Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

Whenever did I say that I am an expert on RD animations?

You certainly are playing the role though aren't you? I mean you are over here for pages telling me I'm wrong and some crackpot and you can't even find the SOHO archives? How exactly did you figure out I was wrong if you don't know what you're looking at or even looking for?

What I am is a person who can think about things logically and see that something that only shows changes in original images will only show changes in the original images. Thus any "persistent feature" in a RD animation has to be a record of persistent changes in the original images by definition.

Those "persistent changes' you're talking about are a direct result of the rotation of the sun, the movement of stars, or whatever. They exist in the RD image because they exist in the original images just as the stars exist in both LASCO original images as bright points, and in RD images as bright *AND* dark points.

What I am is a person who has a good science background (in sold state physics so I am quite ready to be wrong about astronomy).

That's good because you are.

Basic physics tells me that a detector that is using a filter that is designed to image material at a temperature of between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K will not see the photosphere or your "surface" as on your web site.

Basic physics won't provide all the answers. You'll need to research these images for years as I have done to even begin to understand them, or at least listen to what I've learned and pay attention to what I tell you. Nobody ever said that the surface itself generated these photons. How many times have I told that to you now?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Peratt's work on galaxy formation models demonstrates that he is a plasma physicist that made the fatal mistake of going outside his area of expertise into astronomy without bothering to learn enough about the new area.

That was Alfven's problem too I presume?

The fatal flaw in his model is that his results do not match reality.

Neither do your galaxy formation models which is why they are stuffed with 80 percent metaphysical fudge factors, and only 20 percent normal matter from the periodic table. So what?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Peratt's work on galaxy formation models demonstrates that he is a plasma physicist that made the fatal mistake of going outside his area of expertise into astronomy without bothering to learn enough about the new area.

That was Alfven's problem too I presume?

Actually, AFAIK, Alfvén was far too smart to venture into that topic.

You see, MM, he apparently knew full-well just how much work he'd have had to do to come to grips with the depth and breadth of the relevant astronomical observations, and theories, in this area.

In many respects, Alfvén really should be your role model MM ... in essence he declared astronomy (as in 'remote observing') to be beyond the bounds of the sort of science he was prepared to dive deeply into (modulo his failures wrt ambiplasma etc).

The fatal flaw in his model is that his results do not match reality.

Neither do your galaxy formation models which is why they are stuffed with 80 percent metaphysical fudge factors, and only 20 percent normal matter from the periodic table. So what?

So you have, once again, demonstrated that your understanding of contemporary science is flawed, and that your alternative approach is sterile.

Oh, and how's your understanding of the Casimir effect coming along? The one in which you can present a *quantitative* explanation that does not include negative pressure?

 

[Reality Check]

Those "persistent changes' you're talking about are a direct result of the rotation of the sun, the movement of stars, or whatever. They exist in the RD image because they exist in the original images just as the stars exist in both LASCO original images as bright points, and in RD images as bright *AND* dark points.

You still have to show us where there stars are in the LASCO images.

So far all I have seen is cosmic ray impacts and a couple of objects that may be stars.

Basic physics won't provide all the answers. You'll need to research these images for years as I have done to even begin to understand them, or at least listen to what I've learned and pay attention to what I tell you. Nobody ever said that the surface itself generated these photons. How many times have I told that to you now?

The RD animations are really simple to understand. The people who created them even describe them and do not agree with you.

If the surface does not generate the photons seen in the TRACE 171A pass band then it cannot be seen in the original images or the RD animation. Thank you for confirming that the TRACE 171A images are of activity in the corona.

Your web site states that the RD animation shows ridges and mountain ranges on the surface (your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface). That contradicts what you have just said.
Which statement is wrong?

 

[Reality Check]

That was Alfven's problem too I presume?

You presume incorrectly.
Alfven never stated anything about galaxy formation and was not ignorant enough to compare plasma locations with optical images.
What he did was create a cosmological model that according to the knowledge at the time (1960's) was correct. This was a scientific theory because it made testable, falsifiable predictions.
The discovery of the CMB and measurements of the X-ray background falsified his theory.

Neither do your galaxy formation models which is why they are stuffed with 80 percent metaphysical fudge factors, and only 20 percent normal matter from the periodic table. So what?

Usual MM blather that ignores actual observations. So nothing new there.

 

[Reality Check]

A bit of a derail from this thread but MM's "metaphysical fudge factors" nonsense reminded me that the Starts With A Bang blog has a series of articles aboutthe history os astronomy in that last 100 years. The latest one is about inflation: The Last 100 Years: 1979 and Before the Big Bang.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, I would like to read why there is 4x the mass that we should be able to see but can't.

MM's contention is just that we are underestimating the observable mass of the universe by a factor of 4.

 

[Dancing David]

I have stared at these pictures for twenty years and concluded, they look like a bunny.

 

[Reality Check]

A little tidbit about the LASCO images. The George Mason University had a CSI 769/PHYS 590 -Solar Atmosphere course in 2004. One project was to to measure the speed of a coronal mass ejection observed by the LASCO C2/C3 coronagraphs.


Project description (DOC file)

CME images --- http://cdaw.gsfc.nasa.gov/CME_list/images/
All Individual coronagraph images are available in a hierarchical structure as year-month-day. In each day directory, you will find links to images in the order of time and instrumentation. All images are in PNG format. You will find that the given C2 (C3) images are not direct images. Instead, they are so called running difference images, which are the result by subtracting a preceding image from current image in order to review any faint moving feature. The file name of a typical image is, e.g, “c2_rdif.20020104100605.png”, which indicates it is a C2 running difference image taken by the LASCO at 2002 Jan. 04 10:06:05 UT. A CME height is measured based on the position of the bright leading edge.

The image is in a square shape. The field of view of a C2 image is 6 Rs (solar radius), meaning it is 6 Rs from the image center to the edges (not to the corner). The C3 field of view is 30 Rs. You may figure out the CME height (in unit of Rs) based on the pixel distance of the leading edge with respect to the center.

Michal Mozina: How dare these professors of astronpomy lie to their students and say the RD images record moving features !

 

[tusenfem]

What problem did Birkeland have in confirming most (ok, not all) aspects of his electrical discharge model? The moment he turned the sphere into a cathode, he was able to replicate the aurora with it, to generate discharges in the atmosphere, jets, solar wind, etc. Ok, sure, he didn't build a breeder reactor in his lab, but that's been done now too.

Michael Mozina, you still have to show where Birkeland is discussing the solar wind, in the way that YOU say that it is operating. In this message on page 12 I go through the whole stuff by Birkie, starting from page 664, as mentioned by you. All the math deals with the motion of particles in a gravitating magnetized sphere. There is no electric field, like you want to have that drives the solar wind, by accelerating the electrons and them dragging along the ions.

Is there going to be any time soon an answer to this? Why can I not find the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkelands book. Where did zou find it. Please, as you are apparently "the expert" on Birkelands book, where should I look to get this "laboratory experiment" of the solar wind?

 

[edd]

Hmm. Well, *IN TOTAL*, yes, it's radiating "largely like" a "black body". It's photosphere does not do that all by itself. The atmosphere is layered both in terms of elements and heat content with the lightest elements radiating at the hottest temperatures and emitting the most photons. The solid surface and and does radiate largely like a black body but at a much lower temperature than 5-6 thousand degrees. The coronal loops generate a lot of that spectrum too. It's a much more complicated process than the standard model presumes, mostly because elements do not stay "mixed" together and float at the surface of the photosphere.



It should be dominated by the wavelengths that come from the upper atmosphere where the lightest elements end up, and the temperature is the greatest. That would be the helium chromosphere and the hydrogen corona. Hydrogen is also being "pinched" from plasma in form of neutrons that then decay into hydrogen atoms over about 10 minutes or so. The upper atmosphere is composed of the sun's lightest elements and they also radiate at the highest temperature. Therefore the sun's spectrum is skewed towards hydrogen and helium as is the spectrum of most stars.

There's a fundamental contradiction here. You cannot both have it radiating largely like a blackbody and have a spectrum dominated by wavelengths from specific elements.

Also, the way it sounds to me you should be able to predict the levels where certain elements are dominating and measure a changing spectrum across the Sun as a function of the line of sight that goes beyond any change in the temperature at that point, much as limb darkening is observed, and show how that isn't supported in more standard solar models. Is that right?

 

[Reality Check]

What problem did Birkeland have in confirming most (ok, not all) aspects of his electrical discharge model? The moment he turned the sphere into a cathode, he was able to replicate the aurora with it, to generate discharges in the atmosphere, jets, solar wind, etc. Ok, sure, he didn't build a breeder reactor in his lab, but that's been done now too.

I had not noticed this statement within MM's many posts.

The only aspect of Birkeland's "electric discharge model" that he was able to confirm was its application to the aurora. You may have noticed that much of his book is about observations (gasp - *UNCONTROLLED* experiments!) of the Earth's aurora.
He was not able to confirm "jets, solar wind, etc.".

The Earth (and planets and Sun) are not metallic globes and Birkeland knew this. That is why he is careful to describe his terella experiments as analogies.
An interesting little point: Birkeland seems to persist in emphasizing magnetic aspects to his experiments, e.g. he refers to "magnetic terella" 9 times in his book and then there is Chapter 1 - "PRELIMINARY REMARKS CONCERNING OUR MAGNETIC RESEARCHES".

In the 100 years since he did his work, experiments and observations have been able to show that many of the suggestions in his book were invalid, e.g. Saturn's rings are icy particles (not bright rings from by discharges from a metallic globe).

The best example of science overtaking his knowledge of the universe is his application of the terrella experiments to spiral nebulae. At the time nebulae were ~100,000 blurs in telescopes, many with spiral structures. We have known since 1926 that these are not electrical discharges but are galaxies consisting of billions of stars.

 

[Reality Check]

There's a fundamental contradiction here. You cannot both have it radiating largely like a blackbody and have a spectrum dominated by wavelengths from specific elements.

Also, the way it sounds to me you should be able to predict the levels where certain elements are dominating and measure a changing spectrum across the Sun as a function of the line of sight that goes beyond any change in the temperature at that point, much as limb darkening is observed, and show how that isn't supported in more standard solar models. Is that right?

The mention of limb darkening raises a question for a real astronomer in this thread:

Limb darkening refers to the diminishing of intensity in the image of a star as one moves from the center of the image to the edge or "limb" of the image. Limb darkening occurs as the result of two effects:

• The density of the star diminishes as the distance from the center increases
  The temperature of the star diminishes as the distance from the center increases.

What happens to limb darkening if the density of the Sun has a higher density (of solid iron) at ~0.99R_o (~4800 km below the photosphere) and at the same point the Sun has a temperature that is < 2000 K that then increases to ~6000 K at the Sun's visible surface.

My guess is that there would be a ring seen on the Sun's limb, i.e. instead of the smooth change in intensity that we see and measure, there will be a discontinuity in the intensity.

ETA:
More reading suggests that this is limited to the first 500 km of the photosphere. It also shows that the temperature at that depth in the photosphere is 6400 K as opposed to 5777 K at the top. This may be a problem for MM's solid iron surface.

 

[edd]

Urgh, it's a while since I had to calculate limb darkening. The photosphere is pretty shallow compared to the ~5000km supposed depth as you note in your edit, so I don't think you'd see a ring, but yes, it looks to me without doing any calculations* that if MM were right you'd see limb brightening, not limb darkening. If MM wants to continue defending his ideas this sounds like another sizeable challenge for him to meet. Well spotted, RC.

*MM will undoubtedly want to criticise me for not doing any calculations but given the lack of detail about how his 'model' is supposed to work it isn't exactly easy, and I'm disinclined to invest effort in disproving a model I believe is pretty clearly ludicrous. He's welcome to try to demonstrate that his model predicts limb darkening of the Sun correctly though.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have stared at these pictures for twenty years and concluded, they look like a bunny.

LOL! I'm glad someone around here has a sense of humor.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually, AFAIK, Alfvén was far too smart to venture into that topic.

Alfven was *MUCH* closer to my position than to yours as it relates to cosmology. Why is that DRD?

You see, MM, he apparently knew full-well just how much work he'd have had to do to come to grips with the depth and breadth of the relevant astronomical observations, and theories, in this area.

Come to "grips"? Is that what you call it when your industry embraces inflation faeries, dark invisible gnomes, etc? There is nothing to "come to grips" with from a place of empirical physics. All you're peddling now are mythical creatures, some dead, some not so dead. They are all invisible and incapable of being seen in a lab, with maybe the exception of SUSY particles if you happen to get *REALLY* lucky. Don't get your hopes up however, because if such things actually exist, it's probably for only a fraction of a second before reverting into something "baryonic" in nature and they probably won't save your metaphysical theory.

In many respects, Alfvén really should be your role model MM ... in essence he declared astronomy (as in 'remote observing') to be beyond the bounds of the sort of science he was prepared to dive deeply into (modulo his failures wrt ambiplasma etc).

The ambiplasma was probably the only thing he "went on on a limb" about. Considering matter and antimatter exist in nature, and have been seen to annihilate each other near the core of even our own galaxy, it doesn't sound nearly as far fetched as your menagerie of mythical invisible creatures.

So you have, once again, demonstrated that your understanding of contemporary science is flawed, and that your alternative approach is sterile.

No, I have once again demonstrated that my understanding of science is empirical by nature and that nature is empirical. Your approach to science is "dogmatic", and "myth making" by it's very nature. You never demonstrated inflation exists before stuffing it into math formulas. You folks forgot to demonstrate "dark" thingies exist before slapping math to them and pointing to the sky. Inflation is literally a "supernatural" construct because it behaves like no other known field in nature. It's the ultimate "ad hoc" assertion.

Your approach to science is religious-like. Your religion requires "faith" from the beginning. It requires "faith" that mythical entities, some of which no longer even exist in nature somehow shaped our very distant past. "In the beginning inflation did it". From there, it's just more physically, empirically unsubstantiated dogma that is utterly packed with lots of nifty math formulas. You guys are a *VIOLENT* religious math cult. When someone points out that "faith" is required to join your cult, you get all upset. When someone disagrees with your dogma, you personally put them on trial. You hold "witch hunts" and put people on trial for heresy. If they don't toe the line, repent, and join your cult, you slit their virtual throat and belittle them *PERSONALLY* (not just the idea) till the end of time. You personally play the role of the Inquisitor and the executioner.

Oh, and how's your understanding of the Casimir effect coming along?

Evidently a lot better than yours.

The one in which you can present a *quantitative* explanation that does not include negative pressure?

Which of you is going to tell me what you *PHYSICALLY* intend to add to a "perfect" vacuum, one that lacks all known forms of matter and energy (subatomic mass) to achieve "negative" pressure in a vacuum? I'll put money on you running like hell from this *SPECIFIC* question.

 

[Michael Mozina]

There's a fundamental contradiction here. You cannot both have it radiating largely like a blackbody and have a spectrum dominated by wavelengths from specific elements.

Aren't you claiming the spectrum is dominated by hydrogen and helium, and if not, how exactly did you figure out which elements a sun is made of?

Also, the way it sounds to me you should be able to predict the levels where certain elements are dominating and measure a changing spectrum across the Sun as a function of the line of sight that goes beyond any change in the temperature at that point, much as limb darkening is observed, and show how that isn't supported in more standard solar models. Is that right?

In theory we should be able to isolate coronal loop emissions as separate from much of the rest of the background elements, PROVIDED that they rise up through the photosphere and into the corona. Even then, the corona is going to influence what we see. How might I keep hydrogen and helium from influencing even these measurements?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You still have to show us where there stars are in the LASCO images.

How can you miss all those light and dark dots in the background? Are you being coy, or just looking at the wrong LASCO images, like D2 rather than D3 images?

The RD animations are really simple to understand. The people who created them even describe them and do not agree with you.

I've never seen them described incorrectly on any official website. I've never seen people who created the image describe any of the details of this image. The only point that seem to screw up the explanation are you and GM. You no expert by your own admission but you managed to do better than GM. You did let him convince you there were NO light sources, and that was unfortunate, but you two are the only ones I've seen take a whack at the RD technique and you both blew it to some degree or another. In your case, your mistakes were minor and you got several things right. GM missed almost everything.

If the surface does not generate the photons seen in the TRACE 171A pass band then it cannot be seen in the original images or the RD animation. Thank you for confirming that the TRACE 171A images are of activity in the corona.

You are either not listening or intentionally building strawmen of my statements. Which is it?

Your web site states that the RD animation shows ridges and mountain ranges on the surface (your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface). That contradicts what you have just said.
Which statement is wrong?

Your understanding is still wrong. The rigid features we observe are in fact causes by the mountains and valleys of the crust. The contour of that crust is visible in all these images, even in the original images with the brightness turned up.

Notice all the little light and dark dots along the right side? Not every "loop" is going to be large enough to span more than a single pixel. The loops all along the surface emit light. The windward side of mountainous objects tend to "light up" due to the motion of plasma past the surface. These things are all clearly visible in the images, both the original images, and the RD images.

But of course you personally will have to learn to walk before you can run. If you can't spot stars in a LASCO-C3 RD image yet, you aren't ready for this RD image.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The mention of limb darkening raises a question for a real astronomer in this thread:

What happens to limb darkening if the density of the Sun has a higher density (of solid iron) at ~0.99R_o (~4800 km below the photosphere) and at the same point the Sun has a temperature that is < 2000 K that then increases to ~6000 K at the Sun's visible surface.

FYI, there are several layers of different temperature plasmas between the crust and the photosphere, including calcium, silicon and THEN the neon photosphere. Each one radiates at it's own temperature based and has its own unique density as determined by it's position in the atmosphere, its temperature and its atomic weight.

My guess is that there would be a ring seen on the Sun's limb, i.e. instead of the smooth change in intensity that we see and measure, there will be a discontinuity in the intensity.

In terms of the visible light part of the spectrum, there certainly is a very significant discontinuity in the intensity. It's called the photosphere. You'll notice that it has a much more limited depth than you seem to imagine that can be seen an measured in sunspot activity. It's depth is typically listed at 1000KM, with looks about right to me based on the sunspot images and the point along the side of the sunspot where each penumbral filament stops emitting light at the same basic depth.

 

[edd]

Aren't you claiming the spectrum is dominated by hydrogen and helium, and if not, how exactly did you figure out which elements a sun is made of?

No, it's dominated by black body emission with some elemental lines in it but those lines are not the grossest feature of the spectrum.

The key word here is 'dominated'.