Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you look at that image carefully you'll note that the brightest areas are not the loops themselves, but the photosphere. That is because the photosphere is primarily composed of neon and is most sensitive to the electrical current in terms of it's white light output. The loops are primarily heavier elements like iron and also lighter elements like carbon, but it's not as efficient at creating white light.

My understanding was that neon glows orange, not white.

Which is a rather moot, since the 'white' in that picture probably isn't the same as 'white' to the naked eye. The sun itself appears to be brilliant white to the naked eye if seen from above Earth's atmosphere, not predominantly orange as shown in the picture, so all the colors in the picture have to be viewed with some suspicion.

Is the coronal loop rising in kind of Jacob's Ladder effect, or is something else driving it?
 
I actually had an epiphany moment when I finally realized that the photosphere was composed of a thin layer of neon, and then and only then did the SERTS data make any sense to me.

Yeah, um... no. Neon fluorescence is orange, not white. And if you're just talking about plasma blackbody radiation (which doesn't require any electric currents), well, you can get that from any plasma, neon isn't special.
 
Neon is a lot heavier than h and he, what is it doing at the surface?
Or are you just making stuff up?

200px-NeTube.jpg
 
Neon is a lot heavier than h and he, what is it doing at the surface?
Or are you just making stuff up?

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/NeTube.jpg/200px-NeTube.jpg[/qimg]

NewModel.JPG


Let's not get confused with the term "surface" in a multiple "surface" model. This is a "plasma separated" solar model as well as a "solid surface" solar model. The "surface" (solid physical surface) is covered by multiple layers of plasma that are mass separated by atomic weight, one layer on top of the other until we reach the hydrogen corona, the light element on the list.

The chromosphere is primarily helium, and the photosphere is neon. There is a much deeper layer of silicon under the photosphere and another layer of calcium plasma under the silicon layer. Each layer is more dense and cooler than the one above it.

The "surface of the photosphere" is mostly a neon substance with all the other elements running through it, most of which cools off and falls back in again. The sun is discharging from the solid surface, all the way to the heliosphere. Everything in between experiences a "discharge process" that ultimately "lights up" every single layer. The neon layer simply happens to be the most visible layer to our naked eye. If however we had satellite vision, we could (and do) see these layers, including the photosphere in white light.
 
My understanding was that neon glows orange, not white.

That true, but there are all kinds of elements flowing through every layer. There's no layer that is universally made of a single substance.

Is the coronal loop rising in kind of Jacob's Ladder effect, or is something else driving it?

birkelandyohkohmini.jpg


The driving force is "electricity". Birkeland created these same kinds of white light discharge loops in his atmosphere too. He also created 'jets' now seen in Hinode images and predicted high speed solar wind, the aurora, etc.
 
FYI, if you want a complete list of elements flowing through the layers, I suggest you checkout the SERTS data if it is still online. I found it to be incredibly helpful and very perplexing at first, particularly the neon ions that made absolutely no sense at all to me at first.
 
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/NewModel.JPG[/qimg]

Let's not get confused with the term "surface" in a multiple "surface" model. This is a "plasma separated" solar model as well as a "solid surface" solar model. The "surface" (solid physical surface) is covered by multiple layers of plasma that are mass separated by atomic weight, one layer on top of the other until we reach the hydrogen corona, the light element on the list.


Mass separated by atomic weight right down to the isotope, heaviest elements deepest inside and the lightest elements to the top, with the iron on the surface of course. Oh, iron which isn't mass separated at all but exists in a rather mixed configuration like the dirt on the surface of the Earth don't ya know. In other words, whatever ball of manure Michael feels he needs to pitch into the mix this time to keep his fantasy claim alive.

Ain't that right, Michael? :p

Or should we go here?...

Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that [crackpot notion] out of your ^ss.


... because you know if we do that will "prove" that your iron is on the inside and not the surface. Trifling little insignificant detail, I know, but maybe some of these other good folks will enjoy you demonstrating your lack of qualifications to speak with any expertise on the subject of solar physics. :D
 
Last edited:
That true, but there are all kinds of elements flowing through every layer.

Translation: I have no actual method of determining the composition of anything. Neon just sounded like it should be white, but since it isn't, I'll throw something else in too.
 
And I'm not going to go trolling through your website looking for the needle.

It's your theory. If you want to support it, then do so.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/TheSurfaceOfTheSun.pdf

Let me suggest you start then with the "layman's version" (unpublished version) of the idea. It's still a pretty good reference and there are links to all the data used in the process, including the SERTS data and all the images used in the original analysis.
 
Last edited:
Translation: I have no actual method of determining the composition of anything. Neon just sounded like it should be white, but since it isn't, I'll throw something else in too.

Just out of curiosity how do you explain that white light image from the LMSAL flares DVD? Notice how the photosphere at the bases of the loops is brightest thing in the image. Why? I already explained why. Can you?
15%20April%202001%20WL.gif
 
Last edited:
Just out of curiosity how do you explain that white light image from the LMSAL flares DVD? Notice how the photosphere at the bases of the loops is brightest thing in the image. Why? I already explained why. Can you?
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15%20April%202001%20WL.gif[/qimg]


Translation: Lookee the pretty pictures. Ooooh, bunnies!
 
Just out of curiosity how do you explain that white light image from the LMSAL flares DVD? Notice how the photosphere at the bases of the loops is brightest thing in the image. Why? I already explained why. Can you?

What, you think the explanation has something to do with the photosphere being neon? Sorry, Michael, yet another fail. And if that's not what you're trying to argue, then this is irrelevant to my exchange with you, go bother somebody else with it.
 
Mass separated by atomic weight right down to the isotope,

FYI, because the solar atmosphere experiences a constant discharge process, and because the sun has a strong magnetic field, the atmospheric plasmas are constantly being separated, right down to the isotope. Because the sun's atmosphere is so dynamic and explosive however, elements and various ions flow through all the layers and everything moves and flows in a plasma atmosphere. There is however a strong tendency not only mass separate the layers, but even separation of ions within the layers. We use the EM field to separate ions here on Earth too by the way.
 
What, you think the explanation has something to do with the photosphere being neon?

Yep. Keep in mind that the umbra however is composed of upwelling silicon plasma from the layer below the photosphere, and that's why it doesn't "glow" in white light. That's also why the bright areas follow the contours of the penumbra, not the just the loops.

Sorry, Michael, yet another fail. And if that's not what you're trying to argue, then this is irrelevant to my exchange with you, go bother somebody else with it.

It's exactly what I'm trying to argue. The neon material and the elements in that material tend to emit white light, whereas the material in the coronal loop is hotter, but emits less visible white light.
 
http://www.etwebsite.com/TheSurfaceOfTheSun.pdf

Let me suggest you start then with the "layman's version" (unpublished version) of the idea. It's still a pretty good reference and there are links to all the data used in the process, including the SERTS data and all the images used in the original analysis.


You do recall that we've shown you don't have the qualifications to analyze images.
 
Just out of curiosity how do you explain that white light image from the LMSAL flares DVD? Notice how the photosphere at the bases of the loops is brightest thing in the image. Why? I already explained why. Can you?
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15%20April%202001%20WL.gif[/qimg]

Are you really claiming that is a true color image, and the 'white' in it is actual white light?
 
You do recall that we've shown you don't have the qualifications to analyze images.

I recall that almost everything you've said to me has been a lie since the moment I met you. That's what I recall about you, along with your persist ignorant belligerence and personal attack "style". I've never met anyone even remotely like you on the internet. You're "one of a kind".
 
Yep. Keep in mind that the umbra however is composed of upwelling silicon plasma from the layer below the photosphere, and that's why it doesn't "glow" in white light. That's also why the bright areas follow the contours of the penumbra, not the just the loops.


Well...

Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that [silly idea] out of your ^ss.


Then...

It's exactly what I'm trying to argue. The neon material and the elements in that material tend to emit white light, whereas the material in the coronal loop is hotter, but emits less visible white light.


And again...

Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that [nutty claim] out of your ^ss.


Thanks for letting us know what your standards are, Michael.
 
MM, this is a fascinating mix of making stuff up as you go and
Lookee the pretty pictures. Ooooh, bunnies!

I recall several other posters here who have elsewhere been able to give a very clear explanation at whatever level required, including equations/calculations.

I believe the two main differences to you lies in their:
Understanding of the subject.
Desire to make their point clear. (knowing it is valid)*


*E.g. Ziggurat have no fear that explaining clearly the theory of conservation of momentum would expose it to the world as his pet quackery.
 
I recall that almost everything you've said to me has been a lie since the moment I met you. That's what I recall about you, along with your persist ignorant belligerence and personal attack "style". I've never met anyone even remotely like you on the internet. You're "one of a kind".


Oh, no, you're wrong again. But that's nothing new. I attack your crackpot conjecture because it's one of the silliest, least thought out, least supported pieces of fantasy I've ever seen anyone over about 10 years old claim with a straight face.

And again, here you are throwing a tantrum instead of answering the dozens of legitimate scientifically significant questions you've been asked. What's the matter? Don't you want to win that Nobel Prize for discovering the Sun has a physically impossible solid iron surface?
 
Oh, no, you're wrong again. But that's nothing new. I attack your crackpot conjecture

No, you don't limit your attacks to ideas, you go after individuals. You went after those RD images with a vengeance and you had your head up your...... the whole time.

because it's one of the silliest, least thought out, least supported pieces of fantasy I've ever seen anyone over about 10 years old claim with a straight face.

You need to get out more then because I've seen some real doozies in my day. Inflation, negative pressure vacuums, dark energy, etc, etc, etc. :)
 
I recall several other posters here who have elsewhere been able to give a very clear explanation at whatever level required, including equations/calculations.

Yes, I admire sol's math and physics skills actually. I saw him give an answer to Zig (maybe it was RC) that I thought was very clever and quite imaginative. Most folks however "specialize" in something and solar theory covers way more topics than anyone individual could actually handle all by themselves. (sol might be the exception).

I believe the two main differences to you lies in their:
Understanding of the subject.

I'm sorry but when someone goes "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?", I tend to disagree. I don't think there are that many "experts" on solar image analysis to begin with, but it's clear he isn't one of them.

Desire to make their point clear. (knowing it is valid)*


*E.g. Ziggurat have no fear that explaining clearly the theory of conservation of momentum would expose it to the world as his pet quackery.

The problem however is that there are logical reasons and images that led to these beliefs. Those are the things I would like to discuss. Instead I am constantly bombarded with what I would call "busy work", where I am supposed to bark math personally on command for no particular reason. Sol's question is different however and it warrants an answer, but not to the complete exclusion of all the other data.
 
Last edited:
Ok, good good. Now, what about it being white light makes you think it must be neon that is involved?

It doesn't "necessarily" have to be neon, but the photosphere and loops can't be the same material, and the material in the umbra cannot be the same material as the photosphere.
 
It depends on what elements we mix into the neon

If you need something other than just neon to produce the white light, then it's not the neon that's producing that white light. So how can you tell that those "other elements" aren't mixed into something other than neon? You can't, Michael. You have no way of determining composition based on the fact that the light looks white. White light only tells you two things: that the source is hot, and that it's opaque. It tells you nothing about composition.
 
If you need something other than just neon to produce the white light, then it's not the neon that's producing that white light.

The whole sun produces wavelengths that fall into the visible spectrum. That layer provides most of it.

So how can you tell that those "other elements" aren't mixed into something other than neon? You can't, Michael. You have no way of determining composition based on the fact that the light looks white. White light only tells you two things: that the source is hot, and that it's opaque. It tells you nothing about composition.

So based on your logic, if I look at the neon light in my office, and look at a spectral output of that light, I would have to determine that it was roughly six thousand degrees Kelvin, it's "opaque" and I could not make *ANY* assumption about it's composition?
 
Last edited:
The problem however is that there are logical reasons and images that led to these beliefs. Those are the things I would like to discuss. Instead I am constantly bombarded with what I would call "busy work"

Michael, you are being given "busy work" because you clearly don't understand basic physics. If you don't understand basic physics (and in fact, misunderstand it), then your "logic" won't produce correct results. Garbage in, garbage out. The "busy work", if you ever did it, would show you that your "logic" is wrong. Spectacularly and obviously wrong.

where I am supposed to bark math personally on command for no particular reason.

The questions regarding calculations I have asked you are all for very particular reasons. I ask them because the answers would reveal the flaws in your thinking. You won't answer them. Perhaps it's because you can't (in which case, why do you think you're remotely qualified to come up with ANY explanation for scientific data?), or perhaps it's because you don't want to be shown wrong.

But it isn't even that you won't give numbers for anything I ask you about, it's also the fact that you won't calculate ANY parameters of your model. You've got this radical model which, if correct, would revolutionize astronomy and cosmology. And what do you do with it? Do you try to make quantitative predictions with your model, to test it against observations and possibly refine it if needed? Do you try to prove it's robust so that you might be able to convince scientists (besides one guy in Rolla, Missouri) that you're on to something?

No. You sit around playing with pictures, posting on a random internet forum, and convincing nobody but brantc. That's just sad. It's sad if you're wrong, but the kicker is, if you're right, it's even sadder. It would be Godel starving himself to death out of paranoia sad.
 
So based on your logic, if I look at the neon light in my office, and look at a spectral output of that light, I would have to determine that it was roughly six thousand degrees Kelvin and I could not make *ANY* assumption about it's composition?

First off, the "neon" lights in your office quite likely don't contain neon. Secondly, it's not the noble gas which emits most of the primary light, it's mercury vapor. Noble gases (it doesn't need to be neon) are chosen because they're non-reactive, not because there's something special about the light they give off. Third, the light you see is not the light given off by the gas, but by the phosphors coating the tube. And fourth, it's not white light. It's a spectrum which looks white to our eyes because we can only pick up three colors, but it isn't white. Not even close.

So... yet one more in an endless string of epic fails.
 
So, why doesn't this abundance of neon show up in any spectroscopic data?

Do you really expect MM to be able to answer this? He has not been able to answer:
An amusing story:
His original support for a mostly neon layer emitting white light was that the fluorescent lamps (like the lights in his office) emit white light!
Well, I don't even have to leave my office to see that effect of a mostly neon plasma emitting white light. Both the bulb and the photosphere have metals and impurities of course, but the white light we observe from the photosphere is related to the elemental composition, not the temperature.
Of course his office is lit by mercury vapor emitting light that is then converted by fluorescence to light we perceive as white.

I see by the latest posts that Michael Mozina is still ignorant of the nature of the neon light in his office.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom