Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked

This iron crust within the Sun idea of Micheal Mozina is very easy to disprove (big surprise :eye-poppi!): It is thermodynamically impossible since it must be at a temperature of at least 9400 K (as measured within the photosphere) and so be a plasma. This has been pointed out to MM many times over the years. Here are some of the explanations given to him that he continues to not be able to understand:
This alone makes his idea into a complete fantasy and his continued belief with it a delusion and so we could stop there but... The continuous issuing of unsupported assertions, displays of ignorance of physics and fantasies about what he imagines in images are illustrated in this list of unanswered questions. The first question was asked on 6th July 2009.

  1. What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected?
  2. 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.
  3. Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
  4. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
  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).
  6. Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
  7. Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question?
  8. More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth
  9. Formation of the iron surface
  10. How much is "mostly neon" MM?
  11. Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?
  12. Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina
  13. Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina.
  14. Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested?
  15. Is Saturn the Sun?
  16. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
  17. What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model?
  18. What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K?
  19. Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles?
  20. Entire photon "spectrum" is composed of all the emissions from all the layers
  21. Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves?
  22. Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere?
  23. Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer?
  24. What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers?
  25. What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer?
  26. Explain the shape of your electrical arcs (coronal loops)
  27. What is your physical evidence for the silicon in sunspots?
  28. How do MM's "layers" survive the convection currents in the Sun?
  29. Where are the controllable empirical experiments showing the Iron Sun mass separation?
  30. How can your iron "crust" not be a plasma at a temperature of at least 9400 K?
  31. How can your "mountain ranges" be at a temperature of at least 160,000 K?
  32. Where is the spike of Fe composition in the remnants of novae and supernovae?
  33. Which images did you use as your input for the PM-A.gif image, etc.?
  34. Where did your "mountain ranges" go in Active Region 9143 when it got to the limb?
  35. Do RD movies of inactive regions show "mountain ranges"?
  36. Just how high are your "mountain ranges"?
  37. How does your iron crust exist when there are convection currents moving through it?
  38. 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?
  39. Why does the lighting of your "mountain ranges" move depending on the RD process?
  40. Why are the coronal loops in the RD images aligned along your "mountain ranges" rather than between them as expect fro electrical discharges?
  41. Why are the sunspot umbra not "mostly" iron plasma (Fe was also detected by SERTS as was C and a dozen more elements)?
  42. Can you show how you calculated that "3000-3750 KM" figure for the photosphere depth?
  43. How did you determine that the filaments "abruptly end right there"?
  44. Citation for the LMSAL claim that coronal loops all originate *ABOVE* the photosphere?
  45. Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind
  46. How did you measure the curvature of penumbral filaments in the Hinode images?
  47. How does your Iron Sun fantasy create the observed magnetic field of the Sun?
  48. Calculation for the depth of the SOT_ca_061213flare_cl_lg.mpg filament?
  49. Can you understand that the photosphere is defined to be opaque?
  50. A comment on MM's ability to interpret images: No little plasma (penumbral) filament!
  51. Where has any one in this thread claimed that the umbra is 2D?
  52. Is Michael Mozina's claim of measuring the curvature of the filaments true?
  53. Do you understand how fluorescent tubes ("neon bulbs") work?
 
Can you explain why limb darkening does not diisprove your model

ben m said:
Oh, and one more thing: Mozina's crazy model ("lots of photons are visible from a cooler, deeper layer in the Sun") predicts backwards limb darkening---the Sun would be brighter at the edge, when one optical depth on your line-of-sight is entirely in the hot photosphere, and dimmer in the middle where your line-of-sight supposedly sees down to the cold iron. Funny that the observations, which show the opposite, are entirely consistent with the mainstream temperature/opacity/etc vs depth.
Click to expand...
First Asked 25 April 2010
Micheal Mozina,
Can you explain why limb darkening does not diisprove your model?
The scientific explanation for limb darkening is that it is due to
  • The density of the star diminishes as the distance from the center increases
  • The temperature of the star diminishes as the distance from the center increases.
Click to expand...
What is your explanation?
 
Since I'm not a home at the moment, and the SERTS links seem to be offline, does anyone happened to have a copy of that data, (or any spectral breakdown of the sun) that shows the various neon ions and the intensity of light from the various ions?
 
So where are we? Michael Mozina and brantc have proposed a crackpot conjecture about a solid iron surface on the Sun. And so far they have insisted that everyone else defend the standard solar model to their satisfaction, even though they have both demonstrated repeatedly that they don't possess the qualifications necessary to understand the explanations.

And yet, even though it is they who are making a claim that a physically impossible situation exists, they haven't even attempted to satisfy their burden of proof with anything other than unsupported assertions, arguments from incredulity and ignorance, and seriously misunderstood looks-like-a-bunny interpretations of various solar imagery.

Neither has offered a single piece of objective or quantitative evidence, yet they are still here more or less demanding that other people disprove their silly claim. (Which, by the way, has been disproven several times over in this thread alone.) I know for a fact that the burden of proof issue has been explained to Michael dozens of times over many years. It's almost baffling that he still thinks the right way to do science is to require other people to do all his homework and disprove his whacked out notion.

Have I missed anything?
 
GeeMack said:
So where are we?
Click to expand...

We're waiting to look at the neon ion line intensity breakdowns from something like SERTS (any source actually) to see how much of the neon is ionized and to what degree. If the neon intensity lines peak at Ne+1, +2, or +3, I'd say I have a problem.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1990ApJ...363..292F/0000294.000.html

Well, so far, this is the best link I've found to describe the intensity breakdown of the Ne ions. If you notice, the intensity of the lines peak at Ne VII.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the iron sun hypothesis? Those emissions are all coming from above the photosphere, where (a) the plasma IS hot enough to sustain high ionizations, and where (b) the overburden is thin enough for VUV to get out.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1990ApJ...363..292F/0000294.000.html

Well, so far, this is the best link I've found to describe the intensity breakdown of the Ne ions. If you notice, the intensity of the lines peak at Ne VII.
Click to expand...

Having skimmed the article
a) Since the material in question was ejected by a flare, it's not obvious to me (and maybe it's obvious to others) that the ionization levels would be similar to those in the photosphere
b) Even if we assume that they are, Ne VII may be the most common, but Ne II and III are still well-represented
c) Do we have reason to believe that Ne VII does not contribute to continuum absorption?
d) There was about 6x as much oxygen as neon, making the 'neon layer' more of an 'oxygen layer.'
e) The article refers to everything but H and He as 'trace elements,' suggesting that that the layer-formerly-known-as-neon-but-possibly-better-named-as-oxygen is primarily H and He.
 
Dear Ben and Sol,

FYI Ben, I apologize again for my comments yesterday afternoon. I should have simply gone with my original comments in the morning and I probably would have done so if the SERTS data was handy. I suppose I got exactly what I deserved for letting my ego get the better of me.

You did however also "assume" something about this solar model that simply isn't true IMO as I attempted to demonstrate with the previous link. In this solar model, the neon layer is smack dab in the middle of a very powerful discharge process between the surface below and the heliosphere. The plasma is *highly* ionized, not neutral, not +1, not +2, or even +3 as the spectral intensity data related to Ne ions demonstrates. There is no possibility in this model of these ions being "ionized" by this wavelength due to their very high energy state and the 'current flow' running through it.

Sol,

For purposes of moving the opacity discussion forward, I propose the follow:

I accept Ben's (and your) previous statements as true related to ionization process, however in this model they simply do not apply.

For purposes of calculating an opacity number, I suggest we "assume" (which we can debate later) that all the Ne ions in the opaque neon layer range from +4 through +6. Furthermore we will assume (again we can debate it later) that anything above Ne +6 occurs strictly in the coronal loop discharges, and any emissions from Ne +3 or less occurs in the non opaque chromosphere as the the neon ions rise through the neon layer into the chromosphere, emit some photons and cool off, and then return to the electrified neon layer again. Is that acceptable to you?
 
Last edited:
Gah!

Does anyone have a link to the whole SERTS spectrum (or any solar spectrum that shows all the intensity numbers of the neon lines)? I can't believe I can't find those numbers anywhere on the internet. I'm having a bad search engine day. :(
 
Last edited:
dasmiller said:
Having skimmed the article
a) Since the material in question was ejected by a flare, it's not obvious to me (and maybe it's obvious to others) that the ionization levels would be similar to those in the photosphere
b) Even if we assume that they are, Ne VII may be the most common, but Ne II and III are still well-represented
c) Do we have reason to believe that Ne VII does not contribute to continuum absorption?
d) There was about 6x as much oxygen as neon, making the 'neon layer' more of an 'oxygen layer.'
e) The article refers to everything but H and He as 'trace elements,' suggesting that that the layer-formerly-known-as-neon-but-possibly-better-named-as-oxygen is primarily H and He.
Click to expand...

This (any) electric sun model is very different than the ordinary standard model. The entire atmosphere around the surface is "current carrying" plasma that is highly ionized by the electrical discharge process occurring between the surface and the heliosphere. There is no possibility of either the silicon, the neon, or the helium layers to be in "low energy" states because of the current flow traversing the plasmas.

Oxygen is selectively expelled from the plasmas and that behavior has been seen in the lab too. It's certainly present in the spectrum and certainly flows through the neon, as do many elements, particularly the lightest elements. Inside that layer however they are still "highly electrified" and stay that way (in that high energy state) until they reach the chromosphere.

Any "impurities" that introduce into the neon should certainly include oxygen IMO, and all the elements we find in solar wind data.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
dasmiller said:
Having skimmed the article
a) Since the material in question was ejected by a flare, it's not obvious to me (and maybe it's obvious to others) that the ionization levels would be similar to those in the photosphere
b) Even if we assume that they are, Ne VII may be the most common, but Ne II and III are still well-represented
c) Do we have reason to believe that Ne VII does not contribute to continuum absorption?
d) There was about 6x as much oxygen as neon, making the 'neon layer' more of an 'oxygen layer.'
e) The article refers to everything but H and He as 'trace elements,' suggesting that that the layer-formerly-known-as-neon-but-possibly-better-named-as-oxygen is primarily H and He.
Click to expand...

This (any) electric sun model is very different than the ordinary standard model. The entire atmosphere around the surface is "current carrying" plasma that is highly ionized by the electrical discharge process occurring between the surface and the heliosphere. There is no possibility of either the silicon, the neon, or the helium layers to be in "low energy" states because of the current flow traversing the plasmas.

Oxygen is selectively expelled from the plasmas and that behavior has been seen in the lab too. It's certainly present in the spectrum and certainly flows through the neon, as do many elements, particularly the lightest elements. Inside that layer however they are still "highly electrified" and stay that way (in that high energy state) until they reach the chromosphere.

Any "impurities" that introduce into the neon should certainly include oxygen IMO, and all the elements we find in solar wind data.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I'm not sure which of my points you're addressing. I'm guessing the "low energy states" paragraph refers to my point b. Does this mean that you believe the relative abundances of the various Ne ionizations in the paper do not reflect the relative abundances in the photosphere? If so, why reference the paper?

Your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs seem to refer to my points d) and e).

So . . . you're referencing an article titled "Photospheric abundances of Oxygen, Neon, and Argon . . ." with the caveat that we should ignore the part about photospheric abundances of oxygen, neon, and argon?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Dear Ben and Sol,

FYI Ben, I apologize again for my comments yesterday afternoon.
Click to expand...

You should also apologize for wasting Sol's time. You went ahead and encouraged him to calculate the opacity of a 6000K H+Ne photosphere, which he spent quite a bit of time and care on. Now you "discover" that your model doesn't have a 6000K H+Ne photosphere, it has a 10^6K ultra-ionized neon plasma.

For purposes of calculating an opacity number, I suggest we "assume" (which we can debate layer) that all the Ne ions in the opaque neon layer range from +4 through +6. Furthermore we will assume (again we can debate it later) that anything above Ne +6 occurs strictly in the coronal loop discharges, and any emissions from Ne +3 or less occurs in the non opaque chromosphere as the the neon ions rise through the neon layer into the chromosphere, emit some photons and cool off, and then return to the electrified neon layer again. Is that acceptable to you?
Click to expand...

There is so little physics in that statement, it's hard to imagine what to do with it. The "neon layer" you invent here---replacing the normal photosphere---has an effective temperature of 2 million K; it will emit predominantly soft x-rays; it will be thousands of times brighter than the normal 6000K photosphere. It's so incredibly stupid I don't know what else to say about it.

But you know what? It's probably *still* opaque to VUV light from 3000km deep. First, there is no physics whatsoever that can force "Ne +4 through +6" without tails going down to +1, 0. I'm not going to solve the Saha equation to show you.

Third, what Dasmiller said. You just took data from a solar flare and pretended that it tells you the ionization state distribution from the deep photosphere. What the heck? Composition maybe, ionization state no. It's like saying "I want to know what the temperature of Greenland is. I took some ice and put it in my ICP-MS which tells me that Greenland is mostly hydrogen and oxygen ions at 10K".
 
Last edited:
ben m said:
You should also apologize for wasting Sol's time. You went ahead and encouraged him to calculate the opacity of a 6000K H+Ne photosphere, which he spent quite a bit of time and care on. Now you "discover" that your model doesn't have a 6000K H+Ne photosphere, it has a 10^6K ultra-ionized neon plasma.



There is so little physics in that statement, it's hard to imagine what to do with it. The "neon layer" you invent here---replacing the normal photosphere---has an effective temperature of 2 million K; it will emit predominantly soft x-rays; it will be thousands of times brighter than the normal 6000K photosphere. It's so incredibly stupid I don't know what else to say about it.

But you know what? It's probably *still* opaque to VUV light from 3000km deep. First, there is no physics whatsoever that can force "Ne +4 through +6" without tails going down to +1, 0. I'm not going to solve the Saha equation to show you.

Third, what Dasmiller said. You just took data from a solar flare and pretended that it tells you the ionization state distribution from the deep photosphere. What the heck? Composition maybe, ionization state no. It's like saying "I want to know what the temperature of Greenland is. I took some ice and put it in my ICP-MS which tells me that Greenland is mostly hydrogen and oxygen ions at 10K".
Click to expand...
[MM mode]

But ben, Birkeland did not use the Saha equation in his *empirical* experiments, and his terrella photographs are *exactly* the same as the SOHO ones.

Clearly Saha was wrong; he didn't include electrical discharges through highly ionised plasmas in his equation.

Besides, I've never come across Saha in Alfven's Cosmic Plasma, so that equation is irrelevant for cosmic plasmas.

[/MM mode]
 
ben m said:
You should also apologize for wasting Sol's time. You went ahead and encouraged him to calculate the opacity of a 6000K H+Ne photosphere, which he spent quite a bit of time and care on. Now you "discover" that your model doesn't have a 6000K H+Ne photosphere, it has a 10^6K ultra-ionized neon plasma.
Click to expand...


A great deal of Michael's argument is built on his propensity for asking others to do his homework, then thanklessly taking a dump on them when they get it done and it shows once again that his ludicrous claim is bogus. Apologies? Only when playing coy might keep people on the hook and doing his research and math for him.

ben m said:
What the heck?
Click to expand...


He wants us to assume that a whole list of physically impossible things are true to force the conclusion that, given all those incorrect assumptions, his mythical solid iron surface exists. Then he can shout, "Aha, success! Onward to the next piece of evidence!" It's a dishonest strategy, to the point where it's reasonable to conclude that, in simplest terms, the bulk of his argument is a lie.

I've already told him, only to once again come up against his impenetrable wall of ignorance, that this whole process would be much more efficient if he'd knock off the dishonest tactic of starting from a bunch of unsupportable and impossible conditions and just take the direct route to where he wants to go:

If we assume there is a solid iron surface about 3500 kilometers deep in the atmosphere of the Sun, we can then conclude that there is a solid iron surface some 3500 kilometers into the solar atmosphere.​

When it gets right down to it, he wants everyone else to start with the conclusion, too. That method, far from being scientific, has been the foundation of his argument for all these years.
 
ben m said:
You should also apologize for wasting Sol's time. You went ahead and encouraged him to calculate the opacity of a 6000K H+Ne photosphere, which he spent quite a bit of time and care on. Now you "discover" that your model doesn't have a 6000K H+Ne photosphere, it has a 10^6K ultra-ionized neon plasma.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that idea? All plasmas have at least two two "temperatures", the "ion temperature" and the "electron temperature". Please do not confuse the two factors in a "current carrying plasma". The ion temperature need not be the anywhere near the electron temperatures, in fact during discharges processes they can sometimes vary by a whole order of magnitude or more.
 
Last edited:
dasmiller said:
Frankly, I'm not sure which of my points you're addressing. I'm guessing the "low energy states" paragraph refers to my point b. Does this mean that you believe the relative abundances of the various Ne ionizations in the paper do not reflect the relative abundances in the photosphere? If so, why reference the paper?
Click to expand...

The peak intensity of neon is nowhere near neutral neon. In fact neutral neon is so weakly represented in the spectrum as to be almost invisible. Only *ionized* and mostly *highly ionized* ions are represented in the spectrum. We can assume that some neon is going to reach the surface, enter the chromosphere and emit some amount of light as it cools off and then reenters the neon layer. We can assume that some coronal loops also ionize neon as they "pass through" the neon layer, and excite the already highly energized neon. What's is also clear is that most of the neon is *VERY* ionized, far beyond the reach of 171A in terms of further ionization.

So . . . you're referencing an article titled "Photospheric abundances of Oxygen, Neon, and Argon . . ." with the caveat that we should ignore the part about photospheric abundances of oxygen, neon, and argon?
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting you ignore them, nor did I ever suggest that. Originally I gave sol 10% of any and all the elements in standard theory percentages to play with. He's still welcome to add in the oxygen and/or any element he wishes and I encourage him to do so. I was simply trying to "simplify" the model a bit (and he was too at the time) so that it would be "easier" to calculate. I appreciated his offer, but I didn't want him to have to turn it into a month long project. Sol is welcome to add back in the elements from standard model percentages all he wants.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
A great deal of Michael's argument is built on his propensity for asking others to do his homework,
Click to expand...

No, in this case sol offered to put this theory "to the test" on it's own terms. Isn't that what science is all about? I'm even willing to do this real time, not in some "paper" where I can play with my wording for months on end. I'm even willing to eat a little public crow along the way when I say stupid things. No credit at all eh?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Where did you get that idea? All plasmas have at least two two "temperatures", the "ion temperature" and the "electron temperature". Please do not confuse the factors two in a "current carrying plasma". The ion temperature need not be the anywhere near the electron temperatures, in fact during discharges processes they can sometimes vary by a whole order of magnitude or more.
Click to expand...

That's in tenuous and/or short-lived plasmas. The photosphere is at high density and there's plenty of time for the ions and electrons to equilibrate. In any case, the blackbody radiation will depend mostly on the electron temperature---the one you just said is >10^6 K.
 
ben m said:
That's in tenuous and/or short-lived plasmas. The photosphere is at high density and there's plenty of time for the ions and electrons to equilibrate. In any case, the blackbody radiation will depend mostly on the electron temperature---the one you just said is >10^6 K.
Click to expand...

There is no "black body" inside the neon and the excess heat is released as "light". That blackbody concept relates to your model not mine. You can't compare apples to oranges.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, in this case sol offered to put this theory "to the test" on it's own terms. Isn't that what science is all about? I'm even willing to do this real time, not in some "paper" where I can play with my wording for months on end. I'm even willing to eat a little public crow along the way when I say stupid things. No credit at all eh?
Click to expand...


And on it's own terms, in any conditions that are remotely like what we know of the solar atmosphere (one of those conditions being, by the way, that it's impossible for your crazy solid surface to even exist, but that's being left aside for the moment to indulge your fantasy), it's been determined that you can't see 3000+ kilometers into the photosphere. It's opaque.

Your argument about the opacity was shown to be your unsubstantiated and unqualified opinion, and it has failed. So where exactly have you acknowledged that, or thanked anyone for determining that, or given anyone any credit for demonstrating that to be true? :rolleyes:
 
GeeMack said:
And on it's own terms, in any conditions that are remotely like what we know of the solar atmosphere (one of those conditions being, by the way, that it's impossible for your crazy solid surface to even exist, but that's being left aside for the moment to indulge your fantasy), it's been determined that you can't see 3000+ kilometers into the photosphere. It's opaque.
Click to expand...

The irony of course is that my energized neon layer must eventually also be "opaque", and yet I could still see underneath of whatever number sol comes up with as it relates to "opacity". :) You are so clueless about scientific terms that you're actually comedic relief. :)
 
Michael Mozina said:
The irony of course is that my energized neon layer must eventually also be "opaque", and yet I could still see underneath of whatever number sol comes up with as it relates to "opacity". :) You are so clueless about scientific terms that you're actually comedic relief. :)
Click to expand...


Apparently you're using your own made up definition of the word irony. The irony is, of course, that you haven't yet shown that your own personal fantasy energized neon layer even exists. For the time being let's agree to use your own standards of evidence, shall we?

Michael Mozina said:
Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that [energized neon layer] out of your ^ss.
Click to expand...


Oh, what sol came up with? He determined that for a single photon to make it through a kilometer of your made up neon plasma it would require "vastly more energy than there is in the entire observable universe". He concluded that what you claim about opacity would be impossible.

sol invictus said:
Necessary intensity of source for visibility: Therefore, for one photon to make it through a 1km thickness of Mozina plasma, we'd need about 10^124 photons to be emitted by the source. Each photon carries 10^-17J of energy. So that's 10^107J of energy emitted by the source, which is vastly more energy than there is in the entire observable universe. In other words it is impossible for even one photon of 171A radiation to propagate through 1km of the Mozina plasma, no matter what the source.
Click to expand...


Of course you agree.
 
ben m said:
That's in tenuous and/or short-lived plasmas. The photosphere is at high density and there's plenty of time for the ions and electrons to equilibrate. In any case, the blackbody radiation will depend mostly on the electron temperature---the one you just said is >10^6 K.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's say we take your criticism to heart and try modifying the model here and see it's more to your liking, because frankly it's not critical to the theory. We'll simply put a tighter constraint on the neon layer and assume that all emissions of Ne+6 and higher relate to the coronal loop activity. Would that remove your objection?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
The peak intensity of neon is nowhere near neutral neon. In fact neutral neon is so weakly represented in the spectrum as to be almost invisible. Only *ionized* and mostly *highly ionized* ions are represented in the spectrum. We can assume that some neon is going to reach the surface, enter the chromosphere and emit some amount of light as it cools off and then reenters the neon layer. We can assume that some coronal loops also ionize neon as they "pass through" the neon layer, and excite the already highly energized neon. What's is also clear is that most of the neon is *VERY* ionized, far beyond the reach of 171A in terms of further ionization.
Click to expand...

So, as I understand it, you're saying that Ne VII does not contribute to continuum absorption and that the relative abundances of the various Ne ionizations in that paper do not represent the photosphere?

I'm not suggesting you ignore them, nor did I ever suggest that. Originally I gave sol 10% of any and all the elements in standard theory percentages to play with. He's still welcome to add in the oxygen and/or any element he wishes and I encourage him to do so. I was simply trying to "simplify" the model a bit (and he was too at the time) so that it would be "easier" to calculate. I appreciated his offer, but I didn't want him to have to turn it into a month long project. Sol is welcome to add back in the elements from standard model percentages all he wants.
Click to expand...

The paper is about relative abundances of oxygen, neon, etc. It says that the O:Ne ratio is ~6; how do we assume that the ratio is less than 0.1 without ignoring the paper's conclusions?

Seriously - You quoted ionization data from paper on element abundances to support your model of the photosphere, but you don't believe the paper's conclusion on abundances and don't think the ionization data applies to the photosphere? (FWIW, I didn't notice anything in the paper that implied that the ionization data should apply to the photosphere)
 
dasmiller said:
So, as I understand it, you're saying that Ne VII does not contribute to continuum absorption and that the relative abundances of the various Ne ionizations in that paper do not represent the photosphere?
Click to expand...

Some neon emissions, particularly the highest energy emissions must relate to the coronal loop activity. Ben could in fact be correct that the Ne+6 relates to that activity too. In order for this model to be correct, loops have to penetrate the neon and excite it to higher states. Likewise this model would predict that some light comes from less energetic ions from the chromosphere. Some of the Ne light however does relate directly to the neon "layer", and even that layer *must* be highly energized to explain why the spectrum is so loaded with highly ionized neon, and yet there is virtually no non ionized neon present.

I'm sorry you don't like the fact I don't buy mainstream abundance numbers, but I would not at all be surprised to find out that they are "correct" as it relates to the emissions related specifically to that neon layer and ratio other elements present in that layer. That is why I encouraged sol to start with mainstream abundance figures and simply "assume" they are embedded inside the neon layer. The solar wind number might 'better' represent impurity percentages, but with all the activity in the atmosphere, I have to believe some heavier elements are present in that layer, and I have to believe you folks didn't just pull numbers out of thin air.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I'm sorry you don't like the fact I don't buy mainstream abundance number . . .
Click to expand...

It's not that I don't like it, it's that I'm baffled by the fact that you cited the paper at all. As far as I can tell, you (MM), Ben, the authors, and I agree that the ionizations that you quoted from that paper don't apply to the photosphere. By your standards, it's an irrelevant piece of data from a fundamentally flawed paper, and you're using it to support your model?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ok, let's say we take your criticism to heart and try modifying the model here and see it's more to your liking, because frankly it's not critical to the theory. We'll simply put a tighter constraint on the neon layer and assume that all emissions of Ne+6 and higher relate to the coronal loop activity. Would that remove your objection?
Click to expand...

Sure, that's what the mainstream model is, and that's what the paper you cited is about. The (energetic, tenuous) corona plasma above the surface is very hot, possibly far from equilibrium. Fine. It's hot enough to ionize everything including Ne, fine. We see the Ne emissions because there's not much of anything, ionized or otherwise, between these emissions and our instruments. All fine.

Meanwhile, this is all happening above a cool, dense, thick 6000K plasma---remember? No matter what that plasma is made of (H/He/trace metals? Ne+H? Pure gadolinium?) it's opaque to VUV. That opacity (not some detail about the corona) is what makes your "these 17nm emissions are from below the photosphere" claim so horribly nonsensical.
 
GeeMack said:
So where are we? Michael Mozina and brantc have proposed a crackpot conjecture about a solid iron surface on the Sun. And so far they have insisted that everyone else defend the standard solar model to their satisfaction, even though they have both demonstrated repeatedly that they don't possess the qualifications necessary to understand the explanations.

And yet, even though it is they who are making a claim that a physically impossible situation exists, they haven't even attempted to satisfy their burden of proof with anything other than unsupported assertions, arguments from incredulity and ignorance, and seriously misunderstood looks-like-a-bunny interpretations of various solar imagery.

Neither has offered a single piece of objective or quantitative evidence, yet they are still here more or less demanding that other people disprove their silly claim. (Which, by the way, has been disproven several times over in this thread alone.) I know for a fact that the burden of proof issue has been explained to Michael dozens of times over many years. It's almost baffling that he still thinks the right way to do science is to require other people to do all his homework and disprove his whacked out notion.

Have I missed anything?
Click to expand...

That fairly well sums it up!
 
Still waiting:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math.
Click to expand...
:popcorn6
 
Last edited:
dasmiller said:
It's not that I don't like it, it's that I'm baffled by the fact that you cited the paper at all. As far as I can tell, you (MM), Ben, the authors, and I agree that the ionizations that you quoted from that paper don't apply to the photosphere. By your standards, it's an irrelevant piece of data from a fundamentally flawed paper, and you're using it to support your model?
Click to expand...

My preference would have been to post the link to the quiet and active spectral data from SERTS, but evidently it's been taken offline. The only reason I cited the work was to show all the various ionization states present in the spectrum, all of which are skewed toward the higher energy ionization states. Virtually no non ionized neon appears in the spectrum and yet all the higher ionization states are clearly present in the data and peak in intensity at the higher end of the spectrum, not the lower end.
 
ben m said:
Sure, that's what the mainstream model is, and that's what the paper you cited is about. The (energetic, tenuous) corona plasma above the surface is very hot, possibly far from equilibrium. Fine. It's hot enough to ionize everything including Ne, fine. We see the Ne emissions because there's not much of anything, ionized or otherwise, between these emissions and our instruments. All fine.

Meanwhile, this is all happening above a cool, dense, thick 6000K plasma---remember? No matter what that plasma is made of (H/He/trace metals? Ne+H? Pure gadolinium?) it's opaque to VUV.
Click to expand...

No Ben, it's not. The neon layer is *already ionized* beyond the point that 171A is going to do anything. The constant "current flow" through the layer creates two temperatures, the ion temperatures and the electrons temperatures. The layer is already in at least a +4 energy state so what is 171A light going to do to it?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
My preference would have been to post the link to the quiet and active spectral data from SERTS, but evidently it's been taken offline. The only reason I cited the work was to show all the various ionization states present in the spectrum, all of which are skewed toward the higher energy ionization states. Virtually no non ionized neon appears in the spectrum and yet all the higher ionization states are clearly present in the data and peak in intensity at the higher end of the spectrum, not the lower end.
Click to expand...

But if it doesn't represent the ionization of the photosphere, why-

oh, I give up.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Oh just be patient. Timing is everything. We need to first agree on the NEON opacity numbers and agree upon a "method" that we might use to calculate silicon opacity next, otherwise my presentation won't be worth a hill of beans. :)
Click to expand...
From which it follows that:
If Michael Mozina does not agree on the neon opacity numbers calculated by sol invictus, then Michael Mozina's presentation won't be worth a hill of beans.

Sounds about right to me.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom