Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
No, I'm laughing at your "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" comments and the fact you can't find find any flying stuff in running difference "graphs" of the sun.
Last edited:
Electric universe theories here.
- Thread starter Zeuzzz
- Start date
- Status
No, I'm laughing at your "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" comments and the fact you can't find find any flying stuff in running difference "graphs" of the sun.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Oh, then you must have missed (or were being willfully ignorant of) my explanation showing how badly you misunderstand that issue when I explained it earlier in this thread. You obviously missed (or were being willfully ignorant of) Reality Check's explanation, too. And you clearly weren't paying attention (or were being willfully ignorant again) when it was explained to you many times on other forums over the years.
But really, you have an opportunity to actually demonstrate that what I've said is wrong, scientifically, with an experiment done in a lab right here on Earth, quantitatively, with no fudge factors and nothing metaphysical, and objectively so that other people can reach the same conclusion you've reached. But instead of doing that, you're still crying about the flying stuff which has been clearly explained several times?
You could show the method you use to see through thousands of kilometers of opaque plasma, a feat heretofore considered impossible by man and science, a feat previously attributed only to gods, a feat which, if explained, would inarguably earn you a Nobel prize. But you choose not to describe the method, and instead you bitch and moan about seeing flying stuff that you still misunderstand?
You use that LMSAL graph to support your insane fantasy about the Sun, yet you reject out of hand LMSAL's own explanation of that image, an explanation which clearly shows you're wrong. You could provide a quantitative, pixel by pixel explanation as I have and as so many others have, and show that Dr. Hurlburt is wrong about his understanding of the acquisition and processing of the data used to create it. You could show that he's wrong in his understanding of the method and result of producing a running difference image. You could show that his interpretation is incorrect. But all you have to offer is more mouth manure complaining because when it comes to that flying stuff, you still don't get it?
All you've ever offered to explain that graph is your simple assertion that it looks like something to you. You've whined it and you've cried it. You've stomped your feet and thrown tantrums about it. You've put it in UPPER CASE and surrounded it with *ASTERISKS*. You've liberally sprinkled it with "quote marks" and you've repeated it incessantly. But it's still just your assertion. Don't you see that? It's still nothing more than you claiming you're right because you say you're right. That's not science, Michael. That's religion. That's insane. That's fantasy. That's delusional. That's mentally ill. That's trolling. That's lying. That's pulling a great big practical joke on forums all over the internet. But it's not science. And in no way does it support your crazy claim.
Now if there's anyone who still doesn't understand the process of constructing a running difference graphic or assembling some of those graphs into an animation, and who would like a more specific explanation as to how very wrong Michael is about this stuff, just ask.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
One loop or many?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
That is easy to answer: Both.
- One loop is visible sitting above the photosphere in the white light frame.
- Many loops are visible in the 171 and 1600 pass bands.
Have you found the Print Screen key on your keyboard yet?
You may be using a Mac which probably has a different way of capturing the screen contents.
The "2001 15 April 1600" movie shows the activity better. This pass band observes C-I, FeII and the continuum (material at a temperature of 4,000 to 10,000 K). There is a nice flare starting at ~13:35, a bright area corresponding to the loop in WL at ~13:55 and then a good arcade of loops form.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Ok, I agree. What other "white light" evidence can you cite to support the idea that multiple loops come through the photosphere? How does that answer relate to the previous frame(s) in the video?
Yes, but unfortunately that function does not record the image on my laptop. I suspect that is due to the DVD player software that came with my laptop. I'll need to try it on another machine when I get time. I'm up to my ears in programming at the moment. It's clear that you have the DVD and you have located the images in question.
As you know that DVD also contains many other flare events as seen in white light, but I'd like to see how attentive to detail this group actually is with *THIS* white light series of images and how they relate to the 171A and 1600A images on the same DVD. We can then talk about the Bastille day flare, but we need to try an "easy" event before we get to the more complicate ones.
As you said, the 171A and 1600A images show significantly more of the high energy coronal loops activity than the WL images, but they are in fact all related "physically" in some way shape or form to the WL images and the sunspots and the patterns of light in the photosphere. They are all related to the coronal loops seen in 171A images by the iron that is being ionized inside the coronal loop.
Well, look at it this way. Iron is being ionized in those z-pinch coronal loop filaments. The FeII ions are simply more visible in the 1600A image evidently. That is to be expected.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
There is no other "white light" evidence. The fact that the loops exist in other pass bands shows that they exist.
I have looked at a few of these WL movies and they are quite ordinary - just sunspots wandering around as the Sun rotates.
That is right - they are physically related as in being part of the same set of movies and even the same X-ray flare event.
That is to be expected since FeII ions emit light within the 1600 pass band.
About your introduction of "z-pinch". Z-pinch is a technique used in experimental plasma machines. I am not aware that there is evidence for it on the Sun or elsewhere.
Can you cite the paper or textbook that shows that z-pinches happen in coronal loops?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Actually even in the visible light image there are clear signs of more than one loop, starting with the fact we can see several of them (if you look closely), the shape of the loops (more like a heart than a single arc), and the footprints where they come up through the photosphere are elongated, not little "point like" areas of the surface. IMO, you folks really don't seem very attentive to details, even in very ordinary white light images. There are many more details to be seen in these white light images, such as the surface changes between that frame you posted and the previous frame.
It's more the "white light" around the loops during flaring events I expect you to observe. The areas around the sunspots do not seem to "light up" in quite the same way as the rest of the photosphere during the flare activity. Why?
So it should be clear that the loops originate far below the surface of the photosphere. If the loops are hot enough to light up the photosphere and show up in white light images, there is no reason to believe we would not be able to see them under the photosphere in high energy wavelengths.
In these images the loops are clearly visible rising through that surface. Where is that surface we see in 1600A in your opinion in relationship to the photosphere?
Other than those million degree coronal loops that spit out gamma rays like discharges here on Earth?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/On The Fimamentary Structure Of The Solar Corona.pdf
Alfven defines a "magnetic rope" in his book "Cosmic Plasma" in the following manner:
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
You see multiple loops. I see 1 loop. That is the problem with doing science with pretty pictures.
The footprints are not points. That is what I would expect when the magnetic field of a cornal loop (or loops) interacts with the plasma and magnetic fields of the sunspot in the photosphere.
I would also expect the surface to change as the coronal loop emerges.
I still do not see what relevance this frame (or 2 or 3) has to your Iron Sun idea.
Maybe becasue a sunspot is different from the rest of the photosphere.
It is clear that the loops originate below the photosphere.
That is what coronal loops do.
That is what the standard models of coronal loops state.
That is what the NASA conceptial video you have linked to and posted frames from states.
There is no no reason to believe we would be able to see them under the photosphere in "high energy wavelengths", e.g. 171A.
The surface is really close to and may actually be the photosphere.
In these images the loops are clearly visible rising from or under that surface. There is no way to tell which. I would guess the latter (under).
And once again that is what we expect for the 1600A pass band. Coronal loops emerging from under the photosphere would be visible in the 1600A pass band since it covers material with temperatures of 4,000 K to 10,000 K, i.e. includes the photosphere plasma and the cooler sunspot plasma.
I am surprised though that the sunspots are not shown in that movie.
Now look at the same event in the 171A pass band. This pass band covers with temperatures of 160,000K to 2,000,000 K. Thus we would not expect to see any activity from the photosphere in that movie. All the activity is in the transition zone or above.
Interesting little observation: Have you noticed that the 1600A movie shows less of the Sun's curvature than the 171A movie?
Look at the bottom of the 2 movies and note the gap in the 1600A movie that is not in the 171A movie
This suggests that the 171A movie is of a bigger Sun than the 1600A movie. It also suggests the danger of doing science with pretty pictures since the movies could be cropped in different ways.
The question was:
Is your answer no?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I really don't "get" this degrading thing you folks do about "pretty pictures" when it comes to *MY* ideas, yet you rely on them *HEAVILY* in every lensing study, every inflation theory, every dark energy theory, every theory about the universe, and almost every branch of every part of science. I'm afraid that "pretty picture analysis" is a *necessary* component to any sort of scientific study and *certainly* every astronomy theory.
They are large "squiggly lines" and they follow the contours of the sunspots. That would suggest that there are "many' loops traversing the photosphere in a "sheet" like structure, not unlike the things we observe in the Bastille Day flare.
Me too, but what you're acknowledging here is that a high energy discharge is coming up and *THROUGH* the photosphere, meaning that NASA video is correct, meaning LMSAL's is "incorrect" about the loops being visible only above the photosphere.
Me too, but that demonstrates that the flare is originating under the photosphere and blowing up and through the photosphere. All of these behaviors suggest that the "transition region" is *under* not over the photosphere.
It shows that the "transition region" is not located over the photosphere, but rather it is located *under* the photosphere as Birkeland's model "predicts".
Agree, but then why is it different? In this solar model it is different because it's made of a different element, it's mostly silicon instead of mostly neon. Therefore any "discharge" through the silicon isn't necessarily going to have the same "white light" effect in the areas of the sunspots.
If the do that, then they could also be potentially seen *under* the photosphere as in this image.
There is *every* reason to believe we would see them to *SOME DEPTH*. You can whine about that 4800km figure, but try whining about 10KM or 100KM. It won't fly.
Well, if we go with the idea that this surface is the photosphere, then we can certainly see loops under the photosphere in all those 1600A images. There can be no doubt that we see loops coming up through the surface that is seen in 1600A.
So then that composite Trace/Yohkoh image could easily relate to the photosphere surface as well, and show us that the footprints of 171A images originate far *UNDER* the surface of the photosphere.
Those 'bright loops' we see are a MINIMUM of 10K, but according to LMSAL the loops is "hot" over the whole course of the loop. In other words, it could be "millions" of degrees, not just 10,000K. If that is true, then there is no reason to believe that the 171A images originate over the photosphere and every reason to believe they would be visible through the photosphere to at least *SOME* depth.
I need to stop here at the moment, but thing about these things and look at those Bastille Day flare images for awhile.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I can only assume you didn't read the paper I cited or the quote from Alfven about the definition of a "magnetic rope"?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,299
Because the images in lensing studies are quantified. People don't simply take the images and say, "hey, it LOOKS line a lense to me". When you can come up with a quantitative model to explain your images, then you can elevate them above just "pretty pictures". But I know you can't, and won't, do that.
Yes, Michael: astronomy relies heavily upon quantitative analysis of images. Where's your quantitative analysis? Nowhere to be found.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Nope. You can't see under the photosphere in that image. For two very good reasons. First, the data used to create that image was obtained from above the photosphere. And second, at least equally as important, the photosphere is opaque to any wavelength beyond a depth of about 500 kilometers.
Now if you could possibly show us the lab tested experiment that allows you to see below that opaque photosphere by looking at a graphical assembly of data obtained from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, you might just be on to something. Make sure that experiment can be done right here on Earth, with no fudge factors and nothing metaphysical, mathematically consistent, physically plausible, repeatable, and objective so that other people can come to the same conclusion you've reached. Let the world know your method, quantitatively, not your subjective interpretation of some pretty pictures.
You won't... because you can't.
(Here's where you could respond with, "Yes, I can. And here's how it's done..." But instead of attempting to support your insane claim, you'll throw another tantrum. Whine. Cry. Complain. Ignore. Because other than your assertion that it's true because you say so, you've got nothing, Michael. Not a damned thing. Looks-like-a-bunny. Pussy science.
)ETA: Looks like Ziggurat got in ahead of me with this.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
These images are well "quantified" too. There are many papers related to these wavelengths and what they detect.
No, but they can say "hey, it looks like more than a single loop (star,planet,whatever) in that image!
Birkeland, Alfven and Bruce already did that as it relates to coronal loops. I can't even get you to address any of those quantifications. What's up with that?
Not all "understanding" is mathematical in nature. We can get some idea about the origin of the loops in these images based on what we observe in the image without requiring a ton of math or by relying upon math alone. In fact math alone *will not* resolve this issue. The loops reach millions of degrees and come up through the photosphere and are visible under the photosphere even in white light in the image prior to the flare. During the flare we can see the effect on the photosphere. None of that requires "math", but rather "careful observation". I can't seem to get that from you folks. I ask simple questions like "what's that flying stuff", and I get answers like "flying stuff? What flying stuff?". I ask you folks to look at a flare image and it took all four of you something like 2 weeks to find it even when I narrowed the window down to a few second window. Hell none of you were sure even a week and a half later whether there were any white light images on the whole DVD. Were it not for RC you'd all probably *STILL* be trying to claim the images aren't there at all, and you personally would still be arguing from a place of pure ignorance because you were too lazy to even download the images and look at them.
It has completely forgotten the importance and necessity of "qualitative" analysis of not only images, but of whole *physical processes*. All the quantitative analysis you might ever do on lensing data will never tell you what that "missing matter' is made of.
You have not even touched Alfven's work. Why? How about Birkeland's quantitative analysis? Have you even personally bothered to lift a finger and study it? Bruce?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,299
But your analysis of the images is not.
Why should I? I'm not disputing what they say, because I have no interest in doing so. It's what you (and you alone) are saying that I'm interested in here.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
BS. You *ALLEGE* this to be the case, but the WL images show that the loops come up through the photosphere and they loops are hot even before they get through the photosphere.
The very worst you could do is quibble over the depth issue, but you can't avoid the fact that the loops originate under the photosphere and the optical depth is ultimately a "pure guestimate" at it relate to various wavelengths.
I don't have to do that. All I have to do is show that the bases of the loops can be seen to *SOME* distance under the photosphere. LMSAL's "interpretation' as to the location of the bases of the loops is then falsified. I could just a rightly argue that the "bases of the loops" seen in that image is determined by the optical depth of the photosphere and has nothing to do with the surface. It still would demonstrate that the loops originate *UNDER* not over the photosphere.
You don't even seem to 'get' this whole "experiment" thing. I'm not dissing your solar theory because you can't create a sustained fusion reaction in plasma. I'm dissing it because it doesn't jive with observation.
I'm not expecting you to physically demonstrate every idea, I simply expect you to "qualify" ideas like inflation and dark energy and SUSY particles in actual controlled empirical experiments so that I know that they are not a figment of your overactive imagination.
Nothing I have proposed cannot be physically tested in lab, if not by me, by someone else. Electrical currents show up in real experiments. Compare and contrast that with inflation or dark energy. They don't do anything to anything in any controlled experiment. These are *COMPLETELY* different complaints than whining about the fact you can't sustain a fusion reaction in plasma. I don't care that you can't sustain a fusion reaction, it is still a KNOWN physical process in nature. It may not be capable of being sustained in the core as you suggest, but at least I know that fusion happens in nature. Inflation doesn't happen in nature. Inflation is dead and evidently impotent in nature today. That's what makes it pseudoscience, whereas you fusion solar theory is not pseudoscience, even if it's wrong.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Well, not so far, but so far I can't even get you to download the images and look at them! We can't agree that the Trace/Yohkoh overlay image shows us photosphere boundaries, so there is no way to look at those images mathematically yet and come to any specific number related to depth.
Have we all even agreed to "assume" that the 1600A "surface" is in fact the photosphere? I'm willing do that for the sake of argument and loop analysis, but how do we begin to analyze stuff mathematically yet if we can't agree on any of the basics?
Because maybe they are right about the fact these are atmospheric discharges even if I'm wrong about a surface? Aren't you even scientifically curious?
In other words, your "motive" is not pure scientific curiosity, it's an ego battle thing with you?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,299
So what's stopping you, Michael? I'm certainly not. You've spent years at this already. What's the holdup?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
There is no "hold up" from my perspective and the math has already been done by someone far more competent than myself IMO, using a very sophisticated set of techniques. That 4800KM figure is directly related to heliosiemology data, the fact that downdrafting plasma in a sunspot goes flat at about 4800KM under the photosphere.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,299
Sure there is. You haven't quantified any of your beliefs. You haven't done any quantitative analysis on any of your images. There is indeed a holdup.
So somebody else did quantitative analysis of something else. Yeah, real persuasive there, Michael.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Yes, I allege that you can't see anything deeper than about 500 kilometers into the photosphere. That's pretty well established according to the current state of solar research technology. Whether or not a magnetic field, an electrical charge, or even a sharp pencil can make its way through an opaque surface doesn't change that. Your reliance on pretty pictures and that convoluted logic you've devised in your desperate quest to support your delusion continues to fail you.
Actually it's been explained several times that the current understanding of the optical depth of the photosphere isn't a matter of guessing, but rather a matter of a quantitative analysis. Given modern scientific data gathering and analysis techniques, it is pretty well accepted that you can't see more than about 500 kilometers into the photosphere, your personal incredulity and ignorance notwithstanding. Now if you could quantitatively demonstrate that you can actually see deeper than that, the entire field of solar physics would likely stop in its tracks and hear what you've got to say about it. Obviously you're not saying it in a way that they find compelling.
But that does bring up a valid concern. I'm reminded of those Truthers who come to the JREF forum to shout out their truth about the massive conspiracy surrounding the 9/11 attacks. They waste their time and energy here rather than taking their truth to legal authorities who might actually do something about it. Here you are, all over the Internet carrying on about crazy things like EU and a solid surface on the Sun instead of actually addressing the world of physics in a way that might actually get the word out where you can change some minds.
What do Kosovichev and Hoeksema and Schou from Stanford think of your research? (Oh, never mind. We already know Kosovichev doesn't agree with you.) How does LMSAL's Dr. Hurlburt and the rest of his team feel about your position? (Oh, wait. They think you're wrong, too.) Okay, when Neil deGrasse Tyson looked over your latest presentation, what was his opinion? Where's the material you wrote comparing Bahcall's ideas to yours? Shouldn't you be hobnobbing with the elite in the field and quantitatively, legitimately, scientifically critiquing the latest and best accepted theories if you want to actually be taken seriously? Instead you're throwing temper tantrums on an Internet forum?
Apparently you haven't falsified LMSAL's interpretation of anything to anyone's satisfaction. I'm pretty sure when you do show their analysis to be wrong, in a quantitative way, and communicate it so they actually understand what the hell you're talking about, you'll have their attention. And really, again, aren't you wasting a lot of time and effort arguing on a bunch of dumb Internet forums when you've got a hold on something so big that it will overturn the entire science of solar physics as we know it?
Seems that every person on the face of this planet who works in the field of solar physics feels it does jive with observation, at least enough that they aren't going back to the drawing board to start over because of a few unanswered questions. Science is about creating an explanation, a model that most effectively matches all the known data, and at the very least doesn't contain any glaring contradictions with that data. If the standard solar model was as wrong as you seem to think it is, the primary effort of professional researchers and educators wouldn't be to tweak what we've got. It would be to run it through the shredder and start over. But that's not happening. And there's a damned good reason for it. The current state of solar physics, the standard model, the understanding of the Sun's mass, density, elemental composition, physical function, and thermal characteristics, all do jive with observation.
And as long as you've been blathering on the Internet with your insane solid surface of the Sun crap, people have been asking you for that same level of qualification. They've read Birkeland. They've tried to find where he actually made the assertions you're making. They've tried to find the predictions you claim he made. What they find is that you've made convoluted ad hoc connections to a brass ball and/or a photo of an idea Birkeland had about Saturn, for God's sake. They've tried to make the correlation between his experiments and what you claim to be the results of those experiments. And oddly enough, nobody has ever been able to see what you see in them. Oddly enough, you've never been able to point to a particular description of an experiment or a particular set of calculations and say, "There! That's where Birkeland was specific about his notion that the Sun has a solid surface. That's where Birkeland's math shows, better than all our current observations and understanding, that the Sun is a great big old cathode/anode and all those loops and ejections are actually bigass sparks like arc welding or lightning." Never. Not once.
No, Michael, your exclusive basis for support is your ridiculous looks-like-a-bunny method and some radical misunderstandings of other people's mostly obsolete work. And as much as you'd like to think your qualitative interpretation should stand on its own without quantitative support, the quantitative evidence exists, masses of it, all coordinated and non-conflicting, all wrapped up in tissue paper with pink ribbons around it, to show that your qualitative analysis is wrong.
Nothing you have proposed cannot be physically tested in a lab, well, except a few little things. Like for example, you haven't been able to point to the experiment where you or anyone else can see something several thousand kilometers below the opaque photosphere by looking at a graphical assembly of a series of mathematical computations created using data acquired several thousand kilometers above the photosphere.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Er, what difference does it make to you *WHO* does the math? Why does the math to justify a Birkeland solar model have to be done *your* way, by me personally?
You surely expect me to accept *any* quantitative analysis that happens to support your views, so why would you refuse to consider math that supports my position only because I'm not the one that produced it? That isn't even rational.
In order to analyze images we'll have to all agree that the 171A loops start *UNDER* the photosphere and are visible *UNDER* the photosphere. Are we even that far yet?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Science is not really done by looking at pretty pictures as you tend to do.
Every lensing study, every inflation theory, every dark energy theory, every theory about the universe, and almost every branch of every part of science actually analyze the pretty pictures. They extract numbers from them.
Where are your numbers?
They are large "squiggly lines" and they follow the contours of the sunspots. That would suggest that they are interactions of a single loop with the magnetic fields of the sunspot.
Me too -not.
What I am interpreting the picture as is a single coronal loop coming up.
It is not a "high energy discharge" since we are looking at a plasma and they only support small scale discharges through charge separation (of the order of meters to be generous in the photosphere).
The NASA conceptual animation is the standard model of coronal loops. LMSAL does not disagree with it.
The frame is of activity on and above the sunspot.
The frame is of activity on and above the photosphere.
I think that there may also be light coming from the loop below the photosphere. I am not an astronomer.
Me too -not.
The transition region is above the photosphere.
Not it does not.
Cite the section in Birkelands book where he states that the transition region is below the photosphere.
It is different because of what sunspots are actually areas of intense magnetic activity as measured by scientists.
Still wrong MM - both images in that composite image are of activity above the photosphere taken in pass bands that exclude white light.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics know that they could will never be seen *under* the photosphere as in that image.
This is really bad science by looking at pretty pictures - you have not even investigated where the features in the image are.
It files!
I know that basic physics tells any scientist that coronal loops are not visible in the 171A pass band under the photosphere because they are heated to > 160,000 K above the photosphere. This is shown by analyzing coronal loops on the limb of the Sun and noting that they are cool near the photosphere and get hot a few 1000 km above it.
There is not doubt that we see loops on the photosphere in the 1600A pass band. They look as if they emerge from the photosphere in the 1600A pass band.
So what?
That is what coronal loops do. That is what I have stated many times before. That is what you have stated many times before - remember the NASA conceptual animation that you like so much?
No. The composite Trace/Yohkoh image is in the 171A and soft X-ray pass bands. All the activity is above the photosphere. It does "relate" to the photosphere in the sense that the coronal loops emerge from the photosphere.
Wrong. They are a MINIMUM of 4,000 K and a MAXIMUM of 10,000 K.
Have you grasped the fact that a pass band is a filter?
They exclude wavelengths outside of their range. The 1600A pass band excludes the radiation from the really hot plasma. To see that you need to look at the same event in the 171A pass band.
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,299
I don't care who does the math, Michael. But nobody else (well, other than me) has done the math to analyze your model of cathode refrigeration, and Birkeland sure as hell never did any quantitative analysis of the images you're using. If you can get someone else to do it for you, that's acceptable. If you cannot get anyone else, then it's up to you. You certainly haven't accepted my efforts to do quantitative analysis of your model, even though you can't actually demonstrate what's wrong with my analysis.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Who cares what you personally allege? Flying stuff? What flying stuff? You certainly have no personal credibility with me.
Even 500 KM falsifies LMSAL's claims about the origin of the base of the loops.
So what? LMSAL's position is still toast even if we accept this as fact. All that would mean is that we can only see to some optical depth in these images but the loops are still visible under the photosphere.
I'll bet you didn't even look at the 'pretty pictures'. Loops? What loops? White light images on the DVD? What white light images? For crying out loud.
It doesn't matter one iota in terms of saving LMSAL and their location of the transition region being above rather than below the photosphere. You could "bitch' because that number doesn't support the heliosiesmology data, but then LMSAL is still wrong no matter what.
How is EU theory "crazy" exactly? How is "inflation" and "dark evil energy" not "crazy"?
Alfven spoke that language loud and clear, as did Bruce and Birkeland. You (collectively) however have such closed minds you still call EU theory "crazy". I think your industry needs a little butt kicking at this point in time over all the actual "crazy" stuff they have "made up" over the past few decades like inflation and dark evil energies and magical matter particles with all sorts of unique "properties" they created in a purely ad hoc manner.
I'm not throwing temper tantrums, that's your game. Here in this post again you keep "transferring" your emotional problems to me. You're the only one here that seems to *NEED* to include personal insults in every single post.
I'm not the least bit interested in "hobnobbing" with any "elite". I'm interested in "truth". That motive is quite different than playing a political game of some kind. If they want to talk to me, they know where to find me. I'm easily accessible to all/any of them. When I've had questions I've contacted the appropriate individuals.
The loops absolutely are visible coming up through the "surface" seen in 1600A. That sheet of loops leaves an obvious mark on the photophere.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Wrong yet again MM!
Sun
Do the math:
500 km above the photosphere + 2,000 km thick = 2,500 km to the start of the transition zone where the plasma is hot enough to be detected by the 171A pass band.
Thus the base of the loops in the 171A pass band images is at least 2,500 km above the photosphere. The ability to see ~500 km into the photosphere in visible light (and thus measure the increasing tempertaure with depth) does not change this because the 171A pass band filters out visible light.
Therefore LMSAL states that the base of loops in 171A pass band images is at least 2,500 km above the photosphere.They have supported this (as you know) by measuring the temperature along coronal loops:
From their image archive
This is of course a real problem for your coronal loops are electrical arc idea. Now you have to explain why the temperature along your electrical arc suddenly changes to ~ 1 million K in a short interval above the photosphere. If we include your "500 KM" then this is still a space of 14,5000 km above the photosphere.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
That rings a little hollow after watching you argue with sol for a day or two over the number of photons in an EM field. His position was sound, but you really didn't want to hear the answer. You don't even care about the electrical aspects of coronal loops or the math related to those loops. It's not even evidently something you are the least big curious about. Why?
I never even used that term, *YOU* did. How about the mass separated plasma layers and thermoclines? Why call it "cathode refrigeration"?
Birkeland did quantify his "discharge' model. Did you even bother to read it?
Oh, why thank you.
Did you finally accept sol's answer by the way?It's not UP TO YOU however on which questions I answer and do not answer. There are *LOTS* of things standard solar theory doesn't "answer", like how the solar wind works, what heats the corona, etc. Why would you attempt to falsify any solar model just by attempting to dream up questions I can't personally answer?
What's "wrong" with your analysis is you didn't include any notion of cooler, more dense plasma layers that are located under the photosphere, and you *insist* that we calculate the energy output based on your solar theory of choice.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina
These are some of the questions that MM has been asked and seems incapable of answering other than by unsupported assertions (new questions in green)
Unsupported Assertions as Answers from Michal Mozina:
These are some of the questions that MM has been asked and seems incapable of answering other than by unsupported assertions (new questions in green)
- What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected? First asked 6th July 2009
- A post that seemed to retract his "mountain ranges" on the TRACE 171A RD animation evoked this question:
What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona. First asked 6th July 2009 - From tusenfem:
Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkelands book? First asked 7th July 2009 - Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source" and in the same post
- Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun). First asked 7th July 2009
- 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. - Coronal loops are electrical discharges? First asked 10 July 2009
- Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question? First asked 10 July 2009
- More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth First asked 13 July 2009
- Formation of the iron surface First asked 13 July 2009
- How much is "mostly neon" MM? First asked 13 July 2009
- Just how useless is the Iron Sun model? First asked 13 July 2009
- Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina First asked 13 July 2009
- Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina First asked 13 July 2009He 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.
- Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested? First asked 14 July 2009
- 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).
- Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina First asked 14 July 2009MM has one reply in which is mistakenly thinks that this question is about coronal loops.
- What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model? First asked 17 July 2009
- 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 - Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles? First asked 18 July 2009
- How does the "mostly neon" surface emit white light? First asked 19 July 2009
Now retracted for - Entire photon "spectrum" is composed of all the emissions from all the layers First asked 3 August 2009
- Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves? First asked 22 July 2009
Seems to think that 3 pixel differences (full Sun image) or 10's of pixels (limb image) are not detectable. Astronomers would disagree. - Evidence for the existence of "dark" electrons First asked 28 July 2008
- MHD also treats plasmas as particles and circuits according to Alfven First asked 29 July 2009Can you give a citation to where Alfven states that he derives the equations of MHD from collections of particles rather than a fluid?
- Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere? First asked 30 July 2009
- Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer? First asked 30 July 2009
- What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers? First asked 30 July 2009
- What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer? First asked 30 July 2009
Unsupported Assertions as Answers from Michal Mozina:
- How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
First asked 23rd June 2009
So far just 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).
Now he is on about dark electrons (see above) as an example of matter that cannot be detected! - Why do the composition of the "mostly neon" photoshere and the corona differ?
First asked 22nd July 2009
It is "mass separation" - no actual physics cited or experiments. No understanding of the consequences - see the latest questions.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Explain the shape of your electrical arcs (coronal loops)
You seem to have missed this point that I raised a couple of days ago so I will make it an actual question:
First asked 2 August 2009
There is a frame (or 2 or 3) in the "2001 15 April WL" movie in the TRACE FlaresDVD.img file that shows a coronal loop on top of a sunspot.
Maybe it is an electrical arc from your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust 4800 km below the photosphere that is of unknown temperature, composition and depth.
In that case look at the image closely. The coronal loop enters the photosphere almost vertically. This is what is expected for coronal loops described as magnetic fields (they basically float to the surface of the photosphere and so show up as half loops).
But the source for your electrical arc is a further 4800 km down. This means that your electrical arc is not an "arc" - somehow it is shaped more like a croquet hoop with vertical sides and a circle on top.
Why are your electrical "arcs" actually croquet hoops?
And an extra bonus question:
This looks nothing like Birkeland's images. These have actual arcs.
Why does this frame not disprove what you call "Birkeland's solar model"?
You seem to have missed this point that I raised a couple of days ago so I will make it an actual question:
First asked 2 August 2009
There is a frame (or 2 or 3) in the "2001 15 April WL" movie in the TRACE FlaresDVD.img file that shows a coronal loop on top of a sunspot.
Maybe it is an electrical arc from your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust 4800 km below the photosphere that is of unknown temperature, composition and depth.
In that case look at the image closely. The coronal loop enters the photosphere almost vertically. This is what is expected for coronal loops described as magnetic fields (they basically float to the surface of the photosphere and so show up as half loops).
But the source for your electrical arc is a further 4800 km down. This means that your electrical arc is not an "arc" - somehow it is shaped more like a croquet hoop with vertical sides and a circle on top.
Why are your electrical "arcs" actually croquet hoops?
And an extra bonus question:
This looks nothing like Birkeland's images. These have actual arcs.
Why does this frame not disprove what you call "Birkeland's solar model"?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Er, how is that anything other than an appeal to authority fallacy?
What heats that loop at that specific location? I would assume even in gas model theory that the loop is "hot" because the material in the core is hot, and the material in the loop is moving faster from the core than other surrounding materials.
FYI, evidently you don't understand the significance of those white footprint patterns in the photosphere. That demonstrates that the loops are "hot" and energetic and pump energy into the photosphere in the area where the current sheet exits upward, and also where is comes back through the photosphere on the other side. The loops are hot throughout the length of the loop. IMO heating does occur at the "surface' where the "discharges" peel away material from the surface. What's the heating mechanisms 2500 KM *above* the photosphere? What about those white loops and footprints in the WL photosphere images?
Um, in science, you can't point to the claim in question to try to support your point. In other words, I see strong physical evidence that loops *PASS THROUGH* the photosphere in those WL images. I see nothing in those images to suggest that the loops start *above* the photosphere, or that they are "hotter" one place in the loop compared to any other place in the loop.
You're missing a key point here. The 171A pass band shows that the *WHOLE VISIBLE* loop is millions of degrees. They show a "base" of those loops where "solar moss" activity occurs. In a Birkeland model this occurs at the "surface".
Yes, I know what they state, and I'm explaining to you why that isn't true and doing so with white light images (for the moment).
You have this so backwards I hardly know where to start. Let's start with their first claim:
So in a discharge theory, they are hot over the whole length because of the current flow inside the filament. The temperature varies little, just as it varies little inside an ordinary plasma ball filament.
Those NASA images show a fully formed, and presumably completely hot loop rising up *THROUGH* the photosphere. They got it right. LMSAL blew it. LMSAL *assumed* their loops become visible somewhere above the photosphere and the evidently have an unidentified heat source in the upper atmosphere. Now part of their "loop" must be hot, and some of it must not be? Which is true? Let's look at the next sentence:
What "heating" is that? In discharge theory the heating is everywhere, including 'down low' at the surface or down low into the photosphere if you prefer.
If LMSAL's first statement is true, then the heating takes place "low in the atmosphere" whereever they can first see the image. If the photosphere is opaque below 500KM, then the bulk of the heating took place *UNDER* the photosphere before they could "see it" in 171A. There is no physical way to justify LMSAL's position even if we assume the "surface' is the photosphere and it becomes "opaque" at a specific depth. In no way can you physically justify their claim that it was heated "above' the photosphere and only that part of the loop is hot. In fact their own statements fully support a discharge model where the discharges begin at the optical opaque depth of that particular wavelength, but it would necessarily need to begin *UNDER* not over the photosphere to leave those patterns in that WL image I cited.
So what is the magic heat source that transforms this "mild mannered" loop you claim is going through the photosphere as in NASA's animation, into a million degree monster that stays at millions of degrees for hours on end?
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,299
The term accurately describes your idea. That you did not use the term is irrelevant.
Funny you should mention mass separation. I provided you with the tools to do some upper bound quantification of this separation, and what did you do? Nothing. No response. Why are you afraid to do the arithmetic to get an answer when I already did the hard part for you?
Mass separation and thermoclines are not cooling mechanisms. Yet you claim that there is some mechanism, driven by the cathode nature of the solid shell inside the sun, which is driving this cooling mechanism which prevents the shell from heating up to the temperature of its surroundings. Thus, cathode refrigeration is an accurate description of what you have claimed.
He never quantified any cathode refrigeration. I don't believe he even suggested such a thing. Feel free to provide a quote to the contrary, if you feel this is the case.
No, it isn't. I cannot make you defend your claims. I cannot make you justify your positions. I cannot make you quantify any of your ideas. But I can, and will, point out when you fail to do so. And you have failed to do so.
I'm not asking because you can't answer. Hell, you should be able to. I did. I asked those questions about the basic parameters of your cathode refrigeration because they can falsify the model (always a useful property for questions about a theory) and because they are answerable. It is ultimately those answers, not your inability to find them, which has falsified your model.
And what effect will that have on the numbers I gave, and why would it have that effect?
No. The energy output I used is not model dependent (except to the extent that I can claim the sun obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics). It is the OBSERVED power output of the sun.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
According to Alfven, magnetic lines act as a "guiding center" to the flow pattern of particles. I suppose you "could" look at it that way. There is also a discharge process between the surface and the heliosphere going on (charge attraction) and the loops tend to "grow" throughout the discharge process.
Pure coincidence that he managed to create similar structures like that? You do realize that loops come in all shapes and sizes, right?
That frame is only one frame of what goes on in those loops. When you look at the 171A images, it's clear "loops" come in all shapes and sizes. They "reconnect" to other "circuits" flowing toward the heliosphere, and the "current flow" can even change directions over time. All of these observed behaviors seen in 171A are consistent with Birkeland's experiments. It would call these images "proof" that Birkeland was right.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
That is pure baloney. "My" idea is that the surface is relatively "cool" (well under 4000K for solids to form), and the lower solar atmosphere is also relatively "cool". I would assume that there is 'discharge heating" process that occurs due to the discharge process between the surface and the heliosphere and that the excess heat is typically carried away from sun with the solar wind.
I think I'm going to call it a day at work, go get a drink and come back to the rest of your post later.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Why in the heck is number 7 still on your list RC? I can't even get you or Zig to deal with ANY of Alfven's material, or ANY of Bruce's material, and somehow that is my fault?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,299
Yet it's surrounded by a much hotter region which thermally insulates it from deep space. Any time you have a temperature gradient, heat always flows from hot to cold. Simple thermodynamic requirement, Michael, and one which is entirely model independent. So how can it possibly remain colder than what surrounds it? It cannot do so unless some mechanism carries heat from a colder to a hotter region. You know what that's commonly called? Refrigeration.
In other words, your cathode. Hence, cathode refrigeration.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
So now it is electrical arcs guided by a magnetic field to form croquet hoops (not arcs).
Where is the evidence for "croquet hoops"?
Please give a citation to a paper showing a magnetic field from a iron crust that is shaped like a croquet hoop.
According to you, Alfven must have written one or two.
Yes - where are the ones shaped like a croquet hoop in his book?
The situation is worse for the 171A images. They are even taller croquet hoops!
But you say that all of these are actually croquet hoops. Where are the croquet hoops in Birkeland's experiments?
State the figure number and the position of the croquet hoops.
State where Birkeland says that croquet hoops are possible and his mathematical treatment of them.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Er, it is not. It is a statement of the physics of the Sun as understood by scientists (and as interpreted by the Wikipedia authors!).
Your description seems to be "it is hot because it is hot and moving fast" which does not sound right.
My impression that there is no heating in the coronal loop. Sorry if I did not state this clearly before.
What we are talking about is the temperature of the plasma that is in the coronal loop. This plasma comes from the environment so it is temperature of the plasma in the photosphere (~6,000 K), temperature minimum region (~4,100 K), chromosphere (risunbg to ~20,000 K), transition region, (rising to ~1,000,000 K) and corona (1–2 million kelvins, however, in the hottest regions it is 8–20 million kelvins).
A real astronomer will probably correct this.
That leads to the coronal heating problem (which is little to do with coronal loops) where mechanism behind the temperature of plasma at various heights is currently unknown.
FYI, I understand the significance of those white footprint patterns in the photosphere. That demonstrates that the loops are "hot" (compared to the sunspot with ~4000 K) and energetic and pump energy into the photosphere in the area where the magnetic field exits upward, and also where it comes back through the photosphere on the other side.
Um, in science, you can't point to the claim in question to try to support your point. In other words, I see strong physical evidence that loops *DO NOT PASS THROUGH* the photosphere in those WL images. I see nothing in those images to suggest that the loops start *below* the photosphere.
You are missing a key point here. The WL image proves that the *WHOLE VISIBLE* loop (i.e. visible in WL) has a temperature between 4,000 and 10,000 K.
Then the discharge theory is wrong. as my emphaisis shows. The temperature varies a lot in a small region of the coronal loop. Thus it is not an electrical arc.
But you can prove me wrong - just cite or show the calculation that an electric arc can change temperature from ~4000 K to ~1,000,000 K in a distance of about 15,000 km, retain that temperature for many 1000's of km and then drop back to ~4000 K.
It is the heating that they actually measure.
You do get the concept of actually measuring something rather then looking at pictures?
The actual measurment of the heating taking place above the photosphere invalidates the discharge theory.
One more time: No one is stating that coronal loops do not rise out of the photosphere as in the NASA conceptual animation.
LMSAL do not assume that the loops become visible somewhere above the photosphere. Their scientists know basic physics and so know that the 171A pass band is imaging radiation from heated plasma above the photosphere. The 171A pass band can never detect the photosphere.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Er, how do you define "thermal insulation" in the mist of million mile per hour "current flows"? Current flow is uniformly "away from" the surface.
Are you even going to admit that "magnetic reconnection" can be "translated" to "particle reconnection" yet so that it is congruent with QM and particle physics theory? I mean sol went to all the trouble of handing you the math and everything.
We also have a "current flow" that is one directional, always away from the sun.
So how is that chromosphere emitting at a higher temp than the photosphere? You thermodynamic requirements go up in smoke as we move away from the photosphere and into *HIGHER* temperature plasma.
How does that photosphere remain cooler than the corona?
I'm afraid that is your own personal lingo. A quick search on Google would suggest that you are the only living human being on Earth to ever use that term. The only scientific term even close was this one:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002APS..MARB26009H
Did you mean "Thermionic Refrigeration"?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
First asked 9 July 2009 (Updated 6 August 2009)
From your web site and what you have stated here, it looks like you have an idea that coronal loops are electrical discharges from your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface.
AFAIK The only evidence that you have presented is that they look like the electrical discharges in the experiments that Birkeland did.
Could you present your calculation of the X-ray spectrum from the electrical discharges so that we can see if it matches the observed X-ray spectrum.
Otherwise we will have to assume that the X-ray spectrum from the electrical discharges is like all other observed electrical discharges - narrow bands of emission (a real astronomer may want to confirm this).
So I would expect electrical discharges on the Sun that heat plasma to have an X-ray spectrum that has a broad background with spikes of emission.
This is a problem for your idea because the observed X-ray spectrum is broad band and typical of heated plasma alone.
MM:
"Bruce's material" does not contain a calculation of the X-ray spectrum from the electrical discharges. He states is that they are like lightening. His model is not the Iron Sun model. His model is fatally flawed because is assumes dust particles in the photosphere (which he assumes to be ~4000 K).
Also
"Alfven's material" is presumably his copy of Alfvén and Carlqvist's 1966 paper (Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and A theory of Solar Flares).
This does not contain a calculation of the X-ray spectrum of electrical discharges. This does not model what we now (2009) know a real solar flare acts like.
You are right - I need to update the question with your "answers".
First asked 9 July 2009 (Updated 6 August 2009)
From your web site and what you have stated here, it looks like you have an idea that coronal loops are electrical discharges from your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface.
AFAIK The only evidence that you have presented is that they look like the electrical discharges in the experiments that Birkeland did.
Could you present your calculation of the X-ray spectrum from the electrical discharges so that we can see if it matches the observed X-ray spectrum.
Otherwise we will have to assume that the X-ray spectrum from the electrical discharges is like all other observed electrical discharges - narrow bands of emission (a real astronomer may want to confirm this).
So I would expect electrical discharges on the Sun that heat plasma to have an X-ray spectrum that has a broad background with spikes of emission.
This is a problem for your idea because the observed X-ray spectrum is broad band and typical of heated plasma alone.
MM:
"Bruce's material" does not contain a calculation of the X-ray spectrum from the electrical discharges. He states is that they are like lightening. His model is not the Iron Sun model. His model is fatally flawed because is assumes dust particles in the photosphere (which he assumes to be ~4000 K).
Also
"Alfven's material" is presumably his copy of Alfvén and Carlqvist's 1966 paper (Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and A theory of Solar Flares).
This does not contain a calculation of the X-ray spectrum of electrical discharges. This does not model what we now (2009) know a real solar flare acts like.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
These are some of the questions that MM has been asked and seems incapable of answering other than by unsupported assertions (new question in green).
N.B. Question 7 has been updated with MM's "answers" as per his request.
Unsupported Assertions as Answers from Michal Mozina:
N.B. Question 7 has been updated with MM's "answers" as per his request.
- What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected? First asked 6th July 2009
- A post that seemed to retract his "mountain ranges" on the TRACE 171A RD animation evoked this question:
What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona. First asked 6th July 2009 - From tusenfem:
Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkelands book? First asked 7th July 2009 - Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source" and in the same post
- Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun). First asked 7th July 2009
- 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. - Coronal loops are electrical discharges? First asked 10 July 2009
This is an updated question with a couple of "answers" from MM. - Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question? First asked 10 July 2009
- More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth First asked 13 July 2009
- Formation of the iron surface First asked 13 July 2009
- How much is "mostly neon" MM? First asked 13 July 2009
- Just how useless is the Iron Sun model? First asked 13 July 2009
- Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina First asked 13 July 2009
- Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina First asked 13 July 2009He 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.
- Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested? First asked 14 July 2009
- 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).
- Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina First asked 14 July 2009MM has one reply in which is mistakenly thinks that this question is about coronal loops.
- What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model? First asked 17 July 2009
- 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 - Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles? First asked 18 July 2009
- How does the "mostly neon" surface emit white light? First asked 19 July 2009
Now retracted for - Entire photon "spectrum" is composed of all the emissions from all the layers First asked 3 August 2009
- Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves? First asked 22 July 2009
Seems to think that 3 pixel differences (full Sun image) or 10's of pixels (limb image) are not detectable. Astronomers would disagree. - Evidence for the existence of "dark" electrons First asked 28 July 2008
- MHD also treats plasmas as particles and circuits according to Alfven First asked 29 July 2009Can you give a citation to where Alfven states that he derives the equations of MHD from collections of particles rather than a fluid?
- Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere? First asked 30 July 2009
- Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer? First asked 30 July 2009
- What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers? First asked 30 July 2009
- What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer? First asked 30 July 2009
Unsupported Assertions as Answers from Michal Mozina:
- How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
First asked 23rd June 2009
So far just 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).
Now he is on about dark electrons (see above) as an example of matter that cannot be detected! - Why do the composition of the "mostly neon" photoshere and the corona differ?
First asked 22nd July 2009
It is "mass separation" - no actual physics cited or experiments. No understanding of the consequences - see the latest questions.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Micheal Mozina:
The question Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina First asked 13 July 2009, is about the predicted heating along the electrical arcs (coronal loops).
You may have stated your answer in the recent posts, i.e. the electrical arc heats plasma to millons of degrees along its entire length.
Is this correct?
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 millions of degrees). If images are taken of the footprints of the "hoops" on the photosphere in visible light (as in the movie frame) then there will be big holes seen (no visible light emitted from the million degree plasma). There are no such holes seen.
The question Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina First asked 13 July 2009, is about the predicted heating along the electrical arcs (coronal loops).
You may have stated your answer in the recent posts, i.e. the electrical arc heats plasma to millons of degrees along its entire length.
Is this correct?
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 millions of degrees). If images are taken of the footprints of the "hoops" on the photosphere in visible light (as in the movie frame) then there will be big holes seen (no visible light emitted from the million degree plasma). There are no such holes seen.
- Status