Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
No, I meant Birkeland's original writings. *ALL* of them.
Click to expand...

Why the hell should I read everything by him? Seriously, that's like saying I need to go read Newton's Principia. Birkeland was wrong about a LOT of stuff. As I've said before, that's no surprise and it's not a strike against him personally: nobody was going to get the sun right without fusion. But "go read everything by Birkeland" isn't going to cut it as a defense of your ideas. Just like I'm not asking you to go read everything by Gibbs or Boltzmann to figure out why your "model" is thermodynamically impossible.
 
One does not have to read Birkeland's original work to know his solar physics is out of date any more than you, MM, must read Aristotle's writings to discover that his physics is out of date. Think man!:mad:
 
Ziggurat said:
Oh look! Michael doesn't know the difference between an ordinary black hole and a quasar!
Click to expand...


Okay, "black hole" and "quasar" added to the list...

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

  • atmosphere
  • black hole
  • blackbody
  • cathode
  • chromosphere
  • current flow
  • dark energy
  • dark matter
  • electric universe
  • empirical
  • general relativity
  • gravity
  • idiosyncratic
  • limb darkening
  • model
  • nuclear chemistry
  • opaque
  • photosphere
  • quasar
  • rigid
  • running difference
  • solar model
  • sputtering
  • theory
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.​
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Times have changed MM, times have changed.
Click to expand...

And 100 years later you *STILL* can't figure out something Birkeland PREDICTED, wrote about and filmed. Sheesh. At the pace you folk are moving, it's going to remain the dark ages of astronomy forever and ever.

Which tells us, what, exactly about how tolerant "the EU crowd" are of heretics dissenters? It certainly speaks volumes about your inability to make sound, science-based judgements when it comes to astronomy, astrophysics, space science, ...
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't hear that part about how we all realize that we're only scratching the surface of what we understand about the universe?

The fact you folks have the emotional need to hang your dissenters high and close down all distention after a few days discussion also speaks about your crowd too DRD. We don't have a lynch mob mentality like you folks. I guess that is just a foreign concept from your perspective.
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
One does not have to read Birkeland's original work to know his solar physics is out of date
Click to expand...

That wouldn't ring so hollow if they could actually explain solar wind and the corona. Since they are still wallowing around in self imposed ignorance and have no answers, a little reading wouldn't kill them (or you).
 
Michael has bailed out on the crackpot solid iron surface of the Sun conjecture. Time to close this thread and have him open one about, oh, whatever the hell it is he's moved onto now?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Why is that so hard for you to accept? I guess you simply can't think in EU terms yet, and therefore you think there's something wrong with that idea, but everything on our planet came from the stars GM, everything.
Click to expand...
Why is that so hard for you to accept the empirical fact that the Sun does not emit particles that produced the planets?

Of course everything on our planet (and even in our planet and the Sun and other planets and asteroids and comets) came from the stars MM - other stars not the Sun.
 
Michael Mozina said:
That wouldn't ring so hollow if they could actually explain solar wind and the corona. Since they are still wallowing around in self imposed ignorance and have no answers, a little reading wouldn't kill them (or you).
Click to expand...

Hey Michael. Answer honestly. In your five years of ranting about Birkeland, I am sure that at least one person has told you that the mainstream solar model has a pretty good model for the solar wind. Yes or no---do you remember that ever happening? Ever?

(I am not asking "Do you agree with the mainstream", the answer is obviously no. I am asking did anyone ever claim that the mainstream has a perfectly good model?)
 
GeeMack said:
Michael has bailed out on the crackpot solid iron surface of the Sun conjecture. Time to close this thread and have him open one about, oh, whatever the hell it is he's moved onto now?
Click to expand...
I think that his fantasy is now that there is an iron plasma layer in the Sun.
But I ready to bet that he will come back with it is still an iron crust fantasy/iron shell fantasy/iron + whatever fantasy/etc. So long as there is an iron something that is not supported by any empirical physcis so he can spin his fantasies about it.

Of course the problems with an ("mostly"?) iron plasma layer are many, e.g.
  • Convection destroys it.
  • No electrical discharges so his fantasy about coronal loops being electrical discharges vanishes.
 
Good god. Is he seriously saying, that without him, mainstream science will remain in the dark ages? This from a guy who declared victory over the mark a filter made in an image?
 
GeeMack said:
Michael has bailed out on the crackpot solid iron surface of the Sun conjecture. Time to close this thread and have him open one about, oh, whatever the hell it is he's moved onto now?
Click to expand...

I think that he's basically now assuming he won the argument---hey, we didn't convince him he was wrong, did we?---and he will now assume that everything was settled in his favor.

a) the photosphere is hypertransparent Mozplasma, maintained by giant currents (details TBD, but who cares?)
b) SDO saw the iron layer directly by looking right through it at the limb
c) RD images sealed the case
d) the spectra all magically work out to a 6000K blackbody

Next thread, watch him pull out these "facts" to support whatever he's talking about at that time. "How can you say that magnetic reconnection exists? We proved that it didn't by looking through the transparent photosphere!" Or something.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I guess you didn't hear that part about how we all realize that we're only scratching the surface of what we understand about the universe?

The fact you folks have the emotional need to hang your dissenters high and close down all distention after a few days discussion also speaks about your crowd too DRD. We don't have a lynch mob mentality like you folks. I guess that is just a foreign concept from your perspective.
Click to expand...
From "D. E. Scott Rebuts T. Bridgman" (I think you'll find something very similar in his book):
What TB ignores is that I do start by stating a simple obvious fact, "There is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel." That is what the SNO researchers did and it is a blatant logical error in their experimental procedure.
Click to expand...
(bold in original)

We make measurements at one end of "a transmission channel" - using CCDs, or silver halide crystals say, at the focus of a telescope on a mountaintop - and build an entire branch of science on the assumption that these measurements "can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel", through the chromosphere, corona, solar wind, Earth's magnetosphere, and its atmosphere (if we're discussing the Sun), or through the interstellar medium (ISM) of the source, the medium between said galaxy and ours, the ISM of the Milky Way, the heliosphere, etc (if a high-z quasar), etc.

Please tell me, MM, that Scott has not, using this logic, declared the whole of astronomy to be built on "a blatant logical error"?
 
ben m said:
Random science press release declared to vindicate EU theory---hey hey hey, that's on my bingo card. I win as soon as he posts a terrella photo.
Click to expand...

Actually my trump cards are that corona he filmed and those solar wind "predictions" he made via real empirical physics. If you guys can't "simulate" it on a computer, you won't be bothered to even get your fingers dirty to see if your ideas actually "work' in terms of actual empirical physics. Birkeland was a true scientist at every level of the process, including math if you'd only bother to read it.

I fail to see how talking about the corona and solar wind processes is somehow "moving on" from a solar theory discussion. Hello?

If you can't figure out what causes that solar wind "acceleration", how about we call it "dark energy" for now and then we'll see if Birkeland can come up with a real "physical" explanation for that continuous particle acceleration for us? How does that sound?
 
ben m said:
Hey Michael. Answer honestly. In your five years of ranting about Birkeland, I am sure that at least one person has told you that the mainstream solar model has a pretty good model for the solar wind. Yes or no---do you remember that ever happening? Ever?
Click to expand...

Define "pretty good" in terms of how well it works in the lab for me.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I fail to see how talking about the corona and solar wind processes is somehow "moving on" from a solar theory discussion. Hello?
Click to expand...
Hmm, so ionization states, the Mozplasma, the photosphere, D'rok's request*, mass flows and currents, (and dopplergrams, magnetograms, etc), opacity, etc, etc, etc are topics you refuse to discuss any more? Hello?

And you refuse to say what you mean by "solar wind acceleration" and "coronal loop activity". Hello?

* Lurker request to MM: Please work with Ben on diagramming the geometry of your claims about the sun.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Actually my trump cards are that corona he filmed and those solar wind "predictions" he made via real empirical physics. ...
Click to expand...
Actually your fantasies are the "corona" that he did not film and the solar wind "predictions" that he never made.
  • He filmed electrical discharges. The corona is not an electrical discharge. The best you can say is that some of the discharges may have created plasma that looks vaguely like the corona.
  • He suggested that the solar wind is made of ions and electrons and that suggestion was found to be correct. It was not a sceintific prediction.
The empirical physics trump cards are the modern experiments that explain the corona and the solar wind with actual numbers.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Please tell me, MM, that Scott has not, using this logic, declared the whole of astronomy to be built on "a blatant logical error"?
Click to expand...

You *really* would love to promote "dissension among the ranks" wouldn't you? Sort of like a divide an conquer strategy, is that it? :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom