Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
First off, the "neon" lights in your office quite likely don't contain neon.
Click to expand...

That's highly unlikely actually. This is a very old buildiing and the bulbs look to be just as old. :)

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.
Click to expand...

The light it does give off does fall into the visible spectrum however and that shows up in the spectral output as discrete lines, the same lines we see in SERTS.

Third, the light you see is not the light given off by the gas, but by the phosphors coating the tube.
Click to expand...

Yes, and likewise the elements in the neon also give of light.

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.
Click to expand...

Nobody claimed otherwise.

So... yet one more in an endless string of epic fails.
Click to expand...

You jumped from your own strawman to epic fail. Gee, if only you'd addressed my points instead of your own strawman and offered your own "better" explanation for that same image. :)
 
What is the Iron Sun prediction for the amount of silicon in the umbra of sunspots

Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...
What is your physical evidence for the silicon in sunspots?
First asked 7 August 2009

And for that matter:
First asked 16 April 2010
Michael Mozina,
What is the prediction from the Iron Sun model of the amount of silicon in the umbra of sunspots and how does this fit with the observed composition of the umbra?
 
Ziggurat said:
Michael, you are being given "busy work" because you clearly don't understand basic physics.
Click to expand...

FYI, this is your own self defense mechanism talking and it's not true. I have a very broad understanding of many branches of physics. You just feel the need to prop your position up by attacking my credibility. I understand of course, but it's simply a self defense mechanism on your part. If you have a "better" scientific explanation of that image, go for it. If not, no amount of belittling me as a person will make me go away or I would have gone away a long time ago.
 
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...


I attack your whacked out interpretation of what you think you're seeing in running difference images because I happen to have some expertise in that area. You, on the other hand, have no qualifications to speak with any authority on that subject, and you've shown it time and time again. Fact is, when it comes to that particular part of these discussions, I'm right and you're wrong. And I've got all the professional physicists on Earth and all the other sane intelligent people in this conversation on my side. Don't be a sore loser.

Tim and some of these other guys are quite capable of shredding your ridiculous claims from the areas of their expertise. I go after your nutty fantasy from mine. Don't get all bent at me because you can't hold your own in any area you choose to discuss. Learn some science, some physics, learn about running difference images, learn some thermodynamics. Because if you don't, people are going to continue to mop the floor with your silly ideas every time you start typing.

If there's one thing you should have learned over the past five years it's this: Nobody is going to let you get away with making up crap like you do. That's not how science works. That's why you get banned from some forums for refusing to pull your weight and why you end up tucking your tail and walking away from other forums because people ride you hard for ignoring stacks of legitimate questions. Hey, it's science. If you don't have the real stuff, and so far everyone pretty much agrees that you don't, don't play.

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. :)
Click to expand...


Yeah, and your approach towards science hasn't let you make any headway in arguing those areas either, has it? Have you ever stopped to consider that you simply do not have the qualifications to speak with any expertise or authority on any of those subjects?
 
Michael Mozina said:
That's highly unlikely actually. This is a very old buildiing and the bulbs look to be just as old. :)
Click to expand...

The use of other noble gases is not a terribly recent innovation.

The light it does give off does fall into the visible spectrum however and that shows up in the spectral output as discrete lines, the same lines we see in SERTS.
Click to expand...

Are neon spectral lines the only lines present, Michael?

Yes, and likewise the elements in the neon also give of light.
Click to expand...

The only other element in the noble gas is mercury. The mercury gives off the vast majority of the primary light, and that is mostly ultraviolet light. The phosphors coating the tube convert that light into visible light. The light you see is not from the mercury or the noble gas.

Nobody claimed otherwise.
Click to expand...

If you're now admitting that it's not white light, then what the hell relevance does it have to my statement about white light? Jeeze, Michael, talk about a back pedal. This was week even by your admittedly low standards.
 
Ziggurat said:
[...] 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? [...]
Click to expand...


Note: Even that guy in Rolla, Missouri, a fully fledged crackpot in his own right, doesn't agree with Michael on the issue of that physically impossible solid iron surface.
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, this is your own self defense mechanism talking and it's not true. I have a very broad understanding of many branches of physics.
Click to expand...

You keep proving otherwise. My favorite is still your suggestion that a sun-sized solid shell is gravitationally equivalent to a small water bubble. If you really understood basic physics, you'd know why that comparison was so laughably absurd.

So, are you ever going to get around to making any quantitative predictions with your revolutionary model? Or are you determined to go the Godel route? Maybe you prefer Proust's example, it's a little better suited to this internet age.
 
Why is this iron crust thermodynamically impossible

Hopefully this explanation of why the Iron Sun crust is thermodynamically impossible is simple enough for Michael Mozina to understand :rolleyes:.

Why is this iron crust thermodynamically impossible?
  • Consider a sphere made of any material or combination of materials.
  • Place any energy source at the center of the sphere.
  • Wait a while.
What is the resulting temperature distribution within the sphere?
The center of the sphere is hot. The temperature decreases as you approach the surface of the sphere. The surface of the sphere has the lowest temperature.
Thus if you measure the temperature of the surface then everything inside must be at a higher temperature.


Science has confirmed this with the Sun:
  • The photosphere is at a temperature of ~6000 K
  • The temperature is measured to increase with depth to ~9400 K at 500 km.
  • The properties of the Sun (composition, energy output, temperatures, neutrino flux, etc.) match those predicted by the energy source being a fusion process requiring temperatures of millions of K at the core.
Thus the interior of the Sun must be hotter than 9400 K below 500 km. The Iron Sun crust has to be at a temperature at which it has vaporized and so does not exist.

Why is the corona hotter than the photosphere?
MM keeps asking this as well.
The actual mechanism is unknown (coronal heating problem).
My understanding is that there is no thermodynamic problem with this because of one simple fact: the corona is physically different from the photosphere.
Photosphere

  • Within the photosphere you have both conductive and radiative transfer of heat. Above the photosphere the radiative transfer of heat dominates.
  • The photosphere has a density much greater then the chromosphere or corona.
NASA - Sun
  • "The average density of the photosphere is less than one-millionth of a gram per cubic centimeter. This may seem to be an extremely low density, but there are tens of trillions to hundreds of trillions of individual particles in each cubic centimeter."
  • "The density of the chromosphere is about 10 billion to 100 billion particles per cubic centimeter."
  • "In the part of the corona nearest the solar surface, the temperature is about 1 million to 6 million K, and the density is about 100 million to 1 billion particles per cubic centimeter."
 
These are some of the questions that MM has been asked about his Iron Sun idea and seems incapable of answering other than by 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 Birkeland's 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
    This is an updated question with a couple of "answers" from MM.
  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 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.
  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 2009MM 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. Entire photon "spectrum" is composed of all the emissions from all the layers First asked 3 August 2009
  22. 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.
  23. Evidence for the existence of "dark" electrons First asked 28 July 2008
  24. Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere? First asked 30 July 2009
  25. Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer? First asked 30 July 2009
  26. What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers? First asked 30 July 2009
  27. What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer? First asked 30 July 2009
  28. Explain the shape of your electrical arcs (coronal loops) First asked 2 August 2009
  29. What is your physical evidence for the silicon in sunspots? First asked 7 August 2009
  30. How do MM's "layers" survive the convection currents in the Sun? First asked 26 December 2009
  31. Where are the controllable empirical experiments showing the Iron Sun mass separation?
    First asked 5 January 2010
  32. How can your iron "crust" not be a plasma at a temperature of at least 9400 K? First asked 7 April 2010
  33. How can your "mountain ranges" be at a temperature of at least 160,000 K? First asked 8 April 2010
  34. Where is the spike of Fe composition in the remnants of novae and supernovae? First asked 8 April 2010
  35. Which images did you use as your input for the PM-A.gif image, etc.? First asked 8 April 2010
  36. Where did your "mountain ranges" go in Active Region 9143 when it got to the limb? First asked 14 April 2010
  37. Do RD movies of inactive regions show "mountain ranges"? First asked 14 April 2010
  38. Just how high are your "mountain ranges"? First asked 14 April 2010 with 2 parts
    1. The first problem is that there are no light sources for the second image! It is an image of the entire Sun.
      So where do the shadows come from?
    2. Why do your "mountain ranges" seem to be an order of magnitude higher in the second image?
  39. How does your iron crust exist when there are convection currents moving through it? First asked 15 April 2010
    (probably needs a followup explaining that the helioseismology papers he cites show that his iron crust is a horizontal convection current of plasma moving at 1300 km/s!)
  40. Why does the apparent height of your "mountain ranges" depend on the timing of source images for the RD process when the light sources and mountains in the images are the same? First asked 15 April 2010
  41. Why does the lighting of your "mountain ranges" move depending on the RD process? First asked 15 April 2010
  42. Why are the coronal loops in the RD images aligned along your "mountain ranges" rather than between them as expect fro electrical discharges? First asked 15 April 2010
Actual Answers From Michael Mozina::dl:
 
Reality Check said:
Why is the corona hotter than the photosphere?
MM keeps asking this as well.
The actual mechanism is unknown (coronal heating problem).
My understanding is that there is no thermodynamic problem with this because of one simple fact: the corona is physically different from the photosphere.
Click to expand...

It's more specific than that. The corona is mostly transparent. That means the photosphere can radiatively couple to deep space, and dissipate more heat through the corona than it absorbs even at lower temperature. In contrast, the photosphere is mostly opaque. Anything underneath it cannot radiatively couple to anything outside it. So whatever is underneath the photosphere must be at least as hot as the photosphere.
 
Ziggurat said:
Bwahahahahaha! You really need to read up on terms before you use them. Magnetostriction is a change in lattice constant in response to a change in magnetization, not current or electric field. And the effect is pretty small. ESPECIALLY if you're not well below the Curie temperature, and even you haven't been willing to claim the surface is that cold. There's not a chance in hell you could generate those kinds of velocities with magnetostriction, not even with pure Terfenol-D. Which, according to you, the sun is not. Hell, your own model of mass separation pretty much prohibits any of that stuff from forming, given the mass disparity between iron and the lanthanides.

Yet another epic fail of physics ignorance.
Click to expand...


So you dont think that a current that generates a magnetic field when it flows will cause magnetostriction in the surrounding material? Maybe the effect is small but I still say it exists. It generates an effect large enough to detect current flows under the surface.
Below the surface is cooler than the surface. The curie temp is 768°C or 1414 °F for iron. Not too far away from 1000C.
 
brantc said:
So you dont think that a current that generates a magnetic field when it flows will cause magnetostriction in the surrounding material? Maybe the effect is small but I still say it exists. It generates an effect large enough to detect current flows under the surface.
Below the surface is cooler than the surface. The curie temp is 768°C or 1414 °F for iron. Not too far away from 1000C.
Click to expand...
Still wrong brantc:
  • The photosphere is at an average temperature of ~6000 K.
  • Temperature increases with depth to ~9400 K at 500 km deep.
  • Thus your iron shell does not exist and there can be no magnetostriction.
There is no place in or on the Sun that is at 1000C.
 
brantc said:
So you dont think that a current that generates a magnetic field when it flows will cause magnetostriction in the surrounding material?
Click to expand...

Magnetization causes magnetostriction. Yes, current can induce magetization (though it's NOT the same thing as a magnetic field), but you still had the mechanism wrong, and that has practical consequences. The direction of magnetostriction will be perpendicular to the current in your scenario.

Maybe the effect is small but I still say it exists. It generates an effect large enough to detect current flows under the surface.
Click to expand...

Nope. Not even close. Crunch the numbers, brantc.

Below the surface is cooler than the surface.
Click to expand...

Still clinging to obvious violations of thermodynamics, I see. Sorry, not possible.
 
Michael Mozina said:
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15%20April%202001%20WL.gif[/qimg]

Yes, it certainly can be.
Click to expand...

No it cannot, which would be clear if you really had read my discussion of what Birkeland writes in his book, especially the part about it being a discharge between the cathode ball and the anode wall of the vacuum box.

You might want to spend some time on discussing why you think this is the same, in view of my discussion.
 
Michael Mozina said:
He means except for the published papers of course. I'm sure he wasn't trying to mislead you or anything....

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
Click to expand...

You might want to scratch the last three of those "papers" as apparently they were never published except on ARXIV (which does not count, really, now does it). So, you published one "solar phyiscs" paper and did not even publish it in a astrophysical journal, but in the Journal of Fusion Energy, probably because ApJ or something like it would not publish such a meager paper.

Gotta love the last sentence though:
MM said:
We look forward to other explanations for these findings [7-21].
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
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. The light on the surface cannot be a reflection from the loops, otherwise the loops would be the brightest thing in the image and the surface reflections would be less bright.
Click to expand...

Sorry Michael, but that something even I know better, the primary emission lines from the photosphere are not neon.

That is just funny and rather odd. You can't demonstrate it to be true and you know it contradicts all sorts of evidence.

Much less where all this magic current comes from.

Have you figured out how to have the mix of ions and neutral material in your giant discharge tube yet, if it was a 'waves and fluid motion' we would see discrete layers in the solar wind, we don't.
 
Hellbound said:
So instead of pointing me to a l;ist of everything you've ever published, leaving me to wade through pages and pages that don't concernt he specific question I asked, can you point me to wher those specific questions get answered? Or at least the specific paper?

You're the one trying to support your theory; if you don't care enough to provide the evidence in an accessible manner, that's your choice.
Click to expand...

Nope this is when someone will say the standard model can't explain the solar wind, that plasma balls are science and come up with a silly defintion of empirical science.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Actually it does show up in the spectral data. This whole model was built using SERTS spectroscopic data. At first I was highly perplexed by the various neon ions present in the data until I realized that some of these ions were being ionized in/by the coronal loops.

Gas model theory is based on the *ASSUMPTION* that every element in the sun is mixed and stays exactly at the same temperature at the surface of the photosphere.

In reality however plasmas separate, particularly around EM fields and heavier elements like iron tend to sink to the lower and cooler areas, whereas the upper atmosphere (where it's hottest) is primarily composed of hydrogen and helium. The hydrogen corona radiates at the hottest temperatures. The primarily helium chromosphere is also much hotter than the photosphere. They count up photons and "assume" an abundance figure that has no useful purpose since the elements don't stay mixed.

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.
Click to expand...

So what keeps the layers separated? What force acts counter to the obvious convection occuring in the photosphere Michael?

Simple question.
 
Michael Mozina said:
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.



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

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.
Click to expand...


So where is the evidence for these current flowing in space? Where is the charge difference that powers this 'electric' sun?


It sure doesn't show up in the magnetic fields or anything.
 
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

Funny thing that, where is this charge sepration occuring for the 'electricity'?

What methods are used to detect it?

And why is the solar wind mixed and neutral?
 
Michael Mozina said:
No wonder you're so ignorant.
Click to expand...

No Michael, that is my meme from many an electric sun and PC thread, here is the deal, you just show us a picture and you say "It looks like a bunny, therefore a bunny exists."

This has been common to many a thread on PC and Scott's Electric Sun, with the best being BAC and the Cygnus loop, where he said that the braided structure was 'obviously' a product of electric Birkeland current. (Although currently there is a great bunny picture show going on about photons becoming electrons.)

So once again, instead of showing pictures I will ask you something more pertinent:

1. What evidence is there for the charge separation that drives your 'electric' sun?
2. Why does the solar wind show a mix of ions a neutral material ?

These are simple questions that lie at the heart of demonstrating your hypothesis to be true.
 
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nice assertion and lack of any sort of evidence. Nice speculation however.

That is a hypothesis and not a theory.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The whole sun produces wavelengths that fall into the visible spectrum. That layer provides most of it.



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?
Click to expand...

Sheesh, you were demolished on this before and the blackbody spectrun MM, stay away from it.

Since when is the sun comparable to your flourescent tube?
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, this is your own self defense mechanism talking and it's not true. I have a very broad understanding of many branches of physics. You just feel the need to prop your position up by attacking my credibility. I understand of course, but it's simply a self defense mechanism on your part. If you have a "better" scientific explanation of that image, go for it. If not, no amount of belittling me as a person will make me go away or I would have gone away a long time ago.
Click to expand...

No Michael, this where the rubber meets the road, physics is not just about great ideas, it is about the mathematical verification of models and matching data.

And it separtes the bunny picture shows from real physics.

1. Why si the solar wind composed of different types of ions?
2. Where are the charges that create the 'electric' sun?

(And please don't point to the heliopause again, the charge difference is not enough to light up the sun.)
 
Hellbound said:
Michael Mozina said:
He means except for the published papers of course. I'm sure he wasn't trying to mislead you or anything....

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
Click to expand...
So instead of pointing me to a l;ist of everything you've ever published, leaving me to wade through pages and pages that don't concernt he specific question I asked
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry, it shouldn't take too long to wade through all 5 of them. In fact, wading through them could be quite amusing. For example, you might notice that only 3 of them were actually published in journals. Of the other two, one is virtually identical to one of the published papers and appears in a crackpot conference - First (and only) Crisis in Cosmology Conference, 2006 - which attracted a grand total of 34 papers. Even better, the second was not published at all. Despite claiming to have appeared in the Hirschegg Workshop 06: Astrophysics and Nuclear Structure, a look at their website shows that it was actually submitted as an abstract, but was not selected to be presented at the workshop. None of the authors attended.

It appears that all of Michael's work was "published" between June 2005 and October 2006. There is also some surprising similarity in the figures of most of them, almost as if they are not presenting original research but instead just rearranging the same claims. Since then, as far as I can tell from the evidence he has presented, he has done nothing. The fact that many of those figures would be familiar to readers of Michael's threads here and elsewhere tends to support that.

Most amusingly of all, we were presented with this esteemed publishing history in counter to the claim that Michael cannot back up his claims with maths. It turns out that none of those "five" "papers" actually contain any maths. None. Whatsoever. The closest it gets is one paper that contains two things labelled as equations. One is an experimental result equivalent to saying x = 1, the other a statement that x*y = constant. I suppose you could call that maths if you wanted to be picky, but it could hardly be considered to address the actual point at hand.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's more specific than that. The corona is mostly transparent.
Click to expand...

Ya, because it's mostly thin hydrogen plasma. All the layers get progressively more dense and cooler as we descend into the atmosphere.

The heating mechanism is not a "mystery", it's called "electricity" and "coronal loops". It's only a mystery to you guys because you *refuse* to consider the one logical method to explain it due to your extreme and irrational prejudice against anything and everything related to EU theory.

That means the photosphere can radiatively couple to deep space, and dissipate more heat through the corona than it absorbs even at lower temperature.
Click to expand...

True, and every plasma layer can do that because of the discharge between the surface and the heliosphere, and because each layer is covered by lighter layers.

In contrast, the photosphere is mostly opaque.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the magic SPF infinity claim you have never bothered to demonstrate. All the satellite images show all kinds of stuff below the photosphere in images of a sunspot. All the iron ion wavelengths penetrate the photosphere and even x-rays seem to be visible below the photosphere in that Hinode image you folks keep ignoring. That image will be the first one on my "RC list" of all the things you guys avoid like the plague.

Your whole argument seems to hinge on your false belief that the photosphere is "opaque" to every single wavelength of light, regardless of energy state, regardless of wavelength and regardless of the images that blow that theory away.
 
Dancing David said:
So what keeps the layers separated? What force acts counter to the obvious convection occuring in the photosphere Michael?

Simple question.
Click to expand...

The simple answer is gravity and the EM field around the sun, the same field(s) we use to separate ions here on Earth. The EM field is the primary separation mechanism IMO, but the coronal rain activity is mostly related to the effects of gravity rather than the EM field so both gravity and the EM field play a roll.
 
Cuddles said:
I wouldn't worry, it shouldn't take too long to wade through all 5 of them. In fact, wading through them could be quite amusing."
Click to expand...

My observations about Mozina's "papers".
Mozina notices ....
Mozina shows....
Mozina concludes.....
Mozina reports ....

Its as if the other authors distance themselves from Mozina.


And my all time favourite:

"While viewing images from SOHO’s EIT program, I finally stumbled across the raw (unprocessed EIT images) marked “DIT” images that are stored in SOHO’s daily archives. After downloading a number of these larger “DIT” (grey) files, including several "running difference" images, it became quite apparent that many of the finer details revealed in the raw EIT images are simply lost during the computer enhancement process that is used to create the more familiar EIT colorized images that are displayed on SOHO’s website. That evening in April of 2005, all my beliefs about the sun changed."
 
Notice how everyone avoided the images again in their responses? That unwillingness to deal with the details of the images is directly related to the weakness of your arguments and the strength of mine. All of you have some "busy work" for me, but not one of you wants to deal with that "Flying stuff" in the RD image. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?". Honestly, if you really expect to "convince me" of anything, you'll have to start dealing openly and honestly with the satellite imagery. It seems like only the "new folks" to the conversation have even attempted any sort of "explanation". The primary detractors of this theory *NEVER* attempt to explain the "details" of the images in question or how they relates to solar physical processes.

Instead, the self professed skeptical guru on RD images looks at the images and goes "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" You guys aren't going to convince me of anything by living in pure denial and avoiding the data that kills your theories.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The heating mechanism is not a "mystery", it's called "electricity" and "coronal loops". It's only a mystery to you guys because you *refuse* to consider the one logical method to explain it due to your extreme and irrational prejudice against anything and everything related to EU theory.
Click to expand...

Lurker's perspective:

This would explain coronal heating, except it is rejected as an explanation because it pretty much violates everything else that astronomers actually know about the sun, and a good bit about what physicists know about physics generally.

That's not even a deal-breaker. It just means that you have a rather large evidentiary burden to show that most of what astronomers think they actually know about the sun is actually false. The burden is even higher regarding the ways in which your ideas conflict with fundamental physics.

You are hopelessly failing to meet this evidentiary burden. You post the same two or three pictures over and over. You need to do much, much more than this. You need to take your hypothesis and develop a theory from which you can make quantitative predictions. You need to do this. You can't rely on retro-fitting ancient experiments from Birkeland or Alfven or whoever.

My advice: Leave this place. The time you spend here is preventing you from doing the science that you need to do if you care about your ideas. Come back when you have results.
 
Skwinty said:
My observations about Mozina's "papers".
Mozina notices ....
Click to expand...

Yes, and that seems to be the primary difference between us and our positions. I "observe" the "Flying stuff" in the RD images. GM doesn't because evidently he's blind because it's damn obvious in the image. I asked Tim (another primary detractor) to download and look at that white light image, and instead of finding it, he comes back and says "What white light images?". Honestly, the lack of observational skills seems to the the biggest problem around here with the skeptics. Nobody "observes" any of the details of the images. Nobody comments on the details of the images. Nobody wants to look at the images because they don't jive with your preconceived ideas and your "looks like a math bunny" ad hoc claims about the opacity of the photosphere.
 
Dancing David said:
So where is the evidence for these current flowing in space?
Click to expand...

It's in that high speed solar wind that Birkeland "predicted" based on his experiments with charge separation between the sphere and box.

Where is the charge difference that powers this 'electric' sun?
Click to expand...

Between the surface and the heliosphere.

It sure doesn't show up in the magnetic fields or anything.
Click to expand...

You mean except for all those "magnetically reconnecting" ones that supposedly power the aurora, the same aurora that Birkeland also predicted with his "electric sun" theories?
 
Michael Mozina said:
That seems to be the magic SPF infinity claim you have never bothered to demonstrate. All the satellite images show all kinds of stuff below the photosphere in images of a sunspot. All the iron ion wavelengths penetrate the photosphere and even x-rays seem to be visible below the photosphere in that Hinode image you folks keep ignoring. That image will be the first one on my "RC list" of all the things you guys avoid like the plague.

Your whole argument seems to hinge on your false belief that the photosphere is "opaque" to every single wavelength of light, regardless of energy state, regardless of wavelength and regardless of the images that blow that theory away.
Click to expand...

How do you not understand this yet. The photosphere is DEFINED to end at the depth where it's completely opaque. You can argue about how deep that goes, but arguing that it's not opaque makes no sense.
 
Skwinty said:
Michael,
Look at the image of the sun on APOD today. How do you expect to see mountains and persistent rigid structures in this seething nuclear furnace??
Click to expand...

I don't expect to see anything rigid on the surface of the photosphere Skwinty. It boils and moves like an ordinary plasma. The "solid surface" is located far below the convecting "plasma" surface of the photosphere. The analogy here that comes to mind is you asking me to look at a cloud layer and asking to find the "solid surface" in that layer. It's not found in that layer, so I would not expect to find it there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom