Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

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Neither of which are in astronomy journals and so they were not peer reviewed by astronomers and not read by astronomers.

As if they're the only "scientists" on the planet? These publications are read by professionals involved in plasma physics and nuclear chemistry. FYI, all the published papers that I've been involved in are freely available on Arxiv.

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1

 

[Tim Thompson]

Solid Surface and Photosphere.

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.

See Maltby, et al., 1986 which includes a tabular photosphere model in the appendix. This is the basis for the photosphere model shown on page 153 of Foukal's book Solar Astrophysics (Wiley-VCH, 2004, 2nd Revised edition). At 500 nm optical depth of 1 the temperature is 6520 Kelvins and goes up to 9400 Kelvins 100 km below that, where the optical depth exceeds 23. The temperature drops to a minimum 4400 Kelvins about 500 km above the optical depth 1 layer, and then increases again as we approach the base of the chromosphere and the temperature exceeds 20,000 Kelvins, about 2100 km up and the optical depth drops to zero, along with the visible light emission. So visible light emission is dominated by the lower & hotter photosphere, where limb darkening is observed. Any solid layer has to be below the bottom of this photosphere in order to remain invisible at visible light wavelengths. But other wavelengths are another matter, and one might wonder how the solid layer remains invisible at all wavelengths. One might also wonder how it affects dynamics, such as easily visible convection, and helioseismological data that are inconsistent with such a surface.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

Linky please.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No intelligent scientist

Gee, a fallacy in the first three words. That may be a record for you.

thinks that the base of coronal loops "originate in the corona".

Where *EXACTLY* do they originate, and how do you know? Why would they all originate in a "layer" at a specific height *ABOVE* the photosphere? How do you know they all start at the same height?

They know for example that "loop" means something that joins back to itself.

Where does it do that, and why can't we see it, and where does it end visually in these images, and why does it end there specifically?

The scientific consensus

And is that an appeal to popularity fallacy I see there?

is that coronal loops are caused by loops of magnetic flux.

Physically explain "magnetic flux", and where does it start "fluxing", above or below the photosphere? Is the "flux" the part that heats it to a million degrees, or is that something else? Where and when and why does a loop reach a million degrees?

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'.

Alfven treated them as "magnetic ropes" which he described as Bennett pinches in plasma, in other words current carrying filaments. Birkeland also treated them as "discharges" in the plasma.

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.

It's been awhile since I've updated my website. Its long overdue for a few updates. If the links really are not there, I'll have to add them.

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

Why does it rise from 6K to 1 million degrees?

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.

It got "hot" on the surface of Birkeland's sphere. You could see it through several (double) layers of plasma.

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.

No, and we've been through that all before. There's nothing thermodynamically impossible about solids being ionized by arcs. Ever use an arc welder before? The whole rod doesn't reach the same temperature of the plasma in the arc.

I need to take a break and get something to eat. I 'll see if I missed something important after I get something to eat.

 

[GeeMack]

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

If that's what you got from my repeated explanations then you not only need some catch-up math, science, and physics courses, I'd estimate your reading skills are somewhere below that of an average 4th grader. Learn to read, then go back to the top of this thread and read all my posts again, Michael. You'll find several explanations scattered in there, not too hard to find, worded slightly differently in most cases, but all consistent, thorough, and understandable. And all supported in whole, I might add, by the organization who acquired, processed, and created the image you're carrying on about.

Pffft. You made *3* different errors simply explain 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.

Once more for the kid with the 4th grade reading skills: If you're using any image to support your crazy fantasy that the Sun has a solid iron surface, then whether or not there is "flying stuff" in the image is a completely meaningless point. "Flying stuff" would indicate, well, something not solid. Jesus, stay focused, Michael. You're losing it. Your point "A" is refuted as irrelevant.

The light source in a running difference image is not the Sun. The image is a graph, a chart, a graphical representation of a series of mathematical computations. The light source in the original images, the source data from which the running difference graph was made, is 171Å emissions from the corona of the Sun, fully 6000 kilometers and more above the place where you think you're seeing a surface. So there's your point "B" shredded.

What we see in the running difference graph are places where the CME got brighter over here and dimmer over there, or more specifically where the 171Å emissions increased over here and decreased over there. It's really more a measure of thermal properties than of brightness. We just happen to find lighter and darker pixels convenient for representing these thermal changes.

The processing puts increasingly lighter pixels, indicating difference values, where the originals became lighter between frames, and increasingly darker pixels, again showing difference values, where the originals got dimmer across the sequence. It looks to you like a bunny because the coronal loop was moving or waving, in some areas growing and constricting. The results of calculating the difference values, in this case, put typically lighter pixels to one side and typically darker ones to the other which look like the light and shadow patterns on a surface. That's also why in some places the light/dark don't follow the pattern we would expect if it were a textured surface lit and shaded by some light source.

In fact, it's because there was change in the location and/or intensity of the 171Å emissions that we see anything at all in the running difference graph. There's no surface, no solid features, no mountains, no valleys, nothing. Anything persistent in the original images will be neutral gray in a running difference output. This was clearly stated by Dr. Hurlburt from LMSAL. Your point "C" is invalidated.

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.

You smear yourself, Michael. Nobody needs to do it for you. From my observation, nobody even needs to help, although I'm glad to do my part when I can.

I put your insane solid surfaced Sun delusion to rest over three years ago. I invested a fair amount of time and effort trying to help you understand what the hell you were talking about. And instead of any thanks for the help, all I got were your continued lies about not having explained your precious running difference images. You treat people like crap, Michael. It's a bit of a trademark with you. You get warned and banned from forums for it. Nobody, particularly me, owes you any respect, dignity, or consideration. Anything you perceive as persecution you brought on yourself. If you'd actually spend as much time learning math and physics as you do with that crybaby poor-persecuted-me routine, you'd have this crazy fantasy licked by now. You'd have seen how completely wrong you are and you'd have moved along to a new hobby.

I'm interested in the truth, very interested. I see a lot of it in these threads from people like Tim Thompson, Reality Check, DeiRenDopa, edd, D'rok, Dancing David, tusenfem, Tubbythin, Ziggurat, and at least a few others. But from you, Michael, other than an occasional accidental burp of truth slipping through your veil of ignorance, barely any at all.

Now are you ever going to let us in on that lab tested, tried and true, right here on Earth, not metaphysical, quantitative, repeatable, objective experiment that shows how you can see 4000 kilometers through an opaque plasma by gathering images from a few thousand kilometers above that opaque layer? You remember, all your ideas meet that test. Oh, and if you could explain your method in a way that other people can understand and agree with your conclusion, that would be great. After all, that's what I did, and you accuse me of not putting forth any effort.

And for anyone just joining in, here's a review of Michael's history discussing these subjects. Give you a chance to know him better, see just how often and for how long he's failed to substantiate any of his whacked out conjectures...

Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum...

8 pages, 30 posts per page...

Michael Mozina's 'Sun has a solid surface' idea​

13 pages, 30 posts per page...

ATM site claims Sun's surface is solid​

14 pages, 30 posts per page...

Sun Is Mostly Iron, Not Hydrogen ​

12 pages, 30 posts per page...

Does Lockheed Martin Understand Black Body Radiation?​

Sockpuppet: ManInTheMirror - 4 pages, 30 posts per page...

ManInTheMirror's claims concerning a BAUT conspiracy​

Sockpuppet: ManInTheMirror - 36 pages, 30 posts per page...

Current theory is no scientifically "better than" plasma cosmology.​

Einstein@Home forum at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee...

How the sun shines​

Over 3,000 postings over at the Skeptic Friends Network...

Surface of the Sun​

 

[Reality Check]

As if they're the only "scientists" on the planet? These publications are read by professionals involved in plasma physics and nuclear chemistry. FYI, all the published papers that I've been involved in are freely available on Arxiv.

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1

Of course they are not the only "scientists" (why the quotes?) in the world. That is dumb.
They are however experts in astronomy.

You chose to publish the papers in journals that would not peer review using reviewers who had expertise on the subject of your papers.
You chose to publish the papers in journals that would not be read by people who had expertise on the subject of your papers.
These experts would be able to properly evaluate your assertions about the Sun.
The actual reviewers would be able to properly evaluate your assertions about plasma physics and nuclear chemistry.

A cynic would say that you did this on purpose.
Personally I think that it was just laziness. O Manuel is used to publishing in plasma physics and nuclear chemistry journals and so continued doing this even though the papers were primarily about astronomy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Linky please.

Linky to what? SOHO?

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mpeg/

The archives you'll find below, but you will probably have to copy and paste it to your browser directly.
http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/

The RD images are in the folders by month with a _D3 extension on the file. I've provided these links before, and this is the last time I'm going to do so. If you intend to continue to debate these points with me, please bookmark them.

Let me know when you figure out how to find stars in the background of original LASCO-C3 images and the RD images.

 

[Reality Check]

Gee, a fallacy in the first three words. That may be a record for you.

So there are no intellegent scientists?
Does this include somone called O Manuel?

Where *EXACTLY* do they originate, and how do you know? Why would they all originate in a "layer" at a specific height *ABOVE* the photosphere? How do you know they all start at the same height?

Can you actually read or do you have a standard script to spew at us?
One more time for the simple minded:
Coronal loops do not originate above the photosphere.

Even your non-science theory assumes that they do not originale above the photosphere.

...snipped MM ignorance...
And is that an appeal to popularity fallacy I see there?

No you do not. It is an appeal to expertise.

...snipped MM ignorance...It's been awhile since I've updated my website. Its long overdue for a few updates. If the links really are not there, I'll have to add them.

Why does it rise from 6K to 1 million degrees?

More of your laziness. Look it up yourself.

...snipped...
No, and we've been through that all before. There's nothing thermodynamically impossible about solids being ionized by arcs. Ever use an arc welder before? The whole rod doesn't reach the same temperature of the plasma in the arc.

I need to take a break and get something to eat. I 'll see if I missed something important after I get something to eat.

We have not been through this before because you cannot comprehend what "hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible, solid iron surface" is referring to.
It is not "solids being ionized by arcs".

It is the second law of thermodynamics.

It is that fact that your notion has a cool layer of iron in contact with at least one hotter object - the photosphere whose temperature is measured to increase with depth from the top. If your notion has an internal energy source of any sort that outputs the amount of energy that the Sun is observed to emit then then the Sun below your iron layer is also hotter than the melting temperature of iron.

To make it obvious:
Your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible, solid iron surface has been in thermal contact with at least one object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for about 4.57 billion years.

It cannot exist.

Your "layers" between the "surface" and photosphere do not help.

• The layer below the photosphere has been in thermal contact with an object (the photosphere) that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for about 4.57 billion years. Try to guess the temperature of that layer.
• The layer below that one has been in thermal contact with an object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for slightly less than 4.57 billion years. Try to guess the temperature of that layer.
• The layer below that one has been in thermal contact with an object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for a smidgen less than 4.57 billion years. Try to guess the temperature of that layer.
• ...
• Now we get to the iron layer which has been in thermal contact with an object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for a bit less than 4.57 billion years. Try to guess the temperature of that iron surface and whether it is solid.

See Maltby, et al., 1986 which includes a tabular photosphere model in the appendix. This is the basis for the photosphere model shown on page 153 of Foukal's book Solar Astrophysics (Wiley-VCH, 2004, 2nd Revised edition). At 500 nm optical depth of 1 the temperature is 6520 Kelvins and goes up to 9400 Kelvins 100 km below that, where the optical depth exceeds 23. The temperature drops to a minimum 4400 Kelvins about 500 km above the optical depth 1 layer, and then increases again as we approach the base of the chromosphere and the temperature exceeds 20,000 Kelvins, about 2100 km up and the optical depth drops to zero, along with the visible light emission. So visible light emission is dominated by the lower & hotter photosphere, where limb darkening is observed. Any solid layer has to be below the bottom of this photosphere in order to remain invisible at visible light wavelengths. But other wavelengths are another matter, and one might wonder how the solid layer remains invisible at all wavelengths. One might also wonder how it affects dynamics, such as easily visible convection, and helioseismological data that are inconsistent with such a surface.

 

[Reality Check]

Linky please.

Looked at a couple more of the LASCO Movies

• MPEG Movie 6.7MB)
• Reduced Resolution (MPEG Movie 0.83MB)
• EIT-C1-C2-C3 Short: Cosmic rays filtered, Leefilt applied (MPEG Movie 950KB)

confirms what I thought. Many of the "stars" in the LASCO images are actually cosmic ray impacts. There are stars in the images - best seen in the last movie. These stars are moving across the field of view. This is caused by the movement of movement of the SOHO spacecraft. See SOHO's web-based orbit simulator.

A running difference animation will record the changes in intensity of pixels caused by the movement of the stars across the field of view (and the cosmic ray impacts). Thus the RD animation will display a record of the movement of the stars.
N.B.
Original movie = actual stars moving.
RD movie = changes in intensity caused by actual stars moving (not the actual stars moving).

The movies have an bonus feature - a comet is shown.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Looked at a couple more of the LASCO Movies

• MPEG Movie 6.7MB)
• Reduced Resolution (MPEG Movie 0.83MB)
• EIT-C1-C2-C3 Short: Cosmic rays filtered, Leefilt applied (MPEG Movie 950KB)

confirms what I thought. Many of the "stars" in the LASCO images are actually cosmic ray impacts.

Wow! You learned your first useful thing about LASCO (actually all) SOHO, TRACE and other satellite images! Cool. Can you accurately pick out the stars now too?

There are stars in the images - best seen in the last movie.

Halleluja! He can finally pick out the stars. Can you do that in RD image yet? FYI your links don't work, so I can't see your movies.

These stars are moving across the field of view. This is caused by the movement of movement of the SOHO spacecraft. See SOHO's web-based orbit simulator.

So now we can talk about "cause and effect". The "cause" of the dark spot is due to the MOVEMENT OF THE BACKGROUND STAR. That's true of the bright spot too. We can even get some idea of the direction of movement too based upon the position of the bright and dark spots.

A running difference animation will record the changes in intensity of pixels caused by the movement of the stars across the field of view (and the cosmic ray impacts). Thus the RD animation will display a record of the movement of the stars.

Cool! Very nice. Now we can actually have a reasonable discussion on this topic. If you can sucessfully pick out stars, then I assume you can also pick out the "flying stuff" that comes out of a the CME in the LASCO movies?

N.B.
Original movie = actual stars moving.
RD movie = changes in intensity caused by actual stars moving (not the actual stars moving).

I agree, it's a "relative" movement and the stars are actually "fixed" compared to the Earth/SOHO and the sun. We're moving, the stars are pretty much fixed at least from our perspective over the timeline of these actual images.

The movies have an bonus feature - a comet is shown.

Cool. Now you can appreciate and discuss "cause/effect" relationships in the image. This could become an useful and interesting discussion after all.

 

[Reality Check]

...snip..Cool. Now you can appreciate and discuss "cause/effect" relationships in the image. This could become an useful and interesting discussion after all.

And now what has this got to do with your Iron Sun idea?

We agree that moving objects in the original images produces records of their change in position in RD animations that look like things that move. You can call these "moving objects" if you want.

That has never been in dispute.

For example the "flying stuff" in the TRACE RD animation is not the actual CME in the corona but is a record of the changes in position and temperature of the CME in the corona derived from the original images. You can confuse people by calling it "flying stuff seen in the corona" (or better yet "flying cooling stuff seen in the corona") if you want.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And now what has this got to do with your Iron Sun idea?

Well, if we ever intend to discuss cause/effect relationships and what is physically going on in these images, these are the steps necessary to have that discussion. There is a direct cause/effect relationship between the objects in the background (and foreground) of the original images and the things we observe in RD images. In other words, there is no physical detachment from the real world only because the image is 'processed' slightly. The photons and features in Lasco RD images still relate to actual things, real plasma, real stars, real planets, real comets, etc. There are real cause/effect relationships to consider in each of the original images and the RD image.

We agree that moving objects in the original images produces records of their change in position in RD animations that look like things that move. You can call these "moving objects" if you want.

They are *REAL* moving objects. The only thing that an RD image gives us that a standard image does not, is a directional component based on the shadowing effect. The dark point will always be in the position where the star/comet/planet used to be, and the bright point will always be due to the current location of the object. There's no physical detachment from real things going on here except in your head.

That has never been in dispute.

For example the "flying stuff" in the TRACE RD animation is not the actual CME in the corona but is a record of the changes in position and temperature of the CME in the corona derived from the original images.

That's not true. It's actually "flying plasma" that has been superheated to incredible temperatures in the CME event. You can see that flying plasma in LASCO RD images too. The plasma flows off the sun in "waves" or bursts of plasma. There are real heated blobs of plasmas flying around in that TRACE RD image, leaving us a visual record of their movement during the CME process. It's moving from the bottom right toward the upper left of the image.

You can confuse people by calling it "flying stuff seen in the corona" (or better yet "flying cooling stuff seen in the corona") if you want.

You're evidently still "confused" if you have any confusion because it most certainly is "flying plasma". There nothing "confused" about it, other than your understanding of what you're looking at. There is no physical detachment from objects in a standard image and a RD image. The actual objects in the image, like planets and stars and comets are visible in the RD images, they simply have a "shadow" in the RD image based on where they moved from since the previous image. The shadows simply show us a directional component, but the actual physical objects create the visual objects in the RD image.

 

[Michael Mozina]

....I'd estimate your reading skills are somewhere below that of an average 4th grader.

I think I'll take Zuezzz up on the that list of insults since you only seem to speak that language.

http://home.online.no/~rkaste/jokes/insults.htm

"You're so stupid, that you got fired from the M & M factory for throwing away
all the W's."

 

[Michael Mozina]

Of course they are not the only "scientists" (why the quotes?) in the world. That is dumb.
They are however experts in astronomy.

Would you include yourself and/or GM in that category and does that make you an expert on RD imagery specifically? If so, there's a big problem with your logic. GM isn't even able to pick out flying plasma yet in a RD image, and evidently neither are you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

See Maltby, et al., 1986 which includes a tabular photosphere model in the appendix. This is the basis for the photosphere model shown on page 153 of Foukal's book Solar Astrophysics (Wiley-VCH, 2004, 2nd Revised edition). At 500 nm optical depth of 1 the temperature is 6520 Kelvins and goes up to 9400 Kelvins 100 km below that, where the optical depth exceeds 23. The temperature drops to a minimum 4400 Kelvins about 500 km above the optical depth 1 layer, and then increases again as we approach the base of the chromosphere and the temperature exceeds 20,000 Kelvins, about 2100 km up and the optical depth drops to zero, along with the visible light emission. So visible light emission is dominated by the lower & hotter photosphere, where limb darkening is observed. Any solid layer has to be below the bottom of this photosphere in order to remain invisible at visible light wavelengths. But other wavelengths are another matter, and one might wonder how the solid layer remains invisible at all wavelengths. One might also wonder how it affects dynamics, such as easily visible convection, and helioseismological data that are inconsistent with such a surface.

Well, by definition, the photosphere has to be above any solid surface. The optical depth numbers seem to all be related to a "mixed plasma" model and a temperature structure that seems to vary quite a bit compared to what I'd expect from a dynamic double layer process.

The heliosiesmology data hurts your model greatly. It demonstrates a "stratification subsurface" exists in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone. It also shows that the downdrafting of plasma under a sunspot is a relatively shallow process with all downdrafting going horizonal around 4800KM below the surface of the photosphere. That layer seems to be interfering with both the upwelling and downdrafting of plasma. Furthermore those Doppler images show a "rigid feature" in them that is not consistent with "upwelling plasma". Heliosiesmology data does not justify your solar model.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Can you actually read or do you have a standard script to spew at us?
One more time for the simple minded:
Coronal loops do not originate above the photosphere.

Then why do they *ONLY* become visible *AFTER* they exist the photosphere? What heats a single loop to a million degrees?

 

[Reality Check]

Well, if we ever intend to discuss cause/effect relationships and what is physically going on in these images, these are the steps necessary to have that discussion. There is a direct cause/effect relationship between the objects in the background (and foreground) of the original images and the things we observe in RD images. In other words, there is no physical detachment from the real world only because the image is 'processed' slightly. The photons and features in Lasco RD images still relate to actual things, real plasma, real stars, real planets, real comets, etc. There are real cause/effect relationships to consider in each of the original images and the RD image.

We have already had that discussion. But let us do it yet again (and again and again and again and again and again ).

What is physically going on in the original images is a C3.3. flare and CME event. The flare is heating plasma (and seems to also be cooling it - could a real astronomer comment on this?). The CME is putting heated plasma higher in the corona and then that plasma cools and falls back toward the photosphere.

The RD animation is processed a lot - a running difference creates totally new frames from the original images with different values.

The cause/effect relationships between the objects in the original images and the RD animation are:

The flare heats plasma to higher and higher temperatures during the time of the recording. This is the cause of the bright areas that point in various directions in the RD animation.

There is cooling of plasma that seems associated with the flare. This is the cause of the dark areas that point in various directions in the RD animation ("shadows").

The cooling and heating areas look to be either side of the loops in the flare when compared to the original images. The loops thenselves do not move much during the event and so are grey lines in the RD animation. The combination causes an optical illusion of "mountain ranges".


That it is an optical illustion is easily seen by noting

1. There are different directions for the "shadows".
2. This means multiple "light sources" in the RD animation.
3. No feature in the RD animation has multiple "shadows".
4. This means that there cannot be multiple "light sources".
5. The contradiction between 2 and 4 means that an assumption is wrong.
6. Thus the "shadows" are not shadows cast by light sources.

This is obvious since the the RD animation removes the effects of constant light sources (the corona), there is light from the flare but that looks cast equally to each side and so there are no shadows, and the light from the CME would cause shadows that lie mainly from the upper right to the lower left.

They are *REAL* moving objects. The only thing that an RD image gives us that a standard image does not, is a directional component based on the shadowing effect. The dark point will always be in the position where the star/comet/planet used to be, and the bright point will always be due to the current location of the object. There's no physical detachment from real things going on here except in your head.

They are images of *REAL* moving objects in the original images.
They are representations of images of *REAL* moving objects in the RD animation.

That's not true. It's actually "flying plasma" that has been superheated to incredible temperatures in the CME event. You can see that flying plasma in LASCO RD images too. The plasma flows off the sun in "waves" or bursts of plasma. There are real heated blobs of plasmas flying around in that TRACE RD image, leaving us a visual record of their movement during the CME process. It's moving from the bottom right toward the upper left of the image.

Read what I wrote and see above.

For example the "flying stuff" in the TRACE RD animation is not the actual CME in the corona but is a record of the changes in position and temperature of the CME in the corona derived from the original images.
You can confuse people by calling it "flying stuff seen in the corona" (or better yet "flying cooling stuff seen in the corona") if you want.

There is no real stuff in the RD animations. But the stuff in the RD animation is caused by real stuff.

 

[Reality Check]

Would you include yourself and/or GM in that category and does that make you an expert on RD imagery specifically? If so, there's a big problem with your logic. GM isn't even able to pick out flying plasma yet in a RD image, and evidently neither are you.

As I said before - I am not an expert in astronomy.

It does not need an expert to understand that the definition of an RD animation is that it records changes in intensity (temperature) and position). All it needs is that aility to read and comprehend what you read.

You continue to ignore that fact that Dr. Neal Hurlburt (an expert in astronomy who was instrumental in the TRACE project) has stated that there are no persistent structures in the RD animation - just changes in temperature and position. This is to be expected because that is what an RD animation is.

 

[Reality Check]

Well, by definition, the photosphere has to be above any solid surface. The optical depth numbers seem to all be related to a "mixed plasma" model and a temperature structure that seems to vary quite a bit compared to what I'd expect from a dynamic double layer process.

The heliosiesmology data hurts your model greatly. It demonstrates a "stratification subsurface" exists in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone. It also shows that the downdrafting of plasma under a sunspot is a relatively shallow process with all downdrafting going horizonal around 4800KM below the surface of the photosphere. That layer seems to be interfering with both the upwelling and downdrafting of plasma. Furthermore those Doppler images show a "rigid feature" in them that is not consistent with "upwelling plasma". Heliosiesmology data does not justify your solar model.

By definition the photosphere is the visual surface of the Sun.
Its temperature means that there cannot be any solid iron surface below it (unless there is a gigantic refrigerator sitting on the Sun).

The heliosiesmology data hurts the standard solar model not at all.
Stratification (changes in density) of the plasma in the Sun is not unexpected. Unless you can show that the density change is from plasma to solid iron you are just making an unfounded assertion.
We already know the the thermal columns in the convection zone "form an imprint on the surface of the Sun, in the form of the solar granulation and supergranulation". The plumes under sunspots are ni surprise. These are of limited are and so not form a layer.
The Dooper images show "consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions" - read your own web site.

 

[Reality Check]

Then why do they *ONLY* become visible *AFTER* they exist the photosphere? What heats a single loop to a million degrees?

Is your brain in an endless loop? That would explain why you have not understood and explanation that has been given you since 2006 (or earlier?).

1. Optical depth.
2. Look it up yourself.

And you are ignored the rest of the post wth your silly questions. So lets turn it into a timestamped question.
First posted 8 July 2009:
Can you show that the solid iron surface in your idea is thermodynamically possible?

That is either

• would not have heated up to the temperature of the surrounding layers in the last ~4 billion years and vaporized or
• the temperature of the surrounding layers are < 2000 K.

We have not been through this before because you cannot comprehend what "hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible, solid iron surface" is referring to.
It is not "solids being ionized by arcs".

It is the second law of thermodynamics.

It is that fact that your notion has a cool layer of iron in contact with at least one hotter object - the photosphere whose temperature is measured to increase with depth from the top. If your notion has an internal energy source of any sort that outputs the amount of energy that the Sun is observed to emit then then the Sun below your iron layer is also hotter than the melting temperature of iron.

To make it obvious:
Your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible, solid iron surface has been in thermal contact with at least one object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for about 4.57 billion years.

It cannot exist.


Your "layers" between the "surface" and photosphere do not help.

• The layer below the photosphere has been in thermal contact with an object (the photosphere) that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for about 4.57 billion years. Try to guess the temperature of that layer.
• The layer below that one has been in thermal contact with an object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for slightly less than 4.57 billion years. Try to guess the temperature of that layer.
• The layer below that one has been in thermal contact with an object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for a smidgen less than 4.57 billion years. Try to guess the temperature of that layer.
• ...
• Now we get to the iron layer which has been in thermal contact with an object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for a bit less than 4.57 billion years. Try to guess the temperature of that iron surface and whether it is solid.