Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
As asked before, how does the towing by the electrons counteract the repulsion on the positive ions?
How do the electrons compensate for the mass of the positive ions?
Electric universe theories here.
- Thread starter Zeuzzz
- Start date
- Status
As asked before, how does the towing by the electrons counteract the repulsion on the positive ions?
How do the electrons compensate for the mass of the positive ions?
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
The answer to the "angular persistent patterns in the image" is simple. It's a result of the process of creating a running difference image that makes patterns which, if incorrectly understood, might appear to be actual things. But it's an optical illusion. There are no things in a running difference image. It isn't a picture in the conventional sense. You don't know what you're talking about, Michael. Dr. Neal Hurlburt says you're wrong.
Then give it a go, Michael. Show some courage. How deep are the depressions? How high are the mountains? What instruments can see that far into the photosphere? And how about you offer some evidence? Do the math. Show your work. Link your scientific references. You see, so far we have the entire body of professional astrophysicists on Earth, including Dr. Hurlburt from LMSAL, disagreeing with you. And supporting your harebrained claim? You and you alone over there bawling like a kid. Explain away, pal.
Anyone watching the image with an open mind? That would be you, Michael? You alone? Dr. Hurlburt from LMSAL, the guy who heads the project that acquires and analyzes these images is wrong and you're right? He doesn't wonder why they appear rigid. And neither does anyone else here reading this thread. And nobody who read any of the other threads where you regurgitated this nonsense on other forums wonders either. The explanation is simple. Everyone gets it except you. And you have never once ventured to explain the image in detail? And do you wonder why people think you're not sane?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I guess in your little cult you can't damn me to hell, or call me "evil" like a normal religious cult so the best you can come up with is to smear the individual based on name calling. I guess the term "crackpot" is the ultimate insult you folks can come up with. How pathetic. I 'm sure that Chapman's followers called Birkeland a "crackpot"" too. Give me a break. Do you really think that anyone buys this nonsense, especially when they watch the whole group of you avoid and deny every single specific detail observed in the images? Flying stuff? What flying stuff?
I can admit when I'm wrong when it can be demonstrated that I am wrong. Since you have not addressed any of the key specific observations of that image, how would I possibly know if I was wrong?
Bull. That's your routine not mine. You're the one *assuming* a specific solar model is correct without ever bothering to explain any detail observed in the image. These specific images changed my opinions on this topic, and if you actually put any effort into actually "explaining' them, it might change your opinions too. Since none of you have ever dealt with a single actual detail from the image, it's you that are working backwards from your own personal opinion, you are not basing your decision on the observations.
Huh? You ask for evidence and then you turn right around and ignore the images? Those images came from an incredibly complex set of math formulas related to the movement of ions through the solar atmosphere and the movement of photons through the solar atmosphere. Why would you ignore the observations we spend millions of dollars and many man years to collect?
What about Kosovichev's papers? What about that stratification subsurface sitting right in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone? Who "predicted" such a thing prior to Kosovichev's paper?
What *exactly* will convince you if you reject both math and observation?
Kosovichev can and did. How about that math?
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/557/1/384/53591.text.html
Why do all the mass flows go horizontal at a specific depth?
I also understand that not one of you has addressed any of details of any of the images. So what? If you run around going "I can't see those persistent structures" and flying things in the atmosphere, all I'm going to notice is that you are in pure denial and your position is based upon pure and complete denial.
Persistence in the middle of CME event is quite amazing considering your claiming this whole area is made up of material that is significantly less than the density of Earth's atmosphere at sea level. Why would persistent patterns remain in the middle of a CME event?
There isn't any "catching up" to do. You guys dreamed up a bunch of metaphysical friends that are shy around the lab since then, but in terms of actual laboratory physics, you guys could not hold a candle to Birkeland and his team. You suck. You're lazy, arrogant and beyond even second guessing your own ridiculous dogma. You've dreamed up three or four forms of invisible friends via math since his day. Whoop-de-dooo.
Birkeland knew the value of *EXPERIMENTATION* and *CONTROL MECHANISMS* so that he could isolate the physical *CAUSE AND EFFECT* processes in his experiments. The *CAUSE* of the solar wind, and the cause of coronal loops is identified in his work and physically demonstrated in his work. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection" and everything to do with "electricity".
But even though you can't explain the image, you're convinced I'm a crackpot? How did you even come to that conclusion if you can't demonstrate that I am wrong or offer me a better explanation?
Well, if you're talking about Kosovichev's video, you're off to a good start. You'll need to explain and deal with some of the events in the image however.
Of course it occurred to me, and I also see turbulence from interactions with plasma in the photosphere. That layer of the sun is clearly not "rigid" as Kosovichev's wave demonstrates. The part I circled under the wave however is much more rigid, and has a much greater lifetime than the structures of the photosphere that come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals.
You'd have to explain the images in detail to call me out as a scientist. You can't avoid the details in the image, hurl insults my way, and expect me to take you seriously.
First of all they aren't "my" methods, they are Birkeland's methods and they have been fully demonstrated to work in a lab. Your "methods" are non existent. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? Give me a break.
I've done plenty of work, a hell of a lot more than all of you put together in fact. Have any of you even bothered to look at the original 171A images? I doubt it.
No, it's a bald faced lie evidenced from the fact that none of you have addressed any of the key details in either image.
Birkeland already "proved" something. You don't know the difference between a math "proof" and an empirical experiment. Chapman had great math "proofs". They were just a gross oversimplification in the final analysis and yet your beloved mainstream called Birkeland a crackpot for decades because the like Chapman's math. You guys are easily led astray by math formulas. It's like your fatal seduction. You don't even care if you can actually "explain" (as in experimental evidence) the physical processes going on, all you care about is the math.
Who? Which *specific detail* are you referring to?
I've only chosen to ignore "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" since I can see the flying stuff in all the images, even the original images. What else can I do with such stupid and ridiculous statements?
What is "empty" is your "explanation" of the "observed details" in these images. Not a single one of you has yet to tackle anything that occured in the CME in terms of cause and effect based on anything observed in either the original or RD images of this event. It's only an "empty" victory from m perspective because you have nothing whatsoever to offer.
More personal smear tactics like any good cult. You can't call me "evil" or "tricked by the devil", so the best your dogmatic cult can come up with is "crackpot", "troll" and "crazy". Yawn. How pathetic. None of you have addressed the images. All of you (except Tim) resort to childish name calling because you have nothing of scientific value to offer.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Bzzt! That is another absolutely and completely false statement that clearly demonstrates that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Which specific line of code in a running difference math routine generates these persistent features?
Evidently you irrationally believe that a single appeal to authority fallacy is supposed to convince me. It won't. Since you put so much faith in Dr. Hurlburt's professional abilities to explain this image in detail, how about you convince him to participate in the discussion and to explain every *SPECIFIC* detail that he can explain in these images? If he doesn't wish to participate directly, perhaps he can explain them to you so you can explain them to us? I seriously doubt he's going to say "Flying stuff? What flying stuff"?
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Pfft. This coming from the guy that can't and won't address a *SINGLE SPECIFIC DETAIL* in the image. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?". You coward!
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
You think you're the expert on running difference images, Michael? Suppose you do a couple of things here. Suppose you actually explain the image you're ranting about. After all, it's no secret that I've been asking you to do just that for several postings now, yet somehow you seem to completely miss that part of my postings. We call that willful ignorance. And you're full of it.
How about if you think Dr. Hurlburt and I are both wrong, you explain the image. You haven't. And frankly it looks like you can't. But give it a go, chum. And how about you bring in your own expert. Maybe get someone who is in charge of a satellite imaging project for a major scientific research organization. You know, like I did. And you have that person say Dr. Hurlburt, the guy in charge of developing the TRACE project, acquiring the data from the satellite, and analyzing that data, you have your expert tell us all that he's wrong and you're right.
Oh, and how about you give us your detailed analysis, Michael. You know, the one you've never given, detailed, scientific, quantitative, evidenced, and referenced. You know, that explanation that in all your whimpering and whining you seem to have completely neglected to offer.
You're an ignorant crackpot, Michael. You want an explanation? Go ahead. It's your turn. Start simple. How deep are the valleys? High high are the mountains? What objective method can we use to verify that you're correct?
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
Atmospheric Profile Inversion Techniques
So ...
It's all standard and long standing stuff in the remote sensing business. The procedure has long since been verified by comparison with in-situ profile measurements in Earth's atmosphere.
I did not say that density was irrelevant. I said that "thinness", which is not a well defined word, was irrelevant. Now that you have used a real word we can address real issues. Density is not irrelevant. However, it is also not the primary determinate of whether or not a plasma (or anything else actually) will or will not radiate as a black body. As I said before ...
Density is one of the elements that determine optical depth, but not the only element. There are a lot of things that go into determining the optical depth of anything a-priori, or from theory. Optical depth is more likely to depend on the wavelength of the radiation than it is on the density of the plasma. However, in this case they are also all irrelevant.
Actually it's not all that hard to do in principle, but does take a good deal of work. It all depends on the assumption of local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE). Since we can look at the photosphere and see that its emission is a super-position of single temperature black bodies, we know at once that the assumption of LTE is necessarily valid, since it is the only condition which allows black body radiation to occur. And that also means that knowing the chemical and particle constituents of the atmosphere are unnecessary luxuries, since black body emission is always independent of these things.
So ...
Easy. You use the standard inversion techniques that have been around since the 1950's to invert limb remote sensing (or astronomical) data and retrieve atmospheric profiles. As I said before, there is a brief description of the technique on Foukal's Solar Astrophysics, starting on page 147. You need to measure the limb darkening profile and the disk center to limb brightness ratios. The description in Foukal's book is abbreviated, but you can find all the gory details in any number of relevant text books, i.e., Introduction to the Physics and Techniques of Remote Sensing (Charles Elachi, John Wiley & Sons, 1987), Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis (Goody & Yung, Oxford University Press, 1989, 2nd edition) or An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation (K.N. Liou, Academic Press, 2002, 2nd edition).
It's all standard and long standing stuff in the remote sensing business. The procedure has long since been verified by comparison with in-situ profile measurements in Earth's atmosphere.
You think you could provides for me some sources that support your presentation of "Birkeland was right and Chapman was wrong". I'd certainly love to see something that support scientists considering Birkeland a crackpot (or an equivalent term of the day).
Somehow, I get the notion that you are way over exaggerating what really happened. I've read some history on it and I have a different understanding.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
This is why you have zero credibility Michael Mozina.
Everyone knows that CME is flying stuff (and dropping stuff and heating stuff and light emitting stuff ...).
Everyone but you can figure out that there is no "flying stuff" in the RD images because the RD images are not pictures taken by a camera. They are computer generated representations of changes between images. In this case the "flying stuff" can be identified as the CME by looking at the original images.
If someone was silly enough to look at the the RD movie alone (who could that idiotic
?) then the "flying stuff" could just as easily be static material that is changing intensity, e.g. by either changing temperature ("heating stuff") or getting closer to the detector ("rising stuff"). Thus that person when analysing the RD movie will have to say the images in that region is one or more of:- "flying stuff"
- "heating stuff"
- "rising stuff"
Only a complete idiot would ask people to analyse the RD movie alone and expect a answer to what the "stuff" is.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Zhao and Kosovichev's paper is Investigation of Mass Flows beneath a Sunspot by Time-Distance Helioseismology and you have obviously just looked at the pretty pictures and not read tha abstarct or conclusion:
A time-distance helioseismic technique is employed to analyze a set of high-resolution Dopplergram observations of a large sunspot by SOHO/MDI on 1998 June 18. A regularized, damped least-squares inversion is applied to the measurements of travel times to infer mass flows around the sunspot below the solar surface. Powerful converging and downward directed flows are detected at depths of 1.55 Mm, which may provide observational evidence for the downdrafts and vortex flows that were suggested by Parker for a cluster model of sunspots. Strong outflows extending more than 30 Mm are found below the downward and converging flows. It is suggested that the sunspot might be a relatively shallow phenomenon, with a depth of 5
6 Mm, as defined by its thermal and hydrodynamic properties. A strong mass flow across the sunspot is found at depths of 912 Mm, which may provide more evidence in support of the cluster model, as opposed to the monolithic sunspot model. We suggest that a new magnetic emergence that was found 5 hr after our analysis period is related to this mass flow.
In both of the graphs in Figure 3, powerful converging and downward flows are found from 1.5 to5 Mm beneath the surface. Meyer et al. (1974) predicted the existence of the converging flow (
1 km s-1, at a depth of several Mm) as a collar around the sunspot, to provide it with confinement and stability.
As for a "stratification subsurface" - you might see one, I do not.
I see what the paper states: thermal columns flattening out and descending again as they approach the photosphere with its sunspot. There is a "strong mass flow across the sunspot" where the thermal columns flatten out.
You have been in contact with Alexander G. Kosovichev before when he said that you were wrong about the angular stuctures in the Doppler images.
Why don't you ask him about the "stratification subsurface"?
In a limited sense you are correct. There is stratification below the sunspot but it is about twice as wide as the sunspot (before upward and downward flows terminate it). In addition it is probably caused by the sunspot and so your "stratification subsurface" vanishes when the sunspot vanishes.
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,296
I hate to disappoint you, but this is SO against electrodynamics that it is laughable. Please show that you can indeed have the electrons pull along the ions, in all its gory detail, showing that you can reproduce all the characteristics of the solar wind as we measure them with satellites.
CME events have NOTHING to do with the solar wind. These are just "explosions" throwing out a whole big blob of plasma and magnetic field, which propagates on its own through interplanetary space.
"The plasma acts as a conductor for electrons"???? What are you talking about, sheesh, do you think the plasma is a copper wire or what? Do you think that electrons cannot travel by themselves through space? Well, that would have brought Birkie a lot of trouble if that were the case.
and they are ionized in the electron stream in the case of coronal loops. Who the frak is "they" in this sentence? The CME, the plasma, the electrons? Michael Mozina you are starting to make less and less sense as this thread goes on (and I though that was not even possible). Please do yourself a favour and stop posting, you are only embarrasing yourself.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Compared to you guys? Absolutely! You're going to make me look like a superhero at this rate.
I have to believe that there are in fact "experts" at NASA and LMSAL that can actually analyze these image and come up with more than: "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?". If this is the very best that astronomy has to offer in terms of solar satellite image analysis, no wonder you folks are hopelessly confused. Hoy Vey.
I'm going to give at least "partial" credit to RC for correctly identifying the primary light source of the original images, specifically the coronal loops. It is only partial credit however because none of you actually explained what coronal loops are, what heats them to millions (sometimes tens of millions) of degrees Kelvin over the visible length of the loop, what sustains them for hours at a time, where they originate, etc.
You personally however lose *serious* credibility as it relates to RD images by inaccurately claiming that the persistent features in RD images are in any way related to the RD imaging technique. That is easily debunked by looking at any standard RD image from LASCO, preferably the C-2 images. You will not find any persistent angular features in any of these RD images of the sun's outer atmosphere. As long as everything remains in motion, we will not find static angular patterns in the moving waves of material. If you cannot provide a line number and an example of the *SPECIFIC* (I will personally check it) line of code in the RD technique that creates any "patterns' by itself, I will have to assume you are absolutely clueless about the RD imaging technique. This issue is absolutely critical and if you blew this part, there is no way in hell you could analyze anything in a RD image. Not everyone here made that claim, so that only relates to you personally by the way, not necessarily anyone else. RC's kicking your backside at RD image analysis, and that's not saying much.
I'd really like to hear you folks explain what a coronal loop is, what heats it to millions of degrees so we can observe it in the 171A wavelength, what sustains it over hours at a time, etc? If we are ever going "professionally" analyze these images, we will have to correctly identify the light source in the *ORIGINAL* 171A images from which the RD image is built, and correctly explain why these light sources are there.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
You're nitpicking verbiage here a bit aren't you? There is a physical effect of absorption and scattering that is related to the density, temperature and elemental composition of the medium, as well as the specific wavelength of light, correct?
A solid (say carbon) is far more apt to radiate as a "black body" than a light plasma. What (preferably a physical experiment) makes you believe that a very light, mostly hydrogen and helium plasma is going to radiate like a "black body"? How would such an explanation shed any light (if any) on the 171A wavelengths we observe? Isn't the energy release of a sun a lot more complex than a simple "black body" process?
From my online conversations, it seems that most of the mainstreams beliefs about the photosphere are related to "theory", not from actual physical experimentation. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.
In either circumstance, even such an explanation really does doesn't "predict" the higher energy processes we observe on the sun, and evidently these processes are also important because there is a relationship between sunspot activity (an 171A activity) and sea temperatures on Earth.
How would you suggest we even begin to calculate the "optical depth" of the 171A wavelength without *assuming* a ton of things that are not a given?
That s a gross oversimplification since it doesn't explain corona loops. It doesn't take into consideration that the corona radiates at millions of degrees rather than thousands of degrees. It doesn't address the chromosphere's emissions which radiate at closer to 20,000K. What are you actually achieving here by attempting to claim that any atmospheric layer is a "black body"? How was this idea physically verified in active experimentation?
All of this is evidently *assumed* because there is no way you will convince me that elemental composition will not directly effect this process. They are not unnecessary luxuries IMO and that is where you're missing some key observations IMO. While the photosphere's emissions peak in the visible spectrum, that wavelength is directly related to it's elemental composition IMO, not its temperature. That seems to be a key difference between our points of view here. You seem to assume all the elements would stay mixed together (evidently thereby allowing for a greater range of emissions to occur), whereas I would say that I "observe" elemental separation in sunspot images.
Every time I hear you folks use that term I cringe. Usually the process in question is not nearly as "easy" or "simple" as you folks seem to believe. When your industry says "easy', it typically means you've oversimplified the process to the point of absurdity.
Thank you. As always, you are a wealth of useful information. I'll have to read a bit more on some of these techniques before I comment on them.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
This coming from the guy that promotes "magnetic reconnection" theory? Please. Magnetic fields form as a whole continuum. They don't exist individually (we can think of them that way for mathematical purposes of course) so they can't "disconnnect' or "reconnect" to other magnetic lines. They lack physical substance. They cannot "disconnect" or "reconnect" in any physical sense.
More importantly, nature already generates lots of x-rays and gamma-rays here on Earth in good old fashion "electrical discharges". Birkeland created "electrical discharges" that look identical to the ones we observe in the solar atmosphere. He created "solar wind" composed of many elements as well as electrons. If you had read his work you would not need to ask me the following question:
Please explain why Birkeland "predicted" that there would be more than "electrons" flying off the sun. Once you find out his answer, you won't need me to hold your hand anymore and you'll realize that this specific phenomenon was a legitimate scientific "prediction" that came directly from his experiments and was not "predicted" before he began the experiments. In other words, it was something he LEARNED during his ACTIVE EXPERIMENTATION. You folks forgot how to conduct physical experiments or how to isolate things at the level of physics. For instance, what is *PHYSICALLY UNIQUE* about the energy releases from "magnetic reconnection" that are physically distinct and shown to be physically different from "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection" in plasma? What is the exact physical energy release mechanism that can't otherwise be explained by particle interactions in current carrying plasma, combined with induction, that requires us to dream up a whole new term "magnetic reconnection"?
Last edited:
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Interesting. Dr. Hurlburt from LMSAL, the guy who was responsible for making that image said you're wrong. Reality Check said you're wrong. He said there is no picture of terrain in a running difference image. He actually seems to be in virtually complete agreement with my assessment of the details of the image. Everyone else who ever participated in these crazy trolling sessions with you has agreed with my explanation, too. Maybe I'm just a vastly superior communicator, eh? Maybe I'm wrong but I'm so good at persuading people that they buy my line? Maybe you're right but your communication skills are crap and you simply have no ability to explain things in a way that people understand?
Oddly enough, in all these year of you displaying your ignorance, if there ever has been anyone who buys into your fruitcake crackpottery, not one single person has been willing to step up and publicly agree that you're seeing a solid surface. What's wrong? Are they too embarrassed at the thought of looking like as much of a loser as you? Or are there no such people?
And still you haven't explained one single tiny detail of the running difference image. You've stomped your feet and hollered that you see a surface. When asked to give some details you stomp your feet more and holler louder. Honestly, Michael, (and I know I'm going out on a limb asking a proven liar like you to be honest), do you think that's how real scientists make progress?
How about these things you've been intentionally ignoring. How high are the mountains in the running difference image? How deep are the valleys? And what objective, quantitative method do you use to determine this? Or will you simply acknowledge that you don't know how high, or how deep, and that there isn't an objective method for coming up with answers to these?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
You aren't denying this fact as it relates to aurora I assume?
Is space an empty vacuum, or does it have "flying electrons and flying electric ions" as predicted by Birkeland and his team?
Every single time you are calling me a crackpot, you're calling Birkeland a crackpot. All I'm doing is using *HIS SOLAR MODEL* to explain solar satellite images and heliosiesmology data. The solar solar model on my website is his (their) solar model, right down to the energy source. If I'm a crackpot, then Birkeland and everyone on his team was also a "crackpot".
I get the notion that your whole industry needs to take a fresh look at his work and specific his solar model, particularly in light of these modern satellite images. While Galileo's solar model may have been useful during it's time, it doesn't jive with modern satellite observations of the solar atmosphere. Birkeland's solar model not only "predicts" those million degree loops, it predicts the jets, the solar wind, all the key observations we observe in modern satellite images, including those rigid angular patterns under the photosphere.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Let's hear him explain the details of this image then. If I'm wrong, his full explanation should demonstrate that claim conclusively. A simple yes or no question however isn't going to tell us anything useful about the specific processes we observe in that image. I'm equally sure he disagrees with you about "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" Invite him over here, or get his explanations related to the details of this image, and post it for us. I'd like to hear him confirm your claim that a "running difference" (not a running average) image *TECHNIQUE* is necessarily going to create "rigid patterns" in this image.
Saying I'm wrong is easy. Any child can do that. Explaining this image in terms of cause and effect relationships and how that relates to details in the image takes a lot more scientific skill. To his credit at least he hasn't been a complete putz like you and put his foot in his mouth already.
I'm waiting to hear him explain what a coronal loop is and we'll continue our conversation. So far he hasn't touched any of the specific details in the image, or specified any cause/effect relationships as they relate to the specific observations in that image. He is however off to a better start than you. You suck.
I've already explained these images in the past and I will explain them here in *DETAIL* here as well. I would however like to give your collective little group an opportunity to provide your own "explanations" of the details of the image *before* I go for it. I'd really like to see if any of you have a clue what you're looking at. So far it's clear to me that you do not have any clue at all, whereas RC is at least on the right track as it relates to the existence of "flying stuff" and the light source of the original images.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
MM, so what is the ratio of electrons to positive ions in the solar wind?
Is it high enough to create the flow of the solar wind in your model? I am assuming that for every proton (H+ ion) there would have to be more than 1038 electrons, and quadruple that for the alpha particles.
And you still have to factor in overcoming the repulsive force of the positive ion, right?
So does the observed ratio of electrons to positive ions match what your theory predicts?
Iteration I
Is it high enough to create the flow of the solar wind in your model? I am assuming that for every proton (H+ ion) there would have to be more than 1038 electrons, and quadruple that for the alpha particles.
And you still have to factor in overcoming the repulsive force of the positive ion, right?
So does the observed ratio of electrons to positive ions match what your theory predicts?
Iteration I
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
It's not Dr. Hurlburt's claim, Michael. It's yours. And so far you haven't been able to explain the image. He did, however, already say that what you believe to be a surface in the image, isn't a surface at all. That particular issue was put to rest over three years ago.
It actually only takes a rudimentary understanding of what a running difference image is. And you're the only person in this discussion who doesn't have that understanding.
I'm waiting for you to explain why everyone agrees with me and nobody agrees with you. I think it's that I'm very, very good at persuading while you're just very, very bad at explaining, eh?
How high are the mountains? How deep are the valleys? And what objective, quantitative method do you use to determine that? If you can't offer a method that other people can apply independently to other such images, and come to the same conclusion as you, then your interpretation of the image is scientifically useless.
You have yet to demonstrate, objectively and quantitatively, that anyone can see anything deeper than about 500 kilometers into the photosphere. Describe the method you think will work. Because without that method, a method other people can apply and come to the same conclusion as you, then your method is scientifically useless.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The primary light sources are obvious to everyone - the corona in general and the coronal loops.
For these images we do not need to know "what coronal loops are, what heats them to millions (sometimes tens of millions) of degrees Kelvin over the visible length of the loop, what sustains them for hours at a time, where they originate, etc". They exist, they have temeratures of millions of K ove rmost of their length, they ares ustained, they originate. There are answers to some of thess irrelevant (to the image question). You know that since you tout the NASA animation about coronal loops quite a bit.
However these are just a smokescreen to hide your delusions about the TRACE RD movie.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
What do you mean when you say "the corona in general"? Do you mean as in Thompson scattering, or do you mean the coronal plasma is thermally heated by the coronal loops? Both? Please elaborate on this point a bit. I will agree that the the coronal loops are the primary light source of the original images. The corona in general as you describe it is "relatively" dark. It's also a plasma meaning light from the loops will scatter as it interacts with the solar plasma.
You have to have some idea of the original light source to be able to describe cause and effect relationships, and to describe the physical processes that create these images. Electrical discharges in nature are known to release these sorts of emissions. Birkeland's experiments "predicted" them to exist in the solar atmosphere.
Again, discharges in plasma tend to heat plasma to millions of degrees. Sustained discharges can forms as "plasma filaments" like we see inside of an ordinary plasma ball. They emit light over the whole filament due to the electrical current running through the plasma. We certainly see plenty of evidence that these high energy emissions are directly related to the discharges predicted in Birkeland's physical experiments.
That's quite an enigma for a "magnetic reconnection" proponents. It's one thing to release energy as a "burst" at plasma a crossing point. It's quite another trick to release energy over the whole course of the plasma thread, and sustain it for hours! Nice trick wouldn't you say?
Oh, we will definitely have to have some idea about where they originate in order to explain even the original images properly, let alone the RD images.
These are not "answers" in terms of "cause and effect" relationships. Whereas Birkeland demonstrated a physical cause/effect relationship between "current flow" and coronal loops in the atmospheres of terellas in a vacuum, you are not "explaining" even the light source of the original images. That isn't an "explanation", that like "skipping ahead".
The only "delusion" going on here is that you are "explaining' anything by simply taking everything for granted in the original images. In other words, you identified no cause/effect relationships as to why these emissions are there, how they are sustained, etc. You simply *assume* they are there and provide no insight as to how they got there, how they stay there, how they change over time, etc. How then can you analyze an image that provides us images that "change over time" and that show areas that do not change over time? Without identifying the "cause" of the loops, you also fail to identify the "cause" of the changes in the images.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
My guess is that would depend on where we measured it. In other words, I would expect that some of the protons pick up electrons from the solar wind, and become neutral hydrogen atoms along the way. Maybe electrons that leave the surface after a proton catch up to slower moving protons in the wind.
The charge attraction process allows us to "explain" why solar wind is composed mostly of H+1, He+2 and He+1 ions in that specific order. The lighter the element and the greater the charge, the more attracted it is to the electrons flying off the surface and the more it accelerates over time. Heavier particles are more affected by gravity than the lighter elements so there is an elemental separation process that takes place, probably far below the photosphere.
Well, in Birkeland's experiments he found pieces of the terella stuck to the grease on the sides of his chamber. He had to periodically clean the sides of his chamber. I would assume that yes, the "current flow" would have to be sufficient to pull the protons along for the ride, but many of the electrons may eventually 'reconnect' with protons in the solar wind.
That's probably true closest to the surface of the sun. That's evidently not the case by the time it reaches Earth. Some "reconnection" must be occurring in the process, and some protons pick up electrons along the way. I believe there was an article about this occurring in a comet tail resulting in a decrease in the solar wind speed in the tail. I'll see if I can find the article.
I think you might find it advantageous to think of the heavier protons and ions as "conductors", much like we find in an ordinary plasma ball. The electrons flow through the plasma ions as well as cause them to move and form filamentary shapes. The same is true of the sun. The flow of electrons sometimes form "ropes" which can connect to the Earth and pump huge amounts of energy into the Earth, including both electrons and protons.
I have a lot more studying to do before I could "predict" things that fit all the observations with enough accuracy for me to feel any level of comfort. I understand the basic principles just fine, but the dynamic nature of solar wind for instance is very difficult to predict. I'm learning how to do that, but I've only recently been studying the ACE data on a regular basis. The best "numbers" I could provide you at the moment would be from the THEMIS program where they watched a magnetic rope (described by Alfven as a current carrying z-pinched plasma thread) connect to the Earth and pump five hundred thousand billion joules of energy into the Earth over a few hours.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
You're the one that claimed "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" Let's seem him back you up on that claim? Let's see him backup you claim that the RD technique itself is responsible for persistent features in the image? You claimed you had a better "explanation" for the image. Where is it? So far you explained nothing specific about these specific images, you've made several false statements, and none of you have "explained" any physical cause/effect relationships observed in either the original or RD images.
I'm sure the author of the image could provide us with a few details, and few cause/effect explanations related to this specific image and the CME event we observe in the images. Let's hear it?
I haven't really tried to "explain" anything yet, at least not here. I'm simply trying to see what you folks can come up with based on standard solar theory. So far it's really sad. Nothing specific to the image has been "explained" in any way.
This is simply an irrational premise on your part, as though a single appeal to authority fallacy would somehow "put the issue to rest". That won't cut it. If he has actual physical "explanations" to offer us for these persistent features, let's hear it? Your personal claim that it was directly related to the imaging technique was utterly false, so I'll need a better "answer".
You don't even have a rudimentary level of understanding of RD images or you would never have claimed that the technique itself was responsible for persistent features in the images. You've said that twice now in our conversations. That is physically impossible. Whatever is responsible for persistent features in the image, it is directly related to a *SOLAR PROCESS OF SOME KIND* and not the imaging technique itself. RD images of the solar atmosphere in LASCO images show no stable fixed "structures" or "angular patterns". The show changes caused by moving flowing plasma and those patterns change dramatically over time.
BS.
This image shows us that the 171A wavelengths penetrate much deeper into the solar atmosphere than the x-ray images. Then again, you won't actually address any of these images directly or the evidence they provide us with.
Well, given an unrestricted budget and lots of helpers, the "method" I would tend to use is to create a neon plasma in a tube, use an arcwelder type device to ionize some iron, and see how far that light penetrates the plasma. I'd do the same thing with silicon plasma. At some point I'd need to know the density of the photosphere with absolute precision and I'd need to make some estimates based on what I learned in a lab. I'm not like you guys where I just "wing it", never experiment and lab, and make it up as I go.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
I mean the corona in general, i.e. the corona that you are ignorant about.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Thanks for the response, more tomorrow.
If the numbers of protons and electrons are roughly equal, how would that accelerate the protons?
You have the Electron's Momentum and the Proton's Momentum, and if the electrons are towing along the positive ions, it seems to me that the eMom would have to be equal or greater than the pMom other wise there is no way that the eMom generated by the attraction of the electron to the heliosphere is going to acclerate the protons.
Am I missing something?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Whereas Tim and Dancing David seem to be capable of engaging in a normal conversation and exchanging ideas intelligently, in an adult manner, you and GeeMack continue to muddy the discussion with superfluous rant. You did not answer my question. How are you taking Thompson scattering into effect when you're trying to measure the temperature of the whole corona?
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
How high are the mountains in the running difference image, Michael? How deep are the valleys? What objective method do you use to determine that? How can we apply your objective, quantitative method to come to the same conclusion you reached?
Hint: You can admit that you don't know high how high or how deep and that there is no objective basis for your determination. You can admit that your analysis is scientifically useless since there is no objective method for reaching your conclusion.
Or, you could just continue to be an ignorant crackpot and not even acknowledge the question, which, based on several years worth of evidence, is how you'll deal with this.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Micheal Mozina's "mountain ranges on the sun's surface" idea
Micheal Mozina has been trolling the internet forums for many years now (since at least 2006) touting the Iron Sun idea.
One of his persistent misconceptions (i.e. delusions) is that the TRACE mission took images of mountain ranges in the sun's surface. Here the "sun's surface" is not the visible surface of the sun (photosphere) but a hypothetical solid iron surface with an unspecified temperature (less than 2000 K otherwise it would not be solid).
The TRACE images were actually processed by computer into a running difference (RD) animation where each frame is created by subtracting the previous frame from it. It is this animation that MM claims shows the mountain ranges (not the original images) on a < 2000 K surface below the ~6000 K photosphere.
Here is the caption for one of the frames from the animation on his web site:
The first thing that is wrong is that MM does not comprehend what a running difference image is. It is a record of the changes between the images. It never records persistent features like mountain ranges. This is easily seen by any photographer. Take a photo of a mountain. Take another photo of a mountain. Subtract the first photo from the second. The mountain vanishes and what you see are changes, e.g. clouds moving, birds flying and perhaps shadows moving.
Astronomers know what the features on the RD animation are because they do not ignore the original images (unlike MM).
Secondly: MM's "mountain ranges" are not persistent. They appear out of nowhere and change during the animation. His explanation seems to be changing "light sources" but this is easily seen to be incorrect. RD removes and static light sources. The light sources in this case are the corona in general, the solar flare and the coronal mass ejection. The "mountain ranges" just happen match the position of the solar flare for some strange reason. So their slopes will be illuminated equally by the flare. The CME appears in the upper right. The "shadows" in the RD animation are not toward the lower left and so are not cast by the CME.
Thirdly: The TRACE satellite was using its 171 angstrom filter (pass band). This detects light from material with a temperature of between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K. The corona is plasma heated to withing this range (see the "around 1 million degrees" above). The photosphere has been measured to emit light with a near black body spectrum peaking at 5777 K. The photosphere does actually emit a tiny amount of 171A light - the spectral irradiance vs wavelength on the Wikipedia page has 17.1 nanometers as zero irradiance but that is a result of the scales being used. Detecting that tiny radiation through the massive spectral irradiance of the corona in this pass band is like detecting the light from a candle through the light of a forest fire. It is even worse any hypothetical solid iron surface an < 2000 K since there is less radiation at 171A for a lower temperature black body.
Therefore the TRACE images are of activity in the corona and the RD animation is of changes in that activity in the corona.
Fourthly:
This is not really related to the image but is about the possibility of a hypothetical < 2000 K solid iron surface existing under a measured plasma of ~6000 K.
There is the second law of thermodynamics, which can be states as "Heat generally cannot flow from a material spontaneously at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.".
MM has not yet explained how the photosphere can violate the second law of thermodynamics. He has to explain how the solid iron surface remains < 2000 K despite the fusion happening below it and then what makes the photosphere hotter than the iron surface. There must be fusion happening in the Sun since the neutrinos from it have been detected (an out-dated alternative is fission but then there is the same problem). If this fusion happened above the solid iron surface then the photosphere would be millions of degrees hot. Thus it must be below the solid iron surface. Therefore the solid iron surface cannot exist!
Micheal Mozina has been trolling the internet forums for many years now (since at least 2006) touting the Iron Sun idea.
One of his persistent misconceptions (i.e. delusions) is that the TRACE mission took images of mountain ranges in the sun's surface. Here the "sun's surface" is not the visible surface of the sun (photosphere) but a hypothetical solid iron surface with an unspecified temperature (less than 2000 K otherwise it would not be solid).
The TRACE images were actually processed by computer into a running difference (RD) animation where each frame is created by subtracting the previous frame from it. It is this animation that MM claims shows the mountain ranges (not the original images) on a < 2000 K surface below the ~6000 K photosphere.
Here is the caption for one of the frames from the animation on his web site:
Note that he describes the RD image as if it was an actual photograph of his hypothetical solid iron surface.
The first thing that is wrong is that MM does not comprehend what a running difference image is. It is a record of the changes between the images. It never records persistent features like mountain ranges. This is easily seen by any photographer. Take a photo of a mountain. Take another photo of a mountain. Subtract the first photo from the second. The mountain vanishes and what you see are changes, e.g. clouds moving, birds flying and perhaps shadows moving.
Astronomers know what the features on the RD animation are because they do not ignore the original images (unlike MM).
Secondly: MM's "mountain ranges" are not persistent. They appear out of nowhere and change during the animation. His explanation seems to be changing "light sources" but this is easily seen to be incorrect. RD removes and static light sources. The light sources in this case are the corona in general, the solar flare and the coronal mass ejection. The "mountain ranges" just happen match the position of the solar flare for some strange reason. So their slopes will be illuminated equally by the flare. The CME appears in the upper right. The "shadows" in the RD animation are not toward the lower left and so are not cast by the CME.
Thirdly: The TRACE satellite was using its 171 angstrom filter (pass band). This detects light from material with a temperature of between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K. The corona is plasma heated to withing this range (see the "around 1 million degrees" above). The photosphere has been measured to emit light with a near black body spectrum peaking at 5777 K. The photosphere does actually emit a tiny amount of 171A light - the spectral irradiance vs wavelength on the Wikipedia page has 17.1 nanometers as zero irradiance but that is a result of the scales being used. Detecting that tiny radiation through the massive spectral irradiance of the corona in this pass band is like detecting the light from a candle through the light of a forest fire. It is even worse any hypothetical solid iron surface an < 2000 K since there is less radiation at 171A for a lower temperature black body.
Therefore the TRACE images are of activity in the corona and the RD animation is of changes in that activity in the corona.
Fourthly:
This is not really related to the image but is about the possibility of a hypothetical < 2000 K solid iron surface existing under a measured plasma of ~6000 K.
There is the second law of thermodynamics, which can be states as "Heat generally cannot flow from a material spontaneously at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.".
MM has not yet explained how the photosphere can violate the second law of thermodynamics. He has to explain how the solid iron surface remains < 2000 K despite the fusion happening below it and then what makes the photosphere hotter than the iron surface. There must be fusion happening in the Sun since the neutrinos from it have been detected (an out-dated alternative is fission but then there is the same problem). If this fusion happened above the solid iron surface then the photosphere would be millions of degrees hot. Thus it must be below the solid iron surface. Therefore the solid iron surface cannot exist!
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
What has Thompson scattering got to do with it?
Scientists measure the temperature of the photosphere and corona. That is a measurement of temperature. It does not matter what mechanism heated the plasma. It is measured to be at that temperature.
Available for you to ignore:
Temperature of the Solar Corona from Intensity Gradients Measured during the May 30, 1965 Total Eclipse
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Just noticed a bit more crackpottery from Micheal Mozina.
Here is the caption for one of the frames from the animation on his web site:
In other words the paper directly contradicts MM's caption. The "increased electrical activity" is taking place as electrons pass from the coronal portion of the loop to the chromosphere - about 2000 km above the photosphere. There is no fast moving plasma sweeping over ridges in a hypothetical solid iron surface below the photosphere.
Here is the caption for one of the frames from the animation on his web site:
The PDF in his "increased electrical" link is Radio and Hard X–ray Images of High–Energy Electrons in an X-class Solar Flare and its abstract is
But the paper's conclusion are clearer:
In other words the paper directly contradicts MM's caption. The "increased electrical activity" is taking place as electrons pass from the coronal portion of the loop to the chromosphere - about 2000 km above the photosphere. There is no fast moving plasma sweeping over ridges in a hypothetical solid iron surface below the photosphere.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
For the $million... I predict our math challenged resident crackpot will ignored this, or if acknowledged, he will simply deny it without any effort to legitimately or scientifically refute it. (Too easy? No million bucks for me?)
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
That is impossible to answer from a running difference image since each pixel in the image represents hundreds of kilometers.
I tend to be more inclined to go with the heliosiesmology data personally.
Well, the quantitative methods of analyzing the location of the crust are spelled out in Kosovichev's paper. The qualitative (interpretative) process is spelled out (qualified) by Birkeland's series of controlled experiments and the other key satellite imagery like the RD images, the Doppler images and that composite TRACE/Yohkoh image.
Were it not for heliosiesmology findings of a "stratification subsurface" that changes over time, you might have a point. Since that is not the case, we're going to have to debate the merits of all "interpretations" of the data sets, all the images and the various findings.
I can only image how frightened you must be if you still feel the need to insert pointless and childish name calling into every post. You must be pretty desperate.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
How do they measure the temperature of various points in the corona, and how might Thompson scattering effect the images? One thing is very clear. The loops themselves are the brightest and hottest parts of the image. The dark regions in the composite image need not have reached the same temperatures as the light regions, in fact it unlikely that they do, or we would observe it in these images. Some amount of "scattering' is highly likely considering the whole atmosphere is made of moving charge particles.
Light from the loops will be scattered in the various plasma layers and the solar atmosphere in general. We can't simply "assume" that a few scattered photons in the atmosphere of image necessarily shows that all the plasma is radiating at tens of millions degrees, even if the loops are that hot. Photons from the loops will be scattered by the process, and the movement of electrons through the solar atmosphere will also tend to heat plasma along the way due to collisions with plasma. It's a very complicated process.
Actually, I won't ignore it, but the odds are that I won't have the time to read tonight.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
"Flare radio brightness temperatures exceed 10^9 K and the peak in the radio spectrum is as high as 35 GHz: both these two features and the hard X–ray data require very high densities of nonthermal electrons, possibly as high as 1010 cm3 above 20 keV at the peak of the flare."
How about those observations of "very high densities of electrons"? You aren't even going to comment on them? How can you read this whole paper and not notice the important points?
Yes, they are in fact assuming that the *RADIO* spectrum footprints are located in the chromosphere. For all I know the radio waves are not visible below the chromosphere and photosphere and they are completely correct about the location where they observe the base of the radio wave spectrum. For instance that x-ray spectrum in the Trace/Yohkoh image make it clear that the "base" of the loop that is visible in each spectrum is different. The yellow x-rays do not seem to penetrate below the photosphere, whereas the 171A photons penetrate further, and therefore the observed bases of the loops are much deeper.
I can neither agree or disagree on their placement of the radio waves in comparison to other wavelengths, but that would place them somewhere between the x-rays and the iron ion wavelengths in terms of penetration depth. That hardly sounds surprising from my perspective. I fail to see why you think that has any effect on the caption.
Now how about you explain all those non thermal electrons for us?
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
I do not need to comment on the high density of electrons.
I read the paper and noticed the important part as stated in the conclusion (which you have ignored - I guess GeeMack would get a million dollars in the JREF Challenge!)
The paper states nothoing about the electron densities (high or not) below the chromosphere.
Michael Mozina -
Where do you think that the corona is?
Where do you think the chromosphere is?
If your answer is not 1000's of km higher than the photosphere and even more 1000's of kms higher than your impossible, hypothetical solid iron surface then where have all of the scientist gone wrong?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Since you are too lazy to do your own researsh, start with Wikipedia
Corona
Otherwise buy the textbooks or attend the university courses that you obviously have not.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
You don't seem to have the "need" to explain or comment on anything.
Why is that?So how about the electron densities in the chromosphere and corona? Where did those electrons come from?
You seem to be missing a key point. There is no guarantee that every single wavelength will show the bases of the loops terminating at the same location. The base of the loops in the x-ray band is significantly higher in the atmosphere than the base of the loops seen in the 171A spectrum. If in fact these authors are correct, then the radio spectrum penetrates perhaps as far as the x-rays, but not as far as the 171A wavelength. So what? The whole loop if filed with flowing electrons and you seem to have completely ignored that point. Even if they are 100% accurate (and I assume they are by the way) in their placement of the bases they can observe in the radio spectrum, it does not mean that loops are limited to what they observe in the radio spectrum, just as it is not limited by what we observe in the x-ray spectrum. What's the big deal?
How about those electrons? Where did they originate? Where are they going?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Here's that article on the activity in a comet tail that I was talking about earlier David.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001165932.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001165932.htm
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
RC....
The visible "bases" of the loops are *CERTAINLY NOT THE SAME* in the x-ray spectrum as they are in the iron ion wavelengths. Why would you find it the least bit objectionable or surprising if they observed the footprints of radio wavelengths at a slightly different depth? That is not surprising nor harmful to my argument in the least. It would be as if you superimposed a third color in the image that overlayed nicely over the other two colors with a slightly different location of the base it can observe at that wavelength. It's not a big deal. It's to be expected since different wavelengths will have a different absorption rate.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Okay, so your answer to the question of the height and depth of the features on your alleged surface is, "I don't know." By the way, how many kilometers does each pixel represent?
That helioseismology data that shows mass moving at thousands of kilometers per hour up, down, and laterally directly through your allegedly solid surface? I'm not so sure data which proves constantly flowing mass would be good data to use to demonstrate a solid surface, Michael. But your complete lack of contact with scientific reality never ceases to amaze.
But you aren't well versed enough in any of that material to actually point out where it specifies a solid surface? And you can't actually use the numbers from that material to say how high the mountains are or how deep the valleys are, or what sorts of temperature and density characteristics the surface has. Okay, so you don't know a darn thing about your alleged surface. Got it.
Oh, wait, you do know something about your alleged surface. It's an ever changing "solid" which actually has the properties of flowing mass, very unlike any solid that anyone has ever seen before. In fact, flowing at thousands of kilometers per hour, sort of like, well, like it can't possibly be solid by any conventional definition! Okay, it's good to know you actually acknowledge that much.
Oh, I'm not frightened or desperate. I don't have a dog in this race. You've made an idiotic claim that you've been utterly unable to support even after several years of trying. My claim is only that you are not able to support your claim. And so far you've proven me right at every turn of the bend. You chose to take on the mainstream, Michael, not I. You could have kept your fantasy to yourself, but you didn't, and the result is you've set yourself up for public ridicule. You reap what you sow.
As much as anything I enjoy pointing out, just in case anyone loses track through all your crying and your hissy fits, how ludicrous it is that you can't, in fact, offer a detailed, specific, and quantitative analysis of that very first image on your web site.
- Status