment ("What moving goalposts? You guys claim that the vast majority of the universe is made of "dark energy" and causes acceleration. That solar wind is accelerating to a million miles an hour or more. Is that caused by "dark energy" too? How do you know that's it's not also a form of "dark energy"?").

As Zig put it "You are the first person I've ever interacted with who was actively math-phobic".

 

[tusenfem]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17007668/...ectric-Phenomena-in-Solar-Systems-and-Nebulae

FYI, this is a link to the part of Birkeland's book where he explains how his theories relate to solar physics. His book is *LOADED* with math by the way, not to mention loaded with lot's of empirical support based on laboratory testing. His methods were not "Oh look, lights in sky, "Dark energy did it!"".

Yeah, Mikey, we know this technique. Just because you (also) don't like dark energy and lambda-cmd etc. you just reject all of physics, even though all that you need was long developed before any of that stuff was thought about.

You only need Maxwell, Newton, maybe a wee bit of Alfvén, to work your electric sun model. That is all empirical work, but you won't go there, because if you really did go there, you would find that it all does not work. Just like you backed away further and further in the opacity discussion when you found you were falsified how ever you turned and twisted.

Your model of the iron Sun is dead, Mikey, forget about it, it is useless. Now maybe dark energy will also be shown to be rubbish, but that will not show your model right, when DE is wrong.

So put up your ante, Mikey, show us something significant. Don't hide behind Birkie, do the math, I have gone through it waaayyyy back in this thread. But you, you won't touch it, you only take a pic and say ohhhh prettyyyyyy, me likes pretty picsies.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sputtering, Michael. Did Birkeland say that the solar wind was sputtered off the Sun's surface? Where did you pull sputtering out of?

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/25/55/64/PDF/ajp-jp4199707C408.pdf

Ben, have you even been reading the links I have provided on Birkeland? That pdf will allow you to search for any word in the document. Type in "sputtering".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yeah, Mikey, we know this technique. Just because you (also) don't like dark energy and lambda-cmd etc. you just reject all of physics,

No. I only reject "pseudoscience" and "non physics", as in things that fail to show up in controlled experimentation.

Somewhere along the line, your industry forgot that an honest "I don't know" is better than simply "my magic dark math bunny did it". Somewhere along the way, it will have to work it's way back to 'empirical physics" and that will lead you right back to Birkeland and all his physical experiments with electricity and cathode solar models.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

I should be honest though and say I don't see how your model improves on current solar science. [...]

It explains solar wind acceleration and IMO it explains coronal loop activity a lot more elegantly than standard theory. It's a an 'empirical' sort of theory so it can all be "lab tested' and has in fact been "lab tested" to a great degree. The notion that we live inside of an electric universe might indeed "do away with" many of the enigma's of space that we now attribute to "dark" things. IMO that would also be a huge step forward in terms of empirical physics.

(bold added)

I'm not sure - haven't asked the questions, for one thing - but we may have to add "solar wind acceleration", "coronal loop activity", and "explains" (or "explains elegantly") to the list.

Straight question MM: in what sense does your model (in Humanzee's words) explain "solar wind acceleration" and "coronal loop activity"?

Please start with describing what you mean by "solar wind acceleration" and "coronal loop activity", preferably by citing some relevant papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals.

NOTE: I am not asking about "standard theory" (just your own model), nor am I asking about "elegantly" (whether "a lot more" or not).

 

[GeeMack]

No. I only reject "pseudoscience" and "non physics", as in things that fail to show up in controlled experimentation.

Somewhere along the line, your industry forgot that an honest "I don't know" is better than simply "my magic dark math bunny did it". Somewhere along the way, it will have to work it's way back to 'empirical physics" and that will lead you right back to Birkeland and all his physical experiments with electricity and cathode solar models.

And those atoms flying off the Sun that we empirically detect forming planets? Yes, Birkeland had it all figured out. Oh, and I can call him a moron and criticize your arguments as being dishonest when you blame him for the failure of your crackpot conjecture. No hypocrisy there. I don't think it's any more appropriate, or honest, for you to defame an imbecile than to defame a genius.

Now back to the topic... How's it coming along with that, how'd you put it, doing a little math to destroy mainstream solar theory, Michael?

Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math.

 

[tusenfem]

Dude, it's you that don't have a clue what you're talking about. Birkeland wrote whole papers related to both positive and negative ions in the solar wind. Look it up!

Mikey, baby, YOU were talking about sputtering when I asked how a cathode can emit both positive and negative charges.

Birkie looked at his terrella and saw "impact craters" and thought that is how Sun spots look like on the Sun. However, if the Sun were a cathode, it cannot EVER emit both positive and negative charges.

Then you come with the stupid notion of sputtering, with which I am well familiar near e.g. the Galilean satellites. And you may be happy to know that ions can also be sputtered off the surface. HOWEVER, if the surface is a cathode, then the positive ions will not escape but will be pulled back, so NO ESCAPE OF IONS POSSIBLE. Get it into your thick head, it is basic electricity.

Birkie has indeed talked about positive and negative corpuscules from the Sun, however, he would also have known that the positive corpuscules would not be able to escape if the Sun were a cathode.

You have no idea what your babbling about, with every page in this thread that becomes clearer and clearer.

Please give me the links of Birkelands published papers, i.e. in REAL journals and not in the New York Times, you seem to be familiar on where one can find them. (I think the important ones are in French.)

 

[Michael Mozina]

And those atoms flying off the Sun that we empirically detect forming planets? Yes, Birkeland had it all figured out. Oh, and I can call him a moron and criticize your arguments as being dishonest when you blame him for the failure of your crackpot conjecture.

What's that line? Oh ya:

"For the record your incivility is noted. "

 

[Michael Mozina]

Mikey, baby, YOU were talking about sputtering when I asked how a cathode can emit both positive and negative charges.

Birkie looked at his terrella and saw "impact craters" and thought that is how Sun spots look like on the Sun. However, if the Sun were a cathode, it cannot EVER emit both positive and negative charges.

I think you need to do some reading and take up French if necessary. He wrote all about this t, and how it all applied to his experiments, including the coating of materials from the surface of the sphere at a great distance from the sphere. If you never read any of his work, you'll keep stating the same false statements over and over again. He *VERIFIED* this stuff in a lab t, it's not "speculation".

 

[Reality Check]

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/25/55/64/PDF/ajp-jp4199707C408.pdf

Ben, have you even been reading the links I have provided on Birkeland? That pdf will allow you to search for any word in the document. Type in "sputtering".

Michael Mozina, are you aware that Birkeland was long dead by the time that paper was published?

You obviously cannot understand this paper as well as Birkeland's book as sputtering is only mentioned in regard to planets, e.g. to form Saturn's rings:

A constant electrzc radiatzon from the planet is accompanied by an ejection of tiny material particles he called electric evaporation, and these particles form the rings. The laboratory analogy to this evaporation is what today is called sputtering. Terrella-experiments simulating zodiacal light and rings of Saturn are shown in Fig. 5

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina, are you aware that Birkeland was long dead by the time that paper was published?

You obviously cannot understand this paper as well as Birkeland's book as sputtering is only mentioned in regard to planets, e.g. to form Saturn's rings:

RC, have you even bothered to sit down and read his book cover to cover yet? You could have done so a couple dozen times over by now. Yes? No? Parts? What?