Micheal's solar model

Michael

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

Oy Vey! I guess we'll have to add "z-pinch" to the list of plasma related terms that you're clueless about, including electrical discharges and magnetic reconnection. You're on a roll.

Alfven:
"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 .

Z-pinch - Wikipedia
In fusion power research, the Z-pinch, also known as zeta pinch, is a type of plasma confinement system that uses an electrical current in the plasma to generate a magnetic field that compresses it (see pinch). These systems were originally referred to simply as pinch or Bennett pinch (after Willard Harrison Bennett), but the introduction of the theta-pinch concept led to the need for increased clarity.

Alfven *specifically* and by *name* links magnetic ropes to Bennett and Bennett pinches. What part of of the word 'Bennett" or "pinch" don't you understand?
 
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.
  7. Ignorant denial of the textbook physics that shows that stars to be have central heat sources or they collapse to white dwarfs (the Sun) or neutron stars or black holes.
More ignorant fantasies borrowed from other people as included n the model It may take some time to explain the insanity of the "neutron star inside the Sun" idea fully. I have only covered half of it in Part B: The insanity of a neutron star at center of the Sun. (e.g. should turn the Sun into a slightly fatter neutron star, the lightest observed neutron star in 2015 was 1.17 solar masses).
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

Michael

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

Anyone who knows anything about the sun's photosphere and the sun's atmosphere in general knows that it very efficiently absorbs high energy x-rays and gamma rays:

mossyohkoh.jpg


This composite Yohkoh(yellow x-rays)/Trace(blue) image shows that the while the magnetic ropes in the solar atmosphere produce x-rays and gamma rays, the higher energy photons are quickly absorbed by the solar atmosphere which is why we only see the higher energy yellow x-rays at the tops of the loops where they enter the corona, whereas the blue lower energy emissions can be seen extending much further down into the solar atmosphere.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
At ISF: 18th May 2010 Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked
Michael's solar "model" is 13 years and counting of

Thirteen year and counting of watching your misrepresent my statements, ignoring my answers and engaging in the same gish-gallop routines. I already answered all of those points as recently as *last week*.

Micheal's solar model

You flat out lied when I presented those neutron star papers to you when you said they didn't mention minimum mass! You're like a broken record that only repeats false statements, and you're basically a cyber-stalker to boot.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Makes
16 March 2018: A "evidence for z-pinches being observed on the sun" lie as anyone who can spell knows!
worse with ignorance:
In fusion power research, the Z-pinch, also known as zeta pinch, is a type of plasma confinement system that uses an electrical current in the plasma to generate a magnetic field that compresses it (see pinch). These systems were originally referred to simply as pinch or Bennett pinch (after Willard Harrison Bennett), but the introduction of the theta-pinch concept led to the need for increased clarity.
The z-pinch article alone splits pinches into z-pinch and theta-pinch.
The linked pinch article lists other types of pinch: Sheet pinch, Screw pinch, Reversed field pinch, Inverse pinch, Cylindrical pinch, Orthogonal pinch effect, Ware pinch, MAGLIF (some are combinations of other pinches).
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
A lie that repeating ignorant delusions is answers to my points.
9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that a list of "cathode" fantasies and lies addressed the solar model list.
(updated to list delusions, repeated lies and probable lies in his list)

More gish-gallop on your part. I answered every single point right here:

Micheal's solar model

And of course you flat out lied when you claimed my neutron star resource paper didn't discuss minimum masses, and you lied again when you claimed that Scott's model predicts "no neutrinos", so not telling the truth is pretty much par for the course with you.

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.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Makes
16 March 2018: A "evidence for z-pinches being observed on the sun" lie as anyone who can spell knows!
worse with ignorance:

The z-pinch article alone splits pinches into z-pinch and theta-pinch.
The linked pinch article lists other types of pinch: Sheet pinch, Screw pinch, Reversed field pinch, Inverse pinch, Cylindrical pinch, Orthogonal pinch effect, Ware pinch, MAGLIF (some are combinations of other pinches).

I *seriously* doubt that you actually understand the physical differences in the first place. We'll just add z-pinch the growing list of plasma physics related terms that you don't understand including "magnetic reconnection" and "electrical discharges".
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I *seriously* doubt that you actually understand the physical differences in the first place. We'll just add z-pinch the growing list of plasma physics related terms that you don't understand including "magnetic reconnection" and "electrical discharges".
Must be difficult for you living inside of a bubble of self-induced scientific ignorance then?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Must be difficult for you living inside of a bubble of self-induced scientific ignorance then?

So says the guy who defended that "no neutrino" nonsense.....

....And the same guy who thinks that cosmological redshift explanations/predictions are limited to expansion models and therefore only expansion models can solve Olber's paradox.
 
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
I *seriously* doubt that you actually understand the physical differences in the first place.
21 March 2018: An insult after I linked to an article listing the physical differences between different types of pinch

From that and previous posts:
21 March 2018: A lie that I claimed that Scott's model produced no neutrinos. It was Findlay's guide to EU endorsed by Scott that claims stars are not powered by fusion (thus no neutrinos).
Testing the Electric Universe by astrophysicist Brian Koberlein (who is not me :doh:!)
I wrote some comments under my actual name in that blog article. None of the comments mentioned Scott. The first I heard of Scott was from you. That was the obviously invalid idea of fusion in the photosphere. We do not detect the large, distinctive gamma ray flux from the fusion. The Sun's photosphere is not the sustained + millions of degrees hot + high density needed for p-p chain reaction that powers the Sun.

21 March 2018: A "Anyone who knows anything about the sun's photosphere and the sun's atmosphere in general knows that it very efficiently absorbs high energy x-rays and gamma rays" lie about the Sun.
The photosphere is where light from the interior of the Sun escapes the Sun. Gamma rays from fusion in the photosphere will escape even easier than say visible light because it has high energies.
The solar atmosphere " density decreases exponentially with increasing height above the photosphere" and thus is even more transparent to light and gamma rays.
This composite Yohkoh(yellow x-rays)/Trace(blue) image is a TRCE image overlaid with soft x-rays emitted by a solar flare in the solar atmosphere. It is a fantasy that this is evidence of gamma rays being absorbed by the solar atmosphere when you have no evidence of any gamma rays from that flare.

Still no evidence produced to remove this lie:
16 March 2018: A "evidence for z-pinches being observed on the sun" lie as anyone who can spell knows!

9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that a list of "cathode" fantasies and lies addressed the solar model list.

A reminder to myself of a pending addition to what makes his solar model deluded:
Part C: Using the fantasies of two ignorant Thunderbolts authors about the power source of the Sun.
Thornhill: Totally ignorant delusion of "heavy element synthesis to take place in the natural particle accelerators in the photospheric lightning discharges" producing neutrinos.
Scott: A delusion of fusion in the photosphere that we would detect in the required amounts to match the neutrino flux, makes the Sun into a white dwarf, probably physically impossible since the proton–proton chain reaction requires sustained temperatures and pressures.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Part B: 2. The nuclear insanity of a neutron star as a power source for the Sun.
The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass by O. Manuel, S. A. Kamat, M. Mozina (Michael).
The fantasy of O. Manuel, S. A. Kamat and M. Mozina (Michael) states that neutron stars emit enough energy to power the Sun and so produce the light the Sun emits. How much light do real neutron stars emit? An example of a hypothetical light weight neutron star has a total luminosity would be a million times fainter than the Sun. We can measure the photospheric luminosity and photospheric temperature of other stars to place them on an Hertzsprung–Russell diagram but this is almost impossible got neutron stars. Real neutron stars do not emit as much light as the Sun by orders of magnitude.

Read pages 14 and 15 of The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass by O. Manuel, S. A. Kamat, M. Mozina (Michael).
Intercept values of M/A at Z/A = 0 for A>150 mu suggest that the potential energy per nucleon in a neutron star may exceed the rest mass of a free neutron by as much as 22 MeV [12].
...
The calculated amount of energy released in neutron-emission from a neutron star, ~10-22 MeV per nucleon, exceeds that from fusion or fission reactions
The paper is claiming that the majority of energy to power the Sun comes from energy from neutron-emission from a neutron star.

Nuclear potential energy is the energy that can be released when a nucleon being pushed into a nucleus is released. Nuclear potential energy will be positive when a proton is far a nucleus containing protons. Nuclear potential energy is negative when nucleons are close because the strong force holds them together.

The Z in the paper is atomic number - the number of protons in a nucleus.

The nuclear insanity is firstly that a neutron star is not a nucleus :doh:!
There are two effective binding forces - gravity and the strong force. Both have to be included in any nuclear potential energy.

If we ignore gravity and treat a neutron star as a nucleus then the attractive strong force says that nuclear potential energy has to be negative. Energy has to be supplied to remove neutrons. Once the range of the strong force is exceeded, we have a neutron being removed from a neutral bunch of neutrons, i.e. no more energy needed. Thus "neutron-emission" requires and does not release energy :doh:!

Labeling this as "nuclear insanity" rather than ignorance is because Oliver K. Manuel was a Professor of Nuclear Chemistry who must have known about the strong force and choose to deny it in this paper.

A minor insanity of the paper is that 2006 was 4 years after the missing neutrino flux was detected. We knew in 2006 that core fusion matches the entire energy output of the Sun.
That leads to a lie by citing W. A. Fowler in a 1988 book about the solved in 2006 missing solar neutrino problem. Not one of the authors seem competent enough to do basic literature searches which would have shown that the reference was out of date!
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
21 March 2018: A lie that I claimed that Scott's model produced no neutrinos. It was Findlay's guide to EU endorsed by Scott that claims stars are not powered by fusion (thus no neutrinos).
Testing the Electric Universe by astrophysicist Brian Koberlein (who is not me :doh:!)

You parroted the same false nonsense and your astrophysicist claimed to be critiquing *Thornhill's solar model*, not Findlay! Findlay did *not* claim that a sun doesn't experience *any* fusion, he just said it didn't have fusion in the *core* which is consistent with Thornhill's *surface* fusion model.

You're all clueless.

I wrote some comments under my actual name in that blog article. None of the comments mentioned Scott. The first I heard of Scott was from you. That was the obviously invalid idea of fusion in the photosphere. We do not detect the large, distinctive gamma ray flux from the fusion.

That's yet *another* false claim because Thornhill predicts fusion to occur *in* the photosphere.

Solar neutrino puzzle is solved? – holoscience.com | The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE®

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. It is far simpler than the nuclear fusion model whose major assumptions cannot be confirmed, either by visual inspection or certain “rogue” data. All of the obvious electrical discharge phenomena seen on and above the photosphere have analogs that can be seen on Earth and/or reproduced in electrical engineering laboratories. It is simpler to assume that the energy we receive from the Sun is coming from where we see it – at the surface, or photosphere, rather than a minuscule and unlikely hydrogen bomb 93 million miles distant, shrouded in opaque gas.

The Sun's photosphere is not the sustained + millions of degrees hot + high density needed for p-p chain reaction that powers the Sun.

More utter nonsense since your standard model puts the fusion under the surface of the same photosphere and the same amount of fusion there too, so the temperature would be identical. You just make up false claims in every sentence.

21 March 2018: A "Anyone who knows anything about the sun's photosphere and the sun's atmosphere in general knows that it very efficiently absorbs high energy x-rays and gamma rays" lie about the Sun.
The photosphere is where light from the interior of the Sun escapes the Sun. Gamma rays from fusion in the photosphere will escape even easier than say visible light because it has high energies.

False again:
Solar Moss With Yohkoh Overlay
mossyohkoh.jpg


We don't see higher energy light from from as deep in the atmosphere as we see lower energy light. Gamma rays would simply be *more* likely to be absorbed than soft x-rays.


More gish-gallop. I've even quoted Alfven describing those magnetic ropes in that image as "Bennett Pinches" in plasma, and WIKI even associates them with Bennett pinches as well:

In fusion power research, the Z-pinch, also known as zeta pinch, is a type of plasma confinement system that uses an electrical current in the plasma to generate a magnetic field that compresses it (see pinch). These systems were originally referred to simply as pinch or Bennett pinch (after Willard Harrison Bennett), but the introduction of the theta-pinch concept led to the need for increased clarity.

Your denial process is just ridiculous. I answered them all:

Micheal's solar model

Thornhill: Totally ignorant delusion of "heavy element synthesis to take place in the natural particle accelerators in the photospheric lightning discharges" producing neutrinos.

The ignorant delusions all came from your cited astrophysicist when he falsely claimed that Thornhill predicted "no neutrinos" and clearly that isn't the case.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Part B: 2. The nuclear insanity of a neutron star as a power source for the Sun.
The fantasy of O. Manuel, S. A. Kamat and M. Mozina (Michael) states that neutron stars emit enough energy to power the Sun and so produce the light the Sun emits. How much light do real neutron stars emit?

Oy Vey. You missed the point of the paper as usual. We aren't suggesting that the light from the neutron star somehow powers the whole sun. If anything the rotational energy of the neutron star is simply inducing currents near the surface of the neutron star's crust, and it is generating fusion near the core. It's still ultimately a fusion driven model RC.

There's simply no point in going through your silly stawman arguments one by one because we didn't make the claim that you're accusing us of in the first place. You made that up, just like you made up the whole 'no neutrino' nonsense.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about with respect to this paper either.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
If anything the rotational energy of the neutron star is simply inducing currents near the surface of the neutron star's crust, and it is generating fusion near the core
23 March 2018: A "rotating currents, etc." lie about a paper he is a coauthor of and anyone can read.
There are no "rotating currents" in the paper (one instance of "current"!). The word "crust" does not appear in the paper.

There are 5 instances of the word "fusion" in the paper (excluding references). The actual fantasy about fusion is on page 15. The physically impossible "Neutron emission from the solar core" cannot give "Neutron decay or capture" or "Fusion and upward migration of H+"
N.B. The nuclear reaction there is the overall proton–proton chain reaction from physically impossible neutrons + the "diffusor" stupidity in the title (no He present in the center of the Sun). Suggests a "Part B 3. Abysmal ignorance about stars" post but the physical and nuclear insanity in the paper should be enough.

Another Part B: 2. The nuclear insanity of a neutron star as a power source for the Sun update: A lie by citing W. A. Fowler in a 1988 book about the solved in 2006 missing solar neutrino problem.

However Part B: 2. The nuclear insanity of a neutron star as a power source for the Sun does have a missing citation: The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass by O. Manuel, S. A. Kamat, M. Mozina (Michael). I have added the citation to that post so that anyone can read the truth about the paper.

Also ignorance of what "a" in "a power source" means!
This is that the paper claims energy released from neutron-emission by the neutron star is a (not the) power source for the Sun.
Part B: 2. The nuclear insanity of a neutron star as a power source for the Sun updated to make this clear, maybe even to Michael.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: HotBlack
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
  • Haha
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
23 March 2018: A "rotating currents, etc." lie about a paper he is a coauthor of and anyone can read.

You have misrepresented the neutrino predictions of Thornhill's model, you misrepresented the statements and papers of Priest, Somov, Dungey, Crawford, Bruce, Peratt, Alfven, Scott, Findlay and everyone else that I can think of, so it should be no surprise that you'd intentionally misrepresent my models, my papers, and my statements too. Have you no shame at all?

Wow. You obviously have *no clue* what you're even talking about on a *very* wide range of topics, including electrical discharges in plasma, magnetic reconnection, solar models (plural), SN1A data, or pretty much any discussion that you get involved in.

Go pester someone else for awhile. I'm tired of your utter lack of ethics and your blatant cyberstalking campaign. Nothing that you say is true, and you intentionally misrepresent my statements and my work, along with the work of everyone else I've seen you discuss.. That is just *so* unethical it's not even funny.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

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

I've answered all your gish-gallop nonsense dozens of times now, including just a few weeks ago, but you ignore my answers, and continue to misrepresent my statements, Birkeland's solar model and my papers.

Micheal's solar model

How unethical can you be RC?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
There are 5 instances of the word "fusion" in the paper (excluding references). The actual fantasy about fusion is on page 15. The physically impossible "Neutron emission from the solar core" cannot give "Neutron decay or capture" or "Fusion and upward migration of H+"

For the record:

Z-machine experiments *routinely* demonstrate that electrical discharges form plasma pinches which release free neutrons, and which can generate fusion processes in plasma.

Sandia's Z Facility Achieves First Fusion

One of the most *obvious* and prominent features of a neutron star is it's intrinsic magnetic field, along with it's positively charged outer crust. When we rapidly rotate a strong magnetic field inside of a conductive body, it *induces* current flow. This is also a well demonstrated physical fact. The conversion of rotational spin energy into current in our model is the process that drives the plasma pinch processes, and fusion in and around the solar core.

It's utterly *irrational* of you to try to tell *me* how *my* model works RC. That kind of behavior is just bizarre and it's strong evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about, just like your "no neutrino" nonsense.
 
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
  • Agree
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0