Electric universe theories here.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
Probably. But I'm hoping that my continual reminder of his continual failure at least irritates him a bit.
Click to expand...

All you are doing is reminding me of the fact you don't actually read or respond to any of my points, starting with your stupid (and highly answered) question about "dark matter". I think everyone in astronomy can explain my position on this topic except for you.
 
Michael Mozina said:
All you are doing is reminding me of the fact you don't actually read or respond to any of my points, starting with your stupid (and highly answered) question about "dark matter". I think everyone in astronomy can explain my position on this topic except for you.
Click to expand...
What question did Ziggurat ask you about dark matter?
I must have missed it.
And does everyone in astronomy know you?
 
Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

In case your last post was about my list of questions for you here it is again in a slightly different format.
These are some of the questions that MM has been asked and seems incapable of answering other than by spouting unsupported assertions.

  1. The perpetual dark matter question:
    How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
    First asked 23rd June 2009
    So far just an unsupported assertion that astronomers have got the masses of galaxies wrong.
  2. What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected?
    First asked 6th July 2009
  3. A post that seemed to retract his "mountain ranges" on the TRACE 171A RD animation evoked this question:
    What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona.
    First asked 6th July 2009
  4. From tusenfem:
    Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkelands book?
    First asked 7th July 2009
  5. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source" and in the same post
  6. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
    First asked 7th July 2009
  7. Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible?
    First asked 8 July 2009
    See this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.
  8. Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
    First asked 10 July 2009
  9. Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question?
    First asked 10 July 2009
  10. More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth
    First asked 13 July 2009
  11. Formation of the iron surface
    First asked 13 July 2009
  12. How much is "mostly neon" MM?
    First asked 13 July 2009
  13. Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?
    First asked 13 July 2009
  14. Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina
    First asked 13 July 2009
  15. Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina
    First asked 13 July 2009
    He does link to his copy of Alfvén and Carlqvist's 1966 paper (Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and A theory of Solar Flares). This does not model what we now know a real solar flare acts like.
  16. Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested?
    First asked 14 July 2009
  17. Is Saturn the Sun?
    First asked 14 July 2009
    (Birkelands Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings but MM compares it to to the Sun).
  18. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
    First asked 14 July 2009
    MM has one reply in which is mistakenly thinks that this question is about coronal loops.
  19. What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model?
    First asked 17 July 2009
  20. What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K?
    (MM states that it is not the photosphere)
    First asked 18 July 2009
  21. Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles?
    First asked 18 July 2009
  22. How does the "mostly neon" surface emit white light?
    First asked 19 July 2009
  23. Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves?
    First asked 22 July 2009
Actual Answers From Michael Mozina:
:dl:
 
Ziggurat said:
Once again, your inability to quantify anything shines through.
Click to expand...

Once again, your failure to answer my direct question shines through too.

I can heat anything I want to arbitrarily high temperatures,
Click to expand...

Heat it with what? You have a photosphere at 6000k. What's heating the coronal loops to well over a million degrees and sustaining that temp for hours on end?
 
Reality Check said:
In case your last post was about my list of questions for you here it is again in a slightly different format.
These are some of the questions that MM has been asked and seems incapable of answering other than by spouting unsupported assertions.

  1. The perpetual dark matter question:
Click to expand...


  1. Hoy. I guess you just refuse to hear the answers eh?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Once again, your failure to answer my direct question shines through too.



Heat it with what? You have a photosphere at 6000k. What's heating the coronal loops to well over a million degrees and sustaining that temp for hours on end?
Click to expand...
Actually the question should be: What is heating the corona to well over a million degrees and sustaining that temp for billions of years.
Coronal loops and flares have a short term (but dramatic) effect on the corona and solar wind.
It is however clear that there are other processes maintaining the corna and solar wind in the long term, e.g. when there are no coronal loops and flares, the corona and solar wind do not vanish.

How does the Iron Sun idea handle this?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Hoy. I guess you just refuse to hear the answers eh?
Click to expand...
Hoy. If you tell me where the answers are then I will read them and update the post.

The dark matter question is not really relevant to this thread so I really should put it in another section at the bottom:
Unsupported Assertions as Answers from Micheal Mozina.

Would that be OK with you? Or do you have any evidence that astronomers cannot get the masses of galaxies correct within an order of magnitude?
 
Reality Check said:
Hoy. If you tell me where the answers are then I will read them and update the post.

The dark matter question is not really relevant to this thread so I really should put it in another section at the bottom:
Unsupported Assertions as Answers from Micheal Mozina.

Would that be OK with you?
Click to expand...

Whatever floats your boat. If you going to ignore my answers and claim I never provided them, what's the point in me answering you at all?

Or do you have any evidence that astronomers cannot get the masses of galaxies correct within an order of magnitude?
Click to expand...

What evidence do I have that they have gotten it right *EVER*?
 
Michael Mozina said:
He created that MHD world you're using today didn't he? What makes you a greater 'expert' on MHD theory than the man that wrote the theory? Alfven was an electrical engineer by trade. He would therefore *NEVER* have claimed that magnetic lines disconnect and reconnect to other magnetic lines.

[...]
Click to expand...
Umm ...

... let's see now ...

Newton invented the calculus (or simply 'calculus', if you prefer).

We all use calculus today*.

For those of us who remember our (undergrad) university course(s) on the subject, all of us are greater experts on the subject than the man who wrote 'the theory' (a more rigorous, consistent approach to limits, to take just one example).

Of course the very considerable advances in understanding of the relevant parts of math since Newton's time in no way diminish his genius or his spectacular achievements.

Lather, wash, rinse, repeat, substituting any one of several hundred great scientists ...

You seem to have a rather bleak, sterile view of the nature of science MM.

* well, MM excepted of course
 
Michael Mozina said:
Whatever floats your boat. If you going to ignore my answers and claim I never provided them, what's the point in me answering you at all?
Click to expand...
All you have to do is give the links to the posts where you answered the questions. That will not take long.
If you cannot then I have to conclude that you never answered them.
I cannot remember you ever answering them. Perhaps a clue to where you answering them?

How about the answer to just 1 question. Since you have already answered this it will be extremely easy for you to give the link:
How much is "mostly neon" MM?
First asked 13 July 2009

Or you can just reply to this post: The percentage of neon in the photosphere is XX%.

Michael Mozina said:
What evidence do I have that they have gotten it right *EVER*?
Click to expand...
You are claiming that they got it wrong. It is up to you to provide the evidence that they have did get the masses of the visible matter in galaxies wrong.
 
Reality Check said:
All you have to do is give the links to the posts where you answered the questions. That will not take long.
Click to expand...

Here you go on the DM question.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4913045&postcount=2432

Either scratch it off your list or respond in the appropriate thread, but quit claiming I never explained what was wrong with your DM theories. If and when you're "happy" with my explanation on that topic, we'll move on to something else, but until then I"m wasting my breath because you don't read or respond to my points.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Umm ...

... let's see now ...
Click to expand...

Yes, by all means, let's watch DRD avoid the images yet again...

Newton invented the calculus (or simply 'calculus', if you prefer).
Click to expand...

That might be fine if you could explain how magnetic reconnection is a unique energy release mechanism and Alfven was wrong to call it pseudoscience. Can you? Yes or no?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Here you go on the DM question.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4913045&postcount=2432

Either scratch it off your list or respond in the appropriate thread, but quit claiming I never explained what was wrong with your DM theories. If and when you're "happy" with my explanation on that topic, we'll move on to something else, but until then I"m wasting my breath because you don't read or respond to my points.
Click to expand...
Read the post. I never claim that you never answered. I state that all that you have answered is that astronomers have got the mass of galaxies wrong (I really should have visible mass there).

The post you link to is about a possible way of actually detecting DM. I tis not about the existing evidence as in the question.

Thus I will not scratch it off the list. BUt I will move it to a new section.
 
Tim Thompson said:
No, it isn't, but the fact you are willing to make the claim only emphasizes the obvious point that you reject the validity of science in general, and physics in particular. No surprises here.
Click to expand...

I simply reject the notion that you can point at things in the sky without ever demonstrating anything in a controlled test. Got one?

Oh, by the way, have you got a "controlled laboratory experiment" that shows the sun has a "crust"? Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. Birkeland already demonstrated his model works in a lab.

Yes, but I don't know what I am supposed to be looking for. The master menu shows "X Flares Part 1", "X Flares Part 2", "Filament Flares" and "Flare Evolution" Lots os stuff. So which menu am I supposed to look in to see the magic? Each of the menu entries is arranged by date, so I need to know the menu and the date.
Click to expand...

You're supposed to be looking a flares in white light and noticing that:

A) the bases of the loops light up the photosphere as they come through the photosphere and the loop comes up *THROUGH* the photosphere.
B) the mass ejections from a flare blow material up and through the photosphere during the flare process.

Neither of these things would be true if the bases of the loops originate above the photosphere and "magnetic reconnection" causes flares to occur *above* the photosphere.

I guess I'll hunt copy and paste the specific images for you all after work today since none of you seem to be able to find them even with the DVD timelines specified for you and everything.
 
Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

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

  1. What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected?
    First asked 6th July 2009
  2. A post that seemed to retract his "mountain ranges" on the TRACE 171A RD animation evoked this question:
    What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona.
    First asked 6th July 2009
  3. From tusenfem:
    Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkelands book?
    First asked 7th July 2009
  4. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source" and in the same post
  5. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
    First asked 7th July 2009
  6. Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible?
    First asked 8 July 2009
    See this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.
  7. Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
    First asked 10 July 2009
  8. Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question?
    First asked 10 July 2009
  9. More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth
    First asked 13 July 2009
  10. Formation of the iron surface
    First asked 13 July 2009
  11. How much is "mostly neon" MM?
    First asked 13 July 2009
  12. Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?
    First asked 13 July 2009
  13. Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina
    First asked 13 July 2009
  14. Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina
    First asked 13 July 2009
    He does link to his copy of Alfvén and Carlqvist's 1966 paper (Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and A theory of Solar Flares). This does not model what we now know a real solar flare acts like.
  15. Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested?
    First asked 14 July 2009
  16. Is Saturn the Sun?
    First asked 14 July 2009
    (Birkelands Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings but MM compares it to to the Sun).
  17. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
    First asked 14 July 2009
    MM has one reply in which is mistakenly thinks that this question is about coronal loops.
  18. What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model?
    First asked 17 July 2009
  19. What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K?
    (MM states that it is not the photosphere)
    First asked 18 July 2009
  20. Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles?
    First asked 18 July 2009
  21. How does the "mostly neon" surface emit white light?
    First asked 19 July 2009
  22. Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves?
    First asked 22 July 2009
Actual Answers From Michael Mozina:
:dl:


Unsupported Assertions as Answers from Michal Mozina:
  1. How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
    First asked 23rd June 2009
    So far just an unsupported assertion that astronomers have got the visible masses of galaxies wrong (and another reply with his usual "if we cannot detect it on Earth then it does not exist" non-science)
 
Reality Check said:
Read the post. I never claim that you never answered. I state that all that you have answered is that astronomers have got the mass of galaxies wrong (I really should have visible mass there).
Click to expand...

I didn't say it should have visible mass there, I said you can't guestimate the mass of a galaxy properly or you won't need "dark" stuff to fill the gaps. I also said SUSY theories that *assign* properties to non existent particles is a bunch of horse pucky.

The post you link to is about a possible way of actually detecting DM. I tis not about the existing evidence as in the question.
Click to expand...

It's a wonderful example of no less than 7 different assumptions that are being made about an exotic "dark matter" particle that doesn't even exist and has never been shown to have any of the properties that are being assumed about it. That's my whole complaint in a nutshell.

Thus I will not scratch it off the list. BUt I will move it to a new section.
Click to expand...

I suppose we could call that "progress" of sorts.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. Birkeland already demonstrated his model works in a lab.
Click to expand...

And Birkeland's solid shell was surrounded by an optically opaque layer at 6000 K? No, I believe it was not.

I'm still waiting for you to quantify any of your ideas, Michael.
 
Michael Mozina said:
[...]
DeiRenDopa said:
Newton invented the calculus (or simply 'calculus', if you prefer).
Click to expand...
That might be fine if you could explain how magnetic reconnection is a unique energy release mechanism and Alfven was wrong to call it pseudoscience. Can you? Yes or no?
Click to expand...
Why should I re-invent the wheel?

The general topic of magnetic reconnection has been covered quite extensively here in the JREF Forum, and those who hold to what they think Alfvén's view on it is have given a, shall we say, underwhelming defence (and no, I'm too lazy to do your work for you ... you go find, and read, the threads).

The specific magnetic reconnection topic that got us here has been well addressed by tusenfem (and in the papers he cites).

Did you read that material MM? Can you say, sincerely, that you could at least follow it, if not actually understand it?

With your indulgence, I shall refrain from posting a more detailed answer to your question, pending:

a) the publication, on your website, of the math (numbers, whatever) that you have promised,

b) a satisfactory answer to Ziggurat's questions concerning quantification of your ideas, and

c) an answer to my, now very old, question concerning the stiffness of the solid surface of the Sun, per your claims (if you no longer remember the question, please say so ... I'll be more than happy to provide a link, and repeat the question).
 
Ziggurat said:
And Birkeland's solid shell was surrounded by an optically opaque layer at 6000 K? No, I believe it was not.
Click to expand...

No, nor is the sun surrounded by such an optically opaque layer. His model *WAS* however surrounded by atmospheric plasma and the loops originated at the surface and came up through that layer, just like it works on our own sun.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, nor is the sun surrounded by such an optically opaque layer.
Click to expand...

Unless the radiation we see is coming from the solid shell (in which case it's the shell which is at 6000 K), then yes, it's surrounded by something optically opaque. We can see that it's optically opaque.

And I'm still waiting for you to quantify any of your ideas.
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
Why should I re-invent the wheel?
Click to expand...

Because the magnetic reconnection wheel was never invented.

The general topic of magnetic reconnection has been covered quite extensively here in the JREF Forum,
Click to expand...

And so far not a single one of you have identified it's unique energy signature or release mechanism. All of these energy exchanges can easily be explained with:

A) circuit reconnection (short circuits in current carrying filaments)
B) particle reconnection (where particles collide
C) induction

No new form of energy exchange has ever been demonstrated or explained. Care to give it a whirl?
 
Ziggurat said:
Unless the radiation we see is coming from the solid shell (in which case it's the shell which is at 6000 K), then yes, it's surrounded by something optically opaque. We can see that it's optically opaque.
Click to expand...

BS.

mossyohkoh.jpg


I can see through the photosphere to where the footprints of the loop touch the surface.
 
Michael Mozina said:
BS.

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

I can see through the photosphere to where the footprints of the loop touch the surface.
Click to expand...
BS
You cannot say that until you show that the photosphere is transparent to the wavelengths in the image down to your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust.

Until then all you can say is that in your personal opinion (and not backed by any physics) you and only you "can see through the photosphere to where the footprints of the loop touch the surface".

ETA:
What I "see" is an electric discharge starting from your surface and heating the plasma in the photosphere to about a million degrees. This of course blows a hole in the photosphere that is 4800 kilometers deep and easily seen in visible light images of any coronal loop or flare. This electrical discharge then loops over to bore down through the photosphere again and ground on your surface. This of course blows another hole in the photosphere that is 4800 kilometers deep and easily seen in visible light images of any coronal loop or flare.
I then look at actual visible light images of coronal loops or flares, see that there are no such holes and conclude that what I see is not what is going on. Anyone who states that coronal loops or flares are electric discharges from an iron surface/crust must then be ignoring the evidence and be extremely deluded.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
[...]

And so far not a single one of you have identified it's unique energy signature or release mechanism. All of these energy exchanges can easily be explained with:

A) circuit reconnection (short circuits in current carrying filaments)
B) particle reconnection (where particles collide
C) induction

No new form of energy exchange has ever been demonstrated or explained. Care to give it a whirl?
Click to expand...
Sure ...

The specific magnetic reconnection topic that got us here has been well addressed by tusenfem (and in the papers he cites).

Did you read that material MM? Can you say, sincerely, that you could at least follow it, if not actually understand it?

With your indulgence, I shall refrain from posting a more detailed answer to your question, pending:

a) the publication, on your website, of the math (numbers, whatever) that you have promised,

b) a satisfactory answer to Ziggurat's questions concerning quantification of your ideas, and

c) an answer to my, now very old, question concerning the stiffness of the solid surface of the Sun, per your claims (if you no longer remember the question, please say so ... I'll be more than happy to provide a link, and repeat the question).

(that's a copy of part of my last post, in case you didn't read it the first time).
 
Michael Mozina said:
BS.

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg[/qimg]

I can see through the photosphere to where the footprints of the loop touch the surface.
Click to expand...


No, you can't.

See how easy that was? I guess if a simple declaration makes one right, I'm right, too.

But you've made the claim. Prove it. Show us the experiment that supports your ridiculous claim that you're seeing through the photosphere in that composite image. Make sure it can be lab tested, right here on Earth, no fudge factors, nothing metaphysical, quantitative, mathematically sound, repeatable, physically consistent, and objective so that other people can reach the same conclusion that you've reached.

Your repeated tantrums and crybaby whines proclaiming that you can see through the photosphere by looking at composite images of data taken from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere are just that, Michael, crybaby whines and tantrums. Show us how you've reached that conclusion, objectively, so that other people can agree that's what you're seeing. You've never been able to do that. Never. And in fact it's been shown, to the satisfaction of virtually every other participant in all these discussions, that what you're showing is clearly several thousand kilometers above what you're claiming to see. Unless you've been posting the wrong image over and over and over again, it looks like you're just plain wrong.
 
Michael Mozina said:
BS.
Click to expand...

Not BS. It's simple thermodynamics. Blackbodies are opaque, even inperfect blackbodies. The sun is a blackbody at approximately 6000 K. Either that's an opaque layer above your solid surface, or it's the solid surface itself that's at 6000 K. In the former case, the gas/plasma around Birkeland's sphere was never opaque (and I doubt it was at 6000 K, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). And in the latter case, well, the sphere itself was certainly not close to 6000 K. So in no case did Birkeland perform an experiment with conditions close to what you are proposing.

And I'm still waiting for you to quantify any of your ideas.
 
Photosphere or Chromosphere?

Michael Mozina said:
I simply reject the notion that you can point at things in the sky without ever demonstrating anything in a controlled test.
Click to expand...
No, you reject physics, we all know that already.
Michael Mozina said:
Got one?
Click to expand...
A test of exactly what? The existence of absorption? The existence of optical depth? Since you have never once defined any parameter you use, I have no idea what I am supposed to test, or what you think you are actually saying. But so far what you have said squarely violates the most fundamental principles of physics, so we can easily dismiss it as the ravings of a mad pseudo-scientist.

Michael Mozina said:
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. Birkeland already demonstrated his model works in a lab.
Click to expand...
Fat chance. Birkeland never even came close to demonstrating that the sun might possibly have a crust, so if that's the best you can do, you lose. You have no laboratory experiments of any kind to back any of your claims, as all of Birkeland's work is quite irrelevant to the physics of the sun. All of Birkeland's work.

Michael Mozina said:
You're supposed to be looking a flares in white light ...
Click to expand...
As far as I can see there are no white light images on that DVD. They are all EUV images.

Michael Mozina said:
and noticing that:

A) the bases of the loops light up the photosphere as they come through the photosphere and the loop comes up *THROUGH* the photosphere.
B) the mass ejections from a flare blow material up and through the photosphere during the flare process.
Click to expand...
What makes you think you are looking at the photosphere? The base I see is the chromosphere, not the photosphere.

Michael Mozina said:
I guess I'll hunt copy and paste the specific images for you all after work today since none of you seem to be able to find them even with the DVD timelines specified for you and everything.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? I have not seen you specify any such thing, which is why I asked in the first place.
 
Ziggurat said:
Not BS. It's simple thermodynamics.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that you attempt to *OVERSIMPLIFY* pretty much everything.

Blackbodies
Click to expand...

Blackbodies are a figment of your imagination. Nothing like them actually exist in nature. It's a mathematical construct that rarely if ever actually matches observation 'perfectly'. Solid carbon is the only element that actually comes close to "perfection'.

are opaque, even inperfect blackbodies. The sun is a blackbody at approximately 6000 K.
Click to expand...

That is pure speculation on your part. You've never demonstrated this claim but that hasn't stopped you from repeating it over and over again like a broken record.

Either that's an opaque layer above your solid surface,
Click to expand...

It's simply a *plasma layer* above the surface just like Birkeland had "plasma layers" above his surface.

or it's the solid surface itself that's at 6000 K.
Click to expand...

This is called a false dichotomy fallacy. There are other options but you don't wish to hear them evidently.

In the former case, the gas/plasma around Birkeland's sphere was never opaque
Click to expand...

Correct.

(and I doubt it was at 6000 K, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Click to expand...

Actually I agree with you on that point. Whereas the particles flying off the sphere may have been "hot", the ambient plasma temperature was probably quite a bit lower.

And in the latter case, well, the sphere itself was certainly not close to 6000 K. So in no case did Birkeland perform an experiment with conditions close to what you are proposing.
Click to expand...

If I were proposing that the surface was 6,000K, you might have a point. As it stands, you don't.
 
Tim Thompson said:
No, you reject physics, we all know that already.
Click to expand...

No, I reject "point at the sky and add math" exercises, not empirical physics. Big difference.

A test of exactly what? The existence of absorption? The existence of optical depth? Since you have never once defined any parameter you use, I have no idea what I am supposed to test, or what you think you are actually saying.
Click to expand...

Let's try it this way. I don't believe that the the photosphere:

A) is made of mostly hydrogen and helium
B) acts like a "black body"
C) is optically "opaque" to all wavelengths, including the iron ion wavelengths.

But so far what you have said squarely violates the most fundamental principles of physics, so we can easily dismiss it as the ravings of a mad pseudo-scientist.
Click to expand...

This coming from the guy peddling inflation and dark energy....... Big yawn.

Fat chance. Birkeland never even came close to demonstrating that the sun might possibly have a crust,
Click to expand...

You mean except for the fact that every model he created had one?

so if that's the best you can do, you lose.
Click to expand...

The only person losing anything here Tim is you. IMO you got suckered into this debate due to your disagreements with Dr. Scott's solar model. Birkeland's solar model is very different Tim and you therefore need to judge it based upon it's own merits.

You have no laboratory experiments of any kind to back any of your claims, as all of Birkeland's work is quite irrelevant to the physics of the sun. All of Birkeland's work.
Click to expand...

That is simply not true Tim. Everything he did was specifically related to solar processes and solar physics as we observe it in satellite images.

As far as I can see there are no white light images on that DVD. They are all EUV images.
Click to expand...

I'll post some images tomorrow. I'm looking for a good screen capture program at the moment, but as soon as I find one I like I'll post the images. That image at 30:04-10 seconds is the image that more or less blows your whole show. There are many images in the white light spectrum that show "discharges" in the photosphere.

What makes you think you are looking at the photosphere? The base I see is the chromosphere, not the photosphere.
Click to expand...

Well, then at least for the time being let us agree that the base of the loops is located *below* the corona. You might take a gander at all those 1600A images that *CERTAINLY* show that the bases of the loops cannot possibly be located in the corona.

What are you talking about? I have not seen you specify any such thing, which is why I asked in the first place.
Click to expand...

I posted time lines for you already, but I can see from playing with the images on the DVD that the timeline changes due to the DVD player I'm using. I'll post the images as soon as I've captured them and posted them to my website. The timeline on the frame I want you to look at first is the white light image from 2001-Apr-15 at 13:55:01. In that specific frame it we can observe the loop in white light coming up through the photosphere and the effect of the loops on the photosphere as they light up the ares around the bases of both sides of the loops.

As we get into this discussion I really want you to take a look at all the images (all the various wavelengths) related to the Bastille Day flare, particularly the white light images.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I've noticed that you attempt to *OVERSIMPLIFY* pretty much everything.
Click to expand...

Because certain things are simple. Like the idea that heat flows from hot things to cold things. If your model can't handle the simple things, it's no good. That's why I focus on simple stuff: because you can't even do that much.

Blackbodies are a figment of your imagination. Nothing like them actually exist in nature.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Oh so terribly wrong.

It's a mathematical construct that rarely if ever actually matches observation 'perfectly'.
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to be an exact match. A rough match is plenty good enough for our purposes. You have been informed of this before. Your continued ignorance on this point, along with repeated strawmen, are rather pathetic.

That is pure speculation on your part. You've never demonstrated this claim but that hasn't stopped you from repeating it over and over again like a broken record.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought I've linked to the blackbody spectrum of the sun before. Well, if you insist I haven't in the past, I will do so now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EffectiveTemperature_300dpi_e.png
Surely you've seen such graphs before.

It's simply a *plasma layer* above the surface just like Birkeland had "plasma layers" above his surface.
Click to expand...

I don't care what it's made of: it's a blackbody, which means that it's opaque. That's a thermodynamic requirement, unless you don't believe in the 2nd law.

This is called a false dichotomy fallacy. There are other options but you don't wish to hear them evidently.
Click to expand...

Other options? Please, do tell. Because nothing you said has presented an actual alternative. Remember, this alternative must produce blackbody radiation.

If I were proposing that the surface was 6,000K, you might have a point. As it stands, you don't.
Click to expand...

If the surface isn't 6000 K, then an opaque layer above it is at 6000 K.

Unless you think that the solid surface is transparent, and the 6000 K blackbody source is below your solid surface. That would neatly solve the temperature problem of how the surface can be at a lower temperature. Would you like to try to pursue that avenue, Michael?

And I'm still waiting for you to quantify any of your ideas.
 
Why does the composition of the "mostly neon" photoshere and the corona differ

Michael Mozina:
First asked 22nd July 2009
The composition of the corona is determined by spectroscopy to be hydrogen (74.9%), helium (23.8%) carbon (0.3%), neon (0.2%), and iron (0.2%) of the mass of the Sun. Astronomers assume that this material comes from the photosphere.
You state that the photosphere is "mostly neon". 0.2% is a lot smaller than "mostly".

What stops neon getting from your photosphere into the corona in amounts large enough to turn 0.2% into 0.4% (for example)?
 
Reality Check said:
Michael Mozina:
First asked 22nd July 2009
The composition of the corona is determined by spectroscopy to be hydrogen (74.9%), helium (23.8%) carbon (0.3%), neon (0.2%), and iron (0.2%) of the mass of the Sun. Astronomers assume that this material comes from the photosphere.
You state that the photosphere is "mostly neon". 0.2% is a lot smaller than "mostly".

What stops neon getting from your photosphere into the corona in amounts large enough to turn 0.2% into 0.4% (for example)?
Click to expand...

The short answer is "mass separation".

The helium chromosphere and hydrogen corona are both considerably hotter (and emit more photons) than the other layers of the atmosphere. More importantly, they are also sitting on top of all the other plasma layers and therefore they tend to absorb and emit the most light. Spectral analysis of the upper atmosphere is therefore going to show that the upper layers of the sun are composed of primarily hydrogen and helium.

All of the spectral percentage numbers *assume* that there is little or no mass separation of elements in the solar atmosphere and therefore they interpret these spectral numbers to be indicative of the surface of the photosphere.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The short answer is "mass separation".

The helium chromosphere and hydrogen corona are both considerably hotter (and emit more photons) than the other layers of the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

This is rather obviously wrong, Michael. Look at the sun sometime. I suggest you use a filter to avoid hurting yourself. Very little of the sun's light comes from the corona. Everyone knows this (well, except you), and it's rather easy to confirm by direct observation. You don't even need any fancy scientific equipment. Should be exactly the sort of experimental evidence you're so fond of, yet you are apparently ignorant of it. Strange.

Hell, look at my avatar. Ponder upon it. It's a clue. Can you figure it out?

All of the spectral percentage numbers *assume* that there is little or no mass separation of elements in the solar atmosphere
Click to expand...

And how much mass separation should we expect? It's actually a rather simple thermodynamics problem, Michael. You can quantify it rather easily if you assume no convection. Since convection would serve to decrease mass separation, such an estimate would only be an upper bound, but it would be a good starting place. So what amount of mass separation do you expect? Let's see if you can quantify it.

I'm still waiting for you to quantify any of your ideas. This is another one for the stack. If you ask nicely, perhaps I'll even do the mass separation calculations for you.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom