Electric universe theories here.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reality Check said:
MM is not that far wrong - the other paper I found was
"Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle" by Michael Mozina, Hilton Ratcliffe, O. Manuel in Journal of Fusion Energy, volume 25 (2006).

Neither of which are in astronomy journals and so they were not peer reviewed by astronomers and not read by astronomers.
Click to expand...

As if they're the only "scientists" on the planet? These publications are read by professionals involved in plasma physics and nuclear chemistry. FYI, all the published papers that I've been involved in are freely available on Arxiv.

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
 
Solid Surface and Photosphere.

Reality Check said:
ETA:
More reading suggests that this is limited to the first 500 km of the photosphere. It also shows that the temperature at that depth in the photosphere is 6400 K as opposed to 5777 K at the top. This may be a problem for MM's solid iron surface.
Click to expand...
See Maltby, et al., 1986 which includes a tabular photosphere model in the appendix. This is the basis for the photosphere model shown on page 153 of Foukal's book Solar Astrophysics (Wiley-VCH, 2004, 2nd Revised edition). At 500 nm optical depth of 1 the temperature is 6520 Kelvins and goes up to 9400 Kelvins 100 km below that, where the optical depth exceeds 23. The temperature drops to a minimum 4400 Kelvins about 500 km above the optical depth 1 layer, and then increases again as we approach the base of the chromosphere and the temperature exceeds 20,000 Kelvins, about 2100 km up and the optical depth drops to zero, along with the visible light emission. So visible light emission is dominated by the lower & hotter photosphere, where limb darkening is observed. Any solid layer has to be below the bottom of this photosphere in order to remain invisible at visible light wavelengths. But other wavelengths are another matter, and one might wonder how the solid layer remains invisible at all wavelengths. One might also wonder how it affects dynamics, such as easily visible convection, and helioseismological data that are inconsistent with such a surface.
 
Reality Check said:
No intelligent scientist
Click to expand...

Gee, a fallacy in the first three words. That may be a record for you.

thinks that the base of coronal loops "originate in the corona".
Click to expand...

Where *EXACTLY* do they originate, and how do you know? Why would they all originate in a "layer" at a specific height *ABOVE* the photosphere? How do you know they all start at the same height?

They know for example that "loop" means something that joins back to itself.
Click to expand...

Where does it do that, and why can't we see it, and where does it end visually in these images, and why does it end there specifically?

The scientific consensus
Click to expand...

And is that an appeal to popularity fallacy I see there? :)

is that coronal loops are caused by loops of magnetic flux.
Click to expand...

Physically explain "magnetic flux", and where does it start "fluxing", above or below the photosphere? Is the "flux" the part that heats it to a million degrees, or is that something else? Where and when and why does a loop reach a million degrees?

That is why there are hundreds (thousands?) of papers treating them as magnetic coronal loops, e.g. 1200 preprints in arXiv, 28,000 results in Google Scholar for 'magnetic coronal loops'.
Click to expand...

Alfven treated them as "magnetic ropes" which he described as Bennett pinches in plasma, in other words current carrying filaments. Birkeland also treated them as "discharges" in the plasma.

You may know several "scientists" (why the quotes?) with a different opinion. The published papers put them in a minority.
As for your published papers - arXiv indicates 1 published paper in a non-astronomy journal: "Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle" by Michael Mozina, Hilton Ratcliffe, O. Manuel in Journal of Fusion Energy, volume 25 (2006).
Perhaps you should add the extensive list of your published papers in astronomy journals to your web site.
Click to expand...

It's been awhile since I've updated my website. Its long overdue for a few updates. If the links really are not there, I'll have to add them.

Coronal loops are not "full of million degree plasma" in the photosphere. Their temperature rises to ~million K above the photosphere.
Click to expand...

Why does it rise from 6K to 1 million degrees?

No you do not.
Everyone sees a "base" in the 171A image where the material gets hot enough to be seen in the 171A pass band.
Click to expand...

It got "hot" on the surface of Birkeland's sphere. You could see it through several (double) layers of plasma.

You though assume that there is iron from your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible, solid iron surface that is somehow peeled from the surface and transported some thousands of kilometers through plasma to appear in coronal loops.
Click to expand...

No, and we've been through that all before. There's nothing thermodynamically impossible about solids being ionized by arcs. Ever use an arc welder before? The whole rod doesn't reach the same temperature of the plasma in the arc.

I need to take a break and get something to eat. I 'll see if I missed something important after I get something to eat.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Simple as in "Flying plasma? What flying plasma?????? Ya, that's "simple" alright.
Click to expand...


If that's what you got from my repeated explanations then you not only need some catch-up math, science, and physics courses, I'd estimate your reading skills are somewhere below that of an average 4th grader. Learn to read, then go back to the top of this thread and read all my posts again, Michael. You'll find several explanations scattered in there, not too hard to find, worded slightly differently in most cases, but all consistent, thorough, and understandable. And all supported in whole, I might add, by the organization who acquired, processed, and created the image you're carrying on about.

Pffft. You made *3* different errors simply explain the RD technique itself and you didn't touch anything specific at all. You can't deal with anything at all either because you don't even properly understand the RD technique.

A) "Stuff" is flying in all the images.
B) The light source is the sun.
C) nothing about the RD technique creates persistent patterns. Only persistence in the original light source will generate persistence in the patterns.
Click to expand...


Once more for the kid with the 4th grade reading skills: If you're using any image to support your crazy fantasy that the Sun has a solid iron surface, then whether or not there is "flying stuff" in the image is a completely meaningless point. "Flying stuff" would indicate, well, something not solid. Jesus, stay focused, Michael. You're losing it. Your point "A" is refuted as irrelevant.

The light source in a running difference image is not the Sun. The image is a graph, a chart, a graphical representation of a series of mathematical computations. The light source in the original images, the source data from which the running difference graph was made, is 171Å emissions from the corona of the Sun, fully 6000 kilometers and more above the place where you think you're seeing a surface. So there's your point "B" shredded.

What we see in the running difference graph are places where the CME got brighter over here and dimmer over there, or more specifically where the 171Å emissions increased over here and decreased over there. It's really more a measure of thermal properties than of brightness. We just happen to find lighter and darker pixels convenient for representing these thermal changes.

The processing puts increasingly lighter pixels, indicating difference values, where the originals became lighter between frames, and increasingly darker pixels, again showing difference values, where the originals got dimmer across the sequence. It looks to you like a bunny because the coronal loop was moving or waving, in some areas growing and constricting. The results of calculating the difference values, in this case, put typically lighter pixels to one side and typically darker ones to the other which look like the light and shadow patterns on a surface. That's also why in some places the light/dark don't follow the pattern we would expect if it were a textured surface lit and shaded by some light source.

In fact, it's because there was change in the location and/or intensity of the 171Å emissions that we see anything at all in the running difference graph. There's no surface, no solid features, no mountains, no valleys, nothing. Anything persistent in the original images will be neutral gray in a running difference output. This was clearly stated by Dr. Hurlburt from LMSAL. Your point "C" is invalidated.

You blew all three of these points. Even RC kicked your butt and he didn't even know where to find the archives. D'rok probably doesn't even buy your BS anymore and he's already put 10 times the effort into actually physically understanding these images than you ever will. You aren't interested in truth, all you care about smearing the individual, regardless of the cost to anyone and everyone.
Click to expand...


You smear yourself, Michael. Nobody needs to do it for you. From my observation, nobody even needs to help, although I'm glad to do my part when I can. ;)

I put your insane solid surfaced Sun delusion to rest over three years ago. I invested a fair amount of time and effort trying to help you understand what the hell you were talking about. And instead of any thanks for the help, all I got were your continued lies about not having explained your precious running difference images. You treat people like crap, Michael. It's a bit of a trademark with you. You get warned and banned from forums for it. Nobody, particularly me, owes you any respect, dignity, or consideration. Anything you perceive as persecution you brought on yourself. If you'd actually spend as much time learning math and physics as you do with that crybaby poor-persecuted-me routine, you'd have this crazy fantasy licked by now. You'd have seen how completely wrong you are and you'd have moved along to a new hobby.

I'm interested in the truth, very interested. I see a lot of it in these threads from people like Tim Thompson, Reality Check, DeiRenDopa, edd, D'rok, Dancing David, tusenfem, Tubbythin, Ziggurat, and at least a few others. But from you, Michael, other than an occasional accidental burp of truth slipping through your veil of ignorance, barely any at all.

Now are you ever going to let us in on that lab tested, tried and true, right here on Earth, not metaphysical, quantitative, repeatable, objective experiment that shows how you can see 4000 kilometers through an opaque plasma by gathering images from a few thousand kilometers above that opaque layer? You remember, all your ideas meet that test. Oh, and if you could explain your method in a way that other people can understand and agree with your conclusion, that would be great. After all, that's what I did, and you accuse me of not putting forth any effort. :)

And for anyone just joining in, here's a review of Michael's history discussing these subjects. Give you a chance to know him better, see just how often and for how long he's failed to substantiate any of his whacked out conjectures...

GeeMack said:
Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum...
8 pages, 30 posts per page...

13 pages, 30 posts per page...

14 pages, 30 posts per page...

12 pages, 30 posts per page...

Sockpuppet: ManInTheMirror - 4 pages, 30 posts per page...

Sockpuppet: ManInTheMirror - 36 pages, 30 posts per page...

Einstein@Home forum at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee...

Over 3,000 postings over at the Skeptic Friends Network...
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
As if they're the only "scientists" on the planet? These publications are read by professionals involved in plasma physics and nuclear chemistry. FYI, all the published papers that I've been involved in are freely available on Arxiv.

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
Click to expand...
Of course they are not the only "scientists" (why the quotes?) in the world. That is dumb.
They are however experts in astronomy.

You chose to publish the papers in journals that would not peer review using reviewers who had expertise on the subject of your papers.
You chose to publish the papers in journals that would not be read by people who had expertise on the subject of your papers.
These experts would be able to properly evaluate your assertions about the Sun.
The actual reviewers would be able to properly evaluate your assertions about plasma physics and nuclear chemistry.

A cynic would say that you did this on purpose.
Personally I think that it was just laziness. O Manuel is used to publishing in plasma physics and nuclear chemistry journals and so continued doing this even though the papers were primarily about astronomy.
 
Reality Check said:
Linky please.
Click to expand...

Linky to what? SOHO?

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mpeg/

The archives you'll find below, but you will probably have to copy and paste it to your browser directly.
http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/

The RD images are in the folders by month with a _D3 extension on the file. I've provided these links before, and this is the last time I'm going to do so. If you intend to continue to debate these points with me, please bookmark them.

Let me know when you figure out how to find stars in the background of original LASCO-C3 images and the RD images.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Gee, a fallacy in the first three words. That may be a record for you.
Click to expand...
So there are no intellegent scientists?
Does this include somone called O Manuel?

Michael Mozina said:
Where *EXACTLY* do they originate, and how do you know? Why would they all originate in a "layer" at a specific height *ABOVE* the photosphere? How do you know they all start at the same height?
Click to expand...
Can you actually read or do you have a standard script to spew at us?
One more time for the simple minded:
Coronal loops do not originate above the photosphere.

Even your non-science theory assumes that they do not originale above the photosphere.

Michael Mozina said:
...snipped MM ignorance...
And is that an appeal to popularity fallacy I see there? :)
Click to expand...
No you do not. It is an appeal to expertise.


Michael Mozina said:
...snipped MM ignorance...It's been awhile since I've updated my website. Its long overdue for a few updates. If the links really are not there, I'll have to add them.

Why does it rise from 6K to 1 million degrees?
Click to expand...
More of your laziness. Look it up yourself.

Michael Mozina said:
...snipped...
No, and we've been through that all before. There's nothing thermodynamically impossible about solids being ionized by arcs. Ever use an arc welder before? The whole rod doesn't reach the same temperature of the plasma in the arc.

I need to take a break and get something to eat. I 'll see if I missed something important after I get something to eat.
Click to expand...
We have not been through this before because you cannot comprehend what "hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible, solid iron surface" is referring to.
It is not "solids being ionized by arcs".

It is the second law of thermodynamics.

It is that fact that your notion has a cool layer of iron in contact with at least one hotter object - the photosphere whose temperature is measured to increase with depth from the top. If your notion has an internal energy source of any sort that outputs the amount of energy that the Sun is observed to emit then then the Sun below your iron layer is also hotter than the melting temperature of iron.

To make it obvious:
Your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible, solid iron surface has been in thermal contact with at least one object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for about 4.57 billion years.

It cannot exist.

Your "layers" between the "surface" and photosphere do not help.
  • The layer below the photosphere has been in thermal contact with an object (the photosphere) that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for about 4.57 billion years. Try to guess the temperature of that layer.
  • The layer below that one has been in thermal contact with an object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for slightly less than 4.57 billion years. Try to guess the temperature of that layer.
  • The layer below that one has been in thermal contact with an object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for a smidgen less than 4.57 billion years. Try to guess the temperature of that layer.
  • ...
  • Now we get to the iron layer which has been in thermal contact with an object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for a bit less than 4.57 billion years. Try to guess the temperature of that iron surface and whether it is solid.
Tim Thompson said:
See Maltby, et al., 1986 which includes a tabular photosphere model in the appendix. This is the basis for the photosphere model shown on page 153 of Foukal's book Solar Astrophysics (Wiley-VCH, 2004, 2nd Revised edition). At 500 nm optical depth of 1 the temperature is 6520 Kelvins and goes up to 9400 Kelvins 100 km below that, where the optical depth exceeds 23. The temperature drops to a minimum 4400 Kelvins about 500 km above the optical depth 1 layer, and then increases again as we approach the base of the chromosphere and the temperature exceeds 20,000 Kelvins, about 2100 km up and the optical depth drops to zero, along with the visible light emission. So visible light emission is dominated by the lower & hotter photosphere, where limb darkening is observed. Any solid layer has to be below the bottom of this photosphere in order to remain invisible at visible light wavelengths. But other wavelengths are another matter, and one might wonder how the solid layer remains invisible at all wavelengths. One might also wonder how it affects dynamics, such as easily visible convection, and helioseismological data that are inconsistent with such a surface.
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
Linky please.
Click to expand...

Looked at a couple more of the LASCO Movies
confirms what I thought. Many of the "stars" in the LASCO images are actually cosmic ray impacts. There are stars in the images - best seen in the last movie. These stars are moving across the field of view. This is caused by the movement of movement of the SOHO spacecraft. See SOHO's web-based orbit simulator.

A running difference animation will record the changes in intensity of pixels caused by the movement of the stars across the field of view (and the cosmic ray impacts). Thus the RD animation will display a record of the movement of the stars.
N.B.
Original movie = actual stars moving.
RD movie = changes in intensity caused by actual stars moving (not the actual stars moving).

The movies have an bonus feature - a comet is shown.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Looked at a couple more of the LASCO Movies
confirms what I thought. Many of the "stars" in the LASCO images are actually cosmic ray impacts.
Click to expand...

Wow! You learned your first useful thing about LASCO (actually all) SOHO, TRACE and other satellite images! Cool. Can you accurately pick out the stars now too?

There are stars in the images - best seen in the last movie.
Click to expand...

Halleluja! He can finally pick out the stars. Can you do that in RD image yet? FYI your links don't work, so I can't see your movies.

These stars are moving across the field of view. This is caused by the movement of movement of the SOHO spacecraft. See SOHO's web-based orbit simulator.
Click to expand...

So now we can talk about "cause and effect". The "cause" of the dark spot is due to the MOVEMENT OF THE BACKGROUND STAR. That's true of the bright spot too. We can even get some idea of the direction of movement too based upon the position of the bright and dark spots.

A running difference animation will record the changes in intensity of pixels caused by the movement of the stars across the field of view (and the cosmic ray impacts). Thus the RD animation will display a record of the movement of the stars.
Click to expand...

Cool! Very nice. Now we can actually have a reasonable discussion on this topic. If you can sucessfully pick out stars, then I assume you can also pick out the "flying stuff" that comes out of a the CME in the LASCO movies?

N.B.
Original movie = actual stars moving.
RD movie = changes in intensity caused by actual stars moving (not the actual stars moving).
Click to expand...

I agree, it's a "relative" movement and the stars are actually "fixed" compared to the Earth/SOHO and the sun. We're moving, the stars are pretty much fixed at least from our perspective over the timeline of these actual images.

The movies have an bonus feature - a comet is shown.
Click to expand...

Cool. Now you can appreciate and discuss "cause/effect" relationships in the image. This could become an useful and interesting discussion after all.
 
Michael Mozina said:
...snip..Cool. Now you can appreciate and discuss "cause/effect" relationships in the image. This could become an useful and interesting discussion after all.
Click to expand...
And now what has this got to do with your Iron Sun idea?

We agree that moving objects in the original images produces records of their change in position in RD animations that look like things that move. You can call these "moving objects" if you want.

That has never been in dispute.

For example the "flying stuff" in the TRACE RD animation is not the actual CME in the corona but is a record of the changes in position and temperature of the CME in the corona derived from the original images. You can confuse people by calling it "flying stuff seen in the corona" (or better yet "flying cooling stuff seen in the corona") if you want.
 
Reality Check said:
And now what has this got to do with your Iron Sun idea?
Click to expand...

Well, if we ever intend to discuss cause/effect relationships and what is physically going on in these images, these are the steps necessary to have that discussion. There is a direct cause/effect relationship between the objects in the background (and foreground) of the original images and the things we observe in RD images. In other words, there is no physical detachment from the real world only because the image is 'processed' slightly. The photons and features in Lasco RD images still relate to actual things, real plasma, real stars, real planets, real comets, etc. There are real cause/effect relationships to consider in each of the original images and the RD image.

We agree that moving objects in the original images produces records of their change in position in RD animations that look like things that move. You can call these "moving objects" if you want.
Click to expand...

They are *REAL* moving objects. The only thing that an RD image gives us that a standard image does not, is a directional component based on the shadowing effect. The dark point will always be in the position where the star/comet/planet used to be, and the bright point will always be due to the current location of the object. There's no physical detachment from real things going on here except in your head.

That has never been in dispute.

For example the "flying stuff" in the TRACE RD animation is not the actual CME in the corona but is a record of the changes in position and temperature of the CME in the corona derived from the original images.
Click to expand...

That's not true. It's actually "flying plasma" that has been superheated to incredible temperatures in the CME event. You can see that flying plasma in LASCO RD images too. The plasma flows off the sun in "waves" or bursts of plasma. There are real heated blobs of plasmas flying around in that TRACE RD image, leaving us a visual record of their movement during the CME process. It's moving from the bottom right toward the upper left of the image.

You can confuse people by calling it "flying stuff seen in the corona" (or better yet "flying cooling stuff seen in the corona") if you want.
Click to expand...

You're evidently still "confused" if you have any confusion because it most certainly is "flying plasma". There nothing "confused" about it, other than your understanding of what you're looking at. There is no physical detachment from objects in a standard image and a RD image. The actual objects in the image, like planets and stars and comets are visible in the RD images, they simply have a "shadow" in the RD image based on where they moved from since the previous image. The shadows simply show us a directional component, but the actual physical objects create the visual objects in the RD image.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Of course they are not the only "scientists" (why the quotes?) in the world. That is dumb.
They are however experts in astronomy.
Click to expand...

Would you include yourself and/or GM in that category and does that make you an expert on RD imagery specifically? If so, there's a big problem with your logic. GM isn't even able to pick out flying plasma yet in a RD image, and evidently neither are you.
 
Tim Thompson said:
See Maltby, et al., 1986 which includes a tabular photosphere model in the appendix. This is the basis for the photosphere model shown on page 153 of Foukal's book Solar Astrophysics (Wiley-VCH, 2004, 2nd Revised edition). At 500 nm optical depth of 1 the temperature is 6520 Kelvins and goes up to 9400 Kelvins 100 km below that, where the optical depth exceeds 23. The temperature drops to a minimum 4400 Kelvins about 500 km above the optical depth 1 layer, and then increases again as we approach the base of the chromosphere and the temperature exceeds 20,000 Kelvins, about 2100 km up and the optical depth drops to zero, along with the visible light emission. So visible light emission is dominated by the lower & hotter photosphere, where limb darkening is observed. Any solid layer has to be below the bottom of this photosphere in order to remain invisible at visible light wavelengths. But other wavelengths are another matter, and one might wonder how the solid layer remains invisible at all wavelengths. One might also wonder how it affects dynamics, such as easily visible convection, and helioseismological data that are inconsistent with such a surface.
Click to expand...

Well, by definition, the photosphere has to be above any solid surface. The optical depth numbers seem to all be related to a "mixed plasma" model and a temperature structure that seems to vary quite a bit compared to what I'd expect from a dynamic double layer process.

The heliosiesmology data hurts your model greatly. It demonstrates a "stratification subsurface" exists in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone. It also shows that the downdrafting of plasma under a sunspot is a relatively shallow process with all downdrafting going horizonal around 4800KM below the surface of the photosphere. That layer seems to be interfering with both the upwelling and downdrafting of plasma. Furthermore those Doppler images show a "rigid feature" in them that is not consistent with "upwelling plasma". Heliosiesmology data does not justify your solar model.
 
Reality Check said:
Can you actually read or do you have a standard script to spew at us?
One more time for the simple minded:
Coronal loops do not originate above the photosphere.
Click to expand...

Then why do they *ONLY* become visible *AFTER* they exist the photosphere? What heats a single loop to a million degrees?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Well, if we ever intend to discuss cause/effect relationships and what is physically going on in these images, these are the steps necessary to have that discussion. There is a direct cause/effect relationship between the objects in the background (and foreground) of the original images and the things we observe in RD images. In other words, there is no physical detachment from the real world only because the image is 'processed' slightly. The photons and features in Lasco RD images still relate to actual things, real plasma, real stars, real planets, real comets, etc. There are real cause/effect relationships to consider in each of the original images and the RD image.
Click to expand...
We have already had that discussion. But let us do it yet again (and again and again and again and again and again :)).

What is physically going on in the original images is a C3.3. flare and CME event. The flare is heating plasma (and seems to also be cooling it - could a real astronomer comment on this?). The CME is putting heated plasma higher in the corona and then that plasma cools and falls back toward the photosphere.

The RD animation is processed a lot - a running difference creates totally new frames from the original images with different values.

The cause/effect relationships between the objects in the original images and the RD animation are:

The flare heats plasma to higher and higher temperatures during the time of the recording. This is the cause of the bright areas that point in various directions in the RD animation.

There is cooling of plasma that seems associated with the flare. This is the cause of the dark areas that point in various directions in the RD animation ("shadows").

The cooling and heating areas look to be either side of the loops in the flare when compared to the original images. The loops thenselves do not move much during the event and so are grey lines in the RD animation. The combination causes an optical illusion of "mountain ranges".


That it is an optical illustion is easily seen by noting
  1. There are different directions for the "shadows".
  2. This means multiple "light sources" in the RD animation.
  3. No feature in the RD animation has multiple "shadows".
  4. This means that there cannot be multiple "light sources".
  5. The contradiction between 2 and 4 means that an assumption is wrong.
  6. Thus the "shadows" are not shadows cast by light sources.
This is obvious since the the RD animation removes the effects of constant light sources (the corona), there is light from the flare but that looks cast equally to each side and so there are no shadows, and the light from the CME would cause shadows that lie mainly from the upper right to the lower left.

Michael Mozina said:
They are *REAL* moving objects. The only thing that an RD image gives us that a standard image does not, is a directional component based on the shadowing effect. The dark point will always be in the position where the star/comet/planet used to be, and the bright point will always be due to the current location of the object. There's no physical detachment from real things going on here except in your head.
Click to expand...
They are images of *REAL* moving objects in the original images.
They are representations of images of *REAL* moving objects in the RD animation.

Michael Mozina said:
That's not true. It's actually "flying plasma" that has been superheated to incredible temperatures in the CME event. You can see that flying plasma in LASCO RD images too. The plasma flows off the sun in "waves" or bursts of plasma. There are real heated blobs of plasmas flying around in that TRACE RD image, leaving us a visual record of their movement during the CME process. It's moving from the bottom right toward the upper left of the image.
Click to expand...
Read what I wrote and see above.
For example the "flying stuff" in the TRACE RD animation is not the actual CME in the corona but is a record of the changes in position and temperature of the CME in the corona derived from the original images.
You can confuse people by calling it "flying stuff seen in the corona" (or better yet "flying cooling stuff seen in the corona") if you want.
Click to expand...
There is no real stuff in the RD animations. But the stuff in the RD animation is caused by real stuff.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Would you include yourself and/or GM in that category and does that make you an expert on RD imagery specifically? If so, there's a big problem with your logic. GM isn't even able to pick out flying plasma yet in a RD image, and evidently neither are you.
Click to expand...
As I said before - I am not an expert in astronomy.

It does not need an expert to understand that the definition of an RD animation is that it records changes in intensity (temperature) and position). All it needs is that aility to read and comprehend what you read.

You continue to ignore that fact that Dr. Neal Hurlburt (an expert in astronomy who was instrumental in the TRACE project) has stated that there are no persistent structures in the RD animation - just changes in temperature and position. This is to be expected because that is what an RD animation is.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Well, by definition, the photosphere has to be above any solid surface. The optical depth numbers seem to all be related to a "mixed plasma" model and a temperature structure that seems to vary quite a bit compared to what I'd expect from a dynamic double layer process.

The heliosiesmology data hurts your model greatly. It demonstrates a "stratification subsurface" exists in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone. It also shows that the downdrafting of plasma under a sunspot is a relatively shallow process with all downdrafting going horizonal around 4800KM below the surface of the photosphere. That layer seems to be interfering with both the upwelling and downdrafting of plasma. Furthermore those Doppler images show a "rigid feature" in them that is not consistent with "upwelling plasma". Heliosiesmology data does not justify your solar model.
Click to expand...
By definition the photosphere is the visual surface of the Sun.
Its temperature means that there cannot be any solid iron surface below it (unless there is a gigantic refrigerator sitting on the Sun).

The heliosiesmology data hurts the standard solar model not at all.
Stratification (changes in density) of the plasma in the Sun is not unexpected. Unless you can show that the density change is from plasma to solid iron you are just making an unfounded assertion.
We already know the the thermal columns in the convection zone "form an imprint on the surface of the Sun, in the form of the solar granulation and supergranulation". The plumes under sunspots are ni surprise. These are of limited are and so not form a layer.
The Dooper images show "consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions" - read your own web site.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Then why do they *ONLY* become visible *AFTER* they exist the photosphere? What heats a single loop to a million degrees?
Click to expand...

Is your brain in an endless loop? That would explain why you have not understood and explanation that has been given you since 2006 (or earlier?).
  1. Optical depth.
  2. Look it up yourself.
And you are ignored the rest of the post wth your silly questions. So lets turn it into a timestamped question.
First posted 8 July 2009:
Can you show that the solid iron surface in your idea is thermodynamically possible?

That is either
  • would not have heated up to the temperature of the surrounding layers in the last ~4 billion years and vaporized or
  • the temperature of the surrounding layers are < 2000 K.
We have not been through this before because you cannot comprehend what "hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible, solid iron surface" is referring to.
It is not "solids being ionized by arcs".

It is the second law of thermodynamics.

It is that fact that your notion has a cool layer of iron in contact with at least one hotter object - the photosphere whose temperature is measured to increase with depth from the top. If your notion has an internal energy source of any sort that outputs the amount of energy that the Sun is observed to emit then then the Sun below your iron layer is also hotter than the melting temperature of iron.

To make it obvious:
Your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible, solid iron surface has been in thermal contact with at least one object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for about 4.57 billion years.

It cannot exist.


Your "layers" between the "surface" and photosphere do not help.
  • The layer below the photosphere has been in thermal contact with an object (the photosphere) that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for about 4.57 billion years. Try to guess the temperature of that layer.
  • The layer below that one has been in thermal contact with an object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for slightly less than 4.57 billion years. Try to guess the temperature of that layer.
  • The layer below that one has been in thermal contact with an object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for a smidgen less than 4.57 billion years. Try to guess the temperature of that layer.
  • ...
  • Now we get to the iron layer which has been in thermal contact with an object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for a bit less than 4.57 billion years. Try to guess the temperature of that iron surface and whether it is solid.
 
solid Surface and Photosphere II

Michael Mozina said:
Well, by definition, the photosphere has to be above any solid surface.
Click to expand...
OK, you have a solid iron surface below the photosphere. The lowest level we can probe by limb darkening measurements presents a temperature about 9400 Kelvins. Iron melts at 1811 Kelvins and boils at 3134 Kelvins, at 1 atmosphere pressure. The highest melting point I know is 3800 Kelvins for carbon, also at 1 atmosphere. The pressure at the 9400 Kelvin layer is about 0.2 atmospheres, which will tend to decrease the melting & boiling temperature of anything. Now there is no avoiding the fact that the bottom layer will radiate 9400 Kelvins both up & down. So how do you protect your solid iron layer from that thermal radiation, so it does not melt? And even if you reject the validity of the 9400 Kelvins determination, we can always retreat to the well observed equivalent black body temperature of about 6000 Kelvins. After all, anything greater than 3134 Kelvins will boil your solid layer. So you will still have to find a way to protect it in any case, from being as thermodynamically impossible as Reality Check suggests.

Michael Mozina said:
The optical depth numbers seem to all be related to a "mixed plasma" model and a temperature structure that seems to vary quite a bit compared to what I'd expect from a dynamic double layer process.
Click to expand...
The numbers are related to a "mixed plasma" model only in the sense that one would derive such a model from the numbers, rather than deriving the numbers from such a model. The photospheric profile is derived from limb darkening measurements (i.e., Neckel, 2003). As I have already mentioned elsewhere (post 368, post 327, post 275), the profiles are derived from the limb darkening data using standard inversion techniques. If the atmosphere were in fact stratified, it would be obvious from limb observations, when we would be looking parallel to the layers, rather then down onto the top layer. So the data are inconsistent with stratification in the visible photosphere.

Michael Mozina said:
The heliosiesmology data hurts your model greatly. It demonstrates a "stratification subsurface" exists in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone.
Click to expand...
Actually, no it does not. Rather, you have chosen to interpret the data from this particular source as indicative of stratification. But that interpretation is open to question at face value, and is inconsistent with the larger body of helioseismological data, so it does not stand up well to scrutiny. See my earlier post 370 where I point out that global data suggests that your discontinuity is not global, but dependent on latitude. Furthermore, as I mentioned in that post, it makes more sense to interpret the discontinuity not as a solid surface, or as any kind of "stratification subsurface", but rather as a sub surface shear (see, for instance, Green, Kosovichev & Miesch, 2006 and Green & Kosovichev, 2006).

Michael Mozina said:
It also shows that the downdrafting of plasma under a sunspot is a relatively shallow process with all downdrafting going horizonal around 4800KM below the surface of the photosphere. That layer seems to be interfering with both the upwelling and downdrafting of plasma.
Click to expand...
This layer only appears to exist in the vicinity of the sunspot and is probably a result of magnetic inhibition of convection in the vicinity of the sunspot (i.e, Zhao, Kosovichev & Duvall, 2001). It is well known that sunspots are cool compared to the surrounding photosphere because the magnetic field of the sunspot inhibits the upwelling of hot gas from below, so the gas trapped in the sunspot can cool radiatively.

Michael Mozina said:
Furthermore those Doppler images show a "rigid feature" in them that is not consistent with "upwelling plasma".
Click to expand...
Is this a reference to the running battle over running difference images? if not, what images & what features are you referring too?

Michael Mozina said:
Heliosiesmology data does not justify your solar model.
Click to expand...
As I have shown, this is not the case.
 
edd said:
Indeed, and that paper is clearly, from the abstract alone, deeply at odds with current opinion. An indication if ever there was one that one should not take the peer review of a paper as an absolute indicator of truth.
Click to expand...

Interesting that they would put a solar model paper into the journal Physics of Atomic Nuclei. (sort of like Peratt publishing his EU stuff in IEEE).

All of 1 citation in 3 years and that by the first author! Impressive!
 
Michael Mozina said:
D'rok, here are some references on the filters in question.

http://trace.lmsal.com/Project/Instrument/inspass.htm
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-...quest-id=d8cb8789-6b99-4941-93da-7e36574b3eb2
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Mangled terminology below, probably, but hopefully my conclusions are correct:

I don't see how this helps your case. The 171 A pass band (which, I gather is also called 173 A. See e.g. Oddbjorn Engvold, John W. Harvey, Carolus J. Schrijver, Neale E. Hurlburt, The physics of the solar corona and transition region) is associated with temps from 160,000K to 2,000,000K. The Corona temp is approx 1,000,000K - 3,000,000K. Neither the Photosphere nor the Chromosphere exhibit temps higher than 20,000K (6400K max for the Photosphere - all of this from wikipedia, sorry!) so this puts them well below the detection capacity of the TRACE instrument calibrated to the 171 A pass band. So, the TRACE instrument is only capturing light from the Corona in the picture on your website. (Or, more accurately, the RD image on your website was generated from images of the Corona only). You aren't seriously suggesting that there are rigid/solid features like mountains in the Corona itself, are you?

As best as I can tell from your other posts, you are suggesting that the CME events are indirectly revealing rigid features on the surface in the same way that we might observe the movements of air masses over mountains on the Earth even if we couldn't directly observe the mountains themselves. Is this correct? But you also say flat out that the image on your website shows mountains and/or persistent rigid features. This is confusing.

This is also at odds with your analogy of the "moving" stars in the background of the LASCO images. Those images are directly showing movement of "static" features. Are the mountains on the solar surface "moving" like the stars and therefore showing up in RD images, or are they indirectly influencing the shape and behaviour of CME events?

tl;dr: TRACE instrument only captures images from Corona when 171 A pass band filter is used. Temps too high for rigid/solid features. So how can we be seeing rigid/solid features?
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
Thanks.

Mangled terminology below, probably, but hopefully my conclusions are correct:

I don't see how this helps your case. The 171 A pass band (which, I gather is also called 173 A. See e.g. Oddbjorn Engvold, John W. Harvey, Carolus J. Schrijver, Neale E. Hurlburt, The physics of the solar corona and transition region) is associated with temps from 160,000K to 2,000,000K.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the concept of a 'transition region' was *assumed* before launch. Nobody could be sure where these emissions would come from in advance, or be sure where that "transition region" is actually physically located. What is true is that to even emit photons of these wavelengths, the plasma (and only plasma could do that) must reach temperatures of at least 160,000 degrees, and more likely a million or more degrees. The only thing that reaches those temperatures on Earth are *DISCHARGES* in our atmosphere. Such events start at a "transition region" called a "crust", and rise high into the atmosphere. Sometimes they occur as pure atmospheric events. Sometimes they occur in the form of 'sprites'. There's often no "simple" or "single' possibility of where we might find such superheated plasma even in our own atmosphere. About all we can say for sure, is this plasma is *HOT*.

The Corona temp is approx 1,000,000K - 3,000,000K.
Click to expand...

Due to Thompson scattering effects, it's not reasonable to *ASSUME* that the *ENTIRE* coronal is 3million Kelvin. Sure, loops reach those temps. Any plasma around the loop is also likely to be heated by the loop. That does no necessarily mean that the *ENTIRE* corona is hot, but assuming it is that hot we have some 'explaining to do' as to cause and effect and how it got that hot in the first place sitting on top of a relatively cool 6,000 degrees Kelvin photosphere.

Neither the Photosphere nor the Chromosphere exhibit temps higher than 20,000K (6400K max for the Photosphere - all of this from wikipedia, sorry!)
Click to expand...

The air in our atmosphere doesn't reach a million degrees either, but the plasma in a lightening bolt sure does, and it touches the ground. You can't simply *ASSUME* that all these emissions *NECESSARILY* come from high in the atmosphere. Some of them might. Perhaps not all of them. You can't simply "assume" that from the start as LMSAL did before launch. They made a systematic assumption from the beginning of their analysis process that was suspect from the start. They *ASSUMED* a location prior to launch.

so this puts them well below the detection capacity of the TRACE instrument calibrated to the 171 A pass band. So, the TRACE instrument is only capturing light from the Corona in the picture on your website. (Or, more accurately, the RD image on your website was generated from images of the Corona only). You aren't seriously suggesting that there are rigid/solid features like mountains in the Corona itself, are you?
Click to expand...

No, we are not looking at *ONLY* the corona. Just as an ordinary discharge here on Earth can occur high in the atmosphere, or start low to the ground, so too, discharges in the solar atmosphere occur in many ways and at many "depths' in the atmosphere. Most of the discharges occur low in the atmosphere, far below the surface of the photosphere, and never reach the surface of the photosphere. They are relatively "small" discharges that might only cover say 200KM in size. Such a "small" discharge might/would show up as a single lit pixel in this RD image. The location of the base of the loops is where this argument is headed. Yes, some of the loops reach *HIGH* into the atmosphere, way into the corona. Most of them never leave the photosphere.

As best as I can tell from your other posts, you are suggesting that the CME events are indirectly revealing rigid features on the surface in the same way that we might observe the movements of air masses over mountains on the Earth even if we couldn't directly observe the mountains themselves. Is this correct?
Click to expand...

A CME event isn't required to see the surface by the way, it's just handy that it occurred in the image so we can observe the "effect" on objects (things) in the image and we can talk about that effect. The primary light source(s) are the very hot coronal loops and that light is scattered in the plasma atmosphere. There is probably some light from the corona as well, but it's minor in comparison to the coronal loops themselves, and much of that light could simply be scattering from the loops. The surface becomes visible because the light sources are "rigid". There's not a lot of movement in the overall light/dark patterns of the original images other than the larger loops, therefore there isn't a lot of movement in the RD image. The exception occurs during the CME event, and just after the CME event.

But you also say flat out that the image on your website shows mountains and/or persistent rigid features. This is confusing.
Click to expand...

The surface features create "rigid outlines" of surface terrain. While discharges occur all over the surface, they occur most in the higher altitudes (highest elevations) where the plasma flow is 'blowing" by and creating induction currents on the windward side of the plasma flow. The leeward side is less active. The various levels of surface terrain creates different rates of discharges near various features. The surface is visible, but only in an 'indirect way', due to the discharge patterns it create along the surface.

This is also at odds with your analogy of the "moving" stars in the background of the LASCO images. Those images are directly showing movement of "static" features.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the "static surface" is rotating between images. The bright points (peaks) of the crust will move from left to right (this image is cropped by the way so you can't see the movement the way you can in an ordinary SOHO RD image). It's hard to tell exactly what's going on here in the 171RD image because it's been cropped and centered rather than let it simply rotate they way the original images rotate. The moving "stuff" in this case is the crust itself. It's moving left to right, meaning the "shadows" will typically be on the left, and the lit regions of the surface (the active regions) will light up mostly on the right. The plasma atmosphere is blowing from the bottom right toward the upper left, and that is also factoring into what we observe.

Are the mountains on the solar surface "moving" like the stars and therefore showing up in RD images,
Click to expand...

Yes. They are moving left to right and the image is 'cropped and centered'. In other words you can't see the movement in the RD image because the left edge has been cut off and they centered the image on the CME area.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
We have already had that discussion.
Click to expand...

Nah. You haven't really talked much about anything other than perhaps the CME itself. You didn't mention any of the angular features in the image or their CAUSE in any way.

There is no real stuff in the RD animations. But the stuff in the RD animation is caused by real stuff.
Click to expand...

You are still wrong. That is "real stuff" we see in the RD image too. The bright points are every bit as "real" in the RD image as the they were real in the original (last) image. Real photons from real things light up both the last original image and the RD image in exactly the same spot. A planet is still recognizable as a planet in the RD image. A comet can will appear like a comet in a RD image. A star is still a star in the RD image. The only thing that isn't "real" per se is the "shadow" created that is due to it's movement. It's an "artifact" of the "process". That shadow is the only thing that isn't "real stuff'. In every respect, a bright point in the RD image will correspond to a bright point in the last original image. These are "real" photons from "real" things that appear as bright points in REAL images, both the original images and the RD images.
 
Last edited:
171 Angstroms & the Solar Transition Region

The key to understanding the physics of the 171 Angstrom pass band images is really right on the page Mozina linked to from IMSAL: Trace Instrument Passbands. That wavelength is where thermal emission will be strongest in the temperature range 160,000 - 2,000,000 Kelvins (the Wien's Law peak at 171 Angstroms is 169,500 Kelvins), which is indeed far beyond any temperature encountered by observation in the photosphere. But that wavelength is also specifically selected because it is sensitive to non-thermal line emission from Fe IX ("iron 9"; this is an iron atom that has been ionized 8 times and so is missing its outermost 8 electrons). So if there is Fe IX anywhere, even in or below the photosphere, we might see it (I don't know the opacity or optical depth of the photosphere at that wavelength so we might still not see it if below the photosphere).

However, it takes extremely high energy to ionize iron 8 times and you wind up in the doghouse anyway if you try to put this emission anywhere near the photosphere. There is no observational evidence to indicate a temperature so high anywhere in the photosphere, nor is there any observational evidence for the presence of any highly ionized species in the photosphere (either of which would be immediately obvious by observing the limb of the Sun). Hence, observational evidence clearly indicates that the 171 Angstrom emission originates from above the photosphere.

Michael Mozina said:
Keep in mind that the concept of a 'transition region' was *assumed* before launch.
Click to expand...
Not really. The transition region was observed well before launch, so the fact that it existed and its location were already well known in advance (i.e., Withbroe, 1970). The transition region is not that hard to see, as it reveals itself by limb brightening due to emission, well above the limb darkening of the photosphere due to absorption. The transition from limb darkening to limb brightening has been known for quite a while (i.e., Withbroe, 1970 and Carver, Horton & Lockey, 1972).
 
Reality Check said:
As I said before - I am not an expert in astronomy.
Click to expand...

If you're not an expert in astronomy or RD images and have never spent any time going through the RD image of SOHO's archives, (the things that convinced me of the validity of Birkeland's model) what right do you have to call me a "crackpot"? You're quite a trip. You're winging this whole conversation at this point and you've got some nerve.

It does not need an expert to understand that the definition of an RD animation is that it records changes in intensity (temperature) and position). All it needs is that aility to read and comprehend what you read.
Click to expand...

This statement is both wrong and unbelievably ignorant. You can't sit there and tell me that two seconds of your time reading a single paragraph is the equivalent of me spending months of time downloading and reviewing gigabytes worth of RD image and analyzing them frame by frame, not to mention all the conversations I've had with folks at NASA and LMSAL, etc. You don't even understand the basics of RD imaging well enough to pick out flying plasma or stars without going through DAYS of discussions and arguments about it. Wake up and smell the coffee. You have no clue what you're talking about because you haven't done your homework and this isn't your field of expertize.

I'll be *HAPPY* (thrilled in fact) to discuss these images with Dr. Hurlburt (or any other so called "expert" in the field). I'd love to hear him explain this image. Unfortunately that has never occurred in over 4 years of online debates and I've tried to discuss this topic anywhere and everyone. I'm pretty sure I've emailed everyone at LMSAL and I've sat in on at least one meeting at LMSAL related to the STEREO program. They know where to find me if they want to find me.

The only folks that seem willing to stick their neck out in public and talk about this image in public are folks like you that have never really seen a RD image before, or who don't really understand it well, and fancy themselves as "quite the expert". You're even so "confident" in your advanced expertise enough to be personally insulting in post after post. Comments like "crackpot" don't mean very much coming from someone that thinks there is no light source in a RD image and no real flying stuff in the image and who has trouble picking out stars and flying plasma in a Lasco RD image.

From now on keep your derogatory comments aimed it *IDEAS* not me personally, and stop pretending to know something about this topic because you do not. Your sum total understanding is evidently based upon a single paragraph or two you read on the web and everything you learned from GM who still can't find any "flying stuff" in a RD image.
eye-popping.gif
 
Last edited:
Tim Thompson said:
The key to understanding the physics of the 171 Angstrom pass band images is really right on the page Mozina linked to from IMSAL: Trace Instrument Passbands. That wavelength is where thermal emission will be strongest in the temperature range 160,000 - 2,000,000 Kelvins (the Wien's Law peak at 171 Angstroms is 169,500 Kelvins), which is indeed far beyond any temperature encountered by observation in the photosphere. But that wavelength is also specifically selected because it is sensitive to non-thermal line emission from Fe IX ("iron 9"; this is an iron atom that has been ionized 8 times and so is missing its outermost 8 electrons).
Click to expand...

So what exactly is KNOWN to be capable stripping 8 or 9 or 14 electrons from an iron atom in a "non thermal" process?
 
Tim Thompson said:
However, it takes extremely high energy to ionize iron 8 times and you wind up in the doghouse anyway if you try to put this emission anywhere near the photosphere.
Click to expand...

This argument is logically flawed Tim and you know it too. Its exactly like claiming that the atmosphere of the Earth is too cold to emit x-rays, therefore that lightning bolt we see from space in x-ray *must have* originated in the magnetosphere. You can't simply *ASSUME* that the temperature of the atmosphere has anything at all to do with either the process that emits the light we see, or the location of the light we see. Discharges often originate from the crust of our planet. They don't always do so of course, but they can and do reach all they way through the relatively cold atmosphere and touch the crust of the Earth. Birkeland's discharges congregated near and around the solid "bumps" on his sphere and the discharges were much hotter than the surrounding plasma.
 
Michael Mozina said:
what right do you have to call me a "crackpot"?
Click to expand...

You're being called a crackpot because you keep insisting on an idea which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Your endless debates about running difference images and 171 Angstrom emission lines just don't matter: the visible part of the sun, WHATEVER it is that we're seeing, is at around 6000 K, and is opaque. Anything under it must be at least as hot. I don't care what labels you put on it, I don't care whether you think it's coming from the photosphere or a neon layer underneath it, it just doesn't matter: the inescapable conclusion remains that any solid surface must be at around 6000 K minimum, unless you violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You have avoided ever addressing this problem with your theory in any meaningful way. The few responses you have made have been irrelevant or simply wrong. Your claims are fundamentally no different from those who claim they have invented a perpetual motion machine: both require violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. And that is why you get called a crackpot. No amount of analysis of satellite imagery will change this fundamental problem.
 
Last edited:
When can we finally stop this discussion about MM's misunderstanding of pictures of the sun and go back to the electrical universe (not that that is any better). MM has been shown to be wrong in numerous threads, let's stop it here, please!!!
 
tusenfem said:
When can we finally stop this discussion about MM's misunderstanding of pictures of the sun and go back to the electrical universe (not that that is any better). MM has been shown to be wrong in numerous threads, let's stop it here, please!!!
Click to expand...


I agree. I actually tried several times to get Michael to open a new thread to discuss his solid surfaced Sun delusion, but he claimed it was directly related to the Electric Universe topic, and apparently he felt the discussion was most appropriate here. Of course he hasn't made any connection other than the circular "the only way the iron crust can peel away like that is by electricity" and "we know it must be electricity because look how it's blowing off hunks of that iron crust." Idiot.
 
171 Angstroms & the Solar Transition Region II

Tim Thompson said:
However, it takes extremely high energy to ionize iron 8 times and you wind up in the doghouse anyway if you try to put this emission anywhere near the photosphere.
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina said:
This argument is logically flawed Tim and you know it too.
Click to expand...
Actually I do not know that, and neither do you.
Michael Mozina said:
Its exactly like claiming that the atmosphere of the Earth is too cold to emit x-rays, therefore that lightning bolt we see from space in x-ray *must have* originated in the magnetosphere.
Click to expand...
No it is not anything like that at all. The real problem is this:
Michael Mozina said:
You can't simply *ASSUME* that the temperature of the atmosphere has anything at all to do with either the process that emits the light we see, or the location of the light we see.
Click to expand...
No, neither I nor anyone else assumes any such thing. Rather, we observe it. You should learn to tell the difference between the words "assume" and "observe", as you seem to mistake the latter for the former on a regular basis.

Michael Mozina said:
Discharges often originate from the crust of our planet. They don't always do so of course, but they can and do reach all they way through the relatively cold atmosphere and touch the crust of the Earth. Birkeland's discharges congregated near and around the solid "bumps" on his sphere and the discharges were much hotter than the surrounding plasma.
Click to expand...
Yes, and if there were anything at that temperature, whether it be caused by a discharge, or anything else, it would be extremely obvious and extremely observable and extremely observed, especially in solar limb observations. But no such thing is seen, despite regular programs of observing with far more sensitivity than needed to do the job. Therefore we can say with confidence, based on observation and not any assumption, that there are no regions of such high temperature anywhere in the photosphere.

Michael Mozina said:
So what exactly is KNOWN to be capable stripping 8 or 9 or 14 electrons from an iron atom in a "non thermal" process?
Click to expand...
I only know of one likely physical cause for such a thing, a bath of Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) photons. The standard model of the sun accounts for such things quite nicely.
 
GeeMack said:
tusenfem said:
When can we finally stop this discussion about MM's misunderstanding of pictures of the sun and go back to the electrical universe (not that that is any better). MM has been shown to be wrong in numerous threads, let's stop it here, please!!!
Click to expand...
I agree. I actually tried several times to get Michael to open a new thread to discuss his solid surfaced Sun delusion, but he claimed it was directly related to the Electric Universe topic, and apparently he felt the discussion was most appropriate here. Of course he hasn't made any connection other than the circular "the only way the iron crust can peel away like that is by electricity" and "we know it must be electricity because look how it's blowing off hunks of that iron crust." Idiot.
Click to expand...
(bold added)

What's particularly objectionable about MM's claim is that, AFAIK, there is only one person who makes it!

For example, you won't find a word about MM's 'iron surface' ideas in any of Scott's material, or Thornhill's, or Alfvén's, or Bruce's, or Lerner's, or Peratt's, or ... Even Sol88 has not (AFAIK) ever made a claim that MM's 'iron surface' ideas are part and parcel of any electric universe ones.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Nah. You haven't really talked much about anything other than perhaps the CME itself. You didn't mention any of the angular features in the image or their CAUSE in any way.
Click to expand...
Nah.
Liar. There are several posts where I told you exactly what the "mountain ranges" and "flying stuff" were.


Michael Mozina said:
You are still wrong. That is "real stuff" we see in the RD image too. The bright points are every bit as "real" in the RD image as the they were real in the original (last) image. Real photons from real things light up both the last original image and the RD image in exactly the same spot. A planet is still recognizable as a planet in the RD image. A comet can will appear like a comet in a RD image. A star is still a star in the RD image. The only thing that isn't "real" per se is the "shadow" created that is due to it's movement. It's an "artifact" of the "process". That shadow is the only thing that isn't "real stuff'. In every respect, a bright point in the RD image will correspond to a bright point in the last original image. These are "real" photons from "real" things that appear as bright points in REAL images, both the original images and the RD images.
Click to expand...
That is your problem. You think that a graphical representation of the changes in something is the thing itself.

You obviously have wasted your time over the last few years not learning about these RD images.

A bright spot in the RD animation would be produced by a bright spot in the last original image only if the previous original image had a dark spot in the same position. That woud mean that the difference (RD = running difference) is large and represented by a light color.
For the simple minded like you MM :D, here is what an RD produces in general terms for bright and dark pixels:
Bright minus bright gives grey (unchanged).
Dark minus dark gives grey (unchanged).
Bright minus dark gives bright (large increase).
Dark minus bright gives dark (large decrease)
Bright original image pixel 1 - brithe
 
Michael Mozina said:
If you're not an expert in astronomy or RD images and have never spent any time going through the RD image of SOHO's archives, (the things that convinced me of the validity of Birkeland's model) what right do you have to call me a "crackpot"? You're quite a trip. You're winging this whole conversation at this point and you've got some nerve.
Click to expand...
I am not calling you a crackpot from the single fact of your statements about mountain ranges, etc. actually being in the RD animations. After all, English may be your second language and so you are ignorant of the fact that you should be refering to "mountain ranges" etc. as the features just look like them and are not actually mountain ranges.

I am calling you a crackpot beause you have the attributes of a crackpot.

Michael Mozina said:
This statement is both wrong and unbelievably ignorant. You can't sit there and tell me that two seconds of your time reading a single paragraph is the equivalent of me spending months of time downloading and reviewing gigabytes worth of RD image and analyzing them frame by frame, not to mention all the conversations I've had with folks at NASA and LMSAL, etc. You don't even understand the basics of RD imaging well enough to pick out flying plasma or stars without going through DAYS of discussions and arguments about it. Wake up and smell the coffee. You have no clue what you're talking about because you haven't done your homework and this isn't your field of expertize.
Click to expand...
I am sorry that you wasted so much of your life investigating such a simple thing as the definition of RD animations. However this is an attribute of a crackpot - not comprehending what the definition of something actually means and so wasting their time looking as examples to understand it.

Michael Mozina said:
I'll be *HAPPY* (thrilled in fact) to discuss these images with Dr. Hurlburt (or any other so called "expert" in the field). I'd love to hear him explain this image. Unfortunately that has never occurred in over 4 years of online debates and I've tried to discuss this topic anywhere and everyone. I'm pretty sure I've emailed everyone at LMSAL and I've sat in on at least one meeting at LMSAL related to the STEREO program. They know where to find me if they want to find me.
Click to expand...
Why would they want to talk to someone who is obvious wrong?
Why would they want to waste their time with somone who has obviously not understood the basics of what they did?
Why should they not wait for you to publish your Iron Sun model in a astronomy journal and then reply to you?

Another attribute of a crackpot -t hinking that their idea is so important that they can be lazy, not publish it and expect scientists to flock to them to discuss an idea.
Another attrtibute of a crackpot - beleiving that the fact that scientiste are ignoring them is evidence that the scientists are scared of their ideas. It is evidence that the scientists have better thing to do than

Michael Mozina said:
The only folks that seem willing to stick their neck out in public and talk about this image in public are folks like you that have never really seen a RD image before, or who don't really understand it well, and fancy themselves as "quite the expert". You're even so "confident" in your advanced expertise enough to be personally insulting in post after post. Comments like "crackpot" don't mean very much coming from someone that thinks there is no light source in a RD image and no real flying stuff in the image and who has trouble picking out stars and flying plasma in a Lasco RD image
Click to expand...
I am not confident in my expertise, advanced or otherwise. That is your delusion not mine.
If you can produce evidence that RD amination are not graphical representations of changes in the original images then obviously I am wrong.

Another attribute of a crackpot: giving incomplete information.
For example you stated that the LASCO RD images had stars in them. You did not say whether it was every image. You did not say whether it was just one image. You did not give any links to the LASCO images despite my asking several times.
So I found the LASCO images by myself. The first movie I looked at had many cosmic ray impacts and a couple of what looked like stars. So I asked you for links and was ignored.
Eventually I found by accident what I think you were refering to. I saw exactly what I expected from the defintion of RD animatons. The original images had stars in them moving across the field of view. The RD animation recorded the change in intensity from the movement of stars and plotted bright area that moved across the field of view.

Another attribute of a crackpot: arguing from the specific to the general.
You seem to think that because the LASCO RD animation have "stars" in them (because the original images have moving stars in them), that all features in RD animations are real.

Michael Mozina said:
From now on keep your derogatory comments aimed it *IDEAS* not me personally, and stop pretending to know something about this topic because you do not. Your sum total understanding is evidently based upon a single paragraph or two you read on the web and everything you learned from GM who still can't find any "flying stuff" in a RD image. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/mazeguyemotions/eye-popping.gif
Click to expand...
GM was not one of my professors or even in any of my classes.
I even disagree with him. There is "flying stuff" in the RD annimation (note the quotes). This "flying stuff" is a record of the changing temperature and position of the CME - the flying stuff in the original images.
 
Coronal loops are electrical discharges?

And now for something completely different :D!
Michael Mozina:
From your web site and what you have stated here, it looks like you have an idea that coronal loops are electrical discharges from your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface.
AFAIK The only evidence that you have presented is that they look like the electrical discharges in the experiments that Birkeland did.

Is my impression correct?

If so could you present your calculation of the X-ray spectrum from the electrical discarges so that we can see if it matches the observed X-ray spectrum.

Otherwise we will have to assume that the X-ray spectrum from the electrical discharges is like all other observed electrical discharges - narrow bands of emission (a real astronomer may want to confirm this).
So I would expect electrical discharges on the Sun that heat plasma to have an X-ray spectrum that has a broad background with spikes of emission.
This is a problem for your idea because the observed X-ray spectrum is broad band and typical of heated plasma alone.
 
But this is too much fun

tusenfem said:
When can we finally stop this discussion about MM's misunderstanding of pictures of the sun and go back to the electrical universe (not that that is any better). MM has been shown to be wrong in numerous threads, let's stop it here, please!!!
Click to expand...
But those of the electrically plugged in universe persuasion seem unwilling or unable to speak out. And really, admit it to the world. You are having just as much fun as the rest of us are. Maybe we need a contest to see who gets closest: What will he think if next?

tusenfem said:
Interesting that they would put a solar model paper into the journal Physics of Atomic Nuclei. (sort of like Peratt publishing his EU stuff in IEEE). All of 1 citation in 3 years and that by the first author! Impressive!
Click to expand...
See my post #8 from the thread on Peratt's model of galaxy formation: Comment on Sources. Those who work in the community are well aware of the journals most likely to showcase a given topic. Cynical types like me are likely to presume that the papers are published in out of the way places deliberately, so the community of scientists most interested in the topic will not likely see them. But maybe they were submitted & rejected, I don't know. But it's a good way to hide papers so they can claim their results were published but remain unrefuted, while the reality is that they are published and remain unread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom