Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

I take it you're finished actually trying to support your crackpot conjecture

I'll bet that you average more than 1 "crackpot" comment a post. Please define the term "civil" for me as you define it because your definition of that term isn't from this planet.

 

[GeeMack]

I didn't "invent" anything. The mass flow patterns tell the story Ben. There are coronal loops coming up and through and back into that "layer" ben. The center of the sunspot also contained a filament that went spiraling down into your presumably "opaque" layer. The bottoms of the penumbral filaments are visible even in Gband images to a greater depth than 500Km!

According to your own standards?...

Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that [claim] out of your ^ss.

 

[GeeMack]

I'll bet that you average more than 1 "crackpot" comment a post. Please define the term "civil" for me as you define it because your definition of that term isn't from this planet.

All that complaining when you have so much work to do?

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.

​

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I didn't "invent" anything. The mass flow patterns tell the story Ben. There are coronal loops coming up and through and back into that "layer" ben. The center of the sunspot also contained a filament that went spiraling down into your presumably "opaque" layer. The bottoms of the penumbral filaments are visible even in Gband images to a greater depth than 500Km!

(bold added)

Now since there is an abundance of observational data on mass flows - they're called dopplergrams - you have, of course, the data to hand to corroborate your "from visual inspection" conclusions, right?

Hmm, maybe not (no mention of dopplergrams on your website ... I wonder why?)

 

[Ziggurat]

How do you know?

Because I've got a clue. You, quite obviously, do not.

You made that up!

No, I did not. That you don't understand it doesn't mean I invented it.

You can't figure out that acceleration of the solar wind. How do you know they aren't related? What is "dark energy" other than "acceleration" that you can't otherwise explain?

Start a thread on dark energy and someone might clue you in.

No, I bring it up because I think they are directly related issues.

No you don't. You don't think dark energy even exists. And the evidence for it indicate that it's irrelevant tot he sun anyways.

You claim 70% of the universe is made of something that causes acceleration.

I did nothing of the sort. Somebody else did.

I see an observation of acceleration you can't explain. How do you know that they are not related processes?

General relativity. Gravity is not selective about the mass it operates on. Whatever is driving the solar winds clearly is. Duh.

Now, care to try to defend (or even explain) your model? Or will you just admit you've been talking out your rear from the beginning.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, silly me!

Here was I thinking we were focussed on the photosphere, the chromosphere, the corona, the transition region, and how the mainstream solar models do not incorporate "current flows"; how bad my reading comprehension is ...

You folks always put the magnetic cart before the electric horse. Instead of "electrical current" doing the work, you "pretend" it's the magnetic field that does that. If you actually took the time to *EMPIRICALLY TEST* your theories in a lab, you would figure out your problems in a hurry. Since you'd rather write endless papers on a topic that Alfven called "pseudoscience", I guess that's never going to happen.

Oh, and BTW, why would anyone want to reproduce Birkeland's lab results? Surely the empirical test is to account for the observed features of the solar wind;

I'd settle for seeing you even demonstrate that you *CAN* create full sphere "solar wind" from a sphere and a corona around a sphere using your "magnetic reconnection" theory. Got one? You guys *SUCK* at trying out your ideas in the lab. Birkeland kicked your collective butts on that front.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Well, good, all this intentional misdirection and willful ignorance of the solid surface fantasy leads me to believe Michael has, after all these years, finally come to realize just how foolish that argument is and has abandoned it.

You can admit it, Michael. The Sun does not have a solid iron surface. See? It's easy.

Actually, in this case, what he's walked away from is his ""cathode" solar model", which he is on record as saying is far more important than any "Sun has a solid rigid iron surface" idea.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because I've got a clue. You, quite obviously, do not.

Your "clue" is a a "proclamation" that you cannot empirically support. It is a pure statement of faith on your part. It's like me claiming magic faeries have the same property.

 

[Perpetual Student]

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually, in this case, what he's walked away from is his ""cathode" solar model", which he is on record as saying is far more important than any "Sun has a solid rigid iron surface" idea.

How have I walked away from it? I've been pointing out it's benefits in term of explaining that corona you can't explain and explaining that solar wind you can't explain and how it works in a lab to explain these actual physical processes unlike your "magnetic reconnection" nonsense.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your "clue" is a a "proclamation" that you cannot empirically support. It is a pure statement of faith on your part. It's like me claiming magic faeries have the same property.

Nope. I gave you the empirical evidence in that post. Gravity is not selective about the mass it operates on.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope. I gave you the empirical evidence in that post. Gravity is not selective about the mass it operates on.

You did *NOT* give me anything empirical to work with. You gave me a "proclamation" devoid of empirical support. Show me an example in the lab where "dark energy' does what you claim.

 

[ben m]

I didn't "invent" anything. The mass flow patterns tell the story Ben. There are coronal loops coming up and through and back into that "layer" ben. The center of the sunspot also contained a filament that went spiraling down into your presumably "opaque" layer. The bottoms of the penumbral filaments are visible even in Gband images to a greater depth than 500Km!

Nope, never saw it. It's all above the photosphere. When you say "through" you mean "these two features sort of line up in 2D and I GUESS it means this one is below that one"

When you say "bottom" you mean "the edge of the feature farthest to the right in the 2D image" or something, and you GUESS that you know what the vertical structure is.

Your inability to

draw diagrams

doesn't help, of course.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here's the deal zig. You can't explain "acceleration", so you made up a term "dark energy". I've found another example of acceleration that you can't explain. If it is just a placeholder term for human ignorance of the real cause of "acceleration", then that solar wind is a perfect example of "dark energy" driving "acceleration".

 

[GeeMack]

Now, care to try to defend (or even explain) your model? Or will you just admit you've been talking out your rear from the beginning.

One of the most interesting things about this particular crackpot conjecture is that Michael has not done a single thing since 2006 to try to improve the scientific validity of his claim. Not a single thing. A legitimate scientist with a "theory" which is destined to destroy mainstream solar physics would have at least taken a math or physics course at the community college. He would have at least learned what a running difference image actually is, how and why it is made, and where the data comes from that is used to create it. A legitimate scientist would have added material to his list of reference sources and done some of his own homework and empirical experimentation. Michael is still at the beginning.

There is not a single thing in Michael's repertoire that he wasn't already using back in 2006. A handful of solar images are newer, but his claim of obtaining secret knowledge by staring at them for a long, long time is the same old shtick. He hasn't made any effort whatsoever to flesh out his conjecture. As revolutionary as he thinks this crackpot conjecture is, other than typing the same words over and over on various Internet fora, he hasn't lifted a finger to get himself any closer to supporting it. He still wants everyone else to do his work, and he promptly ignores the results when they do. His argument today sucks exactly as badly as it did in 2005 because it is exactly the same hollow, failed argument.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You folks always put the magnetic cart before the electric horse. Instead of "electrical current" doing the work, you "pretend" it's the magnetic field that does that.

Um, dude, I don't know how to break this to you, ...

The magnetic fields are what you can observe, from our perch 150 million km or so away.

There is no way to observe electric fields or currents from afar (unless, of course, you know something that Alfvén did not know, much less Birkeland).

And in any case, as a keen student of Alfvén, (and Maxwell) you know that E and j can be derived from B and v (don't you?)

Besides, any scientist who bases their work on empirical observations should approach understanding of the Sun starting with the observations - such as dopplergrams and magnetograms (a term which is also entirely absent from your website, funny that), not one's pet ""cathode" solar model".

If you actually took the time to *EMPIRICALLY TEST* your theories in a lab, you would figure out your problems in a hurry. Since you'd rather write endless papers on a topic that Alfven called "pseudoscience", I guess that's never going to happen.

Oh? And what did Alfvén write endless papers on?

That's right, MHD!

And what's in all Alfvén's endless papers? Why pages and pages of upside-down-triangly thingies, drunken letter d's, and the whole math bunny kit and caboodle.

I'd settle for seeing you even demonstrate that you *CAN* create full sphere "solar wind" from a sphere and a corona around a sphere using your "magnetic reconnection" theory. Got one? You guys *SUCK* at trying out your ideas in the lab. Birkeland kicked your collective butts on that front.

Hmm, last time I read Birkie's books he didn't have a lab that's ~1 million km on each side, inside which was a mass of ~2x10^30 kg of predominantly hydrogen and helium, ... can you remind me, please, where that lab was located?

 

[Michael Mozina]

One of the most interesting things about this particular crackpot conjecture

One of the most interesting things is the fact you think you are entitled to civil discourse when in fact you are the least civil individual on the internet. Your hypocrisy quotient is off scale.

 

[D'rok]

Lurker request to MM:

Please work with Ben on diagramming the geometry of your claims about the sun.

Lurkers, who's with me?!

 

[GeeMack]

One of the most interesting things is the fact you think you are entitled to civil discourse when in fact you are the least civil individual on the internet. Your hypocrisy quotient is off scale.

You're wasting all that time complaining when you have so much work to do?...

I think before I spend money on a lawyer, I'll spend some time creating a few RD movies for you first and stuff your arrogant attitude right down your throat. We'll then compare them to what NASA has in their daily archives and see what you come up with for the same time period. Like I said, I have a day job, and you aren't my first priority in life, even with that smug arrogant attitude.

We haven't compared the running difference images and analyzed them pixel by pixel yet. I guess when there's complaining to do, that will have to wait, eh?

​

 

[DeiRenDopa]

How have I walked away from it? I've been pointing out it's benefits in term of explaining that corona you can't explain and explaining that solar wind you can't explain and how it works in a lab to explain these actual physical processes unlike your "magnetic reconnection" nonsense.

For today's prize, who wrote the following:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It [the Moplasma which the photosphere is composed of] "works" to some degree, but it's not exactly something I can justify without knowing a lot more about the current flows involved

The various ionization states are simply related to the current flow inside the loops

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

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

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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

And who, many pages later, wrote this: "The only thing I want to see you do is recreate either Birkeland's corona or that solar wind using "magnetic reconnection"."

No mention of "current flows", "mass flows", "photosphere", "Kosovichev's data", "ionization states", 17.1 nm iron lines, HeII, "sunspots", ....

Are we playing squash now?