Micheal's solar model

Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Birkeland/NYT Birkeland.pdf

Even the NYTimes writer discusses the transmutation of elements being the power source of his cathode model. ...
9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that the NYT report has transmutation of elements as the power source of his cathode model.
Birkeland starts with his experiment. He sees "rays similar to the alpha particles", consistent with radium and this "would appear to suggest transmutation of elements concerned" It is fission that produces alpha particles :doh:!
The power source in his experiments is whatever electrical source he used (mains?).

He saw rays produced by his electrical discharges that he thought were alpha rays and speculated that they were from elements on his cathode. That is electromagnetically induced "fission". He wondered if the heat produced was the same as the heat from disintegration "as occurs in the case of transformation of radium".
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that the NYT report has transmutation of elements as the power source of his cathode model.

I can't recall ever hearing you tell the truth about any topic related to EU/PC theory.

Birkeland starts with his experiment. He sees "rays similar to the alpha particles", consistent with radium and this "would appear to suggest transmutation of elements concerned" It is fission that produces alpha particles :doh:!

The term "transmutation of elements" is right there in the article and alpha particles and photographic plates are all that he had to work with at the time. More importantly however, the sun actually *does emit alpha particles*!

Solar wind - Wikipedia

The solar wind is a stream of charged particles released from the upper atmosphere of the Sun, called the corona. This plasma consists of mostly electrons, protons and alpha particles with thermal energy between 1.5 and 10 keV.

Just another of his many successful predictions, unlike your convection fiasco.

The power source in his experiments is whatever electrical source he used (mains?).

He claimed the sun was *internally* powered however, and that was simply his model for producing a corona and aurora and atmospheric phenomenon that he could study! Wow. You're a head trip and a half.

He saw rays produced by his electrical discharges that he thought were alpha rays and speculated that they were from elements on his cathode.

He was right. They did and they do.

That is electromagnetically induced "fission".

Huh? Are you claiming the alpha rays in solar wind are coming from fission? Where's that happening in the solar atmosphere?

He wondered if the heat produced was the same as the heat from disintegration "as occurs in the case of transformation of radium".

Yes indeed. That was the closest thing that he had to work with at that time, but he specifically used the term "transmutation of elements", a process that is not exclusively limited to fission. In fact neither the term fission or fusion had even been invented yet, and neither process was understood yet.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
That is an extremely minor aspect of that insanely invalid paper: Published Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, No. 11, pages 1847-1856 (2006)
A paper about the Sun published in a Russian journal about the physics of atomic nuclei.

Show us one of your astronomy related paper RC. Your opinion of our published paper is insanely invalid. You can't even get the neutrino of EU/PC predictions right!

Try to guess how many astronomers are likely to have peer reviewed the paper. Obviously none because astronomers know about neutron stars. There is a hint of no peer review since nuclear scientists should know about neutron stars.

Huh? It's a peer reviewed Journal RC, and other papers of ours were printed in the Journal of Fusion energy. Show us your list of published paper RC. What makes your opinions worth listening to if you've never published any papers related to astronomy?

If you want to go into trivial aspects then consider the fact this paper has no refereed citations!

Ask me if I care.


Its obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about. I've explained to you have it works already, not that you ever actually listen to my explanations.

But then we seem to have support for a neutron star as a power source.
9 March 2018 Michael: Are you supporting the insanely bad idea of a neutron star inside the Sun.

The rotation of the neutron star induces discharges that generate fusion. How many times do I have to explain it to you?

Nowhere in the paper did I describe a 1.4 solar mass core. You're clearly lying again so why should I bother discussing my paper with you of you're only going to lie about it?
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
At ISF: 18th May 2010 Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked
His solar "model" is 13 years and counting of
  1. An "iron mountain ranges on the Sun" delusion.
  2. Denial of the theory and evidence that the Sun has a convective zone (observed convection cells and from 2012 currents!) and thus no layers in its outer third.
  3. The delusion that taking a running difference of images turns images of a solar flare in the corona (solar atmosphere!) into iron mountain ridges on the Sun's surface.
  4. A lie that some TRACE images of the solar corona thousands of kilometers above the surface of the Sun are "of the sun's surface".
  5. A recent fantasy that that Birkeland's "Sun powered by fission radioactivity + electron emission" solar model is valid today leads to a lie that the Planeterrella (a demonstration of his aurora model) is an experiment on Birkeland's solar model.
The next problem is that his solar "model" is based on Birkeland's invalid "Sun powered by radioactivity (including fission) + electron emission close to the speed of light" model which is then lied about as being a fusion powered Sun.

9 March 2018 Michael: A "fusion" lie about Birkeland's solar model as described in Birkeland's book
The only "transmutation of elements" known before 1919 (book published in 1913) was fission. This is the transmutation of elements such as uranium to daughter elements.
Birkeland explicitly suggests radium, etc. as THE SOURCE OF THE SUN'S HEAT as I stated.
A newspaper report also has him stating that the Sun is a cathode in a lecture.
Nuclear fusion as a source of the Sun's energy was not proposed until 1920, 3 years after Birkeland's death.

Today
  • We know that the Sun is powered by fusion at its center.
  • We know that the Sun emits a neutral solar wind that is both ions (mostly protons) and electrons.
  • We know that the solar wind has a speed much slower than the speed of light (fast solar wind ~750 km/s, c = 299,792 km/s).
9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that the NYT report has transmutation of elements as the power source of his cathode model.
The lie is that Birkeland is talking abut the emission of possible alpha particles which are not emitted by fusion which was first proposed for the Sun by Eddington in 1920. Birkeland's book was published in 1913. Birkeland died on 15 June 1917 :doh:!

We know today that his speculation that his electrical discharges were creating alpha particles as emitted from radium was wrong. Electrical discharges do not tear alpha particles out of atomic nuclei.

There is also a small issue with the electron emission part of Birkeland's model - the Sun does not emit only electrons. The solar wind is a neutral plasma containing electrons and positive ions (mostly protons).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
At ISF: 18th May 2010 Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked
Michael's solar "model" is 13 years and counting of
  1. An "iron mountain ranges on the Sun" delusion.
  2. Denial of the theory and evidence that the Sun has a convective zone (observed convection cells and from 2012 currents!) and thus no layers in its outer third.
  3. The delusion that taking a running difference of images turns images of a solar flare in the corona (solar atmosphere!) into iron mountain ridges on the Sun's surface.
  4. A lie that some TRACE images of the solar corona thousands of kilometers above the surface of the Sun are "of the sun's surface".
  5. Based on Birkeland's invalid "Sun powered by radioactivity (including fission) + electron emission close to the speed of light" model which is then lied about as being a fusion powered Sun.
  6. A recent fantasy that that Birkeland's "Sun powered by fission radioactivity + electron emission" solar model is valid today leads to a lie that the Planeterrella (a demonstration of his aurora model) is an experiment on Birkeland's solar model.
Next is the idiocy of no stated power source in Michael's solar "model". To be addressed in multiple parts.
Part A: The denial that the Sun is powered by fusion at its center (see his "falsified" solar model posts) as supported by the known laws of physics and physical evidence.

A probably futile effort to explain this to him yet again.
A stable star has to have the inward weight of gravity balanced by the outward thermal pressure. This is the known and tested Newton's law of gravitation against the known and tested ideal gas law. Plasma is a partially ionized gas where the Debye length is the scale above which it acts like a normal gas. This is 10^-11 meters for the solar core to 10 meters for the solar wind. A small bit of thought shows that the pressure and temperature inside a star has to increase with depth to support the increasing weight from gravity. Thus temperature decreases with height from a star's center. The way to have decreasing temperatures with height is to have a heat source at the center :doh:!
Any external heat source will heat a star to a uniform temperature. Any heat source at a depth X in a star will have a uniform temperature below that depth X.

Astronomers did detailed calculations starting almost 100 years ago. The known and tested laws of nuclear physics showed that the pressures and temperatures at the core of a star will cause fusion (predominately the p-p chain reaction in stars the mass of the Sun).

The result is that any star without a heat source at its center will collapse. This is what will happen to the Sun when it runs out of fuel for fusion - it will collapse to a white dwarf. Remove fusion today and the Sun collapses to a white dwarf today.

ETA: There is also physical evidence that stars are powered by fusion at their core.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Part B: 1. The physical insanity of a neutron star at center of the Sun.
The physical insanity of a neutron star at the center of the Sun. (Updated 21 March 2018 to add more details)
  • The minimum theoretical mass of a neutron star is ~1.4 solar masses (the upper limit of a white dwarf is the Chandrasekhar limit).
    Modeling the collapse of the cores of massive stars gives a minimum mass of 1.1 to 1.2 solar masses.
    The smallest measured mass of a neutron star was 1.174 solar masses in 2015.
    To these we have to add the mass of the Sun outside of the proposed neutron star which will be close to 1 solar mass (a quick calculation suggests room for a 0.000000000000005 solar mass neutron star :doh:!)
  • The surface gravity of neutron star is about 200 billion times that of the Earth = the Sun should explode and we get a slightly fatter neutron star.
    The plasma at the center of the Sun has a density about that of water. That dense plasma should be in contact with the neutron star surface, i.e. we have a neutron star bathed in an actual ocean of H and He and impurities.
  • The magnetic field of a neutron star is 100 million to 1 quadrillion times as strong as that of the Earth makes putting one in the Sun with its measured magnetic field minor insanity.
  • The rotation of a neutron star mush higher than a star such as the Sun because angular momentum is conserved as they collapse. The longest observed period for a pulsar is 118.2 seconds. The Sun takes about 25 days to rotate! A minor point given the insanity of the Sun exploding and its mass.
Neutron stars do not emit enough energy to power the Sun as in the insanely invalid paper The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass by O. Manuel, S. A. Kamat, M. Mozina (Michael). They are hot so thermal is thermal energy emitted.

I asked 9 March 2018 Michael: Are you supporting the insanely bad idea of a neutron star inside the Sun? and got a lie about the contents of his paper.
There is no "The rotation of the neutron star induces discharges that generate fusion" in the paper. Look for the word discharge and it is not there. Ditto for rotation of the neutron star. Fusion does appear in the context of real astrophysics and reveals ignorance .
12 March 2018: The 2006 paper is ignorant about the solar neutrino problem which was solved about 2002 by detecting other neutrino flavors.

Irrelevant to the paper delusions?
9 March 2018 Michael: Please give your sources for neutron stars decaying to between ~.1 to ~2 solar masses.
9 March 2018 Michael: Please give your sources that a "positively charged core" with a surface gravity of about 200 billion times that of the Earth can hold up the plasma of the Sun.
9 March 2018 Michael: Please give your sources for neutron stars having a positively charged iron and nickel crust (stripped of all electrons).


For others: The paper has imaginary "neutron-emission" from the neutron star as the majority of the energy to power the Sun. The obvious problem is that neutron stars are a lot dimmer than the Sun.
Neutron Stars
For example, a star of 0.7 solar masses would produce a neutron star that was only 10 km in radius. Even if this object had a surface temperature of 50,000 K, it has such as small radius that its total luminosity would be a million times fainter than the Sun.

Is it impossible for a neutron star to be inside any star? The answer is no.
Red supergiant replaced its core with a neutron star
Astrophysicist think about possible stellar configurations, for example a massive star with an orbiting neutron star. So what happens if the massive star becomes a red supergiant? Theoretically the supergiant will engulf the neutron star and drag will make the neuron star spiral into the center of the supergiant.
These systems are named Thorne-Zytkow objects.
Back in 2014, we found debated evidence that this has happened. HV 2112 is an unusual red supergiant but we cannot be confident that it matches what we expect for a TZO because of the predictions of the TZO model are old enough to be changed by our improved knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian

Man, it's just too late tonight to go through a whole gish gallop routine with you *again* tonight. I'm off to bed.

You simply ignore my explanations, and you consistently assert your own model as "fact" in a completely unethical manner. Your whole debate style is a combination of using loaded personal attack language in every single post, mixed with huge amounts of Gish-gallop, and the repetitious listing of the same false strawmen over and over and over again, regardless of how many times I've explained your errors to you.

You're in pure denial of the fact that your solar model convection predictions have been shown to be falsified by *two whole orders of magnitude*. You don't care one iota about of the real predictions of this model because you intentionally stick false words in EU/PC proponents mouths, just like your 'no neutrino' nonsense. Even worse, you blatantly ignore those mathematical "predictive tests" when they blow your own model out of the water.

Your liar, liar pants on fire routine is childish and unethical in the extreme because you simply assert your own model as "fact" and you accuse anyone who disagrees with you as 'lying'. Your bogus convection predictions were the big lie RC.

Maybe I'll go through the rest of your posts in the morning, but frankly you're just boring now. You aren't interested in anything I have to say, or my answers. You're just stuffing false words and false statements down my throat, just like you did to Scott and that no neutrino pack of lies you told.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian

Your repetitive, denial based gish-gallop routine is boring RC. I've addressed every single one of those false claims *many* times with you and as recently as this week:

Micheal's solar model
Next is the idiocy of no stated power source in Michael's solar "model". To be addressed in multiple parts.

This is a flat out lie on your part because I have explained many times to you that the power source is *fusion* which occurs in plasma pinches throughout the whole sun. This is no better than your erroneous and unethical "no neutrino" nonsense. Do you even tell the truth with respect to EU/PC models? If so, I've never seen it.

Part A: The denial that the Sun is powered by fusion at its center (see his "falsified" solar model posts) as supported by the known laws of physics and physical evidence.

Part A is a lie because you won't quote me making such a "denial" in the first place.

A probably futile effort to explain this to him yet again.
A stable star has to have the inward weight of gravity balanced by the outward thermal pressure. This is the known and tested Newton's law of gravitation against the known and tested ideal gas law.

Yes, and I'm sure it works that way too. Do you even understand the difference between an *internally* powered solar model and an externally powered solar model because you seem to be trying to apply your criticisms of Juergen's solar model to *Birkeland's model* which is utter nonsense.

Plasma is a partially ionized gas where the Debye length is the scale above which it acts like a normal gas. This is 10^-11 meters for the solar core to 10 meters for the solar wind. A small bit of thought shows that the pressure and temperature inside a star has to increase with depth to support the increasing weight from gravity. Thus temperature decreases with height from a star's center. The way to have decreasing temperatures with height is to have a heat source at the center :doh:!

Duh !:doh:

In Birkeland's model that would be true for all areas *below the cathode surface*. That atmosphere of Birkeland's model is heated by *electrical current* however so the layers above the cathode are arranged by atomic weight and density and the hottest layers are the outer layers until one reaches the cathode surface, and then everything below that surface works like the standard solar model in terms of temperature increases with depth.

It's obvious that despite your presumed "expertise" on this topic you know *nothing* about this model, and what you think you 'know' it utter nonsense. That's mostly because you don't listen to any of my explanations, and you simply repeat your false statements over and over again.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Part B: The insanity of a neutron star at center of the Sun.
The physical insanity of a neutron star at the center of the Sun.

The insanity is you repetitively spewing your own pure ignorance.

Red supergiant replaced its core with a neutron star

  • The minimum mass of a neutron star is ~1.4 solar masses. To that we have to add the mass of the Sun outside of the proposed neutron star which will be close to 1 solar mass.

False. The 1.4 solar mass figure is not the minimum size of a neutron star, it's the minimum size that results in the *formation* of a neutron star. You obviously have no clue about any of this stuff RC.

FYI, for anyone interested in this topic, neutron stars do decay and their actual minimum size can be closer to between .087 - .1 solar masses, or around one tenth of a solar mass.

Uniformly rotating neutron stars in the global and local charge neutrality cases
Analytical representations of unified equations of state for neutron-star matter

RC has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

Been there and done that more times than I can count now, including the two links I just cited for you in this thread. Do us both a favor and read them this time and quit spewing ignorant nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Well RC, I see nothing else that is worth responding to from your last few posts.

It's clear that my responses to you simply go in one ear and out the other and you just repeat the same false nonsense over and over again regardless of how many times I try to correct you. You also repeat the same questions over and over again regardless of how many times I answer them.

Your unethical behavior amounts to pure personal harassment and cyber stalking. Are you proud of yourself? What exactly are you trying to accomplish?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Part B: The insanity of a neutron star at center of the Sun.
Nothing but the usual replies with insults, irrelevancy, and most importantly no science or real world evidence addressing is issues from Michael so onto the next part of the idiocy of no stated power source in Michael's solar "model".
Part C: Using the fantasies of two ignorant Thunderbolts authors about the power source of the Sun.

These fantasies are in books that we have to pay for or hidden in blogs or videos. But there is a EU guide book written in 2012 available as e-book that was used as the basis of Testing the Electric Universe by the astrophysicist Brian Koberlein:
Reference: A Beginner’s View of Our Electric Universe by Tom Findlay (PDF)
This 2012 guide book was endorsed by EU experts (Wallace Thornhill and Dr Donald E Scot) and thus should contain correct information. The problem is that this book explicitly states that stars are not fusion powered at all! Page 79:
We will be returning to the idea of nuclear fusion-powered stars later to delve into why this, in fact, is not the way the Sun works and to take a close look at how all stars actually do work, electrically of course.
There is no statement of an electrically powered star generating fusion anywhere in the book. The basic fact of a flux of solar neutrinos corresponding to fusion and matching the Sun's energy output is not mentioned. These obvious errors were not noticed by Thornhill or Scott.

Thornhill's "power source" in 2001, which seems to be his last coherent explanation (rumors of something in a video?):
"he electric Sun model expects far more complex heavy element synthesis to take place in the natural particle accelerators in the photospheric lightning discharges. In that case the various neutrino “flavours” are all generated on the Sun and do not need to “oscillate” on their way to the Earth to make up an imagined deficit.
...
To sum up, the electrical model of the Sun requires that neutrinos of all “flavours” are produced by heavy element nucleosynthesis in the photosphere of the Sun.
An ignorant fantasy of heavy element synthesis in lightning discharges.

A lie of fusion creating neutrinos of all flavors when the dominating p-p and CNO reactions in stars only create electron neutrinos.

The ignorant delusion of having fusion in the photosphere is the killer blow.
Fusion produces more gamma rays than neutrinos. We do not detect these gamma rays from solar fusion placing any source so far beneath the photosphere that the gamma rays are absorbed and turned into the thermal spectrum we detect. If he had ever read an astronomy textbook or could apply Newton's law of gravitation and the gas laws to stars then he would know the physical impossibility of a stable star heated at its photosphere. A star needs temperature and pressure increasing with depth to be stable. Heating from the photosphere produces a uniform temperature and the star collapses. Specifically an electric Sun has to be a white dwarf :doh:!

Scott's "power source" according to Michael comenting on Brian Koberlein's blog is on page 106 of his book and is
Scott: The neutrino flux from the sun seems to vary inversely with sunspot number. This is not unexpected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is the z-ping-produced fusion occurring in the double layer (DL) – and sunspots are the locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur.
Michael...He names the emission method (z-pinch processes in plasma), the location of the neutrino emissions (photosphere/chromosphere) and he predicts variation in neutrino emissions due to current flow changes...

Scott at least knows that neutrinos are produced by fusion! There is a fantasy that z-pinches are produced n the turbulent conditions in the solar photosphere. We can create fusion in the controlled conditions of terrestrial z-pinch experiments. There is no evidence of any z-pinches on or in the Sun.
The proposed fusion is probably physically impossible in the photosphere since the proton–proton chain reaction requires sustained temperatures and pressures
This first step is extremely slow because the positron emission of the diproton to deuterium is extremely rare (the vast majority of the time, the diproton decays back into two hydrogen-1 unbound protons through proton emission). This is because the emission of the positron is brought about by the weak nuclear force, which is immensely weaker than the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force.

The half-life of a proton in the core of the Sun before it is involved in a successful proton–proton fusion is estimated to be about one billion years, even at the extreme pressures and temperatures found there.

Also read the blog Just-So Story by Brian Koberlein where he mentions that the neutrinos from the proton–proton chain reaction have been detected.
Neutrinos from the primary proton–proton fusion process in the Sun by the Borexino Collaboration, Nature volume 512, pages 383–386 (28 August 2014)

Thornhill and Scott just have bad fairy stories. Competent people would have learned about stars and fusion. Competent people would have done more than fantasize. Competent people would have done their own calculations to see if heir theory matched the real world or at least consulted astronomers and nuclear physicists.

Thornhill and Scott could partially fix their fantasies by placing the fusion so far below the phosphate that the gamma rays are absorbed and turned into the thermal spectrum we detect. But stars still collapse! Worse - there have been no sources stating that is what they have done.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
13 March 2018: The insanity that the Sun is a red giant!
From that article
Many stars evolve through a giant phase in which their envelope expands significantly. Should the neutron star be orbiting close enough, this expansion could cause the giant star to envelop its companion.
...
The intense heat near the neutron star would trigger different fusion reactions from those normally found at the center of a red giant.
This is absorption of a companion neutron star that produces detectable from light years away, different fusion reactions.
It would be interesting to see why there is not enough fusion to blow away the red giant . I suspect that it is the relatively light plasma of a red giant. The plasma at the center of the Sun has the density of water.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
FYI, for anyone interested in this topic, neutron stars do decay and their actual minimum size can be closer to between .087 - .1 solar masses, or around one tenth of a solar mass.
13 March 2018: A lie that neutron stars decay in 2 papers not containing the word decay or even minimum mass!
Uniformly rotating neutron stars in the global and local charge neutrality cases
No decay. Various figures with model curves covering
Fig. 4: 2.4 to 2.9 solar masses.
Fig. 5: 2.5 to 2.8 solar masses.
Fig. 6: 2.4 to 2.9 solar masses.
Fig. 7: ~1 to ~2.5 solar masses.
Fig. 8: 0.1 to 2.8 solar masses.
Fig. 11: ~0 to 2.8 solar masses.

Analytical representations of unified equations of state for neutron-star matter
No decay.
Fig. 8: 3 model curves minimum of ~0.2 to ~2.4 solar masses.
The reality is that these are 2 interesting papers that plot model curves for masses from 0 to a few solar masses in case we ever find a mechanism for producing low mass neutron stars.

Neither paper states that the minimum mass of an actual neutron star is ~0.1 solar masses.

13 March 2018: A lie that evidence for a "~0.1 solar masses" minimum for neutron stars has been presented many times to me.
But he can make me wrong with links to the posts to me where he gives actual evidence that neutron stars* can be massively lighter than the Sun - remember that the Sun's mass of plasma outside a 30 kilometer sphere = extremely close to 1 solar mass.

A 30 kilometer sphere (triple that of a typical neutron star) = 1.13 10^5 km^3 (the Sun's volume: 1.41×10^18 km^3 !)
That 30 km sphere is ~10^16 kilograms of water density plasma. The sun's mass if ~2 * 10 ^30 kilograms. That is 0.999999999999995 solar masses or room for a 0.000000000000005 solar mass neutron star :doh:!

* From memory he has mentioned quark stars which are not in his paper.

Relevant science:
On the Mass Distribution and Birth Masses of Neutron Stars (about 1.2 solar masses at birth).
Pulsar J0453+1559: A Double Neutron Star System with a Large Mass Asymmetry (smallest measured mass in 2015 = 1.174(4) solar masses).
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Nothing but the usual replies with insults, irrelevancy, and most importantly no science or real world evidence addressing is issues from Michael


That's real empirical science and real world evidence RC. You wouldn't even know real science or real evidence because *none* of your claims actually work in the lab.

Every single one of your posts is *loaded* with personal attack nonsense. Every one of your posts includes terms like 'idiocy', 'fantasy', 'lie', 'ignorant', 'delusion', yada, yada, personal attack yada. You're a one trick personal attack pony.

Testing the Electric Universe by the astrophysicist Brian Koberlein:

That ridiculous page is so wrong it's just absurd. Your author *obviously* didn't do his homework.

Thornhill "The Electric Universe" - Specifically listed as a reference
(Page 70)

Neutrino deficiency.

Solar physicists have acknowledged for decades that the Sun’s output of neutrinos, a by-product of nuclear fusion, is about 1/3 of that expected in the standard solar model. Three types or ‘flavors’ of neutrinos have been identified, and recent attempts to solve the problem require unwarranted assumptions about neutrino ‘change of flavor’ en route from the center of the Sun. An electric Sun, however, can generate all flavors of neutrinos in heavy element synthesis at its surface. Therefore, it requires no assumptions about ‘changing flavors’ to hide the deficit.

Neutrino variability.

The neutrino output varies inversely with the surface sunspot cycle. Were they produced in the nuclear ‘furnace’ at the center of the Sun, this relationship would be inconceivable, since solar physicists calculate that it takes about 200,000 years for the energy of internal fusion to affect the surface. In the electrical model, more and larger sunspots mean less ‘lightning’ at the surface, where the nuclear reactions occur. Thus, the decline in neutrinos with increasing sunspot number is expected.

Scott "The Electric Sky' - Also specifically listed as a reference:
Page 106:

The neutrino flux from the sun seems to vary inversely with sunspot number. This is not unexpected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is the z-pinch-produced fusion occurring in the double layer (DL) – and sunspots are the locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur.

Any real professional who claimed to be using *three* references, not just one, would have read and used all three references. No real professional would rely *exclusively* on some third party PDF file, particularly after claiming to be discussing *Thornhill's* model, not Findlay's model, and after specifically claiming to *also* be using Thornhill's book and Scott's book as reference material.

There are actually many variations to the Electric Universe model, but the most popular version seems to focus around the book by Thornhill and Talbot listed below. It is this basic model I’ll discuss here, using the references listed at the bottom of the post.

Reference: The Electric Universe by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbot

Reference: The Electric Sky by Donald E. Scott

You really don't know anything correctly about *any* EU/PC solar model and you have no credibility whatsoever. The blog *pretends* to be critiquing the beliefs and models described by *Thornhill*, but it blatantly and directly contradicts that authors own words.

Thornhill and Scott could partially fix their fantasies by placing the fusion so far below the phosphate that the gamma rays are absorbed and turned into the thermal spectrum we detect.

:doh:Oy Vey. Irony overload. They did exactly that RC! Then again you'd have to have actually read their book and use their own words and their actual books and website statements to understand that their model already does that rather than relying upon some random third party PDF that you read somewhere, and your obviously horrific mind reading skills! Wow, are you clueless!

It's too late tonight for me to worry about your personal attack gish-gallop routine this evening (early morning actually). I'll glance through your nonsense in the morning to see if there's actually anything worth responding to, but if you can't get even the most basic aspects of any EU/PC solar model right, there's no point in wasting my time discussing EU/PC solar models with you. You never admit that you're wrong, even when two out of the three references that are cited *absolutely, positively do* discuss fusion and neutrinos and even after I hand you the specific quotes that blow your false claims out of the water!

Do you have any personal integrity? Did you even bother to read their books or did you just pretend to read Thornhill's mind and Scott's mind based on some free PDF by some random third party author that you found on the internet? Talk about unprofessional and unethical behavior.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Scott's "power source" according to Michael comenting on Brian Koberlein's blog is on page 106 of his book and is "z-pinch processes in plasma), the location of the neutrino emissions (photosphere/chromosphere)".

False. You flat out misrepresented my statements yet again. I *never* claimed that that majority of fusion in their model took place above the surface of the photosphere or in the chromosphere. You literally made that up. Quote me or retract your blatant lie.

Do you ever tell the truth with respect to EU/PC topics? I don't ever recall seeing you honestly represent any EU/PC model or honestly represent the statements of any EU/PC proponent. You *constantly* misrepresent my statements, Thornhill's statements, Scott's statements, Dungey's statements, Peratt's statements, etc.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
13 March 2018: A lie that neutron stars decay in 2 papers not containing the word decay or even minimum mass!

Boloney:

[1310.0049] Analytical representations of unified equations of state for neutron-star matter

Page 10-(top)11

The minimum neutron-star masses are 0.093 M⊙, 0.090 M⊙, and 0.087 M⊙ for the models BSk19, BSk20, and BSk21, with discrepancies between the original data and the fit∼ 0.7%, 0.1%, and 0.03%, respectively.

Do you ever tell the truth? You really give atheism a bad name.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
13 March 2018: The insanity that the Sun is a red giant!

The "insanity" is all the bearing of false witness that you engage in, and all the strawman arguments that you make. I never said that the sun was a red giant in the first place!

You consistently and repeatedly make false statements about my beliefs (every EU/PC proponent actually) that you unethically try to attribute to me in every single post. You apparently have no sense of integrity or honesty or any interest in fair scientific debate.

I didn't really see much else worth responding to this morning. You clearly don't care about honest dialog, or scientific integrity, so it's pointless to discuss anything with you. It's frustrating to have you constantly misrepresent my statements in every single post no matter how many times I correct you.

Essentially you're just engaged in pure character assassination, misrepresentation of my statements, and you're engaged in cyber stalking because nothing I say actually matters anyway. You consistently just make up whatever nonsense you feel like, and put false words in my mouth in every verbally abusive post that you make here.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Oh wait, here's another blatantly false statement:

There is no evidence of any z-pinches on or in the Sun.

Magnetic ropes/coronal loops routinely generate million, even ten million degree temperatures in plasma and SDO images them all around the solar atmosphere.

Here's how Hannes Alfven, the Nobel prize winning author of MHD theory describes a 'magnetic rope' in his book Cosmic Plasma:

"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."

You simply *never* tell the truth with respect to EU/PC theory.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Oh wait, here's another blatantly false statement:...
Followed by
16 March 2018: A "evidence for z-pinches being observed on the sun" lie as anyone who can spell knows!
His fantasies are not evidence for z-pinches being observed on the sun. That would be data that can only come from z-pinches.
Z-pinches are not magnetic ropes.
Z-pinches are not coronal loops.
Z-pinches are one case of the many types of pinches that can occur in plasma. Here's how Hannes Alfven, the Nobel prize winning author of MHD theory describes pinches and 'magnetic ropes' in his book Cosmic Plasma:
"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."
Note that Alfven does not state that z-pinches happen on the Sun :doh:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
False. ...
16 March 2018: A "false" lie about his words that he wrote in a blog comment!
I gave a link to where he could read the words he wrote (Testing the Electric Universe).
I quoted his words: "z-pinch processes in plasma), the location of the neutrino emissions (photosphere/chromosphere)".

In Testing the Electric Universe Michael wrote
Scott: The neutrino flux from the sun seems to vary inversely with sunspot number. This is not unexpected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is the z-ping-produced fusion occurring in the double layer (DL) – and sunspots are the locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur.
...
Michael: That’s absolutely, positively false as the quote from Scott demonstrates. He names the emission method (z-pinch processes in plasma), the location of the neutrino emissions (photosphere/chromosphere) and he predicts variation in neutrino emissions due to current flow changes, just like Thornhill. It’s the same exact model. Both authors predict that fusion in the solar atmosphere will emit neutrinos and so did I.
This is Scott stating that that solar neutrinos flux fusion happens in a "DL" which has the sunspots we observe , i.e. in the solar photosphere, and Michael ignorantly repeating the assertion.
Anyone who knows about fusion knows that it produces gamma rays and the Earth is not being fried by gamma rays from the photosphere :doh:!
 
Upvote 0