Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[nescafe]

Hear that Nescafe? Yea? Nay?

I was mistaken in that instance. I did conflate "negligible effect" with "no effect".

 

[Ziggurat]

Zig, here is your basic problem. You just "claimed" a cause/effect relationship between "dark energy" and "acceleration". You failed to ever empirically demonstrate that cause/effect relationship. Do you acknowledge that failure on your part?

It's true that I have never done that, but others have. I have merely described what others have done. But since this is not a thread about dark energy, but about the sun, there is little point in continuing this derail of yours. Dark energy has nothing to do with solar winds. And even if you disproved dark energy, it would do nothing to support your own solar model.

Now, let's get back to YOUR basic problem: you can't quantify anything about your solar model, and some of the qualitative claims you have made contradict empirically demonstrated physics.

 

[GeeMack]

ETA: Can we add Occham's razor to the list of phrases Michael doesn't understand?

Oh yeah. Michael also doesn't understand what a controlled experiment or a control mechanism is.

Indeed.

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
• control mechanism
• controlled experiment
• current flow
• dark energy
• dark matter
• electric universe
• electricity
• empirical
• general relativity
• geometry
• gravity
• idiosyncratic
• limb darkening
• model
• nuclear chemistry
• Occham's razor
• opaque
• photosphere
• predicted
• quasar
• rigid
• running difference
• simulations
• solar model
• sputtering
• structures
• Sun's activity
• 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]

Please read Birkeland's work and read through his "controlled experiments" with "electricity". Please tell me where I can get some "dark energy" to play with in a lab? I can establish an *EMPIRICAL* cause/effect relationship between plasma acceleration and "current flow". Can you do that with "dark energy"? Yes or no?

Please tell me where I can get some Mozplasma, a Mozode, a Mozcharge, and some Moztronium to play with in a lab?

And no, you cannot "establish an *EMPIRICAL* cause/effect relationship between plasma acceleration and "current flow"", if only because no one, not even you, knows what ""current flow"" is. Of course, you could easily rectify that, by providing a clear, unambiguous definition of ""current flow"" ...

 

[dasmiller]

Do you think if we set off a giant nuclear explosion inside a thunderstorm that the "structures" of the clouds would remain static?

Bear in mind that terrestrial clouds are visible because of the condensed water and releasing a lot of heat converts that water to steam, which is transparent, so that's not quite a fair comparison.

If, however, one were to set off a nuke next to, say, a bunch of smoke trails, then the smoke trails wouldn't necessarily be badly disrupted by the shockwave.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Anyone else find it strange that MM is no longer talking about the MM solar "model"?

 

[GeeMack]

Anyone else find it strange that MM is no longer talking about the MM solar "model"?

Standard operating procedure. It's the dishonest evasion strategy. Ignorance. But soon he'll be back at it, totally ignoring everything that was said in the interim, calling his "rigid" surface solid again, confidently stating how he sees a surface through 80,000 kilometers of plasma in the SDO PR image, and calling his crackpot conjecture Birkeland's solar model.

 

[ben m]

Please read Birkeland's work and read through his "controlled experiments" with "electricity".

Yes, Birkeland did lots of experiments with electricity, in a vacuum chamber with a metal sphere inside. He did no experiments with the Sun itself, nor with self-gravitating objects of any sort. He never made a 6000K blackbody, a 6000K Mozplasma, a 2,000,000K Mozplasma, a corona, a flare, a loop, a sunspot, or any actual solar phenomenon of any sort. He made various small-plasma chamber phenomena that you think look like solar phenomena. You have no other details whatsoever; all details you've offered are wrong. All you have is "Birkeland's small sphere sort of looks like this other sphere."

That's what you think "empiricism" is? That sucks.

 

[Reality Check]

Thanks for this; interesting (though I'd prefer to call it "Mozeperation", in line with Moz-thingie).

This is, I gather, a physical process, rather than a type of physical object or material (the Mo(z)plasma and Mozode are of these latter taxons).

In MM's solar "model", Mozeparation occurs in plasmas that are confined gravitationally (I don't think even MM claims the Sun to be other than gravitationally bound). These plasmas have temperatures of ~a few thousand K to ~a few million K. In elemental composition, there is H, He, Ne, Si, Ca, and Fe (and more?). Mozeparation happens very quickly, with a characteristic time of ~hours, perhaps ~days (in Mo(z)plasmas of the kind found in the corona, chromosphere, and in and under the photosphere of the Sun), per the many "mass flows" in MM's solar "model". The separation by atomic mass if extreme; atomic (actually ionic) species are >99% separated within ~hundreds of km, or less.

None of the above has been simulated in real science experiments here on Earth; it does not meet the burden of proof from the standpoint of empirical physics in any lab on Earth; etc.

Is that about right?

That is a good definition of Mozeperation.
You have to at least include all 26 elements between Fe and H.

What MM's fantasy* says about the elements heavier than Fe is not clear.

What MM's fantasy* says about the daughter products from radioactivity is not clear. For example U-238 decays with a half-life of about 4.7 billion years (so half the original U-238 has decayed) and produces alpha particles, i.e. helium. That helium goes where MM?

* Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally 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]

Why do you keep citing a pre-print from 2006 that has never been published

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379

First asked 15 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
Why do you keep citing a pre-print from 2006 that has never been published and was supposed to be presented in a workshop that that neither you nor any of the other authors actually attended?

Is this yet another indication of your low (or non-existent) scientific standards?

As Cuddles noted on 17 April 2010 (my emphasis added)

I wouldn't worry, it shouldn't take too long to wade through all 5 of them. In fact, wading through them could be quite amusing. For example, you might notice that only 3 of them were actually published in journals. Of the other two, one is virtually identical to one of the published papers and appears in a crackpot conference - First (and only) Crisis in Cosmology Conference, 2006 - which attracted a grand total of 34 papers. Even better, the second was not published at all. Despite claiming to have appeared in the Hirschegg Workshop 06: Astrophysics and Nuclear Structure, a look at their website shows that it was actually submitted as an abstract, but was not selected to be presented at the workshop. None of the authors attended.

It appears that all of Michael's work was "published" between June 2005 and October 2006. There is also some surprising similarity in the figures of most of them, almost as if they are not presenting original research but instead just rearranging the same claims. Since then, as far as I can tell from the evidence he has presented, he has done nothing. The fact that many of those figures would be familiar to readers of Michael's threads here and elsewhere tends to support that.

Most amusingly of all, we were presented with this esteemed publishing history in counter to the claim that Michael cannot back up his claims with maths. It turns out that none of those "five" "papers" actually contain any maths. None. Whatsoever. The closest it gets is one paper that contains two things labelled as equations. One is an experimental result equivalent to saying x = 1, the other a statement that x*y = constant. I suppose you could call that maths if you wanted to be picky, but it could hardly be considered to address the actual point at hand.

 

[Dancing David]

The very first paragraph on the very first page of your website says the surface of the sun is "rocky". The caption of the very first image on the very first page of your website says that it shows "mountain ranges".

About time to change that, don't you think? Wouldn't want to give anyone the wrong impression about what you actually believe.

He has also used the terms 'volcanic' several times, I believe in this thread even.

 

[Reality Check]

Is this your definition of a rigid structure

"Rigid" would best be measured in terms of change(or lack thereof)/time. The structures of the surface of the convecting photosphere tend to come and go in about 8 minute intervals or so. Those "structures" in Kosovichev's tsunami video last much longer.

So this is your definition of a rigid structure: A structure that exists from a short period of time, e.g. a minute.

Thus your solid/rigid iron solid/crust/plasma layer only exists for a minute or so and then vanishes?

Are you aware that the Sun has existed for billions of years?

 

[Reality Check]

the delusional nature of Michael Mozina's fantasy* shown by the TRACE RD 171A movie

Those tend to be "persistent' although not necessarily 'rigid".

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi

You'll notice that the structures are not only persistent they retain the geometric relationship with each other even *DURING A CME EVENT* that would typically blow light plasma structures all over the place.

dasmiller:
You will notice that this TRACE RD 171A movie illustrates the delusional nature of Michael Mozina's fantasy* comprehensively.
He has been completely deluded about this RD movie for many years and there is no sign that he is getting well .

The TRACE description of the movie is

This is a snapshot of Active Region 9143 observed with TRACE in the 171Å passband, showing bright material around 1 million degrees. This image, taken at 17:07UT on August 28, 2000, shows the corona during a C3.3 flare, associated with a mass ejection (towards the upper left of the image). The associated 3.3MB shows the flare and mass ejection as a difference movie: where the image turns bright, the solar corona has become brighter after 16UT, and where it turns black it has dimmed. This shows the ejected material very well, first flying upward at several hundred kilometers per second. Later, some of it is seen to fall back as a dark cloud.

Let us list the ways that Michael Mozina is deluded about the RD movie:

• The original images are of activity in the corona. Michael Mozina's first delusion is that the running difference processing magically reveals features that are 1000's of kilometers below the phososphere.
• The original images are of plasma at a temperature between 600,000 K and 2,000,000 K. Michael Mozina's second delusion is that the running difference processing magically reveals material that is < 3000K (if he persists in his iron crust fantasy*).
• The original images basically show temperature. The running difference image thus show changing temperatures. They do not show shadows.
• The original images are from the Sun where all features are interally illuminated, i.e. there is no other "sun" to cause shadows especially moving shadows. I have never seen any empirical evidence of coronal loops casting shadows but maybe MM can provide a citation? This means that moving shadows cannot cause changes that the running difference process would pick up.
• The nasty thing about mis-interpreting the dark areas in the RD movie as shadows is that there would have to be light sources in the RD movie. That is impossible because the RD movie shows changes in temperature. See above why changing light sources in the original images do not create shadows.
• There is also the interesting fact that the "shadows" in the RD movie point in just about every direction except the upper right, i.e. for some reason there are no "light sources" on the lower left.

He is also ignoring the following questions:

• Where did your "mountain ranges" go in Active Region 9143 when it got to the limb?
• Do RD movies of inactive regions show "mountain ranges"?
• 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?
• Why does the lighting of your "mountain ranges" move depending on the RD process?
• Why are the coronal loops in the RD images aligned along your "mountain ranges" rather than between them as expect for electrical discharges?

Michael Mozina other delusion is that every pixel in the RD movies has not been explained or linked to solar processes. That is wrong:

• The running difference process itself explains every pixel in the RD movie as the difference between 2 original pixels.
• The solar processes that cause the changes in the RD movie are shown in the original images - flares and a CME event.

The actual features in the RD movie are

• Flecks of moving, changing temperature corresponding to the CME event. Thie is obvious for the actual CME event as a bright flow of speckles. There is also evidence of some CME material cooling as it falls with the appearance of dark specks.
• Areas of persistant increasing temperature.
• Areas of persistant decreasing temperature.

The last 2 areas happen to be aligned along the flares. This means that they are side-by-side. This causes the illusion of mountain ranges that fools the gullible like Michael Mozina.

* Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally 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.

 

[dasmiller]

dasmiller:
You will notice that this TRACE RD 171A movie illustrates the delusional nature of Michael Mozina's fantasy* comprehensively.
He has been completely deluded about this RD movie for many years and there is no sign that he is getting well

I think I had gotten confused about which video was which. My talk of shockwaves referred to that orange video with the circular shocks, not this one (which doesn't have anything that looks like a shockwave to me). I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

 

[D'rok]

He has also used the terms 'volcanic' several times, I believe in this thread even.

Well, he does tend to erupt a lot.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Standard operating procedure. It's the dishonest evasion strategy. Ignorance. But soon he'll be back at it, totally ignoring everything that was said in the interim, calling his "rigid" surface solid again, confidently stating how he sees a surface through 80,000 kilometers of plasma in the SDO PR image, and calling his crackpot conjecture Birkeland's solar model.

So, given that, what's the quickest and most powerful (future) debunking (addressed to newbie lurkers)?

I think it has two essential components; one is a brief summary of ~five 'impossible things before breakfast' (basic laws of physics his idea violates; summary of the laws and how the violations arise), the other is an outline of the blatant inconsistencies in his presentation (for example, by his very own definition of "empirical", his "model" is full of 'magic MM physics bunnies' - the Moz-thingies).

Probably also necessary would be a short summary of Birkeland's work, and where MM's descriptions of it are, economical with the truth (shall we say); this would also involve the need to make clear that MM uses a lot of important words with meanings that are quite different from their normal, textbook, ones.

Close with a link to RC's impressive list of important questions - about his "model" - that MM has never even considered reading, let alone answering (is that too strong a statement?).

 

[tsig]

Not me. Alfven called your ideas "pseudoscience" and the only "experiments"you've done so far require "sustained current flow" to make them work! No full sphere corona like Birkeland. No coronal loops demos like Birkeland. No sustained full sphere particle emissions like Birkeland. Nothing! The whole thing is a giant fail! The best you folks seem to be able to do is create computer models based on stuff Alfven rejected, and pray nobody notices it doesn't work in the lab (without current flow).



In plasma this light, and fields this powerful, *THEY MUST*. Even in your own models the field is generated by *ELECTRICITY*! Holy cow! You have the magnetic cart before the electric horse and you always ignore the problem.

Odd, I don't think Alfven is registered here. Are you channeling him?

 

[tsig]

In the sense they demonstrated the process empirically like Birkeland did? No. I've seen computer models of everything from magic inflation to dark energy bunnies, but like all of your "theories", not one of them seems to work empirically in a lab anywhere on Earth.



No, I have never seen the mainstream demonstrate full sphere solar wind inside of a controlled experiment here on Earth. On the other hand, I have seen Birkeland replicate that process using "current flow". Like I said, computer models don't cut it. I'm an empirical "show me" sort of individual. You guys love to computer model something that Alfven himself rejected outright as pseudoscience. You'll have to provide more than a virtual world computer model based on "pseudoscience". I want to see a working model like Birkeland produced.

You were there?

 

[tsig]

He didn't have to, nor did he ever limited himself to a solid surface solar model. The fact you *REFUSE* to acknowledge that a Birkeland solar model is a *CATHODE* solar model, not at *SOLID* surface solar model is "SAD". (not to mention dishonest as hell, but what's new)

Then why have you argued so long and passionately about a solid surface solar model?

 

[tsig]

Just out of curiosity, while I sit here at work earning a real living, what lab experiment did you expect me to do that Birkeland hasn't already done?

Heat an iron sphere to 6000⁰K