Electric universe theories here.

[Reality Check]

An interesting little web page:
WHAT THE HELIOSEISMIC RESULTS MEAN FOR THE SOLAR INTERIOR

Quote:

I discuss the meanings of the new helioseismic results for the solar interior and atmosphere. The eigenfrequencies of p-modes have provided us the sound speed profile as well as the density profile in the Sun. I discuss how to determine the profiles of other physical quantities. The solar oscillations may provide us with a diagnostic tool not only for the solar interior but also for the solar atmosphere. I discuss prospects of the helioseismic investigation of the chromosphere of the Sun.

The author does not give a density profile diagram.

However the squared sound speed is interesting in that there is no discontinuity from MM's hypothetical and impossible solid iron surface ("4800km beneath the visible photosphere" on his web site).
It should be just visible on the right side of the diagram. The speed of sound in iron varies according to temperature and is about 5 kilometers per second or 500,000 centimeters per second. Square this to get 250,000,000,000 cm²/s² which is basically zero on the diagram's scale (10¹⁵ cm²/s²).
Thus we should see a dip to zero staring at whatever depth MM thinks the hypothetical and impossible solid iron surface stars at and ending at ~0.99. There is no such dip.

I am sure that there are other papers out there that detail the calculated density profile of the top of the convection zone.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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.

That is right - they are not and I am not surprised.

The "bases" happen to be above the photosphere in both cases because the photosphere (and anything below it) is not visible in the x-ray spectrum or the iron ion wavelengths.

I have no idea what you mean by a third color - a third color for what and of what?

Trace Spacecraft Discovers Moss on the Sun

Quote:

"The TRACE observations of solar moss show how the transition region is much more complex and dynamic than previously observed," said Dr. Bart De Pontieu of LMSAL. "We are getting a glimpse of how the Sun's magnetic field changes from a chaotic jumble at its visible surface to the well-organized magnetic field present in coronal loops. This transition is complicated by the presence of the dynamic and relatively cold jets from the chromosphere. These jets sometimes interact with and push around the much hotter plasma at the base of the coronal loops."

How did scientists such as Dr. Bart De Pontieu determine where all this activity happened. They took pictures!
Notice how in the image below the coronal loops on the limb do not actually touch the visible surface of the Sun. This will really confuse MM who thinks that detectors see coronal loops along their entire length (including below the visible surface of the Sun).
Anyone who knows basic physics will see that the TRACE 171 Angstrom filter being used excludes radiation from material cooler then 160,000 K and so excludes the chromosphere (about 2000 km thick, highest temperature ~100,000 K) and some of the solar transition zone.

Moss at the Limb

Quote:

This composite TRACE image shows a layer of moss seen at the Solar limb. The yellow image is a visible light image of the Sun and shows the "solar surface" or photosphere. The blue image is a TRACE 171 Angstrom image showing 1 to 2 million degree coronal loops and a bright "layer" of moss just above the surface. The moss layer is located between about 1500 to 4000 km (1000 - 2500 miles) above the solar surface, much lower than the typical coronal loop apex heights

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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.

MM, I respectfully point out that you have not answered the questiosn as posed. Nor have you given any reasonable data to suggest the nature of an answer.

these and many other questions, including mine, remain unaanswered by you.

It would help your theory if you would actually answer some of the very specific questions when they are asked.

If we are discussing the Iron Sun, talking about Birkeland and the terrella is not an answer.

So how does the apparent ratio of equal numbers of electrons and positive ions fit into your suggestion that the solar wind is generated by the flow of electrons from the sun to the heliosphere?

There are not enough electrons to generate the momentum needed to move the positive ions by 'towing'.

So how do you account for this?

Saying 'there might be more electrons closer to the sun', is not viable.

If the heliosphere has the charge needed to attract the leectron then it would start to repulse the positive ions as soon as the electron number drops.

So how does your model fit in with the oberseved numbers of electrons and positive ions?

Saying 'it is more like current flow', is not viable as well, you could have negative charge and current low, and you could have positive current flow, but this is a situtation of both electrons and positive ions.

So how do these currents seperate and flow, what evidence is there that the solar wind is seperated like that?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

An interesting little web page:
WHAT THE HELIOSEISMIC RESULTS MEAN FOR THE SOLAR INTERIOR

The author does not give a density profile diagram.

However the squared sound speed is interesting in that there is no discontinuity from MM's hypothetical and impossible solid iron surface ("4800km beneath the visible photosphere" on his web site).
It should be just visible on the right side of the diagram. The speed of sound in iron varies according to temperature and is about 5 kilometers per second or 500,000 centimeters per second. Square this to get 250,000,000,000 cm²/s² which is basically zero on the diagram's scale (10¹⁵ cm²/s²).
Thus we should see a dip to zero staring at whatever depth MM thinks the hypothetical and impossible solid iron surface stars at and ending at ~0.99. There is no such dip.

I am sure that there are other papers out there that detail the calculated density profile of the top of the convection zone.

Hmmmmmm.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Hmmmmmm.

I had the same exact reaction. It will take me awhile to digest that info. Today and probably tomorrow I am going to be swamped at work so it will likely be later in the week. I will however read through it carefully, but at first glance, the data looks a to be a bit dated compared to Kosovichev's more recent papers:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111

The sound speed profiles between Kosovichev's observations and that graph do not seem to match from .9 to 1.0R. Kosovichev found some significant sound speed changes starting at around .995R. I'll have to read through them both again to be able to comment intelligently, but my first impression is that the online presentation cited is simply dated material at this point. I am not sure how to "interpret" the huge drop off in figure 2 at about .95R+, but that could be related to the technological limits of their technique rather than the data set itself. I need to read the material more carefully before I can comment on that part.

[derekmcd]

Originally Posted by derekmcd

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.

A simple request. I won't fall into your trap of answering a question with a question. We've discussed this before elsewhere.

Can you fulfill my request?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I had the same exact reaction. It will take me awhile to digest that info. Today and probably tomorrow I am going to be swamped at work so it will likely be later in the week. I will however read through it carefully, but at first glance, the data looks a to be a bit dated compared to Kosovichev's more recent papers:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111

The sound speed profiles between Kosovichev's observations and that graph do not seem to match from .9 to 1.0R. Kosovichev found some significant sound speed changes starting at around .995R. I'll have to read through them both again to be able to comment intelligently, but my first impression is that the online presentation cited is simply dated material at this point. I am not sure how to "interpret" the huge drop off in figure 2 at about .95R+, but that could be related to the technological limits of their technique rather than the data set itself. I need to read the material more carefully before I can comment on that part.

That "huge drop" in figure 2 is the difference between observations and a specific model (according to the caption):
"Relative difference δc2/c2$ between the square of the sound speed c in the Sun (inverted from various observational data sets) and that in a model computed by Christensen-Dalsgaard et al. (1996). After Takata and Shibahashi (1998a)."

Do the "significant sound speed changes starting at around .995R" in Kosovichev's data match with your calculations of the speed changes expected from a solid iron surface?
Have you actually done these claculation and if so could you give a link to them?

Otherwise this is just wishful thinking on your part. I doubt that Kosovichev would have missed the big difference beater the speed of sound in a plasma and the speed of sound in a solid iron surface.

P.S. Just how thick do you think your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible, invisible solid iron surface is?

ETA: The paper you linked to is a recent paper of Kosovichev but has absoloutely no sound speed profiles in it. Which is the paper with his sound speed profiles in it?

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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"?

Easy. First, even you yourself do not claim to actually see the surface directly in any of your images, be it carbon or anything else. You claim only to see evidence for a surface under the plasma, which is what we do see. Hence, even by your own claims, the plasma is opaque (i.e., optically thick) in all of the wavelengths presented. So even if there were a surface and it did emit thermal radiation, we would never see it because the optically think plasma will absorb all of it, allowing us to see only the thermal emission from the plasma itself.

Second, remember how I described the inversion procedure. It is based on limb darkening measurements and a disk center to limb brightness ratio. Well, the line of sight from the observer through the limb does not anywhere intersect where the surface may or may not be, but passes entirely through the atmosphere. Since we are not looking at the surface, we will not see any thermal emission from it. After all, if as you say, the plasma is too "thin", then it will never be able to scatter enough thermal emission from the surface into our line of sight for us to see thermal emission from the surface. And if it is "dense" enough to do that, then the thermal emission from the plasma directly would overwhelm any scattered component from the surface. So any way you slice it, using lines of sight that avoid the surface region altogether guarantees that you will not see the surface, or its thermal emission, if there is a surface to see.

Meanwhile, the inversion technique requires only two pre-conditions: (1) local thermodynamic equilibrium, and (2) the validity of the basic physics of radiative transfer. The former is guaranteed to be true by virtue of the fact that we actually see a black body thermal SED, and the latter has already been well established. So it's a pretty hard barrier to argue your way around. The properties derived for the plasma from the inversion technique must be valid, within the limits of standard observational uncertainty.

Finally, one should be somewhat cautious about calling the photosphere a "plasma". Only where the photospheric temperature is at its maximum, about 9400 Kelvins, does the free electron density rise as high as 1% of the neutral hydrogen density. Furthermore, the principle source of continuum opacity in the photosphere at eyeball light wavelengths is the H^- ion, and this despite the fact that its abundance is as low as 10^-8 of the neutral hydrogen. This latter fact underlines the crucial point that your basic assumption, that a "thin" plasma cannot radiate thermal emission, is not physically valid. By concentrating on the density, which is in reality not necessarily a major physical constraint, you entirely overlook the optical depth, which is in fact the physical parameter which is the ultimate arbiter of whether or not any gas or plasma will emit thermal radiation. So long as you concentrate on the density instead of the optical depth then you are avoiding the real physics of the situation altogether.

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You're nitpicking verbiage here a bit aren't you?

Maybe so in this case, since it's fair to say that "thin" could be properly understood in context. However, more seriously, your sloppy use of language gets in the way on a regular basis. If you can't say something correctly, how is anyone supposed to know that you actually understand? After all, your own words are all we have to go by when we try to interpret your words in the context of your thoughts.

For instance ...

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Magnetic fields form as a whole continuum. They don't exist individually ...

So, maybe you really meant "magnetic field lines", but you actually said "magnetic fields", which makes no sense at all. Anyone who takes these words at face value will simply decide you're nuts and go away. You do this a lot and it does not help your own case. It's probably a result of posting too much. But whatever it is, you need to tighten up your language and be more careful about saying what you mean, and about using the right words to say it.

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I need to read the material more carefully before I can comment on that part.

I suggest you consult the following: Solar Interior Rotation and its Variation (Rachel Howe, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 2009). See especially the section on near surface shear, and see figure 22. That figure shows in panel d a feature quite reminiscent of Kosovicehv's discontinuity. But it shows up only in panel d, which implies that it is dependent on latitude. If one interprets Kosovicehv's discontinuity as a solid surface, then it should be there at all latitudes, but if one interprets it as a sub surface shear layer, then its latitudnal dependence makes sense.

Consider also that the same heleoseismological techniques that show the presence of the discontinuity also show the differential rotation of the sun in its deep interior. It will seem self-contradictory to express, on the one hand, confidence that the techniques are valid and disclosed the presence of the surface you want to be there, but on the other hand confidence that the techniques are not valid when they disclose interior differential rotation that you do not want to be there.

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Rather, the reasonable thing to do is look at the gamma rays and let them tell you, by their physical characteristics (line width & line shape, band center & band width, spectral energy distribution, relative line strengths & etc.) how they were generated. Let nature lead the investigation, not prejudice.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Ok, but then we do know of two likely culprits, so there is no need to start making up options on the fly is there?

Nobody is "making up options". There are not "two likely culprits", but rather there are "several likely culprits", and we are simply choosing from a larger menu of "likely culprits" than you like. It is very wrong to look at the menu of "culprits" in Earth's atmosphere, and then arbitrarily assume that the menu must be identical for the sun. After all, one cursory glance at the sun is enough to convince anyone that the sun is very different from Earth. So why must the list of "culprits" be the same? Why would anyone even think that way?

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

When we do that we find that the sun generates gamma rays from all manner of sources. There is of course the ubiquitous e^-/e⁺ annihilation line at 511 keV, the neutron capture line at 2.223 MeV, nuclear de-excitation line emission from C, O, Ne, Mg, Si, and Fe, as well as bremsstrahlung from accelerated electrons. The bremsstrahlung is the component that you would assign to "electric discharge", since the narrow line emission obviously is not.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Woah. Wouldn't a powerful discharge through these elements create these specific emissions lines particularly in a z-pinch scenario?

Absolutely not.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

MM, I respectfully point out that you have not answered the questiosn as posed.

Actually David, I did try to explain that the rather limited resolution of the RD images will not provide us with adequate resolution to calculate the height of various features in the image. Each pixel represents of distance of hundreds of kilometers so isolating a feature that is at most perhaps 10 kilometers in size simply isn't feasible in such images.

The heliosiesmology data does however provide us with some very useful data related to plasma flows and layers under the photosphere. It suggests that the observed stratification subsurface changes by up to 10 KM over the course of a solar cycle (figure 3 of the paper I cited). It shows that flows of plasma under the photosphere tend to flatten out and go horizontal at around the 4800 KM point.

I would personally be inclined to believe that the volcanic ranges can reach sizes that rival volcanoes on Earth, perhaps even larger. They certainly appear to be far more active than volcanoes on Earth, particularly during the sun's active phases where the "active regions" can survive multiple solar rotation cycles.

Quote:

Nor have you given any reasonable data to suggest the nature of an answer.

I think it is reasonable to look to and rely upon the heliosiesmology and Doppler data, but the resolution of even these images is going to be somewhat limited. That technology is however shows promising results in Kosovichev's tsunami video. That persistent feature could be measured in the x and y axis, but the z-axis is harder.

Quote:

It would help your theory if you would actually answer some of the very specific questions when they are asked.

Assuming I can answer them, I have tried to answer many or most specific questions put to me, including yours. My time however is limited, my own understanding is limited, and there are many individuals for me to respond to in this forum. It's also a very hostile conversation (not you personally or Tim) and I therefore have to be extremely careful about how I phrase things. Even the least little innocent statement can be instantly twisted and my statements are often twisted like a pretzel.

Quote:

If we are discussing the Iron Sun, talking about Birkeland and the terrella is not an answer.

Of course it's an answer. It's the only "legitimate" series of experiments that have ever been done on this kind of a solar model. Birkeland's model "predicts" those high energy discharges to loop through the atmospohere. It predicts a "bright" and "electrically active" plasma atmosphere. His model is lab tested and it works.

Quote:

So how does the apparent ratio of equal numbers of electrons and positive ions fit into your suggestion that the solar wind is generated by the flow of electrons from the sun to the heliosphere?

I'm not sure if it fits, I've never personally duplicated Birkelands work and filled the chamber with Langmuir probes. We could at least physically check it out in lab, but I personally have a day job and a limited budget. This should be the kind of thing you guys get paid to do and that my tax dollars are spend on.

Quote:

There are not enough electrons to generate the momentum needed to move the positive ions by 'towing'.

I don't profess to know that his is absolutely true, particularly in the area closest to the photosphere where we observe the most acceleration. By the time the solar wind reaches earth at 1AU, the "flow rate" between electrons and protons might be similar similar if you looked in *all* directions, but "charges" (both positive and negative) are moving through space and time at a very high rate. This is called "current flow". That behavior was a "prediction" of Birkeland's model, as were the loops, the jets, the high velocity particles, etc.

Quote:

So how do you account for this?

Saying 'there might be more electrons closer to the sun', is not viable.

Of course it's a viable option. Something is heating up the corona to millions of degrees. Not every electron that leaves the surface will arrive safely at the heliosphere. Things happen to charged particles in a plasma along the way.

Quote:

If the heliosphere has the charge needed to attract the leectron then it would start to repulse the positive ions as soon as the electron number drops.

Perhaps that does happen far out near heliosphere itself. I suppose we'll have to look the IBEX data to get a clearer picture of events.

Quote:

So how does your model fit in with the oberseved numbers of electrons and positive ions?

Even Langmuir had a tough time measuring "current flow" inside plasma. You seem to insist that this charged particle ratio is the same everywhere from all the directions at every point in the solar atmosphere at all times. It's not clear to me from the data that this is *always* the case, particularly during CME type events.

Quote:

Saying 'it is more like current flow', is not viable as well, you could have negative charge and current low, and you could have positive current flow, but this is a situtation of both electrons and positive ions.

So how do these currents seperate and flow, what evidence is there that the solar wind is seperated like that?

I personally think you should look to Birkeland's own work for your answers. You may find your own answers there yourself in exactly the format you're looking for (he even does the math ) and I may not accurately present his statements in each instance for that matter. IMO it's really worth the time to read his material for yourself so that you aren't getting the information third hand. I've had numerous people misrepresent some of his work, and I have inadvertently done so myself on message boards due to sloppy verbiage on my part or a failure to proofread my own sentences.

I personally think you're sort of making a mountain out of a molehill. Birkeland did not predict a single type of particle would come from the sun, or that a single charge would come from the sun. He personally had to clean the sides of his experiments from time to time due to the deposits that come from the sphere.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Nobody is "making up options". There are not "two likely culprits", but rather there are "several likely culprits",

How many of them are *naturally* occurring events here on Earth? Why wouldn't you attempt to explain these things via a *KNOWN* force of nature *BEFORE* dreaming up a very complicated solution that does not occur "naturally"? IMO, unless you can explain how you can isolate "magnetic reconnection" from "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection" and/or induction, I see no reason to create a new name for a very old process. A "discharge" in plasma is not a "magnetic reconnection" event, it's simply a discharge through plasma. What energy release process is actually unique to 'magnetic reconnection" at the level of particle physics?

Quote:

and we are simply choosing from a larger menu of "likely culprits" than you like.

I don't mind you selecting 'likely" (as is natural) culprits. It's when you start going out of your way to not seriously consider the more likely culprits (naturally occurring processes) that I start to complain. There are "natural" mechanisms that occur on Earth that release these sorts of high energy emissions. Birkeland's experiments even *predicted* them based on actual physical testing of concept. Why do I need to look to 'exotic' (things that aren't naturally occurirng) answers when the tried and true answers work just fine?

Quote:

It is very wrong to look at the menu of "culprits" in Earth's atmosphere, and then arbitrarily assume that the menu must be identical for the sun.

Why would I begin by assuming that they cannot be the due to the same process?

Quote:

After all, one cursory glance at the sun is enough to convince anyone that the sun is very different from Earth.

Well, if by "cursory", you mean *WITHOUT* the satellite images, sure they "look different" on the outside. The sun has a shiny atmosphere. If however we peer a bit deeper into the solar atmosphere, we see that satellite observations tend to strongly resemble Birkeland's experiments. Those "loops" for instance were even photographed by Birkeland. My impression is that you're trying to judge a book by it's outer cover and that is rarely if ever a good barometer of what's under the cover.

If we were to look at a planet covered with water, we might be tempted to think the whole thing is water, but that isn't necessarily (or likely to be) the case. There may be a crust under that water. The same is true of the sun. The photosphere is nothing but a plasma double layer made of neon. What is under that layer remains to be seen, but it cannot be seen with the naked eye. Technology is helpful.

Quote:

So why must the list of "culprits" be the same? Why would anyone even think that way?

What I do not understand is why you believe this particular culprit is any different than the same culprit Birkeland used when he created his own high energy loops in the atmosphere of his solar model. Why do I need to look elsewhere when I know for a scientific fact (empirical experimentation) that he obvious solution is found in electrical discharges?

Quote:

Absolutely not.

Ok, I'll bite. How are you "absolutely" certain?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

The photosphere is nothing but a plasma double layer made of neon.

Where is the evidence that it's neon?

Quote:

What is under that layer remains to be seen

Because that layer is opaque. So whatever is underneath must be at least as hot.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Actually David, I did try to explain that the rather limited resolution of the RD images will not provide us with adequate resolution to calculate the height of various features in the image. Each pixel represents of distance of hundreds of kilometers so isolating a feature that is at most perhaps 10 kilometers in size simply isn't feasible in such images.

Where did you get the "10 kilometers in size"?

Actually Micheal, you need to first learn

• What running difference images are, i.e. they are computer animations generated by subtracting a previous original image from the current original image and creating an animation frame from the result. They only display changes.
• That the TRACE 171A pass band cannot detect the photosphere or below. In fact the pass band was chosen to detect events in the chromosphere and above.
• The second law of thermodynmics means that you cannot have a cool object in contact with two hotter objects and have it retain its temperature. For example your hypothetical, invisible solid iron surface at an unspecified temperature < 2000 K (I vote for 3.142 K) is between the hotter core and hotter photosphere.

You seem to be ignoring this for a previous post.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Notice how in the image the coronal loops on the limb do not actually touch the visible surface of the Sun. This will really confuse MM who thinks that detectors see coronal loops along their entire length (including below the visible surface of the Sun).
Anyone who knows basic physics will see that the TRACE 171 Angstrom filter being used excludes radiation from material cooler then 160,000 K and so excludes the chromosphere (about 2000 km thick, highest temperature ~100,000 K) and some of the solar transition zone.

Moss at the Limb:
http://www.solarviews.com/browse/sun/moss3.jpg

Do you have an explanation?
The options seem to be:

1. The image is correct and thus all of the features in the TRACE 171A pass band images are in the corona. They are 1000's of kilometers higher than the photosphere. They are even higher than any hypothetical, invisible, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface.
2. The yellow (photosphere) image has been incorrectly placed in the composite image with respect to the blue TRACE 171A image.
   The problem with this is that implies incompetence by the astronomers - in which case why should you trust any of their images?
   In addition note that the bottom of the coronal loops in TRACE 171A pass band image are at various distances from the photosphere (possibly due to other factors) - you need to explain that.
3. It is a worldwide conspiracy to debunk the Iran Sun theory because that theory is so obviously right !

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

The photosphere is nothing but a plasma double layer made of neon. What is under that layer remains to be seen, but it cannot be seen with the naked eye. Technology is helpful.

I would also be interested in your evidence that the photosphere is made of neon.
What is the percentage of neon in the photosphere? (alternately what is the percentage of other elements in the photosphere?)
Is the percentage that you have measured for neon in the photosphere reflected in the % of neon in the corona and solar wind?
If not why not?

Technology is helpful.
Helioseismology works very well using the standard solar model (ignoring your hypothetical, invisible, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface). It can be used to detect sunspots on the far side of the Sun. It can be used to measure the core of the Sun. It can be used to detect convection currents in the Sun.
For some reason it does not detect a solid iron surface.
Somebody out there is obviously suppressing this important observation because they do not want a Nobel Prize !

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Actually David, I did try to explain that the rather limited resolution of the RD images will not provide us with adequate resolution to calculate the height of various features in the image. Each pixel represents of distance of hundreds of kilometers so isolating a feature that is at most perhaps 10 kilometers in size simply isn't feasible in such images.

The heliosiesmology data does however provide us with some very useful data related to plasma flows and layers under the photosphere. It suggests that the observed stratification subsurface changes by up to 10 KM over the course of a solar cycle (figure 3 of the paper I cited). It shows that flows of plasma under the photosphere tend to flatten out and go horizontal at around the 4800 KM point.

I would personally be inclined to believe that the volcanic ranges can reach sizes that rival volcanoes on Earth, perhaps even larger. They certainly appear to be far more active than volcanoes on Earth, particularly during the sun's active phases where the "active regions" can survive multiple solar rotation cycles.

Um, okay others have said why you solid iron ball or sphere seems to have some issues in not being viable.

Quote:

I think it is reasonable to look to and rely upon the heliosiesmology and Doppler data, but the resolution of even these images is going to be somewhat limited. That technology is however shows promising results in Kosovichev's tsunami video. That persistent feature could be measured in the x and y axis, but the z-axis is harder.



Assuming I can answer them, I have tried to answer many or most specific questions put to me, including yours. My time however is limited, my own understanding is limited, and there are many individuals for me to respond to in this forum. It's also a very hostile conversation (not you personally or Tim) and I therefore have to be extremely careful about how I phrase things. Even the least little innocent statement can be instantly twisted and my statements are often twisted like a pretzel.

Nope, that is the JREF, we are here to examine ideas, some ideas are coherent with the body of data and knowledge, and some are not.

If you can't defend your ideas clearly and coherently, then the JREF is not for you.

People poke holes in my ideas all the time. that is what the JREF is for. I learn a lot here.

Quote:

Of course it's an answer. It's the only "legitimate" series of experiments that have ever been done on this kind of a solar model. Birkeland's model "predicts" those high energy discharges to loop through the atmospohere. It predicts a "bright" and "electrically active" plasma atmosphere. His model is lab tested and it works.



I'm not sure if it fits, I've never personally duplicated Birkelands work and filled the chamber with Langmuir probes. We could at least physically check it out in lab, but I personally have a day job and a limited budget. This should be the kind of thing you guys get paid to do and that my tax dollars are spend on.

Excuse me, what the Fred are you talking about. I am a teachers' aide who works in the computer labs of two grade schools. I am not paid to study plasma physics.

I am working on my house this summer, rather than doing summer custodial.

Your bias is showing, maybe you should open your mind. part of the process of the JREF is to understand the other POV.

It would appear that much of the data suggest that the sun is a large collection of gas, plasma at various temperatures and densities.

There is not much data to suggest that there is a sphere or ball of solid iron in it.

But you are welcome to your thoughts.

Quote:

I don't profess to know that his is absolutely true, particularly in the area closest to the photosphere where we observe the most acceleration. By the time the solar wind reaches earth at 1AU, the "flow rate" between electrons and protons might be similar similar if you looked in *all* directions, but "charges" (both positive and negative) are moving through space and time at a very high rate. This is called "current flow". That behavior was a "prediction" of Birkeland's model, as were the loops, the jets, the high velocity particles, etc.

Yup sure, and what percentage of positive ions flowed outwards from Birkeland's sphere, or towards it.

Hmmmm.

You are avoiding my question.

What keeps the repulsion of the positive ions while being towed from counter acting the pulling of the electrons? The same force will effect them both. It will not just effect the electrons and ignore the positive ions. So if the heliosphere is drawing the electrons towards it, it will also repel the positive ions.


That seems to be an inherent contradiction in your model of the solar wind.
[/quote]


Of course it's a viable option. Something is heating up the corona to millions of degrees. Not every electron that leaves the surface will arrive safely at the heliosphere. Things happen to charged particles in a plasma along the way.
[/quote]
then what keeps the positive ions from being repelled by the heliosphere and reversing direction at the point the electron density begins to drop off?

Quote:

Perhaps that does happen far out near heliosphere itself. I suppose we'll have to look the IBEX data to get a clearer picture of events.



Even Langmuir had a tough time measuring "current flow" inside plasma. You seem to insist that this charged particle ratio is the same everywhere from all the directions at every point in the solar atmosphere at all times. It's not clear to me from the data that this is *always* the case, particularly during CME type events.

I am discussing your model of the solar wind, you say it is driven by a negative flow from the sun to the positive heliosphere. that creates a huge problem for having equal numbers of positive ions and electrons.

The repulsion of the positive ions from the positive heliosphere.

Quote:

I personally think you should look to Birkeland's own work for your answers. You may find your own answers there yourself in exactly the format you're looking for (he even does the math ) and I may not accurately present his statements in each instance for that matter. IMO it's really worth the time to read his material for yourself so that you aren't getting the information third hand. I've had numerous people misrepresent some of his work, and I have inadvertently done so myself on message boards due to sloppy verbiage on my part or a failure to proofread my own sentences.

I personally think you're sort of making a mountain out of a molehill. Birkeland did not predict a single type of particle would come from the sun, or that a single charge would come from the sun. He personally had to clean the sides of his experiments from time to time due to the deposits that come from the sphere.

I am discussing your model, you said that it explains the solar wind. If you do not wish to explain the way out of the self contradiction, that is up to you.


For the negative flow of electrons to carry the positive ions to the direction of the heliosphere means that the momentum of those electrons must be greater than repulsion of the positive ions.

I haven't even asked yet for you to demonstrate the charge separation that you have suggested exists.

I am saying that the model of the solar wind as presented has a huge contradiction in it.

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Nobody is "making up options". There are not "two likely culprits", but rather there are "several likely culprits", and we are simply choosing from a larger menu of "likely culprits" than you like.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

How many of them are *naturally* occurring events here on Earth?

All of them. The spectral energy distribution (SED) of terrestrial gamma-ray flashes (TGFs) is invariably a very wide band power law distribution typical of bremsstrahlung. The energy range can be as large as about 10 keV to 15 MeV or higher, though the energy above about 10 MeV falls off rapidly (see, i.e. Smith, et al., 2005). One thing that TGFs never do is show narrow line emission. However, there is narrow line gamma ray emission from Earth's atmosphere, as a reaction to cosmic ray impacts (see, i.e., Murphy, Share & Kozlovsky, 2006, Share, et al., 2002).

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

There are "natural" mechanisms that occur on Earth that release these sorts of high energy emissions. Birkeland's experiments even *predicted* them based on actual physical testing of concept. Why do I need to look to 'exotic' (things that aren't naturally occurirng) answers when the tried and true answers work just fine?

(1) All of the processes I consider are naturally occurring.
(2) The narrow line mechanisms are not "exotic" compared to bremsstrahlung.
(3) Where in his writings did Birkeland predict gamma ray emission and what spectral energy distribution did he predict for them?

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

After all, one cursory glance at the sun is enough to convince anyone that the sun is very different from Earth.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Well, if by "cursory", you mean *WITHOUT* the satellite images, sure they "look different" on the outside.

With or without satellite images. The sun radiates with an effective black body temperature about 6000 Kelvins, while earth radiates with an effective black body temperature of about 255 Kelvins. Surely it is naivete at its finest to assume that all of the physical processes at work on those two worlds are the same. Does it not make sense that higher energy events can happen on the Sun than on Earth?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Woah. Wouldn't a powerful discharge through these elements create these specific emissions lines particularly in a z-pinch scenario?

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Absolutely not.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Ok, I'll bite. How are you "absolutely" certain?

Because it has never happened before anywhere, either in a lab or in nature? Because it is physically impossible? Those feel like pretty good reasons to me.

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

IMO, unless you can explain how you can isolate "magnetic reconnection" from "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection" and/or induction, I see no reason to create a new name for a very old process.

I already did that a long time ago: Comments on Magnetic Reconnection. But we all know quite well that it is prejudice that counts over science with you, so naturally you summarily reject all of the controlled laboratory experiments that disagree with your personal preconceptions. You didn't even consider any of them, just dismissed them with a wave.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

What energy release process is actually unique to "magnetic reconnection" at the level of particle physics?

It is the transition of the magnetic field to a lower energy configuration, so energy is transferred from the magnetic field to the kinetic energy of the particles.

[Reality Check]

Micheal Mozina - In your web site you refer to the paper "Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle" by Sandrine Lefebvre and Alexander Kosovichev in this assertion:

Quote:

At this depth, contemporary gas model theory runs headlong into a stratification layer, a layer of solid material where sound waves begin to travel faster than they travel through plasma. This is a layer that holds the three dimensional shapes like we see in the gold image on the right.

.

Can you tell us where in the paper it is stated that any of the subsurface layers are solid?
If not then how can you show your calculation that any of the layers is solid?

My guess is that you assume that your hypothetical, invisible, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface exists. You thus guess that the behavior of 0.99 R_o point shows a solid and maybe unvarying surface (it in fact varies by ~10 km between 1977 and 2004). You forget that you do not need to have solids in order to have stratification. You can also have stratification in liquids, gasses and plasma.

The sentence in bold is of course your delusion that the TRACE instrument's 171 Angstrom pass band can see below the photosphere when this is physically impossible. And ...

Notice how in the image below the coronal loops (blue) on the limb do not actually touch the visible surface (yellow) of the Sun. They stop at the layer of solar moss (the bright lines). Astronomers describe this as position as the "base" of the coronal loops as seen in the image. The TRACE 171A images never extend to the photosphere.

Anyone who knows basic physics will see that the TRACE 171 Angstrom filter being used excludes radiation from material cooler then 160,000 K and so excludes the chromosphere (about 2000 km thick, highest temperature ~100,000 K) and some of the solar transition zone.

Moss at the Limb:

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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"?

who would have guessed, no answer on my simple question how electrons, accelerated by the electric field from the sun to the heliosphere, can drag along ions (which are much heavier and will feel an opposite force from said electric field) to create the solar wind.

Instead of a simple answer (it cannot be done) we get a rant about magnetic reconnection.

ladidadidaaaaaaa

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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?

For goodness sake, this is standard solar plasma physics. Strong currents are driven through the coronal loops (magnetic field lines coming out of the Sun, turning over and going into the Sun again), through the shearing motion of the foot points of these loops. The strong currents HEAT the plasma that is in the loops. There are NO discharges here that heat the plasma. Naturally, the hot plasma emits radiation, THAT IS WHAT PLASMAS DO! Unless you want to call the current flowing in the coronal loop a "discharge", which would be rather ridiculous.

The fact that the loops emit radiation is NOT an enigma for solar plasma physics, IT IS WHAT HOT PLASMAS DO (not that you would know about that MM). Yes, the loops can get very hot and has NOTHING to do with reconnection. That does not just happen, reconnection in such a loop, there have to be certain conditions fulfilled before a loop can flare.

MM you are just obfuscating your lack of knowledge by claiming that others cannot explain things (when indeed they can, you just don't know about it). Stop playing this stupid evasion game, and start to explain the electric universe, which it the topic of this thread. Why don't you start explaining the electric solar wind, like I asked already thrice (once Sol88 and twice you) and not only me also other members have asked.

Science is more than looking at pretty pictures and stringing words together that sound profound but are everything but. You just try to use the fallacy that "if theory A cannot explain what I think is correct than my theory must be right".

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Here's that article on the activity in a comet tail that I was talking about earlier David.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1001165932.htm

That still does not explain how the water is created at the comet. O³⁺ will still NOT react with two H⁺ to form H₂O.

And apart from that, according to the electric comet "theory" the oxygen comes from machining the surface of said comet.

[Sol88]

Chit! you go away for a couple days and look what happens

Tusenfem wrote:

Quote:

MM you are just obfuscating your lack of knowledge by claiming that others cannot explain things (when indeed they can, you just don't know about it). Stop playing this stupid evasion game, and start to explain the electric universe, which it the topic of this thread. Why don't you start explaining the electric solar wind, like I asked already thrice (once Sol88 and twice you) and not only me also other members have asked.

MMMM....if the Sun was made of iron at it's core, then...

The Mystery of the Shrinking Red Star

Quote:

Low-mass electrons carry most of the electric current in space plasma. Galaxies and the stars within them seem to be “born” electron deficient by an efficient charge separation process observed in laboratory plasma discharges. Stars operate as positive anodes in a galactic glow discharge. I wrote about red giant stars in Twinkle, twinkle electric star, “Red stars are those stars that cannot satisfy their hunger for electrons from the surrounding plasma. So the star expands the surface area over which it collects electrons by growing a large plasma sheath that becomes the effective collecting area of the stellar anode in space. The growth process is self-limiting because, as the sheath expands, its electric field will grow stronger. Electrons caught up in the field are accelerated to ever-greater energies. Before long, they become energetic enough to excite neutral particles they chance to collide with, and the huge sheath takes on a uniform ‘red anode glow.’ It becomes a red giant star.

The electric field driving this process will also give rise to a massive flow of positive ions away from the star, or in more familiar words—a prodigious stellar ‘wind.’ Indeed, such mass loss is a characteristic feature of red giants. Standard stellar theory is at a loss to explain this since the star is said to be too ‘cold’ to ‘boil off’ a stellar wind. And radiation pressure is totally inadequate. So when seen in electric terms, instead of being near the end point of its life, a red giant may be a ‘child’ losing sufficient mass and charge to begin the next phase of its existence— on the main sequence.”

also Twinkle, twinkle electric star

Quote:

Juergens went to great pains to explain the complex and exquisitely tuned control mechanism of the solar discharge. His insights are of paramount importance for an understanding of the Sun and for clarity on one of the most frequently asked questions: can we rely upon the Sun as a constant source of life-giving energy? As noticed by Scott, the tufted plasma sheath above the stellar anode seems to be the cosmic equivalent of a ‘PNP transistor,’ a simple electronic device using small changes in voltage to control large changes in electrical power output. The tufted sheath thus regulates the solar discharge and provides stability of radiated heat and light output, while the power to the Sun varies throughout the sunspot cycle.

Quote:

>> The Sun’s plasma sheath. The white curve shows how the voltage changes within the solar plasma as we move outward from the body of the Sun. Positively charged protons will tend to “roll down the hills.” So the photospheric tuft plasma acts as a barrier to limit the Sun’s power output. The plateau between (b) and (c) and beyond (e) defines a normal quasi-neutral plasma. The chromosphere has a strong electric field which flattens out but remains non-zero throughout the solar system. As protons accelerate down the chromospheric slope, heading to the right, they encounter turbulence at (e), which heats the solar corona to millions of degrees. The small, but relatively constant, accelerating voltage gradient beyond the corona is responsible for accelerating the solar wind away from the Sun. Credit: W. Thornhill (after W. Allis & R. Juergens), The Electric Universe.

This ability of the Sun’s plasma sheath to modulate the solar current was demonstrated dramatically in May 1999, when the solar wind stopped for two days. The bizarre event makes no sense if the solar wind is being ‘boiled off’ by the hot solar corona. But in electrical terms, its regulating plasma sheath performed normally and there was no noticeable change in the Sun’s radiant output.

If the Sun is iron and then we can have

Quote:

Underlying all tube operation is the fact that any metal is continuously emitting electrons. Both the number and the speed with which they are emitted increases very strongly with temperature, although in fact emission takes place at anything above absolute zero (-273°C). To understood emission, we have to look at what is going on inside the body of the metal. In any metal, there are one or two electrons that can easily be detached from an atom, so that inside the solid metal there is a kind of sea of electrons floating around independently of any particular atom. The latter are fixed in place inside the crystal structure and do not move about at all, although they vibrate in place. This sea of electrons is common to all metals, and indeed is really the defining characteristic of a metal and explains many of their familiar properties such as electrical conductivity and the fact that they are shiny.

Since the electrons are not attached to any particular atom, they move about constantly, very much like the molecules in a gas. The average speed of the electrons increases with temperature, but because they are constantly bouncing off of the atoms and each other they do not all have the same speed but rather obey a statistical distribution law.

If an electron happens to be going towards the surface of the metal, then it will naturally tend to fly right out through the surface. However there are powerful forces trying to stop it, for the simple reason that there are positively charged metal atoms inside (because they have lost one or two electrons to the “electron sea”) and none outside. Thus an electron approaching the surface is slowed down, and only those having enough energy can escape. The amount of energy required is called the “work function”, and varies for different metals.

This is a convenient point to say how electron energy is measured. First of all, the energy of an electron corresponds directly to its speed. This follows the same law for kinetic energy as anything else, such as a car:

LINK

And what about secondary emissions?

Especially if the sun's core where iron, then induction heating could be on the cards!

Quote:

Induction heating allow the targeted heating of an applicable item for applications including surface hardening, melting, brazing and soldering and heating to fit. Iron and its alloys respond best to induction heating, due to their ferromagnetic nature. Eddy currents can, however, be generated in any conductor, and magnetic hysteresis can occur in any magnetic material. Induction heating has been used to heat liquid conductors (such as molten metals) and also gaseous conductors (such as a gas plasma). Induction heating is often used to heat graphite crucibles (containing other materials) and is used extensively in the semiconductor industry for the heating of silicon and other semiconductors.

That heating WILL release electrons!

The Ions are be repelled and the electrons are being emitted= the solar "wind"(Thermionic emission)

Thermionic emission

Quote:

Thermionic emission is the heat-induced flow of charge carriers from a surface or over a potential-energy barrier. This occurs because the thermal energy given to the carrier overcomes the forces restraining it. The charge carriers can be electrons or ions, and in older literature are sometimes referred to as "thermions". After emission, a charge will initially be left behind in the emitting region that is equal in magnitude and opposite in sign to the total charge emitted. But if the emitter is connected to a battery, then this charge left behind will be neutralized by charge supplied by the battery, as the emitted charge carriers move away from the emitter, and finally the emitter will be in the same state as it was before emission. The thermionic emission of electrons is also known as thermal electron emission.

The classical example of thermionic emission is the emission of electrons from a hot metal cathode into a vacuum (archaically known as the Edison effect) used in vacuum tubes. However, the term "thermionic emission" is now used to refer to any thermally excited charge emission process, even when the charge is emitted from one solid-state region into another. This process is crucially important in the operation of a variety of electronic devices and can be used for power generation or cooling. The magnitude of the charge flow increases dramatically with increasing temperature. However, vacuum emission from metals tends to become significant only for temperatures over 1000 K. The science dealing with this phenomenon has been known as thermionics, but this name seems to be gradually falling into disuse

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Originally Posted by holocrap

Galaxies and the stars within them seem to be “born” electron deficient by an efficient charge separation process observed in laboratory plasma discharges. Stars operate as positive anodes in a galactic glow discharge.

Welcome back, Sol88 and thanks for quoting this drivel from holocrap.
I hope you understand that holocrap is claiming the exact opposite from what Michael Mozina is claiming.

Sheesh, even the EU proponents among each other cannot get their stories straight.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Welcome back, Sol88 and thanks for quoting this drivel from holocrap.
I hope you understand that holocrap is claiming the exact opposite from what Michael Mozina is claiming.

Sheesh, even the EU proponents among each other cannot get their stories straight.

Lending even more support to my suspicion that Michael is completely alone in his delusion. And it brings back a question (one of dozens) that Michael has never answered about his inability to convince anyone that he is correct. Not a single professional or academic in the field of astrophysics or related sciences agrees with him, not even remotely. I would like to hear his explanation for being so utterly incapable of making his case in a way that anyone can understand.

It seems to come down to him being the single most intelligent human who ever lived, so far beyond the mental processing ability of any other person that nobody can understand his awesome insight. Well, maybe there is an alternative explanation, that being that he is wholly incapable of communicating with normal, rational human beings in a sane and reasonable way, therefore his correct explanation of how-things-are is simply being missed by the masses. Oh wait, there's one more very good possibility. It could be that he's simply wrong in every way, and no matter how well he explains his fantasy or how intelligent he might be, he'll never convince other people because there's no truth to his claim. Yeah, there's much evidence for that. I think I'll go with "C".

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Sol88

MMMM....if the Sun was made of iron at it's core, then...

Oh, but Michael doesn't think the core is iron. Rather, he thinks that there's an iron shell floating on top of some high-pressure plasma His model is ridiculous, but you haven't even figured out what his model is.

Quote:

The Mystery of the Shrinking Red Star

So much stupid in such a small space.

"The growth process is self-limiting because, as the sheath expands, its electric field will grow stronger."

Nope. An increased area would produce a decreased electric field. The author is clearly clueless about electricity.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Oh, but Michael doesn't think the core is iron. Rather, he thinks that there's an iron shell floating on top of some high-pressure plasma His model is ridiculous, but you haven't even figured out what his model is.

Well you have to admit it would be difficult for Sol88 to figure out what the Mozina model is, since Michael hasn't actually specified his crazy notion in terms of a solar model. He doesn't know how thick the shell is. He can't define the thermal or density characteristics. He won't actually commit to a particular material, other than to say some vague kind of iron that acts unlike any material ever known. He doesn't know anything about the science required to see 4000 kilometers into the photosphere, but he thinks it can be done. He even thinks he's the only human on Earth who has actually done it.

He doesn't know where the electricity comes from that powers his glowing orb, but fancies it operates like a $19.95 Wal-Mart plasma ball, or the white hot sparks blowing off an arc welder's electrode. But he doesn't seem to actually know how those things work. He doesn't know what sort of current or resistance values would be required to make the Sun as hot and bright as it is. He doesn't know that brighter isn't necessarily hotter, even though that has been explained to him many times.

He does believe Birkeland postulated a solid surfaced Sun, but can't actually show anyone where Birkeland did that. He sees what appear to be calculations in Birkeland's notes, and assumes that must be where the answer lies, but has no clue what those numbers really mean. He went on about his hero Birkeland's iron terrella model for several weeks once before someone actually had to tell him the terrella wasn't iron at all. It was brass.

Michael can't do math. It's doubtful he can even balance his own checkbook judging from the evidence he's placed before us here. And that running difference image he posts at the very top of his web site, the one he keeps lying about not being explained by anyone? He doesn't even know how to explain it himself. "It looks like a surface." Yep, that's it. He doesn't know how high the mountains, which things are surface features and which ones aren't, how big an area the picture includes, and over what kind of time span the sequential source images were gathered. He can't explain, in any detail, that first image he hangs out as evidence.

Not once has Michael been willing to specify a quantitative detail about the running difference image, or about anything related to his wacky conjecture. Numbers, quantitative data, something on which to start calculating the plausibility of his fruitcake fantasy, are meaningless to him. He's said so himself repeatedly. Solar models, at least from a legitimately scientific point of view, require quantitative descriptions. Michael has never offered any such thing. There is no model. So it's no surprise that Sol88 doesn't know what Michael is talking about. Nobody really does. Not even Michael!

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

I already did that a long time ago: Comments on Magnetic Reconnection. But we all know quite well that it is prejudice that counts over science with you, so naturally you summarily reject all of the controlled laboratory experiments that disagree with your personal preconceptions. You didn't even consider any of them, just dismissed them with a wave.

You evidently do *NOT* understand my position on MR theory very well Tim. I don't "dismiss" anything. Birn's paper on MR theory (discussed on space.com) convinced me that the math related to the theory was fine, the approach is "ok" from the standpoint of physical descriptions, but there is no way to physically determine if the this is a "unique" form of energy exchange. How is it physically different (at the point of energy release) than say "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection", or induction or an ordinary discharge process in plasma? I don't see how you (or anyone else) can determine in any of these "experiments" if the magnetic fields are themselves doing anything, or the particles and charge attraction is doing the work.

Quote:

It is the transition of the magnetic field to a lower energy configuration, so energy is transferred from the magnetic field to the kinetic energy of the particles.

How exactly would that be a unique energy release process and not "induction"?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Welcome back, Sol88 and thanks for quoting this drivel from holocrap.
I hope you understand that holocrap is claiming the exact opposite from what Michael Mozina is claiming.

It's actually different theory for several key reasons. The principle is similar in that in involves charge separation between the sun and the heliosphere and it involves electrical flow. It's evidently wired in reverse. The other key difference is that in I believe that the solar atmosphere is layered by the element and the photosphere emits white light due to it's elemental composition (neon) not because it is in a unique electrical state from any of the other layers.

Quote:

Sheesh, even the EU proponents among each other cannot get their stories straight.

Sheesh, imagine that! People can actually have a difference of opinion and it's "ok" not to all think alike.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You evidently do *NOT* understand my position on MR theory very well Tim. I don't "dismiss" anything. Birn's paper on MR theory (discussed on space.com) convinced me that the math related to the theory was fine, the approach is "ok" from the standpoint of physical descriptions, but there is no way to physically determine if the this is a "unique" form of energy exchange. How is it physically different (at the point of energy release) than say "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection", or induction or an ordinary discharge process in plasma? I don't see how you (or anyone else) can determine in any of these "experiments" if the magnetic fields are themselves doing anything, or the particles and charge attraction is doing the work.

How exactly would that be a unique energy release process and not "induction"?

MM: Tim Thompson is talking about magnetic reconnection and thus any energy release he refers to is "unique" to magnetic reconnection.

Of course there are other processes occurring in plasmas. I can not see anywhere that Tim Thompson states that only magnetic reconnection releases energy in plasmas. But perhaps you can provide a quote to this effect.

What Tim Thompson states is that magnetic reconnection has been shown to release energy in theory and in empirical measurements in controlled experiments in laboratories here on Earth.

Can you define "circuit reconnection" and "particle reconnection" for us?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Well you have to admit it would be difficult for Sol88 to figure out what the Mozina model is, since Michael hasn't actually specified his crazy notion in terms of a solar model.

You are either incapable of comprehending the English language, or you really are the single most unethical individual I know of. All of these theories relate directly back to Birkeland's original experiments. It's not *MY* solar model. Wake up already.

Quote:

He doesn't know where the electricity comes from that powers his glowing orb,

I've explained to you several times now that I personally lean towards Birkeland's original power source, specifically fission. *YES* he did mention radioactive elements by name as the power source.

For God sake, talking to you is like talking to brick wall. You do not listen. You do not comprehend what I tell you and you misrepresented everything I've said to you. You irrationally claim that because I don't bark math for you on command that I am incapable of doing any math. That is pure unethical BS. You have no ethics at all.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You are either incapable of comprehending the English language, or you really are the single most unethical individual I know of. All of these theories relate directly back to Birkeland's original experiments. It's not *MY* solar model. Wake up already.

Then why is the Sun's surface not made of brass as in "Birkeland's original experiments" of 100 years ago?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

MM: Tim Thompson is talking about magnetic reconnection and thus any energy release he refers to is "unique" to magnetic reconnection.

At the level of actual *PHYSICS* what is physically unique about this process that is demonstrated to be different from

A) particle collisions, aka "reconnections" in plasma.
B) Circuit reconnect where the circuit energy determines the reconnection rate?
C) plain ol' "induction".

Quote:

Of course there are other processes occurring in plasmas. I can not see anywhere that Tim Thompson states that only magnetic reconnection releases energy in plasmas. But perhaps you can provide a quote to this effect.

I'm not blaming Tim for claiming that *ONLY* MR can release energy in plasma, I'm blaming him for chosing something that *DOES NOT* occur in nature under natural circumstances when *NATURAL* explanations can and do release these forms of energy in plasma.

Quote:

What Tim Thompson states is that magnetic reconnection has been shown to release energy in theory and in empirical measurements in controlled experiments in laboratories here on Earth.

I'd like to know how you, they, Tim, or anyone else eliminated the other 3 items on my list when deciding that this experiment released energy in a "unique" physical way. I don't see how you could isolate any of the other three afforementioned items from consideration during such experiments when the very movement of ions is a form of "current flow".

Quote:

Can you define "circuit reconnection" and "particle reconnection" for us?

Sure. It's all the *NATURAL* things that happen in an ordinary electrical discharge here on Earth.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Then why is the Sun's surface not made of brass as in "Birkeland's original experiments" of 100 years ago?

Because the SERTS data show us lots of photons from many different ions of Nickel and Iron and the coronal loops emit light from heavily ionized iron, not copper and zinc.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

The other key difference is that in I believe that the solar atmosphere is layered by the element and the photosphere emits white light due to it's elemental composition (neon) not because it is in a unique electrical state from any of the other layers.

Why do you think neon gives off white light? I've asked you about this before, and you avoided the question.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Because the SERTS data show us lots of photons from many different ions of Nickel and Iron and the coronal loops emit light from heavily ionized iron, not copper and zinc.

What is the % of Nickel and Iron?
What is the % of heavily ionized iron in the coronal loops?
Are these close to 100% and if not why not?

Why do expeiments with brass spheres have anything to do with the Sun if it is not made of brass?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Sure. It's all the *NATURAL* things that happen in an ordinary electrical discharge here on Earth.

You've provided one statement covering two terms. Are we then to assume that these two terms are interchangeable? If so, why are you using two terms? If not, what's the difference?

Your "definition" is not really a definition at all. But then, you've had trouble before coming up with a definition for standard physics terms, I guess I shouldn't expect any better when it comes to non-standard terms.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

For goodness sake, this is standard solar plasma physics. Strong currents are driven through the coronal loops (magnetic field lines coming out of the Sun,

So they are essentially a "current carrying" thread?

Quote:

turning over and going into the Sun again),

How do they "go in" exactly, and where do they "go in" again? I only observe them as partial loops just as in Birkeland's experiments. You folks seem to think we can't even see them until they reach the corona.

[quote]through the shearing motion of the foot points of these loops. [quote]

Where are the "footprints" in your opinion, and how much "shearing" must it take to heat plasma to millions of degrees?

Quote:

The strong currents HEAT the plasma that is in the loops. There are NO discharges here that heat the plasma.

These two statements are at odds. If the strong currents heat the plasma then there is a discharge process in the plasma.

Quote:

Naturally, the hot plasma emits radiation, THAT IS WHAT PLASMAS DO!

But the photosphere plasma is only 6 thousand Kelvin. It's not that "hot". Something is causing it to jump several OOMS in temperature. Here on Earth that happens in "discharges" in the Earth's atmosphere.

Quote:

Unless you want to call the current flowing in the coronal loop a "discharge", which would be rather ridiculous.

Why would it be ridiculous in your opinion to go with the one known force of nature that does this in the Earth's atmosphere?

Quote:

The fact that the loops emit radiation is NOT an enigma for solar plasma physics, IT IS WHAT HOT PLASMAS DO (not that you would know about that MM).

It's not originally that hot. Something has to heat the plasma, and that something is *ELECTRICITY*. It happens all the time here on Earth in electrical storms. Why would you need to look to any other form of energy if all you need to do is explain high temperature plasma? Electrical discharges and a do cause these sorts of emissions.

Quote:

Yes, the loops can get very hot and has NOTHING to do with reconnection.

How does it get hot then?

Quote:

That does not just happen, reconnection in such a loop, there have to be certain conditions fulfilled before a loop can flare.

"Reconnection" as it describe on WIKI requires the loops to actually "cross" in order for MR to occur. The problem for your theory is that the plasma is *ALREADY* over a million degrees in *BOTH LOOPS* even *BEFORE* they cross. How did that happen?

Quote:

MM you are just obfuscating your lack of knowledge by claiming that others cannot explain things

You haven't personally *EXPLAINED* anything. Start with a single loops and explain how it reaches millions of degrees and sustains those temps.

Quote:

Science is more than looking at pretty pictures

It's more than looking at pretty math formulas too. Observation and *EXPERIMENTATION* are the cornerstones of science. Math formulas are a dime a dozen. Birkeland's ideas work in a lab. You're idea do not and no terella in a vacuum ever spewed particles from the whole surface due to "magnetic reconnection".

Quote:

You just try to use the fallacy that "if theory A cannot explain what I think is correct than my theory must be right".

Yet that is exactly the mentality you are applying as it relates to Birkeland's solar theory. Anything you think I can't explain automatically seems to validate a gas model solar theory in your head even though none of you can explain those persistent features, or anything specific about either of those two images. Your theories do not work. They don't explain the observations. They don't explain the heliosiesmology data. They don't explain the RD images. They don't explain continuous solar wind acceleration for a whole sphere. They don't explain any of the key things that Birkeland's model not only "explained' but that he actually "simulated" in a lab with "electricity", something that is "natural" and occurs in nature, here on Earth , and in the solar atmosphere.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You've provided one statement covering two terms. Are we then to assume that these two terms are interchangeable? If so, why are you using two terms? If not, what's the difference?

Your "definition" is not really a definition at all. But then, you've had trouble before coming up with a definition for standard physics terms, I guess I shouldn't expect any better when it comes to non-standard terms.

You're playing "definition games" rather than to deal with the obvious. Electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere occur all the time. They are a "natural" event that occurs on other bodies in space too. The only body in space where you seem to reject this process is in the solar atmosphere, an atmosphere that is spewing million mile per hour charged particles from it's entire surface. That is "current flow" you're ignoring and it's staring you in the face. You refuse to acknowledge the obvious solution, in favor of a process that isn't even unique as far as you know and that none of you can actually show to be unique and different from ordinary current sheet transactions.