Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Reality Check]

How do you tell the difference between the wrong and right parts of Birkeland's book

RC, have you even bothered to sit down and read his book cover to cover yet? You could have done so a couple dozen times over by now. Yes? No? Parts? What?

And another question (also see Are galaxies electrical discharges from magnetized iron spheres (Birkelands "nebulae model")? ):
First asked 13 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
How do you tell the difference between the wrong and right parts of Birkeland's book?


Or do you really think that everything in Birkeland's book as gospel and

• galaxies are electrical phenomena inside our galaxy?
• the size of the universe is ~100,000 light years rather then the measured many billions of light years?
• we should ignore the Cassini and other observation of Saturn's rings?
• we should ignore the calculations that show that a Sun with a charge that Birkeland and you want would explode?
• we should ignore the fact that comet tails are actually gas from their nuclei?
• we should ignore the current theory of planet formation.
• and maybe we should ignore all of observations taken and physics developed since 1908?

A real scientist would look at the observations taken and physics developed since 1908 and apply them to the science in Birkeland's book. They would find that the only things that stand the test of time are Earth's aurora and his concept of the solar wind.

A crank will cherry pick bits from his book to support their fantasy*.
A total crank will lie about the contents of his book and display their inability to understand what it contains:

1. Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
2. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
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).
4. Is Saturn the Sun?
5. Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book? (really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)
6. Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind

An honest person would have answered the majority of the above questions quite simply: "The book contains no such statements, I was wrong." Of course a crank is never wrong in their head and so will never answer these questions.

* 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 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.

 

[Reality Check]

Actually you cannot demonstrate they are not related. You claim "dark energy" makes up 70% or the universe and causes acceleration. The solar wind is accelerating. Is that "dark energy" too?

I would like to nominate this as one of the dumbest things you have said, Michael Mozina. If you were to actually think about it then you would agree , but we know that you will not.
This is as absurd as stating "My car is accelerating. Is that "dark energy" too.".

Seriously:
No one "claims" that dark energy makes up 70% of the universe.
Scientists measure that the universe consists of

• ~4% visible matter.
• ~26% non-visible matter which they call dark matter.
• ~70% something else.

The "something else" is not matter. What is left? Fairies? Unicorns?
What is left is energy that is not visible - dark energy.

 

[Reality Check]

What is your evidence for > 96% of math in astronomy is made up

Not true. I didn't claim that math related to ionization states and absorption was irrelevant. Some math is critical. Some math is simply 'made up'. At *least* 96% of the math used in astronomy today is "made up" and has no empirical support in any lab on Earth.

First asked 13 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
What is your evidence for > 96% of math in astronomy is made up and has no empirical support in any lab on Earth?

I suspect that this is a reference to the measurement that 96% of the universe is not visible matter. In that case you are lying or ignorant - probably the latter. This measurement uses physical laws like Maxwell's equations, General Relativity, etc. that have tons of empirical support in many labs on Earth over many decades.

 

[Reality Check]

What exactly is the textbook definition of a "rigid" plasma

A solid surface model is simply a solid surface model, volcanoes and everything. A "rigid" solar model is a plasma layered solar model, with more dense and "rigid" plasma under the surface of the neon layer you call a photosphere, but it may not have a "solid" surface.

Let us explore this "rigid" plasma concept that you are going on about.

First asked 13 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
What exactly is the textbook definition of a "rigid" plasma?
Please cite the text book containing this definition.

Helioseismology shows that the Sun contains layers of plasma with different densities, e.g. the one at ~4800 km that has convection above and along it throughly mixing up the photosphere and destroying your layer fantasy*.

* 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 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.

 

[Reality Check]

Where do Hansen & Kawaler go wrong in their diffusion-rate calculations

Go to Hansen & Kawaler and find the mistake in their diffusion-rate calculations---if you're can't do that, you're just guessing. I can't argue with guesswork, it's a waste of time.

I will add this from ben m:
First asked 13 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
Where do Hansen & Kawaler go wrong in their diffusion-rate calculations?

If they ignored somthing then state exactly what was ignored and how it affects their calculations.

The question was originally asked 11 May 2010:

Sorry, Michael, the standard solar model (which you admit to not knowing) and the laws of thermodynamics (which you admit to not knowing) predict that the Sun isn't mass-fractionate. In a nutshell, fractionation can happen only by diffusion (which is slow; do you know how slow? Every undergrad astronomer has done this calculation) but is erased by thermal diffusion AND by convection. The Sun would take biillions of years to fractionate---and only partially at that---if there were no convection at all. Does this calculation "ignore physics"? Do textbooks have the diffusion constants wrong? Can you go through the standard solar model in Hansen & Kawaler and tell me on what page they make what mistake?

No you can't. You guess that it is wrong.

to which you confirmed that you are only guessing with

No, I *KNOW* that it's wrong because you and those authors never bothered to include any "current flow" in your model. You can't and won't explain the solar wind behaviors without it.

You never define "current flow" or state what it does to diffusion but ... adding any "flow" to diffusion will just increase mixing, i.e. decrease fractionation.

 

[Reality Check]

Where is the observation of mass fractionation in the Sun in these preprints

Ya, but then Manuel's "observation" of mass fractionation was completely ignored.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510001

First asked 13 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
Where is the observation of mass fractionation in the Sun in these preprints?

My guess: Manuel's "observation" == Manuel's guess.


Maybe you would like to answer these as well:

1. What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers?
2. What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer?

Of course the reason that these preprints were ignored is that

• The first was published in a non-astronomy journal.
  No astronomers read it. If they did they would ignore it because they know that the diffusion rates in the sun is too low to produces the conjectured mass separation.
  Any nuclear physicist who read it either know what the astronomers know and ignored it or ignored it because it was about astronomy (or obviously wrong).
• The second preprint is a conference presentation (is this the one that was never actually presented?).

 

[Reality Check]

Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked

This iron crust within the Sun idea of Micheal Mozina is very easy to disprove (big surprise !): It is thermodynamically impossible since it must be at a temperature of at least 9400 K (as measured within the photosphere) and so be a plasma. This has been pointed out to MM many times over the years. Here are some of the explanations given to him that he continues to not be able to understand:

• Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible? First asked 8 July 2009. See this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.
• Why this iron crust is thermodynamically impossible
• Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible IV

This alone makes his idea into a complete fantasy and his continued belief with it a delusion and so we could stop there but... The continuous issuing of unsupported assertions, displays of ignorance of physics and fantasies about what he imagines in images are illustrated in this list of unanswered questions. The first question was asked on 6th July 2009.

1. What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected?
2. What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona.
3. Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
4. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
5. 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).
6. Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
7. Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question?
8. More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth
9. Formation of the iron surface
10. How much is "mostly neon" MM?
11. Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?
12. Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina
13. Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina.
14. Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested?
15. Is Saturn the Sun?
16. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
17. What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model?
18. What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K?
19. Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles?
20. Entire photon "spectrum" is composed of all the emissions from all the layers
21. Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves?
22. Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere?
23. Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer?
24. What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers?
25. What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer?
26. Explain the shape of your electrical arcs (coronal loops)
27. What is your physical evidence for the silicon in sunspots?
28. How do MM's "layers" survive the convection currents in the Sun?
29. Where are the controllable empirical experiments showing the Iron Sun mass separation?
30. How can your iron "crust" not be a plasma at a temperature of at least 9400 K?
31. How can your "mountain ranges" be at a temperature of at least 160,000 K?
32. Where is the spike of Fe composition in the remnants of novae and supernovae?
33. Which images did you use as your input for the PM-A.gif image, etc.?
34. Where did your "mountain ranges" go in Active Region 9143 when it got to the limb?
35. Do RD movies of inactive regions show "mountain ranges"?
36. Just how high are your "mountain ranges"?
37. How does your iron crust exist when there are convection currents moving through it?
38. Why does the apparent height of your "mountain ranges" depend on the timing of source images for the RD process when the light sources and mountains in the images are the same?
39. Why does the lighting of your "mountain ranges" move depending on the RD process?
40. Why are the coronal loops in the RD images aligned along your "mountain ranges" rather than between them as expect fro electrical discharges?
41. Why are the sunspot umbra not "mostly" iron plasma (Fe was also detected by SERTS as was C and a dozen more elements)?
42. Can you show how you calculated that "3000-3750 KM" figure for the photosphere depth?
43. How did you determine that the filaments "abruptly end right there"?
44. Citation for the LMSAL claim that coronal loops all originate *ABOVE* the photosphere?
45. Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind
46. How did you measure the curvature of penumbral filaments in the Hinode images?
47. How does your Iron Sun fantasy create the observed magnetic field of the Sun?
48. Calculation for the depth of the SOT_ca_061213flare_cl_lg.mpg filament?
49. Can you understand that the photosphere is defined to be opaque?
50. A comment on MM's ability to interpret images: No little plasma (penumbral) filament!
51. Where has any one in this thread claimed that the umbra is 2D?
52. Is Michael Mozina's claim of measuring the curvature of the filaments true?
53. Do you understand how fluorescent tubes ("neon bulbs") work?
54. Can you explain why limb darkening does not diisprove your model?
55. Why is the SERTS data on the corona applicable to sunspots?
56. Please define a "current carrying plasma" from a textbook.
57. How does the SERTS data show that all of the neon and silcon in the Sun's atmosphere is highly ionized?
58. Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book? (really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)
59. Where does the current from your impossible iron crust come from?
60. Did you cherry pick the SDO image to support your fantasy? - the answer is yes. MM saw a "green line" in one PR image and ignored its absence in another.
    The SDO image"green line" is a processing artifact as confirmed by the NASA team.
    But anyway
    What went wrong with your counting of pixels in the SDO image?
    Where are your calculations that the SDO artifact has a width of *EXACTLY* 4800 km
61. This post deserves mentioning: Math Bunnies & Image Bunnies
62. Can Micheal Mozina understannd simple geometry?
63. What is wrong with W.D.Clinger's calculation?
    Two recent questions but I fully expect the MM will be able to refute the geometry textbooks !
64. Got numbers, Michael Mozina? or What real quantified predictions come from Michael Mozina's Iron Sun fantasy? Is MM's idea complete useless ?
65. Can you cite the paper where Kosovichev states that "those loops are mass flows" (coronal loops?)?
66. Are galaxies electrical discharges from magnetized iron spheres (Birkelands "nebulae model")?
67. How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?
68. Can you understand that the disk radius in RD images depends on solar activity?
69. Will you yank down your web site as promised after your prediction failed?
70. Why are you still ignoring that measurements show the chromosphere, etc. above the photosphere?
    (this happens to be one reason why MM is called a crank)
71. Why was the resolution in the STEREO data not enough to "make a convincing case"? (calculations please )
72. Where in Birkeland's book does he state that the Sun is a metal globe?

Micheal Mozina has a habit of essentially labeling Kristian Birkeland as having no knowledge of physics, e.g. the simple thermodynamics that make an iron crust impossible.

• Can you understand the stupidity of defaming Birkeland's good name?

Not really a question, just a list of the symptoms of a crank or crackpot that MM displays

• Are you aware that you are displaying the symptoms of a crank?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're using your own definition of the word "model" , one that may be fine for some purposes, but has little to do with a scientific model. This explains why you think you have a solar model even though you have none of the necessary components, the composition of the Moplasma, for example.

Well, actually the composition and the ionization states of the Moplasma was pretty well defined. The temperature, well, not so much.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Darn right---because it's all wrong. Nobody wants to publish a pile of incorrect, already-falsified crap. It would indeed be a career-killer to stand up in front of your exam committee, a conference audience, or (gasp!) a tenure committee and tell them, "I don't actually know thermodynamics, E&M, or gravity, so I wrote down a crap hypothesis that ignores them all." Yep, academia doesn't look favorably on crappy pseudoscience.

I'm not so sure ben. They seem to buy into what Alfven himself called pseudoscience, in favor or a theory that's never actually been empirically demonstrated, even though Birkeland was personally able to demonstrate his ideas in the lab over 100 years ago. You guys are lagging.

The problem IMO is that you expect one single individual to have worked everything out by themselves, with complete disregard for Birkeland's work, when the "editors" can't be bothered to ever read Birkeland's work. It's a viscous cycle going round in magnetic circles.

The really sad part ben is you're comparing empirical lab tested physics to "bigfoot". I'm afraid that's just nonsense on your part and demonstrates no sign of scientific curiosity. If you can't figure out solar wind, and Birkeland wrote all about it, don't you think you should at least read it before comparing his ideas to "Bigfoot"? Honestly ben, you're a better man than that IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This thread is currently spinning around and around with no end in sight and without any further purpose.

Well, that might be true about now. I simply wanted to "explain" the ideas a bit and that seems to have run it's course.

Thanks to many knowledgeable contributors (who I would personally like to thank), it has been very informative from time to time. But Mozina's lack of education, disdain for the methods and standards of science, and his inability to learn are now making it repetitive and tedious. Mozina is a hopeless cause, condemned to a life of ignorance and self delusion. Sadly, many good people here are wasting their time.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18839-dark-matter-claims-thrown-into-doubt-by-new-data.html

You know PS, I really wish I could just go 'back to sleep' and 'have faith' in the field of astronomy. Unfortunately I've had my eyes opened now to electric universe theory and there is simply no turning back. It's like leaving your religion behind. Once you see the holes in your previous beliefs, there is simply no going back. I can't go back to living in the dark ages PS. I realize now that we live inside an electric universe and it's only a matter of time before the mainstream figures it out. Like Skwinty mentioned, I'm simply trying to get these folks to look outside their box, but alas it's a like tilting at windmills at this point. I'm very hopeful that SDO will change all that, but we'll see. In the mean time, your chastisements mean about as much to me as a theist chastising an atheist for "not having faith" in the "unseen". I'm afraid I simply prefer empirical physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, I've raised a number of objections to your model and I'm not part of the astrophysics industry. I haven't published a paper on anything, and I don't claim to understand plasma physics or much of the SSM. But I understand some basic physics, and you've made a bunch of claims here that violate basic physics. From what I've seen of the SSM, it doesn't violate any basic physics. Your strawman version of the SSM may violate your strawman version of basic physics, but IMO that hardly constitutes a challenge to the SSM.

I'm not sure I actually would say that the SSM violates the laws of physics. I simply do not believe that nature works that way, nor does that opacity claim hold up to any sort of visual scrutiny, not even in a simple closeup Gband image. I don't really have any great attachment to "solid" surface and IMO the thermodynamic aspect is really the only valid objection. That would not however falsify a plasma layered model either way you look at it.

So you may tell yourself that some of the people on this thread are objecting to your model because they're afraid that they'd be blackballed, but that can't apply to me.

P.S. How many physicists do you actually know? I've known a few, and they'd find the notion that they're afraid of EU as being somewhere between insulting and really funny.

Well, let's put it this way. Empirical physics works. You can laugh at it all you like, but Birkeland had no trouble at all "explaining' (and simulating) high speed solar wind composed of both positive and negative particles. He wrote all about them. He "predicted" there was more mass in the flying electric ions in space, than in the suns themselves. Birkeland was *way* ahead of his time, and that ridicule you hear now was the same ridicule Chapman hurled at his theories too. History worked out in Birkeland's favor. It's still going to work in out his favor because empirical physics always works.

The real Achilles heel is the notion that the photosphere is "opaque" at around 500km. There is simply no observational support for that claim.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why not? Be precise.

I know we're getting off topic, but let's review for a second:

You>Current models show that dark energy does not apply to any gravitationally bound structure.

Me>Then it has no business being stuffed into a GR formula now does it?

You>Why not? Be precise.

Um, should it be your job to explain *WHY* if should be stuffed into a GR formula if it does not apply to any gravitationally bound structure?

GR theory relates to "spacetime" and gravitationally bound structures. If your theory does not apply to "spacetime" and gravity, then why stuff it into GR?

 

[nescafe]

I know we're getting off topic, but let's review for a second:

You>Current models show that dark energy does not apply to any gravitationally bound structure.

Me>Then it has no business being stuffed into a GR formula now does it?

You>Why not? Be precise.

Um, should it be your job to explain *WHY* if should be stuffed into a GR formula if it does not apply to any gravitationally bound structure?

GR theory relates to "spacetime" and gravitationally bound structures. If your theory does not apply to "spacetime" and gravity, then why stuff it into GR?

GR describes the interaction between spacetime and mass/energy. Among the things it describes are gravitationally bound systems. It also describes systems that are not gravitationally bound. An example of such a system is the observable Universe.

 

[Reality Check]

You know PS, I really wish I could just go 'back to sleep' and 'have faith' in the field of astronomy. Unfortunately I've had my eyes opened now to electric universe theory and there is simply no turning back. It's like leaving your religion behind. Once you see the holes in your previous beliefs, there is simply no going back. I can't go back to living in the dark ages PS. I realize now that we live inside an electric universe and it's only a matter of time before the mainstream figures it out. Like Skwinty mentioned, I'm simply trying to get these folks to look outside their box, but alas it's a like tilting at windmills at this point. I'm very hopeful that SDO will change all that, but we'll see. In the mean time, your chastisements mean about as much to me as a theist chastising an atheist for "not having faith" in the "unseen". I'm afraid I simply prefer empirical physics.

Wow - what a lot of religous imagery there! Rather revealing as to how you think.
Pity that this is the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of the forum not the Religion section.

You have chosen to blind yourself and live in the electric universe box rather then learn actual physics (like the simple thermodynamics that falsifies your fantasy*) and think outside that box.
You have further blinded yourself by relying on "I see bunnies in pretty pictures" non-science.

The mainstream realizes that we live inside an electric universe. It also recognizes that we live inside a magnetic universe, a gravitational universe, a strong force universe and a weak force universe.
Anyone can see the idiocy behind the electric universe idea(s) in the Electric universe theories here. thread or look at the The Electric Comet theory

The electric comet idea states that comets are rocky bodies like asteroids.
For some reason EC proponents cannot grasp that the measured density of comet nuclei is ~0.6 g/cc, the measured density of asteroids is ~3.0 g/cc and that 0.6 is less than 3.0 .

There is no "faith in the unseen" in science - there is trust that the scientific method works. If you thnk that the scientific method does not include empirical physics then you are very deluded. The confirmation of theory by empirical measurments is a cornerstone of science. But we know that empirical is another word that you do not understand.

When we observe

• that only 4% of the universe is visiible matter then this means that the other 96% is non-visible matter or energy.
• that there exists matter that emits no light (dark matter) then it exists (NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)),
• that the rate of the expansion of the universe is increasing then there is a cause of this that we can call dark energy because it is unseen and acts as a if it was an energy in GR.
• that a theory that makes predictions that are shown to be correct and explains features of the universe is a valid scientific theory (inflation).

* 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.

 

[Reality Check]

The terms Michael uses, the definitions of which he clearly does not understand include, but are not limited to:

• photosphere
• chromosphere
• opaque
• limb darkening
• idiosyncratic
• empirical
• solar model
• blackbody
• rigid
• sputtering
• gravity
• cathode
• current flow
• nuclear chemistry
• theory
• model

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.

We forgot about empirical!

 

[ben m]

I'm not so sure ben. They seem to buy into what Alfven himself called pseudoscience,

Yes, they think Alfven was wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.

in favor or a theory that's never actually been empirically demonstrated,

Yes, nobody thinks your definition of "empirical" is worth the ergs you expend typing it.

even though Birkeland was personally able to demonstrate his ideas in the lab over 100 years ago. You guys are lagging.

Birkeland demonstrated the behavior of a magnetized iron sphere with a high-voltage wire plugged into it. We now know that this is a partial analogy to some phenomena (like aurorae) and totally irrelevant to others (Saturn's rings, the Sun). You are the only person insisting that Birkeland's analogies all hold up perfectly. You insist on this despite a century's worth of evidence to the contrary. You are wrong.

If you can't figure out solar wind, and Birkeland wrote all about it, don't you think you should at least read it before comparing his ideas to "Bigfoot"? Honestly ben, you're a better man than that IMO.

Lots of people wrote about the solar wind. Some people got things right and others got things wrong. Birkeland (writing before the first spaceflights) had to rely on guesswork and analogies on topics where others had direct measurements. As a consequence, Birkeland got things wrong that later work got them right. Just like most 100-year-old science. Wrong wrong wrong. Why are you blind to this idea? Why are you ignoring everything other than Birkeland?

Seriously, Michael. You tell me "The sun is part of a giant electrostatic circuit that powers the solar wind". I don't care whether that idea comes from Birkeland, or Alfven, or whether you made it up yourself. I look at the idea, I compare it to what I know about electrostatics, circuits, and actual solar wind experiments in space, and based on the physics it is obvious that the idea is wrong.

Ditto for the solid-iron sun, the magic transparency of neon, the magic 6000K spectrum of something that's nowhere near 6000K, the magic refrigeration cycle keeping the Sun cool ... it's obvious that these are wrong. I don't care where they come from---you, Alfven, Birkeland, Manuel, whatever---they're wrong because they disagree with the laws of physics, and the crappy "evidence" you cite for them does not justify discarding all of those laws.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

You know PS, I really wish I could just go 'back to sleep' and 'have faith' in the field of astronomy. Unfortunately I've had my eyes opened now to electric universe theory and there is simply no turning back. It's like leaving your religion behind. Once you see the holes in your previous beliefs, there is simply no going back. I can't go back to living in the dark ages PS. I realize now that we live inside an electric universe and it's only a matter of time before the mainstream figures it out. Like Skwinty mentioned, I'm simply trying to get these folks to look outside their box, but alas it's a like tilting at windmills at this point. I'm very hopeful that SDO will change all that, but we'll see. In the mean time, your chastisements mean about as much to me as a theist chastising an atheist for "not having faith" in the "unseen". I'm afraid I simply prefer empirical physics.

Do you not see, MM, just how damaging this sort of thing is, to your credibility?

The most charitable way to interpret your posts like this is, I think, the one I've been using; namely that you use a great many key terms in ways that are very different from their physics textbook meanings, and that you never seem to be concerned to explain what you do mean by them!

But even this is hard to accept, in the face of:

* your persistent ignoring of simple, straight-forward requests for explanations (e.g. "solar wind acceleration" and "coronal loop activity")

* your non-response to the many, devastating, critiques of "electric universe theory" (a term, by the way, which you do not seem to have ever defined) - see references in RC's recent post for example

* your non-response to efforts by others to do what you yourself seem to have never done ... develop even the most simple of models based on "electric universe theory" (my recent one, for example).

(there's more, but these few will suffice, for now)

Interestingly, the way you phrase your POV - with its many religious references - may be a clue ... perhaps your posts, in their entirety across many fora and several years, are consistent with the idea that your fundamental approach is a religious one: there is a set of stuff that must be blindly accepted, totally on faith. You may enjoy this Tom Bridgman blog entry, on the similarities between "Electric Universe" and creationism.

 

[Tubbythin]

GR theory relates to "spacetime" and gravitationally bound structures.

Michael, do you think Maxwell's equations only apply to electromagnetically bound systems? Do you think an electron feels no force unless it is bound to an atom?

 

[Tubbythin]

We forgot about empirical!

No, it's there. You seem to be having the same problem as me .

 

[Skwinty]

Like Skwinty mentioned, I'm simply trying to get these folks to look outside their box, but alas it's a like tilting at windmills at this point.

Context is every thing Michael.
You have misconstrued my comment. Please re-read the relevant post.