Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, but those things you mistakenly perceive to be structures are actually a simple optical illusion

Ya, a "simple optical illusion" where all the structures stay "rigid" during a massive CME. Nice illiusion.

 

[GeeMack]

More (see my posts towards the bottom of the last page): simulations, electricity, and the Sun's activity.

Yes. And by all means we must not forget "geometric"!

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
• electricity
• empirical
• general relativity
• geometry
• gravity
• idiosyncratic
• limb darkening
• model
• nuclear chemistry
• opaque
• photosphere
• predicted
• quasar
• rigid
• running difference
• simulations
• solar model
• sputtering
• structures
• Sun's activity
• 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.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, sunspots are rigid, the Great Red Spot is rigid, coronal loops are rigid, thunderstorms are rigid . . .?

Do you think if we set off a giant nuclear explosion inside a thunderstorm that the "structures" of the clouds would remain static?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, Michael, if you want to correct this list.

Just add "civil" and "spam" to your list.

 

[GeeMack]

Ya, a "simple optical illusion" where all the structures stay "rigid" during a massive CME. Nice illiusion.

Well you have two things going against you here. First, you obviously aren't qualified to understand what a running difference image is. And second, you don't possess the qualifications to understand what the terms "rigid" or "structures" mean in the same plain English way as the rest of the people in this conversation. Your use of them to support your crackpot conjecture is rejected.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Just as your argument has been persistent, but far from solid?

Look, if you keep making me giggle, I'm going to have rethink the whole Vulcan thing. Don't make me do that!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Don't you think we should see *SOME* physical effect of all that extra energy somewhere inside the solar system?

No, of course not.

You see, per the Friedmann equations ... oh, sorry, you can't do simple algebra.

OK, well then, the mass/energy density of DE, in the local universe is ... oh, sorry, you *refuse* to even read numbers, let alone try to understand them.

But if none of us can use simple math, or even numbers, to discuss anything with you, how can we have a dialogue?

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,

Really? Are you sure?!?

Except for the fact that you can't (or won't even try) to understand the content, I'd recommend this: "Successful Coronal Heating and Solar Wind Acceleration by MHD Waves by Numerical Simulations from Photosphere to 0.3AU" (plenty more where that came from; likely hundreds, if not thousands, of papers ...)

 

[Ziggurat]

I dont know exactly where the magnetic field comes from in an electron. Current is motion of electrons in some direction.

It doesn't matter where it comes from, it's there, and calling electron spin "current" makes no sense.

Magnetic fields are always associated with charge.

I suppose at some level that's true, but neutrons have magnetic dipole moments and magnetic fields as well.

Again. You can find charge at a macroscopic scale by itself.
For magnetism it requires the motion of the electron at the macroscopic scale. Maybe when they move their domains line up....

A refrigerator magnet is magnetic because the electron spins align. No current is involved.

I can put a bunch of charges together and the level of charge increases. And I dont have to line them up. To increase the magnetic field at the microscopic level I have to line up the "magnetic domains".

To increase the magnetic field at the microscopic level I have to change the spin direction. I don't have to move the particles around. To increase the electric field at the microscopic level I have to move charges around. What's your point?

"The term "electron spin" is not to be taken literally in the classical sense as a description of the origin of the magnetic moment described above. To be sure, a spinning sphere of charge can produce a magnetic moment, but the magnitude of the magnetic moment obtained above cannot be reasonably modeled by considering the electron as a spinning sphere.

Exactly. So the magnetic field due to an electron's spin is not current. Magnetic fields can be created without current.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well you have two things going against you here.

Ya, you and your irrational definition of the term "civil".

 

[Michael Mozina]

A refrigerator magnet is magnetic because the electron spins align. No current is involved.

Unless you're switching to my side, you only have plasma to work with.

 

[dasmiller]

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"

that's not at all how dark energy is defined, any more than "Jack the Ripper"=any unidentified murderer.

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?

You don't think we should see DE effects in the solar system. We don't think we should see DE effects in the solar system. We #(*&$&* AGREE on that, Michael. You can't falsify either SSM or your Cathode Sun using DE. So it's irrelevent to this thread.

 

[dasmiller]

Ya, a "simple optical illusion" where all the structures stay "rigid" during a massive CME. Nice illiusion.

Shockwaves go through clouds without substantially deforming the clouds. Also, in a 2D image like that, we really don't know where those persistant structures were wrt the shockwaves.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Unless you're switching to my side, you only have plasma to work with.

Tell me MM, when the shock wave from a supernova, impacting the ISM, accelerates protons (and other charged particles) to ultra-relativistic speeds (so they become cosmic rays), where do the electric currents come from? How about the magnetic fields?

(you did see Tim Thompson's excellent post on this topic, didn't you? Oh right, you didn't understand it, so you ignored it; got it! )

 

[GeeMack]

Ya, you and your irrational definition of the term "civil".

Because your civility is above reproach.

Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that number out of your ^ss.

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.

Apparently you're a coward.

Sheesh. You're pathetic.

You're full of hot air.

I have a lot of new tools now that I can use to stuff images down your throat with.

You are the only liar among us GM. You've called Birkeland a bozo. Don't lie and pretend to defend his good name. It only makes you look like the worlds biggest hypocrite, as does every claim you make about *ME* being "uncivil" to you, or "me" throwing a "tantrum". You're a walking talking temper tantrum on parade.

​

Now if you don't mind, knock off the trolling and get back to the subject at hand, which as I recall is your crackpot conjecture that the Sun has a solid iron surface.

 

[Ziggurat]

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"

Nope. Dark energy relates specifically to gravity.

and the solar wind is another example of an acceleration process they do not understand.

But which we know is not gravitational. And I already told you how we know that.

It's just a placeholder term, right?

Wrong.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because your civility is above reproach.

It would take me *WEEKS* to round up even a sampling of your insults GM, and you can't even post a single post without one.

Case in point:

....which as I recall is your crackpot conjecture that the Sun has a solid iron surface.

You're like a spam parrot. You can't even post a single post that doesn't include at least one emotional crutch.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope. Dark energy relates specifically to gravity.

How? It has no influence on gravitationally bound objects, remember? Make up your mind.

 

[Ziggurat]

How? It has no influence on gravitationally bound objects, remember? Make up your mind.

Who said it has no influence on gravitationally bound objects? I certainly didn't. I believe I said it did. Gravity is gravity, whether it's bound objects or not.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Who said it has no influence on gravitationally bound objects? I certainly didn't. I believe I said it did. Gravity is gravity, whether it's bound objects or not.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5925750&postcount=3395

Current models show that dark energy does not apply to any gravitationally bound structure. Any structure the size of a galactic supercluster or smaller is gravitationally bound, and effectively not affected by dark energy. Stars (including the Sun!) are much, much smaller than galactic superclusters. QED.

Now whom shall I believe?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wrong.

If it's not a placeholder term for human ignorance, what is it?