Electric universe theories here.

[Dancing David]

They are attracted to the outbound electrons and follow them. In larger CME events, the plasma in the solar wind acts as a conductor for electrons and they are ionized in the electron stream in the case of coronal loops.

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]

That answers does not address the angular persistent patterns in the image. We observe "flying stuff" flowing from the bottom right toward the upper left right after the CME event. Moving and changing elements are revealed in these images, as well as *NON MOVING* elements. What are those angular persistent patterns in the image? What is the "cause" of their stationary appearance? Why doesn't the CME blow them away like it blows "stuff" into the atmosphere?

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.

If that is the best that all of you can cumulatively come up with in terms of satellite imagery analysis, perhaps there is no hope for you folks. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? Peeling? What peeling? Such statements are nothing but a sad, sad, sad denial song and dance routine.

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.

Anybody actually watching the image with an open mind and open eyes is going to notice the flying stuff entering the atmosphere right after the CME event and they'll notice the peeling effect along the right bottom corner that occurs shortly thereafter. They'll also notice all those persistent angular structures in the image too and I'm sure they'll wonder why they appear to be "rigid" in the image. Aren't you folks even the least be curious about the details we observe in the images?

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]

No, you're just a crackpot

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?

who refuses to admit that he's wrong.

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?

You get so hyped on on an image, and you don't have a clue about it. You're working backwards from a conclusion.

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.

Which doesn't exist. Evidence? No pictures.

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?

Show us, without using pictures, that such a thing can exist on the sun.

What *exactly* will convince you if you reject both math and observation?

Remember to provide calculations about density and the composition of the material, and how mass is distributed while maintaining the same radius and gravitational pull. Oh, you can't?

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?

You embraced something without knowing what it is. That's like embracing a cactus, though less amusing. The Doppler image shows a rigid feature only to you. Do you understand that?

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?

Then you are easily fooled. Birkeland may have had some good ideas that even stuck around, but I think you need to get caught up with 21st century physics and astronomy and put the 19th century astronomy aside.

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".

I can't because I'm not qualified.

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?

If I were to take a stab at it, I'd say that's a Doppler image of the sun.

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.

Did it never occur to you that things can have form? I see that stuff all the time when I look at clouds. I see areas of turbulence from interactions with gas on the photosphere.

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're not innocent of this, so don't get started. I'm calling you out as a scientist.

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.

Your methods are nonexistant

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.

and you haven't done any actual work aside from shout and scream and point at the picture.

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.

To say you lack the basic understanding is not an insult or an attack. It's the truth.

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.

You have no idea how go about proving something.

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.

The others have gone into good detail about those images,

Who? Which *specific detail* are you referring to?

you've chosen to ignore them

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?

so you can continue to claim empty victories.

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.

You're a troll. An entertaining troll, but a troll.

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.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

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?

You don't know what you're talking about, Michael. Dr. Neal Hurlburt says you're wrong.

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"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Then give it a go, Michael. Show some courage.

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]

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?

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.

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"?

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.

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!

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]

Atmospheric Profile Inversion Techniques

That is not true. The "thinness" of the plasma is irrelevant.

Come on. You can't start by claiming that density is irrelevant when it comes to absorption and scattering, etc.

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 ...

It's the optical depth which determines whether or not the plasma will radiate as a black body.

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.

How did you intend to even attempt to calculate it's optical depth to any specific wavelength if you don't know it's elemental composition and density?

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 ...

Let's start with the basics. How did you determine that number 1.0 without knowing either it's elemental composition or it's density?

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.

 

[derekmcd]

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.

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]

This is why you have zero credibility GeeMack. Of course there is flying stuff. It's a CME event for crying out loud! "Flying stuff" is a given during CME activity and flying stuff from the CME can be observed in the images, both the original 171A images, as well as the RD images. These are exactly the kind of statements you make that demonstrate to me that you have absolutely no clue about the physical processes we are observing in these multimillion dollar satellite images. You put no effort at all into actually analyzing the images, or the physical processes we observe in these images. You won't see because you refuse to see and you berate anyone who can see.

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 ignore that fact that there is no way from the RD movie alone to tell the difference between the above and call it "flying 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]

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?

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 1.5

5 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 9

12 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 to

5 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]

They are attracted to the outbound electrons and follow them. In larger CME events, the plasma in the solar wind acts as a conductor for electrons and they are ionized in the electron stream in the case of coronal loops.

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]

You think you're the expert on running difference images, Michael?

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]

I did not say that density was irrelevant. I said that "thinness", which is not a well defined word, was irrelevant.

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?

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 ...

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?

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.

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?

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,

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?

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.

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.

Easy.

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.

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).

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]

I hate to disappoint you, but this is SO against electrodynamics that it is laughable.

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 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.

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"?

 

[GeeMack]

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.

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]

You think you could provides for me some sources that support your presentation of "Birkeland was right

You aren't denying this fact as it relates to aurora I assume?

and Chapman was wrong".

Is space an empty vacuum, or does it have "flying electrons and flying electric ions" as predicted by Birkeland and his team?

I'd certainly love to see something that support scientists considering Birkeland a crackpot (or an equivalent term of the day).

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".

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.

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]

Interesting. Dr. Hurlburt from LMSAL, the guy who was responsible for making that image said you're wrong.

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.

Reality Check said you're wrong.

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]

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

 

[GeeMack]

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.

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.

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.

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 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'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?

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.

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]

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.

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.