Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
Ya, and I can just imagine you guys howling at the top of your lungs if I had ever said such a thing.
Click to expand...

I have used exactly the same tone with you on many questions in this thread. At least, I've used the same tone when I asked the question for the first time.

And you wonder why I don't bark math on command around here.
Click to expand...
No, I think we understand that one.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Is there anything else I should be aware of that I'm giving up in terms of real empirical physics that I should be warned about before I think about rejoining your hostile little metaphysical religion?
Click to expand...
You mean other than Mozplasma, Mozode, Mozeparation, Mozcharge, Mozwind, and Moztronium?

Yeah, I'm working on a few others, based on your website and what you've written here, in this thread. For example, there's a quite mind-boggling one about 2D/3D geometry (remember D'rok's request?).
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Sounds like we're in for a long wait. I enjoyed Avatar in 3D, but James Cameron hasn't yet figured out how to display a full sphere in his movies.

Or maybe I'm overthinking this, in which case we should add "sphere" and "resolution" to the list of words that Michael Mozina uses without understanding what they mean.
Click to expand...

Ok, so a "rotating disk" would have been a better term Mr. Spock. :)
 
Michael Mozina said:
I'm really amused at the dark energy issue and how you *ASSUME* it has nothing to do with that "acceleration" you can't explain called the "solar wind". You all seem to believe that 70% of our physical universe is composed of this stuff, and causes the whole thing to accelerate, but you also *assume* it has no effect on gravitationally bound objects. You guys make this stuff up as you go evidently. This is *SO* much like a religion it's not funny. You have to believe Xenu the inflation deity gave his very existence to get the party started. We then have to believe the magic dark energy genies make the whole thing accelerate but *NEVER* effect anything with mass in a controlled "test". We have to believe that "physics" as we understand it only constitutes about 4% of the whole physical universe. And you guys have the nerve to call me a "crackpot"?
Click to expand...

Michael, nobody here believes that dark energy has any connection to the solar wind. Not me, not you, not Tim, not Zig, not RC, not GM, not Sol, nobody. It's not relevant to this thread. This thread is already too long without off-topic posts.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I mean that Kosovichev was correct that there are likely to be 'mass flows' associated with these "long lived structures", particularly all along the edges. Those are mass flows inside the discharge loops following the contours of the solid surface IMO. The bulk of the mass flow takes place in "small" coronal loops, not the big ones that come up and through the convecting surface in gband images. The RD process should "work" because that light/heat is concentrated in the loops along the "surface". The "pie chart of temperatures" relates to that surface, not the gband surface IMO.
Click to expand...

and . . . there's a definition of "rigid" in there somewhere . . .?
 
dasmiller said:
and . . . there's a definition of "rigid" in there somewhere . . .?
Click to expand...

"Rigid" would best be measured in terms of change(or lack thereof)/time. The structures of the surface of the convecting photosphere tend to come and go in about 8 minute intervals or so. Those "structures" in Kosovichev's tsunami video last much longer.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
"Rigid" would best be measured in terms of change(or lack thereof)/time. The structures of the surface of the convecting photosphere tend to come and go in about 8 minute intervals or so. Those "structures" in Kosovichev's tsunami video last much longer.
Click to expand...
So you've been saying "solid" or "rigid" when what you really meant is "persistent"?
 
Michael Mozina said:
"Rigid" would best be measured in terms of change(or lack thereof)/time. The structures of the surface of the convecting photosphere tend to come and go in about 8 minute intervals or so. Those "structures" in Kosovichev's tsunami video last much longer.
Click to expand...

So, sunspots are rigid, the Great Red Spot is rigid, coronal loops are rigid, thunderstorms are rigid . . .?
 
Michael Mozina said:
I mean that Kosovichev was correct that there are likely to be 'mass flows' associated with these "long lived structures", particularly all along the edges. Those are mass flows inside the discharge loops following the contours of the solid surface IMO. The bulk of the mass flow takes place in "small" coronal loops, not the big ones that come up and through the convecting surface in gband images. The RD process should "work" because that light/heat is concentrated in the loops along the "surface". The "pie chart of temperatures" relates to that surface, not the gband surface IMO.
Click to expand...


He wants you to define "rigid", Michael. But your willful ignorance is once again noted.

Your qualifications to communicate in a sane, rational, and intelligent manner on the issue of, well, anything are being challenged. So far you have been unable to demonstrate that you possess any such qualifications.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Funny that none of those are found on my website (or necessary). :)
Click to expand...
Oh yes they are!

For example, "The electrical arcs from the surface of both spheres is what emits the x-rays and gamma rays seen in Yohkoh and RHESSI images of the sun" is a pretty darn good description of the Mozcharge, as is "Bruce confirmed what Birkeland had predicted nearly fifty years earlier, showing that the electrical activity was directly responsible for the high energy discharges from the solar surface".

Then there's both Mozcharge and Mozeparation in two sentences: "shows a close up view of the solar wind created from the electrical arcs. These arcs create streamers as they travel through the sun's outer atmosphere of mass separated plasmas."

For Mozplasma (and a bit of Mozeparation), we have this: "This visible neon plasma layer that we call the photosphere, and a thicker, more dense atmospheric layer composed of silicon plasma, entirely covers the actual rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer of the sun"

Shall I go on?

All I need is a little current flow between the surface and the heliosphere to ionize some plasma.
Click to expand...
You mean between the Mozode and heliosphere.

But how much "current flow" do you need? I do believe, in five years of internet posting, you've not once actually said, have you?
 
dasmiller said:
So, sunspots are rigid, the Great Red Spot is rigid, coronal loops are rigid, thunderstorms are rigid . . .?
Click to expand...
And the Gulf Stream, and the various jet streams, and the Jovian belts, and Saturn's rings (as well as Jupiter's, Uranus', and Neptune's), and all supernova remnants, and all planetary nebulae, and all galaxies, and the zodiacal light, and ...
 
Michael Mozina said:
"Rigid" would best be measured in terms of change(or lack thereof)/time. The structures of the surface of the convecting photosphere tend to come and go in about 8 minute intervals or so. Those "structures" in Kosovichev's tsunami video last much longer.
Click to expand...


This ludicrous argument reinforces the cause of having "rigid" on this list. Also it requires I add "structures" to the list. And I had to add "predicted" to the list because of Michael's frequent and incorrect arguments that he and/or Kristian Birkeland predicted certain things...

The terms Michael uses, the definitions of which he clearly does not understand include, but are not limited to:

  • atmosphere
  • black hole
  • blackbody
  • cathode
  • chromosphere
  • current flow
  • dark energy
  • dark matter
  • electric universe
  • empirical
  • general relativity
  • gravity
  • idiosyncratic
  • limb darkening
  • model
  • nuclear chemistry
  • opaque
  • photosphere
  • predicted
  • quasar
  • rigid
  • running difference
  • solar model
  • sputtering
  • structures
  • theory
If Michael's arguments contain any of these words or phrases, we can accept the arguments as meaningless gibberish because he has demonstrated that he doesn't have the qualifications to understand them.​

Oh, Michael, if you want to correct this list by providing a definition of any of these words or phrases that shows you actually understand them as generally used in the science of astrophysics, feel free to offer your definition. And if you would, give us an example by using it properly in a sentence. But until you can do that, please refrain from using these terms as part of your arguments since it is abundantly clear that people will not understand what you're trying to communicate as long as you continue to use these terms incorrectly.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
This ludicrous argument reinforces the cause of having "rigid" on this list. Also it requires I add "structures" to the list. And I had to add "predicted" to the list because of Michael's frequent and incorrect arguments that he and/or Kristian Birkeland predicted certain things...

The terms Michael uses, the definitions of which he clearly does not understand include, but are not limited to:

  • atmosphere
  • black hole
  • blackbody
  • cathode
  • chromosphere
  • current flow
  • dark energy
  • dark matter
  • electric universe
  • empirical
  • general relativity
  • gravity
  • idiosyncratic
  • limb darkening
  • model
  • nuclear chemistry
  • opaque
  • photosphere
  • predicted
  • quasar
  • rigid
  • running difference
  • solar model
  • sputtering
  • structures
  • theory
If Michael's arguments contain any of these words or phrases, we can accept the arguments as meaningless gibberish because he has demonstrated that he doesn't have the qualifications to understand them.​

Oh, Michael, if you want to correct this list by providing a definition of any of these words or phrases that shows you actually understand them as generally used in the science of astrophysics, feel free to offer your definition. And if you would, give us an example by using it properly in a sentence. But until you can do that, please refrain from using these terms as part of your arguments since it is abundantly clear that people will not understand what you're trying to communicate as long as you continue to use these terms incorrectly.
Click to expand...
More (see my posts towards the bottom of the last page): simulations, electricity, and the Sun's activity.
 
GeeMack said:
Oh, Michael, if you want to correct this list by providing a definition of any of these words or phrases that shows you actually understand them as generally used in the science of astrophysics, feel free to offer your definition.
Click to expand...

Oh no. Just be sure to add "civil" to your list because I have no clue what that word means to you personally.
 
dasmiller said:
So, sunspots are rigid, the Great Red Spot is rigid, coronal loops are rigid, thunderstorms are rigid . . .?
Click to expand...

Those tend to be "persistent' although not necessarily 'rigid".

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi

You'll notice that the structures are not only persistent they retain the geometric relationship with each other even *DURING A CME EVENT* that would typically blow light plasma structures all over the place.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Those tend to be "persistent' although not necessarily 'rigid".

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi

You'll notice that the structures are not only persistent they retain the geometric relationship with each other even *DURING A CME EVENT* that would typically blow light plasma structures all over the place.
Click to expand...
(bold added)

per tusenfem's (and someone else's too, sorry I can find your post just now) post, we need to add "light plasma" to the list.

You never did answer tusenfem's questions on this, did you MM?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Those tend to be "persistent' although not necessarily 'rigid".

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi

You'll notice that the structures are not only persistent they retain the geometric relationship with each other even *DURING A CME EVENT* that would typically blow light plasma structures all over the place.
Click to expand...


Oh, but those things you mistakenly perceive to be structures are actually a simple optical illusion which would be easily understood by most people with the intelligence of a forth grader. Remember, no running difference material you present as evidence can be accepted because you aren't qualified to understand what they are.
 
dasmiller said:
Michael, nobody here believes that dark energy has any connection to the solar wind. Not me, not you, not Tim, not Zig, not RC, not GM, not Sol, nobody. It's not relevant to this thread. This thread is already too long without off-topic posts.
Click to expand...

Actually dasmiller, I think it's an appropriate topic for this thread since the mainstream does claim that "acceleration they don't understand"="dark energy", and the solar wind is another example of an acceleration process they do not understand. They also insist that more than 70% of the universe is composed of the stuff. Don't you think we should see *SOME* physical effect of all that extra energy somewhere inside the solar system?

It seems to me that the ad hoc nature of your DE claim is really best exemplified in that solar wind enigma. You don't understand that constant, full sphere acceleration process, so by the logic of the mainstream we can also refer to that acceleration process as "dark energy". It's just a placeholder term, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom