Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Hellbound]

How have I walked away from it? I've been pointing out it's benefits in term of explaining that corona you can't explain and explaining that solar wind you can't explain and how it works in a lab to explain these actual physical processes unlike your "magnetic reconnection" nonsense.

Well, then, go ahead and explain it.

Punch in the numbers.

Figure out the current and voltage differential needed to explain the observed quantity and speed of the solar wind.

Compare that to known processes and other measurements to make sure it doesn't contradict what we have already observed as far as the sun and the solar system.

Work the math according to known physical law so you can show such a thing is possible.

Because you saying that explains it doesn't prove anything, and shows no benefit. Until you can do the math, and show that such an explanation is possible and fits with known data, all you have is your assertion that it explains anything.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Here's the deal zig. You can't explain "acceleration", so you made up a term "dark energy". I've found another example of acceleration that you can't explain. If it is just a placeholder term for human ignorance of the real cause of "acceleration", then that solar wind is a perfect example of "dark energy" driving "acceleration".

Here is where GeeMack's accusation that you are dishonest rings quite true. You and I were having a discussion about this topic (dark energy) months ago on another thread. We covered a good deal of ground over many days and just when you were no longer able to justify your position (I had maneuvered you into an untenable position) you simply vanished. Now, here you are making the same adolescent comments as if none of that dialogue had ever occurred. Is it amnesia or is GeeMack on the right track? Is this just a game you play to toy around with everyone here? -- I doubt the latter is true -- you're not that smart!

 

[Hellbound]

Here's the deal zig. You can't explain "acceleration", so you made up a term "dark energy". I've found another example of acceleration that you can't explain. If it is just a placeholder term for human ignorance of the real cause of "acceleration", then that solar wind is a perfect example of "dark energy" driving "acceleration".

Seriously, if I were you I'd just quit talking about dark energy at all.

It's comments like these that show you have absolutely ZERO understanding of the concept, what it means, or even how it was derived.

I'll give you a few hints.

First, it wasn't a number just "made up and put in there". There were multiple lines of evidence that pointed to it, all with numbers that closely agreed as to the amounts and magnitudes.

Second, learn what acceleration is attributed to dark energy, and where and how.

Your insistance on bringing this up in order to change the topic from your inability to support your pet theory is tiresome, irrelevant, and just furthers the evidence that you are ignorant of that which you proclaim to be an expert in.

 

[Perpetual Student]

...because you saying that explains it doesn't prove anything, and shows no benefit. Until you can do the math, and show that such an explanation is possible and fits with known data, all you have is your assertion that it explains anything.

This seems to be the fundamental aspect of doing real science that Mozina does not understand.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]
No PS, this is a matter of historical accuracy and historical reality. Birkeland certainly had a "solar model". I posted the NY times article for you didn't I? It wasn't limited to a "solid surface" concept, it was related to an "electric universe" concept. I'm personally willing to go with "solid" or "rigid". I'm completely and utterly "flexible". Both of those solar models however are "subsets" of a "Birkeland solar model". We could apply a Birkland solar model to a Anaxagoras type sphere. We could also apply it to a plasma layered and "rigid" type surface too. There are a million different possible ways we might try to express a "cathode solar model" but if there is current flow from the sun to the heliosphere, then they are all "Birkeland solar models"!

(bold added)

Let's look at one of these "Birkeland solar model" shall we?

Start with "from the sun": let's assume it's the cathode, i.e. the place to which electrons flow; let's also assume that the actual cathode is the photosphere, which is 700,000 km from the centre of the Sun (we can adjust the numbers a bit later).

Next, "to the heliosphere": let's assume this is the surface of a sphere, whose radius is 100 au, with the Sun at its centre.

Now in all ""electric universe" concepts" that I have seen, out there on the world-wide internet, the Sun is powered by a "current flow", so in this first "Birkeland solar model", the current must produce ~3.8 x 10^26 W, which is the observed power (energy per second) of the Sun.

How does the "current flow" produce this power? Let's assume it does so by converting the kinetic energy of the electrons into electromagnetic radiation, on (or at) the photosphere. We won't worry ourselves about how this happens ("electrical processes" perhaps), for now.

Let's keep it simple and assume that electrons arrive at the photosphere at the same rate as they leave the heliosphere - x electrons leave the heliosphere in one second, and x electrons arrive at the photosphere in one second. In other words, electrons are neither created nor destroyed between the heliosphere and photosphere, and that the current flow is a steady one.

So, how many electrons leave the heliosphere every second? Well, the electron density there is 10 million per cubic metre, and the electrons are moving at 6 million metres per second (again, we can adjust the numbers later), so across each square metre of heliosphere surface there will be 60 trillion electrons crossing every second. Now the heliosphere's surface is ~3 x 10^27 square metres, so 1.8 x 10^41 electrons depart for the photosphere every second.

How fast are these electrons moving when they reach the photosphere? Well, let's keep it very simple and use the physics of Birkeland's day; specifically the part of Newtonian physics which says that the kinetic energy of a body moving at speed v is half its mass times v squared. Now the mass of an electron is 9.1 x 10^-31 kg, and every second 1.8 x 10^41 electrons give up their kinetic energy for light. So we have a simple equation (Ne is the number of electrons, m the mass of an electron, and v its speed):

1/2 mv^2 * Ne = 3.8 x 10^26

which, when we plug in the numbers, gives us the speed of the electrons as 700 million metres per second.

Before I proceed to check this model against empirical reality (i.e. results of experiments in the lab), I'd like MM to check this "Birkeland solar model" for any flaws, errors, shortcomings, etc.

Of course, every other JREF member reading this is more than welcome to do so too, but if you could, please limit your comments to any mistakes I may have made in my math.

I should add that I have developed this model using only the simplest formulae/math I could; in fact there's little here beyond arithmetic; some extremely simple algebra; the standard definitions of things like energy, power, and density; and the formula for kinetic energy.

 

[brantc]

Um, dude, I don't know how to break this to you, ...

The magnetic fields are what you can observe, from our perch 150 million km or so away.

There is no way to observe electric fields or currents from afar (unless, of course, you know something that Alfvén did not know, much less Birkeland).

And in any case, as a keen student of Alfvén, (and Maxwell) you know that E and j can be derived from B and v (don't you?)

How quickly we forget. I will post this again(3rd time) so that you dont get lost.

We must strictly keep the order of cause and effect. Does the horse pull the cart or does the cart push the horse?

From the last 100 years of electricity we know that electric current is the cause of magnetic fields. A magnetic field can cause an electric current but you need the right conditions(field cutting a conductor).
A moving electron will cause a magnetic field no matter what.

The source of all magnetic fields is an electric current.[1] The way you tell if an electric current is flowing is by measuring the magnetic field(Ammeter).

In a plasma you can also tell by Zeeman splitting or Faraday rotation which tells you the magnetic field strength which then tells you the current flowing.

Ref 1 Identification of a Quasiseparatrix Layer in a Reconnecting Laboratory Magnetoplasma
The source of all magnetic fields in a plasma are current systems, although in experiments some of the current can be in conductors entrained in the plasma. From this perspective it is obvious that reconnection can occur in dynamic current systems. For example, reconnection has been observed in three-dimensional current systems in the aftermath of a collision of two dense plasmas in a background plasma [10]. In the Sun, coronal mass ejections can lead to flux ropes [11] that emerge from the corona and can reach Earth. They may remain anchored on the Sun, or break away to become plasmoids [12]. A single flux rope carries a current which makes the magnetic field surrounding it helical. Two or more adjacent flux ropes can interact via their J
B force. This may lead to merging as was seen in an early experiment [13] in which the process lead to a force free state where the magnetic fields and plasma currents became parallel. A recent experiment using washer stack guns to produce initially parallel current carrying plasmas showed that magnetic field reconnection occurs when two flux ropes merge [14].
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/papers//Lawrence_PhysRevLett_QSL.pdf

 

[ben m]

This seems to be the fundamental aspect of doing real science that Mozina does not understand.

Yep. One of the funny things is, real scientists are able to convince one another of highly-counterintuitive stuff. When Maxwell came up with the idea of "displacement current", he didn't spend years waving his hands about it and running into walls of organized opposition. He wrote it down carefully, and other people were able to read it and determine for themselves that it was right. Ray Davis was able to convince everyone that the solar electron-neutrino flux defied their expectations. Steven Hawking was able to convince everyone that black holes emit blackbody radiation.

Science worked for all of these people; their ideas caught on.

There was not, as far as I know, a five-year period where Hawking insisted that black holes emitted radiation, but refused to do any math, refused to draw diagrams, refused to clarify his explanation, and repeatedly insisted that everyone read John Mitchell's 1783 letter to Cavendish, which contained some tangentially relevant speculations.

Michael, you're taking an approach to "science" that you know darn well doesn't work. Stop it. Look at what actual scientists do---it does work---and try to emulate that. Learning basic physics is part of it. Communication is part of it. Math is part of it.

 

[Reality Check]

Does Birkeland's voltage on the Sun of 600,000,000 volts make it explode

No you didn't. You linked to a NYT abstract of an article about a talk Birkeland gave. It didn't contain any of those numbers (actually I'm not sure it contained any numbers at all).

Hi Sol: There is one number in that news article about a lecture by Birkeland: a voltage on the Sun of 600,000,000 volts.
I am fairly sure that this means that the Sun explodes as it seems that would exceed the ~100 Coulombs that is the maximum for a star the same size as the Sun - On the global electrostatic charge of stars claculates a charge of 77 C per solar mass.

But MM should be able to answer this question about part of his model:
First asked 14 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
Does Birkeland's voltage on the Sun of 600,000,000 volts as included in your fantasy* make it explode?

* Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been 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.

 

[temporalillusion]

Here is where GeeMack's accusation that you are dishonest rings quite true. You and I were having a discussion about this topic (dark energy) months ago on another thread. We covered a good deal of ground over many days and just when you were no longer able to justify your position (I had maneuvered you into an untenable position) you simply vanished. Now, here you are making the same adolescent comments as if none of that dialogue had ever occurred. Is it amnesia or is GeeMack on the right track? Is this just a game you play to toy around with everyone here? -- I doubt the latter is true -- you're not that smart!

I haven't been around for a long time, but I've been around long enough to see it happen a number of times.

I actually put the over/under for this thread a dozen or so pages back, so I'm impressed this thread is still going, though it seems to have derailed now.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here is where GeeMack's accusation that you are dishonest rings quite true.

I think the whole character assassination thing you guys do is dishonest as all hell! We're even.

You and I were having a discussion about this topic (dark energy) months ago on another thread. We covered a good deal of ground over many days and just when you were no longer able to justify your position (I had maneuvered you into an untenable position) you simply vanished.

Huhh? PS, I do have a life outside this board and some topics are just not worth dragging out forever and ever and ever. If I "bailed" on any topic it was out of sheer boredom not because I felt I was losing any ground. Any opinion you have to the contrary is simply your own misinformed opinion. If and when you get "dark energy" do anything to anything in a real empirical experiment, wake me up and let me know. Until then it's pure speculation that any thing like it actually exists in nature. We could go round and round forever on that topic because the one thing that would end the discussion instantly is something you simply cannot do, namely get "dark energy" to show up in a lab. It's another of those 'religious math bunny thingies" with you guys. If one "lacks faith" in the idea, you have zip in the way of empirical support. Round and round and round we go pointing at the sky and claiming "evil dark energy did it".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, then, go ahead and explain it.

Punch in the numbers.

It's already been done:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf

 

[Michael Mozina]

How quickly we forget. I will post this again(3rd time) so that you dont get lost.

We must strictly keep the order of cause and effect. Does the horse pull the cart or does the cart push the horse?

Therein lies the rub. They don't want to admit they have everything backwards and that's the reason Alfven called it "pseudoscience" in the first place.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Um, dude, I don't know how to break this to you, ...

The magnetic fields are what you can observe, from our perch 150 million km or so away.

There is no way to observe electric fields or currents from afar (unless, of course, you know something that Alfvén did not know, much less Birkeland).

And in any case, as a keen student of Alfvén, (and Maxwell) you know that E and j can be derived from B and v (don't you?)

How quickly we forget. I will post this again(3rd time) so that you dont get lost.

We must strictly keep the order of cause and effect. Does the horse pull the cart or does the cart push the horse?

From the last 100 years of electricity we know that electric current is the cause of magnetic fields. A magnetic field can cause an electric current but you need the right conditions(field cutting a conductor).
A moving electron will cause a magnetic field no matter what.

The source of all magnetic fields is an electric current.[1] The way you tell if an electric current is flowing is by measuring the magnetic field(Ammeter).

Not too many "Ammeters" in the photosphere are there brantc? Nor the corona ... but even if there were, how do you suggest anyone could read them?

In a plasma you can also tell by Zeeman splitting or Faraday rotation which tells you the magnetic field strength which then tells you the current flowing.

And what does HMI use to tell the 3D magnetic field (strength and direction)?

And how do all those papers I referenced go about estimating E and j, from observations of B and v?

Ref 1 Identification of a Quasiseparatrix Layer in a Reconnecting Laboratory Magnetoplasma
The source of all magnetic fields in a plasma are current systems, although in experiments some of the current can be in conductors entrained in the plasma. From this perspective it is obvious that reconnection can occur in dynamic current systems. For example, reconnection has been observed in three-dimensional current systems in the aftermath of a collision of two dense plasmas in a background plasma [10]. In the Sun, coronal mass ejections can lead to flux ropes [11] that emerge from the corona and can reach Earth. They may remain anchored on the Sun, or break away to become plasmoids [12]. A single flux rope carries a current which makes the magnetic field surrounding it helical. Two or more adjacent flux ropes can interact via their J
B force. This may lead to merging as was seen in an early experiment [13] in which the process lead to a force free state where the magnetic fields and plasma currents became parallel. A recent experiment using washer stack guns to produce initially parallel current carrying plasmas showed that magnetic field reconnection occurs when two flux ropes merge [14].
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/papers//Lawrence_PhysRevLett_QSL.pdf

Better not let MM read this, he'll blow a gasket!

But, in any case, for you we may have to add "derived" to the list of words you, brantc, use differently.

Dude, the Ej Bv bit is about how you make estimates of one pair once you have estimates of the other.

In terms of cause, well, unless you have some other idea (Aether batteries perhaps?), the cause of the Sun's magnetic fields is inextricably tied to the details of the Sun's formation, which in turn is tied to the cause of magnetic fields (and currents) in the ISM (of a spiral galaxy, in this case), which in turn is ... and for that you may find the Shabala et al. paper I referenced earlier a most interesting read ...

 

[Michael Mozina]

Are we playing squash now?

There are two things I've noticed about your side over the years, you hate electrical astronomy theories with a passion and you will go to any lengths to oversimplify everything to "magnetism". The problem DRD is you have the magnetic cart before the electric horse. The "current flow' is the power source, not the magnetic field. The magnetic field is a direct result of the current flowing through the thread. The coronal loop is not there hanging out all by it's lonesome as some kind of dense, non moving plasma and a sterile magnetic line. You have *EVERYTHING* backwards and "dumbed down" to "magnetism".

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Therein lies the rub. They don't want to admit they have everything backwards and that's the reason Alfven called it "pseudoscience" in the first place.

Can you remind me please?

What is the cause of the Sun's magnetic field, according to Alfvén? Being a Nobel Prize winner and all, of course he would have published his model(s) for such a thing, in a relevant peer-reviewed journal (so please, no NYT articles).

Also, remind me please, in the case of currents, one needs a source, an emf, doesn't one? What is that source? And what are the physical processes which produce, and maintain, it?

One more thing: how do you make estimates of E and j, when you are 150 million km away?

 

[Michael Mozina]

This seems to be the fundamental aspect of doing real science that Mozina does not understand.

The absolutely incredible part is that you are so absolutely on the wrong side of empirical physics. Birkeland didn't just point at something and claim "magnetic dark reconnection did it". Birkeland built physical experiments based on "current flow" and demonstrated that "current flow" created the effects he was interested in, including solar wind and the corona. He then expressed everything in mathematical terms for all the world to read.

Their side plays around exclusively with math, whips up some lame computer model based on what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience", they never reproduced a working corona or demonstrate solar wind with it, yet you buy into the idea hook line and sinker? Hoy! You're on the wrong side of empirical physics PS.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

There are two things I've noticed about your side over the years, you hate electrical astronomy theories with a passion and you will go to any lengths to oversimplify everything to "magnetism". The problem DRD is you have the magnetic cart before the electric horse. The "current flow' is the power source, not the magnetic field. The magnetic field is a direct result of the current flowing through the thread. The coronal loop is not there hanging out all by it's lonesome as some kind of dense, non moving plasma and a sterile magnetic line. You have *EVERYTHING* backwards and "dumbed down" to "magnetism".

Let's look at one of these "current first, magnetic field second" "Birkeland solar models" shall we?

No PS, this is a matter of historical accuracy and historical reality. Birkeland certainly had a "solar model". I posted the NY times article for you didn't I? It wasn't limited to a "solid surface" concept, it was related to an "electric universe" concept. I'm personally willing to go with "solid" or "rigid". I'm completely and utterly "flexible". Both of those solar models however are "subsets" of a "Birkeland solar model". We could apply a Birkland solar model to a Anaxagoras type sphere. We could also apply it to a plasma layered and "rigid" type surface too. There are a million different possible ways we might try to express a "cathode solar model" but if there is current flow from the sun to the heliosphere, then they are all "Birkeland solar models"!

Start with "from the sun": let's assume it's the cathode, i.e. the place to which electrons flow; let's also assume that the actual cathode is the photosphere, which is 700,000 km from the centre of the Sun (we can adjust the numbers a bit later).

Next, "to the heliosphere": let's assume this is the surface of a sphere, whose radius is 100 au, with the Sun at its centre.

Now in all ""electric universe" concepts" that I have seen, out there on the world-wide internet, the Sun is powered by a "current flow", so in this first "Birkeland solar model", the current must produce ~3.8 x 10^26 W, which is the observed power (energy per second) of the Sun.

How does the "current flow" produce this power? Let's assume it does so by converting the kinetic energy of the electrons into electromagnetic radiation, on (or at) the photosphere. We won't worry ourselves about how this happens ("electrical processes" perhaps), for now.

Let's keep it simple and assume that electrons arrive at the photosphere at the same rate as they leave the heliosphere - x electrons leave the heliosphere in one second, and x electrons arrive at the photosphere in one second. In other words, electrons are neither created nor destroyed between the heliosphere and photosphere, and that the current flow is a steady one.

So, how many electrons leave the heliosphere every second? Well, the electron density there is 10 million per cubic metre, and the electrons are moving at 6 million metres per second (again, we can adjust the numbers later), so across each square metre of heliosphere surface there will be 60 trillion electrons crossing every second. Now the heliosphere's surface is ~3 x 10^27 square metres, so 1.8 x 10^41 electrons depart for the photosphere every second.

How fast are these electrons moving when they reach the photosphere? Well, let's keep it very simple and use the physics of Birkeland's day; specifically the part of Newtonian physics which says that the kinetic energy of a body moving at speed v is half its mass times v squared. Now the mass of an electron is 9.1 x 10^-31 kg, and every second 1.8 x 10^41 electrons give up their kinetic energy for light. So we have a simple equation (Ne is the number of electrons, m the mass of an electron, and v its speed):

1/2 mv^2 * Ne = 3.8 x 10^26

which, when we plug in the numbers, gives us the speed of the electrons as 700 million metres per second.

Before I proceed to check this model against empirical reality (i.e. results of experiments in the lab), I'd like MM - and brantc - to check this "Birkeland solar model" for any flaws, errors, shortcomings, etc.

Of course, every other JREF member reading this is more than welcome to do so too, but if you could, please limit your comments to any mistakes I may have made in my math.

I should add that I have developed this model using only the simplest formulae/math I could; in fact there's little here beyond arithmetic; some extremely simple algebra; the standard definitions of things like energy, power, and density; and the formula for kinetic energy.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

From the last 100 years of electricity we know that electric current is the cause of magnetic fields. A magnetic field can cause an electric current but you need the right conditions(field cutting a conductor).
A moving electron will cause a magnetic field no matter what.

The source of all magnetic fields is an electric current.[1] The way you tell if an electric current is flowing is by measuring the magnetic field(Ammeter).

My clothes-dryer sports a permanent magnet that depicts a man and woman who appear to be enjoying each other, with this caption: "You remind me of my husband, except you're not buried in the back yard."

I'd have put it on my stainless-steel refrigerator, except it wouldn't stay. Apparently the surface of my refrigerator doesn't provide enough electric current.

How do I hook up the ammeter to measure the electric current on the surface of my clothes-dryer?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The absolutely incredible part is that you are so absolutely on the wrong side of empirical physics. Birkeland didn't just point at something and claim "magnetic dark reconnection did it". Birkeland built physical experiments based on "current flow" and demonstrated that "current flow" created the effects he was interested in, including solar wind and the corona. He then expressed everything in mathematical terms for all the world to read.

(bold added)

Pity, then, that his maths turned out to be inconsistent with in situ observations; you know, quantities (not bunny pictures), empirical measurements, and so on (RC, for one, has a long list of the quantitative, empirical failures of Birkeland's model ...)

 

[Hellbound]

Here's the deal zig. You can't explain "acceleration", so you made up a term "dark energy". I've found another example of acceleration that you can't explain. If it is just a placeholder term for human ignorance of the real cause of "acceleration", then that solar wind is a perfect example of "dark energy" driving "acceleration".

It's already been done:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf

No, sorry, that doesn't get it.

FIrs,t I'm not going to attempt to wade through a 924 page PDF file to find support for YOUR hypothesis.

As a scientist with a high regard for empiricism, this is something you should already have done, and the numbers should be known to you.

All I'm asking for is a few of the major calculations. NOT some brass ball experiments, I mean numebrs as they actually apply to the sun.

Show me those. IF they're in that PDF, give me page and paragraph numbers.

Otherwise, I can only assume that, like all your other assertions, you expect everyone here to simply take your word for it.

You are being extremely dishonest and arrogant here. This is a good thing, IMO, because it pretty much shows your delusions for what they are: unsupported assertions and wishes.

Give us the data, not more of your hand-waving.