DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
Two more:
* sputtering
* gravity
I suspect current (or something similar, like current flow) will soon be added:
Michael Mozina said:
Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...
- Thread starter brantc
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fusion solar power
- Status
* sputtering
* gravity
I suspect current (or something similar, like current flow) will soon be added:
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
Thanks for the clarification.
What particles are impacting this target? At what rates (particles per second per square metre)? speeds?
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
If it (the ""photosphere"", acting as ""cathode"") "gives off both positive *and* negative particles" then it's not a cathode (thanks for the clarification).
Perhaps more of a concern - in terms of being on the same page wrt key words - if the Sun "gives off both positive *and* negative particles", there cannot be a "current flow from the sun to the heliosphere", by definition of current flow. So it would seem that "current flow" is yet another of those key terms which have a special meaning when you use them.
May I ask: when you use the terms "cathode" and "current flow", what do you mean?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,754
The mathematical theory of gravity has an empirical basis. The mathematical theory of thermodynamics has an empirical basis. The mathematical theory of electromagnetism has an empirical basis. But you won't touch any of that stuff with math. You are the first person I've ever interacted with who was actively math-phobic.
Screw dark energy. It's not relevant to the sun. Thermodynamics is. Gravity is. Electromagnetism is. And you are ignorant of all of them.
And 72% of all statistics are made up. You're comedy gold, Michael.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Oh, I missed this one!
This is perfect!
I say we forget about all the rest for now and focus on this!
Since MM put forth this statistic, one can assume he's done due diligence as to making sure it's accurate (one can be wrong, but one can assume).
So, MM, how about it?
Start by giving us a list of the math used in astronomy (just the major formulas should do, unless you feel more detail is needed).
Then you can go item by item and tell us which ones lack any empirical support.
This should be fun!
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
On Kristian Birkeland and Solar Models III
Mozina is either stupid or dishonest, take your pick. Birkeland, as far as I know, never once in his career published a model of the sun. He made some remarks about what he thinks is going on there, but never really concerned himself greatly with it. He was far more interested in his ideas about electrical activity in interplanetary space, and especially the interaction of Earth's magnetic field with electric currents in space. Mozina knows this quite well, which is why the best he can come up with is a review article from the New York Times. I took Mozina to task over his serious misrepresentation of Birkeland and his work in my earlier posts "On Kristian Birkeland and Solar Models" and "On Kristian Birkeland and Solar Models II". Of course Mozina ignored it, as is his habit whenever confronted with uncomfortable facts. Here is an excerpt from the first post ...
Mozina may use words from the English language, but he has crafted his own "Mozina language" using those words, such that under normal circumstances it can be impossible to understand what he means. In this case, he seems to think that the word "model" applies to any loose collection of words he can find. So, some anonymous reporter from the New York Times sits in on a lecture by Birkeland and writes a review of what he heard. We get a few bits & pieces filtered through the reporter and suddenly we are confronted with the epic Birkeland Model for the sun. I don't think so. We are in fact confronted with a reporter's version of what he thinks Birkeland said while talking about the sun, amongst numerous other topics.
Mozina knows very well that nobody would pay attention to the Mozina Model for the sun, so he wraps himself in Birkeland's name in an effort to steal for himself some of the respect Birkeland gets. It's an effort to convince the unwary reader that since it's Birkeland's model we should be falling all over ourselves to worship it, since Birkeland was really smart, and it would be deeply pretentious of any of us here to even suggest that Birkeland was wrong about anything. Well, not only do I assert that Birkeland was wrong about a lot of things, I will even go so far as to openly assert that I, the one and only Tim Thompson, as I sit here and type, know a great deal more about space physics that Birkeland ever did.
OK, all in favor of voting me the most arrogant slob on the web, raise your hands. But let me first point out that it has been 100 years or more since Birkeland did his thing with terrelas and aurorae. Lots of scientists every bit as smart as Birkeland have been working on space physics and the sun. They have discovered over that time that Birkeland was ahead of his time and very insightful in his understanding of the cause of auroral phenomena. They have also discovered that many of his guesses and assumptions about space electricity and the sun were wrong. They were not wrong because Birkeland was an idiot, the were wrong because he and everyone else simply lacked enough raw factual knowledge to come up with correct ideas. You win some and you lose some, it happens to us all, even Nobel Prize winners. I have read & studied several of those books, and have even co-authored a paper in the field myself (Bolton, et al., 1989 and also Klein, Thompson & Bolton, 1989).
It is dishonest and disingenuous and self serving and nothing more or less than that, for Mozina to continually call his Mozina Model of the sun by Birkeland's name. This judgement can be altered easily enough by simply pointing out the science journal paper in which Birkeland (and not a newspaper reporter) documents his own, real, official, Birkeland Model of the sun. I suspect the Mozina would already have done this if he knew of such a paper. The fact that all he can do is cite some review article in the New York Times tells me that no such paper exists. Find it & cite it, or stop talking crap about Birkeland.
Stop calling the 'electric sun' model Birkeland's, you have never shown that at all.
Mozina is either stupid or dishonest, take your pick. Birkeland, as far as I know, never once in his career published a model of the sun. He made some remarks about what he thinks is going on there, but never really concerned himself greatly with it. He was far more interested in his ideas about electrical activity in interplanetary space, and especially the interaction of Earth's magnetic field with electric currents in space. Mozina knows this quite well, which is why the best he can come up with is a review article from the New York Times. I took Mozina to task over his serious misrepresentation of Birkeland and his work in my earlier posts "On Kristian Birkeland and Solar Models" and "On Kristian Birkeland and Solar Models II". Of course Mozina ignored it, as is his habit whenever confronted with uncomfortable facts. Here is an excerpt from the first post ...
Mozina may use words from the English language, but he has crafted his own "Mozina language" using those words, such that under normal circumstances it can be impossible to understand what he means. In this case, he seems to think that the word "model" applies to any loose collection of words he can find. So, some anonymous reporter from the New York Times sits in on a lecture by Birkeland and writes a review of what he heard. We get a few bits & pieces filtered through the reporter and suddenly we are confronted with the epic Birkeland Model for the sun. I don't think so. We are in fact confronted with a reporter's version of what he thinks Birkeland said while talking about the sun, amongst numerous other topics.
Mozina knows very well that nobody would pay attention to the Mozina Model for the sun, so he wraps himself in Birkeland's name in an effort to steal for himself some of the respect Birkeland gets. It's an effort to convince the unwary reader that since it's Birkeland's model we should be falling all over ourselves to worship it, since Birkeland was really smart, and it would be deeply pretentious of any of us here to even suggest that Birkeland was wrong about anything. Well, not only do I assert that Birkeland was wrong about a lot of things, I will even go so far as to openly assert that I, the one and only Tim Thompson, as I sit here and type, know a great deal more about space physics that Birkeland ever did.
OK, all in favor of voting me the most arrogant slob on the web, raise your hands. But let me first point out that it has been 100 years or more since Birkeland did his thing with terrelas and aurorae. Lots of scientists every bit as smart as Birkeland have been working on space physics and the sun. They have discovered over that time that Birkeland was ahead of his time and very insightful in his understanding of the cause of auroral phenomena. They have also discovered that many of his guesses and assumptions about space electricity and the sun were wrong. They were not wrong because Birkeland was an idiot, the were wrong because he and everyone else simply lacked enough raw factual knowledge to come up with correct ideas. You win some and you lose some, it happens to us all, even Nobel Prize winners. I have read & studied several of those books, and have even co-authored a paper in the field myself (Bolton, et al., 1989 and also Klein, Thompson & Bolton, 1989).
It is dishonest and disingenuous and self serving and nothing more or less than that, for Mozina to continually call his Mozina Model of the sun by Birkeland's name. This judgement can be altered easily enough by simply pointing out the science journal paper in which Birkeland (and not a newspaper reporter) documents his own, real, official, Birkeland Model of the sun. I suspect the Mozina would already have done this if he knew of such a paper. The fact that all he can do is cite some review article in the New York Times tells me that no such paper exists. Find it & cite it, or stop talking crap about Birkeland.
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
But, but, but ...
Can't you see, Zig, it's got nothing to do with math!
It's the most basic, elementary logic!!
Follow along with me here ...
"This cat is black, therefore all swans are white!"
"Some astrophysicists use the concept of dark energy, therefore the standard solar model is wrong!"
And on top of that, Birkeland *proved*, 100 years ago now, that dark energy doesn't exist! *AND* he did so using *empirical* experiments!! In his lab!!!
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Great. Start with any modern day "Lambda-CDM" model and tell me how much of that theory (percentage wise) is composed of ordinary elements from the periodic table, electrons, neutrinos, and other things that have been verified in the lab. Then tell me how much of that theory is based *STRICTLY* upon "dark" stuff, and things that fail to show up in experiments on Earth.
Gravity.
Ah yes, gravity. Does gravity have some magic property that it "prevents things from exploding"? No, oddly enough.
Last time I heard, gravity was well-described by some EQUATIONS---Newton's Law of Gravitation is a good one in this case---which tell you (if you do the math) how much force acts on a given object in a given location. From there, Newton's Second Law tells you where the object goes.
Did Newton's Laws tell you that gravity can hold charged particles to the Sun in the presence of 6,000,000 V? If so, let's see your calculation. If not, you're guessing that this will work out in your favor. This is stupid. As it turns out (the calculation takes about 60 seconds) you guessed WRONG.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A00E0DA133BE633A25750C2A9649C946296D6CF
It's the "as far as I know" part of your sentence that got you in trouble.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,754
YOU made the claim, Michael. The burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence for YOUR claim. It's not anyone else's responsibility to do your work for you.
Or you could just man up and admit you pulled that number out of your backside.
Oh, and you seem to have seriously confused astronomy with cosmology. They aren't synonymous. Either that, or you're just moving goalposts.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Well MM that is a problem for the electric sun model, not the standard model.
How do you get the different ions, with the electric sun?
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
Tim (and others, including myself) may not consider a reporter's notes from a lecture to constitute a published model.
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
Oh, I don't think it's an "either-or" thing . . .
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Where was the lecture held? In front of whom?
Did you ever personally bother to read his book or are you just kinda running with the pack on blind faith?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Oh, that's rich. It's *YOUR* theory, not mine, and you can't possibly meet that burden of proof from the standpoint of empirical physics in any lab on Earth. It's all "point at the sky and add invisible math bunnies".
That's not a publication---it's a newspaper article where an unnamed reporter recounts something Birkeland said in a lecture. Do you know the difference between a publication and a speech? Do you know the difference between "publishing a article" and "giving a speech that a reporter takes some notes about"? For all you know it was a lecture about terrella experiments and aurorae; and at the end someone asked a question about the Sun; and Birkeland said "That's an interesting question; I can only share my roughest speculations ... ", and those speculations caught the reporter's ear. You don't know, do you? Nor do you care.
In this as in everything else, Michael, you have an extraordinary ability to pick out the least reliable sources available and trust them unquestioningly. You seem to imprint on them, like a baby goose identifying the first random thing it sees as its mother.
An anonymous telegram to a newspaper? That's mama! You're totally sold on it! (Well-respected solar physics textbooks, 100 years of mainstream publications? You've never read a word of it and don't care to.) The solar limb seen in iron line emissions? THAT'S mama and you're devoted to it heart and soul! (Any other spectrum whatsoever? "Why are you hounding me to do all this homework?")
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
As a rebuttal to Tim's claim that Birkeland didn't publish a model, you provided a link to a NYT article written by a reporter who'd attended a lecture. I was responding to your posting of that link. If the NYT article is not the basis for your Birkeland model, why did you post that link?
And as far as running with the pack, I did my own analysis of the strength of an iron shell (even if it was cool, it would have the structural integrity of a nice chardonnay), did my own photoshopped sun picture (which you never pointed out as a fake), made my own difference image (that sunset-as-archipelago picture), and coded up that spherical-shells model to see just what various combinations of transparent and solid layers would look like (the transparent layer would have a gradient that doesn't appear in the SDO image).
I've done more rigorous, independent analysis of your model than you have; I really wouldn't consider it 'running with the pack' so much as independently reaching the same conclusions that the others have reached.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
So read his book ben. Read some of his papers. Do a little "research" into EU theory for a change. Read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven.
When I first started this little project I really could relate to the concerns about a "solid" surface solar model. Even I hedged my bets between solid and 'rigid' in terms of what I have published. What I really did not expect however was such irrational resistance to the whole concept of electricity in space. The whole industry of astronomy has an irrational phobia related to *all* EU ideas, not just some of them. You would evidently prefer to wallow around in what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" and play around with "dark energy" in math formulas, than to look for 'real empirical solutions' to any enigma in astronomy. The whole "electricity in space" is like your personal brand of "satan" in your little metaphysical religion. I guess that's because you all live if mortal fear that electrical current might in fact replace the need for your metaphysical friends if you only put half as much effort into *TRYING* to make it work as you do in bashing the concept publicly. Honestly ben, your whole industry is a house of cards that is about to take a fall. I really doubt the SSM will survive SDO. It's just too full of those physics and math goodies you folks love to analyze to miss all the clues.
Sooner or later you'll wake up from what will eventually be known as the "dark ages" of astronomy. It will change as soon as your industry lets go of it's fear of electricity.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I posted it because anyone can take the time to read it. If you want the long version, try this one:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf
If you aren't happy with that link, try typing "Birkeland cathode sun" into Google or Bing.
- Status