Electric universe theories here.

Michael Mozina · Jul 12, 2009

Tubbythin said:
prl 101, 111301 (2008).

It will take me awhile to read it, but I will do so. Your responses make it clear that you understand this topic very well, and I respect your points of view. I'll let you know what I think once I've read it. Do you have a link to the paper by any chance?

Michael Mozina · Jul 13, 2009

Reality Check said:
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.

Then magically one day it gained all it's credibility back and it was worth considering again? Don't you figure people "worked on it" and continued to "believe in it" even "against all odds"?

But all of the other aspects of the solar model fitted observations.

No, that stratification subsurface doesn't fit with earlier predictions either. That's supposed to be an open convection zone in standard theory. That RD image has *NEVER* been "explained" in terms of cause/effect relationships, not in four plus years of these conversations. Flying plasma? What flying plasma. That's literally the extent of the "scientific analysis" I've seen from your side of the aisle based on gas model theory.

Scientists do not generally throw away a scientific theory beause it fails one prediction.

But you expect me to throw away Birkeland's solar model, and evidently all other variations of a "solid crust" model based upon this very same issue? FYI, I do realize that the core remains beyond my vision at any wavelength that I currently have in my possession, and I have x-ray and gamma vision thanks to the Yohkoh, Hinode, GEOS and Rhessi programs.

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.

So, don't you think I should adopt a "wait and see" attitude here while we investigate the "missing neutrino' problem awhile longer? FYI, I even accept that it could in fact be that the core of the sun works exactly as standard theory suggests. There could be a fusion process involved for all I know. I still can't ignore what I observe in satellite images and those persistent features in the Doppler and RD images stick out like a sore thumb in your presumed open convection zone. That circled feature is below the photosphere even by Kosovichev's explanation, and both of us believe that the black and white dots represent moving plasma. It simply demonstrates that the "mass flows" we observe in the original iron ion wavelengths take place under the photosphere, not above it.

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

Ok, even if we assume all of that is true for the time being, how exactly did you intend to "explain" that circled image in Kosovichev's video without admitting that most of the coronal activity is occurring below the photosphere? What does cause those mass flows under the photosphere?

Now please go right ahead and explain that RD image in terms of cause effect relationships and keeping in mind the images on the DVD?

Learn to read MM: All of them.
They did not "verify" neutrino oscillation - they measured them.

No. You could only "measure them" if you could individual isolate each and every lepton configuration, muon from tau, tau from electron, etc, and measure each of them independently at a number of distances. I'm not aware of any technology we posses that could do that. I did hear TBT and I'll read the paper he suggested before commenting further. I'm guessing we're lumping a "grand total" somewhere and subtracting the total number of electron neutrinos detected and *assuming* the total includes other types of neutrinos. I'll have to think about that one awhile and see how it's being applied to this experiment.

Even if it goes your way for now, why would you expect that one issue to make me abandon a "crust" model, even if I let go of fission core concept?

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.

That's not true, and there is no guarantee there is only a single energy source. You can't *insist* a select one and only one energy source. I can't see beneath the surface in any wavelength with enough precision to say for certain what kind of core it has. All I know is that I can see a "crust" in satellite images, including volcanic activity.

It just consists of the obsession with Birkeland

No, not really. When I first put up the website, it was based entirely on the SERTS and satellite imagery, particularly the RD and Doppler images I keep hounding you about. I had not even read Birkeland's work at first and I was absolutely stunned when I read it for the first time. I could not believe someone had already done so many physical tests in a lab related to these ideas. It literally blew me away. Any ego I might have had, or any illusions I may have been under for coming up with the idea went up in smoke. I simply recognize the value of his work and I see how to apply it to satellite images in space.

You seem to be missing the point from my perspective. Even if we find evidence of oscillation, it changes absolutely nothing as it relates to the Doppler and RD images. They must still be explained one way or another.

Tubbythin · Jul 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
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,

I don't really know what you even mean by this. Can you be more precise?

a detection anomaly related to a specific neutrino detector

Well, if we'd only done the observations once that might be sensible. In fact the original assumption was that Ray Davis' result was just plain wrong. It took repeated and improved experiments to show that the observation is real.

, scattering or some other possibility.

Scattering wouldn't explain the day-night asymmetry. Nor, more importantly, would it explain why we observe an excess of neutrinos that aren't of the electron type.

In other words you're ASSUMING oscillation based on a solar theory, not "strictly" based on laboratory evidence IMO.

Based on multiple independent experiments it has become increasingly clear that neutrinos do oscillate. If you can come up with a better interpretation of the data then feel free to do so. Otherwise your assertion that I'm making assumptions is completely baseless.

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.

Actually, I said the neutrino data falsified your model. You said the neutrino model falsified the SSM. I've explained in detail why you are incorrect. Now, its really up to you to show us how the neutrino data can be consistent with your model.

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.

Right... and the calculated neutrino flux output depends largely on what... the total energy output.

"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.

I probably should have said adjust the data collection mechanism as we wish though we can try different detectors of course. I'f already been through a whole load of things we can look at.
Obviously the Sun isn't controlled. But then neither is the decay of a top quark. How it chooses to decay is up to it (apologese for the personification). But the best way to study the decay of the top quark is to study the decay of the top quark. Similarly, the best way to study solar neutrinos is to study solar neutrinos.

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

Err. If we completely controlled the experiment it would be a completely pointless experiment.

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.

By this reasoning we can't determine that sunlight comes from the Sun because we can't turn the Sun off.

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.

Well it should be fairly obvious that there is more matter at night than during the day.

How many other factors might also be varying during this timeline that might have some influence?

Essentially, none.

All oscillations should be seen on Earth.

It depends on the mixing angle(s).

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.

That sentence doesn't make sense.

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.

This cannot explain why we see more muon/tauon neutrinos than we should. Or why the total numbers add up to agree approximately with the number of electron flavour expected without oscillations.

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

I don't understand the question.

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.

The SSM predicts a certain flux of neutrinos from the Sun. That is it. The number actually measured and the flavour is determined by the SM. Multiple independent experiments show that neutrinos change flavour (as do neutral kaons and B-mesons by the way). This has led to a change in the SM. The SSM hasn't changed one bit. There is no experimental evidence supporting a change in the SM that would bring your theory in line with the observed neutrino fluxes.

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.

That's why not all neutrino experiments are the same. That's why we aren't relying on one "best" experiment as you would like us to.

Energy tends to travel in wave forms and double slit experiments have show that inference patterns can have an effect on detection.

This is irrelevant.

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?

Because your theory is inconsistent with multiple pieces of experimental data. Because you have no answers to the inconsistencies?

Tubbythin · Jul 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
It will take me awhile to read it, but I will do so. Your responses make it clear that you understand this topic very well, and I respect your points of view. I'll let you know what I think once I've read it. Do you have a link to the paper by any chance?

Thanks. I'm by no means an expert. And I can't guarantee that every single thing I have said is 100% accurate.

It appears to be available freely on the SNO website:
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/publications.html

Reality Check · Jul 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Then magically one day it gained all it's credibility back and it was worth considering again? Don't you figure people "worked on it" and continued to "believe in it" even "against all odds"?

Now you are getting it!
The fact that the solar model fitted the other observations made people work on the problem.
The fact that no other model fitted the other observations and this observation gave them the confidence that the existing model might be correct.
The fact that neutrino oscillations were detected in 2003 and have been confirmed in many experiments since then means that there is no longer any solar neutrino problem.

Michael Mozina said:
No, that stratification subsurface doesn't fit with earlier predictions either. That's supposed to be an open convection zone in standard theory. That RD image has *NEVER* been "explained" in terms of cause/effect relationships, not in four plus years of these conversations. Flying plasma? What flying plasma. That's literally the extent of the "scientific analysis" I've seen from your side of the aisle based on gas model theory.

The stratification is expected in the solar model.
Your idea that it is a "subsurface" is your personal delusion.
Your inability to understand the explanation of the TRACE 171A RD animation features is your problem not sciences.
Your inability to understand that TRACE 171A RD animation was created from images of activity in the corona is your problem not sciences.
The fact that you ignore the statements from the people who took the images and state that your interpretation is wrong is a basic attribute of a crackpot.

Michael Mozina said:
But you expect me to throw away Birkeland's solar model, and evidently all other variations of a "crust" model based upon this very same issue? FYI, I do realize that the core remains beyond my vision at any wavelength I current have in my possession, and I have x-ray and gamma vision thanks go GEOS and Rhessi programs.

Yes.
Because your Iron Sun "model" does not exist. You have the typical handwaving ideas that any crackpot has.

Do what any competent scientist would do:

Give us citations to the papers that have images that they say are from under the photosphere (in any wavelength of light).
Give us the mathematics and the numbers!

Michael Mozina said:
...snipped MM's usual delusional rant about RD animations and Doppler images...

Michael Mozina · Jul 13, 2009

Tubbythin said:
Scattering wouldn't explain the day-night asymmetry. Nor, more importantly, would it explain why we observe an excess of neutrinos that aren't of the electron type.

I'm going to try to skip the parts where we agree, and limit my response to a couple of key points so we focus on these points specifically.

Any sort of double slit experiment suggests that "wave" action takes place and interference patterns emerge at various locations in the experiment, even in "massless" particles. What makes you think you aren't putting the electron neutrino detector inside an area that experiences interference in one type of detector and not necessarily in both types of detectors? It seems to me that you're "jumping the gun" here a bit. How do you know that they detect electron neutrinos evenly at every tested distance?

Actually, I said the neutrino data falsified your model.

But it does not falsify my model anymore than three neutrino types falsified standard solar theory when your side didn't know/believe they oscillated. In fact I don't profess to believe there is a "known" or even a "single' energy source to begin with. I simply noted that according to Birkeland the primary energy source could be fission.

Because your theory is inconsistent with multiple pieces of experimental data. Because you have no answers to the inconsistencies?

But that in and of itself does not falsify a solar model even if everything you said is absolutely true and above question.

All we really know for now is that there is an "anomaly" that I can't fully explain based on a fission model *at this moment in time*. It doesn't make one iota of difference as it relates to the satellite images on my website which led me to conclude that the sun has a "crust". Care to explain them in terms of a standard solar theory and cause/effect relationships?

I guess I accept what you're saying for the time being with the first caveat I mentioned. I don't see how your 'certain' that both types of detectors measure electron neutrinos equally at every distance, and that no interference patterns might emerge in either type of detector.

Reality Check · Jul 13, 2009

More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth

First asked 13 July 2009

You state that it is possible to see below the photosphere somehow.

In what wavelengths is this possible?
In which published papers or textbooks is this stated?
Why have solar physicsits not realized this and told everyone about their ability to see 4800 kilometers (or more?) into the Sun?
If your iron surface is a "crust" could there be holes in it and so could we see the core of the Sun?

Reality Check · Jul 13, 2009

Formation of the iron surface

MM:
First asked 13 July 2009
Can you tell us how the Iron Sun idea models the formation of the Sun, especially how the iron layer is formed?

I would quite interested in the mass separation equations that you used to calculate the formation of the iron surface and how they match up with your assertion that the depth is 4800 kilometers.

Michael Mozina · Jul 13, 2009

Reality Check said:
Now you are getting it!
The fact that the solar model fitted the other observations made people work on the problem.
The fact that no other model fitted the other observations and this observation gave them the confidence that the existing model might be correct.

Now you might be getting it too. Likewise, the fact you can't explain these RD and Doppler images in terms of the existing solar model gives me some confidence that Birkeland's solar still "might be" correct. Even if he is incorrect about the core, and the whole model "needs some work" as it relates to the internals, that doesn't negate what I can observe in satellite imagery.

The fact that neutrino oscillations were detected in 2003 and have been confirmed in many experiments since then means that there is no longer any solar neutrino problem.

Well, I'm going to have to reluctantly agree with you that there is no immediate problem, but I would say a lot of work still needs to be done before you can claim to be "certain" of flavor oscillations.

The stratification is expected in the solar model.

PRIOR TO Kosovichev's published paper, which solar model "predicted" the existence of this stratification at around .995R?

Your idea that it is a "subsurface" is your personal delusion.

Um, no, that's the actual word they used. They called it a "stratification subsurface". You did read the paper, right?

Your inability to understand the explanation of the TRACE 171A RD animation features is your problem not sciences.

It's not a "problem" for me because I can actually look at the details in the images and explain them in terms of cause/effect relationships that work in a lab. It's a problem for your side obviously because in all these pages and pages of commentary, the best "explanation" I've heard is "flying plasma? What flying plasma.". Utter failure.

Your inability to understand that TRACE 171A RD animation was created from images of activity in the corona is your problem not sciences.

It cannot be exclusively limited to the corona as any 1600A image of a falre can demonstrate, including all the image on the DVD you haven't seen and refuse to watch. The images of the photosphere however during the flare event demonstrate that it is physically impossible for all of these discharges to occur only above the photosphere. Kosovichev's Doppler image and his heliosiesmology data show that the "mass flows" occur *UNDERNEATH OF* not strictly above the photosphere.

The fact that you ignore the statements from the people who took the images and state that your interpretation is wrong is a basic attribute of a crackpot.

Yawn. The fact that all of you, each and every one of you avoids the details in the images like the plague, you can't explain them in terms of cause/effect relationships, and you continue to swing below the belt at individuals rather than on the science says to me that you're desperate. Care to "explain" the persistent features? The peeling? Anything specific seen in the image in terms of cause/effect relationships? Why are those mass flows all forming rigid patterns under the photosphere in Doppler images if all the coronal loop activity is above the photosphere?

When are you going to watch the DVD and respond to the three flares cited in the visible wavelengths? When are you going to explain the 1600A images and acknowledge that there is no way in hell that the base of the loops originates in the corona?

Reality Check · Jul 13, 2009

How much is "mostly neon" MM?

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?

First asked 13 July 2009
How much is "mostly neon" for the composition of the photosphere MM?

The abundance of neon is 0.12% according to the measured photosphere spectrum. That is not "mostly neon".

How do you explain this MM?
Remember that according to you, the photosphere is transparent to light down to your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron crust/surface at a depth of 4800 kilometers.

My guess:
Whenever you think that you see a surface in any image in any wavelength then you assume that the photosphere is transparent to light in that wavelength.
Whenever you want to the photosphere to be opaque to light in a certain wavelength then you assume it is.
Any appeal to the laws of physic will not change your mind because you are always right and the laws of physics do not matter.

Reality Check · Jul 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
...snipped RD animation delusions...
Well, I'm going to have to reluctantly agree with you that there is no immediate problem, but I would say a lot of work still needs to be done before you can claim to be "certain" of flavor oscillations.

I do not claim to be certain. The scientific comunity has the concensus that neutrino oscillations exist.
How much is "lot of work"?
Exactly what is missing from the experiments?
Is this just another of your unfounded assertions or a personal opinion based on your ignorance?

ETA:
There is some work to be complete our understanding of neutroni oscillations, e.g. the T2K (Tokai to Kamioka) experiement

The goal of the T2K experiment is to gain a more complete understanding of neutrino oscillation parameters. Previous neutrino experiments have observed the disappearance of muon neutrinos in a beam as they oscillate to tau neutrinos. but oscillation from νμ to νe has not been observed. The reason for this is believed to be that the mixing angle θ13, which controls the probability for this oscillation, is very small. T2K hopes to be the first experiment to measure the appearance of electron neutrinos in a muon neutrino beam. Precise measurements of the other neutrino mixing parameter Δm232 and θ23 are another aim of the experiment. Future upgrades to T2K could yield measurement of the CP violation phase δ by comparing oscillations of neutrinos to those of antineutrinos

Michael Mozina said:
...
PRIOR TO Kosovichev's published paper, which solar model "predicted" the existence of this stratification at around .995R?

Um, no, that's the actual word they used. They called it a "stratification subsurface". You did read the paper, right?

Many papers predicted stratification (e.g. the papers that are cited) - Kosovichev's is about using data to put numbers on the stratification.

I read it ("Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle"). Obviously you did not.
They never use the term "stratification subsurface". They use the term "subsurface stratification". Their paper is about the stratification (changes in density) of the subsurface.
You still have to show that the changes in density that their model shows is comparable to the changes in density caused by your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust.

Michael Mozina said:
...snipped the usual image rant...

GeeMack · Jul 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
That RD image has *NEVER* been "explained" in terms of cause/effect relationships, not in four plus years of these conversations.

What else can I say? Liar.

GeeMack · Jul 13, 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?

How about you show the lab experiment, right here on Earth, no fudge factors, no metaphysical mumbo jumbo, mathematically consistent, physically plausible, objective such that other people can reach the same conclusion you've reached, that shows there is some kind of "double layer of mostly neon plasma" in, on, above, or below the photosphere. Or are you just pulling this stuff out of your ass again?

But it would be great to see you calculate it, because you know as well as everyone here, you don't know how to calculate!

Reality Check · Jul 13, 2009

GeeMack said:
What else can I say? Liar.

William Blake's poem 'The Liar' springs to mind:
Deceiver, dissembler
Your trousers are alight
From what pole or gallows
Shall they dangle in the night?

When I asked of your career
Why did you have to kick my rear
With that stinking lie of thine
Proclaiming that you owned a mine?

When you asked to borrow my stallion
To visit a nearby moored galleon
How could I ever know that you
Intended to turn him into glue?

What red devil of mendacity
Grips your soul with such tenacity?
Will one you cruelly shower with lies
Put a pistol ball between your eyes?

What infernal serpent
Has lent you his forked tongue?
From what pit of foul deceit
Are all these whoppers sprung?

Deceiver, dissembler
Your trousers are alight
From what pole or gallows
Do they dangle in the night?

Michael Mozina · Jul 13, 2009

GeeMack said:
What else can I say? Liar.

Flying plasma? What flying plasma? Explanation in terms of cause/effect relationships and specific image events? What explanation? You gave no explanation you Liar.

Michael Mozina · Jul 13, 2009

Tubbythin said:
Thanks. I'm by no means an expert. And I can't guarantee that every single thing I have said is 100% accurate.

It appears to be available freely on the SNO website:
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/publications.html

Thus far my only remaining objection to the controlled experiments is my first one. I'm still not done reading, but oscillation seems to be predicated on the notion that there are no interference patterns in the output of either type of receiver, and no difference in how the two "methods' of detection should work in terms of detecting electron neutrino emissions. For all I know the "total" neutrino detection method is simply less susceptible to interference patterns in electron neutrino output. I still don't see how "missing" detections equate directly to "oscillations" other than by pure "leap of faith" that it has no other possible cause.

FYI, I'm still wading through the material trying to see exactly what's new since the last time I looked through the neutrino experiments...

Reality Check · Jul 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Flying plasma? What flying plasma? Explanation in terms of cause/effect relationships and specific image events? What explanation? You gave no explanation you Liar.

This has been expalined to you several times you liar MM.

But here it is again and in smaller steps for smaller minds.
There is no actual flying plasma in the RD animation because it is a computer generated representation of changes of the color of pixels in the original images.
There is "flying stuff" in the RD animation because the pixels being compared can be traced back to the original images.
The cause of the "flying stuff" is the movement and changes in temperature of the CME material (plasma).
The effect of the CME material moving and changing temperature between original images is "flying stuff" in the RD animations.
The cause/effect relationship between the CME material moving and changing temperature between original images and the "flying stuff" in the RD animations is the running difference processing.

Reality Check · Jul 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Thus far my only remaining objection to the controlled experiments is my first one. I'm still not done reading, but oscillation seems to be predicated on the notion that there are no interference patterns in the output of either type of receiver, and no difference in how the two "methods' of detection should work in terms of detecting electron neutrino emissions. For all I know the "total" neutrino detection method is simply less susceptible to interference patterns in electron neutrino output. I still don't see how "missing" detections equate directly to "oscillations" other than by pure "leap of faith" that it has no other possible cause.
FYI, I'm still wading through the material trying to see exactly what's new since the last time I looked through the neutrino experiments...

What is your source for these "interference patterns ", e.g. where were they detected in a controlled experiment in a laboratory?

It looks like my previous post was right.
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.

Michael Mozina · Jul 13, 2009

Reality Check said:
I do not claim to be certain. The scientific comunity has the concensus that neutrino oscillations exist.

Ok. My point is still valid. Just because you *think* they oscillate, and even have some real "evidence" they oscillate, even by my standards, you don't know that they oscillate yet.

How much is "lot of work"?

In terms of pure "resolution"? "A lot" I've never seen a real time neutrino image of the sun in resolutions rivaling a SOHO image. When that happens, you let me know. Until then, I'd say "a lot". IMO however it's the one thing you SHOULD BE doing. I couldn't care less about your invisible creation mythos friends, but when real things show up in empirical experiments, I'm happy to fund it.

Exactly what is missing from the experiments?

Well, in an ideal world, we would have at least 4-8 megapixel resolution in real time. Detectors would be efficient, not horribly inefficient. We would be able to detect them individually by flavor and do so in high resolution of all flavors as well as the "sum total" detection methods now available.

FYI, I'm only interested now in how you eliminated the possibility of interference in the one type of electron neutrino detector, but the rest looks, well, "ok" by me, if not "ideal" by anyone's standards.

Many papers predicted stratification (e.g. the papers that are cited) - Kosovichev's is about using data to put numbers on the stratification.

None of them seemed to predict anything like what Kosovichev found in the area in question. The citations seemed to be rather, well, "vague" in terms of "where" we might find such things. FYI, nobody is doubting the legitimacy of Kosovichev's technique. I can see the results for myself in his Doppler images. That "stratification" is visible in that Doppler image and it's "rigid" compared to the material of the photosphere. How? Why? If so, where are those mass flows occurring if not the "stratification subsurface" his papers describe?

"I read it ("Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle"). Obviously you did not.
They never use the term "stratification subsurface". They use the term "subsurface stratification". Their paper is about the stratification (changes in density) of the subsurface.

Ooops, ok, you got me. the order of words is clearly "critically" relevant to your claim that I some how made up the term "subsurface".

Come on. Nitpick much?

You still have to show that the changes in density that their model shows is comparable to the changes in density caused by your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust.

I'm trying to figure out where you figure those mass flows Kosovichev's is describing are taking place if not below the photosphere? If we know for a fact that *persistent* mass flow patterns can be seen in 171A images, and they can also be seen in Doppler images underneath of the photosphere, what makes you think that they are not related?

About all I can do here is say "Wow". None of you have seen the DVD yet as far as I can tell. All of you ignored every question I posed to Tim and that I suggested you also respond to. All of you ran like hell from any of the actual "cause effect details" in the images. Nobody commented on why these plasma flows along the bases of the loops block light from the base of the loops, but the whole layer doesn't block visible light. None of you have explained anything much. In fact all I've heard thus far is a lot of accusations related to the individual, and no focus whatsoever on the images themselves or the science behind the cause effect relationships and the details observed in the images. You did in fact note that the CME spewed plasma, but that's about as far as it's gone. No mention on the persistence, no mention of the peeling, not mention of the CME and why the persistence isn't blown away by the CME event itself. No mention of the "small loops"' along the "surface" we see in the original images. There's been no real "analysis" because I can't even get you to even look at all the relevant images.

Michael Mozina · Jul 13, 2009

Reality Check said:
This has been expalined to you several times you liar MM.

Which specific frame, pixel, or specific visual event did you "explain" in your mind? Did you specifically address the persistence in the image, and do you agree or disagree with GM that the persistence is a function of the imaging technique rather than a persistence in the light source itself? Let's get "specific" here and no more hemming or hawing.

But here it is again and in smaller steps for smaller minds.

Pure personal insult, devoid of scientific value. You rely upon these pitiful behaviors constantly, well not at "constantly' (as in every post) as GM, but you rely upon them heavily. Why? Do you think you're clever? If you were "clever" I'd hear you mention a specific frame, detail and "cause/effect" relationship you actually "explained".

There is no actual flying plasma in the RD animation because it is a computer generated representation of changes of the color of pixels in the original images.

There is flying plasma in a RD image because a RD image contains all the flying plasma observed in the last image, minus where the light was in the previous image. What we are left with is "flying plasma" with a shadow for a directional component related to where that light source was in the previous image. We can see where it moved to, *AND* where it moved from. Anyone who knows anything at all about a LASCO-RD image knows you can see "flying plasma" in the image. You can see planets too, and stars in the background, and comets flying into the sun. Everything you can "see" in the original images is also visible in the lighted areas of the RD image. You may get a shadow from the movement of the plasma, but the allows us to see how FAST it's moving, and it's directional components. As long as you personally remain "blind" to something as simple as "Flying plasma" in a RD image, we really have little to discuss. If you can't pick out stars, planets, comets, flying plasma from a RD image, you aren't even trying.

There is "flying stuff" in the RD animation because the pixels being compared can be traced back to the original images.

The "lighted" pixels are lit in the final image too. The RD image includes shadowing features related to the movements of the plasma. It's not a cartoon animation detached from physical objects.

The cause of the "flying stuff" is the movement and changes in temperature of the CME material (plasma).

Ok, I will grant you that you personally (not GM) have explained *ONE* and *ONLY ONE* specific cause effect relationship to something specific in the image. You really didn't finish the "explanation" because you didn't specific what "caused" the CME. You hemmed and hawed on the specific thing that caused the CME.

The effect of the CME material moving and changing temperature between original images is "flying stuff" in the RD animations.

Ok. Try the "persistence" next for us. You'll find the original images to that specific event on the FlaresDVD by the way. You'll find that the light "structures" are "persistent" even in the original images. We see plasma fly off the CME event, but the persistent overall patterns of light and dark areas are visible even in the original images. Why? Why didn't the CME blow light plasma structures to kingdom come?

The cause/effect relationship between the CME material moving and changing temperature between original images and the "flying stuff" in the RD animations is the running difference processing.

Ok, 1 point for you. Is that all you've got in terms of "cause/effect" explanations? How about the persistence? The peeling? The other features in the image?

Reality Check · Jul 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Ok. My point is still valid. Just because you *think* they oscillate, and even have some real "evidence" they oscillate, even by my standards, you don't know that they oscillate yet.

I do not care about your "standards" which are abysmally low given that you believe in an Iron Sun idea that seems to have no predictions, i.e. no numbers to match observations.
I do not *think* that neutrinos oscillate. I see that the scientific evidence is that they oscillate.

What is your scientific evidence that neutrinos do not oscillate?

Michael Mozina said:
In terms of pure "resolution"? "A lot" I've never seen a real time neutrino image of the sun in resolutions rivaling a SOSO image. When that happens, you let me know. Until then, I'd say "a lot". IMO however it's the one thing you SHOULD BE doing. I couldn't care less about your invisible creation mythos friends, but when real things show up in empirical experiments, I'm happy to fund it.

Well, in an ideal world, we would have at least 4-8 megapixel resolution in real time. Detectors would be efficient, not horribly inefficient. We would be able to detect them individually by flavor and do so in high resolution of all flavors as well as the "sum total" detection methods now available.

Are you that dumb? Do you know what neutrinos are?

Michael Mozina said:
FYI, I'm only interested now in how you eliminated the possibility of interference in the one type of electron neutrino detector, but the rest looks, well, "ok" by me, if not "ideal" by anyone's standards.

Are you under the delusion that I did these experiments?

What "interference" and from what are you talking about?

And what "one type of electron neutrino detector"?
There are a dozen neutrino observatories using neutrino beams produced in several faculties. They use several different types of detectors that can detect the various types of neutrino.
For some strange reason you want to look at each paper produced by the experiments individually. We are going to be here for a long. long time!

Michael Mozina said:
...snipped usual image rant...

Reality Check · Jul 13, 2009

Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?

First asked 15 July 2009
Michael Mozina
This has probably been asked before but lets try again:

What are the numeric predictions of the Iron Sun model that can be tested against actual empirical measurements?

A few examples that current solar physics derives and your model should be able to provide:

What is the spectrum of the Sun from the photosphere (given that in your model it is "mostly neon")?
What is the speed of sound profile of the Sun?
What is the density profile of the Sun?
What is the neutrino flux?

But I would be interested in any numbers at all that can be compared to measurements.

Michael Mozina · Jul 13, 2009

Reality Check said:
I do not care about your "standards" which are abysmally low

Compared to your beloved inflation genies? Please....

given that you believe in an Iron Sun idea that seems to have no predictions,

You mean *except for* every one of Birkeland's predictions about jets, loops, high speed solar wind and electric currents (in your lingo "magnetic ropes), ect?

i.e. no numbers to match observations.

I guess you never read even a single paper that Oliver wrote, not a single paper by Kosovichev, or a single paper I've been involved in.

I do not *think* that neutrinos oscillate. I see that the sciebtific evidence is that they oscillate.

Fine. I'm more than happy to grant you that they "may" and perhaps do oscillate. Whoop-de-doo. My beliefs are not predicated upon the outcome of that specific debate and they never have been. I don't really care unless you can use that tidbit of knowledge to explain the images on my website in terms of cause/effect relationships and specific details. I did not base my beliefs upon the oscillation issue in any way, and even if the evidence favors your position at the moment, so what? Does that explain the images I've cited? No. Does it eliminate *ANY* other solar model? No, no more so than your lack of prediction of oscillation in advance falsified standard solar theory when all neutrino types were found. It would simply be an 'unexplained" issue, just like these images remain "unexplained" based on gas model solar theories.

What is your scientific evidence that neutrinos do not oscillate?

I don't have any evidence that they do not oscillate. I would even go so far as to grant you that there is "limited evidence" in favor *OF* oscillation, but it's irrelevant to these images. It's not as though your side has provide all the answers to all the questions I've posed to you either. So what?

Are you that dumb? Do you know what neutrinos are?

Excuse me? Oh wait, you can't control yourself.

What "interference" and from what are you talking about?

I'm talking about the interference patterns that show up in QM and in double slit experiments. What are you talking about?

Michael Mozina · Jul 13, 2009

Reality Check said:
First asked 15 July 2009
Michael Mozina
This has probably been asked before but lets try again:

What are the numeric predictions of the Iron Sun model that can be tested against actual empirical measurements?

Did you read Birkeland's work, yes or no? Did you find *ANY* numerical "predictions" related to his experiments in that volume? Yes or no will suffice.

Did you see any "predictions" in his work related to the mass found in "flying ions" compared to the mass found in suns and planets? Did he even come close to coming up with an accurate number? If not, why not? Did he *OVERESTIMATE* or underestimate the mass we might find in flying ions? Hint, you should already know this answer and you should have already cited it as a "failed" prediction and you should already be able to explain why he failed that prediction.

GeeMack · Jul 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Flying plasma? What flying plasma? Explanation in terms of cause/effect relationships and specific image events? What explanation? You gave no explanation you Liar.

Well, of course I did explain them, thoroughly. Everyone except you understands. You just ignored the explanations because it goes against your delusion. But we've been through this before and the results have been that, well...

GeeMack said:
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.

No you go back like a good little science boy and explain the issues raised in posts #806, #819, and #829. If you can't, you can't. We'll all understand. In fact, we're already pretty sure you can't.

Reality Check · Jul 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
You mean *except for* every one of Birkeland's predictions about jets, loops, high speed solar wind and electric currents (in your lingo "magnetic ropes), ect?

What numeric value did Birkeland predict for the speed of the solar wind (what page in his book?) and how does it match the observed value?

I have read his book. I did not see any numeric predictions about jets, loops (coronal?) or high speed solar wind.

Michael Mozina said:
I guess you never read even a single paper that Oliver wrote, not a single paper by Kosovichev, or a single paper I've been involved in.

Then you are wrong.
I have read several papers by Kosovichev, Oliver and you.

Michael Mozina said:
Fine. I'm more than happy to grant you that they "may" and perhaps do oscillate. Whoop-de-doo. My beliefs are not predicated upon the outcome of that specific debate and they never have been. I don't really care unless you can use that tidbit of knowledge to explain the images on my website in terms of cause/effect relationships and specific details. ...snipped...

This is nothing to do with your usual lies about the images that have ben explaind many times here and in other fora.

This is to do with your total failure to match the observed flux of solar neutrinos (even without oscillations) from your idea.

This is about your logical fallacy (false dichotomy) that a non-existent defect in the current solar model is a point in favor of any other solar model.
This is a typical crackpot fallacy. They state that there is evidence against theory A and so this must be evidence for theory B. They conveniently forget about theories B, C, D and Z.
Your fallacy is even worse because it is only your personal opinion that there is evidence against theory A.

Michael Mozina said:
I'm talking about the interference patterns that show up in QM and in double slit experiments. What are you talking about?

I was not talking about interfence patterns - you were.

Now show that these interfernce patterns of yours happen in the experiments. For example a beam of neutrinos is produced by a nuclear reactor. Its interaction with matter is so little that of the billions of neutrinos emitted per second only a few tens per second will be detected.
How does this beam interfer and with what?

Or just cite the paper or textbook that you got this interesting phenomena from.

DeiRenDopa · Jul 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
[...]

DeiRenDopa said:

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!

Click to expand...

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. [...]

Let's take but one example, shall we?

Michael Mozina said:
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?

Okey dokey ... so where are the detailed, *mathematical* calculations (a.k.a. models) which show - in objective, independently verifiable detail - that the soft x-ray *models* (based on the outputs from CCD chips, or whatever) have any relationship *whatsoever* to Birkeland's silver halide photographs?

IIRC, I asked you something similar, many weeks or months ago, and you didn't actually answer ...

[blatantly obvious attempts to avoid answering, or addressing, the points/questions that go to the heart of MM's claims deleted]

So, are you going to answer the many direct, pertinent questions about Bikeland's math (cited by several JREF Forum members), or not?

Several JREF Forum members have asked you, MM, direct questions, pertinent to the ideas you yourself have presented, as presented. AFAIK, you have not answered any of them.

Why?

GeeMack has made the point, persistently, that you have obviously failed to convey your insights to anyone, in the sense that there is an indication that your ideas are scientifically sound, or that they have sufficient scientific merit as to warrant further investigation. If so, why? I mean, if the case you are presenting is so scientifically compelling (as you so obviously believe it is), the easiest thing for anyone with even a half-way decent BSc in physics to do is take your stuff, turn the (quantitative) handle, write a landmark paper, get it published, and a return trip to Stockholm is guaranteed.

Have you ever wondered why it is that you have had such an epic failure of traction, over n years? Do you genuinely believe, for example, that you have such a profound insight into the observed behaviour of the universe? An insight that thousands of people with demonstrably greater intellect, and far broader and deeper grasp of the relevant history and physics (including astronomy) than you have hithertofore missed?

And if you do, truly, believe this, why do you suppose that you have been so singularly and spectactularly unsuccessful in making your case, over so many years?

Tim Thompson · Jul 13, 2009

photons through a plasma

Michael Mozina said:
You and I both know darn well that highly energetic 171a photons will penetrate *SOME* distance through a light plasma atmosphere. We can argue about "how far", but you can't claim it won't go *ANY* distance.

At no time have I ever suggested any such thing.

Michael Mozina said:
If we fire up an arc welder in a lab, and put some amount plasma between a camera and the arc, surely you will concede that *some* high energy light will get through that plasma.

And there you go again, putting the camera right next to the arc. Show me the post where I even began to hint at any such thing!

Now, same plasma, same camera, same arc. But put the camera 1000 km from the arc. Do we say "of course some photons have to get through"? I never said photons would not penetrate "some distance". I said that photons might not penetrate a very long distance, so try to stick to the same subject this time.

Now, are you telling me that you know, for a certain fact without any question at all, that at least "some" of the high energy photons must be able to penetrate any length of photospheric plasma?

I am telling you that I know, as an absolutely certain fact beyond any possibility of question, that if the optical depth of the plasma is high enough, then no detectable photons at all will penetrate a sufficiently long path length through the plasma. Do you agree or disagree?

Tim Thompson · Jul 13, 2009

Comments on Neutrino Oscillations

Michael Mozina said:
I'm guessing we're lumping a "grand total" somewhere and subtracting the total number of electron neutrinos detected and *assuming* the total includes other types of neutrinos.

Why guess? Why not go to the source? see Direct Evidence for Neutrino Flavor Transformation from Neutral-Current Interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory; Q.R. Ahmad, et al., (the SNO Collaboration), Physical Review Letters 89(1): paper 011301, July 2002. This paper reports the combined results of solar neutrino measurements from 3 experiments.

Charged current (sensitive to electron neutrinos only)
Neutral current (equally sensitive to all 3 neutrino types)
Elastic Scattering (sensitive to all 3 neutrino types, but not equally)

The neutral current reaction detects a total number of neutrinos that is equal to the total number of electron neutrinos expected from the sun. The charged current reaction detects only electron neutrinos. The difference between them matches the expected number of electron neutrinos which are expected to oscillate on their way through the sun. The elastic scattering reaction provides a check which confirms the results from the other two experiments. The elastic scattering reaction is important because, while sensitive to all 3 neutrino types, it is more sensitive to electron neutrinos, while less sensitive to muon & tau neutrinos. So the elastic scattering results will be skewed compared to the neutral current results (it being equally sensitive to all 3 types), so it provides an independent check on the total number of detected neutrinos. If they disagree, then the entire package is invalid. If they agree (which they do), then the obvious conclusion is that solar neutrinos are oscillating in practice as anticipated by theory. This is a valid scientific result and a valid observation of solar neutrino oscillations.

Furthermore, see First Results from KamLAND: Evidence for Reactor Antineutrino Disappearance; K. Eguchi, et al., (the KamLAND collaboration), Physical Review Letters 90(2): paper 021802, January 2003. This was the first reported direct observation of the oscillation of neutrinos produced by nuclear reactors. See figure 4, which shows the drop in neutrino counts at about 100 km, compared to the expectations of oscillation theory, which are consistent with the observations.

Both papers have garnered over 1000 citations so far, and other groups have achieved similar results. Observation of both solar neutrinos and reactor produced neutrinos agree with the same theory of neutrino oscillation. That is important because the oscillation is caused by the passage of the neutrino through matter, in the one case thousands of kilometers of solar matter, and in the other case through 100 kilometers of Earth. But the single same theory of neutrino oscillation, the MSW effect, explains both observations. That's hard to come up with as a random accident, and is compelling evidence that neutrinos oscillate.

The entire physics community considers the neutrino problem solved, and for good reason. You are of course free to ignore them and go your own way, pretending that there is some open question that puts it all in doubt. But you will be deservedly alone in that thinking.

Reality Check · Jul 13, 2009

Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina

The Iron Sun model states that coronal loops are electrical arcs that start on your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust, travel through 4800 kilometers of convection zone and photosphere (highly conductive plasma!), goes in a "hoop" through the corona and then plunges back into the photosphere and convection zone to merge with the iron surface/crust again.

First asked 13 July 2009
How does the temperature of the plasma vary along the electrical arc as the arc travels up to the corona (and back down to the iron surface/crust)?

My very limited knowledge of electrical arcs suggests that any heating of the plasma by the arc will be the same throughout the length of the arc.
This seems to literally blow holes in your Iron Sun model since the footprints of the coronal "hoops" will be at temperatures of millions of degrees (especially where the arc reenters the photosphere after heating the corona to a millions of degrees). If images are taken of the footprints of the "hoops" on the photosphere in visible light then there will be big holes seen (no visible light emitted from the million degree plasma).
I have seen no such holes in active coronal loop footprints. However I am sure that you can point me to 100's of these images.

Alternately:
First asked 13 July 2009
Can you tell me why the electrical arc (coronal loop) does not heat the photosphere plasma greatly but does heat the less dense corona plasma to millions of degrees?

Reality Check · Jul 13, 2009

Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina

The Iron Sun model states that coronal loops are electrical arcs that start on your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust, travel through 4800 kilometers of convection zone and photosphere (highly conductive plasma!), goes in a curve through the corona and then plunges back into the photosphere and convection zone to merge with the iron surface/crust again.

First asked 13 July 2009
How does the electrical arc keep its shape and direction while traveling through the highly conductive plasma above your iron surface/crust?

I am sure that you can cite a textbook with a chapter on the formation of electrical arcs in highly conductive media like plasma rather than the normally non-conductive media such as air as used in Birkland's terrella experiments.
This sounds like something plasma scientists must have been researching and publishing papers on for decades. So a couple of citations to papers on the subject should be easy to find.

tusenfem · Jul 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
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?

Oh, boohoohooo! MM it is clear you have no idea about the math that Birkeland and Alfvén have done. If you cannot even give the correct location for one of your claims.

What good did it do Birkeland and Alfvén?
We have Birkeland currents (plus a lot of other stuff that B invented, not necessarily in the space physics area)
We have Alfvén waves, we use MHD, everyone sees Alfvén as the father of modern plasma physics.

And yes, I went through the math by Birkeland, you might have noticed a little message about it on page 12.

tusenfem · Jul 13, 2009

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

Not open enough to believe a iron shell inside the Sun

Michael Mozina said:
Sure, but it's not "fully" ionized. It's "dusty" plasma.

What are the "s supposed to mean here. Is this another redefinition of yours, that we are unaware of? Naturaly it is not "fully" ionized in the way that, take your favourite iron, will not have lost all of its electrons, and in the outer layers of the sun there are even neutrals present. I have no idea what you mean by "dusty" is that "dusty" as in the usual definition of larger particles in a plasma or what?

Michael Mozina said:
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?

I read them, how often do I have to say that? (see page 12!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
And you don't want a discharge between the sun and the heliosphere, you want a discharge from surface to surface.

Michael Mozina said:
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?

From Birkeland, just to give the readers a background:

Birkeland said:

It is by powerful magnetisation of the magnetisable globe that the phenomenon answering to Saturn's rings is produced. During this process, polar radiation and disruptive discharges at the equator such as that shown in fig. 247a (which happens to be a unipolar discharge) [this is MM's picture of the "loops"] may also occur, if the current intensity of discharge is great. If the magnetisation of the globe be reduced (or the tension of the discharge increased) gradually, the luminous ring round the globe will be reduced to a minimum size, after which another equatorial ring is developed and expands rapidly (Fig 247 b).

Click to expand...

So Birkeland was trying to model Saturn in this picture. For those who do not know what a "unipolar discharge" is, the following:

Ye and Zheng said:

from here
Discharge in a fine tube is a simple way of generating a dielectric barrier discharge microplasma jet under atmospheric pressure (AP). Since its electrodes are directly connected by a dielectric, discharge behaviour in this kind of tubular-electrode plasma could be significantly different from that of a parallel-plate plasma source having planar electrodes.

Click to expand...

Which is a breakdown of the dielectric, like in a plasma ball. And to advance a bit on that, inside a plasma ball there is no plasma (unlike you would think from the name). The only plasma in that ball is in the discharges from the central ball to the glass sphere.

Now, there is no dielectric in the Sun, it is a plasma, so the idea that there would be discharges is interesting, but basically impossible.

Michael Mozina said:

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.

Click to expand...

Because Birkeland's experiment, although very interesting to create the aurora, does not well describe the physics of the Sun nor does it describe well the physics of Saturn's rings. Therefore, it is impossible.

Michael Mozina said:

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.

Click to expand...

Induction cannot replace magnetic reconnection, you cannot change the topology of the magnetic field using only induction.

Michael Mozina said:

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.

Click to expand...

The gas in a plasma ball is not plasma, only when a discharge takes place does the gas get ionized.

Michael Mozina said:

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".
Does it assume all the elements stay mixed together at the surface of the photosphere?
Which photons? All of them? The photons from the loops? The photons seen in 1600A? They all come from the photosphere in your opinion?
"Last scattering"? For *EVERY SINGLE* wavelength? Surely not every wavelength will operate the same way?

Click to expand...

Apparently, you have no knowledge about radiative transport in plasmas. Too bad, because it is highly important. Naturally I do not mean "at all wavelengths" if you would have read carefully, you would have seen that I wrote that "he optical depth of the plasma, it can either be transparent or opaque, and that depends on wavelength, density and length of the plasma column." That is why the photoshpere is not just a flat surface it is a layer with a certain thickness.

And naturally I do not say that the photons from the coronal loops come from the photosphere, the idea is ludicrous. These emissions are "superposed" onto the radiation that is coming from the photosphere.

Michael Mozina said:

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.

Click to expand...

Have you frakking READ what I wrote!?!?!?!?! I specifically wrote, like any other (plasma)(astro)physicist would do that the optical depth is WAVELENGTH DEPENDENT.

Michael Mozina said:

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

Click to expand...

Plasma balls are irrelevant, because they have no plasma.

Michael Mozina said:

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.

Click to expand...

And what kind of double layer would that be, a current carrying DL, or a boundary DL, and what is causing it to be a DL and what is the electric field, and why would the photosphere be made out of neon?

And again, hone your writing skills "the white light along the bases is of the loops is brightly lit on both sides?" how can light be lit? Sounds really profound MM, until you read what is really written.

Michael Mozina said:

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

Click to expand...

I went through the math (see my message on page 12) and there was NOTHING I could find on this process. The motion of charged particles near a gravitating magnetized sphere, no solar wind there, please, if I am mistaken, show me where exactly Birkeland explains the process that YOU are promoting.

Michael Mozina said:

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

Click to expand...

Oh, boy are you childish! Don't you forget ever anything to take home from work. The number of times I forget my cell phone on my desk .......

But then observations of flares are not what you would call "controlled experiments" so why would we believe any results coming from them.

Michael Mozina said:

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.

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?

Click to expand...

the plasma filling the magnetic loop is also very consistent with just the shear motion of the foot points, generating an electric field along the field lines and a current/plasma flow is set up. This is not what one call a discharge, because there is no break down of any dielectric which refrained the "charge separation" to equalize.

Michael Mozina said:

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.

Click to expand...

But they are not controlled experiments, MM!

You have totally no idea about solar flares theory, do you? In all models of solar flares it is expected that the footpoints brighten. And no, the plasma would not be "blasted downward" because in those magnetic loops the plasma is magnetized.

Michael Mozina said:

How do I verify your claim?

Click to expand...

So let's see an iron sphere in the sun. How big?
How does it stay stable?
How much uranium is creating all that heat and current?
How does fission of uranium create a current anyway?
How do I verify your claims?

Michael Mozina said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is not what I said, MM, I said that you can use helioseismology to determine what the photosphere is made of, one of your claims to which I replied, and now you try to twist it around in such a way that helioseismologist don't know squat. You are so frakking insincere in the way you discuss. Can you back up your claim that anything is ignored?

Michael Mozina said:

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).

Click to expand...

And why exactly should it be made of neon, why not of helium, which is the "solar particle".

Michael Mozina said:

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 you are correct because he already simulated a "glowing' plasma atmosphere.
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.
Na, that was evidently Galileo that did that.

Click to expand...

More Birkeland blah blah about things he never even heard of.

Lot's of peeps are working on solar flares in lots of different wavelengths for observations. Once more, you are not the sole person in the world who watches soho movies and you are certainly no expert on solar flares.

Click to expand...

Dancing David · Jul 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I'm talking about the interference patterns that show up in QM and in double slit experiments. What are you talking about?

Hi MM,

This seems to be really grasping at straws.

It is possible but not really plausible.

1. What would create the slit?

We are talking aboiout the weakly interacting neutrinos after all. Your model here, what would make the slit?

2. Why would the intereference pattern be so large as to have an area the size of a detector?

Dancing David · Jul 13, 2009

Hi MM,

I would swear that you just said that the existance of the crust of iron under the photosphere is a prediction of your model and that you should geta pass on one 'prediction' not being able to match the data.

Nope, that is your model. IE hypothesis.

You have yet to explain how it is possible, that is not a prediction, having it is a hypothesis.

How does a 'crust of iron' exist under the photosphere which has a temperature of 6000 degrees?

Double layers will not stop the transfer of heat through radiation of photons. So what keeps this 'crust of iron' below the point of melting and/or vaporization?

Michael Mozina · Jul 13, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
At no time have I ever suggested any such thing.

Then all we can possibly be discussing and/or arguing about is the *distance* such photons will travel. It's not a question of *if*, it's a question of "how far". That is going to be light source dependent, will it not? In other words a very bright arc is likely to penetrate further through the plasma than a weaker one?

And there you go again, putting the camera right next to the arc. Show me the post where I even began to hint at any such thing!

The distance of the camera is less relevant than the density and opacity of the material in the photosphere. It's also going to be dependent on the location of the discharge itself. The loops obvious rise high into the atmosphere, so light might originate somewhere below the surface and still be visible in the surface of the photosphere in the white light wavelengths. The event at 30:04ish seconds shows a distinct set of loops rising up through the photosphere and lighting up the material of the photosphere at the bases of the loops. The last event I cited shows the physics of the movement of the photosphere material when the flare occurs and blow photosphere material up and away from the event.

Now, same plasma, same camera, same arc. But put the camera 1000 km from the arc.

Suppose it's a 2000 KM arc? Will we see light below the photosphere?

Do we say "of course some photons have to get through"? I never said photons would not penetrate "some distance". I said that photons might not penetrate a very long distance, so try to stick to the same subject this time.

I'm still waiting to hear you explain what the material is made of that blocks the light in 171A in those original images?

I am telling you that I know, as an absolutely certain fact beyond any possibility of question, that if the optical depth of the plasma is high enough, then no detectable photons at all will penetrate a sufficiently long path length through the plasma. Do you agree or disagree?

I disagree. I disagree with the idea that the optical depth is high enough.

The photons in blue occur for quite a distance in these images, even after the x-rays start to be absorbed. While I agree with your basic idea in general terms, the iron ion wavelengths seems to be a horse of a different color.

Michael Mozina · Jul 13, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
The neutral current reaction detects a total number of neutrinos that is equal to the total number of electron neutrinos expected from the sun. The charged current reaction detects only electron neutrinos. The difference between them matches the expected number of electron neutrinos which are expected to oscillate on their way through the sun.

The sun isn't a controllable source and we can't inspect it's core, or turn it on and off. Ok, yes, the *TOTAL* count matches prediction, but that is really begging the question. *IF* we assume they oscillate, yes the matching total helps your case. If we assume they do not oscillate, the same data falsifies your solar model. We still would need to physically demonstrate this oscillation process in a controlled way.

Furthermore, see First Results from KamLAND: Evidence for Reactor Antineutrino Disappearance; K. Eguchi, et al., (the KamLAND collaboration), Physical Review Letters 90(2): paper 021802, January 2003. This was the first reported direct observation of the oscillation of neutrinos produced by nuclear reactors. See figure 4, which shows the drop in neutrino counts at about 100 km, compared to the expectations of oscillation theory, which are consistent with the observations.

The problem is that I can't tell if the 'disappearance' is related to an oscillation of flavor, of sign, due to scattering effects, due to some interference pattern related to the one type of detector or some other influence. This paper and this empirical technique has a lot promise, and it's definitely on the right track, but frankly I'm going to punt on this issue.

I going to simply remind everyone that I have already agreed that there is "some" evidence to support this idea even by empirical standards. Such data would not and does not falsify any other solar model, nor does it address the images on my website. I'm going to be *VERY* busy this week, and I really don't have the time now to get dragged into a million side issues. I'd really like to hear your response to Kosovichev's Doppler image and explanation, and the DVD images, particularly the 1600A and the three white light images I cited.

The entire physics community considers the neutrino problem solved, and for good reason. You are of course free to ignore them and go your own way, pretending that there is some open question that puts it all in doubt. But you will be deservedly alone in that thinking.

Actually I don't consider the problem "unresolved" at this point either Tim. Perhaps it is still "unresolved" as it relates to a Birkeland solar model, with fission core, but so what? The "neutrino problem" went unresolved in standard theory for 30 years and nobody abandoned the gas model theory over the issue during that timeframe.

The only thing that isn't "fully demonstrated" IMO is the oscillation process itself via direct empirical testing. I don't really even see how that is currently possible since none of the current detector systems seems to be capable of isolating the muon or tau neutrinos independently from the other types of neutrinos. While we can directly observe electron neutrinos independently from the other types of neutrinos, we have to "infer" the existence of the other two types (actually 5 other types if you include sign) of neutrinos from the "total" of various other detectors, less the detected number of electron neutrinos.

The problem here is that even a small scattering process might result in interference patterns in one type of detector more than another and/or result "missing" electron neutrino detections. I can't simply automatically *assume* that a "missing" neutrino = an oscillated neutrino.

Michael Mozina · Jul 13, 2009

Dancing David said:
Hi MM,

This seems to be really grasping at straws.

It is possible but not really plausible.

1. What would create the slit?

A gravitational scattering effect might created multiple neutrino paths over time. The release of neutrinos may not all occur at exactly the same point or place. There could be any number of ways to create interference patterns in neutrino emissions for all I know.

We are talking aboiout the weakly interacting neutrinos after all. Your model here, what would make the slit?

All we need the neutrinos to do is take different paths through the sun on their way out of the sun. Any sort of gravitational scattering process could in theory at least generate some sort of interference pattern. Yes, it's a "long shot". No, it's not impossible.

2. Why would the intereference pattern be so large as to have an area the size of a detector?

I don't know. The problem here is that we don't really observe a high percentage of neutrinos in our current detectors. We see only a *very* small sampling of events. Even relatively minor interference processes could have an effect on a single "hit/miss' event and that one effect would then be amplified greatly due to the fact that we receive so few hits anyway.

Michael Mozina · Jul 13, 2009

tusenfem said:
Oh, boohoohooo! MM it is clear you have no idea about the math that Birkeland and Alfvén have done. If you cannot even give the correct location for one of your claims.

How about we discuss "currents in the solar atmosphere" then since they are related to this conversation?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/A...r Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

We have Birkeland currents (plus a lot of other stuff that B invented, not necessarily in the space physics area)
We have Alfvén waves, we use MHD, everyone sees Alfvén as the father of modern plasma physics.

Ya right. You ignored what Alfven himself wrote about solar atmospheric events in favor of a magnetic reconnection mythology that he personally called "pseudoscience", and yet you claim to "honor" him? How does that work exactly? There must really be a big, fat, juicy rationalization in there somewhere.

And yes, I went through the math by Birkeland, you might have noticed a little message about it on page 12.

How did positive ions get ejected from the sphere according to Birkeland?

Michael Mozina · Jul 13, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
Let's take but one example, shall we?

You mean you're simply going to ignore every question I posed to you, you aren't ever going to discuss the images directly, and you're going to continue to play the role of "Grand Inqisitor", is that it?

Okey dokey ... so where are the detailed, *mathematical* calculations (a.k.a. models) which show - in objective, independently verifiable detail - that the soft x-ray *models* (based on the outputs from CCD chips, or whatever) have any relationship *whatsoever* to Birkeland's silver halide photographs?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/A...r Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

IIRC, I asked you something similar, many weeks or months ago, and you didn't actually answer ...

How many of my questions have you answered? How many "explanations" have you put forth for that RD image or Doppler image? How many years have you avoided these images now? Four years? Five years?

So, are you going to answer the many direct, pertinent questions about Bikeland's math (cited by several JREF Forum members), or not?

Birkeland's math is only part of the math available to you. You have Bruce's math, Alfven's math, Birkeland's math. Did any of that math do anything for you? If not, why not, and what makes you think me barking math on command is going to have any effect whatsoever if the Nobel scientist didn't convince you?

Several JREF Forum members have asked you, MM, direct questions, pertinent to the ideas you yourself have presented, as presented. AFAIK, you have not answered any of them.

Baloney. I've answered many of them. There are some I probably can't and haven't answered, but so what? Have you answered any of my questions at all? At least RC is making some attempt at addressing the actual image. Even D'rok made an honest attempt to "understand" what I was saying and to respond to the specific points I presented to him/her. You one the other hand, hide from the questions, you won't ever attempt to "explain' the images I have cited for you and Tim and everyone else here to look at. It's all freely available to you so you have no excuse except the fact you're just damn lazy.

GeeMack has made the point, persistently, that you have obviously failed to convey your insights to anyone,

I have conveyed the ideas to everyone who wants to comprehend them. Many people can "understand" your idea and simply disagree with it, or parts of it, or whatever. I can't worry about who agrees or disagrees with me, but I can 'convey the ideas' just fine to anyone who *WANTS* to understand them. I can explain them visually too via satellite imagery and empirical tests. As the saying goes: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.". I can't make anyone "agree" with me. That's something only an individual can *choose* to do.

in the sense that there is an indication that your ideas are scientifically sound, or that they have sufficient scientific merit as to warrant further investigation.

They are not only scientifically sound, they have already been lab tested DRD. You can bitch and moan about scaling all you like, but Birkeland *CREATED* discharge loops that look almost identical to coronal loops. He discussed them and filmed them and suggested they may play an important role in solar physics. Your song and dance denial routine won't change history. Jets? What Jets? Persistent high speed solar wind? What solar wind? Coronal loops, what coronal loops? He filmed and wrote about all of these things.

If so, why? I mean, if the case you are presenting is so scientifically compelling (as you so obviously believe it is), the easiest thing for anyone with even a half-way decent BSc in physics to do is take your stuff, turn the (quantitative) handle, write a landmark paper, get it published, and a return trip to Stockholm is guaranteed.

Birkeland beat me to these ideas by 100 years. Alfven and Bruce both described "discharge" processes related to solar physics. You don't figure they deserve the credit?

Have you ever wondered why it is that you have had such an epic failure of traction, over n years?

At first I did, but now I understand much better. It's not only that I have to fight an uphill battle related to a solid surface solar model. Convincing your crew of something so radical is bad enough. It turns out however that this part is actually probably "easier" than getting you folks to let go of your *extreme irrational prejudice* toward everything "electrical" in space. Just look at the witch trials on BAUT. They aren't just directed at me, or an iron sun theory. They are directed at *EVERY SINGLE EU THEORY UNDER THE SUNS*. You folks are obviously deathly afraid of even the very concept of embracing *ANY* EU concept that might be presented. You have a knee jerk reaction to anything with with words "current flow' or "electricity". You never mention "electromagnetic fields', you only publish things if they talk about 'magnetic yada yada yada". God forbid anyone should note that Alfven called your magnetic reconnection theories "pseudoscience'.

The irrational prejudices of your industry are bizarre. I'll be the first one to admit that an iron sun theory isn't "mainstream", but the flow of charged particles in space is undeniable. That is called "current flow" and "electromagnetic waves".

Do you genuinely believe, for example, that you have such a profound insight into the observed behaviour of the universe?

I believe that Birkeland had a profound insight inthe the observed behaviors of the physical universe based on his life's work. I have satellite images, the internet and 21st century images to support his insights. Alfven and Bruce also had "insights". My insights don't seem to be either unique to me, or something I thought of all on my own.

An insight that thousands of people with demonstrably greater intellect,

Pfft. You don't have much of an ego problem do you? If you really had a greater intellect, you would explain the RD and Doppler images using the gas model solar theory and be done by now. Since you don't have any "explanations", all you have evidently are "proclamations" and egotistical ones at that.

and far broader and deeper grasp of the relevant history

Pfft. To this very day, have you even bothered to personally read Cosmic Plasma, yes or no? Had you read Birkeland's work before you met me, yes or no?

and physics (including astronomy)

You mean the guys that believe in inflation genies and dark energy gnomes? What "physics" are you talking about? You can't get these things to PHYSICALLY do anything to anything in a lab. You're talking about a group of mathematical myth makers that have NO (as in ZERO) physical support for their beliefs. Inflation is literally so "supernatural' that even you don't profess to be a "believer". Got a gram of 'dark matter'? Got any evidence at all that "dark energy" can "cause" (as in proven cause/effect demonstrations) plasma to "accelerate" over time?

You have no great understanding of "physics". You have a giant inability to explain what you would add to a "perfect" vacuum to create "negative pressure" in the vacuum and a dogmatic failed based belief system related to "dark evil thingies".

Electric universe theories here.

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Muse

Muse

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned