I hate to admit it, but it's the right thing to do.Michael Mozina wrote:My recent conversation with Tom Bridgman began when I made the following comment to Mr. Bridgman several weeks ago with respect to his erroneous particle flow diagram which he has posted on his blog in relationship to Birkeland's cathode solar model:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 460&bpli=1
That particle flow image on his blog is absolutely *not* Birkeland's solar model as erroneously stated by Bridgman. Mr. Bridgman has the red arrow related to protons and ions flow pointed in the wrong direction. In Birkeland's cathode surface model both types of charged particles flow from the cathode surface, to the heliosphere. The inbound positively charged particles would be located outside of the heliosphere in Birkeland's one and only cathode "sun".It's rather difficult to take you seriously as a so called "skeptic" of EU/PC theory while you either willfully or ignorantly misrepresent various EU/PC concepts. For instance, you claimed this on a previous post:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... ot-so.html
Your particle movement diagram of Birkeland's cathode sun model however is absolutely *incorrect*, as well as your (false) assertion that his cathode solar model is mine, or has anything to do with me personally. The cathode solar model belongs to Birkeland, and I have never tried to take credit for it, although unlike you, I have tried to understand his theory properly. You apparently never did that because Birkeland predicted that *both* types of charged particles flow from the sun, to the heliosphere, whereas you have positive ions flowing into the sun, and only negatively charged particle flowing from the sun. I simply can't take you seriously when you blatantly misrepresent the scientific theory presented by Birkeland. Either your ego is still in the way, or you simply willfully misrepresent the facts. Which is it?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vICwYkSEzug/U ... athode.png
"Mozina's "Birkeland" model: As I read more of Birkeland's work, it's becoming clear this model is more Mozina than Birkeland."
Either fix your serious error, or stop pretending to be a legitimate "skeptic" of concepts that you don't even begin to understand or appreciate.
August 6, 2015 at 2:45 PM
Instead of fixing his original wiring diagram error as requested and as warranted by scientific and historical accuracy, Bridgman continues to misrepresent Birkeland's works and statements. He's now compounding his original problem by not fixing the original error in the diagram, and instead making additional false assertions with respect to different current flow options which he erroneously calls different 'suns'. Oy Vey.Electrostatic force caused sputtering which allowed intense cathode rays to escape into space. Some of these beams would intercept the Earth and cause visible light. To the objection that the cathode rays would be torn apart by Coulomb repulsion long before they reached Earth (e.g. Schuster, 1911), Birkeland responded that cathode rays escaping the Sun drag positive ions along with them. Thus, material found between the Sun and the Earth should be an electrically neutral ionized gas, with roughly the same number of positive as negative charged particles.
I believe that I owe Tom Bridgman a partial public apology for one (not all) of my criticisms of his blog description of Birkeland's *one* cathode solar model. Tom's particle flow diagram of Birkeland's cathode solar model is in fact "oversimplified" as I pointed out to him earlier, but it's actually not entirely incorrect either.
Until I started thinking of cosmic rays as a form of high speed current, and I started including cosmic rays in the overall 'current flow" process, I didn't see the point of that inbound red arrow in Tom's diagram.
However, after reading about the composition, the charge, the speed and the quantity of cosmic rays recently, Tom's diagram actually makes a lot more sense to me today than it did a few years ago. There are actually *more* particle flow arrows to account for in Birkeland's model in terms of outbound, positively charged solar wind particles, and in terms of inbound cosmic ray electrons. There is however an observed high speed inflow of positive ions into the sun in the form of cosmic rays, and there is in fact an observed high speed outward flow of strahl electrons and electron beams flowing away from the sun, so Tom's wiring diagram is actually fine, if somewhat oversimplified.
Tom is still confusing the three current flow patterns that Birkeland observed and wrote about with the concept of promoting three different solar models, but at least Tom's wiring diagram is actually ok, if somewhat oversimplified. Sorry about that Tom.