Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

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

Ooops, I missed that. Oh well. You simply 'assumed' that the process stopped there. Note that during sunspot activity we typically find plasma that thousands (plural) of degrees cooler than the photosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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,......

....you aren't looking at a running difference image.

This isn't a pie chart or a bar graph, or a "graphical representation" of data. It's a running difference image. The light (every single photon) all comes from the sun, even the photons we subtract. The fact you can't and won't grasp this point shoots your credibility to hell. These are simply two normal images with the pixel intensity of one image "subtracted" from the another. The light sources all come from the sun, just as the changes (and persistence) are directly related to solar processes. The background light in LASCO images come from stars we can see in the original image. It's all "light from the sun" and the sun(s) are the original light source of all the images, including the RD image. There's no pie chart here!

Those stars in the background of a Lasco RD image are there, literally visible in black and white, just as the "flying plasma is there that you can never see. You can see these things very clearly in the RD images. You have NO, in fact you have negative credibility as it relates to RD images.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And who gives a damn about flying stuff?

Anyone who's actually interested in analyzing these images professionally gives a damn. If you can't see what *IS* moving, how the hell will you notice what isn't moving?

You are absolutely worthless. Even when you've been proven wrong, time and time again, you don't care. You bounce up with more personal insults and you attempt to hide your ignorance and your errors with a constant barrage of personal insults. You're not a scientist you're a sleaze.

 

[edd]

Ooops, I missed that. Oh well. You simply 'assumed' that the process stopped there. Note that during sunspot activity we typically find plasma that thousands (plural) of degrees cooler than the photosphere.

Sunspots, being - y'know - spots, are highly localised. Limb darkening is a Sun-wide phenomenon and quite homogeneous.

Can you work out from your model what the limb darkening should be, even approximately? This is undergrad level physics, it shouldn't be hard to make even a simple approximation which should give us a decent handle on the situation here.

 

[GeeMack]

....you aren't looking at a running difference image.

This isn't a pie chart or a bar graph, or a "graphical representation" of data. It's a running difference image. The light (every single photon) all comes from the sun, even the photons we subtract. The fact you can't and won't grasp this point shoots your credibility to hell. These are simply two normal images with the pixel intensity of one image "subtracted" from the another. The light sources all come from the sun, just as the changes (and persistence) are directly related to solar processes. The background light in LASCO images come from stars we can see in the original image. It's all "light from the sun" and the sun(s) are the original light source of all the images, including the RD image. There's no pie chart here!

Those stars in the background of a Lasco RD image are there, literally visible in black and white, just as the "flying plasma is there that you can never see. You can see these things very clearly in the RD images. You have NO, in fact you have negative credibility as it relates to RD images.

I could be perceived as having no credibility by someone who is too stupid to understand my simple, accurate, and correct explanation. I could be perceived as having no credibility by someone who is so deeply entrenched in a delusion that accepting my simple, accurate, and correct explanation might bring great discomfort due to extreme cognitive dissonance. But since everyone else in this discussion, and several others on other forums, accept my explanation as being simple, accurate, and correct, I surely don't think the credibility issue has anything to do with me being wrong. I'm not. Unless maybe everyone else is stupid and Michael Mozina is the only smart guy, eh?

But back to business. Prove your point with more than just your usual mouthing off, Michael. Knock off the 4th grader looks-like-a-bunny science and do your science in the real world. Let's see that lab tested, right here on Earth, repeatable, no fudge factor, nothing metaphysical, quantitative, and objective experiment that shows you can see thousands of kilometers below the photosphere, using data processed for graphical observation, the source of which was acquired from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. After all, all your ideas meet those criteria. Oh, and explain your method in such a way that other people can apply it and come to the same conclusion as you, like I did.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Sunspots, being - y'know - spots, are highly localised. Limb darkening is a Sun-wide phenomenon and quite homogeneous.

Can you work out from your model what the limb darkening should be, even approximately? This is undergrad level physics, it shouldn't be hard to make even a simple approximation which should give us a decent handle on the situation here.

(bold added)

There is an abundance of objective evidence that points ineluctably to the conclusion that 'undergrad level physics' is beyond MM's comfort level - indeed, it is likely beyond his current competence level - so while it may not be hard for you, or thousands of other JREF Forum members, it is very likely not only hard for MM but impossible.

And what is that evidence?

In part it is a rather long series of posts in a different JREF Forum thread. In that thread MM shows that he a) does not understand the (standard) definition of pressure, and b) is unable to apply that definition to a relatively simple, idealised system.

In part it is a quite different, but still long, series of posts in a third JREF Forum thread, on magnetic reconnection ... MM demonstrated equally clearly that he does not understand simple definitions, nor can he apply them to simple, idealised systems.

Of course, as always, I could be wrong. And it would take but a single, relatively simple and straight-forward post by MM to show that I am wrong.

I look forward to being shown I am wrong.

 

[edd]

(bold added)

There is an abundance of objective evidence that points ineluctably to the conclusion that 'undergrad level physics' is beyond MM's comfort level - indeed, it is likely beyond his current competence level - so while it may not be hard for you, or thousands of other JREF Forum members, it is very likely not only hard for MM but impossible.

I should add that it is mildly non-trivial undergrad level physics. However, MM claimed not that far upthread to have coauthored papers on solar physics. And I would therefore suggest my request and DRD's arguments are not to be dismissed too lightly.

 

[GeeMack]

You are absolutely worthless. Even when you've been proven wrong, time and time again, you don't care. You bounce up with more personal insults and you attempt to hide your ignorance and your errors with a constant barrage of personal insults. You're not a scientist you're a sleaze.

Funny, the phrase "proven wrong" would generally indicate that there's some consensus, some community agreement among at least the other participants in the discussion that I'm wrong. There seems to be no such consensus here, Michael. In fact, anyone else who has expressed an opinion either way actually seems to accept my explanation as correct. My having been proven wrong seems to be an unsubstantiated opinion held exclusively by just one person, you. Maybe another figment of your imagination like the solid surface you see through a few thousand kilometers of opaque plasma? But then your definition of empirical, evidence, science, quantitative, physics, math, umbra, penumbra, and several other terms are strictly your own inventions, so I can see you might have come up with a new one for "proven wrong", too.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

OMG.
You have never heard of cosmic rays and the fact that they cause dots that flash on and off randomly in the CCD detectors used in spacecraft like SOHO.

I'd highly recommend that you keep your day job because you really suck at satellite image analysis.

And you still have not provied a link to any running difference Lasco-C3 image!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I should add that it is mildly non-trivial undergrad level physics. However, MM claimed not that far upthread to have coauthored papers on solar physics. And I would therefore suggest my request and DRD's arguments are not to be dismissed too lightly.

(bold added)

With the caveat that there may be more than one "Michael Mozina", it can also be established, objectively, that there is at least one paper, published in a peer-reviewed journal, on solar physics, which has Michael Mozina as an author.

For example, ADS has six entries in its database with author "Mozina, M"; one of these is a published paper:
Title: "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass";
Publication: Physics of Atomic Nuclei, Volume 69, Issue 11, pp.1847-1856
Authors: Manuel, O.; Kamat, S. A.; Mozina, M.

 

[edd]

(bold added)

With the caveat that there may be more than one "Michael Mozina", it can also be established, objectively, that there is at least one paper, published in a peer-reviewed journal, on solar physics, which has Michael Mozina as an author.

For example, ADS has six entries in its database with author "Mozina, M"; one of these is a published paper:
Title: "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass";
Publication: Physics of Atomic Nuclei, Volume 69, Issue 11, pp.1847-1856
Authors: Manuel, O.; Kamat, S. A.; Mozina, M.

Indeed, and that paper is clearly, from the abstract alone, deeply at odds with current opinion. An indication if ever there was one that one should not take the peer review of a paper as an absolute indicator of truth.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I could be perceived as having no credibility by someone who is too stupid to understand my simple,

Simple as in "Flying plasma? What flying plasma?????? Ya, that's "simple" alright.

accurate, and correct explanation.

Pffft. You made *3* different errors simply explaining the RD technique itself and you didn't touch anything specific at all. You can't deal with anything at all either because you don't even properly understand the RD technique.

A) "Stuff" is flying in all the images.
B) The light source is the sun.
C) nothing about the RD technique creates persistent patterns. Only persistence in the original light source will generate persistence in the patterns.

You blew all three of these points. Even RC kicked your butt and he didn't even know where to find the archives. D'rok probably doesn't even buy your BS anymore and he's already put 10 times the effort into actually physically understanding these images than you ever will. You aren't interested in truth, all you care about smearing the individual, regardless of the cost to anyone and everyone.

 

[Michael Mozina]

OMG.
You have never heard of cosmic rays and the fact that they cause dots that flash on and off randomly in the CCD detectors used in spacecraft like SOHO.

Do you really think this is a clever argument? They have a "CAUSE" too by the way, and their presence in the images doesn't prevent us from seeing stars. Get real.

And you still have not provied a link to any running difference Lasco-C3 image!

Which only demonstrates you:
A) Don't read my posts. Hint: I gave the link to D'rok and to you personally and he found them and you didn't.
B) You aren't even curious enough to search for them on your own for 10 minutes. I guess your total time investment is spent calling me a crackpot as many times as you can *BEFORE* even looking at the images.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Indeed, and that paper is clearly, from the abstract alone, deeply at odds with current opinion. An indication if ever there was one that one should not take the peer review of a paper as an absolute indicator of truth.

Except of course when they serve your argument and then a peer review process is a "big deal", is that it?

 

[edd]

"Except of course when they serve your argument and then a peer review process is a "big deal", is that it?"

If you want to skip the process say so, but it will weaken your position regardless of what you or I choose to say about it.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

No intelligent scientist thinks that the base of coronal loops "originate in the corona". They know for example that "loop" means something that joins back to itself.

The scientific consensus is that coronal loops are caused by loops of magnetic flux. That is why there are hundreds (thousands?) of papers treating them as magnetic coronal loops, e.g. 1200 preprints in arXiv, 28,000 results in Google Scholar for 'magnetic coronal loops'.

You may know several "scientists" (why the quotes?) with a different opinion. The published papers put them in a minority.
As for your published papers - arXiv indicates 1 published paper in a non-astronomy journal: "Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle" by Michael Mozina, Hilton Ratcliffe, O. Manuel in Journal of Fusion Energy, volume 25 (2006).
Perhaps you should add the extensive list of your published papers in astronomy journals to your web site.

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.

Coronal loops are not "full of million degree plasma" in the photosphere. Their temperature rises to ~million K above the photosphere.

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.

No you do not.
Everyone sees a "base" in the 171A image where the material gets hot enough to be seen in the 171A pass band.
You though assume that there is iron from your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible, solid iron surface that is somehow peeled from the surface and transported some thousands of kilometers through plasma to appear in coronal loops.

Actually there may be a way to confirm this:
I would expect coronal loops to have a much greater abundance of iron than the surrounding plasma in the photospher or even corona.
You with your extensive knowledge of solar observations should be able to find plenty of evidence of this.

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.

It is accepted that the coronal loops have most of their heating done just above the photosphere.

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?

The "bottom half" of the loop is below the photosphere.

Need a real astronomer here but:
The heating in the cornal loops happens above the photosphere (I am not sure why). There is no significant heating below the photosphere and so the plasma around the loops is the same temperature as the photosphere, i.e. it is not "blocked" - it is part of the normal emission of the photosphere.

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.

That is obvious. And as you state the 171A filter is sensitive to Fe IX and these need about a millio degrees to form. That is a point about 15,000 km above the photosphere according to the TRACE scientists.

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.

Correct. But

• The Earth's atmosphere is different from the Sun's atmosphere, e.g. it is not thousands to millions of degrees hot. The ability to form electrical discharges in a plasma (the Sun) is different from that in a gas (the Earth). For a start the electrical conductivity of a plasma means that a random discharge happens over a few Deybe length (metres) or needs an external mechanism to separate charges even further.
• You have not presented any evidence that coronal loops are electrical discharges other then your "pictures look alike" agrument.

First asked 8 July 2009:
If we had images of these coronal loops in various wavelengths than how can we tell the difference between an electrical discharge (your notion) and plasma being heated by magnetic fields (the accepted model)?

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.

Light emitted from electrons in atoms comes in specific energy levels. I am fairly sre that this soes not apply to the ifree electrons in a plasma. Otherwise the photosphere would only have discrete wavelengths emitted and that is not what happens.

There is no "technical" limitation here that precludes us from seeing under the photosphere, e.g. limb darkening allows us to see a few hundred kilometres into the photosphere.
There are physical limitations - optical depth for example.

 

[Reality Check]

Ooops, I missed that. Oh well. You simply 'assumed' that the process stopped there. Note that during sunspot activity we typically find plasma that thousands (plural) of degrees cooler than the photosphere.

edd did not assume anything. Liimb darkening means that scientists can measure the temperature below the photosphere and that it increases with depth.

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.

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.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Layers in the Sun

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.

Questions ... Questions. Can you describe these layers quantitatively? What is the temperature of each layer? Are these layers what we see and call the "photosphere", or are the layers below or above the photosphere? And how do the layers remain stratified when we see turbulent convection when we look at the sun?

 

[Reality Check]

(bold added)

With the caveat that there may be more than one "Michael Mozina", it can also be established, objectively, that there is at least one paper, published in a peer-reviewed journal, on solar physics, which has Michael Mozina as an author.

For example, ADS has six entries in its database with author "Mozina, M"; one of these is a published paper:
Title: "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass";
Publication: Physics of Atomic Nuclei, Volume 69, Issue 11, pp.1847-1856
Authors: Manuel, O.; Kamat, S. A.; Mozina, M.

MM is not that far wrong - the other paper I found was
"Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle" by Michael Mozina, Hilton Ratcliffe, O. Manuel in Journal of Fusion Energy, volume 25 (2006).

Neither of which are in astronomy journals and so they were not peer reviewed by astronomers and not read by astronomers.

ETA
"The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass" reveals that MM's delusion stated on his web site that the TRACE 171A pass band can see below the photosphere probably originated with the primary author - O. Manuel.

Fig. 1 shows the images he observed. The top section is a "running difference" image of the Sun's iron-rich, sub-surface revealed by the Trace satellite using a 171 Å filter. This filter is sensitive to emissions from Fe (IX) and Fe (X). Lockheed Martin made this movie of the C3.3 flare and a mass ejection in AR 9143 from this region on 28 August 2000. http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Public/Gallery/Images/movies/T171_000828.avi

​

 

[Michael Mozina]

"Except of course when they serve your argument and then a peer review process is a "big deal", is that it?"

If you want to skip the process say so, but it will weaken your position regardless of what you or I choose to say about it.

Hmm. I guess you're probably right about that.