Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
So you don't even understand that your derail is based upon an extreme ultraviolet image whose false colors represent temperatures?
:bunnyface

They don't show you just "temperatures", they show you that the iron lines all begin *underneath* of the photosphere like I've been telling you in this thread and on my website for years now.

Those lines do not ONLY represent "temperatures", they represent "mass flows" in coronal loops (that thing you folks ignore completely) that are directly related to "discharge processes" through the photosphere.

LMSAL has been claiming that these lines only become visible somewhere in the "transition region" which they have been claiming is somewhere in the chromosphere/corona (orange region). The SDO images clearly demonstrate that they all (every iron ion wavelength) originate *UNDER* the surface of the photosphere (where the orange light begins), in a region you claim to be "opaque" and GM claims we can't see any light through at all.
 
Last edited:
Those are not observations. Those are your interpretations of images. You've not yet been able to show ANY reason why YOUR interpretation is more valid than that of practically EVERY OTHER PROFESSIONAL ASTRONOMER, PHYSICIST, and other scientists in the world.

Every other professional astronomer in the world expected those iron lines to only become visible in the orange area.
 
Question:

Did you do ANY research into what could be causing these various things you're seeing in the photos, besides the interpretation that fits your pre-concieved notions?

Did you look into photographic artifacts, or do any research into the specific filters and such used to make the images?

Did you look for any alternative explanations, and find valid reasons to rule them out?

So far, your entire argument for your interpretation comes from your personal belief. And it's obvious, due to many erroneous statements you've made in this thread, that you did little to no research into the details of the images.

So why is your interpretation more valid?

What you seem unable to comprehend, is that science is NOT about proving your theory correct. You can't do it. EVERY theory in science can be overturned with new evidence. But it needs actual evidence, not opinion or belief. It's YOUR job, as a scientists, not to poke hoels in the current theory or search for any data which supports your theory and cherry-pick it out of the mass. It's your job to take your theory, toss it into a deep hole, and throw rocks at it repeatedly. Then, to invite other scientists to do the same. Theories are tested by trying every possible method to make the theory fail...not by finding every possible method to make it suceed. ONLY if a theory stands up to this treatment is it considered valid.

Consdier what you're actually claiming here:

ALL the conventional solar models are wrong.
ALL conventional theories covering fusion processes are incorrect.
ALL the conventional explanations of gravity are incorrect.
Cosmology is completely wrong, and the ratios of elements when matter first condensed are incorrect, which in addition throws out most of the Standard Model.
ALL of our theories that cover spectography are incorrect (which also tossses out bits fo the stnadard model and QED).
ALL conventional understanding of plasmas is incorrect.
Thermodynamics has glaring holes and inconsistencies.

And that's just off the top of my head. You aren't just telling us our model of the sun is wrong, you're telling us that the vast majority of the most extensively and successfulyl tested theories science has ever come up with are not just incomplete, but glaringly wrong (I refer to the STandard Model and General Relativiey).

And the fact that you don't seem to realize this just shows how little you understand about what you're claiming to have disproven.

So, if you want your theory accepted, let's start with baby steps. Answer these questions:

1. What experiment or test could one do to disprove your theory? IN other words, is there a measurement or a data set we can look at that, if it gives a certain answer, would show your theory wrong?

If you can't give an answer to that question...in fact, if you don't have an answer ready immediately, then what you're doing isn't science.
 
They don't show you just "temperatures", they show you that the iron lines all begin *underneath* of the photosphere like I've been telling you in this thread and on my website for years now.
Uh, no, that is not a reasonable inference from the false color image. See below.

The SDO images clearly demonstrate that they all (every iron ion wavelength) originate *UNDER* the surface of the photosphere (where the orange light begins), in a region you claim to be "opaque" and GM claims we can't see any light through at all.
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to deal with a few math bunnies before you can begin to understand what you're seeing in that image.

At the limb, your line of sight is nearly tangent to the sun's surface. Among other things, that means each pixel on or near the limb represents a much larger area of the sun's surface than pixels nearer the center of the image. That implies a loss of detail, and it also implies an averaging of temperature over a wider area, which may account for the relatively smooth appearance of the limb. (It may also account for the lighter shade of green, but I haven't yet read enough of the technical story behind this image to form an opinion on that.) You seem to be interpreting the loss of detail and lighter color at the limb as transparency. That is not the only possible explanation; it is not even the most likely.

As for the lines you think you are seeing at 6 o'clock, I would call your attention to this excerpt from the Wikipedia article on JPEGWP compression:
As JPEG is a lossy compression method, which removes information from the image, it must not be used in astronomical or medical imaging or other purposes where the exact reproduction of the data is required.
In particular, the 6 o'clock region looks different on the two computer systems I have used to view it. Before drawing any revolutionary conclusions from this image, a conscientious scientist would want to examine the uncompressed data.
:bunnyface
 
Last edited:
No, not "political" channels, that's the scientific process.

Oh no. It's a "political" process. It's not just this solar theory that makes this an uphill battle, it's your industry's blind obsession with vilianizing all things "EU/PC" oriented that makes this a "political process". Holy cow! One thing I have certainly learned over the last few years is that you have irrational phobias, weird mathematical claims, strange "faith" in the physically impossible, like your belief that iron and hydrogen plasma stay magically "mixed together".

New ideas are critiqued by other scientists in the field, observations and experiments are verified. This is because, unlike you, REAL scientists understand that our observations are not always correct,

I have sat here openly in this thread letting sol take his best shots at falsifying this solar model, knowing full well it could in fact "fail" due to something I've overlooked, and knowing full well that my public reputation rides on the outcome of the result because even I respect sol. What exactly do you want or expect me to do exactly? Pull math bunnies out of thin air which I have no confidence in? FYI, I already "quantified" this model in this thread by the way. I already said for the record that I could see through at least 2000KM and probably at least 3000KM of neon, and my model has a *THICKER* silicon plasma layer under that if you read through my website! That's a real "quantified" parameter, as in >3000KM and probably greater than 4000KM. I am confident of that number (minimum range). I'm not nearly as comfortable at just picking numbers randomly without good reason.

and that our biases and prejudices affect our judgement, and that the mind plays tricks on us.

But that could never be true of YOUR interpretation?

Thus, they put their work out for others to replicate. IF others can't replicate the results, then that indicates a problem with your data. How many scinetists have replicated your results (re: interpreting satellite images, for example)?

Well, there are four of us that have publicly stated and published work together. We all agree that the iron lines originate under the photosphere without exception. How many do I need?

Show me where you've predicted ANYTHING, Micheal.

Read this thread! I have publicly stated that I could see through *AT LEAST* 2000KM and probably closer to 3000KM of neon photosphere and we haven't even discussed the silicon layer yet. That is a real quantified minimum parameter isn't it (>3000KM)?

You aren't predicting anything.

Oh boloney! I "predicted" we would see the iron lines *INSIDE* of your "opaque" layer to an "impossible depth" according to your theory. How is that not a "prediction" exactly? I "predicted" that a channel tuned specifically to NE+3 or +4 would show us the whole "photosphere" brightly lit up, not just lines around the loops like iron line or x-ray images.

You look at the pretty pictures,

Yes, as opposed to pretty math bunnies that don't hold up to visual scrutiny.

then you sort through to find some explanation that you can squeeze onto the data that supports your theory.

Who wouldn't do that?

That's post-diction, and it's not impressive. REAL scientists change the hypothesis when data contradicts. You, however, seem much happier changing the data.

Oh give it a rest. Who besides the four of us ever published a paper claiming that the "transition region" where iron line originate is located *UNDER* the photosphere? Who besides me do you know that claims to see *AT LEAST* 2000KM into you "opaque" region? You're not accurately even representing my comments in this thread, let alone my website or our published papers.

So if Birkland tested this theory, then you should be able to use his data to tell sol EXACTLY how to create the plasma you claim must exist, then, right?

I can and I will. Any and all of you could also spend your own time finding his numbers can't you? I have already said you are welcome to use either Birkeland's numbers or Alfven's numbers and those have already been published.

Your claims may have been inspired by outdated science,

Empirical physics is never "outdated science". In the sense it was based on (now) outdated technologies like Yohkoh and Trace and Soho and SERTS, well, ok, but who cares? They provided me with all the information I needed to "predict" things that you folks failed to "predict". In fact your "predictions" are *WRONG*. My theory passed. Your theory failed.

but your model has very little to do with what Birkland tested, besides you both claim an electric sun.

What are you talking about? Birkeland started with a hollow metallic sphere, turned it into a cathode, added a plasma atmosphere, added lots of control mechanisms and evaluated wavelengths to try to understand what he was seeing. If I tried to claim this was "my model" you'd be persecuting me in the opposite direction. You'd be blaming me for trying to take credit for something that wasn't mine in the first place.

I do care about some self-inflated baboon making a mockery of science;

No, just a mockery of "pseudoscience", not science. I used good old fashion empirical physics to "predict" stuff you guys claimed was "crazy".

of some egotistical narcisist who thinks he is the only one that can see the "truth",

Well, that can't be me because I never tried to take credit for Birkeland's solar model, nor exclude my co-authors from credit as some seem to *INSIST* that I do.

and that EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD

Like nobody ever published with me eh? You guys are *AMAZING* at the lengths you will go to in an attempt to ignore history. Pick up a book. Scientists throughout history have "agree with me", starting with Birkeland. It took you 70 years to figure out his auroral models were correct. It could take you another 70 years to figure out his solar model is correct too. He was dead by the time you figure out the first "baby step". How long do you expect me to wait around exactly while you try to reverse the aversion to EU/PC theory now?

EXCEPT HIM IS WRONG. Can you not realze what a monumental claim that is?

Yep. Sure glad I never made it. You folks still ridicule Alfven and he agreed in electric sun theory. Did you forget him? Did you forget Donald Scott? Did you forget Dr. Charles Bruce? Did you forget Anthony Perrat? How many "scientists" are you willing to ignore to make up such silly statements?

You're claiming that somehow every serious, accomplished, and intelligent scientist, all over the world (including Chna, Russia, and Zimbabwe) are all so stupid

More strawman nonsense. Yawn. Are going to explain that light green band under the chromosphere or just keep burning strawmen all day?

Show me you're right and base it on the SDO image. Explain it.
 
Last edited:
Question:

Did you do ANY research into what could be causing these various things you're seeing in the photos, besides the interpretation that fits your pre-concieved notions?

Ya, lots of it. 20 years worth of it in at least in terms of solar satellite image analysis. That's why I didn't miss so many important details that you folks overlook like all those Hinode images I posted last week that show the discharges coming up, through and down back into the photosphere. Did you miss all that too? Dr. Manuel's nuclear chemistry? Kosovichev's images and published papers? Did you miss the sunspot simulation math? Did I not provide you with enough stuff yet? When will it be "enough"? Will I have to be dead like Birkeland?
 
Uh, no, that is not a reasonable inference from the false color image. See below.


I'm sorry, but you're going to have to deal with a few math bunnies before you can begin to understand what you're seeing in that image.

Ok Mr Spock, give us a number per pixel. :) How many pixels are there (on average) between the limb darkened region and the bottom of the orange helium emissions. The math simply isn't going to work in your "opaque math bunny" favor.

At the limb, your line of sight is nearly tangent to the sun's surface. Among other things, that means each pixel on or near the limb represents a much larger area of the sun's surface than pixels nearer the center of the image. That implies a loss of detail, and it also implies an averaging of temperature over a wider area, which may account for the relatively smooth appearance of the limb. (It may also account for the lighter shade of green, but I haven't yet read enough of the technical story behind this image to form an opinion on that.) You seem to be interpreting the loss of detail and lighter color at the limb as transparency. That is not the only possible explanation; it is not even the most likely.

Oh come on. If all of those iron lines were originating about half way up the orange layer you guys would be jumping up and down going "See! See! See!". Now that we can see that the iron lines begin *UNDER* the orange layer entirely, you want to claim "oh, the image must be blurry, or something wrong with it somehow." Baloney. The image is *PERFECT* and shows exactly what I "predicted" right here in this thread.

As for the lines you think you are seeing at 6 o'clock, I would call your attention to this excerpt from the Wikipedia article on JPEGWP compression:

Oh, so now we can't trust the image because it "might be" a wee bit distorted. Ok, go ahead and do the math and tell me how many pixels would have to be distorted to create that whole green "layer" between the "opaque" limb and the orange emissions.

In particular, the 6 o'clock region looks different on the two computer systems I have used to view it. Before drawing any revolutionary conclusions from this image, a conscientious scientist would want to examine the uncompressed data.
:bunnyface

It won't make any difference in terms of the compression, but you go right ahead. I already know the outcome from 20+ years of efforts and I can see with my own eyes that your theory does not hold water and my claims in this thread are significantly bolstered by that SDO image.
 
Yes, that's exactly what I meant by the way. That works for me. You'll eventually need the metals and other elements to explain the "white light', but I doubt they'd have much effect on the opacity in any relevant way, whatever simplified scenario works for you is fine by me. FYI, I appreciate what you're doing actually, and I'm looking forward to your results.

Now we know why MM was looking forward to the results of exactly the plasma he said the photosphere was made of. It was "heads I win, tails I change the rules".
 
Observation *is* science D'rok. We cannot even compare their mathematical models to anything without images, and their mathematical models of "opacity' do not jive with the satellite image.


But your observation and making unsubstantiated guesses about something when it has been demonstrated without any doubt that you are not qualified to understand solar imagery is not science. It's guessing.

Let's turn things around now. Have them show us how 'science' is done. Have them explain to you that thin light green line along the horizon that appears just under the helium emissions and just above the "opaque" dark jagged dark regions where solar surface actually becomes "opaque" to the iron lines.


How science is done? You asked sol to do your work for you to determine whether you could really see through the photosphere. He did science the way science is done, mathematically. And he determined that you can't see through the photosphere. It's opaque. Your arguments from looks-like-a-bunny and arguments from ignorance notwithstanding.
 
Obviously you don't understand, or you wouldn't post this.

If sol's conditions were wrong, it's because you gave him the wrong ones. He's asked you all along for your conditions. Even now, he's been asking you for the modifications needed to change the results in your favor (for example, the mechanism that keeps the plasma away from equilibrium) and you can't provide it..which at the least shows your model is incomplete.

If you want it to be correct, then give him the correct conditions and go from there. Because right now, you're following GeeMack's prediciton to the letter.
This is worth repeating ...

As is an earlier, slightly different prediction (actually it was a description, but it's easily turned into a prediction): lather, wash, rinse, repeat.

(I think it was ben_m's description, but maybe I'm mis-remembering)
 
Likewise, the fact you see math bunnies on the sun doesn't make them real. In fact your "opaque math bunny" just died a horrible and terrible death.


Argument from tantrum.

Did you forget about Sumeet, Hilton and Oliver? We!

Somehow I doubt the coauthors of our papers would agree with you.
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1


Somehow those coauthors have the iron in the middle of the Sun, not in some solid surface. I've seen Oliver Manuel participating in a couple of threads in at least one forum and he denied taking that solid surface Sun position. Flat out denied it. You've been asked to quote him anywhere supporting your crackpot conjecture, and just like pretty much anytime anyone asks you to actually support anything you say, you failed to produce.

Unfortunately for you, SDO just crapped all over your opaque math bunny and killed it with that thin green line between the helium emissions and the "opaque" jagged edge of the sun. Say bye-bye to your opacity math bunny because it's visibly dead and you're gong to need a whole bunch of new math bunnies very soon.


I'm kind of waiting on you to come up with a little math. Seems you forgot all about that and fell back on your argument from looks-like-a-bunny again. Just as a reminder...

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.
 
You mean the fact I don't rely *STRICTLY* on math like you folks?


You don't rely on math at all. Your qualifications to understand math have been challenged, and you have wholly and completely failed to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications.
 
So, if you want your theory accepted, let's start with baby steps. Answer these questions:

1. What experiment or test could one do to disprove your theory?

That SDO image "could have" falsified" my theory once and for all. Had the iron lines all originated about half way (or some way) up the orange regions, you folks would crush my theory like a bug with that very same image. Pity it didn't work out in your favor. :)

I'll stand my my earlier "prediction" that a channel tuned to Ne+3 or +4 will show the surface of the photosphere too. According to you guys those emissions should be limited to activity in the corona where you thought all those iron lines originated. :)

IN other words, is there a measurement or a data set we can look at that, if it gives a certain answer, would show your theory wrong?

I have been waiting with baited breath to see the SDO images because I knew for a fact that they would make or break my solar theory. There was no "in between" related to the location of the "transition region". Either the iron lines began in the chromosphere as LMSAL said, or I was right. I was right. Now what? Shall we all wait around for years on end before we take a fresh look at Birkeland's solar theories?

If you can't give an answer to that question...in fact, if you don't have an answer ready immediately, then what you're doing isn't science.

Since the day my website went up, and my blog began, I have stuck my neck out with respect to the location of the origin of the iron lines. According to your theory that layer is 'opaque' at 500KM and we could *NEVER* see the iron lines under the "opaque" photosphere for all the very logical and scientific reasons that Ben and sol noted. Care to address *THAT* prediction in light of this new SDO evidence, are are you going to try to hide behind that opaque math bunny claim?

Honestly folks, that SDO image was "make it or break it" time for both theories. My theory passed with flying colors, green to be exact. You however has some explaining to do about why those iron lines do not originate in the upper chromosphere as you 'predicted'.
 
Last edited:
Observation is not a "fantasy". Somewhere along the line you folks simply forgot the value of observation and you no longer even care about observation. All that matters to you are your cute cuddly math bunnies, even if they don't even come *CLOSE* to explaining the observations. Got a "better" scientific explanation to explain why your opaque photosphere isn't even close to being opaque?


Uh, the better explanation, consistent with the laws of physics, demonstrated quantitatively and objectively in a way that others can apply the method and come up with the same results, is that the photosphere is opaque.

But since the opacity of the photosphere is apparently the Achilles heel of mainstream solar theory, and since you in your infinite wisdom have decided that doing a little math will destroy that theory, let 'er rip, Michael. A little math, please.

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.
 
You don't rely on math at all. Your qualifications to understand math have been challenged, and you have wholly and completely failed to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications.

Actually in light of the SDO image, my qualifications turn out to be impeccable and we all know that you are nothing but a belligerent troll.
 
Uh, the better explanation, consistent with the laws of physics, demonstrated quantitatively and objectively in a way that others can apply the method and come up with the same results, is that the photosphere is opaque.

But since the opacity of the photosphere is apparently the Achilles heel of mainstream solar theory, and since you in your infinite wisdom have decided that doing a little math will destroy that theory, let 'er rip, Michael. A little math, please.

Actually, that SDO image does a much more effective job than I could ever hope to do with a simple Earth based gBand image. What's the point of wasting my time now on that project when we can all see through your "opaque" layer all along the rim? Dude, your personal definition of "opacity theory" just bit the dust. New technology just killed it!
 
I love the pure denial routine: "Pay no attention to that thin light green line between the mass flows and the helium emissions.". Hoy. No wonder you folks are so utterly confused. You are about as attentive to visual details as a rock. When all else fails, you just pull out the old standby: Pure denial.

FYI RC, if those green iron lines started above the helium emissions, or even right at the bases of the helium emissions you might have something to complain about. Since there is a clear and obvious thin green band between the opaque jagged edge of the sphere, and the helium emissions above the photosphere, you're just in absolute and pure denial.
I love the pure ignorance routine.

FYI Michael Mozina, if those green iron lines (at at temoerature > 60,000 K) started above the plasma emissions, or even right at the bases of the plasma emissions you might have something to complain about. Since there is a clear and obvious thin green band between the opaque jagged edge of the sphere, and the plasma emissions above the photosphere, you're just in absolute and pure ignorance.
 
I have been waiting with baited breath to see the SDO images because I knew for a fact that they would make or break my solar theory.
Michael, the second law of thermodynamics broke your theory a long long long long time again. Not to mention the chemical and physical properties of iron, our rather well tested theory of gravity, our understanding of electromagnetic radiation and quite literally hundreds of other pieces of evidence. Stop flogging a dead, buried and decomposed horse. You're making a fool of yourself.

Shall we all wait around for years on end before we take a fresh look at Birkeland's solar theories?
Birkeland:
a) Doesn't agree with you.
b) Was wrong
c) is dead.
 
I have been waiting with baited breath to see the SDO images because I knew for a fact that they would make or break my solar theory. There was no "in between" related to the location of the "transition region". Either the iron lines began in the chromosphere as LMSAL said, or I was right. I was right. Now what? Shall we all wait around for years on end before we take a fresh look at Birkeland's solar theories?
Congratulations Michael Mozina!
They break your fantasy* because
  1. The SDO images are of material all over the Sun at temperature of 60,000 - 1,000,000 K.
  2. You assert that this material is below the photosphere.
  3. This is next to your iron crust.
  4. Your iron crust has just vaporized yet again :jaw-dropp !
*A fanatsy because it violates thermodynamics, e.g see Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutley nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 50 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
Somehow those coauthors have the iron in the middle of the Sun, not in some solid surface. I've seen Oliver Manuel participating in a couple of threads in at least one forum and he denied taking that solid surface Sun position. Flat out denied it.

Collectively speaking, I flat out deny it too. The only word we (as a group) could agree upon was "rigid". That was acceptable to me and we all know one makes "concessions" when working in a group. We all agreed that layer was "rigid" and "persistent'. We all agreed that the iron lines originated under the photosphere not above it. We were all proven right about that last part too as SDO visually demonstrates in magnificent detail. My hat is off to that design team, and every design team of every satellite and rocket system I've used to understand the sun. That SDO image however gives me exactly what I was looking for.

You've been asked to quote him anywhere supporting your crackpot conjecture,

Wake up and smell the SDO coffee. It's your "opacity" idea that turns out to be a "crackpot conjecture". I suggest you move on with your life now and find a new hobby because if you get your jollies ridiculing Birkeland's solar theory, you're going to be a very miserable guy for the rest of your life. :)

and just like pretty much anytime anyone asks you to actually support anything you say, you failed to produce.

You mean except the SDO image? Dude, if you were correct all of the iron lines should be originating *in the orange region*. You're off by thousands of kilometers. Get over it.
 
Last edited:
Err what?

Let me start by noting that GM has his own personal definition of 'opacity" that only he seems to understand. Everyone else still has a major issue related to location, location, location.

The limbs show a clear pattern of "real opacity" (GM Style) opacity, and the surface of the photosphere where the orange emissions begin. There's a whole lot of green in there for something that is supposed to be "opaque" to iron ion wavelengths due to photoionization. How did you intend to "fix" your theory in light of the SDO images?
 
Michael Mozina has asked me to bark math upon command:
Ok Mr Spock, give us a number per pixel. :)
Each pixel at the extreme edge covers about 60 times the area covered by a pixel at the center.

How many pixels are there (on average) between the limb darkened region and the bottom of the orange helium emissions. The math simply isn't going to work in your "opaque math bunny" favor.
About 12. A 12 by 12 patch of pixels at the limb covers about 20 times the area covered by a 12 by 12 patch at the center.

Oh come on. If all of those iron lines were originating about half way up the orange layer you guys would be jumping up and down going "See! See! See!". Now that we can see that the iron lines begin *UNDER* the orange layer entirely, you want to claim "oh, the image must be blurry, or something wrong with it somehow." Baloney. The image is *PERFECT* and shows exactly what I "predicted" right here in this thread.
You have yet to produce a convincing argument for "iron lines" in that image. You haven't even given a clear statement of which features you mean when you refer to "iron lines".

Oh, so now we can't trust the image because it "might be" a wee bit distorted. Ok, go ahead and do the math and tell me how many pixels would have to be distorted to create that whole green "layer" between the "opaque" limb and the orange emissions.
So you think the factor of 60 represents only a "wee bit" of distortion?

It won't make any difference in terms of the compression, but you go right ahead. I already know the outcome from 20+ years of efforts and I can see with my own eyes that your theory does not hold water and my claims in this thread are significantly bolstered by that SDO image.
The image appears to have been compressed by a factor of 25. The data from which the original image was constructed probably contain far more than 25 times as much information as can be seen in that JPEG image.

If you think your argument's credibility is enhanced by composition and compression artifacts, then you're going about this in exactly the right way.
:bunnyface
 
Last edited:
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?
  54. Can you explain why limb darkening does not diisprove your model?
  55. Why is the SERTS data on the corona applicable to sunspots?
  56. Please define a "current carrying plasma" from a textbook.
  57. How does the SERTS data show that all of the neon and silcon in the Sun's atmosphere is highly ionized?
 
C'mon Michael. Back on page 42, you gave Sol the brush-off, saying you needed to get some work done on this busy Monday.

Ok, I admit, I'm dragging my feet a bit. :)

I first want to hear them explain the light green regions between the jagged "opaque" (GM definition) limb and the surface of the photosphere. :)
 
Ok, I admit, I'm dragging my feet a bit. :)

I first want to hear them explain the light green regions between the jagged "opaque" (GM definition) limb and the surface of the photosphere. :)

I'm the closest thing you've got to a neutral audience in this thread. So far, the only transparent phenomena you've shown me here are your tactics of misdirection.
 
As I explained above and in the post you appear to have misunderstood so badly, the green "layer" at the limb is likely to be related to the distortion that results from projecting a sphere onto a plane.
There is another possibility.
The SDO images are of the corona. The green layer is of material at > 1,000,000 K. It may be limb darkening as in visible wavelengths. But in this case there is an abrupt change in density between the corona and photosphere. Thus the limb darkening in the extreme ultraviolet is truncated at the photosphere.
 
Oh no I didn't. I made a whole string of "impossible" (according to your model) "prediction" related to the location of the ion lines in relationship to the surface of the photosphere. I just made a new "prediction" in this thread related to Ne+3 and Ne+4 emissions and how they will/must differ from standard theory. I've gone far beyond just "observing", I'm well into the "prediction" stage while you folks play politics and tighten your parameters to create some new math bunnies. :)


And I predicted you'd pursue your argument from misdirection and take a dump on Sol after you trolled him into doing your homework for you. My prediction is quickly coming to fruition, while your prediction isn't really even a prediction. It's an unsubstantiated claim based on your dishonest tactic of creating a list of conditions known to be impossible according to the laws of physics, then demanding that everyone accept them as true in order to work through hypotheticals that you've also made up from scratch. How did you put it?...


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


I still don't understand why you're being so inefficient here. If you just leave out all the mid-level unsupportable, mostly impossible assumptions and formulate your claim like this...

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.​

... it would reduce much of your blathering.

Oh please. Birkeland "tested" this theory in the standard empirical method over 100 years ago. Alfven "tested" all kinds of electrical aspects of EU solar theories the way you folks "test" things too. You ignored all of it. What in the heck might I do to convince you if those caliber of "scientists" don't even make a dent in your opinions? Hell, I could waste my whole life waiting around for your political process to catch up with just the current technologies, let alone the new stuff coming down the NASA pipeline.


Birkeland didn't test your crackpot notion. Again, if you don't know this, you're making an argument from ignorance. If you do know it, you're lying.

IMO you people took so many "shortcuts" in science it's not funny. You made so many erroneous assumptions before launching TRACE it's not funny. You failed to correct the problems once you saw the images, no doubt primarily due to the problems in the political processes at LMSAL and NASA. God forbid some idiot like GM should be in charge of these programs or have some influence on the politics. You folks would *NEVER* figure it out "collectively" even if some people eventually started to jump ship.


Your qualifications to understand the TRACE satellite program have been challenged, and you have failed completely to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications.

Sorry folks, but I'm not going to wallow around in ignorance my whole life chasing after your math bunnies. Your theories do not jive with reality and the satellite images blow your beliefs out of the water. I can see that thin green line on the horizon even if the rest of you are blind.


There is a word for seeing things that aren't really there. It's "hallucination". There's also a word for an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary. It's "delusion".
 
Last edited:
There is another possibility.
The SDO images are of the corona. The green layer is of material at > 1,000,000 K. It may be limb darkening as in visible wavelengths. But in this case there is an abrupt change in density between the corona and photosphere. Thus the limb darkening in the extreme ultraviolet is truncated at the photosphere.
Thanks. While you were posting, I was editing my post to delete two speculative sentences, including the one you quoted. I apologize for putting them out there long enough for you to read them.
 
Ionized Neon in the Photosphere

That thin green line on the horizon is no 'fantasy'. It's the end of your "the photosphere is opaque so you can't see through it" claim.
You keep talking about some "thin green line", but I have gone back several pages and can find no reference to whatever image you think you are talking about. So, what green line on what image?

I understand what sol did, and *IF* those conditions were applicable he'd be correct. Those conditions however are 'strawman' conditions and do not apply to this specific (or any EU oriented) solar model in any way. It also fails to jive with the SERTS spectral data. The neon glows in many ion wavelengths, and less brightly at the lowest end of energy the spectrum. Details matter folks.
Details do matter, but you should get the details right yourself first. look up the ionization potential for Neon. In order to reach Ne II (that's Ne +1 or singly ionized Neon) you have to provide the electron you want to knock off the atom with at least 21.564 eV of energy. Now suppose you want every single Neon atom to be, at a minimum, once ionized. You have to have that much energy in the plasma per Neon atom. What does that mean physically? Fortunately, ben m already told us several pages ago ...
You're violating thermodynamics again.

A) Start with a 6000K near-neutral plasma. It has an equipartition energy of about 0.5 eV per electron.
B) Put enough current through it to ionize every atom. That's > 20 eV per electron, or 2 megajoules per mole (!!). After ~one mean free path this energy gets virialized---shared between ionization potentials, kinetic energy, excitations, etc.
C) Now you don't have a 6000K plasma, you have a 240,000K plasma.

Is the photosphere a 240,000K plasma? No. Therefore there is not now and has never been a large ionized neon fraction.

That 240,000 Kelvins comes from dividing the energy per electron (~20 eV) by Boltzmann's constant in the appropriate units (8.61729x10-5 eV/Kelvin).

If the Neon atoms are ionized by photons, you need a photon bath of no less than 240,000 K to do the job. Furthermore, if you want to maintain the plasma in that state, then you have to maintain the photon bath at that temperature. Of course, we would easily see those photons if they were there; we don't see them, so we know they are not there. Furthermore, there must be a source of energy to maintain that sea of photons. What might be the source of this energy?

If the Neon atoms are being ionized by collision with electrons in the alleged electric current (this seems to be Mozina's favored hypothesis), then the electrons have to carry no less than the very same ~20 eV in kinetic energy, which means the electron temperature of the plasma must be the same 240,000 K. But once an electron collides with a Neon atom and ionizes it, the energy is gone, the free electron quickly recombines with the ion and we are back to neutral Neon. So, once again, if you want to maintain the plasma in that state you have to maintain the current energy and electron temperature as well. Now you have a host of problems. To begin with, copious bremsstrahlung from all those electrons should be seen coming from the photosphere, yet it is not. We should also see copious line emission from the recombining atoms, and we don't see that either (Mozina claims we do but has been unable to make the claim stick). And what drives the current? An electric field? The solar plasma is not a wire, it does not confine the current to flow in the direction a wire would. if we are to believe that the photosphere must everywhere meet this criterion of ionization, then we must have such currents flowing everywhere. Do they flow in every direction? What manner of electric field would push electrons in literally every direction, as opposed to the direction of the field? In what direction does the electric field point? Is it toroidal around the solar equator? Does it run from pole to pole? What mechanism generates an electric field of whatever particular geometry we are supposed to have? And finally, we face yet the same problem the photons faced: Where does all that energy come from?

And do note that all of this comes from a consideration of maintaining a plasma of Ne II (Ne +1 or singly ionized Neon). But Mozina thinks the plasma should be at least Ne V (Ne +4). In order to get that kind of ionization we need at least 97.11 eV per electron, or 1,140,000 Kelvins of temperature to do the job. All of the same problems remain in place, but now we have rather larger numbers and more energy to worry about. The energy of a 171A photon is (hc/wavelength) 72.6 eV (unless I am in error) and so falls short of the mark. So I would assume that a plasma dominated by Ne IV (Ne +3) or any higher ionization state cannot be maintained in that state by photons of that energy, and might not be opaque to that wavelength, since its energy is insufficient to ionize the neutral Neon too that extent (one should do a more formal calculation along the lines of Sol Invictus before being definitive about opacity; the free electrons could easily be opaque to those photons).

While this leaves the door open for opacity of a Ne III (Ne +2) plasma, one still has to explain physically what is happening, and of course we already see from the discussion above that this will raise problems. Mozina likes to postulate things, assume things, and even demand that nature bow to his well, but he does fall far short of the mark when it comes to meaningful physical explanations for his singular ideas. Most importantly, the principle of conservation of energy should not be so lightly abandoned. Nobody with half a brain, at least in the context of understanding physics, is going to buy the outrageous notion that all or most of the photospheric Neon is ionized until we have a reliable & reasonable source of energy to get the job done, and an explanation for all the missing but necessary consequences of same.
 
It has nothing to do with math, and everything to to with pixel resolution and camera functions. At 1 megapixel it's simply impossible see anything at the limb that might be helpful. At 4 megapixels, I had about 2 pixels to work with at the limb and not enough resolution to be definitive. At 16 megapixels, and various wavelengths in the same camera, that all changes. Even if I don't do the math personally for you, someone at NASA will eventually get around to it for you, don't you fret. There's enough resolution now to be sure one way or the other. Your opacity bunny is visually dead now. You guys can go over there and mathematically kick around the dead opacity bunny to make sure that its pulse has stopped, that its not breathing etc. Meanwhile I can simply see that it's dead, and in fact *VERY* dead in terms of pixel resolution.


Your qualifications to properly understand solar imagery have been challenged and you have proven wholly incapable of demonstrating that you have any such qualifications. Anything you say about any solar imagery is only your unsupported, unsubstantiated, unqualified opinion, and is not valid as evidence for any claim you're making.

Now if you'd like to try again to demonstrate your qualifications, we can go there. But first we'd all like to see you...

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.


... do a little math and destroy mainstream solar theory.

:dl:
 
D'rok,

I'd like you to think a bit about the conversations of the past couple of weeks and the physical implications of both theories as it relates to that SDO image.

According to mainstream theory, at this temperature, and due to the issues Ben and sol cited, these wavelengths could not possibly penetrate more than *METERS* not KILOmeters before being absorbed. The iron ion wavelengths "should" grow in intensity somewhere inside the chromosphere/lower corona.

The implications of that theory on this image is radically different, particularly in the iron ion wavelengths. If their theory was correct, there should be a very sharp, relatively smooth delineation at the surface of the photosphere. There might be a little light from the other loops getting in the way, but the light should not penetrate the surface for more than a few meters and that kind of depth would not even show up in the curvature. The iron lines would clearly and distinctly be blocked by the photosphere. The iron lines "should" start to grow in intensity somewhere inside the orange region and that should be where we observe the intensity of the iron lines pick up the most. That is not at all what we see.

Instead what we observe is a smooth region of the photosphere coming together with the chromosphere where the orange light picks up. Underneath of that layer is a lighter region that goes on for a number of pixels before finally reaching a GM style "opacity" layer that is jagged and not smooth and directly relates back to the mass flows inside the coronal loops along the "surface'. The loops then rise from that region, go up through the supposedly "opaque" photosphere, and go up through into the chromosphere and corona.

Their model is not only broken, it's irreconcilably broken to the point it could *NEVER* hope to explain that image. The new SDO images simply blow their beliefs away and blow their whole solar theory away. Only an "electric" sun theory could ever hope to ionize the plasma in the photosphere to such a high degree that these high energy wavelengths could penetrate that deeply. They will *NEVER* (certainly not GM) accept an electric sun theory, and they will *NEVER* therefore be able to explain this image. It's really that simple. Have them explain the limb darkening and lightening features of that image and the green region between the limb and the chromosphere. Dog them for awhile like you're leaning on me and see what happens.
 
FYI, when I found Birkeland's work I was actually stunned and humbled to realize that someone (a whole team actually) had beaten me to "my idea" by over 100 years and had already tested all the key components of the model. So much for ego at that point and I simply updated the website to include his material and give him credit where credit is due.


Stop blaming the dead guy for your crazy claim. Kristian Birkeland never proposed a solid iron surface on the Sun. Funny thing is, you actually know that and still you persist in blaming him. Why aren't you willing to take responsibility for your own failure?
 
You keep talking about some "thin green line", but I have gone back several pages and can find no reference to whatever image you think you are talking about. So, what green line on what image?

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/447006main_fulldiskmulticolor-orig_new1_full.jpg

I don't have a photoionization problem because this is an electric solar model, but you certainly have a *HUGE* problem. How come we see all those iron lines *UNDER* the photosphere along the limb between the jagged mass flow patterns that are "opaque" and the surface of the photosphere?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom