Electric universe theories here.

Status
Not open for further replies.
MM,

Thanks for your answers:

How does a stable "iron crust" exist in association with the photosphere at the temperatures it is observed to be at?
 
Reality Check said:
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.
Click to expand...

How did Birkeland do that discharge loop trick in his terella experiments?

birkelandyohkohmini.jpg


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?
Click to expand...

The same way it kept its shape and direction in Birkeland's terella experiments, IOW "sustained current flow".

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.
Click to expand...

I'll go you one better. Go to Walmart today and pick up an inexpensive plasma ball, plug it in and turn it on. You'll see all sorts of sustained filaments form inside of a "highly conductive plasma". Once Birkeland turned on his experiments, nothing was simply "air".

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.
Click to expand...

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

I might as well have you all read the very same paper.
 
Michael Mozina said:
How did Birkeland do that discharge loop trick in his terella experiments?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg

The same way it kept its shape and direction in Birkeland's terella experiments, IOW "sustained current flow".

I'll go you one better. Go to Walmart today and pick up an inexpensive plasma ball, plug it in and turn it on. You'll see all sorts of sustained filaments form inside of a "highly conductive plasma". Once Birkeland turned on his experiments, nothing was simply "air".

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Currents%20In%20The%20Solar%20Atmosphere%20And%20A%20Theory%20Of%20Solar%20Flares.pdf

I might as well have you all read the very same paper.
Click to expand...


How dumb MM.
  1. The first image is Birkeland's attempt for an analogy of Saturn (fig. 247a). It is in visible light.
  2. The second image is a soft X-ray (not visible light) image of the Sun.
  3. Air is not a highly conductive plasma.
  4. Birkeland did his experimensts with solid metallic globes. Your Iron Sun idea has a hollow metallic globe.
Also tusenfem points aout a flaw in your obsession with Walmart plasma balls:
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.
Click to expand...


Your only sensisble bit is a link to Alfven & Carlqvists's 1966 paper on solar flares in the solar atmosphere.

I wonder if you have ever read it and noticed the absence of a hypothetical, thermodynamicall impossible iron sufrace/crust.
I woonder if you have read it and noticed that the currents they use are closed loops (you like pretty pictures so look at figure 4).
 
Last edited:
Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested

Micheal Mozina: Yet another gap in your Iron Sun idea:
First asked 14 July 2009
Birkeland's experiments were done with solid iron and brass globes. Your Iron Sun idea has a hollow iron globe.

When did you or others do the controlled experiement that shows that hollow iron globes show the same behaviour as solid iron globes in this experiment?
 
Reality Check said:
Micheal Mozina: Yet another gap in your Iron Sun idea:
First asked 14 July 2009
Birkeland's experiments were done with solid iron and brass globes. Your Iron Sun idea has a hollow iron globe.

When did you or others do the controlled experiement that shows that hollow iron globes show the same behaviour as solid iron globes in this experiment?
Click to expand...

Wherever did you get the idea I was suggesting that the sun was a "solid iron globe"? I personally *assume* (I can't see it of course) that the core is completely composed high temperature radioactive plasma, and I doubt that the solid part of the shell is particularly thick. I hold no strong beliefs about the core or the globe per se other than I'm certain it's not composed of solid iron.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Wherever did you get the idea I was suggesting that the sun was a "solid iron globe"? I personally *assume* (I can't see it of course) that the core is completely composed high temperature radioactive plasma, and I doubt that the solid part of the shell is particularly thick. I hold no strong beliefs about the core or the globe per se other than I'm certain it's not composed of solid iron.
Click to expand...

Michael, he knows you're not suggesting the sun is a solid iron globe. He's asking why a solid iron globe (Birkeland's device) is analogous to a non-solid sun with an iron crust. Apples and oranges, yes?
 
Reality Check said:
How dumb MM.
  1. The first image is Birkeland's attempt for an analogy of Saturn (fig. 247a). It is in visible light.
Click to expand...


  1. So what? We see x-rays and even high energy *GAMMA* rays from discharges here on Earth. You'll clearly have to "scale" Birkeland's work in terms of voltages, amps and overall energy releases.

    [*]The second image is a soft X-ray (not visible light) image of the Sun.
    Click to expand...

    And? You didn't see that DVD image yet I presume? You can also see those coronal loops in the visible spectrum in a single frame of that video at about the 30:04 second range. You'll also see the visible effect on the surface of the photosphere from both sides of the loops. Powerful discharges are not going to radiate a *SINGLE* wavelength, but *MANY* of them, including visible light and x-rays. Note that "electrical discharges" have already been shown to emit gamma and x-rays inside of a relatively cool environment. I don't need no stinking magnetic reconnection to make 171A emitting loops in the atmosphere of cathode spheres.

    [*]Air is not a highly conductive plasma.
    Click to expand...

    Are you suggesting that Birkeland limited his experiments with gasses in the chamber to "air"?

    [*]Birkeland did his experimensts with solid metallic globes. Your Iron Sun idea has a hollow metallic globe.
    Click to expand...

    Oh darn, I got it backwards then in your last post, because you evidently miffed Birkeland's experiments altogether. His model was "hollow' too. It has an "electromagnet" inside the sphere. It was not a "solid sphere".

    Also tusenfem points aout a flaw in your obsession with Walmart plasma balls:
    Click to expand...

    They are inexpensive and you folks seem to be ignorant of basic physics as it relates to plasma. Filaments form inside of current carrying plasma. The whole atmosphere of the sun is a "current carrying plasma" composed of million mile per hour charged particles. It should therefore be NO MYSTERY WHATSOEVER why we observe "lit filaments" in the solar atmosphere. Hopefully you folks might figure out from the ball that it is possible to sustain those threads indefinitely as long as the current keeps flowing.

    Your only sensisble bit is a link to Alfven & Carlqvists's 1966 paper on solar flares in the solar atmosphere.
    Click to expand...

    You folks will utterly ignore Alfven's work here today and tomorrow and next week just as you've been doing now for over 50 years. There's nothing new under the sun. :)

    I wonder if you have ever read it and noticed the absence of a hypothetical, thermodynamicall impossible iron sufrace/crust.
    Click to expand...

    Sure. I wonder if you noted that bit about "short circuits" and "electricity"?

    I woonder if you have read it and noticed that the currents they use are closed loops (you like pretty pictures so look at figure 4).
    Click to expand...

    I'm sure my "loops" close somewhere below the crust too.

    I notice none of you touched that comment from Kosovichev about the mass flows creating those "structures" under the photosphere and the "mass flows" we observe in 171A images near the surface. Kosovichev's quote *DESTROYS* your case in the final analysis because it is scientifically accurate in every detail. Those "mass flows" are clearly arranged in visible "structures" and they exist *under* not over the photosphere. The rigid features of the RD image are also located *UNDER* not over the photosphere as that DVD will demonstrate assuming you ever get around to watching it.
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
Michael, he knows you're not suggesting the sun is a solid iron globe. He's asking why a solid iron globe (Birkeland's device) is analogous to a non-solid sun with an iron crust. Apples and oranges, yes?
Click to expand...

Yes, I realized that from the next post. Evidently he hasn't read Birkeland's work very well. Birkeland did not use a "solid" sphere. It was a hollow sphere with a strong electromagnet located inside the sphere.
 
Dancing David said:
MM,

Thanks for your answers:

How does a stable "iron crust" exist in association with the photosphere at the temperatures it is observed to be at?
Click to expand...

It doesn't exist "with" or in the photosphere, but far below the photosphere, inside "cooler", more dense layers of plasma. The heat is being carried up and away from the surface with the particle flow from the surface. Just as the chromosphere is lighter and hotter than the cooler, more dense photosphere below, so too, the layers under the photosphere tend to be more dense and cooler than the layers that are higher in the atmosphere. There are *at least* two more double layers of plasma between the photosphere and the crust.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Wherever did you get the idea I was suggesting that the sun was a "solid iron globe"? I personally *assume* (I can't see it of course) that the core is completely composed high temperature radioactive plasma, and I doubt that the solid part of the shell is particularly thick. I hold no strong beliefs about the core or the globe per se other than I'm certain it's not composed of solid iron.
Click to expand...
Your reading skiills have abandoned you once again MM.

Is this typical crackpot musings or do you have evidence for "completely composed high temperature radioactive plasma"
How thick is "particularly thick" - a centimenter seems particularly thick enough to me.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It doesn't exist "with" or in the photosphere, but far below the photosphere, inside "cooler", more dense layers of plasma. The heat is being carried up and away from the surface with the particle flow from the surface. Just as the chromosphere is lighter and hotter than the cooler, more dense photosphere below, so too, the layers under the photosphere tend to be more dense and cooler than the layers that are higher in the atmosphere. There are *at least* two more double layers of plasma between the photosphere and the crust.
Click to expand...
That is not what the limb darkening measurements show. They show that the photosphere increases in temperature with depth.
 
Is Saturn the Sun

Michael Mozina said:
...usual rant...
Click to expand...


Are you that dumb MM?
  1. The first image is Birkeland's attempt for an analogy of Saturn (fig. 247a). It is in visible light.
  2. The second image is a soft X-ray (not visible light) image of the Sun.
  3. The gasses used in the experiments were not a highly conductive plasma.
Thank you for the correction on Birkelands experiments. I should have realized that your obsession with him would make you duplicate his experiment exactly as the Iron Sun idea (I am surprised that you did not add a solid iron core to act as an electromagnet :D !)

Birkeland did his experiments with metallic globes that contained electromagnets (mostly solid). Your Iron Sun idea has a metallic globe that may be mostly hollow (you have no idea how thick it is).

First asked 14 July 2009
When did you or others do the controlled experiment that shows that the thickness of hollow iron globes does not effect the analogy with Saturn?

At what point did Saturn become the center of the Solar System?
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
Not open enough to believe a iron shell inside the Sun
Click to expand...

Too bad that you don't realize the relevance of your own quotes. :) At least the irony was not lost on me.

What are the "s supposed to mean here. Is this another redefinition of yours, that we are unaware of?
Click to expand...

No, most "plasma" is not fully ionized and includes plenty of "dust" (solids, liquids, gasses), hence the term "dusty plasma". That's the state of most plasma.

I read them, how often do I have to say that? (see page 12!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Click to expand...

If you did, you sure are silent on specific questions, like how Birkeland explained flying positive ions.

And you don't want a discharge between the sun and the heliosphere, you want a discharge from surface to surface.
Click to expand...

Birkeland's terrela's were in a constant state of discharge toward the sides of the chamber but discharges also occurred all along the surface of the sphere. Why do you suppose that was?


So Birkeland was trying to model Saturn in this picture.
Click to expand...

I thought you said you read his work which includes the following quotes just before publishing the image in question:

The Sun. The series of experiments that I have made with a magnetic globe as cathode in a large vacuum-box, for the purpose of studying analogies to the zodiacal light and Saturn's ring, have led to discoveries that appear to be of great importance for the solar theory.
Click to expand...

He evidently thought they were related to solar activity, not Saturn's rings. Notice he "discovered" something about the sun during his experiments? That's called the "empirical scientific method" and a true "prediction" born of experimentation.


Holy cow your post is long. I'll have to "nibble" at it today between tech calls.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
...snip...The rigid features of the RD image are also located *UNDER* not over the photosphere as that DVD will demonstrate assuming you ever get around to watching it.
Click to expand...
Lets address this delusion of yours one more time.
Running difference animations are computer processed records of changes in the original images. Only changes in the original images show up in running difference animations.
Running = Do the computer processing between the original image and its previous image.
Differences = Take the difference between the original images to create frames of te differences between the original images.

Only a complete idiot would think that a persistent feature in an RD animation is a persistent feature in the original images.

Your optical illusion of "rigid features" are actually areas of constant change happening in one location. As Dr Kosovichev has told you
The consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions.
We know this from the simultaneous measurements of solar magnetic field, made by SOHO. These are not solid structures which would not have mass flows that we see.
These images are Doppler shift of the spectral line Ni 6768A.
The Doppler shift measures the velocity of mass motions along the line of sight. The darker areas show the motions towards us, and light areas show flows from us. These are not cliffs or anything like this. The movie frames are the running differences of the Doppler shift. For the illustration purpose, the sunquake signal is enhanced by increasing its amplitude by a factor 4.
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
Are you that dumb MM?
  1. The first image is Birkeland's attempt for an analogy of Saturn (fig. 247a). It is in visible light.
Click to expand...


  1. So what? If you'd watched the DVD I suggested and the parts I bothered to highlight for you, you'd have discovered you can see coronal loops in white light in some instances. You should also know that discharge in the Earth's atmosphere release x-rays and even gamma rays, so what's the big deal?

    The gasses used in the experiments were not a highly conductive plasma.
    Click to expand...

    Actually that's incorrect because the entire interior of the chamber is a "current carrying plasma" once he turned on the power.

    Thank you for the correction on Birkelands experiments. I should have realized that your obsession with him would make you duplicate his experiment exactly as the Iron Sun idea (I am surprised that you did not add a solid iron core to act as an electromagnet :D !)
    Click to expand...

    I figure a fission based plasma core would do fine for that function.

    Birkeland did his experiments with metallic globes that contained electromagnets (mostly solid). Your Iron Sun idea has a metallic globe that may be mostly hollow (you have no idea how thick it is).
    Click to expand...

    I assume it has a "heavy" (not to be confused with dense) plasma core composed of fissionable materials.

    At what point did Saturn become the center of the Solar System?
    Click to expand...

    At that point in the book he was discussing the sun and the coronal loops. You really need to sit down and read through the experiments side of his (their) work very carefully. He specifically explained that this was something he "discovered' via actual experimentation in the "old fashion" method of science. He associated these discharge events specifically to solar events. He realized that his own experiments could "teach him" things about the solar the solar system that were not obvious to him before hand. Those loops and jets and high speed solar with particles are all "true predictions" that were born of active experimentation. Those "prediction" correspond to a lot of "sweat equity" science on the part of Birkeland and his team of friends. At no time did he equate these events with Saturn, but rather he specifically relates them to flare events on the sun.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
I can answer this:
I thought you said you read his work which refers to that actual image (fig. 247a) as Saturn.
Click to expand...

Did you miss this part entirely?

The Sun. The series of experiments that I have made with a magnetic globe as cathode in a large vacuum-box, for the purpose of studying analogies to the zodiacal light and Saturn's ring, have led to discoveries that appear to be of great importance for the solar theory.
Click to expand...

This is what empirical physics is all about. You *LEARN FROM* your active experiments and then APPLY IT to what is actually applies to, in this case the sun. He specifically equated that image with solar activity.

In the above-mentioned experiments, it (can be) seen how the rays from the polar regions bend down in a simple curve about the equatorial plane of the globe, to continue their course outwards from the globe in the vicinity of this plane. An aureole is thereby produced about the magnetic globe, with ray-structure at the poles, the whole thing strongly resembling pictures of the sun's corona.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
That is not what the limb darkening measurements show. They show that the photosphere increases in temperature with depth.
Click to expand...

That's because the heat source is from the loops that are mostly located below the photosphere and that are generating light at the limb from below the photosphere.

How come during sunspot activity do we find variations in the THOUSANDS of degrees and low temperature plasma upwelling from below?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
So what? If you'd watched the DVD I suggested and the parts I bothered to highlight for you, you'd have discovered you can see coronal loops in white light in some instances. You should also know that discharge in the Earth's atmosphere release x-rays and even gamma rays, so what's the big deal?
{/quote]
The big deal is the stupidity of comparing an image that is supposed to be Saturn with an image that is the Sun.

The big deal is the stupidity of thinking that comparing images is valid science. Things that look alike need not be alike.

The big deal is the stupidity of thinking that visible light images look exactly like X-ray images. Any intellegent person would compare Birkeland's image with an image in visible light. The fact that you did not shows that you are cherry picking the images. Which leads to...

The big deal is that there are many images of the Sun that do not look like Birkeland's image of Saturn.

Michael Mozina said:
Actually that's incorrect because the entire interior of the chamber is a "current carrying plasma" once he turned on the power.
Click to expand...
Citation please. Where does Birkeland satet in his book that all of the gas in his vacuum chnamer is a current carrying plasma?

Michael Mozina said:
I figure a fission based plasma core would do fine for that function.

I assume it has a "heavy" (not to be confused with dense) plasma core composed of fissionable materials.
Click to expand...
Is this the definitive Iron Sun answer - that the core of the Sun is filled with something undergoing fission (uranium, plutonium, something else)?

Michael Mozina said:
At that point in the book he was discussing the sun and the coronal loops. ...snip...
Click to expand...
That is right. The entire section is about the Sun. So what - are you stating that Birjeland can never refer to anything else in a section about the Sun?
Read what he said. This is a paragraph about Saturn's rings.
Originally Posted by Birkeland
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) 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...
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
The big deal is the stupidity of comparing an image that is supposed to be Saturn with an image that is the Sun.
Click to expand...

According to Birkeland himself it *WAS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE SUN AND THE CORONA!*. You can of course accuse Birkeland of being stupid, but he personally equated these events to solar coronal activity. I really get the impression that you're young and "winging it" as it relates to Birkeland's actual writings. How could anyone miss the fact he equated all of these events to solar activity?

The big deal is the stupidity of thinking that comparing images is valid science.
Click to expand...

Oh the ignorance of that statement. How else did you expect us to falsify or verify any theory?

Things that look alike need not be alike.
Click to expand...

And sometimes they are *EXACTLY* alike. How do we know which of these statements is true?

The big deal is the stupidity
Click to expand...

A fifteen year old might continue to resort to childish insults, but you really aren't doing yourself any favors as you will learn when you finally grow up. That's twice now you've called someone (evidently Birkeland/yourself the first time) in this post and we're only like three paragraphs in. I smell fear now.

of thinking that visible light images look exactly like X-ray images.
Click to expand...

That is a "strawman". I never said they were "exactly" alike, but they can and do follow the same patterns in nature, and electrical discharges have been shown to emit photons up to the energy state of gamma rays.

Any intellegent person would compare Birkeland's image with an image in visible light.
Click to expand...

No. Any intelligent individual would scale the thing to size.

The fact that you did not shows that you are cherry picking the images. Which leads to...
Click to expand...

No, you're cherry picking the images by refusing to look at, comment on or even acknowledge the images I have cited.

The big deal is that there are many images of the Sun that do not look like Birkeland's image of Saturn.
Click to expand...

Birkeland knew enough to scale his model, and he himself said it looked like the sun's corona, not Saturn.. Either you didn't read the material at all (which seems likely after your "solid globe" blunder), or you simply misread his statements. I didn't compare that image to the sun, he did. He did not compare it to Saturn, he specifically compared it to *SOLAR* events.

You really need to do your homework, watch the images I have suggested, read the materials I have suggested, watch a few RD images so you can learn to pick out *REAL OBJECTS* in them, and then we'll have something useful to discuss. At the moment it sounds like you are clueless about what Birkeland did and said.

Citation please. Where does Birkeland satet in his book that all of the gas in his vacuum chnamer is a current carrying plasma?
Click to expand...

OMG. What exactly do you figure is going to happen to the material(s) in the chamber when he flips the switch and the cathode starts emitting streams of electrons from the surface of the sphere?

Hoy. At this point I think I'll just stop. You're evidently completely ignorant of what Birkeland said, or you refuse to accept him at his own word. He specifically compared that very same image to solar activity, and the solar corona, not to Saturn. He was explaining what he learned about the sun by experimenting with a model of Saturns rings. At no time did he equate this activity with Saturn however, he realized immediately that it had implications as it relates to solar physics. You could not have read even the paragraphs I posted for you and have missed his comparison of this very image to solar activity and specifically events in the solar atmosphere.
 
Michael Mozina said:
...snip...
Click to expand...
This is Birkeland said (emphasis added):
Originally Posted by Birkeland
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) 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...
Figures 247a and 247b are thus analogies of Saturn's rings.
This is on page 661 just above figures 247a and 247b. This paragraph is in a section about the Sun. It is not about the Sun.
Birkeland goes on to speculate that the Sun in an eclipse could display a similar ring as Saturn.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
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?
Click to expand...
This all sounds rather like a hand-wavy appeal to quantum weirdness.

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.
Click to expand...
It meant that the SSM and the SM couldn't both be exactly correct. Further experiments and observations have led to a tweaking of the SM. There is no experimental evidence to support the altering of the SM that would bring it in line with a fission hypothesis.

But that in and of itself does not falsify a solar model even if everything you said is absolutely true and above question.
Click to expand...
A theory being inconsistent with a multiple pieces of consistent data doesn't falsify the theory?

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?
Click to expand...
Others have done this.

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.
Click to expand...
I can't really comment on this unless you suggest something a bit more... formal. It just reads like "I'll blame quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics is weird".
 
Reality Check said:
Lets address this delusion of yours one more time.
Click to expand...

Anyone that has to rely upon shock value commentary in *EVERY* post looks pretty desperate after awhile. We already dispelled your 'delusions' about Birkeland using a solid globe.

Running difference animations are computer processed records of changes in the original images.
Click to expand...

Every movie taken on a CCD or standard cellphone camera could also be considered a computer processed animation by your definition of terms. So what? I can still pick out stars in a LASCO RD image. I can still identify real planets and comets in a RD Lasco image. Can't you?

Only changes in the original images show up in running difference animations.
Click to expand...

Ya, because stuff moves (left to right in this case). You'll always see the stars in the next image because they move between images.

Running = Do the computer processing between the original image and its previous image.
Click to expand...

Translation to actual physics: Take last image and subtract from the image the the photon intensity of the previous image from the original image on a pixel by pixel basis. All the light and dark areas are directly related to lighted areas in the original images.

Differences = Take the difference between the original images to create frames of te differences between the original images.
Click to expand...

Hey look RC, the stars moved!

Only a complete idiot
Click to expand...

Man, what a need you have for the personal insult. It's become a crutch now that you rely on in every post.

would think that a persistent feature in an RD animation is a persistent feature in the original images.
Click to expand...

Only someone who knows absolutely nothing at all about RD imaging would think that persistence isn't a function of persistence in the original images. Those stars in the background of a RD image are arrange in "persistent patterns" because they are real objects and really moving (relative to SOHO). The persistence of the background star pattern in the RD image is directly (and I mean directly) related to the persistence of the pattern of the stars in both original images.

Your optical illusion of "rigid features" are actually areas of constant change happening in one location. As Dr Kosovichev has told you
Click to expand...

You're still ignoring the implication of the image and his statements and the mass flows seen in 171A along the "transitional region". The original 171A images show *LOTS* of activity along the surface in terms of mass movements that at are easily visible with the naked eye. There is plasma moving back and forth along the loops, *AND* sometimes down along the very same loop. The sub photosphere "mass flow" that Kosovichev describes is directly related to coronal loop activity. It is "structured" by surface terrain features that also structure the mass flows seen in the 171A images. What Kosovichev said was true. The black and white parts of the image do represent mass flows in organized patterns, but the "shape" of that pattern is directly related to the surface features, and they originate *UNDER* not above the photosphere. That's also congruent with the while light images I cited, but then you wouldn't know that.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Is this the definitive Iron Sun answer - that the core of the Sun is filled with something undergoing fission (uranium, plutonium, something else)?
Click to expand...
According to Micheal Mozina's web site this is the definitive Iron Sun answer in "The Birkeland Solar Model: EU Theory And The Plasma Layers Of The Sun".
The Arc
One of the most basic processes of the sun is the electrical arc. The sun's inner fission reactions act as a battery, releasing free protons and electrons, while the surface acts as a giant conductor. As these streams of electrons reach the surface, they ionize ferrite at the surface, pushing it into the silicon layer of the photosphere, which in turn insulates the electrical flow to create giant electrical arcs between surface features.
Click to expand...
Of course given MM's inability to commit to an actual Iron Sun model, this will change without notice or supporting evidence.

MM:
You may want to read up about fission. It does not release "free protons and electrons". It releases neutrons and lighter nuclei. The energy from fission can ionize atoms so there will be electrons released but this is not specific to fission.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Anyone that has to rely upon shock value commentary in *EVERY* post looks pretty desperate after awhile. We already dispelled your 'delusions' about Birkeland using a solid globe.
Click to expand...
Yes I made a mistake and acknowledged it.

A delusion is a persistent mistake. That is what you are making about the RD animations whic by definition are records of changes in the original images.

Michael Mozina said:
...snipped usual rant...
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
According to Micheal Mozina's web site this is the definitive Iron Sun answer in "The Birkeland Solar Model: EU Theory And The Plasma Layers Of The Sun".

Of course given MM's inability to commit to an actual Iron Sun model, this will change without notice or supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

Um, I've been "committed" now for over five years and committed enough to put up a website on the theory. I'd say that's committed. As it relates to supporting evidence, I can't even get you to review all the materials I have suggested, or read the materials I have suggested. It's no wonder you're hopelessly confused if you think Birkeland's globe was solid.

MM:
You may want to read up about fission. It does not release "free protons and electrons". It releases neutrons and lighter nuclei. The energy from fission can ionize atoms so there will be electrons released but this is not specific to fission.
Click to expand...

Ya, ya, and neutrons decay into protons and electrons in about 11 minutes. Ok, I took a few "shortcuts" to make it easier on the reader. Sue me.
 
Reality Check said:
You may want to read up about fission. It does not release "free protons and electrons". It releases neutrons and lighter nuclei. The energy from fission can ionize atoms so there will be electrons released but this is not specific to fission.
Click to expand...

Well, if the neutrons stay free long enough they'll decay to protons, electrons and anti-neutrinos. That's where the "wrong type" of neutrinos come from.
 
Reality Check said:
Yes I made a mistake and acknowledged it.
Click to expand...

You acknowledge it with the term "delusion" in the next post? Don't you think it's about time you come down off that high horse of yours before you hurt yourself?

A delusion is a persistent mistake.
Click to expand...

It seems to be a "delusion" of yours that you can *NOT* read or review the material in question and understand them well. That seems to be a very persistent mistake you keep making. Have you even bothered to look at those three flare images I suggested in the DVD? I doubt it. That won't stop you from continuing to insult me in post after post.

That is what you are making about the RD animations whic by definition are records of changes in the original images.
Click to expand...

It is a "delusion" on your part that there is a physical disconnect between real things seen in the original images (stars, planets, comets, solar events) and what is observed in RD images. We can still see stars in RD images. We see the shadows they left too. It's not a mystery why we see "persistence" in the RD images. It's due to the "persistence" of the features in the original images. No planet in the original images, no bright thingy moving right to left in the RD images. When we see a bright planet in the original images we'll also see the planet in the RD images. The stars create "persistent patterns" in the original images. They also create "persistent patterns' in the RD image. There is no physical disconnect between real things and photon intensity in the RD image. The intensity in the pixels of the RD image is directly related to the intensity and movement of real objects.
 
Tubbythin said:
Well, if the neutrons stay free long enough they'll decay to protons, electrons and anti-neutrinos. That's where the "wrong type" of neutrinos come from.
Click to expand...

Educate me here on something basic that I seem to be missing. Which type of detector would you expect to observe the "wrong type" of neutrino?
 
Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina

According to your web site this is the (current) definitive Iron Sun answer in "The Birkeland Solar Model: EU Theory And The Plasma Layers Of The Sun".
The Arc
One of the most basic processes of the sun is the electrical arc. The sun's inner fission reactions act as a battery, releasing free protons and electrons, while the surface acts as a giant conductor. As these streams of electrons reach the surface, they ionize ferrite at the surface, pushing it into the silicon layer of the photosphere, which in turn insulates the electrical flow to create giant electrical arcs between surface features.
Click to expand...

First asked 14 July 2009
Would you like to look up the mean free path of electrons in the Sun's plasma below your iron surface/crust and tell us what this imples for "streams of electrons"?

I guess that it is less than that of photons which is 10 cm at the Sun's core (1019 collisions to reach the photosphere). So it looks like your "streams of electrons" cannot exist.
But do not worry - you can always handwave and state that some magnetic fields create the streams.
 
Reality Check said:
According to your web site this is the (current) definitive Iron Sun answer in "The Birkeland Solar Model: EU Theory And The Plasma Layers Of The Sun".


First asked 14 July 2009
Would you like to look up the mean free path of electrons in the Sun's plasma below your iron surface/crust and tell us what this imples for "streams of electrons"?

I guess that it is less than that of photons which is 10 cm at the Sun's core (1019 collisions to reach the photosphere). So it looks like your "streams of electrons" cannot exist.
But do not worry - you can always handwave and state that some magnetic fields create the streams.
Click to expand...

I can only laugh out loud at the irony of that last comment. I guess since you didn't know that he even had a powerful electromagnet inside the sphere it never even occurred to you that he had to "crank it up" go create the loops. Hoy. That delusions of yours about being an "expert" even without reading or studying sure looks silly from this side of the aisle.
 
Michael Mozina said:
...snipp...
It is a "delusion" on your part that there is a physical disconnect between real things seen in the original images (stars, planets, comets, solar events) and what is observed in RD images. We can still see stars in RD images. We see the shadows they left too. It's not a mystery why we see "persistence" in the RD images. It's due to the "persistence" of the features in the original images. No planet in the original images, no bright thingy moving right to left in the RD images. When we see a bright planet in the original images we'll also see the planet in the RD images. The stars create "persistent patterns" in the original images. They also create "persistent patterns' in the RD image. There is no physical disconnect between real things and photon intensity in the RD image. The intensity in the pixels of the RD image is directly related to the intensity and movement of real objects.
Click to expand...
There is no "physical disconnect" between the original images and the RD animations.
I have never said that there is such a thing.
I and other posters have pointed out to you many times the physical processes in the original images (material changing position and temperature) that correspond to features in the RD animations, i.e. the physical connection between the actual objects and the graphical representation of changes in the objects.

It is your delusion that the features in the RD animation are actual physical objects. They are caused by physical processes. They are not actual "mountain ranges", "peeling stuff', "flying stuff", "stars" and the other optical illustions that have fooled you.
They are graphical illustrations of
  • changes in temperature to either side of coronal loops ("mountain ranges").
  • changes in temperature and position of CME plasma ("flying stuff").
  • changes in temperature and position of plasma ("peeling stuff").
  • changing flows around magnetic structures ("angular structures" in Doppler RD animations).
  • changing positions of stars ("stars").
  • changing positions of planets ("planets")
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 this question which you seem to have missed:

Below is a sketch of a 1 by 5 pixel RD animation where '_' is a blank pixel and '*' is a filled pixel.
  • Does the RD animation show flying stuff?
  • Is there flying stuff in the original images?
Frame 1: *____
Frame 2: _*___
Frame 3: __*__
Frame 4: ___*_
Frame 5: ____*
 
Michael Mozina said:
I can only laugh out loud at the irony of that last comment. I guess since you didn't know that he even had a powerful electromagnet inside the sphere it never even occurred to you that he had to "crank it up" go create the loops. Hoy. That delusions of yours about being an "expert" even without reading or studying sure looks silly from this side of the aisle.
Click to expand...
I know he did. Now show that the same thing happens in a plasma inside of Birkelands metalic globes (now where are Birkelands images of the insides of his globes :rolleyes: ?)

According to your web site this is the (current) definitive Iron Sun answer in "The Birkeland Solar Model: EU Theory And The Plasma Layers Of The Sun".

First asked 14 July 2009
Would you like to look up the mean free path of electrons in the Sun's plasma below your iron surface/crust and tell us what this imples for "streams of electrons"?

I guess that it is less than that of photons which is 10 cm at the Sun's core (1019 collisions to reach the photosphere). So it looks like your "streams of electrons" cannot exist.
But do not worry - you can always handwave and state that some magnetic fields create the streams.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Educate me here on something basic that I seem to be missing. Which type of detector would you expect to observe the "wrong type" of neutrino?
Click to expand...

The setup at KamLAND is pretty neat. It can detect the radiation from the following reactions:
nubare + p -> e+ + n + Cherenkov light
e+ + e- -> 2gamma (0.511 MeV)
n+p -> d + gamma (2.2 MeV)
 
Tubbythin said:
This all sounds rather like a hand-wavy appeal to quantum weirdness.
Click to expand...

Well, ok, maybe it's a little hand-wavy as you put it, but the assumption that a missing neutrino automatically equates to an "oscillated" neutrino also sounds a little hand-wavy IMO.

It meant that the SSM and the SM couldn't both be exactly correct. Further experiments and observations have led to a tweaking of the SM. There is no experimental evidence to support the altering of the SM that would bring it in line with a fission hypothesis.
Click to expand...

I think before I can even start to address that claim I need you to answer that question I had about detection. I must be missing something basic.

A theory being inconsistent with a multiple pieces of consistent data doesn't falsify the theory?
Click to expand...

I could also rightfully say that standard theory is inconsistent with evidence from the fields of heliosiesmology (subsurface stratification at a shallow depth), satellite imaging, and nuclear chemistry data, but evidently you aren't willing to give up standard theory are you? :)
 
Michael Mozina said:
Well, ok, maybe it's a little hand-wavy as you put it, but the assumption that a missing neutrino automatically equates to an "oscillated" neutrino also sounds a little hand-wavy IMO.
Click to expand...
It isn't an asumption. That's the whole point. There are multiple pieces of experimental evidence backing it up.

I think before I can even start to address that claim I need you to answer that question I had about detection. I must be missing something basic.
Click to expand...
See above post.

I could also rightfully say that standard theory is inconsistent with evidence from the fields of heliosiesmology (subsurface stratification at a shallow depth), satellite imaging, and nuclear chemistry data, but evidently you aren't willing to give up standard theory are you? :)
Click to expand...
You have the right to say it. Doesn't mean its true.
 
Reality Check said:
It is your delusion that the features in the RD animation are actual physical objects.
Click to expand...

It's like saying that those bright points in the background of Lasco RD images are not actual physical stars. Yes, they are. The "x''s are *REAL* stars that are moving left to right (well, SOHO's actually moving, it's a relative movement). The bright points int he RD image background of a Lasco image are in fact *REAL STARS* just as the bright points in the original last image is a real star. There's no difference in the fact that the stars created the photons we see in both images. We simply "subtract" the photon intensity from the previous image, meaning even the dark areas are related to "Real objects". The only disconnect between bright and dark areas of the image and real objects is in your head. The pixel intensity of the RD image is directly related to real objects.

Your comment about "temperature" changes and movement are true, but the only reason we can observe these things is because they are real object that show real movement in real RD images. The shadows give us an indication of speed and direction. They provide us with a directional component to analyze. In all respects however it is real objects (suns , planets, comets, plasma) that has a real effect on the images. We can see flying plasma in RD Lasco images coming off the sun during CME events, and the shadows give us some indication of direction and speed. If however you don't recognize that you're looking at real things, you're missing a big part of satellite image analysis.
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
It isn't an asumption. That's the whole point. There are multiple pieces of experimental evidence backing it up.
Click to expand...

Just so I'm completely clear, what exactly would you expect to observe differently in these data sets if there was a fission process responsible for most of the energy releases?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Um, I've been "committed" now for over five years and committed enough to put up a website on the theory. I'd say that's committed. As it relates to supporting evidence, I can't even get you to review all the materials I have suggested, or read the materials I have suggested. It's no wonder you're hopelessly confused if you think Birkeland's globe was solid.
Click to expand...
Can you read - I no longer think that Birkeland's globe was solid. You corrected me and I accepted your correction.
Get over it.

Michael Mozina said:
Ya, ya, and neutrons decay into protons and electrons in about 11 minutes. Ok, I took a few "shortcuts" to make it easier on the reader. Sue me.
Click to expand...
I will not sue you but I will point out a couple of problems:
The first is that these neutrons are inside a plasma under enormous pressure in the Sun's core. There will be some that decay immediately but others will collide with atoms and be absorbed (not decay). This will reduce the production of protons and electrons. This is not really a problem for your idea since you have not produced any testable, falsifiable predictions from it (no mathematics means no numbers and no predictions!). You are free to arbitrary set the production of protons and electrons to anything you like.

The second is that the decay of neutrons produces electron anti-neutrinos. Fusion produces electron neutrinos.
I suspect that scientists at naeutrino observatories can tell the difference.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's like saying that those bright points in the background of Lasco RD images are not actual physical stars. Yes, they are. The "x''s are *REAL* stars that are moving left to right (well, SOHO's actually moving, it's a relative movement). The bright points int he RD image background of a Lasco image are in fact *REAL STARS* just as the bright points in the original last image is a real star. There's no difference in the fact that the stars created the photons we see in both images. We simply "subtract" the photon intensity from the previous image, meaning even the dark areas are related to "Real objects". The only disconnect between bright and dark areas of the image and real objects is in your head. The pixel intensity of the RD image is directly related to real objects.

Your comment about "temperature" changes and movement are true, but the only reason we can observe these things is because they are real object that show real movement in real RD images. The shadows give us an indication of speed and direction. They provide us with a directional component to analyze. In all respects however it is real objects (suns , planets, comets, plasma) that has a real effect on the images. We can see flying plasma in RD Lasco images coming off the sun during CME events, and the shadows give us some indication of direction and speed. If however you don't recognize that you're looking at real things, you're missing a big part of satellite image analysis.
Click to expand...
They are real objects that show real movement in real original images.
The RD process turns the original images into graphical representations of the changes in the original images.


First asked 14 July 2009
Which of the following statements are wrong and why:
  • Running difference animations are records of changes in the original images.
  • Persistent dark areas in RD animations are areas of constant decreases (e.g. something changing temperature in one location) in the original images.
  • Persistent light areas in RD animations are areas of constant increases (e.g. something changing temperature in one location) in the original images.
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 this question 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: ____*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom