Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina's delusions about Birkeland's work

Michael Mozina said:
Not only did he correctly predict the existence of a solar corona, he explained how it worked.
Click to expand...
Yet another bit of stupidity from you:
The corona was first described on December 22 968 during a eclipse of the Sun and verified as part of the Sun in 1724.
​
The corona is not the solar wind. Birkeland did correctly predict the composition of the solar wind. I do not know if he was the first person who thought that the Sun gave off particles. Some of the citations in his book suggests not.
He got "how it worked" totally wrong since no cathode-ray pencils travelling at near the speed of light have ever been observed from the Sun.
This is just a tiny bit of the persistent delusions that you have about Birkeland's work as described in his book, along with several outright lies.
I have listed the delusions and lies below with the dates that these were first pointed out here. I suspect that in other forum your lies about Birkeland have been exposed for years.​
  2. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
    7th July 2009
  3. 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).
    7th July 2009
  4. Is Saturn the Sun?
    14th July 2009
  5. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
    14th July 2009
  6. Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind
    28 December 2009
  7. Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book? (really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)
    27th April 2010
  8. Are galaxies electrical discharges from magnetized iron spheres (Birkelands "nebulae model")?
    3rd May 2010
  9. Where in Birkeland's book does he state that the Sun is a metal globe?
    12th May 2010
  10. Why is the iron crust iron and not Birkeland's brass?
    14th May 2010
 
What is Dark Energy?

If I may quote myself from August 26 ...

Tim Thompson said:
Physics recognizes the existence of 4 and only 4 fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force and the strong force (with the caveat that general relativity does not recognize gravity as a genuine force, treating it as geometry). So which of these 4 is dark energy? It can't be either the weak or strong force, they are extremely short range forces that show up only over nuclear distances, roughly 10-15 meters. It can't be gravity as we know it because gravity is attractive not repulsive. And it can't be classical electromagnetism, as illustrated in my posts above (electromagnetic fields are not at all "dark" in any sense). At once we see that all of the known forces are ruled out by observation. ... If Mozina thinks that dark energy is in fact one of the 4 known forces, then let him say which one, and explain why anybody should believe him. Otherwise, it's just one more in a long line of failures for Mozina and his pseudoscience.
Click to expand...
I think it is fair to say that Mozina has spoken to this point ...
Michael Mozina said:
For instance, in Birkeland's electric universe, the "dark matter" and "dark energy" are simply "moving high speed particles". They aren't "dark" in the conventional sense, but they would in fact operate exactly (well somewhat) like the 'dark matter" and "dark energy" components of current theory. ... Likewise the particles that "fly away" from the galaxy to never return are simply "cosmic rays" that are moving at very close to the speed of light. That "aether" of cosmic rays is again "more massive" than any other form of slow moving matter in the universe. That fast moving mass acts to "speed up" anything in the universe that moves slower than the "light speed EM aether". In other words it acts a lot like "dark energy".
Click to expand...
And I have addressed this basic claim thusly ...
Tim Thompson said:
Curiously, "dark energy" picked up that peculiar monicker by virtue of being, well, dark. Cosmic rays, all of which are charged particles, are not dark. You said that, according to Birkeland, their mass inside the galaxies, was greater than the mass of the stars, a claim trivially ruled out by orders of magnitude, by virtue of the scientifically time honored practice of observation. Likewise, observation limits the cosmic ray sea to a sub-observable threshold. However, in the scenario you describe, entire galaxies (109 to 1012 solar masses) are pulled along and even accelerated by all these cosmic rays. The electromagnetic emission from those cosmic rays cannot avoid being "blinding", so to speak, and yet we see nothing. Furthermore, they have to produce an amazingly spherically symmetric acceleration, so that opposite ends of the universe are accelerated exactly the same. How does your dark sea of cosmic rays mange to pull that off? And finally, if the cosmic rays are pulling all of these galaxies along, then they must be losing copious amounts if energy (accelerating 1010 solar masses to a substantial fraction of the speed of light requires a great deal of energy, in case you hadn't noticed). So either they will run out of cosmic poop really fast, or they are being all pooped up by something to regain all that lost energy. What is that something?
Click to expand...
It is unclear if Mozina literally takes classical electromagnetism as dark energy, or just the viscous drag of the super-massive cosmic rays (which could even operate as gravitational drag). In any case, Mozina's hypothesis fails the test of even simple physics. Like I said before ...
Tim Thompson said:
In short, neither of these ideas stands up to even modest scrutiny. They are ruled out strongly both by observation and by well known basic physics. It's "back to the drawing board" for thee & they dark ideas.
Click to expand...

We still have no physically viable explanation from Mozina as to the true nature of either dark matter or dark energy.
 
nvidiot said:
How pray tell is it possible to state that Birkeland had some kind of dark matter model when the existence of missing mass in the galaxies we observe wasn't known about until much later?
Click to expand...

What he actually predicted is that most of mass of the universe would not be found in suns but in high speed moving particles flowing though the universe. In other words, it certainly would not has surprised him that only a tiny fraction of matter seems to be found in stars and slow moving plasma.

I don't believe for a second that Birkeland had any kind of solar model that explained the physics of stars.
Click to expand...

Then you should do some reading and see how he explained the hot corona, coronal loops, high speed solar wind, polar "jets", and a host of other true "predictions' based on empirical experimentation.

And even if he did, this model is demonstrably wrong by simple facts of observation in the century odd since.
Click to expand...

That's like saying Darwin was demonstrably wrong by simple facts of observation in the century odd since. That's simply not so, at least not as you imagine.

How is it possible to ignore all the solid and converging evidence that there is no electric universe as you seem to imply?
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you have empirical physics standing on it's head. Birkeland demonstrated that it is an electric universe, and all satellite observations since that time confirm that to be true. What heats a "corona", and do you think it's pure coincidence that that term applies to cathodes as well?

FYI, I have a new module coming out for my software and I"m going to be rather preoccupied for the next few weeks. Don't take it personally if I"m slow in responding for awhile. :)
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
Not least because it predates GR.
Click to expand...

So what? Birkeland's ability to predict things like the fact you can't find all your "missing mass" is certainly more than you folks ever actually "predicted". You in fact "postdicted" this fact *from observation*, whereas Birkeland 'predicted" this in advance. You folks refuse to give the guy any credit beyond the aurora and that took you damn near 70 years! At this rate you'll be living in the "dark ages" for another 70+ years.
 
Mister Earl said:
I clicked on your link, MM, and did a bit of reading.

I am sure now more than ever that this is some kind of bizarre roleplay. There isn't a sentient creature on this planet that could halfway believe the sun somehow had a solid iron surface.
Click to expand...

FYI, it is not a requirement that the sun have a solid surface for Birkeland's "cathode" solar model to be accurate. In our published papers we explicitly used the term "rigid' rather than solid for that very reason.
 
GeeMack said:
Birkeland didn't talk about anything in that article. A reporter wrote it. It's a journalism piece, and therefore barely relevant to any legitimate science that was going on back then, just as journalism pieces are today, from a scientific point of view, pretty close to irrelevant. And that article from 1913 is completely irrelevant to contemporary cosmology. But that won't keep you from dragging it in to try to deceive Mister Earl, will it? It seems all crackpots are liars, but to treat everyone like crap on top of it is a pretty despicable way to be. Was Birkeland a liar, too, Michael?
Click to expand...

In terms of Birkeland and his work it is you that are the "liar". He wrote about these things too. You're simply in pure denial. About all you can to is to attempt to discredit the cathode solar model by claiming it doesn't exist. Unfortunately for you it's been in existence for over 100 years. His "predictions" about the location of the bulk of the mass of the universe was an actual empirical "prediction" of his cathode solar model, unlike all of your postdicted impotent sky entities.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, it is not a requirement that the sun have a solid surface for Birkeland's "cathode" solar model to be accurate. In our published papers we explicitly used the term "rigid' rather than solid for that very reason.
Click to expand...

What's the difference between "Solid" and "Rigid" in this instance, specifically?
 
Michael Mozina said:
In terms of Birkeland and his work it is you that are the "liar". He wrote about these things too.
Click to expand...


Funny how every time someone asks you to point out specifically where Birkeland wrote about such things your argument turns into more lies, more incredulity, and mostly, more ignorance. But that doesn't surprise anyone. Remember, your qualifications to understand anything about Birkeland's work have been challenged, and you haven't been able to show that you have any qualifications in that area at all.

Was Birkeland a liar, too, Michael?
 
Michael Mozina said:
So what? Birkeland's ability to predict things like the fact you can't find all your "missing mass" is certainly more than you folks ever actually "predicted". You in fact "postdicted" this fact *from observation*, whereas Birkeland 'predicted" this in advance. You folks refuse to give the guy any credit beyond the aurora and that took you damn near 70 years! At this rate you'll be living in the "dark ages" for another 70+ years.
Click to expand...


Your argument is a lie again, Michael. Birkeland predicted no such thing.

Oh, was Kristian Birkeland a liar, too?
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, it is not a requirement that the sun have a solid surface for Birkeland's "cathode" solar model to be accurate. In our published papers we explicitly used the term "rigid' rather than solid for that very reason.
Click to expand...


You use the term "our" as if you actually contributed at any substantive level. It is a lie for you to take that position. Oliver Manuel slapped your name on his papers in order to spread around the blame for his own idiotic crackpot conjecture. He has publicly denied any agreement with your particular brand of lunacy.
 
Mister Earl said:
What's the difference between "Solid" and "Rigid" in this instance, specifically?
Click to expand...

The term rigid implies something more dense, but not necessarily a solid. It could just be a more dense plasma. Technically Birkeland's cathode sun need not have a solid surface. I personally believe our sun does have a real crust, real volcanoes, and the whole nine yards.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
The term rigid implies something more dense, but not necessarily a solid.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. More dense means more dense. Rigid means not flexible. Dense liquids are flexible.

You can't just redefine words and expect anyone to go along with you.

It could just be a more dense plasma.
Click to expand...

In which case, it wouldn't be rigid.

I personally believe our sun does have a real crust, real volcanoes, and the whole nine yards.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you do, Michael. I'm sure you do.

It's like with Belgians: there's nothing worse I can say about your beliefs than to simply state what they are.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You are the only liar and you're only lying to yourself GM. Your mythical sky entities are empirically impotent. Deal with it.
Click to expand...


I don't have any mythical sky entities. For your to infer that I do is, of course, a lie. I present this entire thread as evidence that you, Michael, are the only one who is implying that any such entities exist. :D

I also present all your posts in this entire thread as evidence to show that you are wholly unqualified to communicate in a sane or intelligent manner on the issue of physics.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
The term rigid implies something more dense, but not necessarily a solid. It could just be a more dense plasma. Technically Birkeland's cathode sun need not have a solid surface. I personally believe our sun does have a real crust, real volcanoes, and the whole nine yards.
Click to expand...

What is the basis for this belief? If there were a solid iron surface, wouldn't spectographic absorption (spelling and/or term may be wrong there) lines indicate this, given a surface of this nature would block any light from underneath it? Is this seen? If not, why would it not, in accordance with this bizarre model?
 
Mister Earl said:
If there were a solid iron surface, wouldn't spectographic absorption (spelling and/or term may be wrong there) lines indicate this
Click to expand...

No, a hot iron surface should give a basically blackbody spectrum, not distinct lines. The problem is that it would give a spectrum corresponding to its temperature, but the observed blackbody temperature is around 5700 K, and solid iron doesn't exist at 5700 K. So it would need to be a solid surface at much cooler temperature underneath an opaque 5700 K layer (because anything giving off a blackbody spectrum must be opaque), and that's thermodynamically impossible. It would require heat to spontaneously flow from cold to hot, and that never happens.
 
Ziggurat said:
No, a hot iron surface should give a basically blackbody spectrum, not distinct lines. The problem is that it would give a spectrum corresponding to its temperature, but the observed blackbody temperature is around 5700 K, and solid iron doesn't exist at 5700 K. So it would need to be a solid surface at much cooler temperature underneath an opaque 5700 K layer (because anything giving off a blackbody spectrum must be opaque), and that's thermodynamically impossible. It would require heat to spontaneously flow from cold to hot, and that never happens.
Click to expand...
It would require heat to spontaneously flow from cold to hot, and that never happens.

But it does in Mozphysics! :p

Mozphysics contains a pantheon of mythical entities, such as Mozplasma (a ~million K plasma made of hydrogen that is transparent to EUV light), the Mozode (a cathode which emits equal quantities of positively and negatively charged particles), and Mozeparation (fully convective multi-thousand to million degree plasmas that form homogeneous layers, by atomic mass, in gravitational fields of strengths ~20g; Mozeparation happens on a characteristic timescale of hours, days at the most).

Furthermore, there's Mozpericism, an approach to studying natural phenomena that requires acceptance of all these mythical entities despite really good evidence, from lab-based, controlled experiments, here on Earth, that they do not exist.

Within this worldview, violation of the laws of thermodynamics is a mere bagatelle.
 
I had to read up on black body spectrums. That was something I was pretty unfamiliar with. It's pretty interesting; It explains why stars only appear to be red-yellow-white-whitish blue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom