Electric universe theories here.

Michael Mozina · Jul 9, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
Actually I do not know that, and neither do you.

Yes you do. You and I both know darn well that highly energetic 171a photons will penetrate *SOME* distance through a light plasma atmosphere. We can argue about "how far", but you can't claim it won't go *ANY* distance. The location of the base of the arcs is *ABSOLUTELY* critical to this discussion.

No it is not anything like that at all. The real problem is this:

No, neither I nor anyone else assumes any such thing. Rather, we observe it.

No you don't. Take a *REALLY* good look at Kosovichev's Doppler image again. Watch the wave pass over the "brightly lit stuff". We'll argue about what that white stuff means later, just tell me whether it's under or above the photosphere based on the location of the wave relative to the light.

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.

Which specific limb measurements are you referring to?

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.

Er, how is that a "likely cause", as in "more likely" than say an "electrical discharge"? Where did those flying EUV photons come from, above or below the photosphere? Where is the base of the loop heated, and what is the heating mechanism? Are the EUV photons part of this "magnetic flux" in "magnetic line"? What powers *ONE* loop and why would it form a loop if it's simply heated by "flying photons"?

Michael Mozina · Jul 9, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
(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.

Baloney.
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
You seem to forget I've written several papers with a number of authors and we've had these discussions already. I know where they stand on these issues. I'm not the only one that thinks this way today, and Birkeland and his whole team beat me to the idea by 100 years or so. Yes, they did propose an iron sun, in fact Birkeland made a number of calculations about the amount of mass in "flying ions", and it was all based on iron atoms. Evidently he figured the sphere had a lot of iron it in. He *OVER*estimated your "dark matter" missing mass, by quite a bit in fact. He would certainly have believed that some of your missing mass is located in iron ions flying from a metallic cathode crust.

Michael Mozina · Jul 9, 2009

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!!!

Oh please. You haven't shown me to be wrong about anything and GM has been shown to be wrong on about *EVERYTHING* he's said on this RD imaging technique. Not one of you can address any cause/effect relationships in the image because none of you can even see "flying plasma". Let's hear you put up some "cause/effect" really detailed explanations to these RD and Doppler images. Are those little white areas in the Doppler image above or below the wave in the photosphere? What are those angular shapes in the RD and Doppler images?

Michael Mozina · Jul 9, 2009

Reality Check said:
I am not calling you a crackpot from the single fact of your statements about mountain ranges, etc. actually being in the RD animations.

You have no business calling me anything. You have no business playing devils advocate since you've never studied these images. You couldn't even pick out a star in the background of a Lasco RD image! You couldn't even *FIND* them in fact because you'd never seen them and you didn't even have the curiosity to go look at them or locate them, or do any research whatsoever.

That is *REALLY* irrational behavior since my idea and solar beliefs are directly related to these solar satellite images. I've been studying them for over 15 years starting with Yohkoh satellite images. What do you even know about satellite images other than what you picked up in a couple of paragraphs on a website somewhere? Have you been to any meetings at LMSAL? Have you studied satellite imagery at all? Is astronomy even something you're interested in? Solar physics?

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.

Yes, they are the outlines of mountains and valleys and all things you find in any ordinary crust on any ordinary planet, volcanoes and everything. Those are actually mountain ranges, but you'll have to stop putting a physical disconnect between a RD image and what physically *CAUSES* the image. That star in the original Lasco image is still visible in the RD image. Real things really show up in RD images. Real comets show up in RD iimages. Real planets show up in RD images. Real things show up in RD image, including real mountains and real terrain features.

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

Only a crackpot would claim to be such the expert in these specific images that they can call me a crackpot without ever even bothering to look at the original images, any number of other RD images, or any RD images of any kind. Have you ever even created a RD image on your own from original FITS files? Nah. You'll find four STEREO RD images on my blog page that I personally created from the FITS files. I'm not a crackpot because I've done my homework. You're a crackpot for never studying your subject and for then putting you foot in your mouth big time. We've only taken the first "baby steps" in being able to talk about cause effect relationships and how they effect events in this image and already it's clear that you don't know what you're looking at because you've never seen these kinds of images before now. Whereas I've studied solar satellite images for 15+ years, you've done nothing of the sort. I'm sure I have over 20 gig's of RD images on the machine I'm sitting on right now and more on another machine I use from time to time. I didnt' just "make this up" one day after reading a paragraph or two on LMSAL's website one day during an online debate.

I am sorry that you wasted so much of your life investigating such a simple thing as the definition of RD animations.

I did nothing of the sort. I've learned a lot through the process and I'm very happy for the time I've spent learning about them. I know them well, much better than you do which is why when someone claims to be an expert and can't pick out "flying stuff", it's pretty damn clear there is a big problem with the so called "expert". You and GM are not RD experts, in fact D'rok knows more than both of you now, including how the shading shows us directional components. You're still thinking of an RD images as a pie chart or a bar graph. It's not. It's a running difference image and yes, they can be tricky to understand, but anyone who *TRIES* can actually understand them and can learn to explain them in terms of events in the image and cause/effect relationships. You and GM may never get there because you seem to think it's a 'cartoon animation" of some kind, but it's not.

GM was not one of my professors or even in any of my classes.
I even disagree with him.

"Oh no" (Mr. Bill voice) Did you hear that GM?

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.

If by "changing temperature and position" you mean the flying superheated plasma from the coronal loops is flying away from the CME and cooling off over time, I agree. You've now learned to "explain" A single cause effect relationship in the image. Care to take a crack at the angular patterns next, or would you rather try the peeling effect on the right?

Reality Check · Jul 9, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
You have no business calling me anything. You have no business playing devils advocate since you've never studied these images. You couldn't even pick out a star in the background of a Lasco RD image! You couldn't even *FIND* them in fact because you'd never seen them and you didn't even have the curiosity to go look at them or locate them, or do any research whatsoever.

You really cannot read can you MM?
Should I now label you an illiterate crackpot

?

I have studied the images. After you ignored my requests for links to the omages, I even located them for myself.
I did *FIND* stars in the LASCO images.
I did *FIND* "stars" in the LASCO RD animations.

Michael Mozina said:
That is *REALLY* irrational behavior since my idea and solar beliefs are directly related to these solar satellite images. I've been studying them for over 15 years starting with Yohkoh satellite images. What do you even know about satellite images other than what you picked up in a couple of paragraphs on a website somewhere? Have you been to any meetings at LMSAL? Have you studied satellite imagery at all? Is astronomy even something you're interested in? Solar physics?

Wow - you wasted 15 years of your life studying solar images and still do not know that all of the TRACE 171A filter images are of activity in the corona?
Why did you not spend those 15 years learning basic physics like the second law of thermodynamics?

I am interested in astronomy and solar physics. Otherwise you would be on ignore. I do not because more knowledgeable people than me offer nuggets of real science in reply to your non-science
(What is is the temperature profile of the Sun derived from the Iron Sun "model"? How about the X-ray spectrum of the coronal loops as electric discharges?).

Michael Mozina said:
Yes, they are the outlines of mountains and valleys and all things you find in any ordinary crust on any ordinary planet, volcanoes and everything. Those are actually mountain ranges, but you'll have to stop putting a physical disconnect between a RD image and what physically *CAUSES* the image. That star in the original Lasco image is still visible in the RD image. Real things really show up in RD images. Real comets show up in RD iimages. Real planets show up in RD images. Real things show up in RD image, including real mountains and real terrain features.

Real moving stars appear in the LASCO images. The changes of the positions of these stars are recorded in the LASCO RD animations.

No real unchanging things show up in any RD animations by definition. RD animations are records of changes (running differences) between images.

So are we are back to your delusion that the TRACE 171A filter can detect a hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface that has "mountains and valleys and all things you find in any ordinary crust on any ordinary planet"?

Michael Mozina said:
...snipped usual garbage...
If by "changing temperature and position" you mean the flying superheated plasma from the coronal loops is flying away from the CME and cooling off over time, I agree. You've now learned to "explain" A single cause effect relationship in the image. Care to take a crack at the angular patterns next, or would you rather try the peeling effect on the right?

No I do not and so we do not agree.

The "flying stuff" is a record of the changing temperature of the CME material as stated in the caption for the RD animation.
The superheated plasma from the coronal loops is the bright area in the RD animation - the ones you think as highlighted by light sources.
There also seems to be cooled plasma from the coronal loops which are the dark areas in the RD animation - the ones you think are "shadows".

The "peeling effect" is an optical illusion in the RD animation caused by areas of increasing temperature moving toward the right (in the opposite direction to the major CME "flying stuff"). I would say that it is more CME material.

I do not see any "angular patterns" unless you mean the other bits of the flare or the "mountain ranges" - all of which are areas of heating and cooling plasma that happen to be next to each other for some reason. They are associated with the coronal loops in the original images and appear to be separated by the loops.

I am not an astronomer and so cannot tell you why a coronal loop would have cooling plasma on one side of it and heating plasma on the other. I can make a guess:
Plasma is passing through the loop, being heated and rising. This is causing plasma in the other side of the loop to fall and this cools as it encounters the colder corona closer to the photosphere.

GeeMack · Jul 9, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Baloney.
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
You seem to forget I've written several papers with a number of authors and we've had these discussions already. I know where they stand on these issues. I'm not the only one that thinks this way today, and Birkeland and his whole team beat me to the idea by 100 years or so. Yes, they did propose an iron sun, in fact Birkeland made a number of calculations about the amount of mass in "flying ions", and it was all based on iron atoms. Evidently he figured the sphere had a lot of iron it in. He *OVER*estimated your "dark matter" missing mass, by quite a bit in fact. He would certainly have believed that some of your missing mass is located in iron ions flying from a metallic cathode crust.

Baloney yourself, liar. Oliver Manuel's crackpot notion that the Sun has an iron core is a diametrically opposite contradiction to your crackpot notion that the Sun has an iron shell. You're both nuts, but you're not in agreement at all on that very fundamental level. And you still haven't shown where Birkeland actually proposed the notion that the Sun had an iron shell, or core, or anything. And once more you're putting words in a dead guy's mouth to save yourself from having to take responsibility for the pure, raw stupidity of that fantasy of yours. You have no shame.

Michael Mozina said:
Oh please. You haven't shown me to be wrong about anything and GM has been shown to be wrong on about *EVERYTHING* he's said on this RD imaging technique. Not one of you can address any cause/effect relationships in the image because none of you can even see "flying plasma". Let's hear you put up some "cause/effect" really detailed explanations to these RD and Doppler images. Are those little white areas in the Doppler image above or below the wave in the photosphere? What are those angular shapes in the RD and Doppler images?

The cause and effect relationship between anything in a running difference image? Running the source images through the software caused a comparison to be made between two corresponding pixels in the source images, and the effect, it printed a third corresponding pixel symbolizing the mathematical difference in the output image. Duh. We all see the results of the software measuring movement of temperature in the corona between frames in the source images. And we all understand that it looks like a bunny to you, even that "flying stuff" bunny that hops around when the sequential frames are combined into an animation. What you see as flying stuff indicates, to sane people, changes in location of certain levels of 171Å emissions. Michael, no matter how loud and how long you cry about it, there ain't no bunny in those clouds.

Understand this, if you can with your 4th grade reading skills, when I say there's no flying stuff in the LMSAL running difference video, I'm being pedantic, in the same way as when I say there is no rain in this image...

Nope, none. It's a graphical representation of measurements acquired using radar equipment. It's not really rain, Michael. It's just little colored pixels on your monitor. The source of light is the glowing phosphorous inside the tube. And no gasoline in this image...

That's right, it's a photograph. And it's not even a photograph of gas. It's a photo of a gas gauge, a graphical representation of a measurement of volume, acquired by a sensor measuring the pressure in a fluid system, or maybe by measuring the level of a float. And no hilly terrain in this image...

What you see is a graphical representation of the tone and harmonics in the sound made by a trumpet. Microphones and audio processing equipment gathered the data. A computer program processed it into the visual output you see. And of course there's no surface or flying stuff in this image...

It's a comparison between two source images that were acquired by using equipment designed to measure thermal characteristics in the solar atmosphere. The data was gathered starting some thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, not because anyone made some uninformed assumption about where the data would be found, but because that's where the 171Å emissions are. The original data could have just as easily been printed in shades of green and pink instead of light and dark. The running difference output could have just as easily been created with levels of red showing where parts of the CME increased in temperature from frame to frame, and blues where it decreased.

Only a complete moron would think any of those images is any more than a simple graphical method of displaying some data. And you Michael, which side of that moron line are you on?

But let's go a step further. If you disagree with my assessment of the construction of a running difference image, why don't you give it a shot. Funny that you haven't yet. Well, not really funny. Pathetic actually. What's been stopping you, no time left after whining about the meanies, too stupid, don't have the courage to actually take a firm position, you just don't really know, maybe you get too much pleasure out of the continued lying about other people so you have a motive to drag on without explaining it? Let's have your description of why each pixel is the tone that it is. You know, one as good, thorough, consistent, well accepted, and understandable as the one I've given.

And then how about you explain how your glorious flying stuff has anything to do with a solid surface. I learned in grade school science that the surface of the Sun was a lively, active place. The movement of plasma, sometimes violent and extreme, is such a common phenomenon in the Sun's atmosphere it's considered relatively mundane. So what's so special about "flying stuff" that its mere existence in the corona supports your crackpot solid surface delusion anyway? Fill us in. And if you can stay focused and avoid throwing a tantrum while you're at it, that would be cool... but highly unexpected.

And when you get done with that, maybe this will slip through your wall of ignorance this time. Show us the lab experiment right here on Earth, with no metaphysics, no fudge factors, quantitative, mathematically consistent, physically plausible, that shows how you can see thousands of kilometers below an opaque plasma using an image that was created entirely from data gathered thousands of kilometers above that opaque plasma. After all, all your ideas meet that standard, didn't you say? And that method will be objective of course, so when other people apply it they can come to the same conclusion you do.

tusenfem · Jul 9, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Oh please. You haven't shown me to be wrong about anything and GM has been shown to be wrong on about *EVERYTHING* he's said on this RD imaging technique. Not one of you can address any cause/effect relationships in the image because none of you can even see "flying plasma". Let's hear you put up some "cause/effect" really detailed explanations to these RD and Doppler images. Are those little white areas in the Doppler image above or below the wave in the photosphere? What are those angular shapes in the RD and Doppler images?

Why don't you read the post again where the running difference is explained. You see variations in brightness from one frame to another. Now, this may mean that there is motion (one hot plasma blob moving) or it may mean that there is heating and cooling.

The whole idea of mountains on the iron surface of the sun is preposterous, if only out of thermodynamical problems maintaining an iron shell at high temperature stable for billions of years.

You have to show, also, that those loops you see, are discharges, how and what is discharging? As it has been explained to you already that discharges are a characteristic of a breakdown of the dielectric insulator (e.g. the cracking path that a lightning bolt takes through the insular atmosphere). Now, you will (hopefully) not deny that the sun is made of plasma, and thus there is no insulator which can break down, which means that currents can always flow freely and major charge separations cannot be build up over large distances (even Alfvén knew that).

Secondly, you still have not explained to us how these discharges create the magnetic semi-loops (I will try to refrain to call them loops, in order to not give you the impression that I think these structures are perfect closed circles), and specifically how they create the field that the are flowing along, as I think that you (hopefully) know that currents can only create magnetic fields that are perpendicular to the current flow.

Then you tell DeiRenDopa:

MM said:
You seem to forget I've written several papers with a number of authors and we've had these discussions already. I know where they stand on these issues.

But, you have published some of these papers in journals that probably know nothing about the sun, why not publish it in Solar Physics, AA, ApJ? O. Manuel seems to make a sport of that, publishing in irrelevant journals. For example his paper Why the Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is Obsolete (clearly about the Sun) is published in Meteoritics & Planetary Science, vol. 37, Supplement, p.A92. (but to be fair, it was an abstract for the 65th meeting of the meteoritical society.

Checking in ISI Web of Knowledge, I find three of your papers on the Sun. Two in Journal of Fusion Energy (on the CNO cycle) and one in Physics of Atomic Nuclei. Now, these might be important papers (though there were lots of problems if I remember correctly with the CNO cycle in coronal loops, from a discussion long ago) but in 3 years, according to ISI, none of these papers have been cited.

MM said:
in fact Birkeland made a number of calculations about the amount of mass in "flying ions", and it was all based on iron atoms.

Can you tell us where Birkeland does that? I went through the math you mentioned after page 664 (see my message on page 12 which you nicely ignored until now). Where does B describe the solar wind, the electrons being accelerated by an electric field, the ions being dragged along with the electrons (even though they would feel an opposite force because of the electric field), show us the money, man!

And I cannot help but notice the following comment from your CNO paper:

MM said:
(caption figure 1)
The most intense heating (white regions) occurs at the base of the magnetic loops, where the fields emerge from and return to the solar surface

Now, why do you call them loops? Why do you use this misnomer? Why did you complain when I used the word loop? And I don't know how many times you use the term loop in that paper. Just to show how insincere you are, a quote from post 443

Michael Mozina said:
(first from post 429)

Michael Mozina said:

So they are essentially a "current carrying" thread?

Click to expand...

tusenfem said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

(and the from post 430)

tusenfem said:

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?

Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:

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?

Click to expand...

(and then from post 443)

Michael Mozina said:

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?

Click to expand...

tusenfem said:

Ohhhh playing word games again, MM. Just because you see only half of a loop, we should not call it loop. I think that any person looking at a picture of a coronal loop would call it a loop even if it is only half-a-one. This is just childish.

Click to expand...

So you can call them loops and discharge loops and whatever other terms you put in front of them (but never partial loops) and we in mainstream are not allowed to do that and misleading you then? Gimme a break!

Reality Check · Jul 9, 2009

Michael Mozina's comprehension of running difference animations

Michael Mozina - since you are the self proclaimed expert on running difference (RD) animations with 15 years experience of studying solar images (including RD animations), perhaps you can answer a couple of simple questions for me.

Below is a sketch of a 1 by 5 pixel RD animation where '_' is a blank pixel and '*' is a filled pixel.

Does the RD animation show flying stuff?
Is there flying stuff in the original images?

Frame 1: *____
Frame 2: _*___
Frame 3: __*__
Frame 4: ___*_
Frame 5: ____*

Michael Mozina · Jul 9, 2009

Tim

I don't really see much hope for most of these vocal yokels around here, but IMO there is hope for you and D'rok, DD and a few others. I need you to do me (and yourself) a big favor. I need you to download a 3.5GB DVD file from LMSAL. The specific DVD file I would like you to download is the one that is marked "FlaresDVD.img". It's a huge file and it took all night to download as I recall even on a modestly high speed connection. It is free however and worth the time to download while you're sleeping.

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/bigmovies/DVDs/

This DVD of movies is a compilation of flares taken at various wavelengths, including white light, 171A, etc.

In the white light images of flares, there are several discharge events that can be observed in white light. One flare in particular occurs while the sunspot is facing the lens and another important one occurs at the limb as the sunspot passes over the horizon. Watch what happens to the photosphere and penumbral filaments during the flare discharge process. It literally "lights up" the photosphere in white light.

Pay *VERY* close attention to the "green' images which show the discharge process and it's affect on the sunspots and particularly the penumbral filaments.

While watching the iron ion wavelengths, ask yourself how all these "magnetic lines" (obviously filled with moving plasma) are achieving all these odd angles, and persistent locations at this specific point in the "atmosphere" if you want to call it that. How come the flare doesn't blow this light plasma all to heck and blow the moving filaments apart? What holds them to a single point and weird angles from a single point? How do they stay "rigidly rooted" at odd angles from each other in thin plasma even during a powerful flare event?

By the way, the original flare that this RD image comes from is shown in that DVD.

Once you've watched these images, then lets talk about where the discharge/flare originates, above or below the photosphere. I think you will have a completely different attitude after you have reviewed these images.

FYI, I'm likely to be rather busy today. I *PROMISE* you that this download is worth your time. The images themselves are absolutely stunning, and the ability to watch the effect of the flares at many wavelengths in large size images is invaluable. Please take the time to watch them. It will make this conversation a lot easier.

Michael Mozina · Jul 9, 2009

GeeMack said:
Baloney yourself, liar. Oliver Manuel's crackpot notion that the Sun has an iron core is a diametrically opposite contradiction to your crackpot notion that the Sun has an iron shell.

Ok, just out of morbid curiosity, how *EXACTLY* do you rationalize in that twisted head of yours the fact that he contacted me after seeing my website with this image on the first page, and he insisted we include these RD images and publish papers together with these images in the papers?

As it relates to these RD images, you still clearly don't get it. They are not a data graph. They are not a pie chart. They are not *PHYSICALLY DISCONNECTED* from any of the light sources in either image. You seem to have it in your head that this is some sort of disconnected data set that has nothing whatsoever to do with real *stuff* (real plasma), but rather it's a cartoon like display of some sort that has no physical meaning. That's baloney.

Go watch some RD LASCO images for awhile and tell me when you can pick out a star, a planet, a comet, and "flying plasma". Then come back here and we will have a rational discussion. There is no visual disconnect between these original light sources in the original image and the light and dark points of the RD image. You've somehow convinced yourself there is some physical disconnect between the *THINGS* we see in the original images and the THINGS we see in the RD images. That is simply absurd.

Reality Check · Jul 9, 2009

Another bit of bad science derived from MM's "mountain ranges" (on his solid iron surface) in the TRACE 171A RD animation as stated on his web page.

The 171A pass band filter can only detect activity in the top of the chromosphere, transition zone and corona.

MM's hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible sold iron surface is 4800 km below the photosphere. Above that is the temperature minimum (500 km) and then the chromosphere (2500 km).

Conclusion: MM's mountains are at least 7,800 kilometers high!
They manage not only to poke through all of the layers that he wants to have in the Sun but they also manage to magically survive the ~6000 K of the photosphere!

There are hints in previous posts that he has changed his mind from what he states on his web site, i.e. there are no mountain ranges and the iron surface is actually not detected. But that somehow the features seen in the TRACE 171A RD animation are still evidence for a solid iron surface.

MM:
What is your position on the features in the TRACE 171A RD animation?
Are the "mountain range" features actual mountains on your iron surface?
If not then what are they?

Michael Mozina · Jul 9, 2009

Reality Check said:
Michael Mozina - since you are the self proclaimed expert on running difference (RD) animations with 15 years experience of studying solar images (including RD animations),

I'm not an expert on "animation". I'm an "expert" (in comparison to you and GM at least) in solar RD images, specifically SOHO, STEREO and Trace RD images because I have studied them, and even created them personally whereas you have not. That is why you and GM still have it in your head that these are 'animations'. They are not pie chart "animations", they are "running difference images" of the sun and other objects in space. There is no "graph" in this image, only light and dark points from where light emitting things have moved to, and have moved from. There is a directional component observable in the RD images that is not in the original images as a result of the processing technique. In other words, we can see the direction that the stars have MOVED in the RD based on the orientation of the shadow, and we can observe the amount of movement based upon the shadow and it's distance from the star, or the planet, or the comet or the flying plasma, etc. All of these real and tangible "things" are still visible in the RD image. They simply have a visual record of the 'movement' that occurred between the two original images. These are not "animations" like pie charts or bar graphs. You can't equate these images to a bar graph or a pie chart. They are nothing of the sort. They are RD solar images from SOHO and Trace, and yes, compared to the two of you I'm quite an "expert" in *THESE SPECIFIC* images. Why? Because I've actually watched gigabytes worth of RD images and you've probably never even created a solar RD image before. Yes or no, have you ever personally created a SOHO, TRACE or STEREO RD image from the original FITS files?

Reality Check · Jul 9, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I'm not an expert on "animation". I'm an "expert" (in comparison to you and GM at least) in solar RD images
...sniped usual ranting...

That is what I said - you are an experit in solar RD images (linked to together to frrm animations or movies or AVIs or ...). So it should be easy for you to answer the questions which you seem to have missed:

Below is a sketch of a 1 by 5 pixel RD animation where '_' is a blank pixel and '*' is a filled pixel.

Does the RD animation show flying stuff?
Is there flying stuff in the original images?

Frame 1: *____
Frame 2: _*___
Frame 3: __*__
Frame 4: ___*_
Frame 5: ____*

Michael Mozina · Jul 9, 2009

Reality Check said:
Another bit of bad science derived from MM's "mountain ranges" (on his solid iron surface) in the TRACE 171A RD animation as stated on his web page.

The 171A pass band filter can only detect activity in the top of the chromosphere, transition zone and corona.

MM's hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible sold iron surface is 4800 km below the photosphere. Above that is the temperature minimum (500 km) and then the chromosphere (2500 km).

Conclusion: MM's mountains are at least 7,800 kilometers high!
They manage not only to poke through all of the layers that he wants to have in the Sun but they also manage to magically survive the ~6000 K of the photosphere!

OMG. You and GM have quite a knack for intentionally ignoring and misrepresenting everything I tell you. I'd ask you to download that DVD too, but frankly I don't care if you personally wallow in ignorance for all time. If be any chance you are actually curious enough to do a bit of research and watch the DVD, pay attention to what happens to the photosphere and sunspots during flares. If you don't watch the DVD, well, it won't surprise me one bit.

FYI, this specific flare that the RD image shows us is also shown in the that particular DVD, but then I don't want to you do anything to educate yourself. By all means though, don't bother to do anything related to research. But please, just sit here on the chat board, ignore the persistence in the images, distort what a RD image really is, misrepresent what I say to you, just so that you can have fun at my expense.

Michael Mozina · Jul 9, 2009

Yes or no, have you ever personally created a SOHO, TRACE or STEREO RD image from the original FITS files?

Reality Check · Jul 9, 2009

Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

Coronal loops are electrical discharges? (first asked 10 July 2009).

Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible? (first asked 8 July 2009). Also see this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.

Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source" and in the same post
Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun). (first asked 7th July 2009).

A post that seemed to retract his "mountain ranges" on the TRACE 171A RD animation evoked this question:
What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona. (first asked 6th July 2009).

What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected? (first asked 6th July 2009).

The perpetual dark matter question:
How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect? (first asked 23rd June 2009).

From tusenfem:
Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkelands book?

In addition:
Is your "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass" paper correct when it states that the Trace satellite using a 171 Å filter can see below the photosphere?

Fig. 1 shows the images he observed. The top section is a "running difference" image of the Sun's iron-rich, sub-surface revealed by the Trace satellite using a 171 Å filter. This filter is sensitive to emissions from Fe (IX) and Fe (X). Lockheed Martin made this movie of the C3.3 flare and a mass ejection in AR 9143 from this region on 28 August 2000. http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Publi...171_000828.avi

Reality Check · Jul 9, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Yes or no, have you ever personally created a SOHO, TRACE or STEREO RD image from the original FITS files?

No.

Reality Check · Jul 9, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
OMG. You and GM have quite a knack for intentionally ignoring and misrepresenting everything I tell you. I'd ask you to download that DVD too, but frankly I don't care if you personally wallow in ignorance for all time. If be any chance you are actually curious enough to do a bit of research and watch the DVD, pay attention to what happens to the photosphere and sunspots during flares. If you don't watch the DVD, well, it won't surprise me one bit.

FYI, this specific flare that the RD image shows us is also shown in the that particular DVD, but then I don't want to you do anything to educate yourself. By all means though, don't bother to do anything related to research. But please, just sit here on the chat board, ignore the persistence in the images, distort what a RD image really is, misrepresent what I say to you, just so that you can have fun at my expense.

Yes we are having fun at your expense.
When you say so many obviously wrong things it is so easy.
Please continue to be present an easy target.

GeeMack · Jul 9, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Ok, just out of morbid curiosity, how *EXACTLY* do you rationalize in that twisted head of yours the fact that he contacted me after seeing my website with this image on the first page, and he insisted we include these RD images and publish papers together with these images in the papers?

Uh, you really want the explanation? Oliver Manuel is another crackpot like you who doesn't have the slightest clue about running difference images. That would explain it, now wouldn't it? (I think in the several years since then, he's figured it out. Maybe that's why when you two have been in the same discussions on the same forums he wouldn't touch your solid surface craziness with a ten foot pole.) You think the Sun has a solid iron surface. Manuel thinks the Sun has an iron core. Fundamentally opposite concepts. His wacky fantasy doesn't support yours, and yours doesn't support his. There is no avoiding that fact. You're both nuts, but you're not in agreement on that point regardless if the two of you were playing scientist together.

Michael Mozina said:
As it relates to these RD images, you still clearly don't get it. They are not a data graph. They are not a pie chart. They are not *PHYSICALLY DISCONNECTED* from any of the light sources in either image. You seem to have it in your head that this is some sort of disconnected data set that has nothing whatsoever to do with real *stuff* (real plasma), but rather it's a cartoon like display of some sort that has no physical meaning. That's baloney.

Michael, knock off the temper tantrums already. You keep screaming that, but you haven't been able to show it in all these years. Shouting something doesn't make it true. So get off your lazy ass and do the work you keep demanding of other people already. You explain it for once...

GeeMack said:
If you disagree with my assessment of the construction of a running difference image, why don't you give it a shot. Funny that you haven't yet. Well, not really funny. Pathetic actually. What's been stopping you, no time left after whining about the meanies, too stupid, don't have the courage to actually take a firm position, you just don't really know, maybe you get too much pleasure out of the continued lying about other people so you have a motive to drag on without explaining it? Let's have your description of why each pixel is the tone that it is. You know, one as good, thorough, consistent, well accepted, and understandable as the one I've given.

Maybe you don't have an explanation, or maybe yo don't have the guts to offer it. But even if you don't understand why each pixel is the shade that it is, if you were a real scientist you would admit to not knowing. All you seem to be able to do is cry.

Michael Mozina said:
Go watch some RD LASCO images for awhile and tell me when you can pick out a star, a planet, a comet, and "flying plasma". Then come back here and we will have a rational discussion. There is no visual disconnect between these original light sources in the original image and the light and dark points of the RD image. You've somehow convinced yourself there is some physical disconnect between the *THINGS* we see in the original images and the THINGS we see in the RD images. That is simply absurd.

No, you go learn about those light sources, Michael. There are ways to model the "light sources" if you wanted to. Methods were suggested several years ago, but in your usual style, you ignored them. Get off your lazy ass and do the work a real scientist would do, you know, not just spending all your time looking at the pretty pictures, not just spending all your time throwing tantrums on forums, not just spending all your time hollering louder and louder hoping that eventually you'll holler loud enough that your fantasy becomes true.

You show that the shadows and intensities and angles are consistent with your claim... and with reality. You show how there is light enough from one direction to make your mountain shine, and that a remotely reasonable process prevents that from lighting up the other side of the mountain. You show how that can happen when the "light source" is coming from several thousand kilometers directly above your silly mountain. Clue: When it's noon in Nepal, there isn't a bigass dark shadow covering one side of Mount Everest.

And your intentional distraction (or ignorance, whichever, who cares?) doesn't answer this question...

GeeMack said:
And then how about you explain how your glorious flying stuff has anything to do with a solid surface. I learned in grade school science that the surface of the Sun was a lively, active place. The movement of plasma, sometimes violent and extreme, is such a common phenomenon in the Sun's atmosphere it's considered relatively mundane. So what's so special about "flying stuff" that its mere existence in the corona supports your crackpot solid surface delusion anyway? Fill us in. And if you can stay focused and avoid throwing a tantrum while you're at it, that would be cool... but highly unexpected.

Flying stuff in the highly active corona of the Sun? Big damned deal. Unless you can show how it specifically relates to your insane solid surface delusion, all the noise you keep making about it is just wasted computer digits. Again, get up off your lazy ass and actually venture to explain the connection between flying stuff thousands of kilometers above the photosphere and a solid surface thousands of kilometers below.

And then how about addressing this one you keep ignoring. A reasonable, scientific explanation would go a long way towards taking you out of the crackpot league you're in now and put you well on your way to earning that Nobel prize...

GeeMack said:
And when you get done with that, maybe this will slip through your wall of ignorance this time. Show us the lab experiment right here on Earth, with no metaphysics, no fudge factors, quantitative, mathematically consistent, physically plausible, that shows how you can see thousands of kilometers below an opaque plasma using an image that was created entirely from data gathered thousands of kilometers above that opaque plasma. After all, all your ideas meet that standard, didn't you say? And that method will be objective of course, so when other people apply it they can come to the same conclusion you do.

Also, I must have missed your answer to this: Why is it that not a single, solitary professional scientist on the face of this planet, out of billions of people, probably hundreds of thousands of professional scientists and educators, physicists and astronomers and researchers, not one of them actually accepts your lunatic conjecture? Are they all missing something you're not? Is every one of those people stupid? They just don't get your explanation because they're all incompetent communicators? You're an incompetent communicator? You're wrong? Why, Michael, does not a single soul think you're right?

Tim Thompson · Jul 9, 2009

Re: Tim

Michael Mozina said:
I don... I need you to download a 3.5GB DVD file from LMSAL. The specific DVD file I would like you to download is the one that is marked "FlaresDVD.img".

I will look into it. I had a DVD that I got from Alan Title a few years ago, but I think it's out on loan somewhere.

Tim Thompson · Jul 9, 2009

171 Angstroms & the Solar Photosphere & Chromosphere

Michael Mozina said:
You and I both know darn well that highly energetic 171a photons will penetrate *SOME* distance through a light plasma atmosphere.

Like I said before, neither you nor I "know" any such thing.
Like I said before, "thinness" is irrelevant.
Like I said before, it's the optical depth that counts.
You may be right, maybe some will get through. But you may also be wrong and none of it will get through. I don't know because I don't know the absorption coefficient for the photosphere at that wavelength, and I am guessing that if you knew it, you would have said so by now. The absorption coefficient plus the optical path length will determine the optical depth, and that will determine how much of what gets through. I know that I don't know those numbers, and the evidence indicates that you don't know those numbers either, in which case neither you nor I know how much of the 171 Angstrom photons will get through.

Michael Mozina said:
We can argue about "how far", but you can't claim it won't go *ANY* distance. The location of the base of the arcs is *ABSOLUTELY* critical to this discussion.

Who cares about "any" distance? The only distance that counts is "far enough for us to see them"; if they don't get that far, we don't see them. And if none of them get that far, we don't see any, and that's all about the optical depth, not the "thinness" (and nobody knows what "thin" is supposed to mean anyway).

Michael Mozina said:
No you don't. Take a *REALLY* good look at Kosovichev's Doppler image again.

I don't know what image you are talking about, so show me the image or give me a link to same.

Michael Mozina said:
Which specific limb measurements are you referring to?

I am not referring to any specific limb measurement (though any example should do), but rather to several decades of limb measurements combined. Not one reported example anywhere of any observation consistent with limb brightening where limb darkening would be expected, or high energy photons where low energy photons would be expected, or of stratification where mixing is expected. See the sections on limb brightening & limb darkening in Foukal's Solar Astrophysics (Wiley-VCH, 2004, 2nd ed.), or the discussion of limb darkening in David F. Gray's The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres (Cambridge University Press, 2005, 3rd ed.), or the discussion in Arvind Bhatnagar & William Livingston's book Fundamentals of Solar Astronomy (World Scientific, 2005). The NASA/ADS shows 110 papers with limb darkening in the title, and another 89 papers with limb brightening in the title, going back to 1946. It's a significant body of observation, all of it inconsistent with your claims. If you are going to try to re-model the sun, you have a vast array of observations to deal with which you have so far ignored.

Michael Mozina said:
Er, how is that a "likely cause", as in "more likely" than say an "electrical discharge"?

Because it is well known & well understood that EUV photons ionize iron. I am unaware of anyone creating Fe IX with an electric discharge. Certainly Fe IX does not occur anywhere naturally on or near Earth, so there is no "natural" (as you misuse the word) process to compare to.

Michael Mozina said:
Where did those flying EUV photons come from, above or below the photosphere?

Above, created in the chromosphere either as thermal emission, or as line emission from recombining Fe IX.

Michael Mozina said:
Where is the base of the loop heated, and what is the heating mechanism?

That I don't know, but my guess is that the footpoints of the loops are heated well above the photosphere, in the chromosphere, by impulsive electromagnetic events (magnetic reconnection & nanoflares or perhaps magnetoacoustic waves and/or Alfven waves).

Michael Mozina said:
Are the EUV photons part of this "magnetic flux" in "magnetic line"?

What's "magnetic flux" in "magnetic line" supposed to mean? Alfven waves? or magnetoacoustic waves? Those don't come in "photons" but that can be responsible for generating photons by heating a plasma.

Michael Mozina said:
What powers *ONE* loop and why would it form a loop if it's simply heated by "flying photons"?

The loop is a magnetic structure where the motion of particles is confined & directed by the magnetic field. That's quite independent of the heating mechanism. The photons are not what do the heating, that comes from a release of magnetic energy at the foot of the loop. That's what generates the photons, and the photons are what ionizes the Fe IX.

Michael Mozina · Jul 9, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
I will look into it. I had a DVD that I got from Alan Title a few years ago, but I think it's out on loan somewhere.

Honestly Tim, it would be better if you watched that video again before we continue. There are several flares visible in the photosphere. I really encourage you to watch it again and watch what happens to the photosphere during a flare. There are also "green" (well talk when you seen them) movies I'd like you to watch, particularly near the sunspots during the flares. These are important images IMO.

Michael Mozina · Jul 9, 2009

Kosovichev's Doppler image.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi

Note the angular structures on the left and the "active" (white) area on the right as the wave passes over these structures. Are they above or below the wave in the photosphere in your opinion?

Reality Check · Jul 9, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Kosovichev's Doppler image.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi

Note the angular structures on the left and the "active" (white) area on the right as the wave passes over these structures. Are they above or below the wave in the photosphere in your opinion?

From MM's own web site:

In a recent email from Dr. Kosovichev, he explained these features in the following quote:
"The consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions.
We know this from the simultaneous measurements of solar magnetic field, made by SOHO. These are not solid structures which would not have mass flows that we see.
These images are Doppler shift of the spectral line Ni 6768A.
The Doppler shift measures the velocity of mass motions along the line of sight. The darker areas show the motions towards us, and light areas show flows from us. These are not cliffs or anything like this. The movie frames are the running differences of the Doppler shift. For the illustration purpose, the sunquake signal is enhanced by increasing its amplitude by a factor 4."

and further down from MM:

I would point out in my defense that electrons and ions and streams of plasma and other charged surface particles moving from one point on the surface to another would certainly explain the mass flows that he describes and would certainly create the Doppler shift images that we see in these videos. This mass flow argument favors neither a gas model nor a solid model in any way.

Michael Mozina · Jul 10, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
Like I said before, neither you nor I "know" any such thing.
Like I said before, "thinness" is irrelevant.
Like I said before, it's the optical depth that counts.
You may be right, maybe some will get through. But you may also be wrong and none of it will get through.

I do not believe that this is a tenable position Tim. If we fire up an arc welder in a lab, and put some amount plasma between a camera and the arc, surely you will concede that *some* high energy light will get through that plasma. I mean if we start with a foot of the stuff, and we use a *LOT* of electrical current in the arc, the amount of energy released by the arc could ultimately be much greater than the energy released in the plasma. Many factors will ultimately be involved here, but in the end, the electrical discharge is likely to be seen at *some* wavelengths over *some* distance.

As long as the discharge occurs *under* the photosphere, it is possible we could see it.

I'd like you to pay attention to three specific events in the flaresDVD video, specifically the flare around 30:10 seconds, one at 30:56 seconds, and a third at around 45:15. Tell me where the flare light originates in these images, and how you made that determination.

I'd also like you to really analyze the "green" images and specifically I want to discuss where the arcs originate in these images in comparison to the surface that can be seen in these wavelengths.

The third thing I want to discuss in that DVD is the "optical thickness" of the material we can see at the base of the arcs, like those "tornado' (more like hurricane) type structures we can observe at the horizon. I'd like to know what you think that dark material is made of, and how it blocks that specific wavelength of light in such a short distance. Evidently not much of that particular material is necessary to block 171A light between the base of the loops from reaching the TRACE camera. What's that particular material made of? What creates the optical thickness of this material to these specific iron ion wavelengths in your opinion?

Note to others reading this thread:

The DVD images on the flare video are of a high enough resolution and of a long enough duration that the flaring processes can be seen in absolutely stunning detail. These images are a "must see" if you're really interested in solar physics and solar processes. The best part is that they are free to the public. If you have a high speed internet connection, start the download before you go to bed and you should have the IMG file by the morning. I then used Active ISO burner to burn a DVD. The ActiveRegiionDVD is also beautiful by the way, but it shows only the IRON ion wavelengths whereas the FlaresDVD video often shows the same flare event in several different wavelengths.

Michael Mozina · Jul 10, 2009

Reality Check said:
From MM's own web site:

and further down from MM:

What you'll note here is that Dr. Kosovichev was essentially suggesting that there are a series of 'persistent" magnetic field processes visible in that image that were responsible for that persistent feature under the wave. In other words (mine, not his), he's ultimately suggesting that persistent coronal loop like structures are down there generating those persistent features. I agree actually. That is where the base of the loops originate and most of them occur, far *BELOW* the surface of the photosphere.

You really aught to download that FlaresDVD file and watch the specific clips I mentioned, and think about the same things I asked Tim. The origin of the base of the loops is a highly critical part of this discussion, and his answer did not help your position one bit. In fact I could just as rightly claim that his answer gives Birkeland's solar model a great deal of credibility, along with his finding of a "stratification subsurface" at a shallow depth under the photosphere. During sunspot activity, twister like filaments form downdrafts under the sunspot, but all of that downdrafting ends at about 4800KM. Helioseismology data, and these sorts of Doppler images only serve to support Birkeland's solar model. They don't actually help your case as you seem to imagine from a single paragraph response. I owed Dr. K that quote on my website, but ultimately it doesn't hurt my position in any way, in fact it supports the notion that magnetic features do not originate above the photosphere, but below the photosphere and they can be seen below the photosphere too.

Michael Mozina · Jul 10, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
I will look into it. I had a DVD that I got from Alan Title a few years ago, but I think it's out on loan somewhere.

There are two primary videos that relate to this dicussions, the FlaresDVD and the ActiveRegionsDVD. The Flares video shows flare events in many wavelengths, whereas the ActiveRegions video contains only iron ion wavelengths. It does however show more of the details of limb processes at the horizon of the sun, and the "twister" like process that occur in the solar atmosphere. The flares video is the one that I *really* want you to see. It contains many images, at many wavelengths, and all of them are directly related to this conversation. Those images blew me away Tim, and they removed all doubt I had in Birkeland's solar model.

FYI, I simply downloaded those two files from LMSAL's website over two evenings. I then used Active ISO burner to burn the DVDs. The Flares video in particular is worth the download.

Michael Mozina · Jul 10, 2009

GeeMack said:
Michael, knock off the temper tantrums already.

Dude, you *REALLY* need to reread your last post from an objective, scientific point of view. Your whole "speal" is one big vicious personal attack filled with vile, loaded, highly inflamed language. You're one giant walking talking temper tantrum on parade.

Worse yet, you don't even know when you've been UTTERLY HUMILIATED in terms of actual "science". Flying stuff? What flying stuff? Credibility? What credibility? You've blown three highly important relevant details related to even the RD imaging *PROCESS*. Since you have absolutely nothing of scientific value to offer anyone, and now that even some of your fellow skeptics disagree with you on key issues, you've literally blown a fuse. Get a grip.

FYI, that juicy rationalization about Manual's position being completely different from my own was an absolute riot. That must be why he *INSISTED* that we write papers together and he personally insisted that we include the RD images and the heliosiesmology data in these papers too eh?

Honestly, at this point I don't even know what to say to you anymore. There is no getting through to you. You refuse to acknowledge your *OBVIOUS* mistakes, even when your fellow skeptics choose the opposite side. You won't focus on the scientific evidence, and you *insist* on taking the low (personal attack) road at every single opportunity. At this point I think I'm just going to *pity* you and simply ignore your posts for the most part. If you continue to misrepresent some aspect of science, I may interject, but you aren't worth my time anymore.

GeeMack · Jul 10, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Dude, you *REALLY* need to reread your last post from an objective, scientific point of view. Your whole "speal" is one big vicious personal attack filled with vile, loaded, highly inflamed language. You're one giant walking talking temper tantrum on parade.

If that's all you're getting, then you're not actually reading what I've written in my posts. (You can't say I didn't suggest, you know, in the spirit of helping you with that problem, that you might consider taking a refresher course in basic reading.) Don't let it get under your skin, man. Just read the posts again, slowly, then in a focused and organized way, address the issues I've raised like a grown up.

Worse yet, you don't even know when you've been UTTERLY HUMILIATED in terms of actual "science". Flying stuff? What flying stuff? Credibility? What credibility? You've blown three highly important relevant details related to even the RD imaging *PROCESS*. Since you have absolutely nothing of scientific value to offer anyone, and now that even some of your fellow skeptics disagree with you on key issues, you've literally blown a fuse. Get a grip.

I say you're lying. But here's a chance to clear yourself. Fill us in on which of my fellow skeptics agree that the Sun has a solid surface. Tell us which of my fellow skeptics disagree fundamentally with my explanation of the construction of a running difference image. Catch us up on which of my fellow skeptics thinks you have offered any compelling, objective evidence to support the notion of a solid surface on the Sun. And let us know which of my fellow skeptics disagrees with my assessment that you haven't convinced anyone in the scientific community that you're right about that nutty solid surfaced Sun crap. (I predict either blind ignorance to this series of questions, or maybe a complete misunderstanding of what I'm actually asking.)

FYI, that juicy rationalization about Manual's position being completely different from my own was an absolute riot. That must be why he *INSISTED* that we write papers together and he personally insisted that we include the RD images and the heliosiesmology data in these papers too eh?

Oliver Manuel does not believe the Sun has a solid iron surface. If you have proof to the contrary, bring it on in here. (I predict blind ignorance to this request for evidence that Oliver Manuel actually believes the Sun has a solid iron surface. Alternatively, I predict a complete misunderstanding, again, of what I actually wrote.)

Honestly, at this point I don't even know what to say to you anymore. There is no getting through to you. You refuse to acknowledge your *OBVIOUS* mistakes, even when your fellow skeptics choose the opposite side. You won't focus on the scientific evidence, and you *insist* on taking the low (personal attack) road at every single opportunity. At this point I think I'm just going to *pity* you and simply ignore your posts for the most part. If you continue to misrepresent some aspect of science, I may interject, but you aren't worth my time anymore.

Another lie? Yep. Surprise, surprise. Now if you can actually show where my fellow skeptics have chosen the opposite side of any of the positions I've taken, I guess you'll prove me wrong, now won't you?

But honestly Michael, if you'd just address the points I'm making and bring in the evidence I'm asking for, maybe you wouldn't feel the need to respond with all that defensive bitching and moaning. In my post #819 above I asked a handful of very pertinent questions about light sources and angles, the relevance of "flying stuff" to your inane claim, your take on the construction of running difference images, and the fact that the entire scientific community on the face of this planet appears to have some reason to ignore you. Can you respond to those points? (Again I predict ignorance. I know, I know. Fish in a barrel.

)

Reality Check · Jul 11, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
What you'll note here is that Dr. Kosovichev was essentially suggesting that there are a series of 'persistent" magnetic field processes visible in that image that were responsible for that persistent feature under the wave. In other words (mine, not his), he's ultimately suggesting that persistent coronal loop like structures are down there generating those persistent features. I agree actually. That is where the base of the loops originate and most of them occur, far *BELOW* the surface of the photosphere.

The consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions.
We know this from the simultaneous measurements of solar magnetic field, made by SOHO. These are not solid structures which would not have mass flows that we see.
These images are Doppler shift of the spectral line Ni 6768A.
The Doppler shift measures the velocity of mass motions along the line of sight. The darker areas show the motions towards us, and light areas show flows from us. These are not cliffs or anything like this. The movie frames are the running differences of the Doppler shift. For the illustration purpose, the sunquake signal is enhanced by increasing its amplitude by a factor 4."

He was not "suggesting" anything. He was stating that the already known stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions were actually measured by SOHO.
These are persistent changing structures and thus show up in the RD movie.

You need to read your own web site. It states that coronal loops are electrical arcs. Thus they are not magentic loops.

First asked 11 July 3009
An electrical arc only lasts for long enough for the change to equalize. In order for them to last there has to be an ongoing source of electrons. This is why Birkeland's terrella ("little earth") was such a good model of the Earth's aurora. The terrella had cathode ray tubes as a source of electrons. The Earth has the Sun as a source of electrons (and ions).

What is the continuing source of the electrons in the electrical arcs?

Or maybe you think that the original charge buildup is a sufficient source for lifetime and energy of coronal loops. If so please present your calculations for this.

First asked 11 July 3009
Are you persisting in your mistake that a surface 4800 kilometers below the photosphere can be imaged by the detectors of the TRACE, SOHO, Yohkoh, etc. spacecraft?
Or are you just too lazy to fix this mistake in your web site?

Your mistake that your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface is visible in images of the Sun is repeated many times in your web site where there are TRACE 171A filter images of the transition region and corona labelled as:

"This is a Trace close-up image of the Sun's surface at 171 angstroms. It shows use a "crater-like" structure in the center of the image with electrical arcs coming from that surface layer with the jagged structures. Plasma tends to be very fluid, quite unlike the crater in this image."
"This is an example of a "running difference" image of the sun's surface as revealed by the TRACE satellite using the 171 angstrom filter that is also sensitive to ferrite ion emissions." (the RD animation that you are laready deluded about).
"This is Trace composite image which overlays all three views from the 171, 195 and 284 angstrom filters. All of these filters are sensitive to iron ion emissions indicating the presence of large amounts of iron in this layer. These iron particles are being ionized in the electrical stream that is flowing between surface points, and different colored arcs all tend to originate and concentrate in the same surface areas. These are highly electrically active areas of the surface."
"Huge electrical arcs pass between oppositely charged surface points on the magnetized iron surface."
"These electrical arcs can rise up far above the surface. This is a 171A image by the Trace satellite."

And this is probaly a soft X-ray image of the upper corona:

"Yohkoh's view of the chaotic surface of the sun and its increased electrical activity at the dawn of the new millennium. The highest energy is concentrated at the base of the electrical arcs and around the arcs themselves. The light we see in these images is concentrated in the arc itself, indicating this is the hottest iron on the sun. It is being heated by electrical activity."

tusenfem · Jul 11, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I do not believe that this is a tenable position Tim. If we fire up an arc welder in a lab, and put some amount plasma between a camera and the arc, surely you will concede that *some* high energy light will get through that plasma.

Michael Mozina, you are taking the laboratory experiments and upscaling to extremes here. It cannot be done! In the lab you have a plasma of maximal 1 meter in the sun you have plasmas of thousand(s) km.

Like was said, an aquarium of water you can see through, at the bottom of the ocean it is dark.

Scaling things up from the lab can be done easily in some cases and almost not in other cases. You need the opacity of the plasma, determine the optical thickness of the plasma etc. etc. The latter is well described by The Opacity Project.

And yes, you can say *SOME* photons will come out, one or two or so, and in that way you would be vindicated. But that is just playing silly, grasping on straws to keep your untenable model upright.

Michael Mozina · Jul 11, 2009

Reality Check said:
He was not "suggesting" anything. He was stating that the already known stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions were actually measured by SOHO.

But those "stationary magnetic structures" as you all them have a fixed shape, and definite "persistence" to them and they originate *and terminate* underneath of the photosphere. Those "coronal loops" do not originate above they photosphere, they are visible in Doppler images and are located *underneath* the photosphere. Note that this region is very "active" as well, as demonstrated by the white areas of the image. That activity is also underneath of the wave on the surface of the photosphere.

I don't suppose you actually looked that the images I suggested from the DVD video yet? I'd love to hear your comments on the three flares I specified, and the questions I posed to Tim.

These are persistent changing structures and thus show up in the RD movie.

That "change" you're talking about is a change related to the flow of plasma. If you actually sit down and watch the DVD I suggested, you'll notice the mass flows taking place all along the "transitional region". You'll see limb shots that show tornado like filaments in the plasma. You'll notice they block the 171A light too. They terminate at the darker transitional region "surface" that we see in these images. That change is directly related to where the flow of plasma takes place, specifically *underneath of* the photosphere, where the "transitional region", otherwise know as a "stratification subsurface" blocks the flow of plasma. Kosovichev's other work has demonstrated that all mass flows under the sunspot go horizontal at about 4800, KM under the surface of the photosphere. The original 171A, 195A and 284A images show a definite "persistence" that is similar too the persistence of the "structure" under Kosovichev's wave in the Doppler image. All of these bits of "mathematical imaging" (hell, you'd think you'd just *LOVE* all Kosovichev's sophisticated use of math) suggest in no uncertain terms that the mass flows we observe in the "Transitional region" are located *UNDER*, not over the photosphere.

Now of course we need some other visual corroborating evidence if we want to "confirm" such an idea, which is exactly why I picked out three specific flares in that DVD and highlighted them for you all by minutes and seconds into the video. They are images of the photosphere in the visual spectrum during a flare event. Notice the whole photosphere lights up, and material even comes up though the photosphere in the limb image. The physics of this event (mass moving up through the photosphere, light inside the photosphere) is all consistent with the fact that the "transitional region" is not up in the chromosphere, but underneath of the photosphere.

The other little piece of evidence is related to question number three that I posed to Tim, specifically what type of material blocks 171A light at the limb in those tornado images? If it blocks 171A light, would it not also block light in the visible spectrum and therefore block light from the photosphere? Why don't we observe any of the mass flows we see in the 171A images blocking any visible light from the photosphere.

When you add up all these pieces of evidence, the satellite imagery, the heliosiesmology data, the visual recording of flares in the photosphere, the visual records of flares in the 1600A image, etc, there is no doubt that the mass flows we observe in 171A image (original images mind you) are not occurring *above* the photosphere where they would also undoubtedly block light in the visible spectrum, but rather they are located under the photosphere where this "transitional region" shows up as a "stratification subsurface" in heliosiesmology data.

Have you downloaded and looked at the FlaresDVD video yet, and it not, how do you know it's not going to support everything I just said?

Michael Mozina · Jul 11, 2009

tusenfem said:
Michael Mozina, you are taking the laboratory experiments and upscaling to extremes here.

Well, discharges in the Earth's atmosphere are "extreme" processes. I'm sure they would also be "extreme" in the solar atmosphere.

It cannot be done! In the lab you have a plasma of maximal 1 meter in the sun you have plasmas of thousand(s) km.

The principle is exactly the same. We have much more powerful discharges on the sun. They are capable of spewing plasma far into space. This is a very extreme environment of incredibly powerful "electrical discharges". They are going to penetrate any sort of light plasma. How dense did you claim the photosphere to be at the surface anyway?

Like was said, an aquarium of water you can see through, at the bottom of the ocean it is dark.

But in this case we're looking at neon photosphere emitting white light from far above the photosphere. It's going to appear very "bright" to our eyes, unlike a liquid that absorbs light.

Scaling things up from the lab can be done easily in some cases and almost not in other cases.

Birkeland already "scaled" these processes for us. His arcs easily penetrated the light plasma atmosphere of his terella experiments.

You need the opacity of the plasma, determine the optical thickness of the plasma etc. etc. The latter is well described by The Opacity Project.

I notice that you are again relying upon a "mathematical construct" and ignoring the visual evidence. I didn't go through that FlaresDVD and pick out those three specific events for my amusement, I picked them out so that you could test your "mathematical construct" with real world observation.

You and I won't even be able to agree on what a photosphere is made of, let alone how "opaque" it might be. We should however be able to put *ALL* of the pieces of visual evidence and mathematical evidence in the form of heliosiesmology data and come up with a cohesive and logical explanation for all of these bits of data. Let me hear you even explain those three white light flares I pointed out to Tim?

And yes, you can say *SOME* photons will come out, one or two or so, and in that way you would be vindicated. But that is just playing silly, grasping on straws to keep your untenable model upright.

As you *FINALLY* get around to watching the three clips I cited, remember that Bireland's model *PREDICTS* these events to be visible inside the photosphere, even in white light in some circumstances, and even over long distances, whereas standard theory does not.

I think any serious "skeptic" here needs to spend some time looking through those video, because they are the best visual evidence we have of what is actually occurring in the solar atmosphere and if you expect me to take you seriously, you better be able to explain some of the details of these images, starting with the three flares I cited, the mass flows, the blocking of 171A vs. the visual spectrum in the "transitional layer", the dark parts of 171A images, etc. These images all have a logical explanation that is completely consistent with Birkeland's solar model. There is no logical explanation for these images in any cohesive sense based on a standard solar model.

Michael Mozina · Jul 11, 2009

Reality Check said:
First asked 11 July 3009
An electrical arc only lasts for long enough for the change to equalize. In order for them to last there has to be an ongoing source of electrons.

In Birkeland's solar model those electrons come from fission. He mentions Uranium by name, but of course he lived before fission was fully understood. He definitely cites a power source that is related to fissionable materials, along the lines of a breeder reactor core.

This is why Birkeland's terrella ("little earth") was such a good model of the Earth's aurora. The terrella had cathode ray tubes as a source of electrons.

Which logically led him to believe that the solar surface acts as a cathode. That's probably why he built such experiments too.

The Earth has the Sun as a source of electrons (and ions).

Sure, and he simulated that in his lab.

What is the continuing source of the electrons in the electrical arcs?

Fission, and the flow of charged particles past the heliosphere. According to Birkeland the surface of the sun was charged negative compared to "space", or what we would now call the heliosphere.

Or maybe you think that the original charge buildup is a sufficient source for lifetime and energy of coronal loops. If so please present your calculations for this.

Birkeland calculates some of these things for you. Have you read those calculations?

First asked 11 July 3009
Are you persisting in your mistake that a surface 4800 kilometers below the photosphere can be imaged by the detectors of the TRACE, SOHO, Yohkoh, etc. spacecraft?

SOHO and TRACE yes, Yohkoh, no. I never claimed I could see the "transitional region" in Yohkoh images. That is why the overlay of a Yohkoh and 171A image show bases of the loops originate far below what Yohkoh can observe. You really need to *STUDY* what I've stated on my website instead of misrepresenting what I have said. It's annoying to be misquoted.

Or are you just too lazy to fix this mistake in your web site?

You'll have to demonstrate there is a mistake on my website before I will change it. FYI, I actually have made a couple of changes based on "user feedback", but I have no scientific reason to take back anything that is currently written on my website.

Your mistake that your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface

It's not a "solid iron" surface, it's a crust, like the crust of the Earth, or the crust of Mars. Yes, it has "iron" in it, and yes probably more iron than the crust of the Earth, but it's not solid iron as you keep stating. Again, you guys keep intentionally 'dumbing down" my arguments to point of absurdity.

It's also not "thermodynamically impossible" as Birkeland's experiments demonstrate. The electrons and other charged particles, along with cooler layers of plasma carry heat away from the surface.

I want to see you (and every other skeptic) respond to the images I cited in my recent posts to Tim. It's ever so easy to throw around math formulas, but it's ever more complex to make those theories jive with the visual observational data. Those flare images of the photosphere blow your theories out of the water.

Tubbythin · Jul 11, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
In Birkeland's solar model those electrons come from fission. He mentions Uranium by name, but of course he lived before fission was fully understood. He definitely cites a power source that is related to fissionable materials, along the lines of a breeder reactor core.

But we now know from neutrino measurements (and a load of other things) that the Sun cannot possibly be powered by fission. So this is obviously wrong.

Michael Mozina · Jul 11, 2009

Tubbythin said:
But we now know from neutrino measurements (and a load of other things) that the Sun cannot possibly be powered by fission. So this is obviously wrong.

Ya, and by the same logic we know that fusion can't be responsible either, because it only creates electron neutrinos and we find all three kinds.

Tubbythin · Jul 11, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Ya, and by the same logic we know that fusion can't be responsible either, because it only creates electron neutrinos and we find all three kinds.

No, because we also know that neutrinos oscillate in flavour. As has been shown from experiments using solar neutrinos, atmospheric neutrinos and reactor neutrinos.

Michael Mozina · Jul 11, 2009

Tubbythin said:
No, because we also know that neutrinos oscillate in flavour. As has been shown from experiments using solar neutrinos, atmospheric neutrinos and reactor neutrinos.

You can't use solar neutrinos in controlled measurements, or even atmospheric neutrinos in controlled experiments. If you have some *controlled* reactor experiment which show that neutrinos change flavor I'm all ears. The experiments can have a very simple control mechanism like an off switch by the way. Which experiments show that neutrinos actually change flavor? Now keep in mind that a "missing neutrino" cannot favor either an oscillation in neutrino flavor, or an oscillation in neutrino sign.

Please, by all means, demonstrate your case in "controlled experimentation". I will be completely reasonable about the control mechanism. You simply have to be able to turn in on and off, and we have to have some certainty about the types of neutrinos expected from nuclear physics. Everything else is negotiable.

The atmospheric neutrinos we'll have to discuss. How can you be sure of which flavors you expect to observe, and again, "missing" (as in "I can't find them over here when they were over there in that detector) neutrinos will favor neither solar model.

Tubbythin · Jul 11, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
You can't use solar neutrinos in controlled measurements, or even atmospheric neutrinos in controlled experiments. If you have some *controlled* reactor experiment which show that neutrinos change flavor I'm all ears.

The experiments can have a very simple control mechanism like an off switch by the way. Which experiments show that neutrinos actually change flavor? Now keep in mind that a "missing neutrino" cannot favor either an oscillation in neutrino flavor, or an oscillation in neutrino sign.

Please, by all means, demonstrate your case in "controlled experimentation". I will be completely reasonable about the control mechanism. You simply have to be able to turn in on and off, and we have to have some certainty about the types of neutrinos expected from nuclear physics. Everything else is negotiable.

Meet KamLAND.

The atmospheric neutrinos we'll have to discuss. How can you be sure of which flavors you expect to observe, and again, "missing" (as in "I can't find them over here when they were over there in that detector) neutrinos will favor neither solar model.

Atmospheric neutrinos come largely from the decay of charged pions (mostly positive I guess). These largely decay (~99%) to a muon and a muon anti-neutrino or an anti-muon and a muon neutrino (depending on the charge of the pion obviously). The branching ratio to this generation is so large due to the need for the violation of helicity (this relates the momentum vector of the particle to to its spin vector). Strictly helicity is only conserved for particles which are completely massless but its "easier" to violate when a more massive particle is involved . Hence muons are favoured over electrons (a tauon/neutrino decay is forbidden by energetics).

GeeMack · Jul 11, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I do not believe that this is a tenable position Tim. If we fire up an arc welder in a lab, and put some amount plasma between a camera and the arc, surely you will concede that *some* high energy light will get through that plasma. I mean if we start with a foot of the stuff, and we use a *LOT* of electrical current in the arc, the amount of energy released by the arc could ultimately be much greater than the energy released in the plasma. Many factors will ultimately be involved here, but in the end, the electrical discharge is likely to be seen at *some* wavelengths over *some* distance.

Always good for a laugh watching Michael describe his nutty ideas in such quantitative terms. Numbers? We don't need no steenking numbers! We have some amount, *some*, high, a foot, a *LOT*, the amount, much greater, many factors, *some* wavelengths, and *some* distance. How do we measure things in the fantasy world of Mozina science? Put a camera here or there and look at the picture, by golly. Doh. What a kick.

Michael Mozina said:
It's not a "solid iron" surface, it's a crust, like the crust of the Earth, or the crust of Mars. Yes, it has "iron" in it, and yes probably more iron than the crust of the Earth, but it's not solid iron as you keep stating. Again, you guys keep intentionally 'dumbing down" my arguments to point of absurdity.

It is refreshing to know that he's finally going to turn and walk away from that fruitcake fantasy about a solid iron surface of the Sun. After all, none of the people responsible for acquiring and analyzing the data he once relied on to support that wacky notion actually agree with him. Neither Dr. Hurlburt, responsible for the TRACE images and data presentations, nor Dr. Kosovichev, who assembled and presented the helioseismology research he claimed supported his delusion, nor Oliver Manuel, who foolishly gave Michael a writing credit on a paper he wrote, acknowledge that the Sun has a solid surface. Not a single other person on Earth is willing to step up and back him with actual math or physics either. The experts have spoken, or been conspicuously silent.

So it's gone from a solid surface to a crust, like on Mars or Earth, and still, as always, supported by nothing more than Michael's own whiny insistence. And the difference between a solid surface and a crust will never be defined by Michael, because he refuses to define anything.

Any way about it, it's an absurd idea backed exclusively by arrogant proclamations like, "Look at the pictures, look at the videos, high energy here and flying stuff there, twisters, volcanoes, penumbras, neon, silicon, calcium, thin enough, thick enough, *VERY HOT*, and just like lightning on Earth! You'll see it, too, if you sit and stare long enough!" But honestly, even Michael, if he's not truly insane, would have to admit there never was anything more than that to start with.

And Michael, if you're still reading this, how about you show us that experiment that demonstrates how you can see through thousands of kilometers of the Sun's opaque photosphere by using a computer generated graph showing the difference in temperature locations between two source images that were obtained from several thousand kilometers above the photosphere. Jesus, man, I've been asking you for this for days now. You know, lab tested experiment, right here on Earth, no fudge factors, mathematically consistent, nothing metaphysical, and objective to the point where other people reach the same conclusion as you've reached. You'd think you wouldn't have any trouble pointing out that experiment, since all your ideas meet that criteria, and that crazy notion about seeing through the photosphere by intently staring at data obtained in the corona is, after all, one of your ideas.

And how about those other issues I brought up in all my other posts and listed again in post #819? And are you going to show you're not a liar by supporting your claims I quoted in post #829? Or maybe you've finally started to get some integrity and you're willing to admit you lied. (Oh, where is that laughing dog?

)

Electric universe theories here.

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Muse

Muse

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Banned