Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
DeiRenDopa said:
Now in all ""electric universe" concepts" that I have seen, out there on the world-wide internet, the Sun is powered by a "current flow", so in this first "Birkeland solar model", the current must produce ~3.8 x 10^26 W, which is the observed power (energy per second) of the Sun.
Click to expand...

Woah. What makes you think all the energy comes from "current flow" (in terms of all the heat from the sun)?
 
Hellbound said:
Please actually post an answer, not a link.

Frankly, I don't trust you or your links. At the least, give a summary along with the link. As I stated, I'm not going to go through tons of crap to find yoiur answers for you.
Click to expand...

Gah! Those are "my answers" from published papers! If you don't want to take time to read them fine, but don't complain that I didn't answer your question.
 
Hellbound said:
No, sorry, that doesn't get it.

FIrs,t I'm not going to attempt to wade through a 924 page PDF file to find support for YOUR hypothesis.
Click to expand...

From his perspective, it probably sounds like you're asking him to name the line in "Hamlet" that makes it a tragedy. "I don't know which line," he'd say, "but I read the whole thing and it's obviously a tragedy. You want an exact line, read it yourself."

The problem is, Hellbound, that MM doesn't know what supports his hypothesis. He read (or skimmed) various things Birkeland wrote and the gestalt gives him the impression that Birkeland knew it all. He can't tell you which page answers Important Question X About This Model---because MM wasn't thinking about answering questions while reading it. He wasn't reading it to learn details. He just sort of browsed through and basked in the light of 924 pages of smart-sounding stuff.

So what else can he say? "Read Birkeland yourself and you'll see the gestalt that it's a tragedy it's smart-sounding stuff."

Similarly, that's probably why he can't draw a diagram of any of his 3D claims about the Sun. He isn't looking at particular features and thinking, "OK, if the loop exits the photosphere at this point, then it's below it on the left and above it on the right." He's just looking at it and basking in a gestalt of 3-D-ness. Asking for details is missing the point---"look at it yourself".
 
Michael Mozina said:
Woah. What makes you think all the energy comes from "current flow" (in terms of all the heat from the sun)?
Click to expand...
Who said this "It [the "Birkeland solar model"] wasn't limited to a "solid surface" concept, it was related to an "electric universe" concept"?

Now according to a large number of JREF members (mgmirkin, solrey, sol88, Anaconda, Zeuzzz, ...), Don Scott is the most reliable, most comprehensive, most up-to-date definitive source when it comes to "electric universe concepts" (though Wal Thornhill comes a close second).

This is a conclusion backed up by google searches - google "electric universe" (and exclude the music) and you'll find a great many websites confirming the above (and none, that I could find, to the contrary).

Now Don Scott has written a book on this topic, in which he makes perfectly clear that it is external current flows which power the Sun (and indeed all stars); he and Thornhill even had a paper published (by IEEE) on this.

But, as we have seen so many times already, perhaps what you, MM, mean by ""electric universe" concept" is something totally different?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Gah! Those are "my answers" from published papers! If you don't want to take time to read them fine, but don't complain that I didn't answer your question.
Click to expand...

I want YOUR answer, MM, not a link to some other answer.

Because frankly, even if those are papers with your name on them, I don't htink you even understand your OWN theory anough to give the answers.

You've shown no evidence so far, in years of postings and hundreds and hundreds of pages, of being able to put forth ANY rational, quantifiable argument at all for your "model".

I want to see you actually show you have SOME clue of what you're talking about.

So far, what I've seen is you finding a lot of "neat new words" and using them inappropriately because you think they sound "cool", just like my 8 year old does.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Where did you get that idea?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633
Click to expand...
But that can't possibly be a "Birkeland solar model" now can it MM?

I mean, nuclei, gamma rays from solar flares, and so on weren't invented then, were they?

And anyway, as this document makes perfectly clear, the source of the energy that powers the Sun comes from (external) electric currents!
Unlike the SSM, this model isn't limited to a single energy source.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379
Click to expand...

Nor can it, then, possibly be an ""electric universe" concept", can it?

In fact, as Don Scott et al. make perfectly clear, neutron stars cannot exist in any ""electric universe" concept" (not to mention that no "Birkeland solar model" mentions neutron stars ...)
 
Michael Mozina said:
I think the whole character assassination thing you guys do is dishonest as all hell! We're even.



Huhh? PS, I do have a life outside this board and some topics are just not worth dragging out forever and ever and ever. If I "bailed" on any topic it was out of sheer boredom not because I felt I was losing any ground. Any opinion you have to the contrary is simply your own misinformed opinion. If and when you get "dark energy" do anything to anything in a real empirical experiment, wake me up and let me know. Until then it's pure speculation that any thing like it actually exists in nature. We could go round and round forever on that topic because the one thing that would end the discussion instantly is something you simply cannot do, namely get "dark energy" to show up in a lab. It's another of those 'religious math bunny thingies" with you guys. If one "lacks faith" in the idea, you have zip in the way of empirical support. Round and round and round we go pointing at the sky and claiming "evil dark energy did it".
Click to expand...

Here is the problem MM: You are totally unqualified to even have any opinion about dark energy. A layman might choose between alternative theories in an area of leading edge physics (e.g.: because he finds one more intuitive than another or because he has confidence in a particular physicist), but he cannot have is own unsubstantiated theory, if he does not understand the fundamentals of physics, which you have amply demonstrated is your situation. The hubris you manifest by proclaiming you have a theory or even and opinion about dark energy invites the comments you say are "character assassination."
The fact that you do not remember our prior discussion, from which you unceremoniously bailed-out, is a further demonstration of the little regard you have for others, especially those who are knowledgeable in the areas you attempt to feign knowledge.
And, by the way, phrases like "evil dark energy did it" are only a further demonstration of your immaturity and deep intellectual deficit.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Huhh? PS, I do have a life outside this board and some topics are just not worth dragging out forever and ever and ever. If I "bailed" on any topic it was out of sheer boredom not because I felt I was losing any ground.
Click to expand...


And yet for the last five years you've been spreading your crackpot arguments, arguments from ignorance, lies, fraudulent "evidence", and misunderstandings all over the Internet without so much as one new joke in the routine. Seems like as long as you can keep some people on the hook doing your work for you, only to crap on them later when they actually determine that your nutty conjecture can't possibly work, you're happy to plod on. Are you suggesting your boredom comes when everyone stops nipping at your troll bait and just gets down to the business of reminding you how horribly, laughably, ridiculously wrong your arguments are? :rolleyes:
 
Can you cite the empircal physics that show the Sun is a cathode

Michael Mozina said:
Hoy! You're on the wrong side of empirical physics PS.
Click to expand...
Let us see what side of empirical physics you are on Michael Mozina.

You have a religious failth in Birkeland's Tessella experiments where he models solar activities with the electrical discharges from brass ball cathodes. This faith is so large that you ignore the imperial evidence that the Sun is not a brass ball and cannot contain a brass ball. You then go against the dogma of your faith by coming up with your iron crust fantasy*. But in that fantasy the Sun is still a cathode, i.e. absorbs electrons as in the Tessella experiments.

So you will have plenty of empircal observations of all of the electrons flowing into the Sun since this is also something astronomers are interested in.

First asked 14 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
Can you cite the empircal physics that show the Sun is a cathode with the influx of electrons as predicted by your theory?

You will have a small problem with this - the empircal physics shows that the Sun is a source of electrons.
Tom Bridgman's The Electric Sky: Short-Circuited has the empircal physics results of the Ulysses mission which actually measured the solar wind (which contains electrons) from the Sun. The flow is outward :jaw-dropp!
But all is not lost MM: the Ulysses mission did not measure the solar wind over the poles. So you can make your magical electric universe current even more magical and only flow into the Sun at the poles :eye-poppi.

However you still do not have any empircal physics to support that fantasy either.

* Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 70 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Where did you get that idea?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

Unlike the SSM, this model isn't limited to a single energy source.


http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379
Click to expand...
Now I'm quite confused.

If you are - as you have so vehemently proclaimed - talking about a "Birkeland solar model", and if these two preprints are, as you seem to be claiming, in some way derived from a "Birkeland solar model", then aren't you being exceedingly dishonest?

I mean, neither cites anything by Birkeland - book, paper, NYT article - nothing!

If the ideas in the preprints are derived from Birkeland's work, why did you not acknowledge that?!? :confused:

On the other hand, if neither document has anything to do with any "Birkeland solar model", what relevance does either have to the claims you've been making for dozens of pages now? :confused:
 
Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked

This iron crust within the Sun idea of Micheal Mozina is very easy to disprove (big surprise :eye-poppi!): It is thermodynamically impossible since it must be at a temperature of at least 9400 K (as measured within the photosphere) and so be a plasma. This has been pointed out to MM many times over the years. Here are some of the explanations given to him that he continues to not be able to understand:
This alone makes his idea into a complete fantasy and his continued belief with it a delusion and so we could stop there but... The continuous issuing of unsupported assertions, displays of ignorance of physics and fantasies about what he imagines in images are illustrated in this list of unanswered questions. The first question was asked on 6th July 2009.
The question of MM's lies and misinterpretations about Birkeland's book has come up again so I have separated his unsupported assertions about the book. An honest person would just say "I was wrong - Birkeland did not write that" in answer to most of these.
  1. Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
  2. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
  3. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
  4. Is Saturn the Sun?
  5. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
  6. Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind
  7. Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book? (really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)
  8. Are galaxies electrical discharges from magnetized iron spheres (Birkelands "nebulae model")?
  9. Where in Birkeland's book does he state that the Sun is a metal globe?
And the other questions:


  1. What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected?
  2. What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona.
  3. Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
  4. Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question? (No)
  5. More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth
  6. Formation of the iron surface
  7. How much is "mostly neon" MM?
  8. Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?
  9. Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina
  10. Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina.
  11. Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested?
  12. What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model?
  13. What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K?
  14. Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles?
  15. Entire photon "spectrum" is composed of all the emissions from all the layers
  16. Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves?
  17. Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere?
  18. Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer?
  19. What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers?
  20. What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer?
  21. Explain the shape of your electrical arcs (coronal loops)
  22. What is your physical evidence for the silicon in sunspots?
  23. How do MM's "layers" survive the convection currents in the Sun?
  24. Where are the controllable empirical experiments showing the Iron Sun mass separation?
  25. How can your iron "crust" not be a plasma at a temperature of at least 9400 K?
  26. How can your "mountain ranges" be at a temperature of at least 160,000 K?
  27. Where is the spike of Fe composition in the remnants of novae and supernovae?
  28. Which images did you use as your input for the PM-A.gif image, etc.?
  29. Where did your "mountain ranges" go in Active Region 9143 when it got to the limb?
  30. Do RD movies of inactive regions show "mountain ranges"?
  31. Just how high are your "mountain ranges"?
  32. How does your iron crust exist when there are convection currents moving through it?
  33. Why does the apparent height of your "mountain ranges" depend on the timing of source images for the RD process when the light sources and mountains in the images are the same?
  34. Why does the lighting of your "mountain ranges" move depending on the RD process?
  35. Why are the coronal loops in the RD images aligned along your "mountain ranges" rather than between them as expect fro electrical discharges?
  36. Why are the sunspot umbra not "mostly" iron plasma (Fe was also detected by SERTS as was C and a dozen more elements)?
  37. Can you show how you calculated that "3000-3750 KM" figure for the photosphere depth?
  38. How did you determine that the filaments "abruptly end right there"?
  39. Citation for the LMSAL claim that coronal loops all originate *ABOVE* the photosphere?
  40. How did you measure the curvature of penumbral filaments in the Hinode images?
  41. How does your Iron Sun fantasy create the observed magnetic field of the Sun?
  42. Calculation for the depth of the SOT_ca_061213flare_cl_lg.mpg filament?
  43. Can you understand that the photosphere is defined to be opaque?
  44. A comment on MM's ability to interpret images: No little plasma (penumbral) filament!
  45. Where has any one in this thread claimed that the umbra is 2D?
  46. Is Michael Mozina's claim of measuring the curvature of the filaments true?
  47. Do you understand how fluorescent tubes ("neon bulbs") work?
  48. Can you explain why limb darkening does not diisprove your model?
  49. Why is the SERTS data on the corona applicable to sunspots?
  50. Please define a "current carrying plasma" from a textbook.
  51. How does the SERTS data show that all of the neon and silcon in the Sun's atmosphere is highly ionized?
  52. Where does the current from your impossible iron crust come from?
  53. Did you cherry pick the SDO image to support your fantasy? - the answer is yes. MM saw a "green line" in one PR image and ignored its absence in another.
    The SDO image"green line" is a processing artifact as confirmed by the NASA team.
    But anyway
    What went wrong with your counting of pixels in the SDO image?
    Where are your calculations that the SDO artifact has a width of *EXACTLY* 4800 km
  54. This post deserves mentioning: Math Bunnies & Image Bunnies
  55. Can Micheal Mozina understannd simple geometry?
  56. What is wrong with W.D.Clinger's calculation?
    Two recent questions but I fully expect the MM will be able to refute the geometry textbooks :rolleyes: !
  57. Got numbers, Michael Mozina? or What real quantified predictions come from Michael Mozina's Iron Sun fantasy? Is MM's idea complete useless :eye-poppi?
  58. Can you cite the paper where Kosovichev states that "those loops are mass flows" (coronal loops?)?
  59. How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?
  60. Can you understand that the disk radius in RD images depends on solar activity?
  61. Will you yank down your web site as promised after your prediction failed?
  62. Why are you still ignoring that measurements show the chromosphere, etc. above the photosphere?
    (this happens to be one reason why MM is called a crank)
  63. Why was the resolution in the STEREO data not enough to "make a convincing case"? (calculations please :rolleyes: )
Micheal Mozina has a habit of essentially labeling Kristian Birkeland as having no knowledge of physics, e.g. the simple thermodynamics that make an iron crust impossible.
Not really a question, just a list of the symptoms of a crank or crackpot that MM displays
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
Who said this "It [the "Birkeland solar model"] wasn't limited to a "solid surface" concept, it was related to an "electric universe" concept"?

Now according to a large number of JREF members (mgmirkin, solrey, sol88, Anaconda, Zeuzzz, ...), Don Scott is the most reliable, most comprehensive, most up-to-date definitive source when it comes to "electric universe concepts" (though Wal Thornhill comes a close second).

This is a conclusion backed up by google searches - google "electric universe" (and exclude the music) and you'll find a great many websites confirming the above (and none, that I could find, to the contrary).

Now Don Scott has written a book on this topic, in which he makes perfectly clear that it is external current flows which power the Sun (and indeed all stars); he and Thornhill even had a paper published (by IEEE) on this.

But, as we have seen so many times already, perhaps what you, MM, mean by ""electric universe" concept" is something totally different?
Click to expand...

Oh, I thought we were talking about *MY* brand of a "Birkeland solar model". If you want to take the conversation to some other brand of solar model, that's certainly your prerogative, but don't expect to "hang my solar model high" based on the specifications of some other variation of an EU solar model.
 
GeeMack said:
And yet for the last five years you've been spreading your crackpot arguments, arguments from ignorance, lies, fraudulent "evidence"
Click to expand...

Really, I'm actually quite curious now. Please define the term "civil" for me. Somehow in your whacked out world of make believe civility, it's "ok" to refer to Birkeland as a "moron", a "bozo" and claim he was "without a clue" in his understanding of solar physics. You've somehow found it emotionally necessary to refer to me as a "crackpot" 100% of the time on a post per post basis. You've called me a fraud, a liar etc, etc, so many times I've lost count. What "exactly" (be scientifically precise about it) do you define as "civil conversation"? Inquiring minds really want to know?
 
Michael Mozina said:
How have I walked away from it?
Click to expand...

You have consistently failed to explain your cathode model.

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.
Click to expand...

Small problem, Michael: you haven't explained the solar wind. You've only done hand waving. Without numbers, there's no way to tell if your "explanation" actually matches observations at all. If the numbers are wrong, the explanation is wrong. Is your explanation right or wrong? How the hell would you even know if you can't put numbers on anything?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Oh, I thought we were talking about *MY* brand of a "Birkeland solar model". If you want to take the conversation to some other brand of solar model, that's certainly your prerogative, but don't expect to "hang my solar model high" based on the specifications of some other variation of an EU solar model.
Click to expand...


Oh, so you've hijacked Birkeland's name and slapped it on your own crackpot conjecture. It's *YOUR* brand of a Birkeland solar model. Well just how do you think Kristian Birkeland would feel about you dragging his name through the dirt in order to avoid taking responsibility for your own dismal failure?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Oh, I thought we were talking about *MY* brand of a "Birkeland solar model". If you want to take the conversation to some other brand of solar model, that's certainly your prerogative, but don't expect to "hang my solar model high" based on the specifications of some other variation of an EU solar model.
Click to expand...
Um, dude, you do realise, don't you, that your very own website explicitly states that the "electric universe theory" you are referring to is that of Thornhill, Scott, and the Thunderblots website?
For anyone interested in a very good video introduction to plasma cosmology theory, and Electric Universe theory, I highly recommend The Thunderbolt Of The God's Video. that is now viewable on Google. I also highly recommend the Book "The Electric Sky" by Donald E. Scott.
Click to expand...
ETA: it is important to state that, with their normal meanings, a "model" is derived from a "theory" (or perhaps more than one theory).

Putting this another way, every "variation of an EU solar model" - yours, *YOUR* "brand of a "Birkeland solar model"", sol88's, solrey's, iantresman's, ... - is based on the more general, more comprehensive "Electric Universe theory".

But then, as we already know, what you mean by terms like "model", "theory", "current", "cathode", "Birkeland", "solar wind", "photosphere", "corona", and many, many more is known only to you.

The (well one) really sad thing is that you seem almost completely blind to the fact that what you write is pretty close to being unintelligible, not least because you make next to no effort to even try to explain what you mean (wanna start changing that? how about taking up D'rok's request?)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom