Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
ben m said:
Random science press release declared to vindicate EU theory---hey hey hey, that's on my bingo card. I win as soon as he posts a terrella photo.
Click to expand...

Funny how it does not support any of Halton Arp’s ideas either, Halton Arp does not believe that black holes and QSOs are related, he also does not believe in cosmological redshift. So a report that black holes (which may have been not the case) are 'ejected' from a galaxy is nothing like Arp.

In could be that the central black hole from another galaxy is still moving around the other black hole after the collision of two galaxies.

Nothing like Halton Arps' craziness.

:D
 
Reality Check said:
Momeperation: MM's version of mass separation (courtesy of O. Manuel) where elements in a plasma completely ignore convection and the actual diffusion rate in the plasma and separate into "mostly" element X layers. This has absolutely no support from controlled empirical experiments in labs here on Earth. Thus by MM-logic, it does not exist even though he states that it does!
Click to expand...
Thanks for this; interesting (though I'd prefer to call it "Mozeperation", in line with Moz-thingie).

This is, I gather, a physical process, rather than a type of physical object or material (the Mo(z)plasma and Mozode are of these latter taxons).

In MM's solar "model", Mozeparation occurs in plasmas that are confined gravitationally (I don't think even MM claims the Sun to be other than gravitationally bound). These plasmas have temperatures of ~a few thousand K to ~a few million K. In elemental composition, there is H, He, Ne, Si, Ca, and Fe (and more?). Mozeparation happens very quickly, with a characteristic time of ~hours, perhaps ~days (in Mo(z)plasmas of the kind found in the corona, chromosphere, and in and under the photosphere of the Sun), per the many "mass flows" in MM's solar "model". The separation by atomic mass if extreme; atomic (actually ionic) species are >99% separated within ~hundreds of km, or less.

None of the above has been simulated in real science experiments here on Earth; it does not meet the burden of proof from the standpoint of empirical physics in any lab on Earth; etc.

Is that about right?
 
Another, possible, Moz-thingie, the Mozcharge (as in discharge of the Moz- kind).

In Birkeland's experiments, electric discharges ("electrical arcs" per MM's website) were photographed. These occurred near/around an iron (brass?) sphere acting as cathode, in a low density unionised gas (does anyone recall the densities and compositions of the gas?), which had temperatures of ~hundreds K.

In MM's solar "model", Mozcharges occur in plasmas like those found in the Sun's corona (and chromosphere? and photosphere?); namely, completely ionised, very low density, ~million K plasmas composed of pure H (or H plus He?), pure Ne, and (perhaps) pure Si. These Mozcharges are thousands, or tens of thousands, of km in length. They occur near/around Mozodes.

None of the above has been simulated in real science experiments here on Earth; it does not meet the burden of proof from the standpoint of empirical physics in any lab on Earth; etc.

Is that about right?
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379
Click to expand...

You do remember that that "paper" was never published, and that neither you nor any of the other authors actually attended that workshop, right? Once again, as long as you continue being dishonest, people will continue to call you out. You can whine all you like that other people are not being civil, but the fact is these are simply empirical observations (in a lab, on Earth) of your behaviour.

Blimp.

brantc said:
The best explanation for this anomaly is the the sun has a solid surface.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but you seem to have missed a rather important point. If you heat a metre long rod of steel by a single degree*, it will increase in length by around 1.15*10-5. That's a fair bit more than one part in a million. So your claim of a solid iron surface on the Sun would actually result in much, much bigger variations in size than are observed, and so is already known to be completely inconsistent with reality.

*Note that this is at 25oC. Oddly enough, no-one's ever measured the thermal expansion coefficient at 6000o.
 
Last edited:
ben m said:
I didn't ask whether you think they are right. Did anyone ever tell you that mainstream, non-PC/EU physicists thought that they substantially understood the solar wind? Yes or no:
Click to expand...

In the sense they demonstrated the process empirically like Birkeland did? No. I've seen computer models of everything from magic inflation to dark energy bunnies, but like all of your "theories", not one of them seems to work empirically in a lab anywhere on Earth.

"Yes, various people have asserted that the solar wind made sense without PC/EU"

or:

"No, I have never heard anyone bother to claim that the solar wind could be explained without EU/PC"

Yes or no?
Click to expand...

No, I have never seen the mainstream demonstrate full sphere solar wind inside of a controlled experiment here on Earth. On the other hand, I have seen Birkeland replicate that process using "current flow". Like I said, computer models don't cut it. I'm an empirical "show me" sort of individual. You guys love to computer model something that Alfven himself rejected outright as pseudoscience. You'll have to provide more than a virtual world computer model based on "pseudoscience". I want to see a working model like Birkeland produced.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Pretty good, if you make the call with those upside-down-triangly thingies, drunken letter d's, B, E, j, and v (etc) ... just like Alfvén did.

But then what are the odds that you won't even know how to use the SDO dopplergrams and magnetograms, let alone be able to analyse them to check for consistency wrt your opacity claims (especially the ones which involve "current flows")?
Click to expand...

Um, what are the odds that "truth" or "reality" depend on my personal math skills? You seem to think I'm somehow obligated to do all this work by myself.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, I have never seen the mainstream demonstrate full sphere solar wind inside of a controlled experiment here on Earth. On the other hand, I have seen Birkeland replicate that process using "current flow". Like I said, computer models don't cut it. I'm an empirical "show me" sort of individual. You guys love to computer model something that Alfven himself rejected outright as pseudoscience. You'll have to provide more than a virtual world computer model based on "pseudoscience". I want to see a working model like Birkeland produced.
Click to expand...


Birkeland again? What an idiot. He forgot to pump up that solar surface to 6000K. But I'm sure if he went in for that looks-like-a-bunny grade school science, the surface temperature of his cute little brass ball wasn't a concern. :p
 
Michael Mozina said:
Um, what are the odds that "truth" or "reality" depend on my personal math skills? You seem to think I'm somehow obligated to do all this work by myself.
Click to expand...


Well it's abundantly clear that nobody is helping you with the math. Every time someone tries you take a dump on them and ignore their results. Say, Michael, how many professional physicists on Earth are supporting your claim that the Sun has a solid iron surface? :D
 
Tim Thompson said:
See my previous post Plasmas, Currents and Magnetic Fields. The one doing the dumbing down around here is you, and you are working hard to be as dumbed down as you can be.
Click to expand...

Not me. Alfven called your ideas "pseudoscience" and the only "experiments" you've done so far require "sustained current flow" to make them work! No full sphere corona like Birkeland. No coronal loops demos like Birkeland. No sustained full sphere particle emissions like Birkeland. Nothing! The whole thing is a giant fail! The best you folks seem to be able to do is create computer models based on stuff Alfven rejected, and pray nobody notices it doesn't work in the lab (without current flow).

In this case you continue to try to sell the dumbed down notion that magnetic fields must come from "electric currents",
Click to expand...

In plasma this light, and fields this powerful, *THEY MUST*. Even in your own models the field is generated by *ELECTRICITY*! Holy cow! You have the magnetic cart before the electric horse and you always ignore the problem.
 
Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:
Pretty good, if you make the call with those upside-down-triangly thingies, drunken letter d's, B, E, j, and v (etc) ... just like Alfvén did.

But then what are the odds that you won't even know how to use the SDO dopplergrams and magnetograms, let alone be able to analyse them to check for consistency wrt your opacity claims (especially the ones which involve "current flows")?
Click to expand...
Um, what are the odds that "truth" or "reality" depend on my personal math skills? You seem to think I'm somehow obligated to do all this work by myself.
Click to expand...
Well, it's your claim (not mine, or anyone else's) :D :p

Let me remind you of that claim: "what are the odds you'll listen to me when I call your opacity math bunny DOA in solar satellite images?"

May I take it, then, that your "call" will be in the form of subjective visual inspection, a.k.a. bunny-picture-science?

If not, then what form will your "call" take?
 
You know, this is really pathetic IMO. I can appreciate the whole resistance to a solid surface, but the lack of scientific integrity as it relates to electrical aspects of solar wind and coronal activities and such is just sad IMO. Birkeland beat you folks to a empirical "explanation" by 100 years. You don't care. You don't want him to be right, you hate all things "EU oriented", and therefore you blindly reject the one known "cause" of such things at the level of empirical physics. Instead of really exploring the idea in earnest, in the lab where it should be done, you play around with computer models based on what Alfven called "pseudoscience". Hoy. That is *SO* sad.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Civil conversation? What planet were you from again?
Click to expand...


How's it coming on this running difference image comparison project, Michael?...

Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
You know, this is really pathetic IMO. I can appreciate the whole resistance to a solid surface, but the lack of scientific integrity as it relates to solar wind and coronal activities and such is just sad IMO. Birkeland beat you folks to a empirical "explanation" by 100 years. You don't care. You don't want him to be right, you hate all things "EU oriented", and therefore you blindly reject the one known "cause" of such things at the level of empirical physics. Instead of really exploring the idea in earnest, in the lab where it should be done, you play around with computer models based on what Alfven called "pseudoscience". Hoy. That is *SO* sad.
Click to expand...


So how did Kristian Birkeland get that little brass ball up to 6000K without melting it? Because if he was doing what you claim, and if he wasn't using looks-like-a-bunny grade school science like you are, he must have replicated the thermal characteristics. That is *SO* sad. :p
 
GeeMack said:
So how did Kristian Birkeland get that little brass ball up to 6000K without melting it? Because if he was doing what you claim, and if he wasn't using looks-like-a-bunny grade school science like you are, he must have replicated the thermal characteristics. That is *SO* sad. :p
Click to expand...

He didn't have to, nor did he ever limited himself to a solid surface solar model. The fact you *REFUSE* to acknowledge that a Birkeland solar model is a *CATHODE* solar model, not at *SOLID* surface solar model is "SAD". (not to mention dishonest as hell, but what's new)
 
Tim Thompson said:
Your statement suffers from two serious weaknesses. First. "current systems" does not mean what you think it means.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. It means your "circuit reconnection" "experiments" require "electricity" to make them work. Unplug the power cord and nothing happens!
 
Hellbound said:
:notm

The best explanation is the one that introuduces the fewest additional entities (Occam's razor anyone?).

A solid surface requires numerous additional processes, currently unknown, that explain how is can be solid, how it can maintain shape under that temperature and gravity, how it seems to be undetectable, and numerous other problems with the idea of a solid surface that have been repeatedly pointed out over the last 50 pages of so in this thread.

Can you do any better than MM? Have any actual data, any numbers, anything at all that is quantifiable or supported by the laws of physics? Or is it just more "looks like it to me" "science"?
Click to expand...

Sure. Start with that SERTS data we looked at earlier and tell me which specific elements change the most during "active" solar phases?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom