Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
Actually, the peak was *way* above the Ne+4 energy state. By the time we get to the +2 energy state there's almost no neon emissions.
Click to expand...

By the time we got down to +2, the emissions were about 2 orders of magnitude lower. That's still billions of times more Ne+2 than your transparent Ne layer allows.

I'd love to see an NE+3 or +4 image of the sun. I suspect it would look exactly as I predicted, and not as you predict. In other words I would predict that the entire surface of the photosphere is "lit up" in those wavelengths, whereas your theory would suggest that the activity was limited to the coronal loops. One visual test would falsify one of our models. ;)
Click to expand...

"My" theory isn't that detailed; I'm not a solar physicist. Ne should be present (at relatively low concentrations) throughout the sun, so I'd expect to see Ne lines from the photosphere. I don't know enough about how the ionization states relate to temperature to have an opinion about whether we'd see much Ne+3 from the photosphere vs. the corona. You'd have to ask one of the others.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Actually, the peak was *way* above the Ne+4 energy state. By the time we get to the +2 energy state there's almost no neon emissions. The silicon tends to work much the same way by the way. I'd love to see an NE+3 or +4 image of the sun. I suspect it would look exactly as I predicted, and not as you predict. In other words I would predict that the entire surface of the photosphere is "lit up" in those wavelengths, whereas your theory would suggest that the activity was limited to the coronal loops. One visual test would falsify one of our models. ;)
Click to expand...

Michael? The reason SERTS does not see much Ne+2 is that SERTS is an extreme ultraviolet telescope. Ne+2 doesn't emit (much) in the EUV, so it is invisible to SERTS. In fact, Neon is very hard to see in the photosphere for good atomic-physics reasons---the photosphere at 6000K is too cold to ionize it, remember? It's also too cold to excite it.

Meanwhile, optical spectroscopy of the Sun---the type of spectroscopy which is actually sensitive to low ionization states---sees lots of Fe I, Fe II, Ca I, Ca II, O2, OH, H2O, CO2. Exactly the sorts of ionization states you expect to see in a 6000K plasma with no weirdness. (a list is ftp://ftp.noao.edu/fts/linelist/Moore)

Why is there so much Ca II on the Sun, Michael? Surely your magic "ionize 99.9999% of everything to +4 or more" beams would be hitting this also? But they're not, because there is no such beam.
 
Last edited:
ben m said:
Meanwhile, optical spectroscopy of the Sun---the type of spectroscopy which is actually sensitive to low ionization states---sees lots of Fe I, Fe II, Ca I, Ca II, O2, OH, H2O, CO2. Exactly the sorts of ionization states you expect to see in a 6000K plasma with no weirdness. (a list is ftp://ftp.noao.edu/fts/linelist/Moore)
Click to expand...

Thanks Ben, I have been looking for that impressive list:)
 
nescafe said:
You have me confused with your own strawmen. I carefully avoided making any claims about what dark energy is beyond a placeholder for whatever is accelerating the expansion of the Universe and I flat out stated that dark energy has nothing to do with solar wind acceleration. Your assumptions otherwise are not justified by everything else in this thread so far.
Click to expand...

We are getting way off topic now, but...

You may indeed have carefully avoided the mainstream pitfalls, but in their desire to quantify everything they observe, they have indeed made claims about the abundance figures of "dark energy", "dark matter" and normal baryonic materials. None of those percentages can be justified via empirical physics, nor can your claim that "dark energy' has any effect on unbound systems be verified in any empirical way here on Earth. It's just one of those claims that one either "accepts on faith" or they don't. I'm a "show me" sort of individual.

My point was if it doesn't interact with gravitationally bound systems, then there's no real justification for stuffing it into GR in the first place. You're simply taking a single condition and stuffing gaps of that one condition full of invisible friends that you cannot empirically justify.
 
One of the instruments on SDO is the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager, HMI for short.

What does the HMI do?

"HMI makes measurements of the motion of the solar photosphere to study solar oscillations and measurements of the polarization in a specific spectral line to study all three components of the photospheric magnetic field."

And what does this data help us to work out?

"It also produces data to enable estimates of the coronal magnetic field"

And how does HMI acquire the empirical (observational) data?

"The HMI instrument design and observing strategy are based on the highly successful MDI instrument, with several important improvements. HMI will observe the full solar disk in the Fe I absorption line at 6173Å with a resolution of 1 arc-second. HMI consists of a refracting telescope, a polarization selector, an image stabilization system, a narrow band tunable filter and two 4096 pixel CCD cameras with mechanical shutters and control electronics. The continuous data rate is 55Mbits/s."

In some more detail:

"HMI will provide the first full-disk continuous observations of solar magnetic fields in all orientations. Prior measurements (e.g. MDI) measured only the component of the field along the line of sight to the observer.The new measurements should improve our understanding of the 3-D structure of the evolving field.We can only measure the fields in the layer of the atmosphere where most all of the light originates (photosphere) and we can then compute estimates of the field in the upper atmosphere where AIA observes the effects of the fields."

And there's this, tantalizing, statement:

"Examples of science data products from SOHO/MDI. Improved versions of these can be made with HMI observations:"

And what's on that list? I'll choose just four:

"E. MHD model of the magnetic structure of the corona.

F. Synoptic map of the subsurface flows at a depth of 7 Mm

G. SOHO/EIT image and magnetic field lines computed from the photospheric field.

I. Vector field image showing the magnetic connectivity in sunspots."

Now as MM knows extremely well, being a keen student of Hannes Alfvén, once you know B and v (which the SDO HMI data products will provide), you can work out E and j!

Or, in simple terms, SDO will provide the raw data from which robust estimates of mass flows, ion mass flows, and current flows can be derived.

(Source for the above. If anyone's interested in published papers describing how things like MDH models can be built - complete with upside-down-triangly thingies, drunken letter d's, and so on - just ask, and I'll provide you with some references).
 
dasmiller said:
Ne should be present (at relatively low concentrations) throughout the sun, so I'd expect to see Ne lines from the photosphere.
Click to expand...

ben m said:
In fact, Neon is very hard to see in the photosphere for good atomic-physics reasons---the photosphere at 6000K is too cold to ionize it, remember?
Click to expand...

Okay, so maybe not ;)
 
DeiRenDopa said:
One of the instruments on SDO is the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager, HMI for short.
Click to expand...

That would be the next generation tool that brought us this image:

tsunami1.JPG


http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi

I don't think it's going to help your case.
 
Michael Mozina said:
My point was if it doesn't interact with gravitationally bound systems, then there's no real justification for stuffing it into GR in the first place. You're simply taking a single condition and stuffing gaps of that one condition full of invisible friends that you cannot empirically justify.
Click to expand...

Hey, GeeMack, add GR to the list.
 
Here comes a fun part.

Given MM's oft stated (does that qualify as an understatement?) interest in "current flows", does it seem somewhat strange to any reader that he never (AFAICS) mentioned the existing capabilities of SOHO/MDI?

Perhaps even more strange, given his statements concerning how SDO will destroy the standard solar model, not once has he referred to HMI and the data products it is expected to produce?

I mean, trying to infer the existence of current flows from running difference AIA image movies is surely an exercise in futility, isn't it? Yet, as you can plainly see from the selection of MM material in my earlier post (and many other posts), it is precisely the absence of any bounds on the current flows - from direct observation - that MM says is hindering his ability to crush the SSM with his math!

A horrible, completely uncharitable, thought has popped into my head ... maybe MM never mentioned any of this because it requires an understanding of the math bunnies in Alfvén's Nobel Prize winning work on MHD (you know, those upside-down-triangly thingies, etc)? Or, worse, because Birkeland didn't say how you can get E and j if you know B and v, therefore it can't be done? Or, worstest of all, you can't work out current flows by visual inspection of images?!?
 
FYI, keep in mind that there there are at least three types of mass flows related to this solar model, the ion flows, the flows of solids, and most importantly the flow of electron mass.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's just one of those claims that one either "accepts on faith" or they don't.
Click to expand...
You really don't understand how science works at all, do you? "Accepting on faith" has nothing to do with it, "accepting provisionally" until a better explanation comes along is more like it.

Michael Mozina said:
I'm a "show me" sort of individual.
Click to expand...
How ironic. Every single aspect of your solar model has been demolished by people far more knowlegable than you or I, and you still cling to your fantasy of being a hardheaded empiricist.

Michael Mozina said:
My point was if it doesn't interact with gravitationally bound systems, then there's no real justification for stuffing it into GR in the first place. You're simply taking a single condition and stuffing gaps of that one condition full of invisible friends that you cannot empirically justify.
Click to expand...
Emperically, the Universe is expanding. Emperically, the rate at which it is expanding is increasing. It is a really bizzare observation, but has been verified enough times to be beyond reasonable doubt. General Relativity is the mathematical framework we use to describe how the Universe works at large scales -- if it cannot model the bizzare (but verified) observation that the expansion of the Universe is accellerating, then it is broken. Therefore, we modify our framework to have the capability to explain our observations. This is how science works.

Moreover, General Relativity does not just model gravitationally bound systems -- if that is all it did, it would be useless for most of cosmology.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Given MM's oft stated (does that qualify as an understatement?) interest in "current flows", does it seem somewhat strange to any reader that he never (AFAICS) mentioned the existing capabilities of SOHO/MDI?
Click to expand...

You mean except for that tsunami image and the 4800 figure I've been using for years now?
 
nescafe said:
Moreover, General Relativity does not just model gravitationally bound systems
Click to expand...

Neither is Newtonian gravity. The theory for bound and unbound systems is exactly the same.

Yet another example of Michael's stunning ignorance of basic physics.
 
nescafe said:
You really don't understand how science works at all, do you? "Accepting on faith" has nothing to do with it, "accepting provisionally" until a better explanation comes along is more like it.
Click to expand...

IMO the term "I don't know" is a "better" scientific answer. It sure beats hearing statements like "70+ of the universe is made of "dark energy" which has no effect on gravitationally bound systems.". You folks made up the 70% figure, and the whole concept it doesn't interact with gravitationally bound systems. You can't demonstrate either point empirically, it's something I have to "take on faith".

Emperically, the Universe is expanding. Emperically, the rate at which it is expanding is increasing.
Click to expand...

Empirically, none of those things are in any way related to:

A) dead inflation genies
B) evil dark energies
C) magic stuff.
 
Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:
Given MM's oft stated (does that qualify as an understatement?) interest in "current flows", does it seem somewhat strange to any reader that he never (AFAICS) mentioned the existing capabilities of SOHO/MDI?
Click to expand...
You mean except for that tsunami image and the 4800 figure I've been using for years now?
Click to expand...
Um, er, ... and you have used this image to produce bounded estimates of "current flows" where, exactly?

Shall I quote your posts on the central importance of ""cathode" solar models" to you, and the lesser importance of "rigid" or "solid" surfaces or layers?

If you have known about the capabilities of SOHO/MDI "for years now", how come you've never said a word about how you - using Alfvén's MHD - can *prove* Birkeland right, by producing quantitative estimates of the current flows, and showing that they match Birkeland's "predictions"?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Empirically, none of those things are in any way related to:

A) dead inflation genies
B) evil dark energies
C) magic stuff.
Click to expand...

And none of that is relevant to the topic of this thread, which is the sun. This is just a desperate attempt by you to change the topic, since your solar "model" is failing so spectacularly.
 
ben m said:
Michael? The reason SERTS does not see much Ne+2 is that SERTS is an extreme ultraviolet telescope. Ne+2 doesn't emit (much) in the EUV, so it is invisible to SERTS. In fact, Neon is very hard to see in the photosphere for good atomic-physics reasons---the photosphere at 6000K is too cold to ionize it, remember? It's also too cold to excite it.
Click to expand...

Here is what I don't get about you ben. You see all those various ionization states of neon, oxygen, silicon, etc, at all different temperatures. The temperature of the photosphere is way too cold to produce them, and you ignore the one force of nature that can produce them and does produce those temperature states here on Earth and in the lab. I just don't get it. You guys are *so* unwilling to entertain the concept of a "solar discharge" that you will literally wallow around in pseudoscience for years. Birkleland's work is not only lost of you folks, it's *intentionally* lost of you folks because you simply don't want to hear it. The "easiest" and "simplest" way is simply ignored in favor of pseudoscientific math bunny nonsense that doesn't even get you in the ballpark of actually empirically duplicating Birkeland's work. It's sad IMO, just sad. The whole thing is driven by blind bigotry toward all things "electric" in space.
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, keep in mind that there there are at least three types of mass flows related to this solar model, the ion flows, the flows of solids, and most importantly the flow of electron mass.
Click to expand...
And where, exactly, did Birkeland make explicit these three?

Where did he predict what they are, on (and in) the Sun?

And how do these three map onto "mass flow(s)" and "current flow(s)"?

Finally, what is "the flow of electron mass"?
 
Ziggurat said:
And none of that is relevant to the topic of this thread, which is the sun. This is just a desperate attempt by you to change the topic, since your solar "model" is failing so spectacularly.
Click to expand...

Actually your "dark energy" could be directly related. It's only claim to fame seems to be the properly of "acceleration". You can't explain that "acceleration" of solar wind in the SSM. How do you know that one "acceleration' is related to "dark energy" and one is not? Is that because you *MADE UP* the idea that DE doesn't interact with gravitationally bound systems perhaps?

DE and this topic are in fact physically related. You can't explain *ANY* form of acceleration because you refuse to accept the one logical alternative.
 
ben m said:
Meanwhile, optical spectroscopy of the Sun---the type of spectroscopy which is actually sensitive to low ionization states---sees lots of Fe I, Fe II, Ca I, Ca II, O2, OH, H2O, CO2. Exactly the sorts of ionization states you expect to see in a 6000K plasma with no weirdness. (a list is ftp://ftp.noao.edu/fts/linelist/Moore)

Why is there so much Ca II on the Sun, Michael? Surely your magic "ionize 99.9999% of everything to +4 or more" beams would be hitting this also? But they're not, because there is no such beam.
Click to expand...

Let me add, in case it's not obvious: this is the third or fourth time I've brought up these non-Mozplasma-compatible species. MM ignored it all previous times. I think he's not actually very interested in Mozplasma---he wants to assume it's right, not think about it too hard, and get back to looking at pictures of "mountains".

The chemicals are a nice anti-Mozplasma fact all by themselves, but more importantly they're part and parcel with the "6000K blackbody" thing, the "visible light limb darkening" thing, and the "hydrostatic equilbrium" thing. The photosphere isn't something we casually and vaguely assumed was made of 6000K hydrogen. Rather, the photosphere has all of the properties of 6000K hydrogen. It's got the right blackbody spectrum and intensity, the right absorption lines from the right ionization states of the right atoms and molecules; it's got the right limb darkening from the right vertical temperature profile obeying the right hydrostatic/radiative/convective behavior given the Sun's gravity. Every level of detail that you ask for from the photosphere, the answer is always "it looks like a normal 6000K mostly-hydrogen plasma."
 
Somehow, I'm reminded of something...
ARTHUR: You fight with the strength of many men, Sir knight.
I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
[pause]
I seek the finest and the bravest knights in the land to join me
in my Court of Camelot.
[pause]
You have proved yourself worthy; will you join me?
[pause]
You make me sad. So be it. Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: None shall pass.
ARTHUR: What?
BLACK KNIGHT: None shall pass.
ARTHUR: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir knight, but I must
cross this bridge.
BLACK KNIGHT: Then you shall die.
ARTHUR: I command you as King of the Britons to stand aside!
BLACK KNIGHT: I move for no man.
ARTHUR: So be it!
[hah]
[parry thrust]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's left arm off]
ARTHUR: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT: 'Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR: A scratch? Your arm's off!
BLACK KNIGHT: No, it isn't.
ARTHUR: Well, what's that then?
BLACK KNIGHT: I've had worse.
ARTHUR: You liar!
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on you pansy!
[hah]
[parry thrust]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right arm off]
ARTHUR: Victory is mine!
[kneeling]
We thank thee Lord, that in thy merc-
[hah]
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on then.
ARTHUR: What?
BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you!
ARTHUR: You are indeed brave, Sir knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I have.
ARTHUR: Look!
BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.
[bang]
ARTHUR: Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken! Chicken!
ARTHUR: Look, I'll have your leg. Right!
[whop]
BLACK KNIGHT: Right, I'll do you for that!
ARTHUR: You'll what?
BLACK KNIGHT: Come 'ere!
ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a loony.
BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs!
Have at you! Come on then.
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's other leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: All right; we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow
bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you.
I'll bite your legs off!
Click to expand...

:D
 
ben m said:
Let me add, in case it's not obvious: this is the third or fourth time I've brought up these non-Mozplasma-compatible species. MM ignored it all previous times. I think he's not actually very interested in Mozplasma---he wants to assume it's right, not think about it too hard, and get back to looking at pictures of "mountains".
Click to expand...

Actually, I gave sol all the SSM elemental numbers to play with and assumed a 6000K ion temp. How did I ignore anything?

The chemicals are a nice anti-Mozplasma fact all by themselves, but more importantly they're part and parcel with the "6000K blackbody" thing, the "visible light limb darkening" thing, and the "hydrostatic equilbrium" thing. The photosphere isn't something we casually and vaguely assumed was made of 6000K hydrogen. Rather, the photosphere has all of the properties of 6000K hydrogen.
Click to expand...

The sun itself has that property, not necessarily the first 500Km ben. Those million degree coronal loops don't fit that temperature pattern either. You simply "oversimplify" the issue to make it mathematically easier to quantify.
 
Hellbound said:
Somehow, I'm reminded of something...


:D
Click to expand...

I loved that part! Monty Python rocks. :) That whole thing reminds me of you guy and your solar wind problem. You can't figure it out, but somehow you've already ruled out the one force of nature that has been shown to deliver the goods in an empirical test of concept.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Here is what I don't get about you ben. You see all those various ionization states of neon, oxygen, silicon, etc, at all different temperatures. The temperature of the photosphere is way too cold to produce them, and you ignore the one force of nature that can produce them and does produce those temperature states here on Earth and in the lab.
Click to expand...

What am I ignoring? I see a thick 6000K photosphere with all of the species I expect in a 6000K photosphere. You can tell it's thick by the absorption lines; you can tell it's 6000K by the spectrum.

I also see a very thin (you can tell it's thin by the emission lines and the limb brightening) ultrahot plasma called the "corona". It has all of the ionized species, intensities, etc., that you expect of a thin ultrahot plasma. Everyone agrees it's hot up there. (You, Michael, have one crazy idea about how it's heated; everyone disagrees, but that's a different topic.)

What am I ignoring? "current"? (No I'm not, but that's a different topic.) Who cares if there's current? Electric current, even if it were there, could not drive the photosphere far out of equilibrium and still allow it to look like it does.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Um, er, ... and you have used this image to produce bounded estimates of "current flows" where, exactly?
Click to expand...

No, I've used that image to demonstrate "rigid features" under the surface of the photosphere. For years you've simply ignored them. Do you think they will simply go away in higher resolution?

I'd work with the solar wind number to attempt to refine any of Birkeland's numbers, not the HMI images. Then again, maybe I need to check that out. Hmm.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Actually, I gave sol all the SSM elemental numbers to play with and assumed a 6000K ion temp. How did I ignore anything?
Click to expand...

Aha! A 6000K ion temperature, you say? Good, because the photosphere is in ion-electron equilibrium. You can tell because (a) it only takes a microsecond to equilibrate at these densities and (b) the observed ionization distribution of the H, He, Fe, Ca, Mg, CO, CO2, etc., shows that the electron temperature is also 6000K. No surprise, of course. The conditions you just described are not Mozplasma, they're the normal mainstream photosphere.
 
 
Michael Mozina said:
The sun itself has that property, not necessarily the first 500Km ben. Those million degree coronal loops don't fit that temperature pattern either. You simply "oversimplify" the issue to make it mathematically easier to quantify.
Click to expand...

I just described the million-degree coronal loops, Michael. They're an ultrahot, thin plasma that's high above the dense, cool plasma. Read the post again.

The existence of Ca X (or whatever) in coronal loops does not give you license to pretend that there's NOT Ca I and Ca II in the photosphere.
 
ben m said:
What am I ignoring? I see a thick 6000K photosphere with all of the species I expect in a 6000K photosphere. You can tell it's thick by the absorption lines; you can tell it's 6000K by the spectrum.
Click to expand...

You see a whole sun, you see a shiny surface and you see million degree plasma sticking out out it! You *assume* it all relates to one surface (-500km) and coronal loop activity. I do not make that assumption.

I also see a very thin (you can tell it's thin by the emission lines and the limb brightening) ultrahot plasma called the "corona".
Click to expand...

That "hot corona" is another "prediction" of Birkeland's models. He imaged one and everything. Did you ever read that one link with the sputtering reference. It also showed his corona. Let's see you duplicate that in a lab with "pseudosientific" magnetic reconnection.

It has all of the ionized species, intensities, etc., that you expect of a thin ultrahot plasma. Everyone agrees it's hot up there. (You, Michael, have one crazy idea about how it's heated; everyone disagrees, but that's a different topic.)
Click to expand...

We disagree about why it gets hot Ben. I think it gets hot due to the "Current flow" going through it. You seem to think it's a "big mystery". It was no "mystery" to Birkeland and his team, they actually filmed one.
 
Hellbound said:
Hey, GeeMack, add GR to the list.
Click to expand...


Indeed. And I'll add "dark matter" and "dark energy" as they are also terms which Michael clearly doesn't understand.

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

  • atmosphere
  • blackbody
  • cathode
  • chromosphere
  • current flow
  • dark energy
  • dark matter
  • electric universe
  • empirical
  • general relativity
  • gravity
  • idiosyncratic
  • limb darkening
  • model
  • nuclear chemistry
  • opaque
  • photosphere
  • rigid
  • running difference
  • solar model
  • sputtering
  • theory
If Michael's arguments contain any of these words or phrases, we can accept the arguments as meaningless gibberish because he has demonstrated that he doesn't have the qualifications to understand them.​
 
GeeMack said:
Indeed. And I'll add "dark matter" and "dark energy" as they are also terms which Michael clearly doesn't understand.
Click to expand...

You better add your personal definition of "civil" to that list too, since your definition of that word seems to come from another planet.
 
Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:
Um, er, ... and you have used this image to produce bounded estimates of "current flows" where, exactly?
Click to expand...
No, I've used that image to demonstrate "rigid features" under the surface of the photosphere.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the confirmation.

Has ""rigid features" under the surface of the photosphere" been of secondary importance to your ""cathode" solar model" all these years too?
 
ben m said:
I just described the million-degree coronal loops, Michael. They're an ultrahot, thin plasma that's high above the dense, cool plasma. Read the post again.

The existence of Ca X (or whatever) in coronal loops does not give you license to pretend that there's NOT Ca I and Ca II in the photosphere.
Click to expand...

Whereas it's evidently fine to ignore all those CA/H images I posted for you that show massive mass flows up and through that layer? It's ok that you simply ignored that plasma filament shooting down the center of that "transparent' area in the middle of the sunspot that you claim is "opaque"? You guys simple ignore the visual evidence entirely ben!
 
Michael Mozina said:
IMO the term "I don't know" is a "better" scientific answer.
Click to expand...


So run down Reality Check's list of 70+ questions and answer, "I don't know," to those which you can't answer. That is unless you consider ignorance an even better scientific approach than acknowledging that you don't know. :p

I predict this will be met with Michael's typical ignorance.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You see a whole sun, you see a shiny surface and you see million degree plasma sticking out out it! You *assume* it all relates to one surface (-500km) and coronal loop activity. I do not make that assumption.
Click to expand...

I don't assume anything. This is all observed very cleanly. Do we need to start over, Michael? From the very beginning? Let's go. Pay attention this time.

What does it tell YOU that the Sun's visible-light spectrum shows absorption lines, not emission lines? Do you know what all of those words mean? Please look them up in a reliable, late-20th-century source.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Thanks for the confirmation.

Has ""rigid features" under the surface of the photosphere" been of secondary importance to your ""cathode" solar model" all these years too?
Click to expand...

The cathode part is really a given. That's what makes the solar wind work DRD. Since you *REFUSE* to accept "current flow" in any form, it's still a great "mystery" to you, even though Birkeland "predicted" it 100 years ago. He simulated it too. You've yet to reproduce a single of his experiments with "magnetic reconnection" and you never will because that is pure "pseudoscience" according to the author the the MHD theory that you're kludging all to hell in an effort to avoid that dreaded "electricity'' word.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom