Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Reality Check · May 17, 2010

Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked

This iron crust within the Sun idea of Micheal Mozina is very easy to disprove (big surprise :eye-poppi

!): 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.

The question of MM's lies and misinterpretations about Birkeland's book has come up again so I have separated his unsupported assertions about the book. An honest person would just say "I was wrong - Birkeland did not write that" in answer to most of these.

And the other questions:

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?

I will also record MM's delusions about running difference movies and Kosovichev's movie of plasma flows. (I wonder if MM knows that this is a permanent record that anyone with access to Google will find?)

the delusional nature of Michael Mozina's fantasy abot the TRACE RD 171A movie! (debunked by simple physics)
the delusional nature of Michael Mozina's fantasy about the Kosovichev movie! (debunked by Dr. Kosovichev)

Paravolt · May 17, 2010

I'm not a scientist so I don't pretend to make a scientific theory here or a solar model. Thats why I call it guesswork. It's the best I can do on this matter.

But it would be nice for me to contribute with some ideas to this thread.

So lets go further.

1. Is there an example of high energy / high density plasma containing Neon and other elements that under any conditions will be permeable to 171Å radiation/photons - or any other radiation/photons? In case there is - what are the characteristics of that plasma, and what will they let trough? I don't think MM's hypothesis of a iron containing crust on the sun depends on the photosphere plasma being purely Neon.

After reading trough most of this tread I get the impression that it is simply not possible. I understand MM did believe he say some real proof of his theory in that SDO image that started this thread - people with strong ideas jump easily to hasty conclusions. And I guess it would have been a proof if that green light had not been a photo-filter effect. On the other hand - people well placed within the ruling paradigm will generally be kind of blind to see weaknesses of their own theories - even when obvious to others.

2. Could there be an iron crust on the sun even if we can not see it? Could it be solid iron trough? I understand that the laws of thermodynamics will not allow for it if we accept the common assumption that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. So basically we have a test here. If the sun has a solid crust it is not billion years old. If anyone think they know the sun is 4,5 billion years old - they are happy within their paradigm and kind of blind. We know almost nothing for sure about the pre-history of the solar system and the universe - its all theory and hypothesis based on some assumptions that are not nessesarily true.

3. If the sun is a fusion reactor can someone with 14million degrees in the core - Can someone explain to me why it is kind of stable - why will it not explode as a hydrogen bomb - why will the surface after 4.5 years still be quite cool. I don't expect an answer to this here - but is it fair to say that common solar theory has some difficulties to explain certain thing about what we observe of the sun. They had to assume a neutrino change of state recently - I belive. Solar cycles- anyone? Even professional solar physicists admit that there are some local electric phenomena on the surface of the sun.

4. If the sun is electric it surly has to be part of a larger electric circuit. Ultimately every galaxy would be part of that electric circuit. Even if it means we can not explain the source of universal electric power - it should be possible to make predictions to test for this hypothesis locally in our solar system - and also apply the preditions to what we can observe in the universe. After all what we observe is mostly some kind of electromagnetical radiation and magnetic fields - these are phenomena where electricity is known to play a crucial role here on earth - why not in the universe? How do we produce X-rays here on earth? By gravity waves and collision of winds of matter? Black holes? Or electricity?

5. The cosmology of today has some obvious problems when they have to invent all kinds of extra-forces to get the math straight. The assumption that gravitation is the only major force at work in the universe is weak.The assumption that the universe is electrically neutral is weak. If electricity is allowed for there will be some obvious easier explanations for some observed phenomenas - like for instance "pulsars / neutron stars" - If the pulse is because of an electrical discharge phenomena (kind of like lightning) one does not have to assume that gravity could press electrons into protons (which appears to me as an insane idea anyway)

Toke · May 17, 2010

DeiRenDopa said:
There's a great deal of detailed, quantitative debunking of Electric Sun ideas on Tom Bridgman's blog, here.

Thanks, bookmarked.
It looks worse than I thought, not having studied it, I expected it to have at least something going for it.

GeeMack · May 17, 2010

Reality Check said:
The question of MM's lies and misinterpretations about Birkeland's book has come up again so I have separated his unsupported assertions about the book. An honest person would just say "I was wrong - Birkeland did not write that" in answer to most of these.[...]

In five years of Michael's prattling on various forums all over the Internet I haven't yet seen any support to the argument that this inane conjecture was actually described by Kristian Birkeland. I have seen many arguments which were obviously lies or which were determined to be lies once the research was done. Oh, and all the research was done by other people. I don't think honesty enters into his argument in any substantial way.

GeeMack · May 17, 2010

Paravolt said:
2. Could there be an iron crust on the sun even if we can not see it?

No.

Michael Mozina · May 17, 2010

GeeMack said:
In five years of Michael's prattling on various forums all over the Internet I haven't yet seen any support to the argument that this inane conjecture was actually described by Kristian Birkeland. I have seen many arguments which were obviously lies.....

More "civil" dialog on your part Dr. Denial?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A00E0DA133BE633A25750C2A9649C946296D6CF

Oh look, he *DID* have a model after all! Now of course he didn't use "brass" when calculating the mass of the universe but instead he used "iron". Then again you're in pure denial of that point too. You will stoop to any low to call me a liar. You're the liar GM. Birkeland had a solar model. It was an *ELECTRIC* solar theory. Deal with it.

dasmiller · May 17, 2010

Paravolt said:
2. Could there be an iron crust on the sun even if we can not see it?

There's nowhere on the sun cool enough for solid (or liquid) iron, so there couldn't be a crust. Also, the sun's density is far below that of solid iron, so any solid iron crust would have to be a relatively small sphere near the center. A hollow iron shell is even more problematic than a solid iron sphere, which is saying a lot.

Tubbythin · May 17, 2010

Paravolt said:
2. Could there be an iron crust on the sun even if we can not see it? Could it be solid iron trough? I understand that the thermodynamic will not allow for it if we accept the common assumption that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. So basically we have a test here. If the sun has a solid crust it is not billion years old.

An iron crust is ruled out by thermodynamics for all ages of the Sun.

3. If the sun is a fusion reactor can someone with 14million degrees in the core - Can someone explain to me why it is kind of stable - why will it not explode as a hydrogen bomb

The temperature in the core is well below the Coulomb barrier. As a consequence, fusion can only occur via tunneling and only for protons in the high energy tail of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. Moreover, the primary reaction: p + p -> d + e⁺ nu_e. This involves a quark flavour change and thus can only go through the weak interaction. In short, the cross section for the reaction is absolutely tiny.

- why will the surface after 4.5 years still be quite cool. I dont expect an answer to this here - but is it fair to say that common solar theory has some difficulties to explain certain thing about what we observe of the sun. They had to assume a neutrino change of state I believe recently.

This was never "assumed". It was hypothesized when the number of neutrino's observed was less than expected. We now know beyond all reasonable doubt, from multiple sources of evidence that neutrino oscillations do occur.

5. The cosmology of today has some obvious problems when they have to invent all kinds of extra-forces to get the math straight. Their assumption that the universe is electrically neutral is weak.

This is false. If it were not close to electrically neutral it would be very obvious.

The assumption that gravitation is the major force of the universe is weak.

Nope. Its an inevitable consequence of the lack of gravitaional charge shielding.

If electricity is allowed for there will be some obvious easier explanations for some observed phenomenas - like for instance "pulsars / neutron stars" - If the pulse is because of an electrical discharge phenomena (kind of like lightning) one does not have to assume that gravity could press electrons into protons (which appears to me as an insane idea anyway)

Easier explanations maybe, but also completely wrong.

Michael Mozina · May 17, 2010

Paravolt said:
2. Could there be an iron crust on the sun even if we can not see it? Could it be solid iron trough? I understand that the thermodynamic will not allow for it if we accept the common assumption that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. So basically we have a test here. If the sun has a solid crust it is not billion years old. If anyone think they know the sun is 4,5 billion years old - they are happy within their paradigm and kind of blind. We know almost nothing for sure about the pre-history of the solar system and the universe - its all theory and hypothesis based on some assumptions that are not nessesarily true.

Technically yes, it could have a crust, but the atmosphere might not be ionized to the point that we can "see' it in the iron ion lines. It is also possible it has an iron plasma layer that is not actually "solid", just "rigid" when compared to the behaviors of the photosphere. The only thing it *must* do is discharge to the heliosphere to be a cathode solar model (Birkeland solar model).

Ziggurat · May 17, 2010

Paravolt said:
2. Could there be an iron crust on the sun even if we can not see it? Could it be solid iron trough? I understand that the thermodynamic will not allow for it if we accept the common assumption that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. So basically we have a test here. If the sun has a solid crust it is not billion years old. If anyone think they know the sun is 4,5 billion years old - they are happy within their paradigm and kind of blind. We know almost nothing for sure about the pre-history of the solar system and the universe - its all theory and hypothesis based on some assumptions that are not nessesarily true.

It would be quite strange if the earth were far older than the sun, and we can date the earth to more than 4 billion years old with very high confidence. We can even date life on earth to more than 3 billion years.

But let's suppose for a moment that we can't have confidence in these estimates of the sun's age. What happens if it's much younger than that? How old can the sun be and NOT have an iron surface melt? I think I ran the numbers once and got about 200,000 years. The sun might not be 4.5 billion years old, but it's a lot older than 200,000 years. You can run the numbers yourself and figure out a bound.

3. If the sun is a fusion reactor can someone with 14million degrees in the core - Can someone explain to me why it is kind of stable - why will it not explode as a hydrogen bomb - why will the surface after 4.5 years still be quite cool. I dont expect an answer to this here - but is it fair to say that common solar theory has some difficulties to explain certain thing about what we observe of the sun. They had to assume a neutrino change of state I believe recently.

First off, the fusion process in the sun is NOT the same as the fusion process in nuclear bombs. Nuclear bombs use deuterium-tritium fusion, but there is very little of either in the sun. Fusing hydrogen to hydrogen is much harder, so it happens much more slowly. Secondly, and more importantly for your question, the sun has a negative feedback mechanism. The hotter the core gets, the less dense it gets, and that leads to lower gravitational pressure. Both lower pressure and lower density will decrease the rate of fusion. You need positive feedback to get runaway fusion. You can do that in a bomb because the increased temperature provides positive feedback, and the fusion rate is fast enough that the positive feedback dominates. But hydrogen-hydrogen fusion in the sun is too slow, so negative feedback from expansion dominates.

Secondly, the giant temperature gradients exist because the sun is BLOODY THICK. Consider any material that you want to transmit heat through. The rate of heat transport through the material is proportional to the temperature gradient, which is the temperature difference divided by the thickness. Make the material thicker, and you need to make the temperature gradient larger to support the same energy transfer rate. The sun is far thicker than the entire earth. The core is VERY well insulated.

And lastly, neutrino oscillations have been observed here on earth. The neutrino flux from the sun was a puzzle for a while before these oscillations were observed, but it's well understood now.

4. If the sun is electric it surly has to be part of a larger electric circuit. Ultimately every galaxy would be part of that electric circuit. Even if it means we can not explain the source of universal electric power - it should be possible to make predictions to test for this hypothesis locally in our solar system - and also apply the tests to what we can observe in the universe.

We can't test a model that isn't quantified. So feel free to quantify such a model. I can tell you that we can measure galactic magnetic fields, and they're quite small, so there isn't that much current flowing around out there.

Their assumption that the universe is electrically neutral is weak.

No, actually, it isn't. It's quite strong.

The assumption that gravitation is the major force of the universe is weak.

Again, this is not so.

If electricity is allowed for there will be some obvious easier explanations for some observed phenomenas - like for instance "pulsars / neutron stars" - If the pulse is because of an electrical discharge phenomena (kind of like lightning) one does not have to assume that gravity could press electrons into protons (which appears to me as an insane idea anyway)

Why is that an insane idea? We see the reverse process all the bloody time. Neutrons decay into a proton, an electron, and an electron antineutrino. So combining an electron and a proton will obviously lead to a neutron and an electron neutrino. Simple particle conservation, nothing insane about it.

And pulsars are very well explained by current models, including the regularity of their pulse rate AND the slow decay of that rate. Electrical discharges, in contrast, are notoriously noisy, and you've got no model of the actual discharge process. Where are the charges? Why are they discharging? What causes the discharge? How much energy is being discharged? You're basically asking to substitute an incredibly successful model with hand waving. Why would anyone prefer that?

Reality Check · May 17, 2010

Paravolt said:
1. Is there an example of high energy / high density plasma containing Neon and other elements that under any conditions will be let 171Å radiation/photons - or any other radiation trough for that matter? In case there is - what are the charachteristics of that plasma. I dont think MM hypothesis of a iron containing crust depends on the photosphere plasma being purely Neon.

No.
In fact it (AFAIK) it is the other way around. A neon plasma is much more opaque to all wavelengths than a hydrogen plasma of the same density.
The problem is that MM wants to create a Mozplasma that lets his iron crust fantasy* be visible through 1000's of kilometers of Mozplasma. But sol invictus put Mozplasma version 1.0 (and 2.0?) though an opacity calculator and found that it had an optical depth of meters, i.e. light intensity decreased by 1/e each time that the light went through 3.5 meters (by memory).

Paravolt said:
2. Could there be an iron crust on the sun even if we can not see it? Could it be solid iron trough?

There can be no solid iron under the photosphere. The photosphere is ~6000 K and the boiling point of iron is ~3100 K. In addition the temperature of the photosphere increases with depth as shown by limb darkening meaurements to~9400 K in a few hundred kilometers. This is consistent with an internally heated SU and so teh tempertaure would be even greater at 4800 km where MM wants his iron crust fantasy* to be.

Paravolt said:
3. If the sun is a fusion reactor can someone with 14million degrees in the core - Can someone explain to me why it is kind of stable - why will it not explode as a hydrogen bomb - why will the surface after 4.5 years still be quite cool. I dont expect an answer to this here - but is it fair to say that common solar theory has some difficulties to explain certain thing about what we observe of the sun. They had to assume a neutrino change of state I believe recently.

The core of the Sun is a enormous number of hydrogen bombs going off every second. The reason the Sun does not explode is because the "bombs" are burried under an evem more enormous mass of plasma.
The surface is relatively cool for the same reason that a room with a heater in it is relatively cooler than the heater. There is basically an inverse square law (1/r^2) with the heating fro a point source like the core of the Sun.
There is no assumption of a "neutrino change of state". There are the measurements of neutrino oscillations from neutrinos from both the Sun and reactors. That is backed up by theory that suggests a very small mass for neutrinos.

Paravolt said:
4. If the sun is electric it surly has to be part of a larger electric circuit. Ultimately every galaxy would be part of that electric circuit. Even if it means we can not explain the source of universal electric power - it should be possible to make predictions to test for this hypothesis locally in our solar system - and also apply the tests to what we can observe in the universe.

This really needs to be taken to Electric universe theories here. But...
The Sun is not electric.
There is no evidence of "universal electric power".
There have been plenty of tests of this hypothesis in the solar system:

Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
There's a great deal of detailed, quantitative debunking of Electric Sun ideas on Tom Bridgman's blog, here.

Paravolt said:
5. The cosmology of today has some obvious problems when they have to invent all kinds of extra-forces to get the math straight. Their assumption that the universe is electrically neutral is weak. The assumption that gravitation is the major force of the universe is weak. If electricity is allowed for there will be some obvious easier explanations for some observed phenomenas - like for instance "pulsars / neutron stars" - If the pulse is because of an electrical discharge phenomena (kind of like lightning) one does not have to assume that gravity could press electrons into protons (which appears to me as an insane idea anyway)

This really needs to be taken to Electric universe theories here. But...
You have some misconceptions here.

There are no "extra-forces to get the math straight". These are

The many observations of dark matter (see my signature).
The observation of dark energy.
The more theoretical but scientifically valid inflationary period of the early universe.

Gravity is not the major force in the universe. The strong nuclear force os many, many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.

Gravity however is the dominant force over large distances because it is

long range (unlike the nuclear forces).
always attractive and so cannot be shielded (unlike electromagnetism).

There is no assumption that the universe is electrically neutral. If the universe was electrically charged on cosmological scales there would be obvious effects, e.g. radiation from the electrons accelerated by these cosmological charges.
Pulsars and neutron stars have physically realistic explanations. Electrical ideas about them are not physically realistic.
The fact that gravity can press "electrons into protons" is easy to grasp - all you need is enough mass (Chandrasekhar limit).

* 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 :jaw-dropp

) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 70 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.

Reality Check · May 17, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
The only thing it *must* do is discharge to the heliosphere to be a cathode solar model (Birkeland solar model).

More lies about Birkeland's book:

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).

Michael Mozina · May 17, 2010

I'm going to start calling you two the liar, liar pants on fire club. Don't you guys ever get tired of the character assassination routines? What exactly was his "cathode" discharging to RC?

Michael Mozina · May 17, 2010

FYI, Paravolt, the point of the RD disk size prediction I made earlier in this thread directly relates back to the ionization state of the atmosphere. If the atmosphere is highly ionized we should see the RD image fit nicely inside the chromosphere boundary. If it is not as highly ionized as I presume then the RD disk will fit just outside of that boundary.

Tubbythin · May 17, 2010

Ziggurat said:
Why is that an insane idea? We see the reverse process all the bloody time. Neutrons decay into a proton, an electron, and an electron antineutrino. So combining an electron and a proton will obviously lead to a neutron and an electron neutrino. Simple particle conservation, nothing insane about it.

Moreover we see electron capture (ie p + e^-->n+nu_e)by proton-rich unstable nuclei all the time in competition with beta⁺ decay. In fact, when the mass difference between the original and resultant nucleus is less than 1.022 MeV we get exclusively electron capture.

Reality Check · May 17, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
I'm going to start calling you two the liar, liar pants on fire club. Don't you guys ever get tired of the character assassination routines? What exactly was his "cathode" discharging to RC?

His anode which was the walls of the chamber if I remember rightly (but sometimes he swapped them around).

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).

We are not assassinating your character. You are commiting character suicide by lying about and misrepresenting the contents of Birkeland's book. As I stated before:

The question of MM's lies and misinterpretations about Birkeland's book has come up again so I have separated his unsupported assertions about the book. An honest person would just say "I was wrong - Birkeland did not write that" in answer to most of these.

Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?

Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"

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).

Is Saturn the Sun?

Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina

Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind

Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book? (really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)

Are galaxies electrical discharges from magnetized iron spheres (Birkelands "nebulae model")?

Where in Birkeland's book does he state that the Sun is a metal globe?

Why is the iron crust iron and not Birkeland's brass?

I and other posters have read Birkeland's book and know that you have lied, e.g. I can fnd no mention at all of fission in it (searchable PDF's are great!).

Michael Mozina · May 17, 2010

Reality Check said:
His anode which was the walls of the chamber if I remember rightly (but sometimes he swapped them around).

I'm not talking about his experiments RC. How evasive can you be? Where did his solar cathode discharge to RC?

I and other posters have read Birkeland's book and know that you have lied, e.g. I can fnd no mention at all of fission in it (searchable PDF's are great!).

The problem is you have to know what you're searching for RC and since you've never read the book you wouldn't know. Try searching for "uranium". You'll also note from the NY Times article that he entertained the idea of a transmutation of elements - fusion.

Tubbythin · May 17, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
The problem is you have to know what you're searching for RC and since you've never read the book you wouldn't know. Try searching for "uranium".

Urm. Fission wasn't discovered till two decades after Birkeland died.

Michael Mozina · May 18, 2010

Tubbythin said:
Urm. Fission wasn't discovered till two decades after Birkeland died.

He also talked about the transmutation of elements. When was that actually "discovered"?

Tubbythin · May 18, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
He also talked about the transmutation of elements. When was that actually "discovered"?

Well the idea of transmuting elements dates back at least 2 and a half millenia (if you believe wikipedia).

Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Penultimate Amazing

New Blood

Godless Socialist

Banned

Banned

Banned

Just the right amount of cowbell

Illuminator

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator