Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael has bailed out on the crackpot solid iron surface of the Sun conjecture.

Me? Nah!. I'm just getting warmed up. :)

Time to close this thread and have him open one about, oh, whatever the hell it is he's moved onto now?

Aren't the corona and solar wind a part of solar physics????

Notice the draconian measures you'd like to take to shut me up? You guys don't play nice. In fact you're the worst offender of the bunch. They're innocent players from my vantage point. You're not.

Ok, so when can I expect to see you demonstrate solar wind in a lab? How about a corona? Did you see those pretty picture that Birkeland took and compared to a corona? Nah, "observation" isn't your "thing".
 
Hey Michael. Answer honestly. In your five years of ranting about Birkeland, I am sure that at least one person has told you that the mainstream solar model has a pretty good model for the solar wind. Yes or no---do you remember that ever happening? Ever?

Define "pretty good" in terms of how well it works in the lab for me.


And again I challenge Michael's qualifications to communicate in a sane, rational, or intelligent manner on the subject of solar physics. And again he has demonstrated that he possesses no such qualifications.

Michael, you do realize you have to be able to effectively communicate, period, before you can expect to effectively communicate a particular idea, don't you?
 
Actually my trump cards are that corona he filmed and those solar wind "predictions" he made via real empirical physics.
You mean the "prediction" he made that the solar wind was composed of electrons, and that it travels, near the Earth, at almost the speed of light?

Regarding the corona: I don't recall anything in his work where he takes data from his "films" (as you call them), does calculations, and produces quantified, testable hypotheses concerning the corona.

And, from memory, you can't quote any such predictions/conclusions either.

And, from memory, neither can anyone else.

If that's your "trump card", then I'm sorry to tell you that we're playing tennis, and that none of your serves (of the card) cleared the net, so it's game, set, and match (better luck next time, OK? you might want to consider finding out what game is being played first though).
 
If you can't figure out what causes that solar wind "acceleration", how about we call it "dark energy" for now and then we'll see if Birkeland can come up with a real "physical" explanation for that continuous particle acceleration for us? How does that sound?
Stupid. Deliberately misusing a technical phrase for your own pejorative purposes would be stupid.

You could call it "the Mozina factor". Better yet, you could call it the accelerator of solar wind. In answer to your question, however: Calling it "dark energy" would be stupid.
 
Hmm, so ionization states, the Mozplasma, the photosphere, D'rok's request*, mass flows and currents, (and dopplergrams, magnetograms, etc), opacity, etc, etc, etc are topics you refuse to discuss any more? Hello?

And you refuse to say what you mean by "solar wind acceleration" and "coronal loop activity". Hello?

* Lurker request to MM: Please work with Ben on diagramming the geometry of your claims about the sun.

How exactly did you expect me to explain those high ionization states of plasma in the solar atmosphere without talking about the charge separation between the surface and the heliosphere and the solar wind processes that result from that discharge process?
 
So, still nothing?

No numbers, no formulas, no actual explanations?

Just more assertions and hand-waving, I see.

No idea what a theory is, or what a model is. Just "sounds good to me" conjecture.

There's a reason no one takes you seriously, MM, and it has notihing to do with astronomy as a religion or any other conspiracy theory you might dream up. You just use that as an axcuse to avoid admitting your own inability.

I'm done here, until I find something else fun to poke you with.

Let me know if you can ever, you know, actually explain your "theory".
 
Please tell me, MM, that Scott has not, using this logic, declared the whole of astronomy to be built on "a blatant logical error"?
You *really* would love to promote "dissension among the ranks" wouldn't you? Sort of like a divide an conquer strategy, is that it? :)
I take it that you too have just declared that we cannot know how the Sun behaves, certainly not from SDO data, because it's all built on "a blatant logical error".

Good.

You'll be shutting down your website now then?
 
Stupid. Deliberately misusing a technical phrase for your own pejorative purposes would be stupid.

You could call it "the Mozina factor". Better yet, you could call it the accelerator of solar wind. In answer to your question, however: Calling it "dark energy" would be stupid.

Ditto on your claim that the acceleration you see in the sky is due to "dark energy" IMO. It's a pointless thing to do IMO. Acceleration doesn't need another name. If you can't explain it "I don't know" is the "correct" answer. "Dark energy" is something you "made up" in a purely ad hoc manner to salvage an otherwise falsified cosmology theory that was already on shaky, wobbly inflation knees in the first place! Let it die a natural empirical death already.
 
I take it that you too have just declared that we cannot know how the Sun behaves, certainly not from SDO data, because it's all built on "a blatant logical error".

Good.

You'll be shutting down your website now then?

Er, no. That image is simply a blog entry on website *FULL* of relevant images. Even if that one image turns out to be something other than what I think it is, the worst I will have to do is remove a blog entry. Get real. When I see that RD image I mentioned *THEN* I might have to do some serious work on the website. :)
 
If you can't figure out what causes that solar wind "acceleration", how about we call it "dark energy" for now and then we'll see if Birkeland can come up with a real "physical" explanation for that continuous particle acceleration for us? How does that sound?

It sounds really stupid given that
  1. Birkeland is dead.
  2. Birkeland did not know about dark energy.
  3. Birkeland did not know much about the solar wind and just suggested that it existed and consisted of ions and electrons.
    It looks like he never did any scientific work on the solar wind as we understand it today (i.e. not his non-existent cathode ray beams). At least you have never produces any citations for it.
And then there is stupidity of thinking that the acceleration of ions and electrons to create the solar wind has anything to do with the acceleration of the expansion of the universe (dark energy).
Not having an explanation for one does not mean there is no explanation for the other.

However there are explanations for the solar wind acceleration, e.g. thermal acceleration (slow solar wind) + magnetic reconnection for the fast solar wind.
 
Last edited:
Me? Nah!. I'm just getting warmed up. :)

Aren't the corona and solar wind a part of solar physics????

Notice the draconian measures you'd like to take to shut me up? You guys don't play nice. In fact you're the worst offender of the bunch. They're innocent players from my vantage point. You're not.

Ok, so when can I expect to see you demonstrate solar wind in a lab? How about a corona? Did you see those pretty picture that Birkeland took and compared to a corona? Nah, "observation" isn't your "thing".


You're derailing the thread. It's about the iron Sun. It's not about whatever the hell else you feel like babbling about.

Oh, and how are you coming along on this?...

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.


Got those analyses ready to discuss, you know, every single pixel in a running difference image? And did your lawyer post those PDF files somewhere so I can look them over? :p
 
How exactly did you expect me to explain those high ionization states of plasma in the solar atmosphere without talking about the charge separation between the surface and the heliosphere and the solar wind processes that result from that discharge process?
Let's take a look at *YOUR* "Birkeland solar model".

Start with "from the sun": let's assume it's the cathode, i.e. the place to which electrons flow; let's also assume that the actual cathode is the photosphere, which is 700,000 km from the centre of the Sun (we can adjust the numbers a bit later).

Next, "to the heliosphere": let's assume this is the surface of a sphere, whose radius is 100 au, with the Sun at its centre.

Now in your ""electric universe" concept", the Sun is powered by a "current flow", so in *YOUR* "Birkeland solar model", the current must produce ~3.8 x 10^26 W, which is the observed power (energy per second) of the Sun.

How does the "current flow" produce this power? Let's assume it does so by converting the kinetic energy of the electrons into electromagnetic radiation, on (or at) the photosphere. We won't worry ourselves about how this happens ("electrical processes" perhaps), for now.

Let's keep it simple and assume that electrons arrive at the photosphere at the same rate as they leave the heliosphere - x electrons leave the heliosphere in one second, and x electrons arrive at the photosphere in one second. In other words, electrons are neither created nor destroyed between the heliosphere and photosphere, and that the current flow is a steady one.

So, how many electrons leave the heliosphere every second? Well, the electron density there is 10 million per cubic metre, and the electrons are moving at 6 million metres per second (again, we can adjust the numbers later), so across each square metre of heliosphere surface there will be 60 trillion electrons crossing every second. Now the heliosphere's surface is ~3 x 10^27 square metres, so 1.8 x 10^41 electrons depart for the photosphere every second.

How fast are these electrons moving when they reach the photosphere? Well, let's keep it very simple and use the physics of Birkeland's day; specifically the part of Newtonian physics which says that the kinetic energy of a body moving at speed v is half its mass times v squared. Now the mass of an electron is 9.1 x 10^-31 kg, and every second 1.8 x 10^41 electrons give up their kinetic energy for light. So we have a simple equation (Ne is the number of electrons, m the mass of an electron, and v its speed):

1/2 mv^2 * Ne = 3.8 x 10^26

which, when we plug in the numbers, gives us the speed of the electrons as 700 million metres per second.

Before I proceed to check this model against empirical reality (i.e. results of experiments in the lab), I'd like MM to check this model for any flaws, errors, shortcomings, etc.

Of course, every other JREF member reading this is more than welcome to do so too, but if you could, please limit your comments to any mistakes I may have made in my math.

I should add that I have developed this model using only the simplest formulae/math I could; in fact there's little here beyond arithmetic; some extremely simple algebra; the standard definitions of things like energy, power, and density; and the formula for kinetic energy.
 
Ditto on your claim that the acceleration you see in the sky is due to "dark energy" IMO. It's a pointless thing to do IMO. Acceleration doesn't need another name. If you can't explain it "I don't know" is the "correct" answer. "Dark energy" is something you "made up" in a purely ad hoc manner to salvage an otherwise falsified cosmology theory that was already on shaky, wobbly inflation knees in the first place! Let it die a natural empirical death already.
I made no such claim. I didn't invent dark energyWP.

You're just babbling about irrelevancies because you can't even explain your alleged model, let alone defend it.
 
Regarding the corona: I don't recall anything in his work where he takes data from his "films" (as you call them), does calculations, and produces quantified, testable hypotheses concerning the corona.


Michael also thinks Kristian Birkeland was a complete buffoon who didn't have the intelligence to do real science and relied on the same looks-like-a-bunny arguments that Michael relies on. :boggled:
 
Ditto on your claim that the acceleration you see in the sky is due to "dark energy" IMO. It's a pointless thing to do IMO. Acceleration doesn't need another name. ....
Your ignorance is showing again.
Dark energy is not acceleration. It is a label for the cause of the acceleration that descibes the properties that the cause has to have to explain the empirical observations, i.e.
  • The cause is not visible.
  • The cause acts as if it was a non-zero vacuum energy (cosmological constant) in GR
You have seen this before but here it is again for you to ignore: Nature of dark energy
The exact nature of this dark energy is a matter of speculation. It is known to be very homogeneous, not very dense and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. Since it is not very dense — roughly 10^−29 grams per cubic centimeter — it is hard to imagine experiments to detect it in the laboratory. Dark energy can only have such a profound impact on the universe, making up 74% of universal density, because it uniformly fills otherwise empty space. The two leading models are quintessence and the cosmological constant. Both models include the common characteristic that dark energy must have negative pressure.
 
Me? Nah!. I'm just getting warmed up.


No, you're not. You have absolutely nothing new in the last five years. Your entire argument is old and moldy. It's a retread. Every last bit of it is incessant repetition of the same stupid material that has been shown to be ludicrously wrong thousands of times over the past several years. For you to be getting warmed up would require that you actually do some work. I haven't seen a single original effort you've put forth in a half a decade.
 
You're derailing the thread. It's about the iron Sun.

No. There was a perfectly good reason why Birkeland calculated the mass between the stars based on iron. You don't want to hear it. There is a perfectly good reason that both positive and negative particles will come from the sphere. You don't want to check it out for yourself, but Birkeland did and wrote all about it. Tusenfem is currently reading all about it.

Got those analyses ready to discuss, you know, every single pixel in a running difference image? And did your lawyer post those PDF files somewhere so I can look them over? :p

Actually lawyers aren't really my thing, you just pushed me over the edge with the accusations of fraud. I would have preferred to settle it in a more amusing manner, which is why I wanted you to ante up earlier. :) I've moved on now and I'll just let time decide.

I really don't don't care who you are. I know your character, and that's really all I need to know about you.
 
Er, no. That image is simply a blog entry on website *FULL* of relevant images. Even if that one image turns out to be something other than what I think it is, the worst I will have to do is remove a blog entry. Get real. When I see that RD image I mentioned *THEN* I might have to do some serious work on the website. :)
But dude, there is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel; this is what astronomers do and it is a blatant logical error in their observational procedure. Birkeland Scott said so, so it must be true.
 
No, you're not. You have absolutely nothing new in the last five years. Your entire argument is old and moldy. It's a retread. Every last bit of it is incessant repetition of the same stupid material that has been shown to be ludicrously wrong thousands of times over the past several years. For you to be getting warmed up would require that you actually do some work. I haven't seen a single original effort you've put forth in a half a decade.

You haven't caught up yet from the last century. What's the point of more writing when you've never bothered to read any of it anyway, not to mention never bothered to read Birkeland's work or Alfven's work? If you won't listen to the guy that wrote MHD theory when he called magnetic reconnection pseudoscience, what are the odds you'll listen to me when I call your opacity math bunny DOA in solar satellite images?
 
But dude, there is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel; this is what astronomers do and it is a blatant logical error in their observational procedure. Birkeland Scott said so, so it must be true.

You're really trying hard, aren't ya? :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom