Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

Where is your proof of any sort of your refrigeration and sheilding? You know that one that says you have a 'rigid' and volcanic surface of iron below a layer of 6,000° plasma?

And then how your electric sun can have a flow away from it of all three ion types?

Hmmmm? Ah.

Just as the standard model "predicts' that there is a 'layer" under the chromosphere that is "more opaque" and "cooler" than the chromosphere, this model predicts that same thing about the neon layer. It's just *a* layer in a multiple layer model and the heat is moving constantly away from the surface and is carried away from the surface by the "current flow" that moves out toward the heliosphere. The neon is not "opaque". It therefore isn't necessarily going to pass a whole lot of heat back at the surface.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So I guess you do not have the papers.
Please tell me where in "the book" Birkie says there is that much iron, I am willing to spend some time on Birkie but I am not going to search his tome to find where that is stated.
Once more MM tactics, don't help anyone, just "look in the book."

So I found "Archives de Sciences Physiques et Naturelles" from 1916 in pfd (T 41), where Birkie asks: "Les rayons corpusculaire du soleil qui penetrent dans l'athmosphere terrestre sont-ils negatifs ou positives?"

So I think I will take a look at that. TaDa

Enjoy your reading. I don't believe that you'll be claiming that Birkeland's solar theories predicted only one kind of particle coming from the sun after reading that paper.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Context is every thing Michael.
You have misconstrued my comment. Please re-read the relevant post.

Oh, I know what you meant Skwinty, I'm just having a little fun.

 

[Michael Mozina]

* your persistent ignoring of simple, straight-forward requests for explanations (e.g. "solar wind acceleration" and "coronal loop activity")

What? I already explained the relevant points and pointed you to the lab work that "predicted" these solar activities. The fact you folks *insist* on ignoring that work is exactly why you can't "explain" solar wind! You refuse to consider the *ONE* known cause of such activity.

The one thing none of you will accept and that you all insist on *NEVER* accepting is the electrical nature of this universe. As long as you continue to ignore all those important "predictions" of Birkeland's solar theory, and you ignore those solar observations, there isn't much more I can do to save you from your own self imposed ignorance. What do you want me to do exactly DRD, recreate Birkelend's experiments for you personally?

 

[Michael Mozina]

GR describes the interaction between spacetime and mass/energy. Among the things it describes are gravitationally bound systems. It also describes systems that are not gravitationally bound. An example of such a system is the observable Universe.

Sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo to me. If you can't get your "dark" stuff to accelerate a single atom in a lab, what makes you think it's the "cause" of any form of acceleration? You don't see the problem with claiming that this thing you created only happens 'somewhere out there" where humans can never get to?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The list is now so long it's not easy to spot the word you're after by merely skimming.

Maybe time to sort it alphabetically, GM?

While you're at it, add the term "civil" to that list. I have no clue how you folks define that term, particularly GM's definition of that term. It's a lot like his definition of "opacity". It seems to be his own personal definition, not something you'd actually find in a dictionary.

 

[Marcus]

FYI sol, I don't think that is fair. I provided you with Birkeland's numbers and that's the best I can do right now. That doesn't mean I've stopped trying.

Okay, so all he needs are the conditions necessary to create the Moplasma in a lab. You said you already know the composition, if there is an outrageous voltage running through it that would blow up a real sun, no problem, he can still use the numbers.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And this is exactly the irony we keep pointing out. You claim to be a fan of empirical physics, but you don't actually understand what those words mean.

Sure I do. It means they work in a lab. Birkeland didn't just "guess" that solar wind might be composed of high speed charged particles, he *EXPLAINED WHY* they were composed of high speed charged particles and *simulated* the process in a lab. To this day you folks cannot produce a full sphere acceleration of plasma from a sphere and you have no clue to explain something Birkeland "predicted" via empirical physics.

 

[nescafe]

Sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo to me.

Just like your solar model does to pretty much everyone else.

If you can't get your "dark" stuff to accelerate a single atom in a lab, what makes you think it's the "cause" of any form of acceleration?

Dark energy is just a label standing in for whatever is causing the rate at which the Universe is expanding to increase, Michael. Reading more into it than that is not called for right now. We know, based on numerous observations, that the Universe is expanding, and that its rate of expansion is increasing. Our models of the Universe must take that fact into account, and those models are best described in the framework of General Relativity.

You don't see the problem with claiming that this thing you created only happens 'somewhere out there" where humans can never get to?

Nope -- the vast majority of the Universe is "somewhere out there" where humans can never get to -- we can only infer what is happening from our observations and make sure that all those inferences are consistent with each other and with whatever tests we can perform. It kinda sucks when our models are not directly testable, but those are the breaks.

 

[dasmiller]

You'll notice ben that when I realized my mistake, I corrected it quickly, and explained why I made that mistake. I simply wasn't paying attention to the bound/unbound parts of your statements. You'll notice I wasn't worried about that "problem" however due to the ionization states of neon in the SERTS data.

But the SERTS data showed neon in the whole range of ionization states, not just the ones that you wanted. Using the SERTS data to show that solar Ne is all in high ionization states is like using using the Hindenberg to show that dirigibles are safe.

It wasn't even a critical issue in this solar model ben. It was a simple mistake and I acknowledged it once I got it.

The same is true of every part of this solar model ben.

(I won't say it)

 

[Michael Mozina]

Okay, so all he needs are the conditions necessary to create the Moplasma in a lab. You said you already know the composition, if there is an outrageous voltage running through it that would blow up a real sun, no problem, he can still use the numbers.

The problem is that I can set parameters of energy states of elements to match the energy range of the neon, but that is a bit like "cheating' as ben and sol have both commented on. It "works" to some degree, but it's not exactly something I can justify without knowing a lot more about the current flows involved and the various temperatures and densities of different plasma layers. The 94A absorption is useful information in this model because it makes sense that a neon atmosphere would absorb that wavelength. I'm just not sure exactly how to use that info to calculate temperatures just yet.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

* your persistent ignoring of simple, straight-forward requests for explanations (e.g. "solar wind acceleration" and "coronal loop activity")

What? I already explained the relevant points and pointed you to the lab work that "predicted" these solar activities.

I'm sorry MM, I can find no such posts (I searched this entire thread).

Can you point me to the key posts please?

The fact you folks *insist* on ignoring that work is exactly why you can't "explain" solar wind! You refuse to consider the *ONE* known cause of such activity.

Let's take it step by step, shall we?

Start with a clear, unambiguous definition of "solar wind acceleration" and "coronal loop activity".

With that in hand, we can go to the next step.

The one thing none of you will accept and that you all insist on *NEVER* accepting is the electrical nature of this universe. As long as you continue to ignore all those important "predictions" of Birkeland's solar theory, and you ignore those solar observations, there isn't much more I can do to save you from your own self imposed ignorance. What do you want me to do exactly DRD, recreate Birkelend's experiments for you personally?

Well, as you'll see in my next post, you will be delighted to know that the SDO will provide you with all the data you could ever want, regarding the electrical nature of the Sun, and, specifically, estimates of the currents flowing through the corona, chromosphere, and upper part of the photosphere (of course, you'll have to translate all this into the idiosyncratic terms; as a kindness to your readers, please provide a detailed translation when you do).

 

[Michael Mozina]

But the SERTS data showed neon in the whole range of ionization states, not just the ones that you wanted. Using the SERTS data to show that solar Ne is all in high ionization states is like using using the Hindenberg to show that dirigibles are safe.

Actually, the peak was *way* above the Ne+4 energy state. By the time we get to the +2 energy state there's almost no neon emissions. The silicon tends to work much the same way by the way. I'd love to see an NE+3 or +4 image of the sun. I suspect it would look exactly as I predicted, and not as you predict. In other words I would predict that the entire surface of the photosphere is "lit up" in those wavelengths, whereas your theory would suggest that the activity was limited to the coronal loops. One visual test would falsify one of our models.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Dark energy is just a label standing in for whatever is causing the rate at which the Universe is expanding to increase, Michael. Reading more into it than that is not called for right now.

?????

You evidently read a *LOT* more into it when you claim that 70+ of the universe is made of the stuff, and it has no effect on gravitationally bound systems. You've made a whole *HOST* of assumptions about this "dark energy" you invented out of thin air. For instance, how do you know it does cause "solar wind acceleration" too?

 

[sol invictus]

FYI sol, I don't think that is fair. I provided you with Birkeland's numbers and that's the best I can do right now.

No you didn't. You linked to a NYT abstract of an article about a talk Birkeland gave. It didn't contain any of those numbers (actually I'm not sure it contained any numbers at all).

 

[Michael Mozina]

No you didn't. You linked to a NYT abstract of an article about a talk Birkeland gave. It didn't contain any of those numbers (actually I'm not sure it contained any numbers at all).

How about specifying which numbers you still need from me that you couldn't get from that article I cited?

 

[nescafe]

?????

You evidently read a *LOT* more into it when you claim that 70+ of the universe is made of the stuff, and it has no effect on gravitationally bound systems. You've made a whole *HOST* of assumptions about this "dark energy" you invented out of thin air. For instance, how do you know it does cause "solar wind acceleration" too?

You have me confused with your own strawmen. I carefully avoided making any claims about what dark energy is beyond a placeholder for whatever is accelerating the expansion of the Universe and I flat out stated that dark energy has nothing to do with solar wind acceleration. Your assumptions otherwise are not justified by everything else in this thread so far.

 

[ben m]

You'll notice ben that when I realized my mistake, I corrected it quickly, and explained why I made that mistake. I simply wasn't paying attention to the bound/unbound parts of your statements.

a) Yep. In this case you *realized* your mistake. In many other cases, you have merely *not yet* realized your mistakes.

b) "I wasn't paying attention to the bound/unbound parts of your statements". That was actually very telling, Michael. You read part of a post trying to explain physics to you. It was physics you didn't actually know, although it's basic sophomore-level atomic physics. You COULD HAVE said---and a real scientist would have said, "Huh, it sounds like this commenter has some independent knowledge of atomic physics; I realize that I lack that knowledge, I should hit the books before I put my foot in my mouth." Instead you said, "I will read this post all by itself, try to interpret what it says, and decide whether I disagree with it." And that absurdly-inadequate snippet of attempted self-education gave you the confidence to tell everybody that they were wrong.

That's the problem, Michael. Your half-baked denial of photoionization, while it lasted, was a mistake arising from your own crappy physics background, your careless and self-serving half-reading of attempts to explain things to you, and your unfailing assumption that everyone else is wrong. It was a microcosm of your entire contrarian career.

 

[ben m]

How about specifying which numbers you still need from me that you couldn't get from that article I cited?

Michael: anything. Please cite any conditions whatsoever that you think are Mozplasma-generating conditions. They don't have to be "the exact conditions you think are on the Sun".

Remember, Michael, Sol's (and everyone's) view is that Mozplasma is utterly impossible. That it fundamentally violates the laws of thermodynamics---that there is no possible current, voltage, density, and composition that will magically suppress low-ionization states without heating the plasma to a hundred thousand degrees. If we are wrong, you can prove us wrong by providing a counterexample. Provide the counterexample, please.

But you're telling us you can't come up with a counterexample? In that case you have no grounds for thinking we're wrong.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

In preparation for a post in which I will show MM - and all other readers - how and why SDO will allow MM (and anyone else) to test his ""cathode" solar model", quantitatively, here is a selection of MM posts of direct relevance (bold is added, in all cases)

- - - - - - - - - - start of selection - - - - - - - - -

It "works" to some degree, but it's not exactly something I can justify without knowing a lot more about the current flows involved (source)

That would be "physics" in general, starting with the fact that iron and hydrogen will not stay "mixed" in an electromagnetic environment. I've showed you the mass flows up and through the surface of the photosphere in Hinode images galore. I've shown your tons of images that disprove the "opacity' argument and you refuse to even consider them. I'm sorry you feel as you do, but I assure you that physics (of mass movement) is on my side. We live inside of an electric universe PS. (source)

Various amounts of mass flows from the surface (wherever that might be) to the heliosphere could in fact change the various sizes of the plasma layers depending on the current flow going on at that time. I would in fact expect them to be a bit different during active vs. quiet times. (source)

You'll also notice the distinct twisting effect of a "Birkeland current" in that large twister coming off the limb. That twisted shape is a direct result of the "current flow" through that plasma. (source)

The various ionization states are simply related to the current flow inside the loops. (source)

No, I *KNOW* that it's wrong because you and those authors never bothered to include any "current flow" in your model. (source)

You guys/gals "hate" the whole EU concept with such a passion, it really doesn't matter what I propose as long as it includes "current flow". You'll never consider it. (source)

Well, I am technically only trying to use that image to verify Kosovichev's data. The fact it fits so perfectly, right down to the best margin of errors I could extract from each method sure bolsters my confidence in those numbers. I need to see the RD images and FITS files to really tell anything else about the images in question. The best I could hope to do is utilize that image to verify that 4800-6000km figure that Kosovichev's data suggested. At that 4800km point, the mass flows all go from vertical to horizontal, indicating the point at which the mass flows are related to "current flow' through the shell rather than related to the ion mass flow of the "tornado" under the sunspot. It just cannot be a "coincidence" that these numbers work out to within 24KM at the low end, and 40-60Km at the high end. Somehow those numbers must be related. It think I even know how they are physically related, specifically by the dark opaque surface we see all along the limb of the public release composite image at point A. (source)

You *HATE* EU theory with a passion, but the only way to fix *any* plasma solar theory is going to require that you add electrical current to your theory. Wow. That's going to be quite the ego fry for you. (source)

I really doubt the SSM will survive SDO. It's just too full of those physics and math goodies you folks love to analyze to miss all the clues. Sooner or later you'll wake up from what will eventually be known as the "dark ages" of astronomy. It will change as soon as your industry lets go of it's fear of electricity. (source)

Sooner or later you will have to turn to Birkeland's work to explain the SDO images and data sets. I'm not even personally emotionally attached to a "rigid" or a "solid" solar model, just a "cathode" solar model. (source)

Like Skwinty mentioned, I'm simply trying to get these folks to look outside their box, but alas it's a like tilting at windmills at this point. I'm very hopeful that SDO will change all that, but we'll see. (source)

- - - - - - - - - - end of selection - - - - - - - - -

It's important that you all set your expectations realistically.

As we have learned, most, if not all, the key terms in MM's posts have meanings which differ - sometimes radically - from their usual, textbook physics, meanings ... at least, what MM writes makes no sense at all unless he intends the key words to have different meanings.

In my next post I'll outline how data from SDO will be able to do almost everything MM wants (per the above selections) ... but only if key words have their standard meanings.

And what key words might they be?

Here are some of the most important: "current flow(s)", "mass flow(s)", ""Birkeland current"", "ion mass flow", and "model".