Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Tim Thompson]

Is the Sun a Cathode?

What exactly was his "cathode" discharging to RC?

What's a "cathode" (with quotation marks)? Is it anything like a cathode (without quotation marks)? Our handy-dandy wikipedia cathode "is an electrode through which electric current flows out of a polarized electrical device." They go on to say that it is not true that a cathode polarity must always be negative, and they give an example of a cathode with switching polarity. We also find this: "Consequently, as can be seen from the following examples, in a device which consumes power the cathode is negative, and in a device which provides power the cathode is positive:".

Now, I neither know nor care about the cathode in Birkeland's lab, assuming he had one (probably the terella). But what about the sun? What kind of a cathode (or "cathode") is the sun? Clearly the sun carries neither negative nor positive constant polarity, since it is seen to simultaneously emit equal numbers of positive protons and negative electrons (equal to the best of our ability to measure equality, which is actually quite substantial). If the solar polarity is switching or in some way time-variable, it must be so on a time scale too short to affect the charge neutrality of the solar wind. Certainly from our provincial, terrestrial point of view, the sun appears to be providing quite a lot of power (roughly 1368 Watts/meter² on a plane perpendicular to the direction of the sunlight, above Earth's atmosphere). So we would Wiki-assume that the sun must be of positive polarity, which seems the opposite of Mozina's intention.

Quite simply put, empirical science, in the form of direct in-situ measurements of the solar wind composition proves that the sun is not and cannot be a cathode in any conventional sense. Now, as for being a "cathode" (with quotation marks), I can't say, since I have no idea what that is supposed to be.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

FWIW, about 2400 posts back, MM posted a link to a SERTS paper from 1990: Photospheric abundances of Oxygen, Neon, and Argon derived from the XUV spectrum of a coronal flare (post 1529)

I don't feel that it validates MM's model (and I think I've been pretty clear about that over the last few weeks), but he did post a link.

Thanks for this!

I remembered that he'd posted a link, but couldn't find the post in which he'd done it (now I know why ... I was searching for SERTS).

Curiously, this paper does not report any SERTS data (the observations were taken using a spectroheliogram aboard Skylab).

Even more curiously, MM seems to think - per post #1529 - that (relative) line intensity is a valid measure of (relative) ionisation populations!

Does anyone else find it odd - if that's the right word - that MM seems to apply his own, idiosyncratic, intuitive feel for things, in place of the Numerical Prediction he says is what's called for (in his own, idiosyncratic, version of the scientific method)?

I could not find any analysis of the SERTS data (or any data, for that matter) concerning relative populations (in various ionisation states), or relative abundances of the 20 or so elements whose lines have been reported, in any MM posts or on his website.

Would it be correct to say that most of what MM reports cannot be independently verified, if only because he says so little about his analyses?

 

[Marcus]

Perhaps it wouldn't hurt you to learn a little math. I understand you don't wish to go toe to toe with these guys, I don't blame you , but it would help you to understand the issues a little better.

AFIK you haven't responded to Sol's request for info so he can calculate the opacity of the Moplasma, I'm behind again.

 

[GeeMack]

More "civil" dialog on your part Dr. Denial?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A00E0DA133BE633A25750C2A9649C946296D6CF

Oh look, he *DID* have a model after all! Now of course he didn't use "brass" when calculating the mass of the universe but instead he used "iron". Then again you're in pure denial of that point too. You will stoop to any low to call me a liar. You're the liar GM. Birkeland had a solar model. It was an *ELECTRIC* solar theory. Deal with it.

Yep. We've already gone through this. Birkeland so poorly understood the workings of the Sun that he believed atoms were being spewed into space and forming new planets. He believed the "electrification" was in the neighborhood of 600,000,000 volts. He was horribly and completely wrong. If he were alive today and making the same claims he would be regarded as a crackpot and his ideas would be considered moronic.

Oh, and what a complete idiot he must have been, if he believed the Sun had a solid iron surface (which of course he didn't) to model the surface from brass instead of iron. Was he insane? Stupid?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yep. We've already gone through this. Birkeland so poorly understood the workings of the Sun that he believed atoms were being spewed into space and forming new planets. He believed the "electrification" was in the neighborhood of 600,000,000 volts. He was horribly and completely wrong. If he were alive today and making the same claims he would be regarded as a crackpot and his ideas would be considered moronic.

Only by you. More "civil" dialog? You definitely need to add that word to your list.

 

[GeeMack]

FYI, Paravolt, the point of the RD disk size prediction I made earlier in this thread directly relates back to the ionization state of the atmosphere. If the atmosphere is highly ionized we should see the RD image fit nicely inside the chromosphere boundary. If it is not as highly ionized as I presume then the RD disk will fit just outside of that boundary.

The above comment is double talk. A running difference graph is simply a graphical representation of a series of mathematical calculations showing the difference in values of corresponding pixels between a pair of sequential images. Your qualifications to understand solar imagery have been challenged and you have been wholly unable to demonstrate that you possess any such qualifications. Consequently any argument you make based on solar imagery is an unqualified opinion and is worthless as evidence.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well the idea of transmuting elements dates back at least 2 and a half millenia (if you believe wikipedia).

It seems to me that Birkeland was more than a little interested in uranium. When talking about the sun's power source he mentioned several radioactive isotopes as I recall. It seems to me he was pretty much on the cutting edge of what was going on in science at that point. I don't think he would have been at all surprise at what transpired after his death, except for the fact that you guys forgot all his work.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The above comment is double talk. A running difference graph is simply a graphical representation of a series of mathematical calculations showing the difference in values of corresponding pixels between a pair of sequential images.

Which of course explains absolutely *NOTHING* related to the solar images and the rigid patterns in them, the "flying stuff" and the 'disk' that you can't see, etc.

Your qualifications to understand solar imagery have been challenged...

Yawn. You're like a parrot with that line. Since you never put up any numbers (or anted up) you certainly never provided any 'challenge'.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How exactly would an iron sun form?

Theoretically gravity should do.

How and where would the elements that form the iron sun be created?

As far as I know they have always existed. Perhaps this paper might help explain some of 'origin" type issues a bit?
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0511051

 

[Tubbythin]

It seems to me that Birkeland was more than a little interested in uranium. When talking about the sun's power source he mentioned several radioactive isotopes as I recall. It seems to me he was pretty much on the cutting edge of what was going on in science at that point. I don't think he would have been at all surprise at what transpired after his death, except for the fact that you guys forgot all his work.

Right. Then this is not fission he is talking about.

 

[Reality Check]

I'm not talking about his experiments RC. How evasive can you be? Where did his solar cathode discharge to RC?

Nowhere because he never mentions a solar cathode nor where it would discharge to. Otherwise you would be able to answer this:

• Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).

How evasive can you be?

The problem is you have to know what you're searching for RC and since you've never read the book you wouldn't know. Try searching for "uranium".

Searched for uranium:
The first quote comes after he talks about the natural emission of beta particles from radium.

A disintegration such as this in the sun does not necessarily presuppose the presence there of great quantities of radium, uranium, or thorium.

(my emphasis added)
Whoops - no fission there. And is Birkeland also calling you a liar?

I do like the comment on the next page showing the lack of knowledge of the time:

Under the temperature-conditions prevailing in the sun, it is possible that ordinary matter may be so radio-active, that it is not necessary to assume the presence in great quantities of the radio-elements known in ordinary temperatures.

Of course we know now that no matter how much you heat matter it will not become radioactive (spontaneously decay). The best you can do is heat light elements at high pressures to cause fusion.
It also suggest that he thinks that the Sun is really, really hot - rulling out you iron crust fantasy*

In three hours the brass anode was completely coated with a shining mirror of platinum. On the glass wall of the vacuum-case there was a fairly sharp shadow of a screen that stood between the cathode and the wall, so that in this experiment we are fully justified in speaking of "platinum rays".
In the same way, in many and varied experiments, rays of palladium and uranium were produced with the employment of as much as from 15,000 to 20,000 volts to the cathode (the positive pole was earthed) and temperatures of from 600 to about 1800 C.

Whoops - no fission there.

• Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"

You'll also note from the NY Times article that he entertained the idea of a transmutation of elements - fusion.

You'll also note that his experimet produced "platinum rays", "palladium rays" and "uranium rays" from platinum, palladium and uranium coated brass anodes. He then compares these rays to alpha rays in the news article as a suggestion of transmutation - not fusion. This is similar to his mistake in comparing electrical discharges to solar activity. Just because things look alike does not mean that they have any connection.

* Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 70 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.

 

[Reality Check]

It seems to me that Birkeland was more than a little interested in uranium. When talking about the sun's power source he mentioned several radioactive isotopes as I recall.

Your recall is wrong. He mentions radium, uranium and thorium in the context of their radioactivity. No isotopes are mentioned.
In fact he talks about radium a lot more than uranium because radium is a good source of beta and alpha particles.

Just to make sure here:
You do know that radioactivity is not fission?
Radioactivity is basically alpha and beta decay.
Fission is the splitting of a heavy nucleus into lighter daughter elements, e.g U into Kr and Ba.
There are heavy elements that spontaneously fission. Uranium does with half-lives of billions of years.
Radium is over one million times more radioactive than the same mass of uranium.

 

[GeeMack]

Which of course explains absolutely *NOTHING* related to the solar images and the rigid patterns in them, the "flying stuff" and the 'disk' that you can't see, etc.

Why, certainly it does, Michael. It explains the fact that a running difference graph no more shows any real stuff than a pie chart can be sliced into pieces and served for dessert. To claim otherwise would be an argument from incredulity and/or ignorance.

Yawn. You're like a parrot with that line. Since you never put up any numbers (or anted up) you certainly never provided any 'challenge'.

The number I put up was this: A total of zero (a number) professional astrophysicists will agree with your misinterpretation of a running difference graph. Zero. That's a number. And that's my prediction. For you to say I haven't put up any numbers or made any relevant predictions is a lie.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why, certainly it does, Michael. It explains the fact that a running difference graph no more shows any real stuff than a pie chart can be sliced into pieces and served for dessert. To claim otherwise would be an argument from incredulity and/or ignorance.

Don't even talk to me about ignorance about RD images Mr. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?". Your so called "expertise" went up in smoke with me at that comment. You may understand the process, but you can't begin to relate it to solar physics and physical processes in the solar atmosphere.

The number I put up was this:

That's called a logical fallacy, specifically an appeal to authority fallacy. Everyone knows you have no mathematical teeth or bite GM. We all saw how it went down the size of the disk question finally came up. Your response was priceless IMO: "Disk? What disk?"

 

[GeeMack]

Don't even talk to me about ignorance about RD images Mr. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?". Your so called "expertise" went up in smoke with me at that comment. You may understand the process, but you can't begin to relate it to solar physics and physical processes in the solar atmosphere.

The data used to create the running difference graphs you keep blathering about comes from thousands, some as much as tens of thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. What you're claiming to see is some physically impossible surface several thousand kilometers below the photosphere, tens of thousands of kilometers below the place where the data was gathered to make the running difference graphs. A running difference graph, because it shows thermal changes in the solar atmosphere, is irrlevant to your crackpot conjecture. Don't you understand that yet?

That's called a logical fallacy, specifically an appeal to authority fallacy. Everyone knows you have no mathematical teeth or bite GM. We all saw how it went down the size of the disk question finally came up. Your response was priceless IMO: "Disk? What disk?"

When the issue of size came up I said that running difference graph you post on the front page of your web site, the one showing the graph of images from the whole Sun, on my monitor is about 1/17209728800th the dimension of the commonly accepted diameter of the photosphere. So again you're lying. And about your mathematical support? As I recall you said something like...

Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math.

Did you do a little math yet?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The above comment is double talk. A running difference graph is simply a graphical representation of a series of mathematical calculations showing the difference in values of corresponding pixels between a pair of sequential images.

E.g.

[latex]\[ G_{i} \approx I_{i+1} - I_i \][/latex]

Which of course explains absolutely *NOTHING* related to the solar images and the rigid patterns in them, the "flying stuff" and the 'disk' that you can't see, etc.

Well, it's the first thing you'd have to understand before you'd be able to understand any sensible explanation of the running difference images and why the patterns you think rigid aren't.

Everyone knows you have no mathematical teeth or bite GM.

Well, he did understand that your 7200km claim implied 100000km of transparent Mozplazma, and that your revised 4800km claim implied 80000km of transparent Mozplazma. If and when you acknowledge those facts by completing ben_m's diagram, and provide sol invictus with the parameters needed to test your claims (by calculating the opacity), you'll be in a slightly more credible position to attack GeeMack's mathematical abilities.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

How exactly would an iron sun form?

Theoretically gravity should do.

Um, haven't you just failed the MM test of what's valid, re scientific process?

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

I mean don't you first need to have done "Empirical Experimentation" followed by "Numerical Prediction" on Mozeparation, with Mozplasma acting as a Mozode?

These are critical components of any "iron sun" (well, strictly speaking, any sun that is consistent with the MM solar "model"), so you can't talk about how such a sun forms until you've first shown - by "Empirical Experimentation" - that such a thing can exist ... unless, of course, you violate your own rules on how the scientific process is supposed to work.

What am I missing (apart from the total lack of any math Numerical Prediction)?

 

[dafydd]

Theoretically gravity should do.

Give us the benefit of your extensive knowledge and explain why gravity would form an iron sun,complete with the maths,instead of just making unjustified assertions.The impressiveness is not terrific,to borrow a phrase.

 

[Tricky]

There's a great deal of incivility and bickering on this thread so I strongly advise you to cut out the sniping and sneering. Address the topic or this thread will be put on moderated status.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

It seems that some of us cannot set aside their bickering, so I'm keeping my promise to put this on moderated status. What I don't promise is that I'll be very punctual or very lenient in checking posts. If your behavior improves, perhaps we can remove the moderated status.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky