Electric universe theories here.

Michael Mozina · Jul 1, 2009

Reality Check said:
What is the % of Nickel and Iron?

That been answered and addressed in almost every published paper.

What is the % of heavily ionized iron in the coronal loops?

I'd guess it's mostly all ionized inside the current carrying part of the loop.

Are these close to 100% and if not why not?

I'd say the were the same percentages of ionization we find here on Earth inside of a lightening bolt.

Why do expeiments with brass spheres have anything to do with the Sun if it is not made of brass?

He used several different spheres and the specific material isn't particularly relevant. It's still made of metals and heavier elements, and it's powered by heavy elements.

Michael Mozina · Jul 1, 2009

Ziggurat said:
Why do you think neon gives off white light? I've asked you about this before, and you avoided the question.

It's not actually "pure" neon, it has hydrogen and helium and many other elements passing through it. (See the SERTS data for more details). There are hydrogen atoms (protons) that are constantly flowing through every part of that layer for instance.

Reality Check · Jul 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
That been answered and addressed in almost every published paper.

So you agree with Wikipedia?
Sun

The Sun is composed primarily of the chemical elements hydrogen and helium; they account for 74.9% and 23.8% of the mass of the Sun in the photosphere, respectively.[50] All heavier elements, called metals in astronomy, account for less than 2 percent of the mass. The most abundant metals are oxygen (roughly 1% of the Sun's mass), carbon (0.3%), neon (0.2%), and iron (0.2%).[51]

(emphasis added)

Why do astronomers not get ~100% for neon? After all the photosphere is neon according to you.

Michael Mozina said:
I'd guess it's mostly all ionized inside the current carrying part of the loop.

I'd say the were the same percentages of ionization we find here on Earth inside of a lightening bolt.

The question was badly worded - it was about the % of iron in the coronal loops.
Do the figures from the Iron Sun model match the figure of 0.2% above?

Michael Mozina said:
He used several different spheres and the specific material isn't particularly relevant. It's still made of metals and heavier elements, and it's powered by heavy elements.

How do you know that the specific material is not relevant. Did you test a Brass Sun model against the observation?

Reality Check · Jul 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
It's not actually "pure" neon, it has hydrogen and helium and many other elements passing through it. (See the SERTS data for more details). There are hydrogen atoms (protons) that are constantly flowing through every part of that layer for instance.

Thta is an interesting expression: "hydrogen and helium and many other elements passing through it".

Do hydrogen and helium and many other elements also pass through the hypothetical, invisible, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface that is below the photosphere?

GeeMack · Jul 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
GeeMack said:

Well you have to admit it would be difficult for Sol88 to figure out what the Mozina model is, since Michael hasn't actually specified his crazy notion in terms of a solar model.

Click to expand...

You are either incapable of comprehending the English language, or you really are the single most unethical individual I know of. All of these theories relate directly back to Birkeland's original experiments. It's not *MY* solar model. Wake up already.

Kristian Birkeland did not suggest that the Sun had a solid iron surface, or brass, or silver plated copper, or any such thing. That inane solid surface idea is yours and yours alone, Michael. So speaking of unethical, how dare you pass off the blame for your idiocy onto a dead guy? Your fantasy isn't a solar model. It's a wildass guess based on a seriously wrong interpretation of an image about which you obviously know very little.

He doesn't know where the electricity comes from that powers his glowing orb,

Click to expand...

I've explained to you several times now that I personally lean towards Birkeland's original power source, specifically fission. *YES* he did mention radioactive elements by name as the power source.

Birkeland's little terrella models ran off of fission? You don't say. Well, there's some good old hands on, lab tested empirical science for you. Just the way you like it, Michael! And all this time I thought you were claiming that electrical hookup he had in that glass box was how the terrella lit up. So Birkeland was right and you're wrong, or is it the other way around?. You nut.

For God sake, talking to you is like talking to brick wall. You do not listen. You do not comprehend what I tell you and you misrepresented everything I've said to you. You irrationally claim that because I don't bark math for you on command that I am incapable of doing any math. That is pure unethical BS. You have no ethics at all.

My comment is well supported. For one thing, you were banned from BAUT for spending months claiming you would eventually present some mathematical support for your nutty claim, yet you continued to make excuses, stall, avoid, and change the subject. You never did then, and in the years since then, you still haven't been able to shape your wacky notion into something quantitative. Math is crucial to communicating physics in a specific and detailed way. Math is even crucial to explaining how light from what angle at what intensity might make a mountain how tall cast a shadow how dark and how long. If you could handle a little math you could explain that very first image on your web site. You know, that image you've never been able to explain in detail, with specifics, because you don't understand numbers?

I take it the bolded parts below are the only parts of my comment you take issue with, and that you're in agreement with the rest. Good. We might be getting somewhere.

GeeMack said:
Well you have to admit it would be difficult for Sol88 to figure out what the Mozina model is, since Michael hasn't actually specified his crazy notion in terms of a solar model. He doesn't know how thick the shell is. He can't define the thermal or density characteristics. He won't actually commit to a particular material, other than to say some vague kind of iron that acts unlike any material ever known. He doesn't know anything about the science required to see 4000 kilometers into the photosphere, but he thinks it can be done. He even thinks he's the only human on Earth who has actually done it.

He doesn't know where the electricity comes from that powers his glowing orb, but fancies it operates like a $19.95 Wal-Mart plasma ball, or the white hot sparks blowing off an arc welder's electrode. But he doesn't seem to actually know how those things work. He doesn't know what sort of current or resistance values would be required to make the Sun as hot and bright as it is. He doesn't know that brighter isn't necessarily hotter, even though that has been explained to him many times.

He does believe Birkeland postulated a solid surfaced Sun, but can't actually show anyone where Birkeland did that. He sees what appear to be calculations in Birkeland's notes, and assumes that must be where the answer lies, but has no clue what those numbers really mean. He went on about his hero Birkeland's iron terrella model for several weeks once before someone actually had to tell him the terrella wasn't iron at all. It was brass.

Michael can't do math. It's doubtful he can even balance his own checkbook judging from the evidence he's placed before us here. And that running difference image he posts at the very top of his web site, the one he keeps lying about not being explained by anyone? He doesn't even know how to explain it himself. "It looks like a surface." Yep, that's it. He doesn't know how high the mountains, which things are surface features and which ones aren't, how big an area the picture includes, and over what kind of time span the sequential source images were gathered. He can't explain, in any detail, that first image he hangs out as evidence.

Not once has Michael been willing to specify a quantitative detail about the running difference image, or about anything related to his wacky conjecture. Numbers, quantitative data, something on which to start calculating the plausibility of his fruitcake fantasy, are meaningless to him. He's said so himself repeatedly. Solar models, at least from a legitimately scientific point of view, require quantitative descriptions. Michael has never offered any such thing. There is no model. So it's no surprise that Sol88 doesn't know what Michael is talking about. Nobody really does. Not even Michael!

Say, Michael, why do you suppose it is that no professional or academic in astrophysics or any related field, anywhere in the world, agrees with you about that solid surface of the Sun?

Michael Mozina · Jul 1, 2009

Reality Check said:
Micheal Mozina - In your web site you refer to the paper "Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle" by Sandrine Lefebvre and Alexander Kosovichev in this assertion:
.

Can you tell us where in the paper it is stated that any of the subsurface layers are solid?

That paper certainly does not say that this stratification subsurface layer is necessarily solid but it demonstrates that sound travels faster and differently through this region, and this region shows significant and measurable changes over the course of solar cycle. Kosovichev's work with sunspots has also demonstrated that the down-drafting of plasma underneath of a sunspot is a relatively shallow affair and at about 4800KM the plasma flow starts to flatten out and go horizontal. Why is that? Sound would travel faster through a solid and a crust would certainly change over the solar cycle, particularly during the active phases, and particularly closest to the equator where all the action is happening. It would also explain why movement in the atmosphere is a relatively shallow process, why we observe "rigid features" under sunspots in Doppler images, why we observe "rigid features" in RD images, etc.

If not then how can you show your calculation that any of the layers is solid?

I can (actually Kosovichev's math) shows "calculations" of all the aforementioned items. All those calculations look good to me, and his images certainly show rigid outlines under the photosphere with lifetimes far in excess of the "structures" of the photosphere which come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals and change in a very fluid-like (MHD-like) way.

My guess is that you assume that your hypothetical, invisible, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface exists.

It's not thermodynamically impossible. Heat is carried away from the surface in the electrons coming from the surface. The atmospheric (plasma) layers of the sun are arranged by atomic weigh with the thickest and coolest layers underneath and the lightest and hottest layers in the helium chromosphere and the hydrogen corona. By your way of thinking the photosphere could not possibly be cooler than the chromosphere, but it is.

You thus guess that the behavior of 0.99 R_o point shows a solid and maybe unvarying surface (it in fact varies by ~10 km between 1977 and 2004). You forget that you do not need to have solids in order to have stratification. You can also have stratification in liquids, gasses and plasma.

Ok, fine, I absolutely agree. We can have a "stratification" process occurring in anything. In fact I assume that is the case since I assume that the layers above and below the photosphere are arrange by atomic weight. We must ask ourselves:

What type of stratification would A) block plasma flow downdrafts at about 4800KM below the surface of the photosphere, show up in Doppler images as "rigid shapes" and create RD images?

The sentence in bold is of course your delusion that the TRACE instrument's 171 Angstrom pass band can see below the photosphere[/QUOTE]

How can you logically or rationally know that not a single photon at that wavelength penetrates the photosphere?

when this is physically impossible.

It is not "physically impossible". It was "physically demonstrated" in a lab by Birkeland and his team over 100 years ago. He had "loops" going right through his plasma layers. You can't tell me it's physically impossible because I've seen experiments where it was done. Get real.

And ...

Notice how in the image below the coronal loops (blue) on the limb do not actually touch the visible surface (yellow) of the Sun.

So now we just need to know exactly how these two types of images were calibrated, now don't we? I've not had a lot of luck getting help with any images from LMSAL on their various images, but perhaps you could ask them for us and elaborate as to their response when you get it?

Whereas it's easy enough to see how they put together the Yohkoh and Trace images and lined up the coronal loops, it's far less obvious how the put together the two types of images or how they might be "aligned" either via software or camera hardware. Someone with more clout than me will have to get those answers, but I'd personally love to hear them. Hint: FYI, I've got similar questions about some Hinode limb images (movies actually) that have been released.

They stop at the layer of solar moss (the bright lines). Astronomers describe this as position as the "base" of the coronal loops as seen in the image. The TRACE 171A images never extend to the photosphere.

I do not know that from that single image, nor can I know that without knowing many more of the details of how they compiled that specific image. I see no obvious way to align them as I see with the Yohkoh, Trace composite. I also can't tell from such a low resolution image how many of those loops may indeed protrude into the photosphere even in that image.

Anyone who knows basic physics will see that the TRACE 171 Angstrom filter being used excludes radiation from material cooler then 160,000 K

In Birkeland's experiments, the "hot zones" were the physical (solid) bumps on the spheres where electrons peeled off parts of the sphere and ionized particles of the sphere. The whole "loop" was "lit up" due to the electron flowing in the plasma, like an ordinary plasma filament in a plasma ball. The light is related to the "current flow", not necessarily a specific location in the solar atmosphere. You are *ASSUMING* that the sun is a *SIMPLE* and *COOPERATIVE* and *NICE* environment that is thermally isolated and thermally layered with nothing unusual going on. Any x-ray image, or 171A image, or combined image of the sun can demonstrate that this is not a "simple" process, nor does a loop span a single part of the atmosphere.

While the loop is lit from top to bottom, it radiates more x-rays as the loops reach the corona. The heating takes place throughout the loop, not only at the base of the loops. That is why the light doesn't taper off with the height of the loop and that demonstrates it's not a "simplified" thermal layered system.

Reality Check · Jul 1, 2009

GeeMack said:
Kristian Birkeland did not suggest that the Sun had a solid iron surface, or brass, or silver plated copper, or any such thing. That inane solid surface idea is yours and yours alone, Michael. So speaking of unethical, how dare you pass off the blame for your idiocy onto a dead guy? Your fantasy isn't a solar model. It's a wildass guess based on a seriously wrong interpretation of an image about which you obviously know very little.

I was under the impression that the Iron Sun model with a solid iron surface (as descrbed by Micheal Mozina) was also the Iron Sun model of Professor Oliver Manuel. But I cannot find any mention of a solid iron suface on Oliver Manuels web page - just enhanced concentrations of iron within the Sun.
So this delusion may be unique to Micheal Mozina.

Michael Mozina · Jul 1, 2009

Reality Check said:
So you agree with Wikipedia?
Sun

(emphasis added)

Why do astronomers not get ~100% for neon? After all the photosphere is neon according to you.

Because astronomers oversimplify everything. They count photons from the sun and *ASSUME* that whatever ratio they observe must all be mixed together,iron and nickel mixed with hydrogen and helium and all radiating at the same temperature in the photosphere like a nice "black body" should. Unfortunately the sun isn't "simple" and "nice" and easy to mathematically quantify.

The question was badly worded - it was about the % of iron in the coronal loops.

How *EXACTLY* did you intend to figure out exactly how much of each element is present? I started with SERTS data, but all that really tells me by itself is that iron and nickel exist in that loop at very high temperatures, high enough to ionize iron 10 and 14 times over. That by itself won't tell us what percentage of the whole sun is iron or nickel or any of the other elements present in the SERTS data.

How do you know that the specific material is not relevant. Did you test a Brass Sun model against the observation?

Why would I start with brass after looking at the SERTS data, particularly the SERTS data during active phases? Hint: What's different between quiet and active sets of data?

Michael Mozina · Jul 1, 2009

GeeMack said:
Kristian Birkeland did not suggest that the Sun had a solid iron surface, or brass, or silver plated copper, or any such thing.

CHAPTER VI.
ON POSSIBLE ELECTRIC PHENOMENA IN SOLAR SYSTEMS AND NEBULAE.

128. The Sun. The series of experiments that I have made with a magnetic globe as cathode in
a,arge vacuum-box, for the purpose of studying analogies to the zodiacal light and Saturn's ring, have
k to discoveries that appear to be of great importance for the solar theory.
We have already several times had occasion to give various particulars regarding the manner in
\\ ch these experiments were carried out. It is by powerful magnetisation of the magnetisable globe
trt the phenomenon answering to Saturn's rings is produced. During this process, polar radiation and
di'uptive discharges at the equator such as that shown in fig. 2473 (which happens to be a unipolar
di'harge) may also occur, if the current intensity of discharge is great. If the magnetisation of the globe
a Fig. 247. b
be -educed (or the tension of the discharge increased) gradually, the luminous ring round the globe will
be reduced to a minimum size, after which another equatorial ring is developed and expands rapidly
Hi; 247 b). It has been possible for the ring to develope in such a manner that it could easily be deincstrated
by radiation on the most distant wall of my large vacuum-tube (see fig. 217). The correspondin;
ring would then have a diameter of 70 cm., while the diameter of the globe was 8 cm.
It is a corresponding primary ring of radiant matter about the sun that in my opinion can give
an efficient explanation of the various zodiacal light-phenomena. In the above-mentioned experiments,
it seen how the rays from the polar regions bend down in a simple curve about the equatorial plane
of ic globe, to continue their course outwards from the globe in the vicinity of this plane. An aureole
is ^reby produced about the magnetic globe, with ray-structure at the poles, the whole thing strongly
resnbling pictures of the sun's corona.

I'm not going to fix it and dress up up for you, but you're lying through your teeth and there is the proof.

That inane solid surface idea is yours and yours alone, Michael. So speaking of unethical, how dare you pass off the blame for your idiocy onto a dead guy?

You'd prefer I try to take credit for the dead guy's (his friends too) ideas? Dude, he took pictures and everything. Do you think he wouldn't have put the satellite images together with his own experiments?

Just because you have no ethics of any sort does not mean that I get to take credit where credit is not due. He'd turn over in his grave if I tried to take credit for his work, or ignore his work. You've done the best job you possibly can to bury his work so please don't lecture me about Birkeland or what he believed. I doubt you've even read his book. Have you? Yes or no? Just answer the question like a man.

Michael Mozina · Jul 1, 2009

Dancing David, I think I may have another way for you to visualize the movement of positively charged ions in an outward direction. In an ordinary solid a lattice of conductive material is held in place and the atoms can't move around freely so the movement of electrons through the metal doesn't cause the metal to move with the electron. It's fixed in place by the whole conductive lattice and the electrons wind their way through the lattice. In the case of plasma, the atoms/ions are not fixed. The flow of electrons through the ion will cause the ion to move toward the flow direction of the elections, particularly if there are many electrons moving in that direction relative to the ion itself. In other words it's going to pick up momentum over time, as will the entire conductive lattice. This movement forms a twisted sort of helix shape through spacetime, a Birkeland current. Does that help you to visualize why the positively charged ions move as well as the electrons? Keep in mind that Birkeland's terella was the cathode and spewed electrons from every direction. Only when the internal magnetic fields were strong enough, and the current flow was strong enough did he create loops in the atmosphere. At all times he was spewing particles into the plasma around the sphere and heating the plasma around the sphere. When he pumped the chamber full of plasma he was able to create visible "layers" of plasma around the sphere that were "lit" by the electrons flowing from the sphere to the sides of the chamber.

Michael Mozina · Jul 1, 2009

GeeMack said:
My comment is well supported. For one thing, you were banned from BAUT for spending months claiming you would eventually present some mathematical support for your nutty claim, yet you continued to make excuses, stall, avoid, and change the subject.

That place is pathetic. They literally hold "witch trials" for any and all "ATM" idea. Evidently if you aren't "with them", you're put on trial for heresy. That's the worst cult in cyberspace.

Dear DRD asked me to compute the amount of 171A light that I might expect to penetrate several layers of plasma of (at the time) unknown thicknesses and there was no possible way for me to do that logically and rationally. I was then told not to post *ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE WEBSITE ON ANY TOPIC OF ANY SORT* before answering that question. When I took too long by whatever arbitrary standards they had at that time, they banned me. They got worse later on too. Now you can't even talk about a "banned topic" for more than 30 days. That is the single most pathetic excuse for a scientific website on the planet. Please!

GeeMack · Jul 1, 2009

Reality Check said:
I was under the impression that the Iron Sun model with a solid iron surface (as descrbed by Micheal Mozina) was also the Iron Sun model of Professor Oliver Manuel. But I cannot find any mention of a solid iron suface on Oliver Manuels web page - just enhanced concentrations of iron within the Sun.
So this delusion may be unique to Micheal Mozina.

No, Oliver Manuel proposes some kind of elemental layering of the Sun. Other than the vague concept of layering of some sort, he actually doesn't agree with Michael in any substantial way about that iron surface. Michael has claimed that Manuel's research supports his claim, and that Manuel is an ally in his quest to convince the world that the surface of the Sun is solid. It's another lie.

Oliver Manuel has his own crackpot notion with the iron located in the center and the composition working outwards towards the surface with lighter and lighter elements, but Manuel has never claimed there is a solid iron surface on the Sun. Michael likes to fantasize that he has, but when pressed for quotes or other specific supporting evidence for that part of his delusion, he has been wholly unable to offer any.

Michael Mozina · Jul 1, 2009

GeeMack said:
No, Oliver Manuel proposes some kind of elemental layering of the Sun. Other than the vague concept of layering of some sort, he actually doesn't agree with Michael in any substantial way about that iron surface. Michael has claimed that Manuel's research supports his claim, and that Manuel is an ally in his quest to convince the world that the surface of the Sun is solid. It's another lie.

The term we all (three of us) agreed upon is "rigid'. That seemed to leave enough wiggle room for a more dense plasma, something we all agreed it "might" be, rather than a solid. Since we wrote something like 5 papers together, it's a LIE to suggest we are not in basic agreement. I claimed that Manuel's work supports a mostly iron sun.

You have to be the single most unethical debater in the business. Are you proud of yourself for the constant stream of sleaze?

GeeMack · Jul 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
GeeMack said:

Kristian Birkeland did not suggest that the Sun had a solid iron surface, or brass, or silver plated copper, or any such thing.

Click to expand...

CHAPTER VI.
ON POSSIBLE ELECTRIC PHENOMENA IN SOLAR SYSTEMS AND NEBULAE.

128. The Sun. The series of experiments that I have made with a magnetic globe as cathode in a,arge vacuum-box, for the purpose of studying analogies to the zodiacal light and Saturn's ring, have k to discoveries that appear to be of great importance for the solar theory. We have already several times had occasion to give various particulars regarding the manner in \\ ch these experiments were carried out. It is by powerful magnetisation of the magnetisable globe trt the phenomenon answering to Saturn's rings is produced. During this process, polar radiation and di'uptive discharges at the equator such as that shown in fig. 2473 (which happens to be a unipolar di'harge) may also occur, if the current intensity of discharge is great. If the magnetisation of the globe a Fig. 247. b be -educed (or the tension of the discharge increased) gradually, the luminous ring round the globe will be reduced to a minimum size, after which another equatorial ring is developed and expands rapidly Hi; 247 b). It has been possible for the ring to develope in such a manner that it could easily be deincstrated by radiation on the most distant wall of my large vacuum-tube (see fig. 217). The correspondin; ring would then have a diameter of 70 cm., while the diameter of the globe was 8 cm. It is a corresponding primary ring of radiant matter about the sun that in my opinion can give an efficient explanation of the various zodiacal light-phenomena. In the above-mentioned experiments, it seen how the rays from the polar regions bend down in a simple curve about the equatorial plane of ic globe, to continue their course outwards from the globe in the vicinity of this plane. An aureole is ^reby produced about the magnetic globe, with ray-structure at the poles, the whole thing strongly resnbling pictures of the sun's corona.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to fix it and dress up up for you, but you're lying through your teeth and there is the proof.

Huh? I said, "Kristian Birkeland did not suggest that the Sun had a solid iron surface, or brass, or silver plated copper, or any such thing." And you post some random gibberish? Please, if you think something in there actually shows that Birkeland was under the impression the Sun actually had a solid metal surface, highlight it.

GeeMack · Jul 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
The term we all (three of us) agreed upon is "rigid'. That seemed to leave enough wiggle room for a more dense plasma, something we all agreed it "might" be, rather than a solid. Since we wrote something like 5 papers together, it's a LIE to suggest we are not in basic agreement. I claimed that Manuel's work supports a mostly iron sun.

You have to be the single most unethical debater in the business. Are you proud of yourself for the constant stream of sleaze?

Oliver Manuel does not agree with your nutty notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface. He's crazy, too, but he thinks the iron is in the center. There's no basic agreement on that part of the issue.

Michael Mozina · Jul 1, 2009

GeeMack said:
Huh? I said, "Kristian Birkeland did not suggest that the Sun had a solid iron surface, or brass, or silver plated copper, or any such thing." And you post some random gibberish? Please, if you think something in there actually shows that Birkeland was under the impression the Sun actually had a solid metal surface, highlight it.

You go right ahead and highlight every "metallic globe" and "discharge" in the quote for us GeeMack.

Michael Mozina · Jul 1, 2009

GeeMack said:
Oliver Manuel does not agree with your nutty notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface.

That is false. He agrees with me that we can see this "stratification subsurface" in heliosiesmology data and in the RD images. As I said, we all (three, not two) agreed upon the term "rigid". We all agree that we can observe a "rigid" surface in those images.

Until I met Dr. Manuel, yes, I think he believed the sun was "layered" like an onion. Once he saw the RD and Doppler images on my website however, he contacted me and insisted that we write a paper and we include the images in the next paper. Suffice to say, whatever mountain you are trying to make over the term "rigid' he's closer to my position than to yours.

Michael Mozina · Jul 1, 2009

You've done the best job you possibly can to bury his work so please don't lecture me about Birkeland or what he believed. I doubt you've even read his book. Have you? Yes or no? Just answer the question like a man.

When did you intend to answer this question?

Michael Mozina · Jul 1, 2009

David, here is an example of a large discharge through the solar atmosphere toward the heliosheath. Notice that the currents flowing through the plasma create a signature helix shape of a "Birkeland Current".

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/www/images/helix_c2c3.mpg

The discharging electrons pull the positively charged particles along as they flow from the surface of the sun to the heliosphere.

Reality Check · Jul 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
That paper certainly does not say that this stratification subsurface layer is necessarily solid but it demonstrates that sound travels faster and differently through this region, and this region shows significant and measurable changes over the course of solar cycle. Kosovichev's work with sunspots has also demonstrated that the down-drafting of plasma underneath of a sunspot is a relatively shallow affair and at about 4800KM the plasma flow starts to flatten out and go horizontal. Why is that? Sound would travel faster through a solid and a crust would certainly change over the solar cycle, particularly during the active phases, and particularly closest to the equator where all the action is happening. It would also explain why movement in the atmosphere is a relatively shallow process, why we observe "rigid features" under sunspots in Doppler images, why we observe "rigid features" in RD images, etc.

The reason is simple - sunspots are magnetic structures and plasma is affected by magnetic fields.

"We" do not observe "rigid features" in RD images. Ignorant and deluded people see visions of "rigid features" in RD images to fit ther own preconceptions.

Michael Mozina said:
I can (actually Kosovichev's math) shows "calculations" of all the aforementioned items. All those calculations look good to me, and his images certainly show rigid outlines under the photosphere with lifetimes far in excess of the "structures" of the photosphere which come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals and change in a very fluid-like (MHD-like) way.

The problem is that " lifetimes far in excess" is not forever. That fits magnetic fields that last hours, days or longer (like sunspots and coronal loops) rather than a "solid iron surface" that is not actually solid.

Michael Mozina said:
It's not thermodynamically impossible. Heat is carried away from the surface in the electrons coming from the surface. The atmospheric (plasma) layers of the sun are arranged by atomic weigh with the thickest and coolest layers underneath and the lightest and hottest layers in the helium chromosphere and the hydrogen corona. By your way of thinking the photosphere could not possibly be cooler than the chromosphere, but it is.

Can you give a citation for electrons being a major carrier of heat in the Sun?
My understanding was that it was radiation. Unluess this is just abother of you baseless assertions.

The second law of thermodynamic applies to spontaneous flow of heat. The high temperature of the corona is explained by it being heated by mechanisms such as wave heating or magnetic connection.

If you want an analogy for your thermodynamically impossible, invisible solid iron surface then think about a sheet of iron above a fire and the layers of air above that. The iron sheet must be at least as hot as the fire and the air must be at least as hot as the iron sheet. The air will not be hotter than the iron sheet unless there is a separate mechanism to heat it.
Fire = Sun's core.
Iron sheet = your impossible solid iron sphere.
Air = photosphere.

Another point:
If this impossible solid iron sphere existed at a temperature of < 2000 K then the core of the Sun must have a temperature of < 2000 K. No fusion. No fission. No neutron decay. All of the Sun's energy must come from above the iron surface (and how hot is the photosphere again?).

But do not worry - you can always add a gigantic refrigerator to the Iron Sun idea

!

Michael Mozina said:
Ok, fine, I absolutely agree. We can have a "stratification" process occurring in anything. In fact I assume that is the case since I assume that the layers above and below the photosphere are arrange by atomic weight. We must ask ourselves:

What type of stratification would A) block plasma flow downdrafts at about 4800KM below the surface of the photosphere, show up in Doppler images as "rigid shapes" and create RD images?

Stratification in a plasma would block plasma flow downdrafts at about 4800KM below the surface of the photosphere, not show up in Doppler images as "rigid shapes" on the photosphere and never show up in RD animations.

Michael Mozina said:
How can you logically or rationally know that not a single photon at that wavelength penetrates the photosphere?

That is not what the physics states. There are some 171A photons form the photosphere. They are a tiny proportion of the solar irradiance. Seeing them would be like seeing a candle flame through the flames of a forest fire.

For example:
Notice how in the image below the coronal loops (blue) on the limb do not actually touch the visible surface (yellow) of the Sun. They stop at the layer of solar moss (the bright lines). Astronomers describe this as position as the "base" of the coronal loops as seen in the image. The TRACE 171A images never extend to the photosphere.
The intensity of 171A photons from the photosphere is so low enough that the gap between the "base" of the loops is black.
Moss at the Limb:

Reality Check · Jul 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Because astronomers oversimplify everything. They count photons from the sun and *ASSUME* that whatever ratio they observe must all be mixed together,iron and nickel mixed with hydrogen and helium and all radiating at the same temperature in the photosphere like a nice "black body" should. Unfortunately the sun isn't "simple" and "nice" and easy to mathematically quantify.

That is what science does - it takes observations and create theories about them. More observations gives updated or new theories.
Astronomers do not "oversimplify everything". In this case they actually measure a near black body spectrum (which is nothing to do with element abundances).

And you are right - the Sun is a complex system. That does not mean that it cannot be mathematically quantified. It just that the maths is hard (beyond you as demonstrated in this forum and definitely beyond my basic knowledge of astronomy).

Michael Mozina said:
How *EXACTLY* did you intend to figure out exactly how much of each element is present? I started with SERTS data, but all that really tells me by itself is that iron and nickel exist in that loop at very high temperatures, high enough to ionize iron 10 and 14 times over. That by itself won't tell us what percentage of the whole sun is iron or nickel or any of the other elements present in the SERTS data.

You are the one with the claim.
How "EXACTLY* do you intend to figure out exactly how much of each element is present in the Sun?

Reality Check · Jul 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
When did you intend to answer this question?

You do not state who the question is for (probably GeeMack) but I will answer: Yes.

tusenfem · Jul 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
You evidently do *NOT* understand my position on MR theory very well Tim. I don't "dismiss" anything. Birn's paper on MR theory (discussed on space.com) convinced me that the math related to the theory was fine, the approach is "ok" from the standpoint of physical descriptions, but there is no way to physically determine if the this is a "unique" form of energy exchange. How is it physically different (at the point of energy release) than say "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection", or induction or an ordinary discharge process in plasma? I don't see how you (or anyone else) can determine in any of these "experiments" if the magnetic fields are themselves doing anything, or the particles and charge attraction is doing the work.

How exactly would that be a unique energy release process and not "induction"?

Well, if you would like to present a model of this supposed "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection" maybe then we could discuss the details.
However, the change in topology of the magnetic field cannot be explained by "induction", because induction cannot create a totally different topology of the field, i.e. from top-bottom anti-parallel squeezed in the middle to left-right anti-parallel moving away from eachother. This is a REAL topological change.
And a plasma-discharge, how are you going to get that in the Earth's magnetotail, where reconnection is observed on a constant basis with every new (group of) satellites that we send up there?

Also, if it would be induction, then the plasma would not be accelerted in a direction perpendicular to the magnetic field, so it most definitely cannot be induction.

But this belongs in the reconnection thread.

Michael Mozina · Jul 1, 2009

Reality Check said:
You do not state who the question is for (probably GeeMack) but I will answer: Yes.

I'd like to hear *GeeMack's* answer. He seems to show absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about Birkeland's writings or his terella experiments.

Michael Mozina · Jul 1, 2009

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/helix_c2c3.mpg

Sorry about the previous link David. Here is the corrected link. I would edit the original post, but I guess it won't let me do that after a certain period of time has passed.

Michael Mozina · Jul 1, 2009

Reality Check said:
The reason is simple - sunspots are magnetic structures and plasma is affected by magnetic fields.

Your magic "magnetic fields" seem to be necessarily located *UNDER* the photosphere, and they're mysteriously holding a rigid looking 3D shape for a long period of time. How? How do you get "magnetic" fields without "current flow" in light plasma? How does that heat the plasma to millions of degrees? Discharges do that, but when did magnetic fields alone heat an atmosphere?

"We" do not observe "rigid features" in RD images. Ignorant and deluded people see visions of "rigid features" in RD images to fit ther own preconceptions.

That criticism is utterly meaningless coming from a pair of guys that haven't touched a single specific detail in the image. GeeMack even blew the first thing he said, namely that the process itself caused these features. That's not true and it's easy to demonstrate in any LASCO RD image.

The problem is that " lifetimes far in excess" is not forever.

With all that volcanic and electrical activity, why would I expect it to last "forever"? I simply expect it to show "rigidity" far in excess of what we would expect of a light plasma that is thinner than Earth's atmosphere at sea level. We observe that "flying stuff" (most of us anyway) does not have much of a lifetime compared to other features in the image. How exactly did you figure you'd get strong magnetic fields *WITHOUT* current flow?

Can you give a citation for electrons being a major carrier of heat in the Sun?

I doubt it.

Then again there are electrons and protons and helium ions streaming off the sun and they are in fact "hot" compared to space as a whole. They will carry heat away from the surface of the photosphere.

My understanding was that it was radiation. Unluess this is just abother of you baseless assertions.

The second law of thermodynamic applies to spontaneous flow of heat. The high temperature of the corona is explained by it being heated by mechanisms such as wave heating or magnetic connection.

Nowhere on Earth does "magnetic reconnection" ever happen on it's own. We do however see "discharges" in the Earth's atmosphere every single day. Why in the world would you look to some new and exotic heating mechanism when the obvious choice is 'electricity'?

If you want an analogy for your thermodynamically impossible, invisible solid iron surface

First of all, let's all stop oversimplifying this solar model, shall we? The surface crust is not "solid iron", it is a "surface crust" not unlike the crust of a planet. It has more iron than most of the Earth's crust, but it is not "solid iron".

then think about a sheet of iron above a fire and the layers of air above that.

Let's try a different analogy. We'll take a terella and turn it into a cathode and put plasma around the teralla. We'll then turn up the voltage and crank up the EM field inside the terella and see what happens. Lo and behold we get "arcs" in the atmosphere that are substantially hotter than the surrounding plasma and the average temperature of the sphere too. Viola, problem solved.

Another point:
If this impossible solid iron sphere existed at a temperature of < 2000 K then the core of the Sun must have a temperature of < 2000 K. No fusion. No fission. No neutron decay. All of the Sun's energy must come from above the iron surface (and how hot is the photosphere again?).

There isn't just single layer of plasma to consider, there are several, all of which radiate at different temperatures with different densities.

Stratification in a plasma would block plasma flow downdrafts at about 4800KM below the surface of the photosphere,

How?

not show up in Doppler images as "rigid shapes" on the photosphere and never show up in RD animations.

Then it's not what we're looking for because we have rigid shapes in the Doppler images. Next idea?

For example:
Notice how in the image below the coronal loops (blue) on the limb do not actually touch the visible surface (yellow) of the Sun. They stop at the layer of solar moss (the bright lines). Astronomers describe this as position as the "base" of the coronal loops as seen in the image. The TRACE 171A images never extend to the photosphere.

The obvious first problem of course is that I have no idea how these images we put on top of each other or whether they are "aligned" to look this way *because* that's where they think they *should* be. I'd need to know a lot of specifics about that image before I could comment on what I can and cannot hope to observe in such an image. There is no obvious way to align these images against one another as there is with the Yohkoh/Trace composite image. For all I know the only reason they "look" that way is because some guy at LMSAL offset them intentionally because they expected to see them above the photosphere. How about some specifics on how they overlayed the two wavelengths?

Keep in mind that this specific image doesn't seem to jive real well with the layered heat signatures we see in the Yohkoh/Trace composite image.

Michael Mozina · Jul 1, 2009

tusenfem said:
Well, if you would like to present a model of this supposed "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection" maybe then we could discuss the details.

See lightning bolts and "electrical discharges through plasma" for further details. How exactly from this great distance did you decide that this "reconnection" process was between "magnetic lines" rather than between moving particles in plasma, or current streams? What is physically unique about "magnetic reconnection" that cannot be explained in ordinary current sheet acceleration experiments with electricity?

However, the change in topology of the magnetic field cannot be explained by "induction",

The change in the field may create induction, but the change in topology is related to the particle movement not the magnetic field.

because induction cannot create a totally different topology of the field, i.e. from top-bottom anti-parallel squeezed in the middle to left-right anti-parallel moving away from eachother. This is a REAL topological change.

It's called a "short circuit" in plasma. Big deal. It's not anything you can't create here on Earth with *ELECTRICITY*.

And a plasma-discharge, how are you going to get that in the Earth's magnetotail, where reconnection is observed on a constant basis with every new (group of) satellites that we send up there?

How are you going to get a change in the magnetotail without a change in "current flow"? You must realize that the particles flowing into the Earth's magnosphere are a form of "current flow", right? They are whizzing by at a million miles per hour you know.

Also, if it would be induction, then the plasma would not be accelerted in a direction perpendicular to the magnetic field, so it most definitely cannot be induction.

But this belongs in the reconnection thread.

Your term "magnetic reconnection" is purely "made up". You could have slapped any EM term to the process, including "particle reconnection" (since they are doing the actual acceleration part) or "circuit reconnection" because the totals circuit energy determines what occurs at the point of "reconnection". Calling it "magnetic reconnection" however is like calling a short circuit between two copper wires a "magnetic reconnection" between the wires. Yes, the magnetic field topologies might change, but that change is directly related to the flow of electrons through the wire. In this case the conductor is simply made of plasma and it can move around and change it's physical topology. Big deal. The *CURRENT FLOW* will determine both the rate of reconnection and the total amount of reconnection. You just created that term to intentionally muddy the waters and to confuse the public. If there is something physically unique about "magnetic reconnection", what is it?

Reality Check · Jul 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I'd like to hear *GeeMack's* answer. He seems to show absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about Birkeland's writings or his terella experiments.

Actually he shows as much knowledge if not more than you.
For example, you have cited Birkeland as supporting a solid iron (or maybe brass) surface for the Sun.

So GeeMack asked for the evidence from you:

GeeMack said:
Kristian Birkeland did not suggest that the Sun had a solid iron surface, or brass, or silver plated copper, or any such thing. That inane solid surface idea is yours and yours alone, Michael. So speaking of unethical, how dare you pass off the blame for your idiocy onto a dead guy? Your fantasy isn't a solar model. It's a wildass guess based on a seriously wrong interpretation of an image about which you obviously know very little.

And you came up with this quote:

CHAPTER VI.
ON POSSIBLE ELECTRIC PHENOMENA IN SOLAR SYSTEMS AND NEBULAE.

128. The Sun. The series of experiments that I have made with a magnetic globe as cathode in a,arge vacuum-box, for the purpose of studying analogies to the zodiacal light and Saturn's ring, have k to discoveries that appear to be of great importance for the solar theory. We have already several times had occasion to give various particulars regarding the manner in which these experiments were carried out. It is by powerful magnetisation of the magnetisable globe trt the phenomenon answering to Saturn's rings is produced. During this process, polar radiation and di'uptive discharges at the equator such as that shown in fig. 2473 (which happens to be a unipolar di'harge) may also occur, if the current intensity of discharge is great. If the magnetisation of the globe a Fig. 247. b be -educed (or the tension of the discharge increased) gradually, the luminous ring round the globe will be reduced to a minimum size, after which another equatorial ring is developed and expands rapidly Hi; 247 b). It has been possible for the ring to develope in such a manner that it could easily be deincstrated by radiation on the most distant wall of my large vacuum-tube (see fig. 217). The correspondin; ring would then have a diameter of 70 cm., while the diameter of the globe was 8 cm. It is a corresponding primary ring of radiant matter about the sun that in my opinion can give an efficient explanation of the various zodiacal light-phenomena. In the above-mentioned experiments, it seen how the rays from the polar regions bend down in a simple curve about the equatorial plane of ic globe, to continue their course outwards from the globe in the vicinity of this plane. An aureole is ^reby produced about the magnetic globe, with ray-structure at the poles, the whole thing strongly resnbling pictures of the sun's corona.

Any one who can read can see that at no point in that quote does Kristian Birkeland state that the sun has a metallic surface of any kind.
All he states is that his globes look like pictures of the Sun's corona. That is what "the whole thing strongly resnbling[sic] pictures of the sun's corona" means.

tusenfem · Jul 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
So they are essentially a "current carrying" thread?

Yes, what else would they be, what is the last time you read a mainstream paper on coronal loops?

Michael Mozina said:
How do they "go in" exactly, and where do they "go in" again? I only observe them as partial loops just as in Birkeland's experiments. You folks seem to think we can't even see them until they reach the corona.

Have you ever looked at a picture of a coronal loop? Why do you think it is called loop? At one point the field lines come out of the "surface" (and I use the term loosely) of the Sun, then the bend over, creating a loop and then the field lines go into the surface of the Sun again. You are so good at looking at pictures and you never noticed that there are loops and arcades of loops on the Sun?
But you are playing a word game again, aren't you, MM? You only see "partial loops." Well that is exactly what I was talking about, and in real life these are called coronal loops.
And if you would look at pictures in different frequency bands, you would notice that we can see these loops to the footpoints, where bremsstrahlung is generating copious amounts of X-ray emission.

Michael Mozina said:
Where are the "footprints" in your opinion, and how much "shearing" must it take to heat plasma to millions of degrees?

You can observe the e.g. in the X-ray emission. The more shearing the more current that is just a basic physical law, and the shearing can either be the two foot points moving with respect to each other or the the foot point(s) being twisted "rolling up" the magnetic field in the loop.

Michael Mozina said:
These two statements are at odds. If the strong currents heat the plasma then there is a discharge process in the plasma.

What is it with you and discharges? The temperatures in the loops can easily be calculated by Ohmic heating in the loops, e.g. papers by Bert van den Oord and Battaglia & Benz and the various referenced in those papers. This all works without "discharges," but I get the idea that you mean something completely different with discharge than what mainstream says. Please explain in detail what you mean with discharge.

Michael Mozina said:
But the photosphere plasma is only 6 thousand Kelvin. It's not that "hot". Something is causing it to jump several OOMS in temperature. Here on Earth that happens in "discharges" in the Earth's atmosphere.

6000 deg is rather hot in my opinion, would not want to get caught in an oven at 6000 deg. But anyway, that is besides the point, whether you think something is hot or not. I was talking, I think, about the heated plasma in the loops which would emit radiation. But also a plasma at 6000 deg will emit radiation, because "that is what plasmas do."
But I explained already that the currents in the loop heat the plasma, basically through Ohmic heating and not through discharges and it is also not a "jump" process.

Michael Mozina said:
Why would it be ridiculous in your opinion to go with the one known force of nature that does this in the Earth's atmosphere?

Because the currents in the coronal loop are not discharge-like, they are constant, they need to be constant and not just a lightning flash. Also the Birkeland currents in the Earth's magnetosphere are not "discharges" they are fully formed current circuits.

Michael Mozina said:
It's not originally that hot. Something has to heat the plasma, and that something is *ELECTRICITY*. It happens all the time here on Earth in electrical storms. Why would you need to look to any other form of energy if all you need to do is explain high temperature plasma? Electrical discharges and a do cause these sorts of emissions.

The same as above

Michael Mozina said:
How does it get hot then?

see above

Michael Mozina said:
"Reconnection" as it describe on WIKI requires the loops to actually "cross" in order for MR to occur. The problem for your theory is that the plasma is *ALREADY* over a million degrees in *BOTH LOOPS* even *BEFORE* they cross. How did that happen?

see above

Michael Mozina said:
You haven't personally *EXPLAINED* anything. Start with a single loops and explain how it reaches millions of degrees and sustains those temps.

Read up on the the theory, which was already being formed in the 70s by van Tend & Kuperus and in the 80s Kuperus & van Tend. There you will find all the basics about coronal loops and the currents and the heating and the reconnection/flare mechanism and and and

Michael Mozina said:
It's more than looking at pretty math formulas too. Observation and *EXPERIMENTATION* are the cornerstones of science. Math formulas are a dime a dozen. Birkeland's ideas work in a lab. You're idea do not and no terella in a vacuum ever spewed particles from the whole surface due to "magnetic reconnection".

Oh don't be silly, I am not an idea! I am a real person!
I guess you will discard all the experiments on reconnection in the lab, ah well, I guess because Birkeland did not do those experiments, we are not allowed to do them now, as Birkeland seems to be the pinnacle of modern science.

Maybe the terrella did not spew particles due to reconnection, because the set up of the terella experiment does not favour reconnection? Ever thought about that?

Michael Mozina said:
Yet that is exactly the mentality you are applying as it relates to Birkeland's solar theory. Anything you think I can't explain automatically seems to validate a gas model solar theory in your head even though none of you can explain those persistent features, or anything specific about either of those two images. Your theories do not work. They don't explain the observations. They don't explain the heliosiesmology data. They don't explain the RD images. They don't explain continuous solar wind acceleration for a whole sphere. They don't explain any of the key things that Birkeland's model not only "explained' but that he actually "simulated" in a lab with "electricity", something that is "natural" and occurs in nature, here on Earth , and in the solar atmosphere.

I doubt that I am doing that, I have great respect for Birkeland, and his deduction about corpuscules flying from the Sun to the Earth and that there is a relation between the appearance of aurora and changes in the magnetic needles that he and his assistants were observing. I am open for many things, but they have to be at least founded in some understanding of electromagnetism and I am sorry to say that your model of the Sun and the solar wind have so many things that are inconceivable in real life that I cannot accept your theory. Naturally, you could try to show me how the electrons from the Sun pull along the ions, regardless of the mass difference between the two and the opposing electric field working on the ions, but after repeated requests all I get is "read Birkeland". But is should be rather simple, so please write it down for us, is it so difficult to defend you model with some quality?

Michael Mozina · Jul 1, 2009

tusenfem said:
Yes, what else would they be, what is the last time you read a mainstream paper on coronal loops?

Then why not just call them what they are, "current threads" or "discharges"? Why give the process a name that is self conflicted? Magnetic lines lack physical substance and form a full and *COMPLETE* continuum, without beginning and without end. They can't "reconnect". Circuits can and do "reconnect". Why call it "magnetic reconnection" then at all?

Have you ever looked at a picture of a coronal loop?

Literally millions of them.

Why do you think it is called loop? At one point the field lines come out of the "surface" (and I use the term loosely) of the Sun,

Then they should be visible at the surface and also somewhat below the surface of the photosphere, particularly if they are heated at the bases of the loops by shear forces. Why would they only become visible "high up" in the atmosphere?

then the bend over, creating a loop and then the field lines go into the surface of the Sun again. You are so good at looking at pictures and you never noticed that there are loops and arcades of loops on the Sun?

They are not full circles and they have a definite footprint. If they start under the photosphere, why wouldn't we see them *AT* the photosphere?

But you are playing a word game again, aren't you, MM? You only see "partial loops." Well that is exactly what I was talking about, and in real life these are called coronal loops.

Birkeland called them by their proper name - discharges. So did Bruce.

And if you would look at pictures in different frequency bands, you would notice that we can see these loops to the footpoints, where bremsstrahlung is generating copious amounts of X-ray emission.

Yes, but the x-rays are not visible at the base of the 171A images.

Notice the layered effect? What's that from?

You can observe the e.g. in the X-ray emission. The more shearing the more current that is just a basic physical law,

You're trying to tell me that a "shearing effect" in plasma that is like 1/15th the density of air at sea level is going to cause plasma to reach a million degrees? Come on. What's the more likely "cause", shearing or "discharge"? That Birkeland current flying off the sun in the image I posted for David sure has all the "twists" one expects to find in a "Birkeland current".

and the shearing can either be the two foot points moving with respect to each other or the the foot point(s) being twisted "rolling up" the magnetic field in the loop.

That "twisting" helix shape in plasma is called a "Birkeland Current".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

It is often referred to as a "magnetic rope" as well, a term that Alfven explicitly explained as a "current carrying" z-pinch filament or Bennett pinch.

What is it with you and discharges?

What's with nature and all it's discharges? Discharges heat plasma to millions of degrees. "Shear" processes in wind never do that.

The temperatures in the loops can easily be calculated by Ohmic heating in the loops,

What the hell is ohmic heating in loops unless you have "current flow" heating the loops?

Please explain in detail what you mean with discharge.

Look at any electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere. That's what I'm talking about. Nature has created a perfectly "natural" way to heat plasma to millions of degrees, namely by running electrons through plasma. What exactly do you mean is specifically *PHYSICALLY* unique and different from a standard discharge when you say "magnetic reconnection"? When did magnetic reconnection ever "naturally" occur on Earth or Mars or Saturn or any of the places where nature has been shown to generate huge discharges?

6000 deg is rather hot in my opinion,

Compared to the plasma in those loops, it's nothing. The plasma in the loops is OOMS hotter than the plasma doing the "shearing" you describe. It's one thing to expect a 10K shearing effect, it's quite another to expect shearing to cause million degree coronal loops.

Because the currents in the coronal loop are not discharge-like, they are constant,

The discharges in my plasma ball are constant as long as I leave the switch turned on. How does "magnetic reconnection" stay "constant" and heat even individual loops to millions of degrees again?

they need to be constant and not just a lightning flash.

Ok, so what? Birkeland's loops remained there for as long as he kept the power turned on. He had no problems with longevity of the loop because it wasn't "shear" force that powered it. A shear scenario would tend to be short lived.

Also the Birkeland currents in the Earth's magnetosphere are not "discharges" they are fully formed current circuits.

Again, that is simply expected and predicted in Birkeland's work. What's your point?

I doubt that I am doing that, I have great respect for Birkeland,

Which explains your witch trials related to anything about his work over at Baut?

and his deduction about corpuscules flying from the Sun to the Earth and that there is a relation between the appearance of aurora and changes in the magnetic needles that he and his assistants were observing. I am open for many things, but they have to be at least founded in some understanding of electromagnetism and I am sorry to say that your model of the Sun and the solar wind have so many things that are inconceivable in real life that I cannot accept your theory.

The things I'm describing were all lab tested by Birkeland and his team, or postulated by Birkeland himself in the case of a fission power source. They created jets and loops and lots of the same things we observe in satellite images.

Naturally, you could try to show me how the electrons from the Sun pull along the ions,

That should be done in a lab, not on website in cyberspace. Instead of spending all your time and money on magic magnetic fields I suggest you folks spend more time in the lab in real experimental settings with real plasma. In spite of all Birkeland's work you refuse to even discuss the bulk of his work on forums where you moderate and you hold witch trials for anyone who dares to do so. That is not science, that is religion. When are you folks ever going to stop playing with your invisible magic math constructs and get in a lab and practice real experimental science for a change? Plasma has predictable properties that are not that difficult to understand as long as you understand that it's "current carrying" plasma.

Nature does not "do" magnetic reconnection. It does generate "discharges" on virtually every planet in the solar system an it generates x-rays and gamma rays that way every single day. Why would you not expect discharges to occur in the solar atmosphere as well?

tusenfem · Jul 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Dancing David, I think I may have another way for you to visualize the movement of positively charged ions in an outward direction. In an ordinary solid a lattice of conductive material is held in place and the atoms can't move around freely so the movement of electrons through the metal doesn't cause the metal to move with the electron. It's fixed in place by the whole conductive lattice and the electrons wind their way through the lattice. In the case of plasma, the atoms/ions are not fixed. The flow of electrons through the ion will cause the ion to move toward the flow direction of the elections, particularly if there are many electrons moving in that direction relative to the ion itself. In other words it's going to pick up momentum over time, as will the entire conductive lattice. This movement forms a twisted sort of helix shape through spacetime, a Birkeland current. Does that help you to visualize why the positively charged ions move as well as the electrons? Keep in mind that Birkeland's terella was the cathode and spewed electrons from every direction. Only when the internal magnetic fields were strong enough, and the current flow was strong enough did he create loops in the atmosphere. At all times he was spewing particles into the plasma around the sphere and heating the plasma around the sphere. When he pumped the chamber full of plasma he was able to create visible "layers" of plasma around the sphere that were "lit" by the electrons flowing from the sphere to the sides of the chamber.

This might just work a bit, the "dragging of the ions" in a large sea of electrons, but you willfully ignore the electric field which (according to you) is accelerating the electrons away from the Sun, and said electric field would accelerate any positive ion in the opposite direction of the electrons. Michael your whole idea does not make any sense, and Birkeland would understand that it does not make sense. It is totally against Maxwell's equations and conservation of energy etc. etc. etc.

Also the large quote from Birkeland's book does not say that the Sun has a solid surface. That is just something that you "hineininterpretierst" a figment of your imagination.

Michael Mozina · Jul 1, 2009

tusenfem said:
Read up on the the theory, which was already being formed in the 70s by van Tend & Kuperus and in the 80s Kuperus & van Tend. There you will find all the basics about coronal loops and the currents and the heating and the reconnection/flare mechanism and and and

Um, they keep talking about how energy is "stored" in a magnetic field of loops composed of light plasma. How exactly is that energy "stored" in your opinion? The reason we have powerful magnetic fields to look at is *BECAUSE OF* the CURRENT flowing inside the thread. Energy isnt' stored in the magnetic field. That's like claiming a lightning bolt "stored" magnetic energy just prior to release. What are you talking about and what are they talking about when you claim that plasma "stores" magnetic energy?

Michael Mozina · Jul 1, 2009

tusenfem said:
This might just work a bit, the "dragging of the ions" in a large sea of electrons,

It works *A LOT*.

but you willfully ignore the electric field

No, I'm counting on it to cause discharge process between the surface ant the heliosphere like that helix discharge.

which (according to you) is accelerating the electrons away from the Sun,

The electrons "flow" from the surface to the heliosphere and their movement through the ions drags the ions along for the ride. Even Birkeland noticed he left particles of the "globe" on the sides of his experiments. Why?

and said electric field would accelerate any positive ion in the opposite direction

That would depend on the specific type of discharge. Birkeland predicted the sun would shoot electrons at high speed and drag particles along for the ride.

Michael your whole idea does not make any sense,

Click to expand...

It makes sense and it works in a lab. You can't simply ignore his experiments and make statements that defy these experiments.

Also the large quote from Birkeland's book does not say that the Sun has a solid surface. That is just something that you "hineininterpretierst" a figment of your imagination.

Click to expand...

Ya, and if I had tried to take credit for his work you'd be all over me for that too. Right. Every one of his experiments used a metallic globe, not a plasma body. Nothing he would have seen in satellite images would have surprised him one bit, including all the rigid feature in these images. Every single experiment he performed used a "solid metallic surface" model. Period.

Reality Check · Jul 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Um, they keep talking about how energy is "stored" in a magnetic field of loops composed of light plasma. How exactly is that energy "stored" in your opinion? The reason we have powerful magnetic fields to look at is *BECAUSE OF* the CURRENT flowing inside the thread. Energy isnt' stored in the magnetic field. That's like claiming a lightning bolt "stored" magnetic energy just prior to release. What are you talking about and what are they talking about when you claim that plasma "stores" magnetic energy?

That is so ignorant that I just have to answer.

First year physics students are taught the basic fact that energy is stored in any magnetic (or electric) field.
Energy in Electric and Magnetic Fields
Magnetic energy
An introduction to the sun and stars (page 69)
etc.

Reality Check · Jul 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Ya, and if I had tried to take credit for his work you'd be all over me for that too. Right. Every one of his experiments used a metallic globe, not a plasma body. Nothing he would have seen in satellite images would have surprised him one bit, including all the rigid feature in these images. Every single experiment he performed used a "solid metallic surface" model. Period.

That is right - the technology of 100 years ago did not allow him to do experiments on a "plasma body" so he used metallic globes.
So what?

Even Kristian Birkeland states that his experiment is studying "analogies to the zodiacal light and Saturn's ring" and the results resemble the Sun's corona.

Kristian Birkeland would not have been stupid enough to think that a running difference animation could show any rigid feature. He would have realized that the animation was showing changes in the images and that any persistent features in the animation were changes happening in one location in the images.

Kristian Birkeland knew basic physics such as black body radiation. He would quickly realize that the measured photosphere was a near black body spectrum. He could read a solar irradiance versus wavelength diagram and see that the emission of the photosphere in the 171 angstrom region was basically zero. He would know that a telescope detecting radiation in the 171 angstrom region would only see the photosphere if there were no stronger sources of 171 angstrom light, such as ~million degree plasma.

Kristian Birkeland would look at this 171 A image of coronal loops and see the gap between the observed base of the coronal loops in the images and the photosphere. He would know that this means that the TRACE instrument is only detecting activity in the corona.

CHAPTER VI.
ON POSSIBLE ELECTRIC PHENOMENA IN SOLAR SYSTEMS AND NEBULAE.

128. The Sun. The series of experiments that I have made with a magnetic globe as cathode in a,arge vacuum-box, for the purpose of studying analogies to the zodiacal light and Saturn's ring, have k to discoveries that appear to be of great importance for the solar theory. We have already several times had occasion to give various particulars regarding the manner in \\ ch these experiments were carried out. It is by powerful magnetisation of the magnetisable globe trt the phenomenon answering to Saturn's rings is produced. During this process, polar radiation and di'uptive discharges at the equator such as that shown in fig. 2473 (which happens to be a unipolar di'harge) may also occur, if the current intensity of discharge is great. If the magnetisation of the globe a Fig. 247. b be -educed (or the tension of the discharge increased) gradually, the luminous ring round the globe will be reduced to a minimum size, after which another equatorial ring is developed and expands rapidly Hi; 247 b). It has been possible for the ring to develope in such a manner that it could easily be deincstrated by radiation on the most distant wall of my large vacuum-tube (see fig. 217). The correspondin; ring would then have a diameter of 70 cm., while the diameter of the globe was 8 cm. It is a corresponding primary ring of radiant matter about the sun that in my opinion can give an efficient explanation of the various zodiacal light-phenomena. In the above-mentioned experiments, it seen how the rays from the polar regions bend down in a simple curve about the equatorial plane of ic globe, to continue their course outwards from the globe in the vicinity of this plane. An aureole is ^reby produced about the magnetic globe, with ray-structure at the poles, the whole thing strongly resnbling pictures of the sun's corona.

GeeMack · Jul 1, 2009

GeeMack said:
Huh? I said, "Kristian Birkeland did not suggest that the Sun had a solid iron surface, or brass, or silver plated copper, or any such thing." And you post some random gibberish? Please, if you think something in there actually shows that Birkeland was under the impression the Sun actually had a solid metal surface, highlight it.

Michael Mozina said:
You go right ahead and highlight every "metallic globe" and "discharge" in the quote for us GeeMack.

CHAPTER VI.
ON POSSIBLE ELECTRIC PHENOMENA IN SOLAR SYSTEMS AND NEBULAE.

128. The Sun. The series of experiments that I have made with a magnetic globe as cathode in a,arge vacuum-box, for the purpose of studying analogies to the zodiacal light and Saturn's ring, have k to discoveries that appear to be of great importance for the solar theory. We have already several times had occasion to give various particulars regarding the manner in \\ ch these experiments were carried out. It is by powerful magnetisation of the magnetisable globe trt the phenomenon answering to Saturn's rings is produced. During this process, polar radiation and di'uptive discharges at the equator such as that shown in fig. 2473 (which happens to be a unipolar di'harge) may also occur, if the current intensity of discharge is great. If the magnetisation of the globe a Fig. 247. b be -educed (or the tension of the discharge increased) gradually, the luminous ring round the globe will be reduced to a minimum size, after which another equatorial ring is developed and expands rapidly Hi; 247 b). It has been possible for the ring to develope in such a manner that it could easily be deincstrated by radiation on the most distant wall of my large vacuum-tube (see fig. 217). The correspondin; ring would then have a diameter of 70 cm., while the diameter of the globe was 8 cm. It is a corresponding primary ring of radiant matter about the sun that in my opinion can give an efficient explanation of the various zodiacal light-phenomena. In the above-mentioned experiments, it seen how the rays from the polar regions bend down in a simple curve about the equatorial plane of ic globe, to continue their course outwards from the globe in the vicinity of this plane. An aureole is ^reby produced about the magnetic globe, with ray-structure at the poles, the whole thing strongly resnbling pictures of the sun's corona.

Okay, done. So nothing in that quote supports the idea that Birkeland thought the Sun had a solid surface. I knew that.

And, Michael, you've been reluctant to respond to this. Why do you suppose it is that no professional or academic in astrophysics or any related field, anywhere in the world, agrees with you about that solid surface of the Sun?

Dancing David · Jul 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Dancing David, I think I may have another way for you to visualize the movement of positively charged ions in an outward direction. In an ordinary solid a lattice of conductive material is held in place and the atoms can't move around freely so the movement of electrons through the metal doesn't cause the metal to move with the electron. It's fixed in place by the whole conductive lattice and the electrons wind their way through the lattice. In the case of plasma, the atoms/ions are not fixed. The flow of electrons through the ion will cause the ion to move toward the flow direction of the elections, particularly if there are many electrons moving in that direction relative to the ion itself.

Yes but the laws of momentum still apply.

In other words it's going to pick up momentum over time, as will the entire conductive lattice.

Except you don’t have a metallic lattice, you have free ions in space.

This movement forms a twisted sort of helix shape through spacetime, a Birkeland current. Does that help you to visualize why the positively charged ions move as well as the electrons? Keep in mind that Birkeland's terella was the cathode and spewed electrons from every direction. Only when the internal magnetic fields were strong enough, and the current flow was strong enough did he create loops in the atmosphere. At all times he was spewing particles into the plasma around the sphere and heating the plasma around the sphere. When he pumped the chamber full of plasma he was able to create visible "layers" of plasma around the sphere that were "lit" by the electrons flowing from the sphere to the sides of the chamber.

I notice that you have not answered the question MM.

I will try again.

In your model you have negatively charged electrons moving towards the positive heliosphere.

The question is not about the towing.

It is about the fact that your model requires the electrons to move the positive ions against the repulsion of the heliosphere.

That is the one of the contradictions in your model that you refuse to address.

So Birkeland had a cathode and he had 'what' flowing from it?

You are obsessed with not answering this question.

For your model to work, the electrons would have to overcome the force of repulsion on the positive ions.

Your answer is not an answer, I think you are ignoring the point I am making.

Take one proton and one electron, the mass is the proton is 1038 that of the electron. The charges are equal.

So to move the proton, the momentum of the electron would have to exceed the inertia of the proton. Correct? (For it to tow the proton.)

For this to work, you will need the electron to either have a much higher velocity than the proton But then it will immediately loose that as the momentum is transferred to the proton through towing. So you will need more electrons moving at very high velocities to keep the proton moving.

The other alternative is to have the proportion of electrons be higher, say 1038 electrons for the one proton.

So here is the deal MM, and where you seem to be engaging in speculation (which is fine) and not science. What at all data exists to support your idea?

What velocities and ratios are there?

And you know MM, these are rather simple concepts to overcome, you say that the 'standard model' can not account for the solar wind, and that is fine.

The issue I have is that there are inherent contradictions in your model that you refuse to address.

After the momentum issue there are:
-the charge repulsion issue of the positive ions
-the charge separation needed for your model to work
-the issues associated with a large electric charge on the sun
-the measurement of the charge of the heliosphere
-the issue of what maintains the charge separations

Dancing David · Jul 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
You go right ahead and highlight every "metallic globe" and "discharge" in the quote for us GeeMack.

Either Birkeland said the sun was made up of solid metal or he did not.

Which is it?

Dancing David · Jul 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/helix_c2c3.mpg

Sorry about the previous link David. Here is the corrected link. I would edit the original post, but I guess it won't let me do that after a certain period of time has passed.

Great picture, you did not answer the questions.

Dancing David · Jul 1, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
It works *A LOT*.

No, I'm counting on it to cause discharge process between the surface ant the heliosphere like that helix discharge.

Yup which is why the maintainence of the charge seperation is an issue.

The electrons "flow" from the surface to the heliosphere and their movement through the ions drags the ions along for the ride. Even Birkeland noticed he left particles of the "globe" on the sides of his experiments. Why?

Could be machine oil, could be that very small fragments of teh sphere attained the same negative charge and were repulsed.

You haven't shown that he created a flow of positive ions, of greater mass than the electrons.

That would depend on the specific type of discharge. Birkeland predicted the sun would shoot electrons at high speed and drag particles along for the ride.

Uh huh, sure. the issue is that if you have a positively charged heliosphere, then the EM field from the heliosphere is going to repulse the positive ions.

It is not an issue of 'discharge', it is an issue of repulsion between two positively charged objects, one the heliosphere and the other positive ions.

It makes sense and it works in a lab. You can't simply ignore his experiments and make statements that defy these experiments.

You can't say that Birkeland created a mini solar wind composed of eual parts protons and electrons either!

Ya, and if I had tried to take credit for his work you'd be all over me for that too. Right. Every one of his experiments used a metallic globe, not a plasma body. Nothing he would have seen in satellite images would have surprised him one bit, including all the rigid feature in these images. Every single experiment he performed used a "solid metallic surface" model. Period.

So , you adimit he did not say that the sun was a ball of solid metal?

Electric universe theories here.

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing