Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[D'rok]

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.

Except, of course, for all of these:

And this is exactly the irony we keep pointing out. You claim to be a fan of empirical physics, but you don't actually understand what those words mean. Every part of your "theory" (which is not actually a theory by any standards) directly contradicts well established empirical science or exactly the type you claim to be a fan of. On the other hand, you are unable to give a single example of anything empirical that it is actually based on.

Some examples:
Iron. This has been studied for hundreds of years. Its thermal and structural properties are extremely well known. Based entirely on empirical science done in labs on Earth, the known properties of iron conclusively prove that there cannot be a solid shell of iron making up part of the Sun. You claim to like empirical science, but it proves you utterly wrong.

Plasma. This has not been studied for quite so long as iron, but it is still fairly well understood. Things like dependence of ionisation on temperature, emission and absorption, the effects of currents and electromagnetic fields, and plenty more, have all been studied empirically in labs on Earth. And all that empirical science conclusively proves that it is not possible for your imagined transparent, highly ionised, cool plasma to exist. Once again, the empirical science you pretend to like proves you wrong.

Electricity. This is again very well understood. The behaviour of charged particles, relationship between electricity and magnetism, Coulomb's law, all of this is known because of empirical science in labs on Earth. And that empirical science proves that it is not possible for the Sun to carry the large electric charge your claims require. Once again the empirical science you pretend to like proves you wrong.

Thermodynamics. Again something that has been well understood for a long time. The behaviour of large numbers of particles and the relationships between temperature, pressure, density, volume, and so on have all been studied extensively using empirical science in labs on Earth. And once again, it proves that pretty much everything you say about the Sun is physically impossible.

In contrast to the vast amounts of empirical science in labs on Earth (you know, that stuff you lie about being a fan of) that not only proves you utterly wrong, but also shows you up as a complete crackpot, what do you have on your side? Well, so far you've pointed to a few photoshopped PR images. To start with, neither the satellites nor the things they take pictures of are on Earth, so obviously you don't really mean that part. Since the manipulation they've undergone destroys a large part of the important data, especially if you don't know the exact details of the processing, they hardly count as empirical. And of course, looking at manipulated, compressed images and counting pixels is certainly not any kind of science.

So what are we left with? On one side, there are reams of empirical science tested in labs on Earth, on the other there is nothing more than your own fevered imaginings. Of course, you won't understand this at all, but it is painfully clear to every single other person who has ever read your posts that you are lying every time you claim to like empirical science, because you have never once based anything you have said on empirical science, instead ignoring it whenever it rears its ugly head to shoot down yet another of your insane claims.

You've got a lot of lab work to do to overturn these well-tested theories. Best get busy. Or, you could continue to pay lip service to empirical science by making crap up on subjects you don't understand. Your call.

 

[GeeMack]

Where have you been? I posted a movie for you and everything based on the very IDL routines you cited! Get over yourself.

Oh, I thought you were going to actually explain why each pixel is the color that it is, you know, in numbers, like a real scientist would do? But that's okay, if "understanding" running difference imagery means, to you, cranking up a script to make three dozen frames for a cute little bogus video, then I think we can put the word "understand" on the list of words you don't understand. Is that okay with you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Birkeland's cathode solar model will eventually prevail IMO mainly due to that solar wind you simply do no wish to 'simulate' in a real 'experiment" (because you can't). That corona is also something that Birkeland reproduced and imaged in his lab. These physical processes are directly related to his 'aurora' experiments as well. The whole thing is based upon pure empirical physics and it works in a lab. Your stuff only works in virtual world computer simulations based on what Alfven called "pseudoscience". Alfven rejected your brand of MHD theory entire and preferred a "circuit" orientation of MHD theory as he applied that theory to objects in space. He did that to keep everything congruent with electrical engineering principles, because first a foremost he was an electrical engineer. He realize the magnetic fields form as a complete and full continuum, without beginning, and without end, and without the ability to "disconnect" or "reconnect' to any other magnetic line. Only in "virtual pseudoscience" do any of your theories actually do anything useful. Put them in the lab however, and they don't work without "electricity".

 

[GeeMack]

Birkeland's cathode solar model will eventually prevail IMO mainly due to that solar wind you simply do no wish to 'simulate' in a real 'experiment" (because you can't).

So how did Birkeland get that little brass ball heated up to 6000K without melting it? Your continued ignorance is starting to look like you don't want to answer that one, Michael. You know you could just say, "I don't know." Or better yet, "It would have been impossible for him to actually replicate conditions on the surface of the Sun because he could never have achieved the temperatures necessary to do it." But that would be like, a little too honest, don't you think?

I predict a smarmy flippant reply, and total ignorance of the substantive issue I raised.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Except of course, for all of these:



You've got a lot of lab work to do to overturn these well-tested theories. Best get busy. Or, you could continue to pay lip service to empirical science by making crap up on subjects you don't understand. Your call.

You have that exactly backwards D'rok. The "lip service to empirical science" is coming exclusively from their side of the aisle when it comes to "explaining" the most important aspects of solar physics. Instead of taking their ideas into the lab, and testing them out like Birkeland did, in real life experiments. they build "computer models" based on a theory that Alfven hismself rejected his entire life!

When I see them actually replicate some of Birkeland's empirical experiments with solar wind, coronal loops, "jets", coronal activity, etc, then and only then will they move beyond "lip service" to empirical physics.

The bottom line D'rok is that the sun does *NOT* have to be solid to act as a cathode in space. Birkeland understood that and therefore he didn't limited himself to any particular solar model. Even in my own papers, there was a concerted effort made not to "limit" ourselves to a single approach. The notion that you can simply "write off" a cathode solar model based on a thermodynamic objection is pure nonsense. Birkeland's cathode solar model would work with or without a "solid surface". That whole thermodynamic objection only actually applies to the solid aspects of my own personal theory, not to a "Cathode solar model' in a more general sense.

Birkeland not only "explained" full sphere solar wind activity, he simulated in a lab in the conventional empirical manner. Have them show you where they did that with their theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So how did Birkeland get that little brass ball heated up to 6000K without melting it? Your continued ignorance is starting to look like you don't want to answer that one, Michael. You know you could just say, "I don't know." Or better yet, "It would have been impossible for him to actually replicate conditions on the surface of the Sun because he could never have achieved the temperatures necessary to do it." But that would be like, a little too honest, don't you think?

That part that seems to be "too honest", the "truth" that you can't seem to handle is the fact that Birkeland's solar model is *NOT* dependent upon a solid surface and never was dependent upon a solid surface. You can't handle the truth.

 

[D'rok]

You have that exactly backwards D'rok. The "lip service to empirical science" is coming exclusively from their side of the aisle when it comes to "explaining" the most important aspects of solar physics. Instead of taking their ideas into the lab, and testing them out like Birkeland did, in real life experiments. they build "computer models" based on a theory that Alfven hismself rejected his entire life!

When I see them actually replicate some of Birkeland's empirical experiments with solar wind, coronal loops, "jets", coronal activity, etc, then and only then will they move beyond "lip service" to empirical physics.

The bottom line D'rok is that the sun does *NOT* have to be solid to act as a cathode in space. Birkeland understood that and therefore he didn't limited himself to any particular solar model. Even in my own papers, there was a concerted effort made not to "limit" ourselves to a single approach. The notion that you can simply "write off" a cathode solar model based on a thermodynamic objection is pure nonsense. Birkeland's cathode solar model would work with or without a "solid surface". That whole thermodynamic objection only actually applies to the solid aspects of my own personal theory, not to a "Cathode solar model' in a more general sense.

Birkeland not only "explained" full sphere solar wind activity, he simulated in a lab in the conventional empirical manner. Have them show you where they did that with their theory.

Are you seriously trying to take the position that all of those items in Cuddles' post are not supported by empirical testing?

 

[ben m]

That part that seems to be "too honest", the "truth" that you can't seem to handle is the fact that Birkeland's solar model is *NOT* dependent upon a solid surface and never was dependent upon a solid surface. You can't handle the truth.

Yes, that's the point. The Sun does not have a solid surface on top---even in your crazy model, you've been telling us all about the 3000km sea of non-solid neon; you seem to think (but are remarkably uninterested in the fact) that this plasma is indeed at 6000K. All of Birkeland's experiments were with cold, bare metal surfaces.

When did Birkeland show how a 6000K gravitationally-bound plasma (not a solid surface) can emit a wind? I don't remember that experiment. (ETA: The point, of course, is not "let me dig through some papers and try to find something close enough". The point is you have a double standard. You slap the "empirical" label willy-nilly on statements you happen to like, even if they're as silly as "electric current turns normal plasma into Mozplasma". That's what you're doing with poor Birkeland. You slap the non-empirical label on statements you happen not to like---justifying yourself by selectively ignoring experiments, claiming experiments are wrong, or getting the physics wrong and casually dismissing everything as irrelevant. In other words: "A vague visual analogy between two phenomena, reported only in a 1903 newspaper report of a lecture? Empirical proof! A billion dollars' worth of satellite, built by NASA/MIT/JPL/LBNL, with data published in reputable journals by people using Maxwell's Equations? La la I can't hear you, and if they used Maxwell's equations then it's just math bunnies so that's not empirical at all." )



You never answered my question. Have you ever, in your crackpot career, heard a mainstream scientist claim that mainstream science did have a model for the wind?

 

[GeeMack]

That part that seems to be "too honest", the "truth" that you can't seem to handle is the fact that Birkeland's solar model is *NOT* dependent upon a solid surface and never was dependent upon a solid surface. You can't handle the truth.

Why do you keep up this uncivil tirade towards me? I'm just the one pointing out that either Birkeland was a complete moron or you're wrong about what he did. He couldn't have done what you say if he didn't replicate 6000K thermal characteristics, solid or plasma. Unless you're going to go with the idea that he was a brainless buffoon who engaged in a brand of "science" that was wholly dependent on the visual appearances of something.

And it does look like you're finally bailing out on that completely ludicrous crackpot conjecture about the Sun having a solid surface. What's the matter, Michael, did all these mean old real scientists pop your little solid iron surface balloon argument?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

One more Moz-thingie, the Mozwind (as in solar wind of the Moz- kind).

In the MM solar "model", a Mozode emits electrons and various positive ions; the Mozode has a voltage of 600,000,000 volts relative to a hollow sphere which surrounds it (the Mozode is at, or near, the centre).

Approximately 1% of the way from the Mozode to the surrounding sphere, the electrons and positive ions exhibit two distinct behaviours: there is a fast wind, which moves at ~750 km/s and has a temperature of ~800,000 K; and a slow wind, which moves at ~400 km/s and has a temperature of ~1,300,000 K (there are also composition differences).

This is the Mozwind.

The Mozwind has not 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?

 

[GeeMack]

The bottom line D'rok is that the sun does *NOT* have to be solid to act as a cathode in space. Birkeland understood that and therefore he didn't limited himself to any particular solar model.

So now you're saying Birkeland didn't have a solar model. Jesus H. Christ, Michael. This whole discussion would go more smoothly if you would make up your mind about these things instead of changing your position every time someone shows just how totally inane your arguments are.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why do you keep up this uncivil tirade towards me?

What??????????? The only one who's really been "uncivil" around here is you, and really only you. Everyone else says what they feel, and "occasionally' it's "personal", but you go "personal" in every post. How many times did you claim I didn't have the math skills to balance a checkbook? How many times have you called me a "fraud"? Honestly, please put the term "civil" on your list of words I have no clue about because like your definition of "opaque", the terms you use seem to be from a completely different planet.

I'm just the one pointing out that either Birkeland was a complete moron or you're wrong about what he did.

Let's recap, shall we? Remember when you told me that Oliver told you that he "flat out denied" that he claimed the sun was "solid"? Remember how I told you that I "flat out denied' it too, and explained why we used the term "rigid" rather than "solid"? Remember that whole conversation? Hilton and Oliver convinced me to be "true" to Birkeland's work and not "limit" his theory to a single subset of that theory. In other words a cathode solar model is in no way limited to a solid surface model. I "capitched" because it made our paper "truer" to Birkeland's original work and original intent. Get it? Deal with it.

Nobody is "bailing out" of anything. In order to answer sols remaining questions, I need a better handle on the "current flows" that are directly involved in flowing through that "layer" of neon. Get it? I can't go to the next step without dealing with the current flow directly. You can't handle that part of the debate, so now you're getting all flustered. No doubt the "crackpot" claims will become fast and furious, along with your accusations about how *I* am being "uncivil" towards you. Hoy. You are a head trip and a half.

 

[GeeMack]

One more Moz-thingie, the Mozwind (as in solar wind of the Moz- kind).

In the MM solar "model", a Mozode emits electrons and various positive ions; the Mozode has a voltage of 600,000,000 volts relative to a hollow sphere which surrounds it (the Mozode is at, or near, the centre).

Approximately 1% of the way from the Mozode to the surrounding sphere, the electrons and positive ions exhibit two distinct behaviours: there is a fast wind, which moves at ~750 km/s and has a temperature of ~800,000 K; and a slow wind, which moves at ~400 km/s and has a temperature of ~1,300,000 K (there are also composition differences).

This is the Mozwind.

The Mozwind has not 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?

You mean when you actually put some numbers on it, make it quantitative, we find out that pretty much everything Michael claims about Birkeland's experiments is wrong? Like his argument is based on a complete misunderstanding of scientific reality, or maybe... even... a lie? Holy mackerel! Who woulda guessed?

 

[GeeMack]

What??????????? The only one who's really been "uncivil" around here is you, and really only you.

How's it coming on that comparison project, Michael?...

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.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Yet another Moz-thingie, Moztronium (as in neutronium of the Moz- kind).

In astrophysics, and particle physics, there is a state of (baryonic) matter called nuclear degenerate matter. Observed objects called neutron stars are composed of this form of matter.

In the MM solar "model", the Sun is powered by a ~0.1 sol-mass neutron star of Moztronium at its core^.

Moztronium has not 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; it has no empirical support in any lab on Earth; etc.

In fact, MM cannot produce *a single gram* of Moztronium; no lab on Earth have ever produced even a gram of it (and you certainly can't go to Tesco to buy some!)

Is that about right?

^ well, it is so powered on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays it is powered by a giant intergalactic Birkeland current; on Sundays is it powered by magic inflation dark energy bunnies magic Moz-physics bunnies

 

[Michael Mozina]

Are you seriously trying to take the position that all of those items in Cuddles' post are not supported by empirical testing?

What exactly on his list do you personally believe somehow falsifies a generic brand of a cathode solar model? I'll admit the surface may not be a 'solid', it may only be "rigid' (as in more dense) than the neon.

I have carefully explained the six step process that I personally need to go through to "falsify" or verify at least major parts of this solar model. The RD image that emerges must fit inside the surface of that convecting layer, or I have to do some soul searching.

The cathode aspects of this solar model however would still be applicable, even *IF* that "prediction" doesn't "pan out" all that well. Even in that case, I couldn't simply "assume" that *NO* brand of a "cathode solar model" was applicable to what I was observing.

I guess about all I can tell you is that unless and until they can empirically duplicate and replicate the 'predictions" of Birkeland's experiments in real experiments of their own that do not require "current flow" between a cathode sun and an anode heliosphere, I will still continue to support an "electric" solar model for the rest of my life. I guess that probably makes no sense to you, but as I've said, I'm more attached to a "cathode sun" than I am attached to a "solid surface solar model". The term "rigid" in those papers was not accidental, but rather it was intended to keep the work as true to Birkeland's original intent as possible.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How's it coming on that comparison project, Michael?...

More denial on your part now? I already used those RD routines you cited and the IDL language they are based on to create RD images, the images you said I could not create. I already did that for you. I'm now waiting to get my hands on the high resolution FITS files form SDO, and I'm going through Hinode images in the mean time. I'm done doing your homework assignments, and I'm spending my time on what *I* want to spend it on, not what *YOU* would like me to spend it on. Get it?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You mean when you actually put some numbers on it, make it quantitative, we find out that pretty much everything Michael claims about Birkeland's experiments is wrong? Like his argument is based on a complete misunderstanding of scientific reality, or maybe... even... a lie? Holy mackerel! Who woulda guessed?

I'm merely taking MM at his (oft repeated) word.

In particular: "the scientific process is supposed to work something like: Observation->Need To Understand That Observation->Empirical Idea->Empirical Experimentation->Numerical Prediction->"

The "Observations" are very certain (from the observed power of the Sun, to its spectrum, to features we observe from our perch ~150 million kms distant - images, dopplergrams, magnetograms, etc - to the solar wind outside the Earth's magnetosphere, to ...).

Ditto the "Need To Understand That Observation".

MM's "Empirical Idea" is also very clear; it's MM's solar "model".

However, all the Moz-thingies I've described so far* fail the "Empirical Experimentation" step.

* subject to the correction of any errors I may have made, and any necessary amendments or updates (esp from MM himself)

 

[Michael Mozina]

You mean when you actually put some numbers on it, make it quantitative, we find out that pretty much everything Michael claims about Birkeland's experiments is wrong? Like his argument is based on a complete misunderstanding of scientific reality, or maybe... even... a lie?

A lie? You really think that is civil conversation? Really? How can you whine about me being uncivil to you when you call me a liar or a fraud just about every single day? Honestly GM, what planet are you from anyway? Who do you think buys your song and dance routine anyway? Civil? Hoy.

The only "lie" around here is that I ever personally limited myself to *A SINGLE* subset of Birkeland's solar theories, or that Birkeland's solar theories are somehow limited to a solid surface. That's *YOUR* strawman, and YOUR lie, not mine. I said "rigid" in those papers, not "solid". I defy you to find the term "solid' in any of them.

 

[dasmiller]

I'll admit the surface may not be a 'solid', it may only be "rigid' (as in more dense) than the neon.

So does your 'rigid' mean anything other than 'more dense?' That may clear things up a bit; many of us didn't see how going from 'solid' to 'rigid' changed anything, but if you simply meant 'more dense,' then I think we're all pretty confortable with the idea that as you go farther below the photosphere, the density goes up. I think we'd all assumed that 'rigid' meant the material had some resistance to static (as in non-dynamic, not as in static electricity) shear or tension.