And your answer is trivially wrong bearing in mind the hundreds of papers published each year on electromagnetism in astrophysical scenarios.
Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...
- Thread starter brantc
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fusion solar power
- Status
And your answer is trivially wrong bearing in mind the hundreds of papers published each year on electromagnetism in astrophysical scenarios.
Define "stuffed" and explain why you believe it to be appropriate here.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
The basic problem here DRD is that your entire industry has a morbid, professional fear of even *THINKING* about publishing anything related to "electric universe/plasma cosmology" theory. It's your deepest darkest most hated subject under the sun. You folks fear that topic like a theist fears "satan". It's your Waterloo and you avoid it at all costs. Nobody talks about it because if they get out of line they get treated as I have been treated in this thread only their livelihood and their families pay the price.
I can take it because you can't touch me or hurt me financially. The insiders can't take it with hardcore types like you "policing" the industry. It's not safe.
Last edited:
Nobody talks about it in scientific circles because it isn't. That is it. There is no grand conspiracy No threat to livelihood or families. Nothing. If you think otherwise, please take your conspiracy theory to the appropriate thread.
You're on the wrong forum Michael. Please take your conspiracy theories and baseless allegations to the right thread.
In which .... Michael rolls a bowling ball down the middle of the tennis court. The ball rips down the net and comes to a stop in a tangle of fabric. Michael claims an 'ace' because the ball is in your court.
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
(bold added)
Yep, we can add "theory" to the list.
An odd thing for you to say MM, given the objective, independently verifiable reality (e.g. tusenfem's hundreds of posts on this topic, in many fora; his dozens of published papers; the thousands of published astrophysics papers based on plasma physics - e.g. "Magnetic fields in galaxies: I. Radio disks in local late-type galaxies" (Shabala et al. (2010)), etc, etc, etc).
But, perhaps more pertinent to the topic of this thread, what say you about my quantification of your "cathode solar model" (or is it ""cathode" solar model"?)? I mean, I know you're busy and all, with trying so hard to shift the focus of this thread away from opacity, thermodynamics, image artifacts, and so on, but when someone goes and puts some math flesh on the word bones of your core (well, for today anyway) concept, don't you think readers will find it a little, um, strange that you say nothing about it at all?
And I forgot "model" too.
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
Michael, I've raised a number of objections to your model and I'm not part of the astrophysics industry. I haven't published a paper on anything, and I don't claim to understand plasma physics or much of the SSM. But I understand some basic physics, and you've made a bunch of claims here that violate basic physics. From what I've seen of the SSM, it doesn't violate any basic physics. Your strawman version of the SSM may violate your strawman version of basic physics, but IMO that hardly constitutes a challenge to the SSM.
So you may tell yourself that some of the people on this thread are objecting to your model because they're afraid that they'd be blackballed, but that can't apply to me.
P.S. How many physicists do you actually know? I've known a few, and they'd find the notion that they're afraid of EU as being somewhere between insulting and really funny.
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
For lurkers, the abstract of the Shabala et al. (2010) paper:
Clearly, Shabala et al. did not get MM's memo.
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
Yeah; "solar model" is already there, but I think the more general "model" belongs on it as well.
BTW, "cathode" is already there
Oops2. I should probably read more and skim read less.
Jeez, Michael. That wasn't the Sun, that was a terrella---with an exposed iron surface---and with a big fat visible particle beam (powered by an external battery) aimed at it. Yes, a particle beam hitting an iron surface will sputter it.
The Sun's supposed iron surface, according to you, is hidden under 3,000 km of dense plasma. If there's a particle beam aimed at the Sun (I'm sure you will say there is) then the beam is not hitting the iron, it's hitting the dense wall of neon on top of it.
Are you claiming that some external particle beam gets through the neon to strike the iron? I sure hope not. Or are you claiming that "a particle beam hitting a neon plasma" is the same thing as sputtering? I sure hope not. Or maybe it's an internal beam inside the neon, and it hits the iron and sputters it, and the sputtered ions somehow burst through the 3000km blanket to become solar wind ions? Good heavens I hope not.
Seriously, Michael, you don't need to make up this nonsense. Say "the electric universe particle beams are hitting the neon Mozplasma and scattering its atoms, and the scattered atoms are the solar wind." That's equally nonsensical physically, but at least the words mean what they are supposed to.
Who cares? He was wrong. Like lots of 19th-century scientists were about lots of things. Like the 1920s encyclopedia I have where they say the Sun must be a giant ball of radium. Like hundreds of mainstream publications about the luminiferous ether. Like the plum-pudding model of the atom. Like anything Harlowe Shapley wrote about the distances to "nebulae". Go dig up a 19th-century copy of Nature; you'll find that most of it is stuff we would now call wrong.
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
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
- theory
- model
Darn right---because it's all wrong. Nobody wants to publish a pile of incorrect, already-falsified crap. It would indeed be a career-killer to stand up in front of your exam committee, a conference audience, or (gasp!) a tenure committee and tell them, "I don't actually know thermodynamics, E&M, or gravity, so I wrote down a crap hypothesis that ignores them all." Yep, academia doesn't look favorably on crappy pseudoscience.
Um. Yes, standing in front of my peers and spouting complete nonsense would indeed scare the heck out of me---but why would I want to do that? Why would I stand up and make a bunch of wrong statements that anyone with half a BA can tell are wrong? I indeed avoid such statements whenever possible. This steers me away from Bigfoot, EU, 9/11 conspiracies, and creationism.
So the fact that I don't believe things that I think are wrong make me a co-conspirator? Heck, what am I supposed to do with things I think are wrong? You tell me. Do you want scientists to believe wrong things? Which wrong things should I start with---Bigfoot, electric universe, Steorn, Martian canal civilizations, or 9/11 conspiracies? You tell me---as far as I can tell they're all wrong, there's not a fig to choose between them.
Marcus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 3,857
You're using your own definition of the word "model" , one that may be fine for some purposes, but has little to do with a scientific model. This explains why you think you have a solar model even though you have none of the necessary components, the composition of the Moplasma, for example.
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
This thread is currently spinning around and around with no end in sight and without any further purpose. Thanks to many knowledgeable contributors (who I would personally like to thank), it has been very informative from time to time. But Mozina's lack of education, disdain for the methods and standards of science, and his inability to learn are now making it repetitive and tedious. Mozina is a hopeless cause, condemned to a life of ignorance and self delusion. Sadly, many good people here are wasting their time.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
What does the outdated physics in a 100 year old book have to to with the Sun
Michael Mozina, 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?
But yet another question arises:
First asked 13 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
What does the outdated physics in a 100 year old book have to to with our modern knowledge of the Sun?
Should we use even older solar physics text books as a modern text books, e.g. the models of the Sun as a ball of radium?
I have read basically all of the second volume.
Michael Mozina, 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?
But yet another question arises:
First asked 13 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
What does the outdated physics in a 100 year old book have to to with our modern knowledge of the Sun?
Should we use even older solar physics text books as a modern text books, e.g. the models of the Sun as a ball of radium?
- Status