Electric universe theories here.

[edd]

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.

So tell us how those temperatures and densities change and show us that this matches observations of limb darkening. 'Cos apparently, the way its told at the moment, it doesn't.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

In the sense that by 'confirm' via in situ measurements, yes he could only directly access and measure events on Earth.

He was not able to confirm "jets, solar wind, etc.".

Actually, the existence of aurora confirm the presence of solar wind and they wouldn't exist without the solar wind. It's a key "prediction" (a real prediction) of his experimental modeling, as are the jets, the coronal discharge loops, etc. These were things that *HE LEARNED* from his experiments and that were not obvious to him, or expected when he first built his physical experiments. He did in fact "predict' all of these other things based on "good old fashion empirical experimentation" and real "control mechanisms". He didn't predict solar wind or jets with "magnetic reconnection". He used "electricity" to create these features as well as *ELECTROmagnetic* fields inside the sphere.

The Earth (and planets and Sun) are not metallic globes and Birkeland knew this.

Yes they are very much "magnetic globes" and he know that.

That is why he is careful to describe his terella experiments as analogies.

They weren't described as "analogies" as in he was suggesting they had no application at all. He was noting that they were oversimplified models perhaps, but there's nothing in his work to suggest he didn't expect the sun to have a crust, or the Earth to have a crust. You seem to insist he formed opinions about the sun from some other means other than with a cathode metallic sphere. He even postulated uranium as the power source.

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".

Ya, but he also talks about the voltage and the "current flow" and you folks don't seem to grasp that part, or acknowledge that part. Why is that? Why is it that you would fixate on a word or two and ignore the calculations related to voltage differences between the surface and space?

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,

So what? That does not automatically mean *ALL* of them are invalid, or that even most of them are invalid. So what if he missed a couple of things and didn't quite get everything right?

e.g. Saturn's rings are icy particles (not bright rings from by discharges from a metallic globe).

They emit light from "ring currents" however and their existence and location could very well be related to an EM process. So what? You find one or two flaws and toss out the whole thing?

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.

And so we can safely say that his knowledge of cosmology was rather limited due to a limitation with technology in general in that time period. He did however know a whole lot more about solar system physics that you folks understand even to this day. He didn't neglect to mention the voltage difference between the surface and "space", or what we would today call the "heliosphere". He understood that an electrical discharge process between the surface and the heliosphere created "solar wind" and he expected to find high speed particles coming from the sun and bombarding Earth. You guys look at those high speed charged particles whizzing by us at over a million miles per hour and you all fail to call it by it's proper name, *CURRENT FLOW*.

 

[GeeMack]

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?

For anyone new to the conversation, Michael doesn't have any idea what he's talking about. Because of the wavelength of light being seen in this image and other reasons, we know that it comes from the corona, thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. What Michael mistakenly believes he's seeing are features he claims are thousands of kilometers below the photosphere. And his only support for his claim comes in his incessant whining that it looks like it to him therefore it must be true. He's wrong.

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.

Nothing on any web site ever described anything in these images as coming from below a few thousand kilometers of opaque plasma. The people who create these images understand, and are very clear about the location of the light being gathered. It's from the corona, not the photosphere, and certainly not below the photosphere. Again, Michael's claim that anything you see here does come from below the photosphere is wholly unsupported by anything other than his own demand that it does.

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.

There are no rigid features, nothing solid, not a surface or crust, no mountains or valleys, not anything of the sort in this image. There can't be because nothing in this image shows anything below the photosphere. If you're new to the conversation, watch the following posts where Michael throws a tantrum because it's been explained that he's wrong. He'll rail on me and call me names, but he will not offer one single piece of scientific substantiation. Because no such substantiation exists.

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.

There is no mountain, no surface, and anything like it "clearly visible in the images" is only part of Michael's delusion. We know where these images come from. We know how high above the photosphere the 171Å light is. We have scientifically explained it many times in the past, and even a couple times right here in this thread. The whole ludicrous idea even runs directly contrary to Michael's own claim about a solid surface a few thousand kilometers below the photosphere. He desperately needs this surface to exist so as not to shatter his delusion, so he makes up evidence, pulls it out of his ass, sees a surface thousands upon thousands of kilometers above where even he claims it is.

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.

And once more, Michael demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that he doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about.

Hey, Michael. Why is it that not one single professional in the field of physics, or any related field for that matter, agrees with your crackpot fantasy? Are you smarter than every physicist on Earth? Are you stupider? Is there some problem with your ability to communicate that prevents you explaining it in a way that anyone else can understand? Or are you just plain wrong?

And in all these years of throwing tantrums, demanding that people should agree with your interpretation of the running difference images, demanding that those who disagree should be required to show you why you're wrong (which pretty much all of them have done, by the way), not a single person educated in physics has ever accepted your claim. Yet interestingly enough you have never once actually undertaken the effort to explain the images in any detail yourself. How about you tell us why each pixel is as bright as it is, every last pixel, and do so in a way that other people can understand. You know, a complete, objective, understandable explanation of every last detail in the image, like I've given.

(New to the conversation? Watch how Michael follows up by throwing yet another tantrum and, even when given the opportunity to actually support his fantasy with something more than whiny demands, he won't. )

 

[GeeMack]

They weren't described as "analogies" as in he was suggesting they had no application at all. He was noting that they were oversimplified models perhaps, but there's nothing in his work to suggest he didn't expect the sun to have a crust, or the Earth to have a crust. You seem to insist he formed opinions about the sun from some other means other than with a cathode metallic sphere. He even postulated uranium as the power source.

And there was absolutely nothing in Birkeland's work where he suggested that the Sun did have a crust.

(Newcomers, watch how Michael blows his stack again. He could use this opportunity to actually point out exactly where Birkeland suggested the Sun had a solid surface, but he won't. Mostly because he can't, but partly because he's too lazy to actually do any more than whine and complain. He'll cry like a little girl because someone dared to point out how wrong he is. But prove he's actually got a valid, supportable position? He can't do it. )

 

[Michael Mozina]

And there was absolutely nothing in Birkeland's work where he suggested that the Sun did have a crust.

You mean except for the fact that every single one of his solar models had a metallic crust? Your denials won't change history even if you can't comprehend the term "metallic globe".

 

[Michael Mozina]

For anyone new to the conversation, Michael doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.

This statement is pathetic coming from you. You made *THREE* (not one or two) *HIGHLY CRITICAL* errors when even trying to explain the RD technique itself. You blew it so badly that nobody in their right mind should or would take you seriously ever again. I doubt even D'rok buys your BS anymore. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? You don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Even RC, a self proclaimed novice kicked your butt, and his primary mistake was caused by you in the first place because he was gullible enough to listen to you.

Did you or RC manage to pick out stars in the background of a LASCO image yet?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So tell us how those temperatures and densities change and show us that this matches observations of limb darkening. 'Cos apparently, the way its told at the moment, it doesn't.

How are you explaining "limb darkening" in any solar model and what makes you think this solar model would be different in that specific respect?

 

[D'rok]

This statement is pathetic coming from you. You made *THREE* (not one or two) *HIGHLY CRITICAL* errors when even trying to explain the RD technique itself. You blew it so badly that nobody in their right mind should or would take you seriously ever again. I doubt even D'rok buys your BS anymore. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? You don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Even RC, a self proclaimed novice kicked your butt, and his primary mistake was caused by you in the first place because he was gullible enough to listen to you.

Did you or RC manage to pick out stars in the background of a LASCO image yet?

For the record, D'rok sees you getting your buttons pushed and getting all worked up without really addressing GeeMack's substantive points.

From my relatively science-ignorant perspective, I see this:

1. You haven't made a convincing case that the RD image on your website captured the movement of "static" features like mountains in the same way that the LASCO animations captured the movement of "static" features like stars in the background.
2. You haven't made a convincing case that the RD image on your website shows anything but a graphical representation of activity in the Corona.

Try giving me a layperson's explanation for #2. How can the instrument designed to capture images from the Corona actually capture images from solar features far below the Corona?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Technological limitations

And there was absolutely nothing in Birkeland's work where he suggested that the Sun did have a crust.

You mean except for the fact that every single one of his solar models had a metallic crust?

So, according to you, because Birkeland was technologically limited to the use of a metallic sphere to create voltage, then the Sun must perforce be likewise limited? Did Birkeland in fact write anywhere that he expected the sun to have a solid metal surface?

 

[Michael Mozina]

For the record, D'rok sees you getting your buttons pushed and getting all worked up without really addressing GeeMack's substantive points.

What point did he make that you feel is "substantive"? Can you see stars in Lasco images? Can you see "flying stuff" in Lasco images? Is there a light source in these images other than our CRT?

FYI, if I'm "getting my buttons pushed" it is due to RC and GM's constant reliance upon personal insult in each and every post. Instead of focusing on ideas, they focus on individuals and smear the individual, even when it turns out that neither of them has any experience at all with RD images. RC couldn't even locate the archives hours after I had posted you a link to them. Is he even actually reading my statements are making any attempt to understand them as you have done? I'm tired of the childishness and the constant barrage of insults from those two. Neither of them can see a star yet in a simple LASCO image, and there is no way either of them can understand anything about getting a directional component in the RD image based upon the positioning of the shadow. I think even you already understand these things and can see "flying stuff" in both the original Lasco images as well as the RD variety. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken on any of these points.

From my relatively science-ignorant perspective, I see this:

First of all, even admitting that you aren't well versed in these images yet says volumes about your integrity. You aren't attacking me personally, you aren't calling me a crackpot in every post, you're simply noting that my beliefs are "incredible", and you're at least making an honest effort to understand my position before going ballistic. It turns out the RC isn't really any more versed in RD imaging than you are, he just *THINKS* he's an expert without evidently ever watching many of them. He's *SUCH* the expert he can feel comfortable calling me a crackpot and intentionally distorting my statements. Is that even rational or reasonable behavior?

FYI you already know *INFINITELY* more about RD imaging than GM.

1. You haven't made a convincing case that the RD image on your website captured the movement of "static" features like mountains in the same way that the LASCO animations captured the movement of "static" features like stars in the background.

Ok. I'll accept for the time being that you remain "unconvinced". That doesn't make me a crackpot, or even wrong. I simply have failed to convince you thus far into the conversation. Note that I haven't even posted a link yet to a real "explanation" of this image. All you really know is what I've been able to explain to you while under a constant barrage of personal insults on a public website. It's not the most conducive place for a scientific discussion, you'll at least acknowledge that much won't you?

2. You haven't made a convincing case that the RD image on your website shows anything but a graphical representation of activity in the Corona.

Ok, but why would a light plasma corona show persistent patterns at these wavelengths? There has to be a "cause/effect" relationship here that relates to the geometric shapes we observe in the image.

Try giving me a layperson's explanation for #2. How can the instrument designed to capture images from the Corona actually capture images from solar features far below the Corona?

Fair enough. The surface is highly electrically active. It experiences small surface discharges almost everywhere, all the time. We don't normally see them as individualized loops because most of them are not larger than 350 kilometers which is the approximate surface distance of a single pixel in this particular RD image. What we see are small emissions from just above the surface that follow the contours of the surface. They also light the surface and the surface reflects light, but I doubt we see those photons. Probably just the photons from the actual discharges are bright enough to bee seen in these images. Think of the surface as undergoing constant electrical discharges. What we see are the patterns of discharges that show up due to the physical contours of the terrain. The high regions experience more "wind", more plasma flow. They therefore are more electrically active, particularly on the side that faces the atmospheric movement. We can tell which way the plasma atmosphere is blowing based upon the movement of the plasma after the CME. The material spewed from the CME moves from the CME event location in the bottom right side, up and toward the left.

The original images also show a lot of angular detail, all of which retains the same geometric relationships to one another. Plasma is fluid. It's mobile and hot and actively spewing from the sun at over a million miles per hour. If you look at images of the structures (light/dark areas) of the photosphere in white light, they move around. They flow like a boiling liquid and come and go in roughly eight minute intervals. We see *lots* of movement in plasma that is consistent with liquids and gasses, like that wave in Kosovichev's dopper image. Like that structure under the wave in Kosovichev's video demonstrates, there are "persistent" features under the photosphere that are much more "rigid" (that's the term we used in the paper rather than solid) than the plasma of the photosphere. You might argue the idea that this rigid feature is a more dense plasma, but its lack of movement throughout the video demonstrates is not moving at the same speed, rate or exhibiting any of the same behaviors as the light plasma photosphere.

As it relates to issue of location, keep in mind that all of these images are monocular images, and the white light images do not go through the same exact camera equipment as the 171A images. They have to be put together in the same way as any composite image is put together.

The loops are three dimensional and therefore you can't *assume* their location is limited to one single layer of the solar atmosphere. It's possible I suppose that they could be, but we can't begin with that assumption. Even LMSAL seems to admit that the bases of the loops are more brightly lit than the rest of the loop, and they assume most of the heating of the plasma takes place in the base of the loops. The question then becomes, where are the base of the loops located (tops could be anywhere), and how is that heating process occurring and why in that specific location?

*IF* the base of the loops originate in the corona, then why can't we see the base of the loops in x-rays from the Yohkoh satellite (in yellow), whereas we can observe the bases of the loops in 171A (in blue)?
http://www.solarviews.com/cap/sun/moss8.htm
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a000600/a000691/a000691.mpg
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/search/Keyword/SolarFlare.html

 

[edd]

How are you explaining "limb darkening" in any solar model and what makes you think this solar model would be different in that specific respect?

Temperature rises as you descend at the Sun's photosphere. From what RC says, this is the opposite of what you are saying happens.

 

[Reality Check]

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?

Do you mean the light and dark dots in the background that flash off at random in the original images?
Otherwise tell us exactly what image to look at or that it is every image.

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.

There are no light sources in the RD amination by definition. There are depictions of changes in light sources.

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

Neither - I am waiting fo you to give a coherent answer that fits the basic laws of physics.

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.

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_000828_170708.gif

Notice all the little light and dark dots along the right side?

Yes but I do not see any "crust" or "mountains and valleys". What I see are the filaments of coronal loops.
And there are plenty of artifacts from you increasing the contrast.

Not every "loop" is going to be large enough to span more than a single pixel. The loops all along the surface emit light.

Wrong. Coronal loops are not "along" any surface. Side on views clearly show them above the surface. Using the 171A pass band means that the images are of activity above the photosphere.
I think you mean that all coronal loops emit light which is kind of obvious.

This is what you stated:

...snip... Nobody ever said that the surface itself generated these photons. How many times have I told that to you now?

Then what generates the photons (I assume that yoiu mean the ones that can only be from material heated to > 160,000 K in thet ransition zone and corona)?

Why does your web site label these photons that do not come from the surface as "This is an example of a "running difference" image of the sun's surface revealed by the TRACE satellite using its 171 angstrom filter. This filter is specifically sensitive to iron ion (FE IX/X) emissions and records a C3.3 flare and mass ejection in AR 9143 in 171Å on 28 Aug. 2000. The flare activity is caused by increased electrical activity as fast moving plasma sweeps over surface ridges, resulting in increased electrical activity on the windward side of the mountain ranges" when the surface cannot be seen in the RD animation (as you are now acknowledging).

 

[Reality Check]

*IF* the base of the loops originate in the corona, then why can't we see the base of the loops in x-rays from the Yohkoh satellite (in yellow), whereas we can observe the bases of the loops in 171A (in blue)?
http://www.solarviews.com/cap/sun/moss8.htm
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a000600/a000691/a000691.mpg
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/search/Keyword/SolarFlare.html

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg

The answer is easy.
No scientist thinks that the base of coronal loops "originate in the corona". They are loops. The bottom of these loops is below the photosphere.
Neither image in the composite images shows the bases of the coronal loops.
Both images show as far down along the coronal loop as the frequency of emitted light allows them to see. For the 171A this is a few 1000 km above the photosphere. I do not know what pass band the Yohkoh satellite uses but the same situation applies (I suspect that it can only see light from the corona itself as X-rays come from very hot material).

 

[D'rok]

Fair enough. The surface is highly electrically active. It experiences small surface discharges almost everywhere, all the time. We don't normally see them as individualized loops because most of them are not larger than 350 kilometers which is the approximate surface distance of a single pixel in this particular RD image. What we see are small emissions from just above the surface that follow the contours of the surface. They also light the surface and the surface reflects light, but I doubt we see those photons. Probably just the photons from the actual discharges are bright enough to bee seen in these images. Think of the surface as undergoing constant electrical discharges. What we see are the patterns of discharges that show up due to the physical contours of the terrain. The high regions experience more "wind", more plasma flow. They therefore are more electrically active, particularly on the side that faces the atmospheric movement. We can tell which way the plasma atmosphere is blowing based upon the movement of the plasma after the CME. The material spewed from the CME moves from the CME event location in the bottom right side, up and toward the left.

The original images also show a lot of angular detail, all of which retains the same geometric relationships to one another. Plasma is fluid. It's mobile and hot and actively spewing from the sun at over a million miles per hour. If you look at images of the structures (light/dark areas) of the photosphere in white light, they move around. They flow like a boiling liquid and come and go in roughly eight minute intervals. We see *lots* of movement in plasma that is consistent with liquids and gasses, like that wave in Kosovichev's dopper image. Like that structure under the wave in Kosovichev's video demonstrates, there are "persistent" features under the photosphere that are much more "rigid" (that's the term we used in the paper rather than solid) than the plasma of the photosphere. You might argue the idea that this rigid feature is a more dense plasma, but its lack of movement throughout the video demonstrates is not moving at the same speed, rate or exhibiting any of the same behaviors as the light plasma photosphere.

As it relates to issue of location, keep in mind that all of these images are monocular images, and the white light images do not go through the same exact camera equipment as the 171A images. They have to be put together in the same way as any composite image is put together.

The loops are three dimensional and therefore you can't *assume* their location is limited to one single layer of the solar atmosphere. It's possible I suppose that they could be, but we can't begin with that assumption. Even LMSAL seems to admit that the bases of the loops are more brightly lit than the rest of the loop, and they assume most of the heating of the plasma takes place in the base of the loops. The question then becomes, where are the base of the loops located (tops could be anywhere), and how is that heating process occurring and why in that specific location?

*IF* the base of the loops originate in the corona, then why can't we see the base of the loops in x-rays from the Yohkoh satellite (in yellow), whereas we can observe the bases of the loops in 171A (in blue)?
http://www.solarviews.com/cap/sun/moss8.htm
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a000600/a000691/a000691.mpg
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/search/Keyword/SolarFlare.html

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg

I'm having some trouble following this explanation. I need to try and digest it some more. But RC's answer to your final question is quite convincing to me:

The answer is easy.
No scientist thinks that the base of coronal loops "originate in the corona". They are loops. The bottom of these loops is below the photosphere.
Neither image in the composite images shows the bases of the coronal loops.
Both images show as far down along the coronal loop as the frequency of emitted light allows them to see. For the 171A this is a few 1000 km above the photosphere. I do not know what pass band the Yohkoh satellite uses but the same situation applies (I suspect that it can only see light from the corona itself as X-rays come from very hot material).

This was really the point I am trying to understand. I don't really know what the "171Å pass band" is, but I take it to mean that the filter used on the telescope that captured your image limits the telescope to "seeing" only light of a certain spectrum (frequency? wavelength?) that is known to originate in the corona and not below. Do you acknowledge this technical limitation?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do you mean the light and dark dots in the background that flash off at random in the original images?

OMG. Nothing happens "randomly" in any of these images! Everything has a *CAUSE* and an observable effect. Let me know when you can finally spot a background star and "flying stuff" in a running difference Lasco-C3 image. Until you can spot even that much, there isn't much more for us to talk about. With no experience at all, D'rok seemed to have no trouble finding the background stars in the Lasco RD image. I'd highly recommend that you keep your day job because you really suck at satellite image analysis.

There are no light sources in the RD amination by definition.

False. The sun emitted every photon in every pixel of every frame of every original image and every frame of the subtracted image as well. FYI, that's what you were supposed to "understand" by finding the stars in the Lasco image.

There are depictions of changes in light sources.

You mean like when the light sources move?

This is pointless. You don't comprehend the process. You actually did better by yourself than with the useless "help" of GM because he is the one that led you down the primrose path about there being "no" (as in none) light sources in the "animation". That is absolutely wrong. The light sources in the background of the Lasco images are the stars that you can see in the original images. When the star moves, it shows up as a bright spot (cause it's there in the image now) and a 'dark shadow' where it used to be (because we subtracted a lot of photons from that position in the second image). There's no mystery here about what's physically going on in these image. You are intentionally or unintentionally complicating or confusing this process to the point of absurdity. It's not that complicated and even D'rok seems to now properly understand some of the basics and can find stars and flying stuff in RD images.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm having some trouble following this explanation. I need to try and digest it some more. But RC's answer to your final question is quite convincing to me:

The answer is easy.

The notion of "easy" is all to often abused by astronomers by the way. It's "easy" to calculate all kinds of things if you *OVERSIMPLIFY* the process to the point of absurdity.

No scientist thinks that the base of coronal loops "originate in the corona".

That is kind of pure baloney that GM and RC are now famous for. I know several "scientists" that think otherwise and who've even gone so far as to write published papers with me, etc.

They are loops. The bottom of these loops is below the photosphere.

Then there is no reason at all we cannot see them below the surface of the photosphere to some depth because the "loop" is full of million degree plasma.

Neither image in the composite images shows the bases of the coronal loops.

Sure they do. I see a "base" just fine in 171A right where iron is being peeled from the surface and ionized in the arc.

Both images show as far down along the coronal loop as the frequency of emitted light allows them to see. For the 171A this is a few 1000 km above the photosphere.

You're basing this number not upon physics or upon how light travels in different densities of plasma. You're basing this number on pure *ASSUMPTION* of it's location in spite of the physical evidence to the contrary. The base of the loops is where the heating occurs and we can see it's brightest (and hottest) in the 171A images near their base, not near the top of the loop. The loop temperature (other than the base) is relatively constant.

I do not know what pass band the Yohkoh satellite uses but the same situation applies (I suspect that it can only see light from the corona itself as X-rays come from very hot material).

Assuming this is true, that means that base of the arcs cannot be located in the corona, but at a substantial distance under the corona. The blue parts of the loop extend a long way down into the atmosphere whereas the x-rays are a relatively shallow phenomenon. There is no way that you are only seeing 171A light from the corona. If these are full "loops", where is the bottom half of of the loop, and what blocked the light below the point we see it in the composite image?

This was really the point I am trying to understand. I don't really know what the "171Å pass band" is, but I take it to mean that the filter used on the telescope that captured your image limits the telescope to "seeing" only light of a certain spectrum (frequency? wavelength?) that is known to originate in the corona and not below. Do you acknowledge this technical limitation?

Keep in mind that light is emitted in specific wavelengths related to the physical valence shells of the atom. Each wavelength filter tends to be targeted at a type of element or few types of elements. The 171A, the 195A filter, and the 284A filter are all filters that peak in iron ion wavelengths. In other words, while they pick up photons from other types of elements like Oxygen, they are most sensitive to iron atoms that are ionized MANY times over, 9,10, 12 and 15 times over. I think RC posted a useful graph around here somewhere explaining the temperature sensitivities of the wavelengths. The three iron ion wavelengths tend to require about a million degrees Kelvin to ionize iron to that degree and to emit these photons. The 305A filter is tuned to helium, and is most sensitive to helium emissions at a much lower temperature than either of the other three wavelengths.

Nowhere does any of that information tell us where we might expect to find the footprints of the arcs/loop. If we were looking at a discharge in the Earth's atmosphere, we would NECESSARILY find the base of the discharge is attached to ground.

There is no "technical' limitation here that precludes us from seeing under the photosphere, PROVIDED THAT the base of the loops originate under the photosphere. Even if the photosphere is dense enough to *EVENTUALLY* block most of the light, it won't happen in the first few kilometers. The question becomes one of "optical depth" of the photosphere, and that is the only mechanical or technical limitation. To some depth we will absolutely see these wavelengths below the surface of the photosphere so long as they originate under the photosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Temperature rises as you descend at the Sun's photosphere.

Actually the opposite is true even in standard theory. The deeper we descend into the solar atmosphere, the cooler it gets. We start in the million degree corona, jump down to say 20,000K in the chromosphere and only 6K in the photosphere.

 

[edd]

Actually the opposite is true even in standard theory. The deeper we descend into the solar atmosphere, the cooler it gets. We start in the million degree corona, jump down to say 20,000K in the chromosphere and only 6K in the photosphere.

You do realise I said "at the Sun's photosphere"? That's why I said it. Nice try.

 

[GeeMack]

What point did he make that you feel is "substantive"? Can you see stars in Lasco images? Can you see "flying stuff" in Lasco images? Is there a light source in these images other than our CRT?

When you look at a bar chart, a graph, a pie chart, a thermometer, a gas gauge, or any other such graphical presentation of a set of data, the light source, whether it is the dashboard lights in your car, the sun shining on the thermometer on your porch, or the florescent light behind the LEDs on your computer monitor, the light source is not part of the data. Until you understand this simple fact, and understand that a running difference image is a compilation of data prepared in graphical form, you will never, and I mean never know what you're talking about when it comes to running difference images. I'm confident that everyone in this discussion agrees with my explanation of the light source.

And who gives a damn about flying stuff? Your claim is there's a solid iron surface on the Sun. Aside from the sheer ridiculousness of that claim, from a legitimately scientific, physical sciences point of view, flying stuff, whether present or not, has nothing to do with a solid surface. You're not seeing flying stuff in a running difference image, that's true. But even if you were, it doesn't support your claim one little bit, so put a lid on it, will ya?

My substantive concern, which you consistently ignore, whether by intent or because you're so wrapped up in your delusion you can't see out (thereby meriting you the descriptor "ignorant"), is that you simply cannot see thousands of kilometers under the Sun's photosphere using optical imagery, however it might be filtered or processed, that is acquired from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. It's simply impossible.

It would be more realistic to claim to see the R.M.S. Titanic by looking at weather satellite images of clouds on Earth. You're just not going to do it. Yet with every posting I have been imploring you to present the science behind your claim to such an amazing feat of optical analysis. Set aside for a moment the Nobel Prize waiting for you for your discovery of the solid surface on the Sun, that kind of optical imagery and analysis process would get you a Nobel on its own! But with every response you fill your posts with moaning and whining, and still something obvious is missing. Any sort of explanation of any kind as to your method for performing your magical viewing feat.

What do we get instead? Constant hollering and tantrums and objections to the replies which clearly show you're wholly incapable of doing what you claim, and more whining and bitching about how you by God can see what you claim to see, but not a single effort put forth to demonstrate that you actually can do it. And this, after more than three years, hasn't changed a bit. You've gotten absolutely nowhere in all that time.

FYI, if I'm "getting my buttons pushed" it is due to RC and GM's constant reliance upon personal insult in each and every post. Instead of focusing on ideas, they focus on individuals and smear the individual, even when it turns out that neither of them has any experience at all with RD images. RC couldn't even locate the archives hours after I had posted you a link to them. Is he even actually reading my statements are making any attempt to understand them as you have done? I'm tired of the childishness and the constant barrage of insults from those two. Neither of them can see a star yet in a simple LASCO image, and there is no way either of them can understand anything about getting a directional component in the RD image based upon the positioning of the shadow. I think even you already understand these things and can see "flying stuff" in both the original Lasco images as well as the RD variety. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken on any of these points.

There are no shadows or flying stuff in running difference images. They're graphs and charts, not pictures. And as I mentioned above, flying stuff in any form wouldn't support your crackpot fantasy about a solid surface on the Sun anyway. Notice how your entire comment above is just more whining, and totally irrelevant to your claim? No, I don't suppose you do. I get the idea you'd rather cry than engage in a discussion of actual science. Saves you a lot of embarrassment if you can fill your posts with complaints instead of making the stupid mistakes you tend to make in the rare instance when you actually do try to talk science.

First of all, even admitting that you aren't well versed in these images yet says volumes about your integrity. You aren't attacking me personally, you aren't calling me a crackpot in every post, you're simply noting that my beliefs are "incredible", and you're at least making an honest effort to understand my position before going ballistic. It turns out the RC isn't really any more versed in RD imaging than you are, he just *THINKS* he's an expert without evidently ever watching many of them. He's *SUCH* the expert he can feel comfortable calling me a crackpot and intentionally distorting my statements. Is that even rational or reasonable behavior?

But, Michael, you're a crackpot, by definition. You can't do math. You don't understand physics. You don't understand the process of science. You don't have a supportable claim. You're relying on very badly misinterpreted information you cherry pick from 100 year old material. You refuse to catch up. You refuse to learn math, or physics, or the scientific method. You haven't yet once offered any quantitative support for any of your crazy claims. You're a crackpot. Seems your choice is to get used to being called a crackpot, or learn some real math and physics, catch up to 21st century science, begin to scientifically address legitimate criticisms of your nutty fantasy instead of ignoring them. You know, just generally stop being a crackpot.

FYI you already know *INFINITELY* more about RD imaging than GM.

What's there to know. You take the value of pixel A,1 in Image 1, subtract it from the value of pixel A,1 in Image 2, and put a pixel representing that difference in position A,1 in the running difference output. Then repeat for every pixel in the source images. Duh.

Ok. I'll accept for the time being that you remain "unconvinced". That doesn't make me a crackpot, or even wrong. I simply have failed to convince you thus far into the conversation. Note that I haven't even posted a link yet to a real "explanation" of this image. All you really know is what I've been able to explain to you while under a constant barrage of personal insults on a public website. It's not the most conducive place for a scientific discussion, you'll at least acknowledge that much won't you?

You have failed to convince anyone. There is not a single professional or educator in any field related to solar physics who agrees with your fruitcake fantasy that the Sun has a solid iron surface. That says something about your claim, something that you're missing, something very important. It says your claim either isn't correct, or you're wholly incapable of convincing anyone that it is correct.

Ok, but why would a light plasma corona show persistent patterns at these wavelengths? There has to be a "cause/effect" relationship here that relates to the geometric shapes we observe in the image.

You'd need to do a time span analysis of the imagery in order to determine any persistency. You'd also have to know about what falls into the range of normal. It's a quantitative thing, Michael. I'm sure you wouldn't' understand. Clue: It was all done for you on SFN a few years ago, because you didn't have the ability to do the math and science necessary. The conclusion was that it's all quite mundane. You ignored it.

The original images also show a lot of angular detail, all of which retains the same geometric relationships to one another. Plasma is fluid. It's mobile and hot and actively spewing from the sun at over a million miles per hour. If you look at images of the structures (light/dark areas) of the photosphere in white light, they move around. They flow like a boiling liquid and come and go in roughly eight minute intervals. We see *lots* of movement in plasma that is consistent with liquids and gasses, like that wave in Kosovichev's dopper image. Like that structure under the wave in Kosovichev's video demonstrates, there are "persistent" features under the photosphere that are much more "rigid" (that's the term we used in the paper rather than solid) than the plasma of the photosphere. You might argue the idea that this rigid feature is a more dense plasma, but its lack of movement throughout the video demonstrates is not moving at the same speed, rate or exhibiting any of the same behaviors as the light plasma photosphere.

More unsupported speculation about persistency and rigidity and more misunderstanding of what helioseismology research is actually showing us.

As it relates to issue of location, keep in mind that all of these images are monocular images, and the white light images do not go through the same exact camera equipment as the 171A images. They have to be put together in the same way as any composite image is put together.

The loops are three dimensional and therefore you can't *assume* their location is limited to one single layer of the solar atmosphere. It's possible I suppose that they could be, but we can't begin with that assumption. Even LMSAL seems to admit that the bases of the loops are more brightly lit than the rest of the loop, and they assume most of the heating of the plasma takes place in the base of the loops. The question then becomes, where are the base of the loops located (tops could be anywhere), and how is that heating process occurring and why in that specific location?

Demonstrate that the people at the research organizations who produce these images don't know what they're doing and you do. Demonstrate that there's any kind of particular error in processing or assembling any of the images that should call into question the accuracy of the presentation of data. Your simple incredulity doesn't support your claim.

*IF* the base of the loops originate in the corona, then why can't we see the base of the loops in x-rays from the Yohkoh satellite (in yellow), whereas we can observe the bases of the loops in 171A (in blue)?

It's a two dimensional image. You can't know the depth of anything from looking at it. Although there are ways to know the depths, and those methods have been discussed at some length in conversations you were involved in, you never seems to get it. You, Michael, don't know how deep or shallow or high or low pretty much anything in that image really is. This was proven, in fact, several years ago on SFN, when you were offered an opportunity to show that you actually could point out various depths with any accuracy. You couldn't do it.

Now how about that detailed, quantitative analysis of that running difference image? You know, detailed, specific, and objective, describing your method in a way that other people can apply it and come to the same conclusion you've reached, you know, as complete and convincing as the ones given by me and the other people in this thread?

And where's that lab experiment done right here on Earth, with no fudge factors, repeatable, using no metaphysical hocus pocus, that shows how you can image something thousands of kilometers above the photosphere and process those images in such a way that the results show something thousands of kilometers below the photosphere? I'm sure you'll agree that if you can't meet your own standards of evidence, your claim is worthless. Allow me to repeat that: Your claim is worthless.

 

[Michael Mozina]

D'rok, here are some references on the filters in question.

http://trace.lmsal.com/Project/Instrument/inspass.htm
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-...quest-id=d8cb8789-6b99-4941-93da-7e36574b3eb2