Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

Here is the problem MM: You are totally unqualified to even have any opinion about dark energy. A layman might choose......

Wow. We're off to a "super religious" start on that one. I can't tell you how many theists have told me I wasn't qualified to judge their ideas, and only a "clergy" person might be able to "understand". Wow!

between alternative theories in an area of leading edge physics

That isn't "leading edge of physics" PS, that's the dead and dying "bleeding edge" (and "pleading edge) of metaphysics. If we're going to slap on "properties" related to your dark evil entities, let's slap that evil thing in there too and tell me how you don't have a religion going on now? In GM's parlance: Physics? What 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."

Well, if all we have to do is point as some unknown acceleration in the sky and claim "dark energy did it", why can't I do that right now? You mean to tell me that 70 plus percent of the universe is made of this stuff an yet it has no influence on gravitationally bound objects? How is this not a "religion" again?

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.

I "bail out" of a lot of discussions with "creationists" too. It doesn't mean "they won"! Holy cow! Some conversations are simply "dead ends" and thus I "bail out" for more interesting conversations.

And, by the way, phrases like "evil dark energy did it" are only a further demonstration of your immaturity and deep intellectual deficit.

You seem to find it offensive that I assign only a *SINGLE* other 'property" to your mythical invisible friends, but the sad part is that none of your invisible friends ever show up in the lab to show off *ANY* of their ad hoc properties. What's one more? That dark matter article I cited is just one more example of "fail time" for astronomy. When will enough failures be enough PS? When can I safely assume your inflation deities are really useless and move on to something productive like empirical physics? Birkeland didn't have any problem at all creating a corona. He had no problem creating solar wind. 100 years later I had to beat tusenfem over the head to even read his work on this topic. At the rate you folks are going, you will be living in the "dark ages" of astronomy till the day you all die. Sorry, but my life is too important to be wasted on a useless religion that starts off something like: In the beginning the dead inflation deity did a faster than light number and created the heavens and the earth and breathed in some "dark energy" and threw in "dark matter" and ........

Please.

 

[Ziggurat]

Birkeland's "sun" was not iron, but brass
Michael skipped freshman physics class
He think his sun theory
is suppressed by conspiracy
but really, he just talks out his....

 

[Michael Mozina]

Birkeland's "sun" was not iron, but brass

When Birkeland calculated the mass in space, did he calculate it based on iron or brass?

 

[Reality Check]

When Birkeland calculated the mass in space, did he calculate it based on iron or brass?

I will butt in here: He based it on iron as an example (see page 720). That does not change the fact that his spheres were brass.

ETA
Of course the magnets inside the brass spheres were copper wires wrapped around iron cores. So your "iron crust" fantasy* should be an iron core + copper layer + copper & zinc shell fantasy

* Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 70 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I will butt in here: He based it on iron. That does not change the fact that his spheres were brass.

I hate to break it to you, but he didn't pull iron out of thin air, but alas you won't be bothered to read his work.

 

[GeeMack]

I hate to break it to you, but he didn't pull iron out of thin air, but alas you won't be bothered to read his work.

He also thought the Sun spewed atoms that coalesced into new planets. What a moron Birkeland was, eh?

 

[Michael Mozina]

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?

Electric universe theory is not limited to solar theories, nor is it limited to a *SINGLE* solar theory. I personally entertain *SEVERAL* solar theories myself. Sometimes "I don't know" actually works better for me than pretending I know everything there is to know about the *ENTIRE* universe, including how much "dark energy" is out there. Sheesh. Sometimes I really feel sorry for your industry. It's about to take a really hard fall. You cannot keep up this pretense much longer with all this new technology coming online. Sooner or later you'll all have to "bite the bullet" and accept that we live inside of an electric universe. That's going to be tough for the most vocal critics in this thread. You guys could end up being the last "flat earth, faster than light speed creations" type folks left in the whole electric universe.

 

[dasmiller]

Birkeland's "sun" was not iron, but brass

oh, now look what you've done, I was innocently drinking coffee when I read that . . . .

 

[Michael Mozina]

He also thought the Sun spewed atoms that coalesced into new planets. What a moron Birkeland was, eh?

The fact you even find that belief to be hard to believe speaks volumes about you IMO GM. I really didn't think anyone on Earth believed that none of the materials on Earth came from our sun.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Electric universe theory is not limited to solar theories, nor is it limited to a *SINGLE* solar theory.

Better not tell Scott, or Thornhill, that ... both the video and Scott's book make it crystal clear that when it comes to the Sun, there is one, and only one, true god Electric universe theory.

I personally entertain *SEVERAL* solar theories myself. Sometimes "I don't know" actually works better for me than pretending I know everything there is to know about the *ENTIRE* universe, including how much "dark energy" is out there. Sheesh. Sometimes I really feel sorry for your industry. It's about to take a really hard fall. You cannot keep up this pretense much longer with all this new technology coming online. Sooner or later you'll all have to "bite the bullet" and accept that we live inside of an electric universe. That's going to be tough for the most vocal critics in this thread. You guys could end up being the last "flat earth, faster than light speed creations" type folks left in the whole electric universe.

Our posts crossed, while I was writing the ETA.

Quite pertinent, actually:

"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?)"

 

[Michael Mozina]

Our posts crossed, while I was writing the ETA.

Quite pertinent, actually:

"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?)"

You know DRD, I'm tired of being your physics mommy. If you want to understand a cathode solar model, learn the model from the source, not some guy you meet on the internet! We both know I wouldn't do his work justice in your mind anyway, so spend less of your time complaining and more of your time reading his actual work on this topic!

I'll be happy to spend a little of my free time at work explaining a few points here and there, but for goodness sake, quit being so damn scientifically lazy and read his works. All of it!

 

[dasmiller]

The fact you even find that belief to be hard to believe speaks volumes about you IMO GM. I really didn't think anyone on Earth believed that none of the materials on Earth came from our sun.

I'm on Earth even as we speak. I wouldn't say that "none" of the materials are from the sun, but I believe that it's an extremely small percentage. And - I haven't done the math - but I suspect that we've lost more matter due to the sun than we've gained from it.

In contrast, as I understood Birkeland on this (from my admittedly limited reading), he was suggesting that the Earth was more-or-less completely formed of matter that streamed from the Sun. I believe that he was wrong about that.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

He also thought the Sun spewed atoms that coalesced into new planets. What a moron Birkeland was, eh?

Not to mention that he thought Saturn's rings were self-luminous ... what kind of empirical, observation-based, scientist would make such a gigantic blunder?

 

[Ziggurat]

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379

Yay, a paper that violates both the 1st AND 2nd laws of thermodynamics! I can't understand why it never got published in a reputable journal, even after more than four years.

And nothing says "revolutionary physics" better than child care management software. Don't quit your day job, Michael. You might be great at it (I wouldn't have a clue), but you can't do physics worth spit.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Better not tell Scott, or Thornhill, that ... both the video and Scott's book make it crystal clear that when it comes to the Sun, there is one, and only one, true god Electric universe theory.

You are clearly clueless when it comes to the mentality of the EU crowd so let me clue you in a bit. Unlike your "we have it all figured out" mentality, the EU crowd tends to realize that we've only scratched the surface of what we actually "understand" about the universe. They tend to be much more "open minded" when it comes to new ideas. They don't tend to go on crusade like you guys to "snuff out" any idea they don't like. They tend to adopt a more "live an let live" mentality. It's a much "freer" way of looking at the universe and leads to more "honest" scientific conversations. We don't feel the need to lash out at each others ideas, nor misrepresent them in any way. We just offer our ideas and let nature run it's course.

Get the idea yet? I can elaborate more if you like, but I assure you it's not nearly as regimented or closed minded as your little cult. Nobody there ever tried to publicly lynch me for me beliefs. See how much nicer that is?

 

[Ziggurat]

When Birkeland calculated the mass in space, did he calculate it based on iron or brass?

Don't know, don't care. Last time I checked, we weren't in disagreement about the mass of the sun. When Birkeland calculated the work function of the sun, did he calculate it based on iron or brass?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Don't know, don't care.

And that is exactly the difference between us zig. I'm scientifically curious by nature.

 

[Reality Check]

I hate to break it to you, but he didn't pull iron out of thin air, but alas you won't be bothered to read his work.

I hate to break it to you but he did pull iron out of thin air, but alas you won't be bothered to read his work, e.g. see page 720:

Let us see how thickly we should have to imagine iron atoms, for instance, distributed in space between the sun and the nearest star, a Centauri, if, in a sphere with the distance 4.4 light-years as radius we assumed a mass equal to that of our solar system to be evenly distributed.

(my emphasis).
Why iron? My guess is that he was thinking about his experiments that included iron magnets. A modern astronomer would do his calculation for hydrogen because that is what they think about most of the time. I would do it fro palladium because that was what I thought about for my thesis.

 

[Ziggurat]

And that is exactly the difference between us zig. I'm scientifically curious by nature.

Being curious about what Birkeland thought the mass of the sun was is historical curiosity, not scientific curiosity. But unless you want to contest the accepted value for the mass of the sun, Birkeland's thoughts on the topic aren't really of interest here.

And you are quite incurious about actual science. When presented with actual science that isn't in the form of pretty pictures, you recoil.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You know DRD, I'm tired of being your physics mommy. If you want to understand a cathode solar model, learn the model from the source,

That'd be Birkeland, right?

not some guy you meet on the internet! We both know I wouldn't do his work justice in your mind anyway, so spend less of your time complaining and more of your time reading his actual work on this topic!

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt (there are likely a few hundred posts of mine, right here in JREF, which prove it).

Birkeland was a darn good scientist, but, like all of us, limited by what was known in his day. So no surprise, or dishonour, that a great many of his conclusions, models, ideas, etc didn't pan out.

But "a cathode solar model" is not a phrase which occurs anywhere in his works (if you know otherwise, page and para numbers please!), nor "heliosphere", nor ... so the source is you, MM, only you.

I'll be happy to spend a little of my free time at work explaining a few points here and there, but for goodness sake, quit being so damn scientifically lazy and read his works. All of it!

GM: is this a common MM tactic? When pressed, MM says, in effect, "it's not me guv, it's Birkeland/Scott/Manuel/brantc wot dun it!"