Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Tilting at windmills is much more fun!
Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...
- Thread starter brantc
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fusion solar power
- Status
Tilting at windmills is much more fun!
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Michael, you keep going back and forth between citing and rejecting this data. The SERTS data shows ions in the corona. The corona indeed shows ionized material---material which, if a few hundred m thick (at solar density), would be opaque to practically everything below 3000A. In fact, corona data does a nice job of illustrating how conditions like "current" (according to MM), "2,000,000K electron temperature", and "far from equilibrium" do not magically give you a plasma with no neutrals. They give you a thermal-ish distribution. "Very few at the lowest end" gives you plenty of opacity.
Elsewhere you keep claiming nothing whatsoever at the lowest end, an absurd sort of condition for which you will find no precedent anywhere in the Universe. Don't cite CERTS's, or anyone else's, corona data as though it supports this condition.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
FYI, I haven't forgotten you. I'll resist responding to anyone but you for awhile now in this thread so that we can stay on topic, and I don't get lost in trivial issues.
In terms of the number of attempts before I give up, that's hard to answer. If you come up with a valid scientific "issue" that I simply can't resolve, I'll stop and admit that I have a problem I can't currently resolve. I'll happily let you gloat a little too. If however you're going to be a "skeptic", I figure that you owe me at least three strikes.
That first attempt was a little "iffy" IMO because you attempted to judge the theory based on standard theory conditions, not the conditions of this model specifically. We just had not gotten that far. I'll give you that "strike" however, only because it clarified for me the problems with the standard model as it relates to that SDO image and it happened in a very timely manner all things considered. It was worth it to me to watch that strawman burn and realize the full impact of that SDO image as it relates to standard theory.Normally speaking I would want to work as a "team" in coming up with these numbers. In other words I would want you to be on my side and looking for solutions rather than looking for "problems" as you perceive them. In this case I actually prefer a bit of "scientific tension" and skepticism so that I can be certain that I didn't forget or overlook any critical "issue" that might be a real show stopper.
FYI, you aren't making it easy by keeping us all in suspense about the Ne/H "simplified" scenario we talked about earlier so that we can see if we are even in the right ballpark.
In terms of impurities that we will want to add to the neon, we'll need to add some constraints to the energy states of the elements inside that 'layer', and we should constrain the elements to the solar wind elements IMO. I'd rather we stick with the solar wind elements now that I see that I was off a bit on the distance to the surface.
IMO the energy state constraint of elements in the neon should be based upon the energy state that we agree relates to the neon energy states. In other words since we have constrained the neon layer to Ne+4 and Ne+5 energy states, other elements inside the neon "mixture" should necessarily fall into that overall energy range. Higher ionization states we should assume relate to the coronal loop activity rather than the elements embedded in the neon. Anything we find in the SERTS data at a lower energy state should be assumed to relate to the chromosphere emissions rather than photosphere emissions.
In terms of voltages, I'll be honest sol, I'm *really* struggling to constrain that number for you. Whatever number we/I come up with for voltages and current flow have to match the energy state of the neon in terms of density and current flow. It has to have a clear relationship to solar wind speed, although I'm less certain of exactly how that connection works, and where the full acceleration process occurs, which probably isn't in the neon.
Give me a bit more time on the voltage aspect. I'll try to get you a number by the end of the day. I may need ta couple of tries to get that one "right" and you'll probably have to help me out with that one.
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Um, then why does the surface temperature appear to be 6,000F ?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
That line made me giggle.
Considering all those dark energy elves and inflation gnomes that you have plugging the gaps of your otherwise falsified BB theory, I'm in great shape.
My first big "problem" was fixed just by turning on the electricity. "Hey look, it's unplugged!"
Last edited:
Shorter MM:
"Because you can't constrain 3D structure from a 2D image, I will assume the photosphere is transparent. Thereafter, taking advantage of the lack of 3D, I will deduce what is in front of, in, and behind the photosphere."
"I can glance at this 2D image and assume I'm seeing a 3D structure. Therefore, taking advantage of the height of this structure and where I assume it goes vertically, I deduce that the photosphere is transparent."
But here's Sol's "Mozina 1.0/2.0/3.0" objection again. What happens if you can't name a current state which generates (via normal plasma physics evaluated by Sol) your desired ion distribution? Do you:
a) Say, "Wow, it looks like a Ne+4/+5/+6 plasma is actually deeply implausible. I should stop offhandedly-assuming that it's there, and arguing vehemently when anyone objects."
b) Say, "I guessed that 10^20V would do it, Sol said it doesn't---not by a long shot. I see now that 10^20V was not correct---there must be SOME OTHER plasma condition that generates this ion distribution. Sorry, this failure doesn't prove anything whatsoever."
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Look, I didn't invent the SDO gear. I didn't create those images. It's not my imagination that the iron lines come up and through the bottom of the heliosphere and leave green band between the photosphere surface, and the limb darkened areas of the image. Your theory doesn't jive with the satellite image, and no "non-electric" sun could explain that image. What would you like me to do, ignore the images that falsify your theory? Ya, that's exactly what you want me to do because that's exactly what you folks do.
Actually I already adjusted the model a bit based on your criticism. What, no credit? I agreed that the +6 probably relates to coronal loop activity for you.
Whether is seems "deeply implausible" to you or not, the SERTS data demonstrates that NEON is highly ionized and "glows" at many temperatures. Implausible or not, it's happening.
I can't say I'll hit the voltage/amps right on the first attempt, and I may need some help working it out. I do however have great confidence in the solar model because I've seen it work in a lab, and many of the voltages and amperage aspects are documented and discussed by Birkeland. There's nothing "magical" about current flow and electricity, but simply pulling numbers out of thin air is somewhat difficult. I'm not simply going to give up because you or sol can't figure out a solution.
The "solution" to your first "major" objection was as simple as turning on the power.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
If however you're going to be a "skeptic", I figure that you owe me at least three strikes.
Since you suggested it.... done! You have two strikes to go.
You need to tell me now, before going on, how you will react if you use both of them up and your model still doesn't work.
OK.
There is no such thing as an "energy state constraint". We're talking science, not magic. In science you cannot control the energy state of every single one of the 10^30 or so Ne atoms in your plasma. All you can do is set up conditions, like temperature (or total energy), voltage, chemical mixture, etc. The populations of the various states are determined by those conditions plus the laws of physics.
We cannot proceed that way - it's inconsistent with the basic, empirically tested, centuries-old laws of physics. If your model makes sense, we could test it in a lab (modulo the difficulty in preventing the lab from melting). So until you tell me how - in the lab - you're going to force every single Ne atom to be in one of those states, I can't help you.
OK. But I won't (and can't) go on until you agree I'm allowed to use the laws of physics to determine things like the populations of excited states.
Listen, MM, nobody else can see it. I can't see it. I look at that photo and I see a sphere with a black disc and green features. There is no visual way to tell whether those features are behind the disk, or on top of the disk, or in front of the disk. (Visually speaking, I'd say they look like they're in front of the disk.) You keep insisting otherwise, but I literally have no idea what makes you so certain.
Normally I can look at (say) a purported Bigfoot photo, and I can say, "Yeah, I can see why you'd label those pixels as eyes and this edge as a shoulder". I'd disagree, but at least I can tell what their logic is. I have no idea what your logic is here, Michael. I think your sun photo looks less like a transparent surface than a Bigfoot photos look like Bigfoot.
Meanwhile, every other stellar astronomer on Earth is looking at photos of the Sun in H-alpha, HeI, CaII, Mg II, CO, O2, H2O, N2, and those photos all look like they're coming from the surface. But in response you're saying the OPPOSITE of what you say about the TRACE image---now, suddenly, you're saying "Things that look like they're in/on a surface are sometimes actually in front of it". Exactly the analysis you dismiss when it disagrees with you.
You both agree and disagree, since you continue citing coronal loop ionization states when people criticize your photosphere. (see 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.
MAKE UP YOUR MIND.
MAKE UP YOUR MIND---is SERTS, which identifies a lot of Ne-III-rich plasma, telling us about the corona (in which case it doesn't tell us about the photosphere, so stop citing it)? Or about the photosphere (in which case the photosphere is opaque)?
That's fine. What you are doing is fine-tuning a mathematical model to see whether its free parameters can be made consistent with data on a system you can't actually experiment on. The last time I checked you disapproved of this approach.
We're not asking you to be confident in your solar model. We're asking you about the very, very narrow sub-sub-subquestion of your model: "Does current flowing through a Ne/He plasma put it into an ultrapure NeV, NeVI, NeVII state". This cannot be true on the Sun unless it is a normal consequence of E&M, plasma physics, and thermodynamics. If plasma simply can't get into this state, period, then it's not going to find a mysterious way to do so on the Sun---the photosphere doesn't know that you want it to be opaque, and decide which laws of thermodynamics it needs to ignore to satisfy you. The photosphere does know the laws of thermodynamics, and it will obey them whether or not that makes the photosphere opaque. Understand?
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
FYI, sol...
The density number we selected (standard density at the surface of the photosphere) applies with the voltage turned on (mass flows running through it), and the gravitational field applied (compressing it). Keep in mind the helium layer is also experiencing mass flows up and through that layer too.
I have no clue how any of the mass flow parameters (electrons/protons through the neon) effects the density changes with depth, but the heliosiesmology images from SDO look *BEAUTIFUL* to me so I'd have to assume that the density changes with depth also apply to the neon layer. I completely trust the validity of the field of heliosiesmology, and it wouldn't work correctly if the density were not the same as standard theory.
The density number we selected (standard density at the surface of the photosphere) applies with the voltage turned on (mass flows running through it), and the gravitational field applied (compressing it). Keep in mind the helium layer is also experiencing mass flows up and through that layer too.
I have no clue how any of the mass flow parameters (electrons/protons through the neon) effects the density changes with depth, but the heliosiesmology images from SDO look *BEAUTIFUL* to me so I'd have to assume that the density changes with depth also apply to the neon layer. I completely trust the validity of the field of heliosiesmology, and it wouldn't work correctly if the density were not the same as standard theory.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I suppose that depends on *why* it doesn't work, and how serious the problem seems to me. I can't really cross that bridge until I come to it however, so I'll have to wait and see I suppose. Don't worry though, I'll let you gloat to your hearts content while I'm working out a "fix".
There is in this solar model. You have to do this "based on the model" or the strikes mean nothing.
I'll just call that "ball one", "ball two" and I'll let you walk me to first if you start that routine. "Current flow" isn't "magic" and it's outcome is "predictable" and also "testable" (real control mechanisms and everything) in a purely empirical manner. Stop with the "magic" stuff. Trust me. You don't have an empirical leg to stand on.
No, but you can provide a continuous flow through the plasma and put the plasma into "glow mode". We can also assume that the *CURRENT FLOW*, not the 171A light will do any and all necessary ionization to the plasma.
I'll let you verify that the laws of physics aren't violated, but you can't stick something like a +8 neon ion into the photosphere. We agreed those energy states related to the loops. Likewise you can't stick any ion in the neon that has a higher or lower energy state than the Ne+4 or Ne+5. If it's possible for the ion to reach that energy state somehow inside the plasma due to the current flow, well, that's understandable, but you have to at least start with a plasma state of all ions in an energy range of Ne+4 through Ne+5. Whatever happens from that point forward due to the current flow and physics, well so be it.
Yes, I absolutely expect (and insist) that you to use the laws of physics, but you have to at least begin with the initial conditions that I set. If the current flow through the neon changes things inside the plasma I will just have to live with it, but you can't stick highly energized ions, or lower energy state ions inside the neon layer initially.
Last edited:
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
There is in this solar model. You have to do this "based on the model" or the strikes mean nothing.
Nope, that doesn't cut it. If you disagree, tell me what I need to do in the lab to create your magic Moplazma 2.0. If you can't do that, you don't have a model - you have a fantasy.
Indeed. If your model is "Ne plasma at density blah and temperature blah with such and such a current flowing through it", that's fine - just say so. But your model cannot be "all Ne atoms are in such and such states because I want it that way". That's not a model, that's magic.
If you insist, we can start in a state where all the Ne is ionized at whatever levels you want - even if such a state is completely impossible to set up in a lab. I'm willing to allow that because it won't make the slightest bit of difference.
The plasma will very rapidly equilibrate to its thermal population levels, no matter what the initial state. Some of those quintuply ionized Ne are going to grab five electrons and neutralize themselves, some 4, some 3, etc. Some initially unionized Ne - if there is any - will get ionized. That whole process will proceed until it reaches an equilibrium, and once it does, we can calculate the populations.
There's no way to stop those pesky neon atoms from interacting, Michael - they obey the laws of physics, not you.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,299
It doesn't matter what you start with, Michael. The ions will not stay in only those ionization states, but will pread out into a thermalized distribution of many ionization states unless something makes them stay there. Current can't do it, and heat can't do it. Even ignoring the fact that there's no way to get them all into only those ionization states to begin with, it can't last.
This is really an extraordinary level of misunderstanding. It doesn't make a difference for Sol's calculation, but it's just amazing.
MM, in a plasma this dense it takes something less than a nanosecond for your "initial conditions" to be completely erased. After a nanosecond, the plasma doesn't remember anything about your initial conditions except for things like the energy density, external electric field, etc.
ETA: What Sol and Zig said.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Well, that's hardly surprising to me ben. This crew isn't very attentive to details in my experience. You don't see that gap between the chromosphere emissions and the limb darkened region?
It doesn't really make much difference at the limb because I can see where the limb actually becomes "opaque/darkened" and I can see where the chromosphere begins. There's a gap of about 20 pixels. There should not be a gap at all.
FYI the bottom of the image shows the emissions going *THROUGH* it.
I'm certain because there is a clear, discernible "gap" between the chromosphere emissions and the limb darkened area all around the image, not just in one region or two. I can (and do) observe those emissions at the 6:00 position traversing through that region very clearly even if you can't see it.
This model has very different implications than the standard theory because of the current flow. You can't simply ignore them because you don't like them. I'm allowed to "postdict" a fit too, just like you.
I have already made a key "prediction" related to the location of various Ne ions ben. You're welcome to check it out if you like. If Ne+4 isn't directly related to the photosphere, and is only found in coronal loops, this solar model is toast. That's a real "prediction" of this model Ben. It's an "energy state" type of prediction that is radically different from standard theory. According to standard theory we would expect to see few if any emissions from the photosphere in Ne+4. I would expect the photosphere to light up like a neon sign at that wavelength.
What would you suggest? We can't recreate the exact conditions here on Earth. I don't have a problem letting you folks "scale to size", nor have I ever complained about scaling known forces of nature.
It's simply at a stable and high energy state that falls within that range that is due to the current flow traversing that "layer". It's not "ultra pure" so much as "uniformly current carrying" plasma. The current flow keeps it at a very high energy state and re ionizes the ions if necessary.
It must be so because Birkeland had no trouble at all getting his plasma to "glow" with the power turned on.
Ben, the problem is that you're still trying to judge the validity of the model without fully understanding it. It works just like Birkeland's terella and it's not all that mysterious in terms of particle flow. In fact Birkeland does all sorts of calculations related to that particle flow in his books. You simply aren't applying the proper parameters to the model. Continuous current flow from the surface to the heliosphere isn't "optional", it's "necessary" to make it work.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Great! Let's just start my way then and see what happens.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,299
The plasma will rapidly thermalize to a distribution including many ionization levels.
How rapidly? Well, we can ballpark that by calculating the mean free path length and the thermal velocity of the ions. Care to take a stab at that, or do you need help? Just pick a temperature and a density, and we can even do it for you.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Won't you need to pick a voltage and amperage that is related to that "glow mode" I talked about? How and why did you calculate anything without including that current flow?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Look, I'm the one at bat, so if everyone agrees it makes no difference how we calculate it, please do it my way, ok?
Honestly, if it doesn't matter, let's just do the calculation my way and I'll accept the outcome. I don't want to bicker about it all day.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
I can't until you finish specifying the conditions. As for starting with all Ne ionized at +4 or whatever, as I said it won't matter in the slightest (so long as the plasma is net neutral, obviously), so we can do that. But all it will mean is that the first sentence of my analysis will be an estimate of the thermalization time, followed by the Saha (equilibrium) calculation of the thermal population levels. I promise to think it through, but I can't see any way that initial condition will matter in the slightest (and it's also completely impossible to ever set up, but never mind that).
Just to give you a sense - what you're asking for is roughly equivalent to the following. Consider the air in the room you're sitting in. Each molecule has some position and some velocity. Now suppose you freeze time, grab each molecule individually with tweezers, and move it so it sits on a vertex of a perfectly regular cubical array. So when you're done, at t=0 the air molecules are arranged in a perfectly square 3D grid. However you don't change their velocities* - once you start time going again, each one has the velocity it did before you relocated it. OK?
How long do you think that grid will last? How long after t=0 do you think it will be possible to detect the fact that the molecules were ever in such a grid?
Think about it.
*If you set the velocities to zero, you've reduced the temperature of the gas to absolute zero. They'll all fall down, and eventually thermalize at some very low T set by their gravitational potential energy.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,299
I haven't calculated anything yet. I'm just telling you what will happen. I don't need to include the current flow to find the equilibrium timescale. Current may affect the equilibrium distribution via temperature and electron chemical potential (ie, it cannot create a distribution with only Ne-IV and Ne-V), but only temperature will matter for the equilibration time. And I'm letting you pick the temperature.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
Here's what we've got so far:
2000km thick layer of Moplazma™ 2.0
~90%Ne, ~10%H, plus impurities based somehow on solar wind abundances (but I don't think we'll need those anyway)
density~10^-7 g/cm^3, using standard helioseismology models to sharpen and/or predict the density profile with depth if necessary
voltage across the 2000km to be determined
temperature to be determined (note that voltage and temperature aren't independent - a large voltage will drive a large current, which will heat the plasma)
initial population - all Ne ionized to +4 or +5, all other species ionized to a state in that same energy range (note - that's impossible for H, but I suppose you just want all the H to be ionized?)
2000km thick layer of Moplazma™ 2.0
~90%Ne, ~10%H, plus impurities based somehow on solar wind abundances (but I don't think we'll need those anyway)
density~10^-7 g/cm^3, using standard helioseismology models to sharpen and/or predict the density profile with depth if necessary
voltage across the 2000km to be determined
temperature to be determined (note that voltage and temperature aren't independent - a large voltage will drive a large current, which will heat the plasma)
initial population - all Ne ionized to +4 or +5, all other species ionized to a state in that same energy range (note - that's impossible for H, but I suppose you just want all the H to be ionized?)
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Is there any particular reason we deviated from the "simplified" version we talked about earlier with just H+ ions? It sounds like we're going to have to haggle over the elements and ion states till the cows come home, and I would sure like to see if I'm at least in the ballpark before we "complicate" the model. Care to just do the simplified version for us just to see if the concept is even viable? We can stuff other elements, and debate ionization states later but I sure would like to see that simplified opacity calculation based on H+ and Ne+4 and +5. I don't care about the energy state of H+.
Last edited:
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
Incidentally, Michael - I'm not an expert on helioseismology, but I suspect it also wouldn't work if the temperature were significantly different from the standard theory. We can discuss that if and when it becomes necessary, but I doubt that you'd be able to get away with changing the T of the photosphere by more than an order of magnitude (and probably much less) without messing things up pretty badly.
I don't know what you have in mind for the temperature; it's just something to bear in mind.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I suspect you're exactly right about the temp part too which is why I picked a 6K number to start with for the ion temperature.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,299
Because your model is not H+ ions. Your model is a mostly neon plasma. Calculating the opacity of neon is therefore sufficient to put a lower bound on the opacity (adding more elements won't make it less transparent).
Since H+ ions obviously have no electrons, there are no bound-free transitions. Opacity comes primarily from Thompson and Compton scattering from free electrons. That calculation is quite different from the bound-free transition cross section for ions. Such scattering will ALSO contribute to the opacity of a neon plasma (so there's a non-infinite optical depth for 171 A light regardless of the ionization states), but we've already got most of the info for doing the bound-free transition opacity in neon (which will be a lower limit on the total opacity).
We'll accept whatever elements you want to input. But you don't get to choose ionization states arbitrarily, because those can't be controlled arbitrarily.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
Just fill in the blanks, Michael.
I need the voltage across the 2000km layer.
I need the temperature of the plasma (either specified before we switch on the voltage, or after - but in the latter case we'll have to make sure those two are consistent).
Once you give me those I'll post the parameters you've specified and get your confirmation, then we can proceed. That will be your second strike (or home run, as the case may be).
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Actually you've made a couple of very amateur, yet very serious mistakes already with your interpretation of that SDO image. Nobody wants you to ignore the image. Everyone wants you to stop the looks-like-a-bunny junior scientist routine and actually take this stuff seriously. Don't you recall my posting...
I have some expertise in graphics creation, manipulation, and processing, so I've done some very basic analysis on these two images. Obviously there are problems with Michael's interpretation of the first one. Several problems. Well, let's go as far as to say he's just plain wrong. But since he fancies himself qualified to understand solar imagery, since he pretty much bases his entire claim on his interpretation of various satellite imagery, let's see if he can come up with some of the most glaring problems on his own. You know, before NASA puts out the press release about this bombshell, about how they stared at this image for hours and hours and suddenly had an epiphany, and in a moment of unprecedented awareness, mainstream solar physics gets destroyed! Maybe Michael can give them a heads-up and help them avoid the embarrassment of being so horribly wrong.
Now don't you think you ought to get it right before you continue to dangle those problems in front of us? Don't you think you should at least figure out what the problems are? I'll tell you what, you get started and I'll tell you if you're on the right path.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
You know, just so no newbies or lurkers get the wrong idea, we really should make a point of letting them know you're lying whenever you try to infer that Birkeland had some kind of solar model that is remotely like the piece of unsupportable fantasy that you keep blathering about here.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Since you claim to completely trust the field of helioseismology, why is it that you continue to reject the findings of research in that field which show mass moving up, down, and sideways throughout your made up solid surface? Mass flowing at 1300 meters per second is not consistent in any way with anyone's definition of the word solid. Or rigid. Or any other weasel words you can possibly come up with to make your solid match the definition of a fluid-like fast moving plasma.
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
As MM is, by his own words, thoroughly familiar with Birkeland's work, would it be reasonable to expect him to provide the voltage, etc parameters to sol quickly?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/446715main_fulldiskmulticolor-orig_full.jpg
Man, I am just so impressed with that image. I simply cannot believe the resolution of SDO. I feel like a kid in a candy store. It's almost surreal when I zoom in to look at the limbs and that dark surface below the photosphere will all those clear lines show the location of the photosphere/chromosphere boundary. I'm so excited!
Man, I am just so impressed with that image. I simply cannot believe the resolution of SDO. I feel like a kid in a candy store. It's almost surreal when I zoom in to look at the limbs and that dark surface below the photosphere will all those clear lines show the location of the photosphere/chromosphere boundary. I'm so excited!
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
You're missing some serious problems with your analysis of that image, Michael. As somewhat of an expert in the area of graphics analysis and processing, I have found a few issues that you're apparently unaware of, or if you have noticed them, you're ignoring them.
Again, there are glaring problems with you interpretation. Until you correct those you're going to continue to be wrong.
See above.
See above, again. When you do an actual analysis of the image, you'll see the problems. If you'd like some help, just get started by pointing out a few of the flaws and I'll get you closer with some of the details.
And again, anytime you try to claim that your crazy conjecture is Birkeland's solar model or like Birkeland's terrella, you're lying.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
You've proven yourself wholly unqualified to understand what you're seeing in any solar imagery, and this one is no exception. You're wrong. I'll be happy to point out exactly where once you demonstrate that you even remotely understand some of the flaws in your interpretation so far.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Lies, lies, lies, ya.....
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Seeing that dark outline under the photosphere/chomosphere boundary is simply breathtaking at this resolution. I'm simply stunned and awed.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
It is a real pretty picture.
I have a program called "Xaos Fractal Zoomer" it makes really pretty pictures too.
Is there any big difference in their relevance to what is happening inside the sun?
Absolutely. Look at the limb darkening process and how it starts about 7200KM below the photosphere/chromosphere boundary. That limb darkening we observe is directly related to the "surface of the sun". That is "opaque" (GM style) because it's a solid. Current carrying, highly ionized plasma isn't necessarily opaque and this image demonstrates that too.
- Status