Electric universe theories here.

Reality Check · Jul 12, 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.
...snipped Birkeland stuff...

Can you give references to the many textbooks and papers that Birkeland published on the Iron Sun model?

Can you give a citation to the paper where the fission source of the Iron Sun model is worked out and compared what the Sun actually does?

Michael Mozina said:
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.

The mistake is that it is physically impossible for the images to be what you state they are.

The scientific reasons are that:

The photosphere prevents any light from any hypothetical thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust/shell/scab/? 4800 kilometres below it from getting to the spacecraft.
The filters used in capturing most of the images means that there is no "surface" in them - they are recording activity well above the photosphere.

But then you know all of this. People have been pointing out these basic bits of physics to you for years. Thet mistakes have been pointed out to you here many times.
The fact that you are ignoring the laws of physics makes your Iron Sun idea into the very definition of crackpottery.

Michael Mozina said:
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.

Your ignorance is astounding.

The thermodynamics are simple enough for a child to understand. Put a ice cube on your hand. Leave it there for a few billion years. The ice cube melts because the heat flows from a constantly hot surface (your hand) to the ice cube. The ice cube is your hypothetical iron surface. Your hand is the photosphere.
The photosphere has been at about 6000 K or billions of years. The heat from it flows inward (and outward). Any layer that is in contact directly or indirectly with the photosphere will heat up to be at the same temperature.

Things get worse for your hypothetical iron surface if there is energy being produced at the Sun's core, either by Birkeland's fission or by the fusion that is supported by actual evidence. That will make the core hot (about 13,600,000 Kelvin). That energy heats the photosphere to ~6000 K. On the way it passes through your hypothetical iron surface. That "surface" must be at a temperature between 6000 K and 13,600,000 K. Scientists have even measured that the photosphere gets hotter with depth.

Your hypothetical iron surface just vaporized according to Birkeland's model!
Your hypothetical iron surface just vaporized according to the laws of thermodynamics!

Reality Check · Jul 12, 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.
...snip...

Also meet:
MINERvA is a neutrino scattering experiment which uses the NuMI beamline at Fermilab.
LNGS (the detectors) & CNGS (the neutrino source).
KARMEN - but they look at both solar and laboratory produced neutrinos so who knows whether their experiment is *controlled* or *uncontrolled* in your mind.
MiniBooNE.
The T2K (Tokai to Kamioka) experiment should be operating this year with results published a few years later.
CHOOZ.
LSND.

Michael Mozina · Jul 12, 2009

Reality Check said:
Also meet:
MINERvA is a neutrino scattering experiment which uses the NuMI beamline at Fermilab.
LNGS (the detectors) & CNGS (the neutrino source).
KARMEN - but they look at both solar and laboratory produced neutrinos so who knows whether their experiment is *controlled* or *uncontrolled* in your mind.
MiniBooNE.
The T2K (Tokai to Kamioka) experiment should be operating this year with results published a few years later.
CHOOZ.
LSND.

Ok, now which specific experiments are you suggesting found direct evidence of oscillation from one flavor to another? Keep in mind that any "missing" neutrinos (i.e. "we can't find them at a greater distance) will not favor any specific solar model. However, any sort of direct observation of oscillation will count.

Michael Mozina · Jul 12, 2009

Reality Check said:
Your ignorance is astounding.

Have you watched the Flare DVD that I suggested, yes or no? Have you ever personally created a running difference image from any solar satellite program from original images, yes or no?

Michael Mozina · Jul 12, 2009

Tubbythin said:
Meet KamLAND.

Which specific experiment are you suggesting found direct evidence of oscillation? Again, "missing" neutrinos favor nothing. They could oscillate flavor or sign for all you know.

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).

This type observation does not sound particularly "controlled" in terms of the identifying a single source of neutrinos or controlling the termination of the source. You seem to be "assuming" things about helicity that are not actually physically demonstrated as it relates to neutrinos.

Any direct experimental evidence here will do, and indeed it is possible that progress has been made in the last few years on this front. What I'm looking for here ultimately is a controlled source of say one type of neutrino that results in the direct detection of another flavor of neutrino. When the source is turned off, I would expect that the detection of the oscillated neutrinos would also terminate. In other words if you can create one flavor of neutrino at the source, but register multiple types at the detection point, that would tend to favor your interpretation of flavor oscillation.

GeeMack · Jul 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Have you watched the Flare DVD that I suggested, yes or no? Have you ever personally created a running difference image from any solar satellite program from original images, yes or no?

The people who make running difference images from solar satellite images for a living say you don't understand running difference images. So your opinion on the matter is pretty much worthless, Michael.

GeeMack · Jul 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Any direct experimental evidence here will do, [...]

Speaking of direct experimental evidence, 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. And don't forget, your own standards require it to be a 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. Or if you aren't able to show us that direct experimental evidence, how about you have the integrity to admit that you can't do it.

Reality Check · Jul 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Ok, now which specific experiments are you suggesting found direct evidence of oscillation from one flavor to another? Keep in mind that any "missing" neutrinos (i.e. "we can't find them at a greater distance) will not favor any specific solar model. However, any sort of direct observation of oscillation will count.

All of them.

But of course an idiot who was ignorant of physics would think "direct observation of oscillation" means is: Here is an electron neutrino. Let us watch it. Oh look it turned into a tau neutrino.

Reality Check · Jul 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Ok, now which specific experiments are you suggesting found direct evidence of oscillation from one flavor to another? Keep in mind that any "missing" neutrinos (i.e. "we can't find them at a greater distance) will not favor any specific solar model. However, any sort of direct observation of oscillation will count.

What do you mean by "Keep in mind that any "missing" neutrinos (i.e. "we can't find them at a greater distance) will not favor any specific solar model."?

What flux of solar neutrinos is predicted by the Iron Sun model?
How does it match even the 1960's Homestake Experiment result?

Are these all produced by your hypothetical, thermodynamnically impossible iron surface/crust/(whatever you think it is this minute)/thingy?
Or do they come from somewhere else?

To what temperature does the thing that produces the neutrino flux heat the core of the Sun?

Getting away from your obsession about "controlled" experiments:
Neutrino oscillation has been detected in solar neutrinos. The parameters of the Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein effect that have been measured even suggests that the neutrinos have to be emitted from the Sun's core.

Tubbythin · Jul 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Which specific experiment are you suggesting found direct evidence of oscillation? Again, "missing" neutrinos favor nothing. They could oscillate flavor or sign for all you know.

SNO can measure the difference between the electron neutrino and the total neutrino flux. The results are in line with whats expected from the SSM +and the SM with neutrino oscillations. It is in complete conflict with fission occuring in the Sun. You're claims that such experiments are not controlled are plain ridiculous. They're as controlled as any other particle physics experiment.

This type observation does not sound particularly "controlled" in terms of the identifying a single source of neutrinos or controlling the termination of the source. You seem to be "assuming" things about helicity that are not actually physically demonstrated as it relates to neutrinos.

I'm not entirely sure my explanation was in fact correct. I might try again later. But anyway, I can't state strongly enough how its completely and utterly irrelevant. We don't need to know why[\b] pions decay to a muon and associated (anti) neutrino 99% of the time. All we need to know is that they do[\b] so. And we know this from studying the decay of literally trillions of pions produced in experiment.

Any direct experimental evidence here will do, and indeed it is possible that progress has been made in the last few years on this front. What I'm looking for here ultimately is a controlled source of say one type of neutrino that results in the direct detection of another flavor of neutrino.

Click to expand...

We have a controlled source of neutrinos. Its called the Sun. We can do controlled measurements with these neutrinos. We can measure whether they are neutrinos or antineutrinos, electron neutrinos or other neutrinos. We can determine which direction they came from (at least to some degree). We can look for seasonal variation. We can look for a day-night variation (one has been measured, it shows a slight increase at night, this is nonsenical in an interpretation where neutrinos don't oscillate but makes sense if they do).

When the source is turned off, I would expect that the detection of the oscillated neutrinos would also terminate. In other words if you can create one flavor of neutrino at the source, but register multiple types at the detection point, that would tend to favor your interpretation of flavor oscillation.

Click to expand...

Instead of demanding things of other people, why not look at the evidence we do have? And try to explain it without neutrino oscillations? Its a very very very tricky job.
The fact is that we observe the right number of neutrinos coming from the right direction. They aren't the expected flavour but that was because we didn't expect them to oscillate. This interpretation is consistent with observations from atmospheric and lab neutrinos. There is no evidence whatsoever for any antineutrino production in the Sun.
Therefore you're model is completely falsified by neutrino observations regardless of the validity or otherwise of the SSM.

Tubbythin · Jul 12, 2009

Tubbythin said:
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).

Ok, the above is wrong. Helicity is conserved. Leptons with 0 mass must be left handed (spin and momentum vectors point in opposite directions). Antileptons with zero mass must be right-handed (spin and momentum vectors point in the same direction) . To conserve helicity, the positively charged anti-lepton in the decay of a pi⁺ must have left-handed helicity (spin and momentum vectors point in the same direction). This would be impossible if the charged leptons were massless. But they aren't. However, the fact that the mu⁺ is more massive than the positron favours the decay through the former channel.
I think that's in a hand-wavy way correct now. Touch wood.

Michael Mozina · Jul 12, 2009

Tubbythin said:
Ok, the above is wrong. Helicity is conserved. Leptons with 0 mass must be left handed (spin and momentum vectors point in opposite directions). Antileptons with zero mass must be right-handed (spin and momentum vectors point in the same direction) . To conserve helicity, the positively charged anti-lepton in the decay of a pi⁺ must have left-handed helicity (spin and momentum vectors point in the same direction). This would be impossible if the charged leptons were massless. But they aren't. However, the fact that the mu⁺ is more massive than the positron favours the decay through the former channel.
I think that's in a hand-wavy way correct now. Touch wood.

Even assuming it is correct, it isn't exactly "controlled". In say an "ideal" world, where we could setup detectors and transmitters, we might send out say only electron neutrinos but detect tau neutrinos at some distance too. We turn off the source and we notice the tau detector stops detecting anything. We turn on the transmitter again, and the tau detector detects hits again. That would be an idealized way of demonstrating flavor oscillation in a lab. Ok, it's not quite that simple in the real world, but our goal here is to physically demonstrate a "cause/effect" relationship here between transmitter and detector, and we have no control mechanism in that scenario. I'll grant you it has a root in particle physics, and particle relationships.

Michael Mozina · Jul 12, 2009

Tubbythin said:
SNO can measure the difference between the electron neutrino and the total neutrino flux.

So when we first saw these readings, there was a "solar neutrino problem" for many years. There was an under abundance of electron neutrinos, and two more kinds that were not "predicted" in any way by a hydrogen fusion theory.

The results are in line with whats expected from the SSM +and the SM with neutrino oscillations.

Over time you guys came up with a "solution" to your neutrino problem involving a theory about the oscillation of neutrinos from on flavor to another in flight. Of course that "solution" violated what were "laws" of the time related to lepton conservation. Of course "laws" can be shown to be invalid, but everyone should at least realize that this lepton conservation "principle" is the only way we can even be sure which kind of leptons are released from various particle decay and fusion reactions. Without these 'laws/principles' you couldn't even lecture me about which types of neutrinos a fission based model should "spit out' in the first place, nor would we have had a "solar neutrino problem" when these results were first published.

You're still *ASSUMING* these "laws" apply to the level of particle physics within the atom/subatomic particle. It's only "mid flight" that it supposedly has the ability to violate these lepton conservation processes.

It is in complete conflict with fission occuring in the Sun.

If you intend to throw lepton conservation laws out on a whim, how exactly did you intend to "predict" which neutrinos I should expect to observe in fission reactions?

You're claims that such experiments are not controlled are plain ridiculous. They're as controlled as any other particle physics experiment.

The earliest example of neutrinos "experiments" involved a "control mechanism" in the form of a nuclear reactor that was switched on and off. Neutrino physics has a long history of controlled experimentation. If there is a field of science that can and might help your case in a controlled scientific way, this is it. I'm not suggesting it can't be done, or even that it has not been done. I'm simply noting that this field of physics offers us a viable way to physically demonstrating an oscillation process. That does not mean that every step of that process has already occurred. I'm simply looking for what you feel is the best "experiment" done thus far.

I'm not entirely sure my explanation was in fact correct. I might try again later. But anyway, I can't state strongly enough how its completely and utterly irrelevant. We don't need to know why[\b] pions decay to a muon and associated (anti) neutrino 99% of the time. All we need to know is that they do[\b] so. And we know this from studying the decay of literally trillions of pions produced in experiment.

I buy your revised explanation. I'm simply balking at the lack of a control mechanism related to the transmitter. It seems to me that we have the ability to control the source(s) and we should do that.

We have a controlled source of neutrinos. Its called the Sun.

Click to expand...

No, it's not "controlled" or even "controllable" in the first place. How would you suggest we turn it off and on again? How do you know which neutrinos come from which parts of the sun? Does the solar cycle effect these measurements and if so, how?

We can do controlled measurements with these neutrinos. We can measure whether they are neutrinos or antineutrinos, electron neutrinos or other neutrinos.

Click to expand...

Ok, we can "measure" them. If we don't agree however that lepton conservations laws apply to all transactions, how will we "predict" which lepton configuration to expect from various particle decay and fusion processes?

We can determine which direction they came from (at least to some degree).

Click to expand...

Alright, we might be able to demonstrate that the sun is the source based on these directional measurements, however there is still no 'control mechanism' for us to play with on the sun.

We can look for seasonal variation.

Click to expand...

And we find some variation related to the solar cycle and we see variation in the 171A images too. Any correlation?

We can look for a day-night variation (one has been measured, it shows a slight increase at night, this is nonsenical in an interpretation where neutrinos don't oscillate but makes sense if they do).

Click to expand...

Missing neutrinos might have been "absorbed", "scattered", oscillate in sign or flavor or any other possible ways it might show a different number when neutrinos pass through matter. I can't just "assume" that all "missing neutrinos" automatically favors any explanation. A real observation of oscillation however would remove all doubt.

Instead of demanding things of other people, why not look at the evidence we do have?

Click to expand...

I have done that a few years back, but this is one industry that has the ability to make it's case in a single experiment, so there is no point in me assuming no progress has been made. What was true then is that there was evidence of "missing neutrinos", but whether they scatterer or oscillated is anyone's guess.

And try to explain it without neutrino oscillations? Its a very very very tricky job.

Click to expand...

The only way to explain missing neutrino counts is to assume

A) they oscillate in flavor
B) they oscillate in sign
C) some combination of both A) and B)
D) they scattered somehow by mass/mass interactions in the atoms over distance (we now know neutrinos do have mass and that could have an effect)
E) they were absorbed somehow at a higher rate than expected.

How do I know which of these options applies to "missing' neutrinos without further controlled experimentation?

The fact is that we observe the right number of neutrinos coming from the right direction.

Click to expand...

Ok, we know the sun puts out roughly the same energy we expected. Big deal. They came in different lepton flavors, two of which are not predicted by standard solar theory.

They aren't the expected flavour but that was because we didn't expect them to oscillate.

Click to expand...

But I can't get away with that excuse with fission because....?????

This interpretation is consistent with observations from atmospheric and lab neutrinos.

Click to expand...

I don't buy the notion you can control the atmospheric transmitters. How do you know how many of atmospheric solar neutrinos events are "externally" driven? In other words, if high speed particles hit our atmosphere, don't they hit the solar atmosphere too? How many neutrinos coming from the solar atmosphere might actually be due to cosmic ray events in the solar atmosphere?

There is no evidence whatsoever for any antineutrino production in the Sun.

Click to expand...

There's no evidence whatsoever for tau or muon lepton production in the sun either.

Therefore you're model is completely falsified by neutrino observations regardless of the validity or otherwise of the SSM.

Click to expand...

That is false. You simply *assumed* oscillation can't be in related to sign rather than flavor. You simply ASSUME that "missing' neutrinos automatically support an oscillation rather than say a scattering effect you didn't expect due to the mass of the particle itself. You are making *SEVERAL* assumptions here that are at odds and you're playing a double standard.

You *assume* they can can change flavor. You *assume* they cannot change sign. You *assume* that scattering is not the effect you're observing in "missing neutrino" measurements. You're basing your whole argument on the source based upon a law you're then immediately violating in mid flight, and then precluding changes based on any other process.

Now it is entirely possible that due to it's long tradition of "physical experimentation' that this industry may actually produce a real experiment to support your case, but the last time I checked, that was not the case. If my understanding is 'dated' in any way, feel free to correct me, but I will expect to see a control mechanism, a real observation of oscillation (not simply missing neutrinos) and some way of seeing a change in that process when the control mechanism is used.

Michael Mozina · Jul 12, 2009

Reality Check said:
What do you mean by "Keep in mind that any "missing" neutrinos (i.e. "we can't find them at a greater distance) will not favor any specific solar model."?

What flux of solar neutrinos is predicted by the Iron Sun model?
How does it match even the 1960's Homestake Experiment result?

What difference would it make if such predictions did exist, or did not exist, matched or did not match these results? Your solar theory sure flunked out big time. That is why for many years there was a "neutrino problem".

The "oscillation" concept was an "ad hoc" assertion based on the fact you couldn't otherwise accept your solar theory was DOA.

Are these all produced by your hypothetical, thermodynamnically impossible iron surface/crust/(whatever you think it is this minute)/thingy?
Or do they come from somewhere else?

As long as you continue to state things that are categorically untrue, I don't see the point of responding to them countless times.

To what temperature does the thing that produces the neutrino flux heat the core of the Sun?

Beats me, I can't see the core. I might "predict" something based on lepton conservation principles, but if we intend to just throw that out the window mid flight, what's the point?

Getting away from your obsession about "controlled" experiments:
Neutrino oscillation has been detected in solar neutrinos. The parameters of the Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein effect that have been measured even suggests that the neutrinos have to be emitted from the Sun's core.

Whole idea that you people actually "believe" that the sun can be "controlled" is utterly absurd. It simply demonstrates that your industry as a whole really doesn't understand the concept of a "control mechanism" or "active experimentation". Fortunately that is not true of neutrino physicists, and they are and could certainly in fact work the problem from other "controlled" angles. There are no limitations in demonstrating your case here on Earth based on all the ordinary controlled type experimentation that is part of all branches of science. You have an *OBLIGATION* to do so if you want to claim that this data supports your solar model. I don't personally think it supports ANY proposed solar model at the moment, but things may have changed in the last couple of years. A concept related to solar core production however is not an "experiment", nor will it ever take the place of a real experiment with a real control mechanism. Neutrino physics has *NEVER* needed to rely upon uncontrolled events or anything other than typical controlled experimentation. FYI, even the detectors they build are based upon the principle of lepton conservation/specific particle interactions at the level of particle physics.

GeeMack · Jul 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
There are no limitations in demonstrating your case here on Earth based on all the ordinary controlled type experimentation that is part of all branches of science. You have an *OBLIGATION* to do so if you want to claim that this data supports your solar model.

And where, by the way, is that experiment that shows how you can see thousands of kilometers beneath an opaque surface using data gathered from thousands of kilometers above that surface, done right here on Earth, mathematically and physically consistent, no fudge factors, nothing metaphysical, repeatable, and objective such that other people come to the same conclusion you've reached?

I've asked this over a dozen times. I think by now, given your continued ignorance, that you simply aren't able to point out the experiment. I think that since you must apply your own standards, or admit to being a hypocrite, your insane notions about running difference images don't meet your obligation, therefore you can't claim that this data supports your solar model.

Running difference images, in fact all images from the TRACE program in particular, are eliminated from the pool of potential evidence to support the crazy fantasy that the Sun has a solid surface... or I guess we're calling it a crust now. Wouldn't you agree, Michael?

Tubbythin · Jul 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Even assuming it is correct, it isn't exactly "controlled". In say an "ideal" world, where we could setup detectors and transmitters, we might send out say only electron neutrinos but detect tau neutrinos at some distance too. We turn off the source and we notice the tau detector stops detecting anything. We turn on the transmitter again, and the tau detector detects hits again. That would be an idealized way of demonstrating flavor oscillation in a lab. Ok, it's not quite that simple in the real world, but our goal here is to physically demonstrate a "cause/effect" relationship here between transmitter and detector, and we have no control mechanism in that scenario. I'll grant you it has a root in particle physics, and particle relationships.

In an ideal world neutrinos would be easy to detect (but only when we wanted to). It isn't an ideal world though.

tusenfem · Jul 12, 2009

I guess, Michael Mozina, the fact that I (or the Opacity Project) am (is) not allowed to use math to calculate something simple and observed in many an object or experiment is a sign at the wall why you have never answered my questions about Birkeland's math. Basically, I guess you don't understand math, otherwise you would have answered my question about where Birkeland talks about accelerating electrons and dragging along the protons (which is utter impossible). I only asked this simple question like 10 pages ago.

Michael Mozina · Jul 12, 2009

Tubbythin said:
In an ideal world neutrinos would be easy to detect (but only when we wanted to). It isn't an ideal world though.

Sure, I agree, but then look at the history here of the neutrino. It's never been "easy", but it has always been based upon empirical physics and empirical "controlled" testing. Even the postulation of it's very existence came from the careful measurement of nuclear decay reactions from physical lab tests. Either a physical law was being violated (all energy is not preserved), or there was some as of yet unidentified particle of energy. Even building experiments took a lot of planning, and effort and nothing was left to chance. The "evidence" of the confirmation of the neutrino is also found in a "controlled" experiment where the reactor could be turned off and the effect of it's deactivation could be observed. To even conduct these tests, they had to happen deep in the Earth, with the purest and cleanest of environments with very little margin of error. It's never been "easy", but that's what makes it so valuable and so critical.

I'm willing to concede that this technology *MAY* become useful in determining the validity of various solar models. At the moment however, a "missing" (non detected) neutrino might be due to any number of influences, none of which I can rule out without further experimentation. I'm more than happy to fund such an area of research however because it is an "EMPIRICAL" form of science and nothing is, or should be left to chance.

tusenfem · Jul 12, 2009

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

Yes, because the atmosphere of the Earth is a good insulator, which can break down and create a conducting channel through which a discharge can take place. I guess even you will agree that the Sun is a plasma (apart from your imaginary iron shell). How are you going to create a charge build up in this plasma to, at one point get a "discharge"? There is just no way to do it, especially because the coronal loops (and yes I will call them loops and not partial or whatever, because you also call them loops in your own papers) start and end at basically the same surface. So there should be regions with strongly different charge concentrations on the surface of the sun, in order to get a "discharge." And then for some reason or other the "discharge" takes a looping, with that creating a current aligned magnetic field (which is also impossible). So, to end this "rant:" there are no discharges like Earth lightning on the Sun.

Michael Mozina said:
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?

Those things that "fling loads of plasma into space" are NOT discharges. They are "exploding magnetic fields."

And what the frak is a "light plasma." Such a term does not exist in plasma physics. You can have a dense plasma (but that need not mean anything) what is important in radiation processis is the optical depth of the plasma, it can either be transparent or opaque, and that depends on wavelength, density and length of the plasma column. For your information, here is a pdf about radiative transfer in stellar atmospheres, by Prof. Rob Rutten from Utrecht University. All the basics are explained here.

About the discharge, see above.

We call it the photosphere, because that is where the photons come from, it is the layer of last scattering, any photon coming from a deeper layer will still be absorbed-reemitted. And I did not claim any density for the photosphere. But checking the web I find >10¹².

Michael Mozina said:
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.

Okay, this first sentence is not even possible neon photosphere emitting whic light from far above the photosphere. Either it is the photosphere or not, make up your mind.

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

Birkeland did not do anything of the kind. Please show me exactly where he is scaling, doing the math, etc etc. You are supposedly the expert on whatever Birkie did, but when we ask you where Birkie wrote it down, calculated it, or whatever, we get an answer "read the book it's all in there." I went through the math after page 664, where allegedly discusses how the solar wind works (electrons dragging the ions along) and I did not find a thing! (Maybe I cannot search well enough.)

Michael Mozina said:
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.

But if Birkie does math, it is all okay, yeah right ....
The "math" of that page has been applied to many an object and has been proven to be correct. But observations are not controlled experiments, so you can just dump it in the waste basket.

I left the DVD at work, so I have no chance to watch it, but I doubt that your interpretation of what you see has any merit, because basically you don't understand solar and plasma physics. Thus your interpretation will be strongly hampered. But what exactly am I supposed to see? I guess flares going of (magnetic reconnection) the top part of the loop flying away, whereas the bottom part of the loop is a smaller loop and oscillates. But then, you cannot trust these observations, because the hardly fulfil the "controlled experiment" criterium to which you adhere so much. So I think I might just dump the DVD into the waste basket.

Michael Mozina said:
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?

No, as long as you say that there is an iron shell in the Sun, there will be no agreement possible. The photosphere is made from mainly H and then some He and then some metals.

There is no way that helioseismology will determine what the photosphere is made of. Just look at the definition of photosphere, the region from which the photons can escape the plasma of the Sun and therefore can be observed.

Michael Mozina said:
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 have seen my share of flare, Micheal Mozina, don't start assuming what I have and have not seen. I doubt Birkeland knew what the photosphere was, so I doubt that he claims that you can see these things below it. Where exactly is that in his book? You keep claiming more and more about what Birkeland predicted, soon you will say he discovered Neptune.

And why would hot gas in a coronal loop not be visible "over long distances" (another sentence that does not make any sense), it is a optically very thin plasma, so photons can flow through it unhindered.

Michael Mozina said:
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.

And you really think that solar physicists (e.g. from Utrecht University) have never watched videos of flares to improve their models? You really think you are the only one who watches these things?

In order to take what you say seriously, you would first have to show that you understand what observations in various wavelength bands really show. That discussion has been done before, and you really do not have the foggiest on what band passed filtered images show.

Ah, and don't forget that in order to do his terrella experiments, Birkeland needed to put a magnet inside the "Earth" and in order to get his "coronal loops" he also needed a magnetic field in the "Earth/Sun", thus the magnetic fields of these loops (by your own reasoning, because Birkeland did it like that) needs to be internal to the Sun, and not created by the currents flowing along the field lines of the coronal loops (which is impossible anyway, as explained to you many a time in this thread).

Michael Mozina · Jul 12, 2009

tusenfem said:
I guess, Michael Mozina, the fact that I (or the Opacity Project) am (is) not allowed to use math to calculate something simple

First of all, it's not at all "simple". You and I can't even agree on what the photosphere is made of! How can it then be a "simple" calculation? In your mind, I'm sure it's all very 'simple'. In a mass separated solar model, it's not as "simple" as you seem to imagine.

Secondly, you folks are notoriously dependent upon mathematical models to the absolute exclusion of the visual evidence and the visual observations that might actually confirm (or falsify) your mathematical models. Never mind the math that reveals that "stratification subsurface", or the math that reveals those persistent structures in the wave of Kosovichev's video. You're only interested in a *SINGLE* calculation done specifically your way, based upon your specific assumptions and criteria. Why? What about those images from the DVD? Did you even bother to look at them yet, specifically the three photosphere discharge events? The visual evidence doesn't jive with your theory. The photosphere "lights up" along the base of the arcs and the arcs can clearly be seen in white light. There is nothing I have left to chance here, but you have to actually do your homework and compare *observation* to actual theory.

and observed in many an object or experiment is a sign at the wall why you have never answered my questions about Birkeland's math.

Why should I bark math here at your command, when I have no reason to believe you've even read the math related to Birkeland's theories? He spend *YEARS* of his life, as did Alfven, providing you folks with math. What good did any of it do exactly? How much of it have you actually personally read? Have you read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven? Have you actually read Birkeland's mathematical presentations?

Basically, I guess you don't understand math, otherwise you would have answered my question about where Birkeland talks about accelerating electrons and dragging along the protons (which is utter impossible).

I understand the math just fine, but math was never a legitimate substitute for physical experimentation. What makes Birkeland's work so valuable is not simply the math, but also his *PHYSICAL EXPERIMENTS*. You guys forgot the importance of physical experimentation IMO. You sit around plugging numbers into spread sheets or math formulas, never once looking up from your desk to test anything in a lab, or even to compare your theories to real satellites in space and what they show us. Nevermind that the stratification subsurface blocks the flow of plasma at around 4800 KM. Nevermind that this is supposed to be an "open convection zone". Nevermind those rigid persistent features in the image. Flying plasma? What flying plasma? Hoy. Even getting you folks to talk about these images and to address specific features of specific images is impossible. I can't even get a reasonable answer from anywhere here except maybe Tim, and DD and *OCCASIONALLY* you. I give you a lot of credit on your neutrino answers. The details observed in the images however seem to be everyone's Kryptonite.

Let's see you go back now and answer some of the questions I posed to Tim, particularly as it relates to the three events I cited.

Your questions seem "simple" to you because your working with an "oversimplified" physical model. You're *assuming* all the elements stay pretty evenly mixed together at the surface of the photosphere. That is not how it works in a mass separated model. It's not nearly as "easy" as you imagine.

Tubbythin · Jul 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
So when we first saw these readings, there was a "solar neutrino problem" for many years. There was an under abundance of electron neutrinos, and two more kinds that were not "predicted" in any way by a hydrogen fusion theory.

The standard-solar model (SSM) makes no predictions about neutrino behaviour in flight. The other flavours were not predicted (not strictly true, neutrino oscillations were hypothesized about a decade before the solar neutrino problem was observed but afaik it was largely ignored) due to the standard model (SM) of particle physics not giving the neutrinos masses. This is a shortcoming with the SM, not the SSM.

Over time you guys came up with a "solution" to your neutrino problem involving a theory about the oscillation of neutrinos from on flavor to another in flight. Of course that "solution" violated what were "laws" of the time related to lepton conservation. Of course "laws" can be shown to be invalid, but everyone should at least realize that this lepton conservation "principle" is the only way we can even be sure which kind of leptons are released from various particle decay and fusion reactions. Without these 'laws/principles' you couldn't even lecture me about which types of neutrinos a fission based model should "spit out' in the first place, nor would we have had a "solar neutrino problem" when these results were first published.

We still have no evidence of lepton number violation in weak decays. Find me evidence of lepton number violation in a weak decay and you may have a point.

You're still *ASSUMING* these "laws" apply to the level of particle physics within the atom/subatomic particle. It's only "mid flight" that it supposedly has the ability to violate these lepton conservation processes.

I'm not "assuming" anything. We have no evidence of lepton number non-conservation in weak decays. If you want to find it go ahead. You'll probably get a Nobel prize.

If you intend to throw lepton conservation laws out on a whim, how exactly did you intend to "predict" which neutrinos I should expect to observe in fission reactions?

Seen a left handed antineutrino recently? How about a right-handed neutrino?

The earliest example of neutrinos "experiments" involved a "control mechanism" in the form of a nuclear reactor that was switched on and off. Neutrino physics has a long history of controlled experimentation. If there is a field of science that can and might help your case in a controlled scientific way, this is it. I'm not suggesting it can't be done, or even that it has not been done. I'm simply noting that this field of physics offers us a viable way to physically demonstrating an oscillation process. That does not mean that every step of that process has already occurred. I'm simply looking for what you feel is the best "experiment" done thus far.

I don't think there is a best experiment. The strength in the evidence relies explicitly on the fact that we have multiple tests of different aspects which produce a consistent set of results which allow a minimal extension to the SM (which is very good).

I buy your revised explanation. I'm simply balking at the lack of a control mechanism related to the transmitter. It seems to me that we have the ability to control the source(s) and we should do that.

We do. That's what Kamland does.

No, it's not "controlled" or even "controllable" in the first place. How would you suggest we turn it off and on again? How do you know which neutrinos come from which parts of the sun? Does the solar cycle effect these measurements and if so, how?

The Sun's output is fairly uniform. We can adjust our detectors as we wish. Therefore its controlled. We can't turn the Sun off obviously, but if we could then we wouldn't be studying the Sun as it is. So the results would be less valid, not more.

Ok, we can "measure" them. If we don't agree however that lepton conservations laws apply to all transactions, how will we "predict" which lepton configuration to expect from various particle decay and fusion processes?

We have no evidence of lepton number violation in weak decay. If we did we'd probably have to rewrite the entire SM. Moreover we can change the bassline with Earth based experiments. And what do we see?

Alright, we might be able to demonstrate that the sun is the source based on these directional measurements, however there is still no 'control mechanism' for us to play with on the sun.

This really is nonsensical. If you want to study how the Sun works "normally" you don't want to control the Sun. You want to control the observations you make. Which is precisely what is done eg by looking at flavour, energy, directionality, daily and seasonal variation...

And we find some variation related to the solar cycle and we see variation in the 171A images too. Any correlation?

I have no idea what you're getting at.

Missing neutrinos might have been "absorbed", "scattered", oscillate in sign or flavor or any other possible ways it might show a different number when neutrinos pass through matter.

Well they quite obviously can't have been absorbed or scattered more during the day than at night. Unless you think the Sun has vastly different properties at Earth day than Earth night. As for oscillations to antineutrinos - that would be seen at Earth based experiments.

I can't just "assume" that all "missing neutrinos" automatically favors any explanation. A real observation of oscillation however would remove all doubt.

Which is why experiments like SNO which measure both the electron neutrino and the total neutrino flux are so good.

I have done that a few years back, but this is one industry that has the ability to make it's case in a single experiment, so there is no point in me assuming no progress has been made. What was true then is that there was evidence of "missing neutrinos", but whether they scatterer or oscillated is anyone's guess.

Like I said, experiments like SNO show that they oscillate because we can measure both the electron neutrino and the total neutrino flux.

The only way to explain missing neutrino counts is to assume

A) they oscillate in flavor

Fine.

B) they oscillate in sign
C) some combination of both A) and B)

This is ruled by lab experiments.

D) they scattered somehow by mass/mass interactions in the atoms over distance (we now know neutrinos do have mass and that could have an effect)

AFAIK, we only "know" they have mass because we "know" they oscillate.

E) they were absorbed somehow at a higher rate than expected.

This is probably ruled out by experiment. We can alter the baseline. Also if this were the only reason for the deficit it would categorically falsify your model (which after all was why we were talking about neutrinos in the first place).

How do I know which of these options applies to "missing' neutrinos without further controlled experimentation?

Precisely from combining the results from SuperKamiokande, Sno, KamLand, Gallex...

Ok, we know the sun puts out roughly the same energy we expected. Big deal. They came in different lepton flavors, two of which are not predicted by standard solar theory.

Nope. We observe at Earth two additional flavours. It was the SM that did not predict this, not the SSM. The SSM hasn't altered a bit.

But I can't get away with that excuse with fission because....?????

It would almost certainly require a larger rewriting of the SM, it would be inconsistent with atmospheric data and lab data.

I don't buy the notion you can control the atmospheric transmitters. How do you know how many of atmospheric solar neutrinos events are "externally" driven? In other words, if high speed particles hit our atmosphere, don't they hit the solar atmosphere too? How many neutrinos coming from the solar atmosphere might actually be due to cosmic ray events in the solar atmosphere?

Not very many, its a pretty small solid angle we subtend. It should be possible to calculate though.

There's no evidence whatsoever for tau or muon lepton production in the sun either.

Agreed. None are produced. I fail to see your point.

That is false. You simply *assumed* oscillation can't be in related to sign rather than flavor.

No, I didn't.

You simply ASSUME that "missing' neutrinos automatically support an oscillation rather than say a scattering effect you didn't expect due to the mass of the particle itself.

We only think they have mass because they oscillate. And obviously such an affect would be inconsistent with the observed day-night asymmetry.

You are making *SEVERAL* assumptions here that are at odds and you're playing a double standard.

I don't think any of them are at odds. I'm drawing conclusions (or allowing others to draw them for me) from the results of multiple, consistent experiments.

You *assume* they can can change flavor. You *assume* they cannot change sign.

Nope. We have solid evidence from multiple sources that they change flavour. We have no evidence that they change sign.

You *assume* that scattering is not the effect you're observing in "missing neutrino" measurements.

Nope. Scattering cannot explain the increase in muon/tau neutrino types observed. This clearly isn't just an assumption.

You're basing your whole argument on the source based upon a law you're then immediately violating in mid flight, and then precluding changes based on any other process.

Nope. I'm basing my arguments on the results of multiple, consistent experiments.

Now it is entirely possible that due to it's long tradition of "physical experimentation' that this industry may actually produce a real experiment to support your case, but the last time I checked, that was not the case.

I think you should check again. And besides, I wasn't trying to defend my case. You were meant to be defending yours. You've failed.

If my understanding is 'dated' in any way, feel free to correct me, but I will expect to see a control mechanism, a real observation of oscillation (not simply missing neutrinos) and some way of seeing a change in that process when the control mechanism is used.

I don't care what you expect to see. Its utterly irrelevant. If you can come up with a better explanation for what we do see than the current theory of oscillations that feel free. You could be rewarded with a Nobel prize. You can try and pick holes in experiments you know nothing about, it doesn't make your theory any less falsified.

Tubbythin · Jul 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Sure, I agree, but then look at the history here of the neutrino. It's never been "easy", but it has always been based upon empirical physics and empirical "controlled" testing. Even the postulation of it's very existence came from the careful measurement of nuclear decay reactions from physical lab tests. Either a physical law was being violated (all energy is not preserved), or there was some as of yet unidentified particle of energy. Even building experiments took a lot of planning, and effort and nothing was left to chance. The "evidence" of the confirmation of the neutrino is also found in a "controlled" experiment where the reactor could be turned off and the effect of it's deactivation could be observed. To even conduct these tests, they had to happen deep in the Earth, with the purest and cleanest of environments with very little margin of error. It's never been "easy", but that's what makes it so valuable and so critical.

I have a lot of respect for low signal experimental physicists.

I'm willing to concede that this technology *MAY* become useful in determining the validity of various solar models. At the moment however, a "missing" (non detected) neutrino might be due to any number of influences, none of which I can rule out without further experimentation.

The point though, is that it is now so much more than just missing electron neutrinos.

I'm more than happy to fund such an area of research however because it is an "EMPIRICAL" form of science and nothing is, or should be left to chance.

Good for you.

Reality Check · Jul 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
What difference would it make if such predictions did exist, or did not exist, matched or did not match these results? Your solar theory sure flunked out big time. That is why for many years there was a "neutrino problem".

The "oscillation" concept was an "ad hoc" assertion based on the fact you couldn't otherwise accept your solar theory was DOA.

A prediction of the solar model (the flux of solar neutrinos) was not matched by observation.
This was a problem for many years.
The hypothesis (not a "ad hoc" assertion) that the cause was neutrino oscillations was experimentaly confirmed in controlled experiments using neutrinos produced here on Earth.
The hypothesis that the cause was neutrinos oscillations was experimentaly confirmed in controlled experiments using neutrinos produced in the Sun.

What is your point?

Michael Mozina said:
As long as you continue to state things that are categorically untrue, I don't see the point of responding to them countless times.

What is untrue?
Are these all produced by your hypothetical, thermodynamnically impossible iron surface/crust/(whatever you think it is this minute)/thingy?
Or do they come from somewhere else?

Michael Mozina said:
Beats me, I can't see the core. I might "predict" something based on lepton conservation principles, but if we intend to just throw that out the window mid flight, what's the point?

Fission seems to be your thing of chioce do so a little nuclear physics and tell us how much fission there has to be to produce Sun's energy and neutrino flux.

Michael Mozina said:
Whole idea that you people actually "believe" that the sun can be "controlled" is utterly absurd. It simply demonstrates that your industry as a whole really doesn't understand the concept of a "control mechanism" or "active experimentation". Fortunately that is not true of neutrino physicists, and they are and could certainly in fact work the problem from other "controlled" angles. There are no limitations in demonstrating your case here on Earth based on all the ordinary controlled type experimentation that is part of all branches of science. You have an *OBLIGATION* to do so if you want to claim that this data supports your solar model. I don't personally think it supports ANY proposed solar model at the moment, but things may have changed in the last couple of years. A concept related to solar core production however is not an "experiment", nor will it ever take the place of a real experiment with a real control mechanism. Neutrino physics has *NEVER* needed to rely upon uncontrolled events or anything other than typical controlled experimentation. FYI, even the detectors they build are based upon the principle of lepton conservation/specific particle interactions at the level of particle physics.

No one belives the Sun can be "controlled". That is just so dumb MM!

Scientists know that empirical data is measured from both controlled and uncontrolled experiments. So the neutrino oscillations measured from neutrinos emitted from both the Sun and laboratories are equally valid.
We have met our obligation - you have links to the many experiments that have measured neutrino oscillations.

Now it is up to you. Either show where the scientists went wrong in measuring neutrino oscillations , explain their results somehow else or accept that neutrino oscillations exist.

Michael Mozina · Jul 12, 2009

tusenfem said:
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”

Nice quote. I wonder if you folks are really able to keep an open mind to "what is" and what has been "lab tested"?

Yes, because the atmosphere of the Earth is a good insulator, which can break down and create a conducting channel through which a discharge can take place. I guess even you will agree that the Sun is a plasma (apart from your imaginary iron shell).

Sure, but it's not "fully" ionized. It's "dusty" plasma.

How are you going to create a charge build up in this plasma to, at one point get a "discharge"?

Exactly the same way Birkeland achieved it. I'm going to charge the surface of the sphere as a cathode and create a discharge process between the surface and the heliosphere. Birkeland described the voltages by the way. Did you read them?

There is just no way to do it, especially because the coronal loops

That's silly. It's already been done by Birkeland over 100 years ago. His sphere had a "plasma" atmosphere around it, and it had no problem creating discharges in the atmosphere.

Notice the loops in the B&W image from Birkeland's terella experiments?

(and yes I will call them loops and not partial or whatever, because you also call them loops in your own papers) start and end at basically the same surface. So there should be regions with strongly different charge concentrations on the surface of the sun, in order to get a "discharge." And then for some reason or other the "discharge" takes a looping, with that creating a current aligned magnetic field (which is also impossible). So, to end this "rant:" there are no discharges like Earth lightning on the Sun.

I love how you claim something is "impossible' when it's already been physically recreated in a lab over 100 years ago. It's not "impossible" as you can see from the image I cited.

Those things that "fling loads of plasma into space" are NOT discharges. They are "exploding magnetic fields."

If you mean "induction", sure it plays a role in the "flinging' of plasma. If you're talking about 'magnetic reconnection', forgetaboutit. Only circuits and particles are physically capable of "reconnecting". Magnetic lines form as a whole and complete continuum, without beginning and without end, and *without* reconnecting to any other magnetic lines.

And what the frak is a "light plasma."

The plasma in the plasma ball on my desk is a "light" and very dusty plasma. I can see the light from a single candle through a foot of it as though it's not even there. I'm sure I'd see my arc welder through it too.

Such a term does not exist in plasma physics. You can have a dense plasma (but that need not mean anything) what is important in radiation processis is the optical depth of the plasma, it can either be transparent or opaque, and that depends on wavelength, density and length of the plasma column.

The *DENSITY* does however matter, and you're claiming that the density at the surface of the photosphere is very thin. Your "opacity" numbers are based upon a *NON* mass separated "assumption".

For your information, here is a pdf about radiative transfer in stellar atmospheres, by Prof. Rob Rutten from Utrecht University. All the basics are explained here.

Does it assume all the elements stay mixed together at the surface of the photosphere?

We call it the photosphere, because that is where the photons come from,

Which photons? All of them? The photons from the loops? The photons seen in 1600A? They all come from the photosphere in your opinion?

it is the layer of last scattering,

"Last scattering"? For *EVERY SINGLE* wavelength? Surely not every wavelength will operate the same way?

any photon coming from a deeper layer will still be absorbed-reemitted.

I love how you say it "will-be" in such a casual manner as though this is already certain. It's not. It's certainly going to be wavelength dependent and not every wavelength can or would be absorbed at the same rate. Even scuba diving taught me that light does not get absorbed at the same rate. Red light does not penetrate as deeply as blue light, or yellow light.

And I did not claim any density for the photosphere. But checking the web I find >10¹².

How does that compare to say the plasma in an ordinary plasma ball?

Okay, this first sentence is not even possible neon photosphere emitting whic light from far above the photosphere. Either it is the photosphere or not, make up your mind.

The photosphere is a double layer of neon. The white light above the photosphere comes from the arcs. The white light along the bases of the loops is brightly lit on both sides, just as a birkeland solar model predicts.

Birkeland did not do anything of the kind. Please show me exactly where he is scaling, doing the math, etc etc. You are supposedly the expert on whatever Birkie did, but when we ask you where Birkie wrote it down, calculated it, or whatever, we get an answer "read the book it's all in there." I went through the math after page 664, where allegedly discusses how the solar wind works (electrons dragging the ions along) and I did not find a thing! (Maybe I cannot search well enough.)

His math relates to the flow of both positively and negatively charged particles. What did you get from that math?

I left the DVD at work, so I have no chance to watch it,

In other words, observational evidence be damned. You don't even care to see it. Why would you? It blows your whole show.

but I doubt that your interpretation of what you see has any merit, because basically you don't understand solar and plasma physics.

I can easily see "flying stuff" and real objects in RD images, and I can see mass movements at the bases of the arcs all along the transitional region. I guess I'm more of any "expert" than the rest of you as it relates to solar physics and satellite image analysis. You can't even see the flying stuff evidently without someone holding your hand for a week. The fact you guys let GM get away with claiming the persistence has anything to do with the RD technique says volumes.

Thus your interpretation will be strongly hampered. But what exactly am I supposed to see?

In those images you will see that the arcs come up through the surface of the photosphere, they light up the surface of the photosphere on both sides of the arcs, and blow plasma from the surface of the photosphere up and into the chromosphere. All of that is consistent with the discharge occurring *UNDER AND THROUGH* the photosphere, not high above it. Why is the plasma moving upwards rather than downwards if the primary "blast" is high above the photosphere?

I guess flares going of (magnetic reconnection) the top part of the loop flying away, whereas the bottom part of the loop is a smaller loop and oscillates. But then, you cannot trust these observations, because the hardly fulfil the "controlled experiment" criterium to which you adhere so much. So I think I might just dump the DVD into the waste basket.

No, I don't toss away any observations. They are the key to validating and falsifying any and all solar models. By your logic, the "flare" should have originate above the photosphere, it has no particular reason to light up the surface of the photosphere at the bases of the arcs, and plasma at the surface of the photosphere would be likely to be blow *DOWNWARD* from the blast above, not upwards and into the chromosphere. The physics doesn't work in your favor.

No, as long as you say that there is an iron shell in the Sun, there will be no agreement possible. The photosphere is made from mainly H and then some He and then some metals.

How do I verify your claim? I don't expect to find the surface above the photosphere, so to the photosphere surface, it's all pretty much the same. At the surface of the photosphere however there is a significant difference in our models. Whereas I expect the solar atmosphere *Above* the photosphere to be mostly hydrogen and helium, I don't expect that trend to continue through the whole solar atmosphere. There is no way that I believe that iron and nickel will stay mixed with hydrogen and helium at the surface of the photosphere. Gravity alone would cause massive atoms to sink, and plasma is known to separate in the presence of "current flow' and we have million mile per hour charged particles flying off the surface.

There is no way that helioseismology will determine what the photosphere is made of.

I agree. It can only tell us what is underneath of the photosphere in mathematical terms. There's another example of a bunch more math that you folks simply ignore.

Just look at the definition of photosphere, the region from which the photons can escape the plasma of the Sun and therefore can be observed.

I'm aware of the definitions. I'm also aware of the fact that they are gross oversimplifications and just plain wrong. Sure, the photosphere emits the most *VISIBLE* light. That is primarily due to it's elemental composition (neon).

I have seen my share of flare, Micheal Mozina, don't start assuming what I have and have not seen.

I'm just so used to getting pathetic answers at this point, and it's hard to believe you've really seen this stuff, or it wouldn't be something you take so lightly as to not bother looking at it or explaining it before commenting on it.

I doubt Birkeland knew what the photosphere was,

I doubt you are correct because he already simulated a "glowing' plasma atmosphere.

so I doubt that he claims that you can see these things below it.

He could certainly see below his glowing plasma around the sphere to describe the origin of the loops and their relationship to physical bumps on the sphere. Evidently you think he was some sort of simpleton.

Where exactly is that in his book? You keep claiming more and more about what Birkeland predicted, soon you will say he discovered Neptune.

Na, that was evidently Galileo that did that.

And why would hot gas in a coronal loop not be visible "over long distances" (another sentence that does not make any sense), it is a optically very thin plasma, so photons can flow through it unhindered.

The material "above' the "transitional region' seems to indeed be "optically thin". The moving matter from the transitional region however can easily (and does frequently) block the 171A light in a very short distance. How? Why? What is different about that material compared to optical thickness of the layers of plasma that are above the transitional region?

And you really think that solar physicists (e.g. from Utrecht University) have never watched videos of flares to improve their models? You really think you are the only one who watches these things?

No, I think a relatively few number of people watch these images, and most of them were taught to *believe* that the 171A images originate above the photosphere. It's tough to release one's preconceived concepts and see things as they really are.

In order to take what you say seriously, you would first have to show that you understand what observations in various wavelength bands really show. That discussion has been done before, and you really do not have the foggiest on what band passed filtered images show.

I know they show that you're beliefs are wrong and I can demonstrate it visually and via satellite imagery if you're willing actually watch and deal with the images I cite. If you won't bother looking at them however, there isn't much anyone could do.

Ah, and don't forget that in order to do his terrella experiments, Birkeland needed to put a magnet inside the "Earth" and in order to get his "coronal loops" he also needed a magnetic field in the "Earth/Sun",

Ok.

thus the magnetic fields of these loops (by your own reasoning, because Birkeland did it like that) needs to be internal to the Sun, and not created by the currents flowing along the field lines of the coronal loops

Well, a magnetic fields would need to exist inside the Sun, but the "lines" you're describing were "current flows" in Birkeland's experiments. There's both an electrical discharge process to the heliosphere *and* a magnetic core to consider.

(which is impossible anyway, as explained to you many a time in this thread).

Nothing Birkeland did in his lab was "impossible".

Michael Mozina · Jul 12, 2009

Reality Check said:
A prediction of the solar model (the flux of solar neutrinos) was not matched by observation.

Ok. Now you could have just accepted that your solar model has been falsified by this observation, right? That's exactly what you expect me to do, right?

This was a problem for many years.

Indeed.

The hypothesis (not a "ad hoc" assertion) that the cause was neutrino oscillations was experimentaly confirmed in controlled experiments using neutrinos produced here on Earth.

Which specific paper are you citing to support this statement? What was the control mechanism, and how did they verify "oscillation" and rule out something like scattering due to gravitational influences?

The hypothesis that the cause was neutrinos oscillations was experimentaly confirmed in controlled experiments using neutrinos produced in the Sun.

What is your point?

My point is that the sun isn't "controlled" and that isn't "controlled experimentation". I already outlined a "perfect" physical experiment in a "perfect world". How did your "experiment" compare to my suggestion?

What is untrue?
Are these all produced by your hypothetical, thermodynamnically impossible iron surface/crust/(whatever you think it is this minute)/thingy?
Or do they come from somewhere else?

The photons come from the coronal loops that are located all along (looping above) the surface. Birkeland described this full sphere discharge process and even filmed it.

Fission seems to be your thing of chioce do so a little nuclear physics and tell us how much fission there has to be to produce Sun's energy and neutrino flux.

FYI, fission is not necessarily the ONLY choice, it's simply the "primary" choice that Birkeland himself proposed. Since I also personally believe that fusion occurs inside of coronal loops, I haven't even tried to suggest a ratio of energy releases.

No one belives the Sun can be "controlled". That is just so dumb MM!

Then stop calling an observations of a solar feature a "controlled experiment". You can't turn off the coronal loops. You can't turn off the core.

Scientists know that empirical data is measured from both controlled and uncontrolled experiments.

You folks are really funny how you ignore "uncontrolled data" when it's in the form of a video made up of photons, but you'll happily believe that a solar related "observation" is a "controlled experiment". I think I better ask you what you do for a living because maybe I'm condemning astronomers here for the actions of a fellow amateur. How silly would that be? What exactly do you do for a living? Can you tell me if it is either related to teaching astronomy, or getting paid for doing astronomical research in some fashion?

So the neutrino oscillations measured from neutrinos emitted from both the Sun and laboratories are equally valid.

No. On the Earth you can determine "cause/effect" relationships. You can be certain for instance that the "source" selected is composed of what you think it is composed of. You can't do that with your solar model.

We have met our obligation - you have links to the many experiments that have measured neutrino oscillations.

You sort of handwaved a bunch of general neutrino detectors at me and you've not done what I asked you to do. I asked you to cite a specific *controlled experiment* that demonstrates oscillation and rules out other possiblities like gravitational scattering due to close proximity interactions with subatomic particles. "Missing" neutrinos are not "oscillated" neutrinos unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

Now it is up to you. Either show where the scientists went wrong in measuring neutrino oscillations , explain their results somehow else or accept that neutrino oscillations exist.

I'm not required to do any of these things. I accept that they have found evidence of "missing neutrinos" that do not seem to behave as they expected over a distance. I do not know why this occurs, nor can I rule out any specific theory related to why these neutrinos go missing over some distance. What I have never seen is an example of where a known source of say only electron neutrinos was aimed at a detector of say tau neutrinos and set off the tau detector. If you believe I've missed something, cite me a *SPECIFIC* paper and "experiment" and cite the control mechanism for us.

Michael Mozina · Jul 12, 2009

Tubbythin said:
The point though, is that it is now so much more than just missing electron neutrinos.

In which specific paper/experiment can I find much more than missing neutrinos in any data set?

GeeMack · Jul 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
[All nonsensical ranting from this post snipped and everything reasonable left intact...]

Every bit of the feces you just regurgitated above, and since the beginning of this thread for that matter, you have been wholly unable to support with anything more than your insistence that it must be true. You have yet to include a single shred of scientific objective evidence for any of it. No legitimate scientist on Earth accepts your position, Michael. I've asked you many times to speculate as to why that is. No more asking. I'm telling you. Nobody accepts your position because it is bogus, made up in your head, existing nowhere in reality, complete 100% unadulterated fiction. It's not just unsupported. It's unsupportable.

You seem to have conceded the point that you are an ignorant liar. My posts #806, #819, and #829 remain uncontested. They continue to stand without a single iota of rebuttal from you or from anyone else in this forum. No more playing kid scientist for you, Michael. If you can't go back and address the questions I raised, I think it's safe to assume you are unable to do so. Do you have the stuff, or don't you? Give it one more shot, why don't you? When it comes to having a tenable position on the subjects of this discussion, so far you're a loser.

Tim Thompson · Jul 12, 2009

Surface of the sun: Solid or not solid?

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.

Back in 2005 on BAUT you were quite explicit about the surface of the sun being solid.

Michael Mozina said:
I would define "solid" in the conventional way. I contend that a solid crust exists at .995R, just under the visible photosphere. I predict that the transitional region that TRACE and SOHO are imaging exists under, not over the photosphere. This will be a very testable and falsifyable prediction using STEREO technology.

OK, solid "in the conventional way". Solid.

And now, 4 years later, you are yourself the one who has emphasized the use of the word "solid", in this very thread.

Michael Mozina said:
I do not personally expect plasma to ever become "rigid" which is why I believe we're looking at a solid crust in these images, not simply a more dense layer of plasma.

Michael Mozina said:
The atmosphere is layered both in terms of elements and heat content with the lightest elements radiating at the hottest temperatures and emitting the most photons. The solid surface and and does radiate largely like a black body but at a much lower temperature than 5-6 thousand degrees.

So now, when other people take your own words at face value and explain that the surface can't be "solid", it's our fault for "dumbing down" your argument? No, if you are going to keep insisting on using the word "solid" to describe the surface of the sun, you don't get to complain about other people saying that you think the sun has a "solid" surface.

You have a bad habit that is really frustrating to everyone who tries to talk to you about anything. You just can't convince yourself to use precise language and actually say what you mean. I asked you myself, a while back, to ...

Tim Thompson said:
Please indicate what constitutes a "dense" plasma.

And you answered ...

Michael Mozina said:
A dense plasma is one that contains more ions per cubic meter than a light plasma It may also be composed of significantly heavier elements. It could be cooler as well.

So your most precise definition of "dense" is "the opposite of light". If I ask you to tell us what a "light" plasma is, will you say "one with fewer ions per cubic meter than a dense plasma"? We still don't have the foggiest clue what you think a "dense" plasma is supposed to be, so all we can do is guess. So we do guess, and then you get all bothered about how that's not what you really mean. We think we know what you mean by "solid" too ("in the conventional sense"), but now you are all hot and bothered about that's not what you really mean.

This business of trying to parse words, get the secret handshake and figure out that what you really mean is not necessarily what you really say has got too stop someday. So I have a novel solution to this problem. Try to say precisely what you really mean. And ditch the qualitative language.
What is the tensile strength of this surface?
What is the density of this surface?
What is the chemical composition of this surface?
How thick is this surface?
Say something, anything, about this surface that people can actually sink their intellectual teeth into, and say it in clear & unambiguous language. If you don't, then we will all be just as mystified as to what you really mean as you are.

DeiRenDopa · Jul 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
First of all, it's not at all "simple". You and I can't even agree on what the photosphere is made of! How can it then be a "simple" calculation? In your mind, I'm sure it's all very 'simple'. In a mass separated solar model, it's not as "simple" as you seem to imagine.

Secondly, you folks are notoriously dependent upon mathematical models to the absolute exclusion of the visual evidence and the visual observations that might actually confirm (or falsify) your mathematical models.

(bold added)

I must say that your posts can sometimes be very amusing, MM.

This one, for example, contains some irony that is really rich, and it is doubly amusing because I'm 99% sure you did not intend it.

Dude, what you are 'seeing', in the RD images, the narrow-band soft x-ray images, etc, etc, etc is mathematical models!

tusenfem said:
[...]

tusenfem said:

and observed in many an object or experiment is a sign at the wall why you have never answered my questions about Birkeland's math.

Click to expand...

Why should I bark math here at your command, when I have no reason to believe you've even read the math related to Birkeland's theories? He spend *YEARS* of his life, as did Alfven, providing you folks with math. What good did any of it do exactly? How much of it have you actually personally read? Have you read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven? Have you actually read Birkeland's mathematical presentations?

(bold added)

At other times, MM, your blatant dishonesty and the obvious transparency of your lies is quite sickening.

Several JREF Forum members have stated that they have read the relevant parts of the 914-page Birkeland tome, and written about what they found (including tusenfem). Based on their reading of that material - including the math - some asked you direct questions ... AFAIK, you have not answered even one of those questions (at least, none that relate to the math).

Basically, I guess you don't understand math, otherwise you would have answered my question about where Birkeland talks about accelerating electrons and dragging along the protons (which is utter impossible).

Click to expand...

I understand the math just fine

Hmm ... let's see now ...

Using the entirety of MM's posts here in the JREF Forum as data, is there any *direct* evidence that is consistent with this statement? AFAIK, there is none.

Is there any *direct* evidence to the contrary (i.e. that MM does NOT understand 'the math', 'just fine')? I think there is an abundance of such evidence.

But perhaps I have missed something.

MM - or any other reader - is there any evidence, in the form of posts, by MM, here in the JREF Forum, that shows MM does understand the math just fine?

, but math was never a legitimate substitute for physical experimentation. What makes Birkeland's work so valuable is not simply the math, but also his *PHYSICAL EXPERIMENTS*. You guys forgot the importance of physical experimentation IMO. You sit around plugging numbers into spread sheets or math formulas, never once looking up from your desk to test anything in a lab, [...]

Your questions seem "simple" to you because your working with an "oversimplified" physical model. You're *assuming* all the elements stay pretty evenly mixed together at the surface of the photosphere. That is not how it works in a mass separated model. It's not nearly as "easy" as you imagine.

(bold added)

Which leads to the obvious questions (once one has recovered from laughter at yet another example of unintended, rich, irony):

a) in which labs have mass separation in x thousand degree plasmas at ~20g (the local acceleration due to gravity) been detected? studied?

b) where, in Birkeland's 914-page tome, or in Cosmic Plasma by Alfvén, are the "*PHYSICAL EXPERIMENTS*" on mass separation described?

Michael Mozina · Jul 12, 2009

Tubbythin said:
The standard-solar model (SSM) makes no predictions about neutrino behaviour in flight. The other flavours were not predicted (not strictly true, neutrino oscillations were hypothesized about a decade before the solar neutrino problem was observed but afaik it was largely ignored) due to the standard model (SM) of particle physics not giving the neutrinos masses. This is a shortcoming with the SM, not the SSM.

IMO you are still "assuming" this to be the case. In other words, you're "interpreting" a "missing" electron neutrino count as an "oscillation", rather than say due to some sort of waveform in the neutrino, a detection anomaly related to a specific neutrino detector, scattering or some other possibility. In other words you're ASSUMING oscillation based on a solar theory, not "strictly" based on laboratory evidence IMO.

We still have no evidence of lepton number violation in weak decays. Find me evidence of lepton number violation in a weak decay and you may have a point.

FYI, as I see it, I don't need to find any such thing. I'm not trying to falsify or validate any specific solar theory based on this information. You're tying to insist one model is falsified by these findings.

The Sun's output is fairly uniform.

That depends. Not in 171A images it's not. It's not uniform in it's high energy atmospheric processes. It's fairly uniform in it's total energy release over a period of time, but there are obvious physical changes over an 11 year solar cycle as I'm sure you will agree.

We can adjust our detectors as we wish.

"Adjust" them based on what? You can move the detectors around a bit and play with the receiving end of the observation, but you are not controlling the transmitter in any way.

Therefore its controlled.

It's only "partially" controlled (at the receiver perhaps) and "partially assumed", certainly at the transmission side.

We can't turn the Sun off obviously, but if we could then we wouldn't be studying the Sun as it is. So the results would be less valid, not more.

I'm simply noting that no "experiment" can be "controlled" unless we can demonstrate a cause/effect relationship and without controlling the transmitter, that's not possible.

Well they quite obviously can't have been absorbed or scattered more during the day than at night. Unless you think the Sun has vastly different properties at Earth day than Earth night.

Well, it has different distance properties between the day and night. There may be more or less matter between the detector and the sun between the day and the night. How many other factors might also be varying during this timeline that might have some influence?

As for oscillations to antineutrinos - that would be seen at Earth based experiments.

All oscillations should be seen on Earth.

Which is why experiments like SNO which measure both the electron neutrino and the total neutrino flux are so good.

Well, they are "helpful", but that is a long way from being definitive. You might have a problem detecting electron neutrinos in one detection method that are related not to oscillation but to neutrino waveforms and detection various methods. I really don't know why detectors detect "less" of something than hoped. Readers of this thread (not you personally) need to keep in mind that we only see a *VERY SMALL FRACTION* of these things to begin with.

Like I said, experiments like SNO show that they oscillate because we can measure both the electron neutrino and the total neutrino flux.

How do you know one detectors isn't simply more efficient at detection than other at specific distances from the source?

Agreed. None are produced. I fail to see your point.

My point is that nowhere does the theoretical energy production side of either solar model predict these neutrinos to exist as we observe them here on Earth. If such findings didn't instantly falsify a SSM, then they don't automatically falsify any solar model today. SSM theory is predicated upon an oscillation from one lepton type to another. That is certainly something that *can* and *should* be demonstrated in a lab, but our technologies are still pretty limited. I'm not knocking the concept in any way, I'm simply noting that a "missing" electron neutrino in one type (design) of detector at some specific distance could be due to many factors including distance alone. Energy tends to travel in wave forms and double slit experiments have show that inference patterns can have an effect on detection.

I can't automatically assume any particular solar theory is instantly falsified by neutrino measurements. You folks didn't instantly toss out your solar theories when they didn't jive with expectation did you? Why would you expect me to do so now?

Michael Mozina · Jul 12, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
Back in 2005 on BAUT you were quite explicit about the surface of the sun being solid.

And I still believe it is composed of solids, not vastly unlike the crust of the Earth in terms of density or composition.

And now, 4 years later, you are yourself the one who has emphasized the use of the word "solid", in this very thread.

That would be due to the fact my position hasn't changed in four years.

So now, when other people take your own words at face value and explain that the surface can't be "solid", it's our fault for "dumbing down" your argument?

Ya. Did you see me claim the sun's surface was made of solid iron and only solid iron? Didn't you see me mention the term "crust" over at Baut?

No, if you are going to keep insisting on using the word "solid" to describe the surface of the sun, you don't get to complain about other people saying that you think the sun has a "solid" surface.

I wasn't bitching about the use of the term "solid". I was complaining about the notion the whole surface was solid iron. It's a crust, a volcanic one at that. It's not a solid iron surface, it's just a solid surface.

You have a bad habit that is really frustrating to everyone who tries to talk to you about anything.

Actually it's astronomers in particular that I seem to really irk no end.

I pretty much get along with everyone else.

You just can't convince yourself to use precise language and actually say what you mean. I asked you myself, a while back, to ...

And you answered ...

So your most precise definition of "dense" is "the opposite of light". If I ask you to tell us what a "light" plasma is, will you say "one with fewer ions per cubic meter than a dense plasma"? We still don't have the foggiest clue what you think a "dense" plasma is supposed to be, so all we can do is guess.

What exactly did you want me to say? The core of a sun in a standard solar model is composed of "dense" plasma, whereas the photosphere is composed of a "much lighter" plasma. There is a significant difference between a dense and light plasma in terms of what absorption and scattering we might expect to observe. I'm not trying to be vague in any way, but I'm responding to a lot of folks Tim, not just you. I really don't see how you can defend this notion that something as "light" as the surface of a photosphere could possible block all wavelengths instantly. All light will penetrate to some specific depth.

Before I go off on another wild goose chase on your list of questions, how about you answering some of mine related to the Flares DVD or Kosovichev's video first?

Reality Check · Jul 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Ok. Now you could have just accepted that your solar model has been falsified by this observation, right? That's exactly what you expect me to do, right?

What I meant and said was that the solar model had one of its predictions falisfied (the neutrino flux). Thus it was was in trouble (or even falsified) for about 30 years. But all of the other aspects of the solar model fitted observations.

To reduce your ignorance of what the scientific method means:
Scientists do not generally throw away a scientific theory beause it fails one prediction. If so Newtonian gravity would have been thrown away as soon as problems with Mercury's orbit were detected. They investigate the problem and try to come up with theories to explain it or a replacement for the original theory that explains it.

The experimental detection of neutrino oscillation in both solar neutrinos and neutrinos generated in laboratories resolves the neutrino problem in the solar model.

Michael Mozina said:
Which specific paper are you citing to support this statement? What was the control mechanism, and how did they verify "oscillation" and rule out something like scattering due to gravitational influences?

Learn to read MM: All of them.
They did not "verify" neutrino oscillation - they measured them.
Please present your derivation that "something like scattering due to gravitational influences" can produce the results seen in neutrino observatories.

Michael Mozina said:
My point is that the sun isn't "controlled" and that isn't "controlled experimentation". I already outlined a "perfect" physical experiment in a "perfect world". How did your "experiment" compare to my suggestion?

My point is that neutrino oscillation has been detected in both controlled and uncontrolled experiements.

Michael Mozina said:
The photons come from the coronal loops that are located all along (looping above) the surface. Birkeland described this full sphere discharge process and even filmed it.

Your inability to read is becoming more and more obvious :eye-poppi

!
The questions were:
First asked 12 July 2009

What flux of solar neutrinos is predicted by the Iron Sun model?
How does it match even the 1960's Homestake Experiment result?

Are these all produced by your hypothetical, thermodynamnically impossible iron surface/crust/(whatever you think it is this minute)/thingy?
Or do they come from somewhere else?

You ignored the first 2 and are dumb enough to think that the last 2 are about photons.

Michael Mozina said:
FYI, fission is not necessarily the ONLY choice, it's simply the "primary" choice that Birkeland himself proposed. Since I also personally believe that fusion occurs inside of coronal loops, I haven't even tried to suggest a ratio of energy releases.

Then your Iron Sun idea is even worse than I thought.
You do not have the courage to even pick an energy source for the Sun and treat it scientifically.
It just consists of the obsession with Birkeland

Michael Mozina said:
Then stop calling an observations of a solar feature a "controlled experiment". You can't turn off the coronal loops. You can't turn off the core.

Liar.
I never said that. Learn to read.
Observing the solar neutrinos is an uncontrolled experiment.
Observing laboratory neutrinos is a controlled experiment.
Both sets of experiments produce empirical measurements.

Michael Mozina said:
...snipped usual crackpot stuff...

Reality Check · Jul 12, 2009

Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question

First asked 10 July 2009
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: ____*

Reality Check · Jul 12, 2009

Outstanding quesions for Micheal Mozina

These are some of the questions that MM has been asked and seems incapable of answering other than by spouting unsupported assertions.

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).

Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question? (first asked 10 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? (asked 7th July 2009)

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?
If so can you cite the paper or textbook that proves this because there are plenty of textbooks that say this is impossible. The Wikipedia article on the photosphere is quite clear:

The photosphere of an astronomical object is the region from which externally received light originates. The term itself is derived from Ancient Greek roots, φως¨- φωτος/photos meaning "light" and σφαιρα/sphaira meaning "ball," in reference to the fact that it is a ball-shaped surface perceived to emit light. It extends into a star's surface until the gas becomes opaque, equivalent to an optical depth of approximately 2/3[1]. In other words, a photosphere is the deepest region of an luminous object, usually a star, that is transparent to photons of certain wavelengths.

All you have to do is show that the optical depth of the Sun's photosphere is at least 4800 kilometres. For a mathematical and physical genius like you this should be really easy

.
Perhaps your co-author O. Manuel did the calculations?

Reality Check · Jul 12, 2009

More for Micheal Mozina on optical depth

You will of course ignore this in the same way as your Iron Sun idea ignores the laws of physics, but...

Here are the lecture notes on a course on astrophysics that has nice cartoons about the optical depth of plasma and gases.

Michael Mozina · Jul 12, 2009

Reality Check said:
You will of course ignore this in the same way as your Iron Sun idea ignores the laws of physics, but...

Here are the lecture notes on a course on astrophysics that has nice cartoons about the optical depth of plasma and gases.

Ok, so let's try to find some agreement here. I say we go ahead and calculate the "optical depth" of the photosphere based upon a double layer of mostly neon plasma with the density as specified in the standard solar model. Agreed?

Tubbythin · Jul 12, 2009

michael mozina said:
in which specific paper/experiment can i find much more than missing neutrinos in any data set?

prl 101, 111301 (2008).

Reality Check · Jul 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Ok, so let's try to find some agreement here. I say we go ahead and calculate the "optical depth" of the photosphere based upon a double layer of mostly neon plasma with the density as specified in the standard solar model. Agreed?

Agreed - you do it first. I would be interested in how you work it out.
ETA: We will have to agree on the wavelength of light. Is 171A acceptable?

Michael Mozina · Jul 12, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
(bold added)

I must say that your posts can sometimes be very amusing, MM.

What's wrong DRD, haven't you presided over a good lynching over at BAUT recently? Is that why you're trolling over here now?

This one, for example, contains some irony that is really rich, and it is doubly amusing because I'm 99% sure you did not intend it.

Dude, what you are 'seeing', in the RD images, the narrow-band soft x-ray images, etc, etc, etc is mathematical models!

I've never suggested that math that was applied to *known* objects (like iron) was a bad thing. Are you trying to paint me as someone who dislikes or distrusts the use of math? Is that your weird little goal? Sorry, let's nip that fallacy in the bud right now.

I'm a *HUGE* fan of technology, and math when it's applied to real things like real space gear that real scientists really launch into space. That's all "good" use of math and physical cause/effect science from my perspective.

It's only when you attempt to justify your dogma and faith in the "dark arts" via math alone that I'm going to complain about. Inflation fairies with mythical properties? Not unless you can "show me" here on Earth. "Dark evil energies" manipulating the whole physical universe? Not unless you can show me you aren't making this up in your head right here on Earth in an empirical test of concept.

Any use of math on physical objects identified by science (including subatomic particles) are fine by me. Just don't slap math to the side of a pack of dark magic gnomes and expect me to take you seriously.

At other times, MM, your blatant dishonesty and the obvious transparency of your lies is quite sickening.

Oh, but it's "honest" of you to limit the topics of conversation at BAUT that you don't like to 30 days? That's honest scientific behavior DRD? Lynching the heretics is "honest" behavior? Do you really think you're being "honest" over at BAUT in that ATM forum?

Is it really "honest' of you to ignore the images on my website when discussing my reasons for believing as I do when it was these specific images that convinced me of the validity of the solar model on my website? Is it really honest behavior to never attempt to explain these images based on various solar theories in an honest attempt to find "truth"? Is it really honest of you to avoid that question about what you'd add or subtract from a pure vacuum to achieve negative pressure in the vacuum? Is it really honest of you to avoid the questions I posed to Tim? How "intellectually" honest is it to attack the individual rather than the ideas and the images?

Several JREF Forum members have stated that they have read the relevant parts of the 914-page Birkeland tome, and written about what they found (including tusenfem). Based on their reading of that material - including the math - some asked you direct questions ... AFAIK, you have not answered even one of those questions (at least, none that relate to the math).

What specific questions would you like answered that Birkeland himself did not address mathematically? Why is it necessary for me to answer your question as it relates to these images?

I don't suppose you'd like to answer any of the questions I posed to Tim about the FlaresDVD image, Kosovichev's doppler image, the RD image, etc?

Reality Check · Jul 12, 2009

Lets cater to MM's request for a specific paper on the measurement of neutrino oscillations since he is too lazy to click on a link, read an article and then click on another link:
Abe S, et al. [KamLAND Collaboration] (2008). "Precision Measurement of Neutrino Oscillation Parameters with KamLAND". Physical Review Letters 100 (22): 221803. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.221803. arΧiv:0801.4589

This paper will really confuse you MM since the since the neutrinos are both "missing" and antineutrinos, so don't read it:
Eguchi K, et al. [KamLAND Collaboration] (2003). "First results from KamLAND: evidence for reactor antineutrino disappearance". Physical Review Letters 90 (2): 021802–021807. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.021802. arΧiv:hep-ex/0212021 )

ETA
I will give you an analogy for the earlier paper MM with the (vain) hope that you can see why missing neutrinos in laboratory experiments are evidence for neutrino oscillation.
An experiment is set up as follows

There is a light source that emits red light according to the known laws of physics.
There is a detector that detects red light.
The detector is a long distance from the source but there is a tunnel between the source and detector that means that the detector will be able to detect the light.

The light source is turned off. The detector does not detect any red light.
The light source is turned on. The detector does not detect any red light.
Thus there must be something happening between the source and detector the prevents the rel light from getting to the detector. The choices are

Something is blocking the red light.
Something is deflecting the red light.
The red light is changing into another wavelength of light.

The tunnel rules out the first 2 reasons and leaves the case that the red light has changed wavelength and so cannot be detected.

The match to the neutrino oscillation experiments is:

Neutrino source = red light source
KamLAND = red light detector
Weak neutrino interaction with matter and low neutrino mass = tunnel.

Electric universe theories here.

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Muse

Master Poster

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing