Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
You and I see things *very* differently. My little ego would have *loved* to call this "my idea", but dude, Birkeland and *his whole team* beat me to this idea by 100 years. ....
Click to expand...
But dude, Birkeland and *his whole team* would not be dumb enough to ignore thermodynamics and actually think that there was an iron crust in the Sun.

This is your fantasy* not his.

Micheal Mozina has a habit of essentially labeling Kristian Birkeland as having no knowledge of physics, e.g. the simple thermodynamics that make an iron crust impossible.
* 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 absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
Michael Mozina said:
RC, I don't pretend to understand the thermodynamics of how it all works yet. ... Get real.
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina, if you do not understand that simple fact that as you approcah a source of heat then you get hotter then you really need to get real.

Thermodynamics tells us that your iron crust fantasy* cannot exist.
Your delusion of seeing it in RD images constructed from images of the corona is just that - a delusion.

Maybe you should teach your chldren that as you get closer to a fire it get colder :rolleyes: :D since that is the only way your iron crust fantasy* can exist.

* 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 absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Just out of curiosity RC?

How long do you think it would take an opponent of the SSM to create a list of questions that I personally could not answer about the SSM? Would the length of that list of unanswered questions falsify or verify the SSM in your mind somehow?
Click to expand...
There are many questions that the current solar model does not answer. Judging by your ignorance of basic physics like thermodynamics, I would say an an "opponent of the SSM" would take about 5 seconds to create a list of questions that you personally cannot answer. The length of the list says would say nothing about the SSM - just your ignorance of the SSM.

But my list is about your fantasy* and your ignorance of it, the physics that debunks it and the unsupprted assertions you spout.

Just out of curiosity MM?
Try this simple question. All you have to do is be able to read (you can read, can you :D):
* 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 absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
Michael Mozina said:
RC, I don't pretend to understand the thermodynamics of how it all works yet. I'm still working on few "basic" predictions like where the surface is located with respect to that convection surface we see in white light. If you can't accept that, oh well, but a lack of an 'explanation' on my part is not a valid falsification of this or any scientific theory. I couldn't begin to explain the thermodynamics of the SSM and how your corona gets to millions of degree temps. Does that mean the SSM is falsified too? Get real.
Click to expand...

If you don't understand thermodynamics, how could you possibly pretend to have a "model" of the sun? Can't you see how patently absurd that is?
:jaw-dropp
 
Michael Mozina said:
You and I see things *very* differently. My little ego would have *loved* to call this "my idea", but dude, Birkeland and *his whole team* beat me to this idea by 100 years.
Click to expand...


Kristian Birkeland never suggested the Sun has a solid iron surface. Your claim that he did is a lie. Still. Again. Every time you say it it's a lie. Stop blaming the dead guy for your very own made up crackpot conjecture. It's a despicable argument to make.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Just out of curiosity RC?

How long do you think it would take an opponent of the SSM to create a list of questions that I personally could not answer about the SSM? Would the length of that list of unanswered questions falsify or verify the SSM in your mind somehow?
Click to expand...


I'd venture to guess that most of us here agree you could write a list of virtually infinite length, given the time, of questions you can't answer about the standard solar model. You've demonstrated that you don't possess the qualifications necessary to understand it in even the most rudimentary, grade school science class way. But the point is, there are dozens upon dozens of questions that you can't answer about your very own crackpot conjecture.
 
Michael Mozina said:
RC, I don't pretend to understand the thermodynamics of how it all works yet. I'm still working on few "basic" predictions like where the surface is located with respect to that convection surface we see in white light.
Click to expand...

Michael, the thermodynamics IS a basic feature of any solar model. You can't brush it under the rug. The problem is not that you haven't worked out all the details, the problem is that thermodynamics prohibits your model. And you still don't understand why.

I couldn't begin to explain the thermodynamics of the SSM
Click to expand...

The basics are quite simple. Heat is generated on the inside, and it flows outwards.

and how your corona gets to millions of degree temps.
Click to expand...

That's not a thermodynamics problem. The corona is transparent, so its temperature is basically irrelevant to the thermodynamics of the rest of the sun. And because it's transparent, it doesn't take a lot of power to heat it up either. Quibble all you want to about the mechanism of heating, but the thermodynamics of the problem are indeed simple and well understood.

And no, I don't care if the photosphere is transparent to 171 Angstrom light, that's actually quite irrelevant to the thermodynamic impossibility of your model. But again, you don't have a clue as to why, because you don't understand thermodynamics.
 
Perpetual Student said:
If you don't understand thermodynamics, how could you possibly pretend to have a "model" of the sun? Can't you see how patently absurd that is?
:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

I think I need to backup here and explain something to you for a second. A "cathode solar model" does not and never has depended upon a "solid surface". I'm not even emotionally attached to there even being an actual "solid" surface. I'm only attached to their being a more "rigid" surface under the surface of the photosphere. If the thermodynamics don't happen to work out correctly to support a solid surface, so be it. I'm willing to adapt and be open to new ideas. Their side is the side that "fears change", not me. I'm actually more emotionally attached to a "cathode solar model" than I am attached to a "solid surface solar model".

All I can say is that when I personally look at all the images the "best" way I can explain them is with an actual solid crust. I could end up being wrong about that, and that is why I "capitulated" on the term "solid" and went with "rigid". I'm flexible. Their side is not flexible. Even *IF* all of those wavelengths happened to have been calibrated, in the final analysis, it's really no skin off my nose. I'm willing to adapt. They are not. We'll have to see how things turn out, but I am personally not afraid to adapt to what I find in the SDO images, even *IF* that happens to lead me eventually back to the SSM. I seriously doubt that will ever happen. I think it's much more likely I"ll have to "settle" on a "rigid surface" and be happy with an electrically active, plasma layered solar model. Whatever eventually happens, it's really not a big issue to me one way or the other. My livelihood is unaffected by whatever might come to pass. All I can say is that I am very glad to represent a "cathode solar model", even if they *HATE* the fact I will forever call it a "Birkeland solar model", with or without a "solid surface". I'm sure Birkeland and his team would adapt to what they see, but I believe that the sun is in fact a "cathode in space". Stay tuned for the results. :)
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Michael, the thermodynamics IS a basic feature of any solar model. You can't brush it under the rug.
Click to expand...

Zig, I"m *NOT* brushing it under the rug. The only published thing I"m attached to is the term "rigid", not "solid". I can't be sure that the thermodynamics will work out in favor of a "solid' surface.

I'm still trying to pin down a depth of the "rigid features" I see in the MDI images, and other types of imagery.

To be honest Zig, those GIF's were very interesting and I appreciated you pointing them out for me. I'm personally willing to accept them as calibrated or uncalibrated images because either way, they falsify *your* solar model. :)
 
Michael Mozina said:
I'm still trying to pin down a depth of the "rigid features" I see in the MDI images, and other types of imagery.
Click to expand...


You do remember the word for seeing things that aren't there? It's "hallucination". You are not seeing a solid surface, and you can't make it all better by making it even more vague with the term "rigid". You don't have the qualifications necessary to understand solar imagery of any sort. Your opinion and any argument you make based on that opinion is worthless.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Zig, I"m *NOT* brushing it under the rug.
Click to expand...

Yes, Michael, you are. You refuse to accept that your surface cannot possibly be colder than 5700 K. Belief in a colder interior is exactly equivalent to belief in perpetual motion machines.

The only published thing I"m attached to is the term "rigid", not "solid". I can't be sure that the thermodynamics will work out in favor of a "solid' surface.
Click to expand...

How is it going to be rigid if it's not solid? But it doesn't matter. I can be sure that the thermodynamics will not work out in favor of a solid or even liquid surface. Rigidity just makes no sense. And it doesn't even matter whether it's solid or rigid or whatever, it would still be gravitationally impossible. You have no mechanism of keeping it from collapse. ESPECIALLY if it's not solid. And don't even try posting about water bubbles again until you calculate the gravitational pressure for one of those.

To be honest Zig, those GIF's were very interesting and I appreciated you pointing them out for me. I'm personally willing to accept them as calibrated or uncalibrated images because either way, they falsify *your* solar model. :)
Click to expand...

No, Michael, they don't.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes, Michael, you are. You refuse to accept that your surface cannot possibly be colder than 5700 K.
Click to expand...

Which "surface" do you mean in a plasma layered model?

Belief in a colder interior is exactly equivalent to belief in perpetual motion machines.
Click to expand...

Except of course when you claim a sunspot occurs? Give it up. You can't judge the physics of an electrical solar theory based on SSM specifications!

How is it going to be rigid if it's not solid?
Click to expand...

It would require a more dense plasma flowing in persistent patterns, and of course the persistence of those patterns beg the question about what creates that persistence.

But it doesn't matter. I can be sure that the thermodynamics will not work out in favor of a solid or even liquid surface.
Click to expand...

It could be a more "rigid", more dense plasma.

Rigidity just makes no sense. And it doesn't even matter whether it's solid or rigid or whatever, it would still be gravitationally impossible. You have no mechanism of keeping it from collapse. ESPECIALLY if it's not solid. And don't even try posting about water bubbles again until you calculate the gravitational pressure for one of those.
Click to expand...

Again, it may not make "sense" to you, but you're so busy trying to undermine the model you aren't really all that interested in any "variations" on the same theme, or even interested in how it might work. You guys/gals "hate" the whole EU concept with such a passion, it really doesn't matter what I propose as long as it includes "current flow". You'll never consider it.

No, Michael, they don't.
Click to expand...

Actually you're right. Only if they are already calibrated does it falsify both solar models simultaneously. Even that would be a "victory" from my perspective because I can adapt and be happy. :)
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
But dude, Birkeland and *his whole team* would not be dumb enough to ignore thermodynamics and actually think that there was an iron crust in the Sun.
Click to expand...

So dude, be "flexible". Be willing to think outside your own box *and mine*. You really need to go back to Skwinty's analogy. It's more appropriate than you realize IMO. I'm simply trying to get you to think outside of your own box. I'm not trying to sell you any particular new one. If anything, I'm only suggesting you try an "electrical" box. :) That's it. I'm really not emotionally attached to the whole "solid" concept, so get over it.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I think I need to backup here and explain something to you for a second. A "cathode solar model" does not and never has depended upon a "solid surface". I'm not even emotionally attached to there even being an actual "solid" surface. I'm only attached to their being a more "rigid" surface under the surface of the photosphere. If the thermodynamics don't happen to work out correctly to support a solid surface, so be it. I'm willing to adapt and be open to new ideas. Their side is the side that "fears change", not me. I'm actually more emotionally attached to a "cathode solar model" than I am attached to a "solid surface solar model".

All I can say is that when I personally look at all the images the "best" way I can explain them is with an actual solid crust. I could end up being wrong about that, and that is why I "capitulated" on the term "solid" and went with "rigid". I'm flexible. Their side is not flexible. Even *IF* all of those wavelengths happened to have been calibrated, in the final analysis, it's really no skin off my nose. I'm willing to adapt. They are not. We'll have to see how things turn out, but I am personally not afraid to adapt to what I find in the SDO images, even *IF* that happens to lead me eventually back to the SSM. I seriously doubt that will ever happen. I think it's much more likely I"ll have to "settle" on a "rigid surface" and be happy with an electrically active, plasma layered solar model. Whatever eventually happens, it's really not a big issue to me one way or the other. My livelihood is unaffected by whatever might come to pass. All I can say is that I am very glad to represent a "cathode solar model", even if they *HATE* the fact I will forever call it a "Birkeland solar model", with or without a "solid surface". I'm sure Birkeland and his team would adapt to what they see, but I believe that the sun is in fact a "cathode in space". Stay tuned for the results. :)
Click to expand...

I first started to follow this thread out of idle curiosity. I don't really know enough physics to thoroughly understand the standard solar model, but I have had a lifelong passion for science (including extensive reading) and a fairly good mathematics background, which has enabled me to be pretty good at evaluating scientific evidence -- as a layman -- and in a general sense. Because of this thread, I have come to understand a little bit more about how solar physics is done.
Now, you say that you don't understand thermodynamics, yet you pretend to have your very own personal solar model that contradicts the last hundred years of real science? Does that really make any sense to you?
It would be like someone who says he doesn't understand mathematics, but he knows that there are only a finite number of primes and when you show him the well known proof attributed to Euclid, he dismisses it and says he doesn't understand it. He argues for many hours over many weeks about his theory about the primes and then says, "ah, but maybe I will study more math some day, so I can show the world that I am right." What could you possibly say to such an idiot?
I am sorry to say that you are a certified crackpot, just like my fictitious friend who ignorantly contests the infinitude of the primes. It is amazing that so many knowledgeable people here have spent so may hours in vain trying to educate you, when you clearly have no capacity to learn. This is really so sad!
 
Perpetual Student said:
Because of this thread, I have come to understand a little bit more about how solar physics is done.
Click to expand...

If by "done" you mean in gross violation of the laws of physics, no regard for observation, and without respect to empirical experimentation, that's not exactly "comforting". When iron and helium stay mixed in a EM and gravitation field as large as the sun, that will be the day that pigs fly. Sorry PS, but how it's "done" simply violates all the laws of physics, starting with a complete disregard for the mass flow patterns through the photosphere.
 
Michael Mozina said:
If by "done" you mean in gross violation of the laws of physics, no regard for observation, and without respect to empirical experimentation, that's not exactly "comforting". When iron and helium stay mixed in a EM and gravitation field as large as the sun, that will be the day that pigs fly. Sorry PS, but how it's "done" simply violates all the laws of physics, starting with a complete disregard for the mass flow patterns through the photosphere.
Click to expand...

(OK, I'm back ...)

Sorry, Michael, the standard solar model (which you admit to not knowing) and the laws of thermodynamics (which you admit to not knowing) predict that the Sun isn't mass-fractionate. In a nutshell, fractionation can happen only by diffusion (which is slow; do you know how slow? Every undergrad astronomer has done this calculation) but is erased by thermal diffusion AND by convection. The Sun would take biillions of years to fractionate---and only partially at that---if there were no convection at all. Does this calculation "ignore physics"? Do textbooks have the diffusion constants wrong? Can you go through the standard solar model in Hansen & Kawaler and tell me on what page they make what mistake?

No you can't. You guess that it is wrong.
 
Michael Mozina said:
If by "done" you mean in gross violation of the laws of physics, no regard for observation, and without respect to empirical experimentation, that's not exactly "comforting". When iron and helium stay mixed in a EM and gravitation field as large as the sun, that will be the day that pigs fly. Sorry PS, but how it's "done" simply violates all the laws of physics, starting with a complete disregard for the mass flow patterns through the photosphere.
Click to expand...

What rubbish! You are the one who admitted that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THERMODYNAMICS. Consequently, your statements have no meaning, no basis, no science; they are the nothing more than vacuous blather, hot air and noise!
 
Thanks to PS, I can quote two most interesting posts by MM (bold added).
Michael Mozina said:
I think I need to backup here and explain something to you for a second. A "cathode solar model" does not and never has depended upon a "solid surface". I'm not even emotionally attached to there even being an actual "solid" surface. I'm only attached to their being a more "rigid" surface under the surface of the photosphere. If the thermodynamics don't happen to work out correctly to support a solid surface, so be it. I'm willing to adapt and be open to new ideas. Their side is the side that "fears change", not me. I'm actually more emotionally attached to a "cathode solar model" than I am attached to a "solid surface solar model".

All I can say is that when I personally look at all the images the "best" way I can explain them is with an actual solid crust. I could end up being wrong about that, and that is why I "capitulated" on the term "solid" and went with "rigid". I'm flexible. Their side is not flexible. Even *IF* all of those wavelengths happened to have been calibrated, in the final analysis, it's really no skin off my nose. I'm willing to adapt. They are not. We'll have to see how things turn out, but I am personally not afraid to adapt to what I find in the SDO images, even *IF* that happens to lead me eventually back to the SSM. I seriously doubt that will ever happen. I think it's much more likely I"ll have to "settle" on a "rigid surface" and be happy with an electrically active, plasma layered solar model. Whatever eventually happens, it's really not a big issue to me one way or the other. My livelihood is unaffected by whatever might come to pass. All I can say is that I am very glad to represent a "cathode solar model", even if they *HATE* the fact I will forever call it a "Birkeland solar model", with or without a "solid surface". I'm sure Birkeland and his team would adapt to what they see, but I believe that the sun is in fact a "cathode in space". Stay tuned for the results.
Click to expand...
and
Michael Mozina said:
If by "done" you mean in gross violation of the laws of physics, no regard for observation, and without respect to empirical experimentation, that's not exactly "comforting". When iron and helium stay mixed in a EM and gravitation field as large as the sun, that will be the day that pigs fly. Sorry PS, but how it's "done" simply violates all the laws of physics, starting with a complete disregard for the mass flow patterns through the photosphere.
Click to expand...
Now true to form, MM has not said what this "cathode solar model" is, but earlier in the thread he referenced it (and in other JREF threads put more meat on the bare less-than-a-dozen-or-so-words full description).

To remind readers: in this so-called model, the Sun is powered by a giant inter-stellar (or inter-galactic) current, with a voltage drop of ~10^10 volts somewhere between heliopause (or heliosheath) and photosphere, and the charge carrier being electrons (flowing into the Sun).

This "model" violates at least one law of physics - conservation of energy, or conservation of charge, perhaps both (see Tom Bridgman, for example; note that there are some minor errors).

Ironic, then, to read of MM's concerns about "gross violation of the laws of physics, no regard for observation, and without respect to empirical experimentation"! :p
 
Last edited:
Catching up again, I see that:

a) You're still busily looking at limb images without having thought about the geometry. You still don't know the difference between looking at a cross-section-slice and looking along a limb. I gave you the world's easiest-to-use diagram and you ignored it entirely. Amazing.

b) You're still busily interpreting limb images as though "3000 km (actually 80,000km) of transparent Si/Ne plasma" was a sensible option---and you dropped any pretense of being interested in whether this is physically possible. Unbelievable.

c) You've still devoted exactly zero attention, in 30 pages, to the most basic known-for-400-years facts about the Sun: that its visible light spectrum is that of a 6000K blackbody with atomic and molecular absorption lines. Bizarre.

d) You went from "I've won, the SDO green stripe proves it" to "the data is confusing because I don't know how to scale and overlay wavelengths" to "forget about the raw data, the only thing that matters is difference images"---and you did so without a hint of awareness or contrition. Would it kill you to say "sorry I was so abusive to everyone who disputed my initial SDO interpretation, I learned something and I want to do it better next time"? Shameless.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Except of course when you claim a sunspot occurs? Give it up. You can't judge the physics of an electrical solar theory based on SSM specifications!
Click to expand...

You still don't get it. The thermodynamic impossibility of your model has nothing to do with the standard solar model. And sunspots aren't relevant. They don't violate thermodynamics.

It would require a more dense plasma flowing in persistent patterns, and of course the persistence of those patterns beg the question about what creates that persistence.
Click to expand...

You're inventing things which you have no evidence for, and which would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It could be a more "rigid", more dense plasma.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... sounds like you're backtracking.

You guys/gals "hate" the whole EU concept with such a passion, it really doesn't matter what I propose as long as it includes "current flow". You'll never consider it.
Click to expand...

Except that the standard model includes current flow. As for "EU concept", well, there is no EU concept, not in any coherent manner. The model you have previously proposed was absolute nonsense. You seem to be backing off from that now, so it's not even clear what the hell you're actually claiming anymore.
 
Reality Check said:
Hi Skwinty: A FITS file contains the actual scientific data. It is what astronomers actually use to analyze images rather than MM's "I see bunnies in pretty pictures" non-science.

The reason that there is no FITS file available for the SDO publicity images is simple: There is no actual released scientific data.
These publicity images were created from raw, first light data sent from SDO.

Real scientific data is due mid-May
Click to expand...


Thanks RC.

IIRC I am aware of what a FITS file is, just trying to ascertain if Michael does. The main purpose of the FITS format is to ensure that any astronomer world wide can open the image regardless of which CCD camera was used to take the picture. The Header,and tailer of the FITS file will give additional data wrt telescope, camera, FOV and general comments about the image such as date time etc. The raw image data comprises of the CCD pixel values with no adjustment or compression.

These data will not add any credence to Michaels notions;)
 
Michael Mozina said:
So dude, be "flexible". Be willing to think outside your own box *and mine*. You really need to go back to Skwinty's analogy. It's more appropriate than you realize IMO. I'm simply trying to get you to think outside of your own box. I'm not trying to sell you any particular new one. If anything, I'm only suggesting you try an "electrical" box. :) That's it.
Click to expand...
So dude, I am flexible. I am willing to think outside my own box *and yours *. An electrical box would be applicable if it had any basis in fact.

But the EU box is a trap for delusional souls as in the Electric universe theories here thread.

This has nothing to do with your defaming of Birkeland's good name by essentially labeling Kristian Birkeland as having no knowledge of physics, e.g. the simple thermodynamics that make an iron crust impossible.
Michael Mozina said:
I'm really not emotionally attached to the whole "solid" concept, so get over it.
Click to expand...
I know.
Your iron "crust" is a fantasy*, so get over it.

* 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 absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
phunk said:
False dichotomy. You seem to be saying that they are either aligned and scaled right and you can use them as-is, or they aren't and neither you nor NASA can use them. You're ignoring the option that they are not aligned and scaled properly but NASA knows how to adjust them and you don't because you haven't asked.
Click to expand...

NASA does use them, "Lets us make a photo that is visually appealing and rather interesting."
:D
 
dasmiller said:
So, for you, does limb darkening mean that the limb is darker than the corona, or that the limb is darker than the apparent center of the sun's disk, or is it simply the ragged edge of the photosphere? Or is it something else?
Click to expand...

It is kind of like a farmer's tan or a driver's tan.
 
Michael Mozina said:
without respect to empirical experimentation
Click to expand...

You do love going on about "empirical", don't you. Yet not a single thing you have done has ever come close to actually being empirical. When Sol Invictus tried getting you to actually come up with something that could be tested in a lab, you just waffled for a bit, then degenerated into abuse and ignoring when it became clear that it was impossible for your nonsensical claims to ever be possible in such a setting. It is painfully obvious to everyone watching that "empirical" is just another of those words of which you have absolutely no clue of the meaning. It would be incredibly sad if it wasn't quite so hilarious to watch you flail about the place.

DeiRenDopa said:
when I called his use of key terms idiosyncratic ... and then kept right on being idiosyncratic! :D
Click to expand...

You appear to have six extra letters in the middle of that word.
 
ben m said:
(OK, I'm back ...)

Sorry, Michael, the standard solar model (which you admit to not knowing) and the laws of thermodynamics (which you admit to not knowing) predict that the Sun isn't mass-fractionate. In a nutshell, fractionation can happen only by diffusion (which is slow; do you know how slow? Every undergrad astronomer has done this calculation) but is erased by thermal diffusion AND by convection. The Sun would take biillions of years to fractionate---and only partially at that---if there were no convection at all. Does this calculation "ignore physics"? Do textbooks have the diffusion constants wrong? Can you go through the standard solar model in Hansen & Kawaler and tell me on what page they make what mistake?

No you can't. You guess that it is wrong.
Click to expand...

Just to add to this, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong, but the standard solar model does have some mass seperation, but nothing like the clearly defined layers MM wants to believe in. There do tend to be heavier elements towards the core. However, that's a tendency...it's not like a centrifuge. That's because there's a constant, 24-hour a day, 7-day a week, 52-week-per-year, etc, etc, constant fusion bomb going off in the sun.

As one might expect, this makes for an exteremely efficient mixer (word of warning, do NOT try this to make margaritas at parties!).

Just as an add-on, the surface of that fusion explosion is what we refer to as the photosphere...MM claims to see through the surface of a nuclear blast fireball.

For a table listing the composition see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/suncomp.html. Another good, low-level site is http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/s2.htm.

(Just as an aside, the page at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/sun.html has good info too, including a nice picture of the actual surface of the photosphere).

Anyway, just wanted to throguh that out there to cut off MM's strawman. Heseems to claim that the SSM thinks the sun is all one big soup, with the same composition from the chromosphere to the core. Of course, as he's repeatedly claimed (nay, even bragged about), one doesn't have to understand anything about a theory to proclaim it wrong (or right, as he knows little about his own theory, as well).
 
Cuddles said:
You do love going on about "empirical", don't you. Yet not a single thing you have done has ever come close to actually being empirical. When Sol Invictus tried getting you to actually come up with something that could be tested in a lab, you just waffled for a bit, then degenerated into abuse and ignoring when it became clear that it was impossible for your nonsensical claims to ever be possible in such a setting. It is painfully obvious to everyone watching that "empirical" is just another of those words of which you have absolutely no clue of the meaning. It would be incredibly sad if it wasn't quite so hilarious to watch you flail about the place.
Click to expand...


So the terms Michael uses, the definitions of which he clearly does not understand include, but are not limited to:

  • photosphere
  • chromosphere
  • opaque
  • limb darkening
  • idiosyncratic
  • empirical
We know if of Michael's arguments contain any of these terms, we can accept them as meaningless gibberish, because although lord knows how hard we've tried to help him understand this stuff, it has been a near futile effort.

Michael, try to narrow your arguments to eliminate the use of those words and phrases if you would. And as we find more terms which you don't understand, we can add them to the list and you can cease using them. It will make this whole communication thing much better for everyone if we prune the parts of your arguments that are causing confusion.
 
ben m said:
(OK, I'm back ...)
Click to expand...

FYI, I'm glad you're back. It was not my intention to alienate you to begin with.

Sorry, Michael, the standard solar model (which you admit to not knowing) and the laws of thermodynamics (which you admit to not knowing) predict that the Sun isn't mass-fractionate.
Click to expand...

Ya, but then Manuel's "observation" of mass fractionation was completely ignored.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510001

You folks also have a way of putting words in my mouth. I said I did not know how to apply the laws of thermodynamics property to this solar model at the moment. I did not say I didn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. That's typical of how my words get twisted like a pretzel around here.

In a nutshell, fractionation can happen only by diffusion (which is slow; do you know how slow? Every undergrad astronomer has done this calculation) but is erased by thermal diffusion AND by convection. The Sun would take biillions of years to fractionate---and only partially at that---if there were no convection at all. Does this calculation "ignore physics"? Do textbooks have the diffusion constants wrong? Can you go through the standard solar model in Hansen & Kawaler and tell me on what page they make what mistake?

No you can't. You guess that it is wrong.
Click to expand...

No, I *KNOW* that it's wrong because you and those authors never bothered to include any "current flow" in your model. You can't and won't explain the solar wind behaviors without it.
 
Perpetual Student said:
What rubbish! You are the one who admitted that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THERMODYNAMICS.
Click to expand...

No, I said I do not know how to properly apply thermodynamics to this solar model. Do you see the distinction between those two sentences?

, your statements have no meaning, no basis, no science; they are the nothing more than vacuous blather, hot air and noise!
Click to expand...

When hydrogen and iron stay mixed that that type of environment, that's the day that pigs will fly PS. The "blather" is the notion that all the elements stay mixed. They can't stay mixed in such a strong EM and gravitational field. That's never going to happen! The "hot air" is that opacity claim and I'm sure that one way or another SDO will lay waste to that claim. There's enough resolution in that system to ensure that we can thoroughly test every solar model, and that opacity claim is bogus. Sooner or later, one of the wavelengths will allow me to demonstrate that point. It's probably going to be iron. I might be that Carbon filter. It could be the 1700A filter for all I know. What I do know PS is that the SSM is based on notions that violate the laws of physics, they ignore the implications of current flow in their models, and they ignore the role of current flow in space. They have such a nasty aversion to all things EU oriented that they refuse to consider any sort of 'cathode in space' solar model in spite of the fact that it's the one way that is *KNOWN* to produce high speed solar wind. About all I can say PS is that the laws of physics are on my side. Their model ignores the mass flow patterns I showed you in Hinode images. It ignores the effects of those discharge loops on the photosphere as I've shown you in white light images, and it ignores about every law of physics on the books.

Thermodynamically their model stinks to high heaven! They have a million degree corona sitting on top of a 6000 degree surface. Don't even think about lecturing me about thermodynamic problems with this solar model. The SSM doesn't have a leg to stand on because it refuses to acknowledge the role of electricity in space.
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
This "model" violates at least one law of physics - conservation of energy, or conservation of charge, perhaps both
Click to expand...

Where do you get that idea? The is no violation of anything. There is simply kinetic energy being turned into electrical current by means of induction, electrical current released by fission/fusion processes and neutron decay processes. How is that a violation of conservation of energy?
 
Last edited:
Hellbound said:
Just to add to this, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong, but the standard solar model does have some mass seperation, but nothing like the clearly defined layers MM wants to believe in. There do tend to be heavier elements towards the core. However, that's a tendency...it's not like a centrifuge. That's because there's a constant, 24-hour a day, 7-day a week, 52-week-per-year, etc, etc, constant fusion bomb going off in the sun.

As one might expect, this makes for an exteremely efficient mixer (word of warning, do NOT try this to make margaritas at parties!).
Click to expand...

I do think you're wrong. For starters, the Sun is only convecting in the outer 30% or so of its radius. The inner part---where the fusion is happening---is thermally stratified, stable, and does not mix very well. The only evidence I'm aware of for mass fractionation is the (very recent) work of Asplund et. al. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ASPC..336...25A) which seems to point towards a factor of 2 metallicity difference between the convective and radiative zones.

Other stars CAN show large fractionations, but the causes vary. White dwarf stars have strong enough gravity to flat-out overpower diffusion. (They also may have---fanfare please---internal electrostatic fields! See, MM, we deal with electrostatics when the physics tells us to. We're not biased against it.) Giant stars are always forming heavy elements starting at the center, and they do this faster than they the new elements can mix by diffusion, so giants end up "fractionated" by construction---not by settling.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Where do you get that idea? The is no violation of anything. There is simply kinetic energy being turned into electrical current by means of induction, electrical current released by fission/fusion processes and neutron decay processes. How is that a violation of conservation of energy?
Click to expand...

1) Electrical current is not "released" by nuclear processes. Decay processes release particles with large randomly-directed kinetic energies---also known as "heat". The conversion of current to heat is easy (just conservation of energy); the conversion of heat to current is inviolably constrained by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which you have ignored.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, I said I do not know how to properly apply thermodynamics to this solar model. Do you see the distinction between those two sentences?

When hydrogen and iron stay mixed that that type of environment, that's the day that pigs will fly PS.
Click to expand...
:pigsfly

You don't see the contradiction between (1) saying you don't know how to apply thermodynamics to the standard model and (2) making bold assertions that contradict the laws of thermodynamics as applied to the standard model.

ETA: Come to think of it, I don't see a contradiction there either.
;)

Michael Mozina said:
Thermodynamically their model stinks to high heaven! They have a million degree corona sitting on top of a 6000 degree surface. Don't even think about lecturing me about thermodynamic problems with this solar model. The SSM doesn't have a leg to stand on because it refuses to acknowledge the role of electricity in space.
Click to expand...
As explained just a few posts above, there is no thermodynamic problem here. Since the sun's magnetic field is a suspected cause of the coronaWP's high temperature, it's hard to argue that the standard solar model "refuses to acknowledge the role of electricity in space".
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
When hydrogen and iron stay mixed that that type of environment, that's the day that pigs will fly PS. The "blather" is the notion that all the elements stay mixed. They can't stay mixed in such a strong EM and gravitational field. That's never going to happen!
Click to expand...

Without the math, this is simply an argument from incredulity. If you have the computations showing that the sun's fractionation should be rapid and would overwhelm the diffusion (and convection!) effects, then show them. If there are errors in the standard fractionation calculations to which Ben M referred, then show us the errors. But to insist that fractionation of the sun's upper layers is too fast for the SSM without giving any data about how fast that fractionation should be, or why it should be that fast, or what errors there are in the traditional SSM fractionation calculations is . . . well, futile.

Particularly since you've embraced the SERTS data, which showed thoroughly mixed metals far above the photosphere.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
When hydrogen and iron stay mixed that that type of environment, that's the day that pigs will fly PS. The "blather" is the notion that all the elements stay mixed. They can't stay mixed in such a strong EM and gravitational field. That's never going to happen!
Click to expand...

Sure it is. Seriously, Michael, elements DO in principle want to partially "unmix" in the Sun. We teach this to undergrads. We also teach them how to calculate how fast it would happen---the answer is that it would take many longer than the Sun's lifetime for gravitational settling to "win" over diffusion in the absence of convection. In the presence of convection, settling never wins at all.

And---EM fields? EM fields don't sort elements by mass; at best, even in a calutron, they sort atoms by charge-to-mass ratio, and the Sun is not a calutron. Given your complete indifference to ionization (i.e. charge) states, and to your inability to understand the vector aspect of EM fields: you're making that up entirely. I can't even construct a crackpot-level mental picture where this works; you must just be throwing the word in there hoping it will turn out to make a difference.

Again, this is all in Hansen & Kawaler, or the stellar structure book of your choice. In the literature, the world expert on diffusion and element separation is Sylvie Vauclair at Toulouse. Are you going to guess that the mainstream model gets diffusion wrong------or are you going to crack open a book or a paper and point out the mistake?
 
ben m said:
I do think you're wrong. For starters, the Sun is only convecting in the outer 30% or so of its radius. The inner part---where the fusion is happening---is thermally stratified, stable, and does not mix very well. The only evidence I'm aware of for mass fractionation is the (very recent) work of Asplund et. al. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ASPC..336...25A) which seems to point towards a factor of 2 metallicity difference between the convective and radiative zones.

Other stars CAN show large fractionations, but the causes vary. White dwarf stars have strong enough gravity to flat-out overpower diffusion. (They also may have---fanfare please---internal electrostatic fields! See, MM, we deal with electrostatics when the physics tells us to. We're not biased against it.) Giant stars are always forming heavy elements starting at the center, and they do this faster than they the new elements can mix by diffusion, so giants end up "fractionated" by construction---not by settling.
Click to expand...

Well, incomplete ;) I was trying to keep it simple, and simplified perhaps a bit too much (which was why I linked some webpages that went over it in more detail). And I had intended to cover the creation of heavy elements being a big cause, but somehow forgot.

IN any case, thanks for the clarification and expansion :D I love you guys!

*giggle*
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, I'm glad you're back. It was not my intention to alienate you to begin with.
Click to expand...

Hey, you know what would make me feel more charitable? DRAW A DIAGRAM OF THE LIMB GEOMETRY OF YOUR MODEL.

You folks also have a way of putting words in my mouth. I said I did not know how to apply the laws of thermodynamics property to this solar model at the moment. I did not say I didn't understand the laws of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...

There's no trick to "applying" the laws of thermodynamics to your model. Your model has a cold shell entirely surrounded by (and in close thermal contact with) a thick ultrahot shell (made of unobtanium for the moment---who cares?). It doesn't take a genius to figure out what thermodynamics says about that, Michael. It says the cold shell heats up. You say you want to keep it cool by pumping energy out? Great, that's generically a heat engine. Write down the heat engine equation, show us the hot bath and the cold bath temperature and DO THE MATH. Have you done that at some point in the past five years? No?
 
ben m said:
Sure it is. Seriously, Michael, elements DO in principle want to partially "unmix" in the Sun.
Click to expand...

Partially? How exactly do you figure an EM field and gravity well of *that magnitude* aren't going to COMPLETELY unmix the iron from the hydrogen? You point to a bit of convection on the surface of an *INCREDIBLY* light surface and claim that process is going to keep them mixed together in spite of the sun's strong magnetic fields? Gravity alone would cause the lead to separate from the hydrogen. That whole concept about all the elements staying properly mixed together is your "oversimplification" that makes all the other mathematical constructs possible. The moment that one tiny "assumption" is removed from your theory, the whole thing mass separates.

What you teach to your undergrads is not what I published in those papers that I was involved in. It's based on your own flawed notions.

I now understand a lot more about the Achilles heel of the SSM. It's just a matter of figuring out the best way to demonstrate that the layer you claim to be "opaque" is "transparent" to a much greater depth than you realize. Once that is accomplished, everything else will work itself out. I'm comfortable from those first light images that SDO will have that resolution capability. There may not be a solid surface down there, but there certainly is a mass separation process going on, as well as a discharge process between the sun and the heliosphere. Sooner or later that "truth" will prevail and your mathematical oversimplifications will be seen for what they are. I'm not sure exactly when that's going to happen, but with SDO, that time is certainly close IMO.

Ben, this is an electric universe. That sun does act as a "cathode" and interacts with the heliosphere anode. Sooner or later you folks will figure that out. Once you do, things will get easier for me. At the moment, it's really like living in the "dark ages" of this field of science. Literally anything and everything you can't figure out via empirical physics, you folks chalk up to "dark" stuff. It's sad IMO ben, very sad. Sooner or later that will begin to change, and IMO that time is now. SDO represents a unique opportunity to test every facet of the SSM, and it's not going to pass the observational test IMO.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom