Electric universe theories here.

[Tim Thompson]

171 Angstroms & the Solar Photosphere & Chromosphere

You and I both know darn well that highly energetic 171a photons will penetrate *SOME* distance through a light plasma atmosphere.

Like I said before, neither you nor I "know" any such thing.
Like I said before, "thinness" is irrelevant.
Like I said before, it's the optical depth that counts.
You may be right, maybe some will get through. But you may also be wrong and none of it will get through. I don't know because I don't know the absorption coefficient for the photosphere at that wavelength, and I am guessing that if you knew it, you would have said so by now. The absorption coefficient plus the optical path length will determine the optical depth, and that will determine how much of what gets through. I know that I don't know those numbers, and the evidence indicates that you don't know those numbers either, in which case neither you nor I know how much of the 171 Angstrom photons will get through.

We can argue about "how far", but you can't claim it won't go *ANY* distance. The location of the base of the arcs is *ABSOLUTELY* critical to this discussion.

Who cares about "any" distance? The only distance that counts is "far enough for us to see them"; if they don't get that far, we don't see them. And if none of them get that far, we don't see any, and that's all about the optical depth, not the "thinness" (and nobody knows what "thin" is supposed to mean anyway).

No you don't. Take a *REALLY* good look at Kosovichev's Doppler image again.

I don't know what image you are talking about, so show me the image or give me a link to same.

Which specific limb measurements are you referring to?

I am not referring to any specific limb measurement (though any example should do), but rather to several decades of limb measurements combined. Not one reported example anywhere of any observation consistent with limb brightening where limb darkening would be expected, or high energy photons where low energy photons would be expected, or of stratification where mixing is expected. See the sections on limb brightening & limb darkening in Foukal's Solar Astrophysics (Wiley-VCH, 2004, 2nd ed.), or the discussion of limb darkening in David F. Gray's The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres (Cambridge University Press, 2005, 3rd ed.), or the discussion in Arvind Bhatnagar & William Livingston's book Fundamentals of Solar Astronomy (World Scientific, 2005). The NASA/ADS shows 110 papers with limb darkening in the title, and another 89 papers with limb brightening in the title, going back to 1946. It's a significant body of observation, all of it inconsistent with your claims. If you are going to try to re-model the sun, you have a vast array of observations to deal with which you have so far ignored.

Er, how is that a "likely cause", as in "more likely" than say an "electrical discharge"?

Because it is well known & well understood that EUV photons ionize iron. I am unaware of anyone creating Fe IX with an electric discharge. Certainly Fe IX does not occur anywhere naturally on or near Earth, so there is no "natural" (as you misuse the word) process to compare to.

Where did those flying EUV photons come from, above or below the photosphere?

Above, created in the chromosphere either as thermal emission, or as line emission from recombining Fe IX.

Where is the base of the loop heated, and what is the heating mechanism?

That I don't know, but my guess is that the footpoints of the loops are heated well above the photosphere, in the chromosphere, by impulsive electromagnetic events (magnetic reconnection & nanoflares or perhaps magnetoacoustic waves and/or Alfven waves).

Are the EUV photons part of this "magnetic flux" in "magnetic line"?

What's "magnetic flux" in "magnetic line" supposed to mean? Alfven waves? or magnetoacoustic waves? Those don't come in "photons" but that can be responsible for generating photons by heating a plasma.

What powers *ONE* loop and why would it form a loop if it's simply heated by "flying photons"?

The loop is a magnetic structure where the motion of particles is confined & directed by the magnetic field. That's quite independent of the heating mechanism. The photons are not what do the heating, that comes from a release of magnetic energy at the foot of the loop. That's what generates the photons, and the photons are what ionizes the Fe IX.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I will look into it. I had a DVD that I got from Alan Title a few years ago, but I think it's out on loan somewhere.

Honestly Tim, it would be better if you watched that video again before we continue. There are several flares visible in the photosphere. I really encourage you to watch it again and watch what happens to the photosphere during a flare. There are also "green" (well talk when you seen them) movies I'd like you to watch, particularly near the sunspots during the flares. These are important images IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Kosovichev's Doppler image.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi

Note the angular structures on the left and the "active" (white) area on the right as the wave passes over these structures. Are they above or below the wave in the photosphere in your opinion?

 

[Reality Check]

Kosovichev's Doppler image.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi

Note the angular structures on the left and the "active" (white) area on the right as the wave passes over these structures. Are they above or below the wave in the photosphere in your opinion?

From MM's own web site:

In a recent email from Dr. Kosovichev, he explained these features in the following quote:
"The consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions.
We know this from the simultaneous measurements of solar magnetic field, made by SOHO. These are not solid structures which would not have mass flows that we see.
These images are Doppler shift of the spectral line Ni 6768A.
The Doppler shift measures the velocity of mass motions along the line of sight. The darker areas show the motions towards us, and light areas show flows from us. These are not cliffs or anything like this. The movie frames are the running differences of the Doppler shift. For the illustration purpose, the sunquake signal is enhanced by increasing its amplitude by a factor 4."

and further down from MM:

I would point out in my defense that electrons and ions and streams of plasma and other charged surface particles moving from one point on the surface to another would certainly explain the mass flows that he describes and would certainly create the Doppler shift images that we see in these videos. This mass flow argument favors neither a gas model nor a solid model in any way.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Like I said before, neither you nor I "know" any such thing.
Like I said before, "thinness" is irrelevant.
Like I said before, it's the optical depth that counts.
You may be right, maybe some will get through. But you may also be wrong and none of it will get through.

I do not believe that this is a tenable position Tim. If we fire up an arc welder in a lab, and put some amount plasma between a camera and the arc, surely you will concede that *some* high energy light will get through that plasma. I mean if we start with a foot of the stuff, and we use a *LOT* of electrical current in the arc, the amount of energy released by the arc could ultimately be much greater than the energy released in the plasma. Many factors will ultimately be involved here, but in the end, the electrical discharge is likely to be seen at *some* wavelengths over *some* distance.

As long as the discharge occurs *under* the photosphere, it is possible we could see it.

I'd like you to pay attention to three specific events in the flaresDVD video, specifically the flare around 30:10 seconds, one at 30:56 seconds, and a third at around 45:15. Tell me where the flare light originates in these images, and how you made that determination.

I'd also like you to really analyze the "green" images and specifically I want to discuss where the arcs originate in these images in comparison to the surface that can be seen in these wavelengths.

The third thing I want to discuss in that DVD is the "optical thickness" of the material we can see at the base of the arcs, like those "tornado' (more like hurricane) type structures we can observe at the horizon. I'd like to know what you think that dark material is made of, and how it blocks that specific wavelength of light in such a short distance. Evidently not much of that particular material is necessary to block 171A light between the base of the loops from reaching the TRACE camera. What's that particular material made of? What creates the optical thickness of this material to these specific iron ion wavelengths in your opinion?

Note to others reading this thread:

The DVD images on the flare video are of a high enough resolution and of a long enough duration that the flaring processes can be seen in absolutely stunning detail. These images are a "must see" if you're really interested in solar physics and solar processes. The best part is that they are free to the public. If you have a high speed internet connection, start the download before you go to bed and you should have the IMG file by the morning. I then used Active ISO burner to burn a DVD. The ActiveRegiionDVD is also beautiful by the way, but it shows only the IRON ion wavelengths whereas the FlaresDVD video often shows the same flare event in several different wavelengths.

 

[Michael Mozina]

From MM's own web site:

and further down from MM:

What you'll note here is that Dr. Kosovichev was essentially suggesting that there are a series of 'persistent" magnetic field processes visible in that image that were responsible for that persistent feature under the wave. In other words (mine, not his), he's ultimately suggesting that persistent coronal loop like structures are down there generating those persistent features. I agree actually. That is where the base of the loops originate and most of them occur, far *BELOW* the surface of the photosphere.

You really aught to download that FlaresDVD file and watch the specific clips I mentioned, and think about the same things I asked Tim. The origin of the base of the loops is a highly critical part of this discussion, and his answer did not help your position one bit. In fact I could just as rightly claim that his answer gives Birkeland's solar model a great deal of credibility, along with his finding of a "stratification subsurface" at a shallow depth under the photosphere. During sunspot activity, twister like filaments form downdrafts under the sunspot, but all of that downdrafting ends at about 4800KM. Helioseismology data, and these sorts of Doppler images only serve to support Birkeland's solar model. They don't actually help your case as you seem to imagine from a single paragraph response. I owed Dr. K that quote on my website, but ultimately it doesn't hurt my position in any way, in fact it supports the notion that magnetic features do not originate above the photosphere, but below the photosphere and they can be seen below the photosphere too.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I will look into it. I had a DVD that I got from Alan Title a few years ago, but I think it's out on loan somewhere.

There are two primary videos that relate to this dicussions, the FlaresDVD and the ActiveRegionsDVD. The Flares video shows flare events in many wavelengths, whereas the ActiveRegions video contains only iron ion wavelengths. It does however show more of the details of limb processes at the horizon of the sun, and the "twister" like process that occur in the solar atmosphere. The flares video is the one that I *really* want you to see. It contains many images, at many wavelengths, and all of them are directly related to this conversation. Those images blew me away Tim, and they removed all doubt I had in Birkeland's solar model.

FYI, I simply downloaded those two files from LMSAL's website over two evenings. I then used Active ISO burner to burn the DVDs. The Flares video in particular is worth the download.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, knock off the temper tantrums already.

Dude, you *REALLY* need to reread your last post from an objective, scientific point of view. Your whole "speal" is one big vicious personal attack filled with vile, loaded, highly inflamed language. You're one giant walking talking temper tantrum on parade.

Worse yet, you don't even know when you've been UTTERLY HUMILIATED in terms of actual "science". Flying stuff? What flying stuff? Credibility? What credibility? You've blown three highly important relevant details related to even the RD imaging *PROCESS*. Since you have absolutely nothing of scientific value to offer anyone, and now that even some of your fellow skeptics disagree with you on key issues, you've literally blown a fuse. Get a grip.

FYI, that juicy rationalization about Manual's position being completely different from my own was an absolute riot. That must be why he *INSISTED* that we write papers together and he personally insisted that we include the RD images and the heliosiesmology data in these papers too eh?

Honestly, at this point I don't even know what to say to you anymore. There is no getting through to you. You refuse to acknowledge your *OBVIOUS* mistakes, even when your fellow skeptics choose the opposite side. You won't focus on the scientific evidence, and you *insist* on taking the low (personal attack) road at every single opportunity. At this point I think I'm just going to *pity* you and simply ignore your posts for the most part. If you continue to misrepresent some aspect of science, I may interject, but you aren't worth my time anymore.

 

[GeeMack]

Dude, you *REALLY* need to reread your last post from an objective, scientific point of view. Your whole "speal" is one big vicious personal attack filled with vile, loaded, highly inflamed language. You're one giant walking talking temper tantrum on parade.

If that's all you're getting, then you're not actually reading what I've written in my posts. (You can't say I didn't suggest, you know, in the spirit of helping you with that problem, that you might consider taking a refresher course in basic reading.) Don't let it get under your skin, man. Just read the posts again, slowly, then in a focused and organized way, address the issues I've raised like a grown up.

Worse yet, you don't even know when you've been UTTERLY HUMILIATED in terms of actual "science". Flying stuff? What flying stuff? Credibility? What credibility? You've blown three highly important relevant details related to even the RD imaging *PROCESS*. Since you have absolutely nothing of scientific value to offer anyone, and now that even some of your fellow skeptics disagree with you on key issues, you've literally blown a fuse. Get a grip.

I say you're lying. But here's a chance to clear yourself. Fill us in on which of my fellow skeptics agree that the Sun has a solid surface. Tell us which of my fellow skeptics disagree fundamentally with my explanation of the construction of a running difference image. Catch us up on which of my fellow skeptics thinks you have offered any compelling, objective evidence to support the notion of a solid surface on the Sun. And let us know which of my fellow skeptics disagrees with my assessment that you haven't convinced anyone in the scientific community that you're right about that nutty solid surfaced Sun crap. (I predict either blind ignorance to this series of questions, or maybe a complete misunderstanding of what I'm actually asking.)

FYI, that juicy rationalization about Manual's position being completely different from my own was an absolute riot. That must be why he *INSISTED* that we write papers together and he personally insisted that we include the RD images and the heliosiesmology data in these papers too eh?

Oliver Manuel does not believe the Sun has a solid iron surface. If you have proof to the contrary, bring it on in here. (I predict blind ignorance to this request for evidence that Oliver Manuel actually believes the Sun has a solid iron surface. Alternatively, I predict a complete misunderstanding, again, of what I actually wrote.)

Honestly, at this point I don't even know what to say to you anymore. There is no getting through to you. You refuse to acknowledge your *OBVIOUS* mistakes, even when your fellow skeptics choose the opposite side. You won't focus on the scientific evidence, and you *insist* on taking the low (personal attack) road at every single opportunity. At this point I think I'm just going to *pity* you and simply ignore your posts for the most part. If you continue to misrepresent some aspect of science, I may interject, but you aren't worth my time anymore.

Another lie? Yep. Surprise, surprise. Now if you can actually show where my fellow skeptics have chosen the opposite side of any of the positions I've taken, I guess you'll prove me wrong, now won't you?

But honestly Michael, if you'd just address the points I'm making and bring in the evidence I'm asking for, maybe you wouldn't feel the need to respond with all that defensive bitching and moaning. In my post #819 above I asked a handful of very pertinent questions about light sources and angles, the relevance of "flying stuff" to your inane claim, your take on the construction of running difference images, and the fact that the entire scientific community on the face of this planet appears to have some reason to ignore you. Can you respond to those points? (Again I predict ignorance. I know, I know. Fish in a barrel. )

 

[Reality Check]

What you'll note here is that Dr. Kosovichev was essentially suggesting that there are a series of 'persistent" magnetic field processes visible in that image that were responsible for that persistent feature under the wave. In other words (mine, not his), he's ultimately suggesting that persistent coronal loop like structures are down there generating those persistent features. I agree actually. That is where the base of the loops originate and most of them occur, far *BELOW* the surface of the photosphere.

The consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions.
We know this from the simultaneous measurements of solar magnetic field, made by SOHO. These are not solid structures which would not have mass flows that we see.
These images are Doppler shift of the spectral line Ni 6768A.
The Doppler shift measures the velocity of mass motions along the line of sight. The darker areas show the motions towards us, and light areas show flows from us. These are not cliffs or anything like this. The movie frames are the running differences of the Doppler shift. For the illustration purpose, the sunquake signal is enhanced by increasing its amplitude by a factor 4."

He was not "suggesting" anything. He was stating that the already known stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions were actually measured by SOHO.
These are persistent changing structures and thus show up in the RD movie.

You need to read your own web site. It states that coronal loops are electrical arcs. Thus they are not magentic loops.

First asked 11 July 3009
An electrical arc only lasts for long enough for the change to equalize. In order for them to last there has to be an ongoing source of electrons. This is why Birkeland's terrella ("little earth") was such a good model of the Earth's aurora. The terrella had cathode ray tubes as a source of electrons. The Earth has the Sun as a source of electrons (and ions).

What is the continuing source of the electrons in the electrical arcs?

Or maybe you think that the original charge buildup is a sufficient source for lifetime and energy of coronal loops. If so please present your calculations for this.

First asked 11 July 3009
Are you persisting in your mistake that a surface 4800 kilometers below the photosphere can be imaged by the detectors of the TRACE, SOHO, Yohkoh, etc. spacecraft?
Or are you just too lazy to fix this mistake in your web site?


Your mistake that your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface is visible in images of the Sun is repeated many times in your web site where there are TRACE 171A filter images of the transition region and corona labelled as:

• "This is a Trace close-up image of the Sun's surface at 171 angstroms. It shows use a "crater-like" structure in the center of the image with electrical arcs coming from that surface layer with the jagged structures. Plasma tends to be very fluid, quite unlike the crater in this image."
• "This is an example of a "running difference" image of the sun's surface as revealed by the TRACE satellite using the 171 angstrom filter that is also sensitive to ferrite ion emissions." (the RD animation that you are laready deluded about).
• "This is Trace composite image which overlays all three views from the 171, 195 and 284 angstrom filters. All of these filters are sensitive to iron ion emissions indicating the presence of large amounts of iron in this layer. These iron particles are being ionized in the electrical stream that is flowing between surface points, and different colored arcs all tend to originate and concentrate in the same surface areas. These are highly electrically active areas of the surface."
• "Huge electrical arcs pass between oppositely charged surface points on the magnetized iron surface."
• "These electrical arcs can rise up far above the surface. This is a 171A image by the Trace satellite."

And this is probaly a soft X-ray image of the upper corona:

• "Yohkoh's view of the chaotic surface of the sun and its increased electrical activity at the dawn of the new millennium. The highest energy is concentrated at the base of the electrical arcs and around the arcs themselves. The light we see in these images is concentrated in the arc itself, indicating this is the hottest iron on the sun. It is being heated by electrical activity."

 

[tusenfem]

I do not believe that this is a tenable position Tim. If we fire up an arc welder in a lab, and put some amount plasma between a camera and the arc, surely you will concede that *some* high energy light will get through that plasma.

Michael Mozina, you are taking the laboratory experiments and upscaling to extremes here. It cannot be done! In the lab you have a plasma of maximal 1 meter in the sun you have plasmas of thousand(s) km.

Like was said, an aquarium of water you can see through, at the bottom of the ocean it is dark.

Scaling things up from the lab can be done easily in some cases and almost not in other cases. You need the opacity of the plasma, determine the optical thickness of the plasma etc. etc. The latter is well described by The Opacity Project.

And yes, you can say *SOME* photons will come out, one or two or so, and in that way you would be vindicated. But that is just playing silly, grasping on straws to keep your untenable model upright.

 

[Michael Mozina]

He was not "suggesting" anything. He was stating that the already known stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions were actually measured by SOHO.

But those "stationary magnetic structures" as you all them have a fixed shape, and definite "persistence" to them and they originate *and terminate* underneath of the photosphere. Those "coronal loops" do not originate above they photosphere, they are visible in Doppler images and are located *underneath* the photosphere. Note that this region is very "active" as well, as demonstrated by the white areas of the image. That activity is also underneath of the wave on the surface of the photosphere.

I don't suppose you actually looked that the images I suggested from the DVD video yet? I'd love to hear your comments on the three flares I specified, and the questions I posed to Tim.

These are persistent changing structures and thus show up in the RD movie.

That "change" you're talking about is a change related to the flow of plasma. If you actually sit down and watch the DVD I suggested, you'll notice the mass flows taking place all along the "transitional region". You'll see limb shots that show tornado like filaments in the plasma. You'll notice they block the 171A light too. They terminate at the darker transitional region "surface" that we see in these images. That change is directly related to where the flow of plasma takes place, specifically *underneath of* the photosphere, where the "transitional region", otherwise know as a "stratification subsurface" blocks the flow of plasma. Kosovichev's other work has demonstrated that all mass flows under the sunspot go horizontal at about 4800, KM under the surface of the photosphere. The original 171A, 195A and 284A images show a definite "persistence" that is similar too the persistence of the "structure" under Kosovichev's wave in the Doppler image. All of these bits of "mathematical imaging" (hell, you'd think you'd just *LOVE* all Kosovichev's sophisticated use of math) suggest in no uncertain terms that the mass flows we observe in the "Transitional region" are located *UNDER*, not over the photosphere.

Now of course we need some other visual corroborating evidence if we want to "confirm" such an idea, which is exactly why I picked out three specific flares in that DVD and highlighted them for you all by minutes and seconds into the video. They are images of the photosphere in the visual spectrum during a flare event. Notice the whole photosphere lights up, and material even comes up though the photosphere in the limb image. The physics of this event (mass moving up through the photosphere, light inside the photosphere) is all consistent with the fact that the "transitional region" is not up in the chromosphere, but underneath of the photosphere.

The other little piece of evidence is related to question number three that I posed to Tim, specifically what type of material blocks 171A light at the limb in those tornado images? If it blocks 171A light, would it not also block light in the visible spectrum and therefore block light from the photosphere? Why don't we observe any of the mass flows we see in the 171A images blocking any visible light from the photosphere.

When you add up all these pieces of evidence, the satellite imagery, the heliosiesmology data, the visual recording of flares in the photosphere, the visual records of flares in the 1600A image, etc, there is no doubt that the mass flows we observe in 171A image (original images mind you) are not occurring *above* the photosphere where they would also undoubtedly block light in the visible spectrum, but rather they are located under the photosphere where this "transitional region" shows up as a "stratification subsurface" in heliosiesmology data.

Have you downloaded and looked at the FlaresDVD video yet, and it not, how do you know it's not going to support everything I just said?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina, you are taking the laboratory experiments and upscaling to extremes here.

Well, discharges in the Earth's atmosphere are "extreme" processes. I'm sure they would also be "extreme" in the solar atmosphere.

It cannot be done! In the lab you have a plasma of maximal 1 meter in the sun you have plasmas of thousand(s) km.

The principle is exactly the same. We have much more powerful discharges on the sun. They are capable of spewing plasma far into space. This is a very extreme environment of incredibly powerful "electrical discharges". They are going to penetrate any sort of light plasma. How dense did you claim the photosphere to be at the surface anyway?

Like was said, an aquarium of water you can see through, at the bottom of the ocean it is dark.

But in this case we're looking at neon photosphere emitting white light from far above the photosphere. It's going to appear very "bright" to our eyes, unlike a liquid that absorbs light.

Scaling things up from the lab can be done easily in some cases and almost not in other cases.

Birkeland already "scaled" these processes for us. His arcs easily penetrated the light plasma atmosphere of his terella experiments.

You need the opacity of the plasma, determine the optical thickness of the plasma etc. etc. The latter is well described by The Opacity Project.

I notice that you are again relying upon a "mathematical construct" and ignoring the visual evidence. I didn't go through that FlaresDVD and pick out those three specific events for my amusement, I picked them out so that you could test your "mathematical construct" with real world observation.

You and I won't even be able to agree on what a photosphere is made of, let alone how "opaque" it might be. We should however be able to put *ALL* of the pieces of visual evidence and mathematical evidence in the form of heliosiesmology data and come up with a cohesive and logical explanation for all of these bits of data. Let me hear you even explain those three white light flares I pointed out to Tim?

And yes, you can say *SOME* photons will come out, one or two or so, and in that way you would be vindicated. But that is just playing silly, grasping on straws to keep your untenable model upright.

As you *FINALLY* get around to watching the three clips I cited, remember that Bireland's model *PREDICTS* these events to be visible inside the photosphere, even in white light in some circumstances, and even over long distances, whereas standard theory does not.

I think any serious "skeptic" here needs to spend some time looking through those video, because they are the best visual evidence we have of what is actually occurring in the solar atmosphere and if you expect me to take you seriously, you better be able to explain some of the details of these images, starting with the three flares I cited, the mass flows, the blocking of 171A vs. the visual spectrum in the "transitional layer", the dark parts of 171A images, etc. These images all have a logical explanation that is completely consistent with Birkeland's solar model. There is no logical explanation for these images in any cohesive sense based on a standard solar model.

 

[Michael Mozina]

First asked 11 July 3009
An electrical arc only lasts for long enough for the change to equalize. In order for them to last there has to be an ongoing source of electrons.

In Birkeland's solar model those electrons come from fission. He mentions Uranium by name, but of course he lived before fission was fully understood. He definitely cites a power source that is related to fissionable materials, along the lines of a breeder reactor core.

This is why Birkeland's terrella ("little earth") was such a good model of the Earth's aurora. The terrella had cathode ray tubes as a source of electrons.

Which logically led him to believe that the solar surface acts as a cathode. That's probably why he built such experiments too.

The Earth has the Sun as a source of electrons (and ions).

Sure, and he simulated that in his lab.

What is the continuing source of the electrons in the electrical arcs?

Fission, and the flow of charged particles past the heliosphere. According to Birkeland the surface of the sun was charged negative compared to "space", or what we would now call the heliosphere.

Or maybe you think that the original charge buildup is a sufficient source for lifetime and energy of coronal loops. If so please present your calculations for this.

Birkeland calculates some of these things for you. Have you read those calculations?

First asked 11 July 3009
Are you persisting in your mistake that a surface 4800 kilometers below the photosphere can be imaged by the detectors of the TRACE, SOHO, Yohkoh, etc. spacecraft?

SOHO and TRACE yes, Yohkoh, no. I never claimed I could see the "transitional region" in Yohkoh images. That is why the overlay of a Yohkoh and 171A image show bases of the loops originate far below what Yohkoh can observe. You really need to *STUDY* what I've stated on my website instead of misrepresenting what I have said. It's annoying to be misquoted.

Or are you just too lazy to fix this mistake in your web site?

You'll have to demonstrate there is a mistake on my website before I will change it. FYI, I actually have made a couple of changes based on "user feedback", but I have no scientific reason to take back anything that is currently written on my website.

Your mistake that your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface

It's not a "solid iron" surface, it's a crust, like the crust of the Earth, or the crust of Mars. Yes, it has "iron" in it, and yes probably more iron than the crust of the Earth, but it's not solid iron as you keep stating. Again, you guys keep intentionally 'dumbing down" my arguments to point of absurdity.

It's also not "thermodynamically impossible" as Birkeland's experiments demonstrate. The electrons and other charged particles, along with cooler layers of plasma carry heat away from the surface.

I want to see you (and every other skeptic) respond to the images I cited in my recent posts to Tim. It's ever so easy to throw around math formulas, but it's ever more complex to make those theories jive with the visual observational data. Those flare images of the photosphere blow your theories out of the water.

 

[Tubbythin]

In Birkeland's solar model those electrons come from fission. He mentions Uranium by name, but of course he lived before fission was fully understood. He definitely cites a power source that is related to fissionable materials, along the lines of a breeder reactor core.

But we now know from neutrino measurements (and a load of other things) that the Sun cannot possibly be powered by fission. So this is obviously wrong.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But we now know from neutrino measurements (and a load of other things) that the Sun cannot possibly be powered by fission. So this is obviously wrong.

Ya, and by the same logic we know that fusion can't be responsible either, because it only creates electron neutrinos and we find all three kinds.

 

[Tubbythin]

Ya, and by the same logic we know that fusion can't be responsible either, because it only creates electron neutrinos and we find all three kinds.

No, because we also know that neutrinos oscillate in flavour. As has been shown from experiments using solar neutrinos, atmospheric neutrinos and reactor neutrinos.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, because we also know that neutrinos oscillate in flavour. As has been shown from experiments using solar neutrinos, atmospheric neutrinos and reactor neutrinos.

You can't use solar neutrinos in controlled measurements, or even atmospheric neutrinos in controlled experiments. If you have some *controlled* reactor experiment which show that neutrinos change flavor I'm all ears. The experiments can have a very simple control mechanism like an off switch by the way. Which experiments show that neutrinos actually change flavor? Now keep in mind that a "missing neutrino" cannot favor either an oscillation in neutrino flavor, or an oscillation in neutrino sign.

Please, by all means, demonstrate your case in "controlled experimentation". I will be completely reasonable about the control mechanism. You simply have to be able to turn in on and off, and we have to have some certainty about the types of neutrinos expected from nuclear physics. Everything else is negotiable.

The atmospheric neutrinos we'll have to discuss. How can you be sure of which flavors you expect to observe, and again, "missing" (as in "I can't find them over here when they were over there in that detector) neutrinos will favor neither solar model.

 

[Tubbythin]

You can't use solar neutrinos in controlled measurements, or even atmospheric neutrinos in controlled experiments. If you have some *controlled* reactor experiment which show that neutrinos change flavor I'm all ears.

The experiments can have a very simple control mechanism like an off switch by the way. Which experiments show that neutrinos actually change flavor? Now keep in mind that a "missing neutrino" cannot favor either an oscillation in neutrino flavor, or an oscillation in neutrino sign.

Please, by all means, demonstrate your case in "controlled experimentation". I will be completely reasonable about the control mechanism. You simply have to be able to turn in on and off, and we have to have some certainty about the types of neutrinos expected from nuclear physics. Everything else is negotiable.

Meet KamLAND.

The atmospheric neutrinos we'll have to discuss. How can you be sure of which flavors you expect to observe, and again, "missing" (as in "I can't find them over here when they were over there in that detector) neutrinos will favor neither solar model.

Atmospheric neutrinos come largely from the decay of charged pions (mostly positive I guess). These largely decay (~99%) to a muon and a muon anti-neutrino or an anti-muon and a muon neutrino (depending on the charge of the pion obviously). The branching ratio to this generation is so large due to the need for the violation of helicity (this relates the momentum vector of the particle to to its spin vector). Strictly helicity is only conserved for particles which are completely massless but its "easier" to violate when a more massive particle is involved . Hence muons are favoured over electrons (a tauon/neutrino decay is forbidden by energetics).

 

[GeeMack]

I do not believe that this is a tenable position Tim. If we fire up an arc welder in a lab, and put some amount plasma between a camera and the arc, surely you will concede that *some* high energy light will get through that plasma. I mean if we start with a foot of the stuff, and we use a *LOT* of electrical current in the arc, the amount of energy released by the arc could ultimately be much greater than the energy released in the plasma. Many factors will ultimately be involved here, but in the end, the electrical discharge is likely to be seen at *some* wavelengths over *some* distance.

Always good for a laugh watching Michael describe his nutty ideas in such quantitative terms. Numbers? We don't need no steenking numbers! We have some amount, *some*, high, a foot, a *LOT*, the amount, much greater, many factors, *some* wavelengths, and *some* distance. How do we measure things in the fantasy world of Mozina science? Put a camera here or there and look at the picture, by golly. Doh. What a kick.

It's not a "solid iron" surface, it's a crust, like the crust of the Earth, or the crust of Mars. Yes, it has "iron" in it, and yes probably more iron than the crust of the Earth, but it's not solid iron as you keep stating. Again, you guys keep intentionally 'dumbing down" my arguments to point of absurdity.

It is refreshing to know that he's finally going to turn and walk away from that fruitcake fantasy about a solid iron surface of the Sun. After all, none of the people responsible for acquiring and analyzing the data he once relied on to support that wacky notion actually agree with him. Neither Dr. Hurlburt, responsible for the TRACE images and data presentations, nor Dr. Kosovichev, who assembled and presented the helioseismology research he claimed supported his delusion, nor Oliver Manuel, who foolishly gave Michael a writing credit on a paper he wrote, acknowledge that the Sun has a solid surface. Not a single other person on Earth is willing to step up and back him with actual math or physics either. The experts have spoken, or been conspicuously silent.

So it's gone from a solid surface to a crust, like on Mars or Earth, and still, as always, supported by nothing more than Michael's own whiny insistence. And the difference between a solid surface and a crust will never be defined by Michael, because he refuses to define anything.

Any way about it, it's an absurd idea backed exclusively by arrogant proclamations like, "Look at the pictures, look at the videos, high energy here and flying stuff there, twisters, volcanoes, penumbras, neon, silicon, calcium, thin enough, thick enough, *VERY HOT*, and just like lightning on Earth! You'll see it, too, if you sit and stare long enough!" But honestly, even Michael, if he's not truly insane, would have to admit there never was anything more than that to start with.

And Michael, if you're still reading this, how about you show us that experiment that demonstrates how you can see through thousands of kilometers of the Sun's opaque photosphere by using a computer generated graph showing the difference in temperature locations between two source images that were obtained from several thousand kilometers above the photosphere. Jesus, man, I've been asking you for this for days now. You know, lab tested experiment, right here on Earth, no fudge factors, mathematically consistent, nothing metaphysical, and objective to the point where other people reach the same conclusion as you've reached. You'd think you wouldn't have any trouble pointing out that experiment, since all your ideas meet that criteria, and that crazy notion about seeing through the photosphere by intently staring at data obtained in the corona is, after all, one of your ideas.

And how about those other issues I brought up in all my other posts and listed again in post #819? And are you going to show you're not a liar by supporting your claims I quoted in post #829? Or maybe you've finally started to get some integrity and you're willing to admit you lied. (Oh, where is that laughing dog? )