Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC haters.

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Fri Sep 04, 2015 4:21 pm

querious wrote: Hi Michael,
I think it's kinda hypocritical of you to accuse Bridgman of ignoring your submitted comments on his blog when you keep ignoring the most basic question about *any* electric sun model: How is the potential maintained? -Which was the entire point of his blog post.

Wouldn't you agree?
No, I absolutely would not agree. In fact I pointed out to Tom that Kristian Birkeland had already answered his question 100+ years ago, in the *very text that Bridgman cited* in a previous post!

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 460&bpli=1
That is also false. At least one of his suggestions, as well as the discovery of sputtering does change that as I will now demonstrate from the very quote that you personally selected from Birkeland’s work, yet failed to understand or acknowledge:

Even Birkeland recognized these problems (NAPE, pg 668):
"It is at present not easy to see how a negative tension should be continually created by the sun in relation to space.
It is of course possible to imagine that a surplus of positive ions is always being carried away from the sun or that negative ions are always being carried towards the sun, and that the negative tension is produced in this manner; and that the balance is maintained to some extent by distinct disruptive discharges, as we have presupposed."
Emphasis mine. It has since been confirmed by satellites that indeed there are a surplus of positive ions coming from the sun as well as just electrons, just as he “predicted’ in 1903.

August 10, 2015 at 7:35 PM
Kristian Birkeland himself already pondered, addressed and even answered Tom's question over 100 years ago, but apparently Tom doesn't want to hear the correct answer right from Birkeland's own writings.

Sputtering wasn't particularly well understood in the early 1900's, but it is well understood in 2015. I even provided him with links. The upper atmosphere around the sun ends up acting as the 'target' of the sputtering, as does every particle in interplanetary space.

Furthermore it has already been demonstrated by Themis spacecraft that "magnetic ropes" (current carrying filamentary devices) form between the Sun and the Earth:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... ec_themis/
Scientists have been tracking and studying substorms for more than a century, yet these phenomena remained mostly unknown until THEMIS went into action.

Even more impressive was the substorm's power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 1014) Joules. That's approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake.

Where does all that energy come from? THEMIS may have found an answer:

"The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."
This "fact" about the known existence of current carrying magnetic ropes that form and which connect the sun to the Earth has been understood and written about by NASA since 2007. Has Mr. Bridgman been living under a rock for the past decade or what?

I've cited several works now where Birkeland actually anticipated Tom's question, he asked himself the very same questions, and he wrote down very specific solutions and answers for Tom that have since been verified by multiple different satellite systems in space.

Birkeland very much expected that the solar wind particles would be composed of electrons, but he predicted that they would contain an equal number of positively charged particles that were being dragged along by the constant flow of electrons, and by the effect that we call 'sputtering' today.

Any actual transfer of positive ion flow into the solar circuit would necessarily be occurring *through the heliosphere* in Birkeland's model. Birkeland's model even allows for electrons from the universe (and any other types of negatively charged cosmic ray, to enter into the solar wind process and interact with it.

What Kristian Birkeland *never* predicted however was the erroneous solar wind diagram produced by Brigman where only electrons are outbound, and only positively charge ions are inbound. That's certainly not what Birkeland predicted. How unprofessional is that?!?!?

Tom has accused *me* of misrepresenting Birkeland's cathode model, when it fact it is Mr. Bridgman who is falsely attributing ideas and claims to Birkeland which he never actually suggested. Birkeland's solar wind diagram has both types of charged particles flowing from the sun, into space and to the heliosphere. Only inside of a double layer at the heliosphere does Birkeland's model have different particles moving in different directions, but not *inside the solar wind process*!

Bridgman's drawing of the solar wind particle flow pattern in Birkeland's cathode solar model is totally FUBAR. When is he going to fix it?

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:13 pm

BecomingTesla was kind enough to post this video to another thread, but it belongs here too since we're talking about Birkeland's model

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... ec_themis/

The "magnetic rope" that NASA is describing in their Themis measurements takes the place of the hard "wires" in this particular physical demonstration/simulation, but in every other respect, the physics is *exactly* the same. The formation of the magnetic rope allows the current to flow in *epic* fashion during solar storm events, and particle flow at Earth is occurring in denser packets, but the "particle flow" process is otherwise exactly the same as this model.

The Earth's magnetic field acts to defect the solar wind particle flow around the Earth, but some of the energy from the solar wind is directed into the Earth in and through the aurora around both of the Earth's poles. The ionization of particles that we see in the Earth's atmosphere is much like the ionization process that takes place around the whole solar atmosphere as electrons excite everything in their path.

If you look at the sphere they're using for a sun, you can see the surface discharges taking place all around the surface of the cathode sphere, and you'll see a 'hot corona" surrounding the sphere where electrons slam into other particles and light up the atmosphere around the cathode surface.

Birkeland took this same experiment a few steps further by inserting an electromagnetic field into the core of the cathode sun, and he used various kinds of 'textured (bumpy) sphere configurations". That's how Birkeland produced solar flares and coronal loop discharges that are concentrated in active "bands" in the northern and southern hemispheres as well. He correctly and accurately predicted the existence of "polar jets" in the northern and southern hemispheres of the sun as a result of those upgraded experiments too.

Birkeland's work deserves to be treated with the utmost respect and professionalism in terms of how it's portrayed to the public, particularly by so called 'professionals'. What Bridgman is doing to Birkeland's work however is highly unethical, and it is scientifically and historically incorrect in almost every conceivable way. About the only thing that Bridgman got right was the polarity of the cathode surface, and he messed everything else up horrifically, starting with his erroneous solar wind diagram of Birkeland's work, and the claim about Birkeland promoting three different 'suns'. That is simply false nonsense, and it's unethical and scientifically unprofessional to sully Birkeland's name in that manner.

Bridgman should be ashamed of himself. He needs to take active steps to correct the numerous errors on his blog with respect to Birkeland's work.

querious
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by querious » Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:48 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
querious wrote: Hi Michael,
I think it's kinda hypocritical of you to accuse Bridgman of ignoring your submitted comments on his blog when you keep ignoring the most basic question about *any* electric sun model: How is the potential maintained? -Which was the entire point of his blog post.

Wouldn't you agree?
No, I absolutely would not agree. In fact I pointed out to Tom that Kristian Birkeland had already answered his question 100+ years ago, in the *very text that Bridgman cited* in a previous post!
I see you still can't really answer how the potential is maintained. I can see why Bridgman gets frustrated. You're not really an honest debater, you just sort of weasel out of the real point with longwinded side issues.

Just to be clear, I'm not picking on Birkeland. I just think his ideas have been supplanted with further knowledge.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:58 am

querious wrote: I see you still can't really answer how the potential is maintained.
I see that you cannot personally accept the answer that was given *by Birkeland himself* over 100 years ago. Oh well. That's hardly my fault. Don't you think that the problem of maintaining that potential over time, as well as the solution was something that Birkeland would have considered? What do you think he was talking about in the paragraphs I selected for your consideration? Why *did* he predict that both particles flowed from the sun in solar wind in your opinion?
"It is at present not easy to see how a negative tension should be continually created by the sun in relation to space.
It is of course possible to imagine that a surplus of positive ions is always being carried away from the sun or that negative ions are always being carried towards the sun, and that the negative tension is produced in this manner; and that the balance is maintained to some extent by distinct disruptive discharges, as we have presupposed."
What does that whole paragraph mean to you exactly? Please translate for us.
I can see why Bridgman gets frustrated.
You mean because Bridgman has a comprehension problem, and a terrible habit of simply ignoring the answers when they are given to him?
You're not really an honest debater, you just sort of weasel out of the real point with longwinded side issues.
Well, I'm certainly more honest and ethical in debate than you are while you resort to the use of ad homs in your commentary. Not only didn't I "weasel out" of answering the question, I gave you the *correct* answer based on Birkeland's own statements! I don't know how I could have answered the question anymore honestly or directly frankly.

The only reason that I was "long winded" was to get you (and Bridgman) to actually read Birkeland's solution, and to actually consider it, and deal with it. Alas, you don't seem interested in either the relatively short (and sweet) answer that was offered by Birkeland, or the more long winded version, even though I included the specific scientific terms (sputtering). and explained the source (cathode surface) and the target (chromosphere/corona) of the sputtering process, and even after I provided you with actual working laboratory demonstration of the process for your consideration.

Oh well! As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.
Just to be clear, I'm not picking on Birkeland. I just think his ideas have been supplanted with further knowledge.
What "further knowledge" might that be? The fact that Birkeland's solar model actually works in the lab?

I think you're just ignoring the answer that was given (several times now) because you can't handle the answer, or deal with it. It's a very straight forward answer. In fact, Birkeland's prediction that both types of charged particles flow from the sun, and the solar wind is composed of both types of particles, is actually another perfect example of a "successful prediction" of Birkeland's model.

What you *should* be bothered by is the fact that Bridgman has consistently *misrepresented* Birkeland's model on his website. He's posted pure nonsense about three different "suns" that are simply various wiring option within the very same cathode model, and Bridgman created a particle flow diagram of Birkeland's cathode solar model that is utterly and totally FUBAR! That's what actually *should* bother you, not Bridgman's feelings, or his comprehension problems. Bridgman's complete lack of ethics with respect to *correctly* representing Birkeland's work and his *one solar model* is what should bother you.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:26 am

The really ironic aspect of this conversation is that *to this very day* the heating processes of the corona are not understood by the mainstream. Birkeland not only explained it to them 100 years ago, he also simulated the process in his lab over 100 years ago too.

That excess heat in the solar atmosphere is caused by sputtering and the particle collision processes that are occurring in the solar atmosphere. It's all caused by the powerful electrical currents that are flowing through the corona. More importantly however, the corona effect, and the excess of additional heat around the sun is easily reproduced in lab with very ordinary DC current. What's the big "mystery" to coronal heating when I was predicted over 100 years ago, and that very same effect has been reproduced in the lab for over 100 years?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

Notice the bright blue glow that occurs all around the cathode sun in this experiment? What exactly do you think "causes" that corona phenomenon?

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:55 pm

querious wrote: Hi Michael,
I think it's kinda hypocritical of you to accuse Bridgman of ignoring your submitted comments on his blog when you keep ignoring the most basic question about *any* electric sun model: How is the potential maintained?
Well, I honestly did try to address your question. I've tried to do it from Birkeland's own words too, so that there is no confusion about my beliefs and Birkeland's own statements, and so that I'm not falsely accused again by Bridgman of trying to take any credit for his ideas. If you're not happy with Birkeland's own answers, and correct answers too I might add, I can try to 'fill in' a few of the details for you if you like. Would that make you any happier?

I'd suggest that you begin with a Crookes tube and pay particularly close attention to the Faraday dark space, the area which Birkeland describes as "solar wind" and interplanetary space which contains both types of charged particles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_tube

Image

You'll need to think in terms of the kinetic energy flowing from the sun, both the kinetic energy from photons coming off the sun, but more importantly from the kinetic energy contained in high speed (sometimes a serious fraction of light speed) electrons streaming off the discharging cathode. Solar flare events hurl everything into space, electrons and positively charged ions alike. I would encourage you to think in terms of the kinetic energy of bowling balls made of the nuclei of atoms, high speed bullets composed of speeding electrons which constantly shoot off the cathode sun, streams of high speed electrons in cathode rays/electron beams, some fast moving billiard balls of high energy gamma rays and x-ray, and marbles in the form of various low energy photons streaming from the sun.

The first thing you'll need to understand is that almost all of the sun's kinetic energy, including photon kinetic energy is flowing *away from* the surface of the sun. It's flowing from the sun, and striking every bowling ball in the atmosphere around the sun, and "nudging' the bowling ball away from the sun. That particular kinetic energy wouldn't even put a dent in gravity in terms of moving lifting things from the surface, but it can play a role in ionizing various elements in the solar atmosphere, and in interplanetary space.

The bulk of kinetic energy that flows away from the sun is found in high speed electrons shooting out of the cathode. That electron stream is where the bulk of the kinetic energy that drives the solar wind process comes from, not from the photons, but the photons do also have *some* (more minor) kinetic effect on the solar wind as well. Those high speed electron bullets flowing off the sun, even Gatling gun streams of bullets slam into the various atoms in the chromosphere, in the corona and in interplanetary space. Most of the "slamming' takes place in the densest regions of the atmosphere, in the chromosphere and the corona. They can (and do) however slam into anything and everything in interplanetary space. When the high speed electrons *hit* something, they can *ionize* the atom. This type of behavior can be observed particularly right next to the cathode, and those ions can be seen traversing all over the lower atmosphere of the sun in all sorts of peculiar Birkeland current formations, AKA "magnetic ropes" which traverse the atmosphere of the sun. The discharge process concentrated near the cathode is sometimes so intense, it produces gamma rays, and generates fusion inside of (Bennett) pinched magnetic ropes, that are pinched together by massive currents and corresponding magnetic pinch effects.

Even in the Faraday dark space region, those high speed electrons and photons still slam into the non ionized material in that region, and ionize the atoms, and imparting kinetic energy *away* from the sun in the process.

While there is still some movement of ionized material back towards the sun, that's *after* it overcomes the kinetic energy away from the sun. More than likely the bulk of that ion particle flow process occurs far further out in space, much closer to the heliosphere, than the surface of the sun, or any planetary body.

Note that even the movement of electrons away from the sun is attracting protons in their wake, and they impart some kinetic energy to positively charged ions via EM forces over a larger diameter than their mere physical size. There's a massive amount of movement of kinetic energy away from the sun. Some of that energy is conveyed into neutral atoms, moving away from the sun from the force of photon and electron kinetic (collision) energy. Some of the moving protons will pick up electrons streaming away from the sun, and become neutral again, albeit with extra kinetic energy pointing *away from* the sun. Some of the ions and neutral atoms will simply return right back to the surface, as "coronal rain", or in part of a magnetic rope in the solar atmosphere. Most of the real concentration of electrical energy transfer is occurring near the surface of the cathode. The anode of the heliosphere has a much larger surface area, so the energy concentration per square meter at the anode is nothing like the concentration effect that occurs around the surface of the cathode. The bulk of the kinetic energy transfer takes place in the NG negative glow regions (chromosphere corona), not in the Faraday space (interplanetary space).

Whereas the cathode surface is somewhat concentrated at a large mass body surface, the surface area of the anode heliosphere is huge in comparison. However, even the heliosphere is actually a more complicated "galactic circuit system" that our sun interacts with through heliospheric double layers, much like the magnetosphere of the Earth. It's actually a complicated wiring arrangement.

The Faraday dark space however is composed of ions which are constantly being ionized by the fast moving electrons and high energy photons that flow off the sun. Those electrons impart kinetic energy away from sun which might far exceed any 'attraction' that the proton might have toward any particular cathode target/electron. Particles of all kinds are moving in all kinds of directions, but the overall kinetic energy is coming from photons which move away from the sun, and more importantly from high speed electrons that constantly shoot at high speeds toward the heliosphere, and slam into all kinds of things along the way.

The net result of all that kinetic energy movement away from the cathode is a "Solar wind" that is composed of *both* types of moving charged particles, and includes neutral gas atoms. The solar wind ions themselves are arranged in population in a very orderly charge/mass ratio, specifically H+, He+2, He+1 in that highly specific order.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

If you go back and watch that video, you can see the kinetic energy effects of electrons movement most clearly in the solar corona, and the aurora around the planetary sphere. The electrons get concentrated to the poles by the Earth's magnetic fields, and they slam into neutral atoms in the Earth's atmosphere. They can and do ionize neutral elements. They also excite atoms in the atmosphere and produce a 'glow' as the atoms emit light to 'cool off' again. That's all an *electrically* driven process, from start to finish, and the sun is the cathode in Birkeland's solar system model. The heliosphere is the anode, but the bulk of the concentration of electrical energy occurs at the cathode surface.

Any happier with that concept?

querious
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by querious » Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:22 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
querious wrote: Hi Michael,
I think it's kinda hypocritical of you to accuse Bridgman of ignoring your submitted comments on his blog when you keep ignoring the most basic question about *any* electric sun model: How is the potential maintained?
Well, I honestly did try to address your question. I've tried to do it from Birkeland's own words too, so that there is no confusion about my beliefs and Birkeland's own statements, and so that I'm not falsely accused again by Bridgman of trying to take any credit for his ideas. If you're not happy with Birkeland's own answers, and correct answers too I might add, I can try to 'fill in' a few of the details for you if you like. Would that make you any happier?

I'd suggest that you begin with a Crookes tube and pay particularly close attention to the Faraday dark space, the area which Birkeland describes as "solar wind" and interplanetary space which contains both types of charged particles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_tube

Image

You'll need to think in terms of the kinetic energy flowing from the sun, both the kinetic energy from photons coming off the sun, but more importantly from the kinetic energy contained in high speed (sometimes a serious fraction of light speed) electrons streaming off the discharging cathode. Solar flare events hurl everything into space, electrons and positively charged ions alike. I would encourage you to think in terms of the kinetic energy of bowling balls made of the nuclei of atoms, high speed bullets composed of speeding electrons which constantly shoot off the cathode sun, streams of high speed electrons in cathode rays/electron beams, some fast moving billiard balls of high energy gamma rays and x-ray, and marbles in the form of various low energy photons streaming from the sun.

The first thing you'll need to understand is that almost all of the sun's kinetic energy, including photon kinetic energy is flowing *away from* the surface of the sun. It's flowing from the sun, and striking every bowling ball in the atmosphere around the sun, and "nudging' the bowling ball away from the sun. That particular kinetic energy wouldn't even put a dent in gravity in terms of moving lifting things from the surface, but it can play a role in ionizing various elements in the solar atmosphere, and in interplanetary space.

The bulk of kinetic energy that flows away from the sun is found in high speed electrons shooting out of the cathode. That electron stream is where the bulk of the kinetic energy that drives the solar wind process comes from, not from the photons, but the photons do also have *some* (more minor) kinetic effect on the solar wind as well. Those high speed electron bullets flowing off the sun, even Gatling gun streams of bullets slam into the various atoms in the chromosphere, in the corona and in interplanetary space. Most of the "slamming' takes place in the densest regions of the atmosphere, in the chromosphere and the corona. They can (and do) however slam into anything and everything in interplanetary space. When the high speed electrons *hit* something, they can *ionize* the atom. This type of behavior can be observed particularly right next to the cathode, and those ions can be seen traversing all over the lower atmosphere of the sun in all sorts of peculiar Birkeland current formations, AKA "magnetic ropes" which traverse the atmosphere of the sun. The discharge process concentrated near the cathode is sometimes so intense, it produces gamma rays, and generates fusion inside of (Bennett) pinched magnetic ropes, that are pinched together by massive currents and corresponding magnetic pinch effects.

Even in the Faraday dark space region, those high speed electrons and photons still slam into the non ionized material in that region, and ionize the atoms, and imparting kinetic energy *away* from the sun in the process.

While there is still some movement of ionized material back towards the sun, that's *after* it overcomes the kinetic energy away from the sun. More than likely the bulk of that ion particle flow process occurs far further out in space, much closer to the heliosphere, than the surface of the sun, or any planetary body.

Note that even the movement of electrons away from the sun is attracting protons in their wake, and they impart some kinetic energy to positively charged ions via EM forces over a larger diameter than their mere physical size. There's a massive amount of movement of kinetic energy away from the sun. Some of that energy is conveyed into neutral atoms, moving away from the sun from the force of photon and electron kinetic (collision) energy. Some of the moving protons will pick up electrons streaming away from the sun, and become neutral again, albeit with extra kinetic energy pointing *away from* the sun. Some of the ions and neutral atoms will simply return right back to the surface, as "coronal rain", or in part of a magnetic rope in the solar atmosphere. Most of the real concentration of electrical energy transfer is occurring near the surface of the cathode. The anode of the heliosphere has a much larger surface area, so the energy concentration per square meter at the anode is nothing like the concentration effect that occurs around the surface of the cathode. The bulk of the kinetic energy transfer takes place in the NG negative glow regions (chromosphere corona), not in the Faraday space (interplanetary space).

Whereas the cathode surface is somewhat concentrated at a large mass body surface, the surface area of the anode heliosphere is huge in comparison. However, even the heliosphere is actually a more complicated "galactic circuit system" that our sun interacts with through heliospheric double layers, much like the magnetosphere of the Earth. It's actually a complicated wiring arrangement.

The Faraday dark space however is composed of ions which are constantly being ionized by the fast moving electrons and high energy photons that flow off the sun. Those electrons impart kinetic energy away from sun which might far exceed any 'attraction' that the proton might have toward any particular cathode target/electron. Particles of all kinds are moving in all kinds of directions, but the overall kinetic energy is coming from photons which move away from the sun, and more importantly from high speed electrons that constantly shoot at high speeds toward the heliosphere, and slam into all kinds of things along the way.

The net result of all that kinetic energy movement away from the cathode is a "Solar wind" that is composed of *both* types of moving charged particles, and includes neutral gas atoms. The solar wind ions themselves are arranged in population in a very orderly charge/mass ratio, specifically H+, He+2, He+1 in that highly specific order.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

If you go back and watch that video, you can see the kinetic energy effects of electrons movement most clearly in the solar corona, and the aurora around the planetary sphere. The electrons get concentrated to the poles by the Earth's magnetic fields, and they slam into neutral atoms in the Earth's atmosphere. They can and do ionize neutral elements. They also excite atoms in the atmosphere and produce a 'glow' as the atoms emit light to 'cool off' again. That's all an *electrically* driven process, from start to finish, and the sun is the cathode in Birkeland's solar system model. The heliosphere is the anode, but the bulk of the concentration of electrical energy occurs at the cathode surface.

Any happier with that concept?

I'd be happier with that concept if I understood HOW the cathode maintains it's negative charge. I've read your post many times, and I still can't figure it out. Your entire explanation simply presupposes that a potential is maintained between a cathode & anode.

What maintains this huge potential difference for billions of years?

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Sun Sep 06, 2015 9:02 am

querious wrote: I'd be happier with that concept if I understood HOW the cathode maintains it's negative charge. I've read your post many times, and I still can't figure it out. Your entire explanation simply presupposes that a potential is maintained between a cathode & anode.

What maintains this huge potential difference for billions of years?
Gah! :o

I don't know how I could even answer your question any more thoroughly than I already have answered it. I gave you Birkeland's explanation, and I cited his own statements to explain the process. I even offered you my own explanation using an ordinary Crooke's tube example. I simply don't understand what you're even confused by at this point. It doesn't seem that complicated.

Ultimately the sun maintains it's negative charge exactly the same way the cathode sphere in that video maintains it's negative charge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

How do you suppose that cathode sphere in the video maintains it's negative charge? The only difference is that the sun uses "magnetic ropes" to connect itself to various objects rather than hard wires, but it's otherwise exactly the same process.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... ec_themis/

NASA has even observed and documented the magnetic rope connection which forms between the sun and our planet.

I can only assume at this point that you're actually talking about, and worried about the overall *power supply* of the sun rather than how it maintains it's negative charge because I've explained the maintaining of the charge a bunch of different times now. Birkeland assumed the sun was internally powered, so the ultimate power source of the sun in Birkeland's model is fusion. That fusion process simply takes the role of the power supply in the experiment, but in every other respect, the overall physical process is exactly the same as you see in that video.

querious
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by querious » Sun Sep 06, 2015 9:36 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
querious wrote: I'd be happier with that concept if I understood HOW the cathode maintains it's negative charge. I've read your post many times, and I still can't figure it out. Your entire explanation simply presupposes that a potential is maintained between a cathode & anode.

What maintains this huge potential difference for billions of years?
Gah! :o

I don't know how I could even answer your question any more thoroughly than I already have answered it. I gave you Birkeland's explanation, and I cited his own statements to explain the process. I even offered you my own explanation using an ordinary Crooke's tube example. I simply don't understand what you're even confused by at this point. It doesn't seem that complicated.

Ultimately the sun maintains it's negative charge exactly the same way the cathode sphere in that video maintains it's negative charge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

How do you suppose that cathode sphere in the video maintains it's negative charge? The only difference is that the sun uses "magnetic ropes" to connect itself to various objects rather than hard wires, but it's otherwise exactly the same process.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... ec_themis/

NASA has even observed and documented the magnetic rope connection which forms between the sun and our planet.

I can only assume at this point that you're actually talking about, and worried about the overall *power supply* of the sun rather than how it maintains it's negative charge because I've explained the maintaining of the charge a bunch of different times now. Birkeland assumed the sun was internally powered, so the ultimate power source of the sun in Birkeland's model is fusion. That fusion process simply takes the role of the power supply in the experiment, but in every other respect, the overall physical process is exactly the same as you see in that video.
I still don't understand how fusion IN the sun creates a massive potential between the Heliosphere anode & cathode sun, because fusion is an electrically neutral process.

You'll notice that the power supply in the video has SEPARATE wires leading to "earth(+)" & "sun(-)". The power supply is connected to both globes simultaneously, which is the only reason electrons try to get from "sun" back to "earth".

However, fusion takes place WITHIN the sun only, and is an electrically neutral process, so the video doesn't work as an analogy at all.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Sun Sep 06, 2015 3:39 pm

querious wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:
querious wrote: I'd be happier with that concept if I understood HOW the cathode maintains it's negative charge. I've read your post many times, and I still can't figure it out. Your entire explanation simply presupposes that a potential is maintained between a cathode & anode.

What maintains this huge potential difference for billions of years?
Gah! :o

I don't know how I could even answer your question any more thoroughly than I already have answered it. I gave you Birkeland's explanation, and I cited his own statements to explain the process. I even offered you my own explanation using an ordinary Crooke's tube example. I simply don't understand what you're even confused by at this point. It doesn't seem that complicated.

Ultimately the sun maintains it's negative charge exactly the same way the cathode sphere in that video maintains it's negative charge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

How do you suppose that cathode sphere in the video maintains it's negative charge? The only difference is that the sun uses "magnetic ropes" to connect itself to various objects rather than hard wires, but it's otherwise exactly the same process.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... ec_themis/

NASA has even observed and documented the magnetic rope connection which forms between the sun and our planet.

I can only assume at this point that you're actually talking about, and worried about the overall *power supply* of the sun rather than how it maintains it's negative charge because I've explained the maintaining of the charge a bunch of different times now. Birkeland assumed the sun was internally powered, so the ultimate power source of the sun in Birkeland's model is fusion. That fusion process simply takes the role of the power supply in the experiment, but in every other respect, the overall physical process is exactly the same as you see in that video.
I still don't understand how fusion IN the sun creates a massive potential between the Heliosphere anode & cathode sun, because fusion is an electrically neutral process.
Your premise is ultimately flawed. Fusion is not actually an electrically neutral process in plasma because it only occurs in fast moving charged particles (AKA current), and the fusion process is constantly releasing kinetic energy in the form of high energy photons. This photon kinetic energy then slams itself into electrons and other charged particle in the plasma, and accelerates plasma particles. That movement/acceleration in plasma generates change magnetic field changes inside of a plasma conductor. which in turn induces more currents in the plasma. Fusion is certainly a source of "particle kinetic energy' (aka plasma current), which is ultimately converted to particle kinetic energy in the form of solar wind, and photons galore from the sun.

Think in terms of fusion being the ultimate source of the kinetic energy "generator", and think in terms of induced/accelerated currents in a conductive plasma body.
You'll notice that the power supply in the video has SEPARATE wires leading to "earth(+)" & "sun(-)". The power supply is connected to both globes simultaneously, which is the only reason electrons try to get from "sun" back to "earth".
Likewise the "power supply" of the sun is wired/connected directly to the Earth via that "magnetic rope" that was observed by Themis. That "wire" connects the Earth back to it's power supply too. Same function as the solid wire, it's just a current carrying plasma wire.
However, fusion takes place WITHIN the sun only, and is an electrically neutral process, so the video doesn't work as an analogy at all.
It's not actually true that fusion in plasma is an electrically neutral process in the final analysis because the kinetic energy release is transferred to the surrounding plasma particles. That particle movement causes changes in the corresponding magnetic fields, which then induce more current and particle movement in the plasma. Fusion is one giant "generator" of kinetic energy, and a generator of current movement in plasma. That kinetic energy is simply converted to particle kinetic energy at the surface of the sun in the form of high energy particles that pass through the Faraday dark space.

The real Earth is also wired back to the power supply of the sun through that magnetic flux rope that connects the Earth back to the "power source". In every single respect it's just like the experimental model. In this case fusion simply provides the ultimate kinetic energy and "power".

I strongly urge you to look at it logically. If the physical process actually works in the lab, it certainly works in space too. The whole "mystery" heat source of a corona is no mystery at all! Birkeland even simulated that excess energy transfer that takes place in his lab 100 years ago, and you can see it occurring in the video too all around the cathode sphere, and near the poles of the planetary sphere. All you need is electricity, and now the "mystery" heat source of the corona isn't very mysterious at all. :)

It really is advantageous by the way to think of EU/PC theory in terms of interwoven, and inter-wired circuits. Our sun is simply one electrical "generator" in a galaxy composed of billions of electrical generators that are all ultimately "wired" together via Birkeland currents/magnetic flux tubes of all different shapes and sizes, and current densities. It's not a single simple circuit as you seem to imagine. The heliosphere is buffeted by charged particles, just like the Earth's magnetosphere, and forms current channels like the magnetosphere, that connect our sun to the larger interstellar circuits.

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Sun Sep 06, 2015 6:34 pm

Michael Mozina wrote: It's not actually true that fusion in plasma is an electrically neutral process in the final analysis because the kinetic energy release is transferred to the surrounding plasma particles. That particle movement causes changes in the corresponding magnetic fields, which then induce more current and particle movement in the plasma.
Most videos of the sun's plasma show exactly this.
Very strong magnetic fields that direct plasma in circular structures. So this circular plasma
must be charged. The magnetism is caused by moving charged plasma too.
The charged plasma seems mainly the product of nuclear fusion.

The fusion that we have on earth is based on enormous energy (like atomic bombs) and tritium.
The sun itself seems to work on normal Hydrogen (nucleus is only one proton).
We don't really know how to do that in laboratory.

Since the nucleus is positively charged, it would need an enormous energy to react with another
hydrogen nucleus. Strong electric fields can help a lot. The pressure that it produces is a lot
stronger than gravity. We can even see that the electric and magnetic fields on the sun are
strong enough to send plasma into space. That shows that these fields are clearly stronger
than the gravity of the sun.

So fusion creates the charged plasma that we see, and the forces produced by the charged
plasma might help to create new fusion. Because it is the strongest force on the sun.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

querious
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by querious » Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:03 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:Since the nucleus is positively charged, it would need an enormous energy to react with another hydrogen nucleus. Strong electric fields can help a lot.
Strong electric fields would push both protons in the same direction, so I don't see how they would help.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Mon Sep 07, 2015 2:29 pm

querious wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:Since the nucleus is positively charged, it would need an enormous energy to react with another hydrogen nucleus. Strong electric fields can help a lot.
Strong electric fields would push both protons in the same direction, so I don't see how they would help.
I'm not sure why you attributed that particular statement to me, but strong electric fields would drive a "Bennett Pinch" process in plasma, as the strong magnetic field around the current acts to pinch the current stream together. You might look up a zpinch fusion propulsion concepts, and the z-machine at Sandia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch#F ... propulsion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_Pulsed_Power_Facility


Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Tue Nov 17, 2015 1:18 pm

I took some time off from the various boards and online debates for awhile. I was kinda hoping that in my absence that our friend Mr. Bridgman would figure out the error of his ways sooner or later with respect to Birkeland’s predictions about Birkeland’s solar wind predictions, but apparently that never happened. Instead, he seems to have 'doubled down' on misrepresenting Birkeland's work, and he continues to blame me for his own personal ignorance of this topic, and Birkeland's *one* solar model. How very sad indeed.

As it relates to our ongoing debate about the direction of Bridgman’s arrows with respect to Birkeland’s cathode sun model predictions, I suppose I will start with a quote from Birkeland himself from his paper: “ARE THE SOLAR CORPUSCLE RAVS THAT PENETRATE INTO THE EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE RAYS?” which was published in 1916, after both NAPE *and* the NYT article:
“Registration of the Intensity of Zodiacal Light.

2. I am just able to give some experimental results from simultaneous researches made in North and South Africa by me and my assistant K. Devik on the Zodiacal light, results which most conclusively point to the existence of a permanent and powerful equatorial emission of corpuscle rays from the sun in the form of a rather flat circular disc, such as I have supposed in my theory of zodiacal light, being conducted thereto especially by experimental analogies, From a physical point of view it is most probable that these new solar rays are neither exclusively negative nor positive rays, but of both kinds.”

Page 5
The whole *purpose* of that paper in fact was to refute Stormer's claim that *only positive* ions came from the sun. Birkeland clearly accepted the fact that positive ions came from the sun, but he also insisted that electrons flowed from the sun as well.

It’s very sad to me that Mr. Bridgman would project his own ignorance of Birkeland’s single (one) cathode solar model upon me, while completely and utterly ignoring the actual written and published statements of Birkeland himself with respect to the content of the solar wind, and Birkeland’s own statements and predictions about the direction of particle flow. Worse yet, Bridman continues to blatantly misrepresent Birkeland’s single cathode solar model, as well as making several erroneous comments about the behaviors of “plasma”! I must say, I find the so called “professionals” to be anything but ‘professional” researchers, or professional in their presentation of Birkeland’s own statements. 

I guess I’ll confess my supposed great sin (according to Bridgman at least) and admit that my single sentence with respect to the publishing dates of the second part of Birkeland’s volume, vs. the publication of the article in the New York Times was incorrect and rather sloppy. I should have been discussing the length of time between the date that Birkeland originally wrote down the specific comments that Bridgman selected from Birkeland’s volume, vs. date of the speech that he gave which was reported in the New York Times. The publishing dates were not actually relevant to my point, just the dates of the speech vs. the date the text in question was first written by Birkeland. My bad.

I am however quite certain that the date that Birkeland wrote down (not necessarily published however) the specific comments that Bridgman selected from the beginning of his second volume his work would have necessarily preceded the speech that he gave in 1913 where he certainly did use the term ‘transmutation of elements”. Therefore it is blatantly apparent to anyone who cares to hear the truth, that by 1913, Birkeland was indeed using the term “transmutation of elements” to describe the power supply of his solar model in public speeches, even if that term wasn’t used in the paragraph that Bridgman selected, or even in the whole volume for that matter. There’s a lag time in terms of submitting the manuscript and the date of publication, so Bridgman is simply ignoring the implication of his NY Times statements so suit himself. My bad for sloppy verbiage with respect to publishing dates rather than when the material was written.

However, my supposed horrific sin changes exactly nothing in terms of his later paper that predicts *both* types of particle rays from the sun, nor does it change the historical record of Birkeland’s work. Unless Bridgman is alleging that the reporter was a liar and that he willfully misrepresented Birkeland’s work, Birkeland did publicly use the term “transmutation of elements” to describe the power source of his *single* cathode sun. Furthermore the NYT reporter doesn’t say squat about ‘three suns’ anywhere in the NYT article. Why is only *one* cathode solar model mentioned by the New York Times reporter Mr. Bridgman? Care to explain that for us in your next reply?

I must say that I find the lack of professionalism in astronomy rather appalling. When I first stepped into the middle of the whole EU/PC vs. mainstream cosmology theory by accident, simply due to my preference of Birkeland's cathode solar model with respect to solar satellite imagery, I *naively* believe that the mainstream would eventually see the error of their ways, but alas they seem intent on remaining in the dark ages of physics for all time. Worse yet, they *go out of their way* to blatantly and willfully *misrepresent* the statements of beliefs of Birkeland, Alfven, Hubble, and even Einstein. It’s simply unbelievable that they misrepresent historical fact, but in Bridgman’s case, there’s no doubt that with respect to Birkeland's work, Bridgman's motives are less than ethical, and his statements are less than accurate.

It’s also more than a little ironic that Bridgman has the audacity to accuse me of not understanding Birkeland’s model, while he continues to ignore the words of the man himself with respect to solar wind content, and its direction of movement past the Earth. At no time did Birkeland ever suggest or predict that the direction of positively charged particles was always inbound toward the sun, or that only electrons flowed from the sun. Never. That is a blatant misrepresentation of history fact, and it is an unprofessional misrepresentation of Birkeland’s own statements. When are you going to fix your flawed diagram that falsely portrays Birkeland’s solar wind model Mr. Bridgman?

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest