Electric universe theories here.

[Reality Check]

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.
...snipped Birkeland stuff...

Can you give references to the many textbooks and papers that Birkeland published on the Iron Sun model?

Can you give a citation to the paper where the fission source of the Iron Sun model is worked out and compared what the Sun actually does?

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.

The mistake is that it is physically impossible for the images to be what you state they are.


The scientific reasons are that:

• The photosphere prevents any light from any hypothetical thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust/shell/scab/? 4800 kilometres below it from getting to the spacecraft.
• The filters used in capturing most of the images means that there is no "surface" in them - they are recording activity well above the photosphere.

But then you know all of this. People have been pointing out these basic bits of physics to you for years. Thet mistakes have been pointed out to you here many times.
The fact that you are ignoring the laws of physics makes your Iron Sun idea into the very definition of crackpottery.

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.

Your ignorance is astounding.

The thermodynamics are simple enough for a child to understand. Put a ice cube on your hand. Leave it there for a few billion years. The ice cube melts because the heat flows from a constantly hot surface (your hand) to the ice cube. The ice cube is your hypothetical iron surface. Your hand is the photosphere.
The photosphere has been at about 6000 K or billions of years. The heat from it flows inward (and outward). Any layer that is in contact directly or indirectly with the photosphere will heat up to be at the same temperature.

Things get worse for your hypothetical iron surface if there is energy being produced at the Sun's core, either by Birkeland's fission or by the fusion that is supported by actual evidence. That will make the core hot (about 13,600,000 Kelvin). That energy heats the photosphere to ~6000 K. On the way it passes through your hypothetical iron surface. That "surface" must be at a temperature between 6000 K and 13,600,000 K. Scientists have even measured that the photosphere gets hotter with depth.

Your hypothetical iron surface just vaporized according to Birkeland's model!
Your hypothetical iron surface just vaporized according to the laws of thermodynamics!

 

[Reality Check]

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.
...snip...

Also meet:
MINERvA is a neutrino scattering experiment which uses the NuMI beamline at Fermilab.
LNGS (the detectors) & CNGS (the neutrino source).
KARMEN - but they look at both solar and laboratory produced neutrinos so who knows whether their experiment is *controlled* or *uncontrolled* in your mind.
MiniBooNE.
The T2K (Tokai to Kamioka) experiment should be operating this year with results published a few years later.
CHOOZ.
LSND.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Also meet:
MINERvA is a neutrino scattering experiment which uses the NuMI beamline at Fermilab.
LNGS (the detectors) & CNGS (the neutrino source).
KARMEN - but they look at both solar and laboratory produced neutrinos so who knows whether their experiment is *controlled* or *uncontrolled* in your mind.
MiniBooNE.
The T2K (Tokai to Kamioka) experiment should be operating this year with results published a few years later.
CHOOZ.
LSND.

Ok, now which specific experiments are you suggesting found direct evidence of oscillation from one flavor to another? Keep in mind that any "missing" neutrinos (i.e. "we can't find them at a greater distance) will not favor any specific solar model. However, any sort of direct observation of oscillation will count.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your ignorance is astounding.

Have you watched the Flare DVD that I suggested, yes or no? Have you ever personally created a running difference image from any solar satellite program from original images, yes or no?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Meet KamLAND.

Which specific experiment are you suggesting found direct evidence of oscillation? Again, "missing" neutrinos favor nothing. They could oscillate flavor or sign for all you know.

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).

This type observation does not sound particularly "controlled" in terms of the identifying a single source of neutrinos or controlling the termination of the source. You seem to be "assuming" things about helicity that are not actually physically demonstrated as it relates to neutrinos.

Any direct experimental evidence here will do, and indeed it is possible that progress has been made in the last few years on this front. What I'm looking for here ultimately is a controlled source of say one type of neutrino that results in the direct detection of another flavor of neutrino. When the source is turned off, I would expect that the detection of the oscillated neutrinos would also terminate. In other words if you can create one flavor of neutrino at the source, but register multiple types at the detection point, that would tend to favor your interpretation of flavor oscillation.

 

[GeeMack]

Have you watched the Flare DVD that I suggested, yes or no? Have you ever personally created a running difference image from any solar satellite program from original images, yes or no?

The people who make running difference images from solar satellite images for a living say you don't understand running difference images. So your opinion on the matter is pretty much worthless, Michael.

 

[GeeMack]

Any direct experimental evidence here will do, [...]

Speaking of direct experimental evidence, 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. And don't forget, your own standards require it to be a 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. Or if you aren't able to show us that direct experimental evidence, how about you have the integrity to admit that you can't do it.

 

[Reality Check]

Ok, now which specific experiments are you suggesting found direct evidence of oscillation from one flavor to another? Keep in mind that any "missing" neutrinos (i.e. "we can't find them at a greater distance) will not favor any specific solar model. However, any sort of direct observation of oscillation will count.

All of them.

But of course an idiot who was ignorant of physics would think "direct observation of oscillation" means is: Here is an electron neutrino. Let us watch it. Oh look it turned into a tau neutrino.

 

[Reality Check]

Ok, now which specific experiments are you suggesting found direct evidence of oscillation from one flavor to another? Keep in mind that any "missing" neutrinos (i.e. "we can't find them at a greater distance) will not favor any specific solar model. However, any sort of direct observation of oscillation will count.

What do you mean by "Keep in mind that any "missing" neutrinos (i.e. "we can't find them at a greater distance) will not favor any specific solar model."?

What flux of solar neutrinos is predicted by the Iron Sun model?
How does it match even the 1960's Homestake Experiment result?

Are these all produced by your hypothetical, thermodynamnically impossible iron surface/crust/(whatever you think it is this minute)/thingy?
Or do they come from somewhere else?

To what temperature does the thing that produces the neutrino flux heat the core of the Sun?

Getting away from your obsession about "controlled" experiments:
Neutrino oscillation has been detected in solar neutrinos. The parameters of the Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein effect that have been measured even suggests that the neutrinos have to be emitted from the Sun's core.

 

[Tubbythin]

Which specific experiment are you suggesting found direct evidence of oscillation? Again, "missing" neutrinos favor nothing. They could oscillate flavor or sign for all you know.

SNO can measure the difference between the electron neutrino and the total neutrino flux. The results are in line with whats expected from the SSM +and the SM with neutrino oscillations. It is in complete conflict with fission occuring in the Sun. You're claims that such experiments are not controlled are plain ridiculous. They're as controlled as any other particle physics experiment.

This type observation does not sound particularly "controlled" in terms of the identifying a single source of neutrinos or controlling the termination of the source. You seem to be "assuming" things about helicity that are not actually physically demonstrated as it relates to neutrinos.

I'm not entirely sure my explanation was in fact correct. I might try again later. But anyway, I can't state strongly enough how its completely and utterly irrelevant. We don't need to know why[\b] pions decay to a muon and associated (anti) neutrino 99% of the time. All we need to know is that they do[\b] so. And we know this from studying the decay of literally trillions of pions produced in experiment.

Any direct experimental evidence here will do, and indeed it is possible that progress has been made in the last few years on this front. What I'm looking for here ultimately is a controlled source of say one type of neutrino that results in the direct detection of another flavor of neutrino.

We have a controlled source of neutrinos. Its called the Sun. We can do controlled measurements with these neutrinos. We can measure whether they are neutrinos or antineutrinos, electron neutrinos or other neutrinos. We can determine which direction they came from (at least to some degree). We can look for seasonal variation. We can look for a day-night variation (one has been measured, it shows a slight increase at night, this is nonsenical in an interpretation where neutrinos don't oscillate but makes sense if they do).

When the source is turned off, I would expect that the detection of the oscillated neutrinos would also terminate. In other words if you can create one flavor of neutrino at the source, but register multiple types at the detection point, that would tend to favor your interpretation of flavor oscillation.

Instead of demanding things of other people, why not look at the evidence we do have? And try to explain it without neutrino oscillations? Its a very very very tricky job.
The fact is that we observe the right number of neutrinos coming from the right direction. They aren't the expected flavour but that was because we didn't expect them to oscillate. This interpretation is consistent with observations from atmospheric and lab neutrinos. There is no evidence whatsoever for any antineutrino production in the Sun.
Therefore you're model is completely falsified by neutrino observations regardless of the validity or otherwise of the SSM.

 

[Tubbythin]

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).

Ok, the above is wrong. Helicity is conserved. Leptons with 0 mass must be left handed (spin and momentum vectors point in opposite directions). Antileptons with zero mass must be right-handed (spin and momentum vectors point in the same direction) . To conserve helicity, the positively charged anti-lepton in the decay of a pi⁺ must have left-handed helicity (spin and momentum vectors point in the same direction). This would be impossible if the charged leptons were massless. But they aren't. However, the fact that the mu⁺ is more massive than the positron favours the decay through the former channel.
I think that's in a hand-wavy way correct now. Touch wood.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ok, the above is wrong. Helicity is conserved. Leptons with 0 mass must be left handed (spin and momentum vectors point in opposite directions). Antileptons with zero mass must be right-handed (spin and momentum vectors point in the same direction) . To conserve helicity, the positively charged anti-lepton in the decay of a pi⁺ must have left-handed helicity (spin and momentum vectors point in the same direction). This would be impossible if the charged leptons were massless. But they aren't. However, the fact that the mu⁺ is more massive than the positron favours the decay through the former channel.
I think that's in a hand-wavy way correct now. Touch wood.

Even assuming it is correct, it isn't exactly "controlled". In say an "ideal" world, where we could setup detectors and transmitters, we might send out say only electron neutrinos but detect tau neutrinos at some distance too. We turn off the source and we notice the tau detector stops detecting anything. We turn on the transmitter again, and the tau detector detects hits again. That would be an idealized way of demonstrating flavor oscillation in a lab. Ok, it's not quite that simple in the real world, but our goal here is to physically demonstrate a "cause/effect" relationship here between transmitter and detector, and we have no control mechanism in that scenario. I'll grant you it has a root in particle physics, and particle relationships.

 

[Michael Mozina]

SNO can measure the difference between the electron neutrino and the total neutrino flux.

So when we first saw these readings, there was a "solar neutrino problem" for many years. There was an under abundance of electron neutrinos, and two more kinds that were not "predicted" in any way by a hydrogen fusion theory.

The results are in line with whats expected from the SSM +and the SM with neutrino oscillations.

Over time you guys came up with a "solution" to your neutrino problem involving a theory about the oscillation of neutrinos from on flavor to another in flight. Of course that "solution" violated what were "laws" of the time related to lepton conservation. Of course "laws" can be shown to be invalid, but everyone should at least realize that this lepton conservation "principle" is the only way we can even be sure which kind of leptons are released from various particle decay and fusion reactions. Without these 'laws/principles' you couldn't even lecture me about which types of neutrinos a fission based model should "spit out' in the first place, nor would we have had a "solar neutrino problem" when these results were first published.

You're still *ASSUMING* these "laws" apply to the level of particle physics within the atom/subatomic particle. It's only "mid flight" that it supposedly has the ability to violate these lepton conservation processes.

It is in complete conflict with fission occuring in the Sun.

If you intend to throw lepton conservation laws out on a whim, how exactly did you intend to "predict" which neutrinos I should expect to observe in fission reactions?

You're claims that such experiments are not controlled are plain ridiculous. They're as controlled as any other particle physics experiment.

The earliest example of neutrinos "experiments" involved a "control mechanism" in the form of a nuclear reactor that was switched on and off. Neutrino physics has a long history of controlled experimentation. If there is a field of science that can and might help your case in a controlled scientific way, this is it. I'm not suggesting it can't be done, or even that it has not been done. I'm simply noting that this field of physics offers us a viable way to physically demonstrating an oscillation process. That does not mean that every step of that process has already occurred. I'm simply looking for what you feel is the best "experiment" done thus far.

I'm not entirely sure my explanation was in fact correct. I might try again later. But anyway, I can't state strongly enough how its completely and utterly irrelevant. We don't need to know why[\b] pions decay to a muon and associated (anti) neutrino 99% of the time. All we need to know is that they do[\b] so. And we know this from studying the decay of literally trillions of pions produced in experiment.

I buy your revised explanation. I'm simply balking at the lack of a control mechanism related to the transmitter. It seems to me that we have the ability to control the source(s) and we should do that.

We have a controlled source of neutrinos. Its called the Sun.

No, it's not "controlled" or even "controllable" in the first place. How would you suggest we turn it off and on again? How do you know which neutrinos come from which parts of the sun? Does the solar cycle effect these measurements and if so, how?

We can do controlled measurements with these neutrinos. We can measure whether they are neutrinos or antineutrinos, electron neutrinos or other neutrinos.

Ok, we can "measure" them. If we don't agree however that lepton conservations laws apply to all transactions, how will we "predict" which lepton configuration to expect from various particle decay and fusion processes?

We can determine which direction they came from (at least to some degree).

Alright, we might be able to demonstrate that the sun is the source based on these directional measurements, however there is still no 'control mechanism' for us to play with on the sun.

We can look for seasonal variation.

And we find some variation related to the solar cycle and we see variation in the 171A images too. Any correlation?

We can look for a day-night variation (one has been measured, it shows a slight increase at night, this is nonsenical in an interpretation where neutrinos don't oscillate but makes sense if they do).

Missing neutrinos might have been "absorbed", "scattered", oscillate in sign or flavor or any other possible ways it might show a different number when neutrinos pass through matter. I can't just "assume" that all "missing neutrinos" automatically favors any explanation. A real observation of oscillation however would remove all doubt.

Instead of demanding things of other people, why not look at the evidence we do have?

I have done that a few years back, but this is one industry that has the ability to make it's case in a single experiment, so there is no point in me assuming no progress has been made. What was true then is that there was evidence of "missing neutrinos", but whether they scatterer or oscillated is anyone's guess.

And try to explain it without neutrino oscillations? Its a very very very tricky job.

The only way to explain missing neutrino counts is to assume

A) they oscillate in flavor
B) they oscillate in sign
C) some combination of both A) and B)
D) they scattered somehow by mass/mass interactions in the atoms over distance (we now know neutrinos do have mass and that could have an effect)
E) they were absorbed somehow at a higher rate than expected.

How do I know which of these options applies to "missing' neutrinos without further controlled experimentation?

The fact is that we observe the right number of neutrinos coming from the right direction.

Ok, we know the sun puts out roughly the same energy we expected. Big deal. They came in different lepton flavors, two of which are not predicted by standard solar theory.

They aren't the expected flavour but that was because we didn't expect them to oscillate.

But I can't get away with that excuse with fission because....?????

This interpretation is consistent with observations from atmospheric and lab neutrinos.

I don't buy the notion you can control the atmospheric transmitters. How do you know how many of atmospheric solar neutrinos events are "externally" driven? In other words, if high speed particles hit our atmosphere, don't they hit the solar atmosphere too? How many neutrinos coming from the solar atmosphere might actually be due to cosmic ray events in the solar atmosphere?

There is no evidence whatsoever for any antineutrino production in the Sun.

There's no evidence whatsoever for tau or muon lepton production in the sun either.

Therefore you're model is completely falsified by neutrino observations regardless of the validity or otherwise of the SSM.

That is false. You simply *assumed* oscillation can't be in related to sign rather than flavor. You simply ASSUME that "missing' neutrinos automatically support an oscillation rather than say a scattering effect you didn't expect due to the mass of the particle itself. You are making *SEVERAL* assumptions here that are at odds and you're playing a double standard.

You *assume* they can can change flavor. You *assume* they cannot change sign. You *assume* that scattering is not the effect you're observing in "missing neutrino" measurements. You're basing your whole argument on the source based upon a law you're then immediately violating in mid flight, and then precluding changes based on any other process.

Now it is entirely possible that due to it's long tradition of "physical experimentation' that this industry may actually produce a real experiment to support your case, but the last time I checked, that was not the case. If my understanding is 'dated' in any way, feel free to correct me, but I will expect to see a control mechanism, a real observation of oscillation (not simply missing neutrinos) and some way of seeing a change in that process when the control mechanism is used.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What do you mean by "Keep in mind that any "missing" neutrinos (i.e. "we can't find them at a greater distance) will not favor any specific solar model."?

What flux of solar neutrinos is predicted by the Iron Sun model?
How does it match even the 1960's Homestake Experiment result?

What difference would it make if such predictions did exist, or did not exist, matched or did not match these results? Your solar theory sure flunked out big time. That is why for many years there was a "neutrino problem".

The "oscillation" concept was an "ad hoc" assertion based on the fact you couldn't otherwise accept your solar theory was DOA.

Are these all produced by your hypothetical, thermodynamnically impossible iron surface/crust/(whatever you think it is this minute)/thingy?
Or do they come from somewhere else?

As long as you continue to state things that are categorically untrue, I don't see the point of responding to them countless times.

To what temperature does the thing that produces the neutrino flux heat the core of the Sun?

Beats me, I can't see the core. I might "predict" something based on lepton conservation principles, but if we intend to just throw that out the window mid flight, what's the point?

Getting away from your obsession about "controlled" experiments:
Neutrino oscillation has been detected in solar neutrinos. The parameters of the Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein effect that have been measured even suggests that the neutrinos have to be emitted from the Sun's core.

Whole idea that you people actually "believe" that the sun can be "controlled" is utterly absurd. It simply demonstrates that your industry as a whole really doesn't understand the concept of a "control mechanism" or "active experimentation". Fortunately that is not true of neutrino physicists, and they are and could certainly in fact work the problem from other "controlled" angles. There are no limitations in demonstrating your case here on Earth based on all the ordinary controlled type experimentation that is part of all branches of science. You have an *OBLIGATION* to do so if you want to claim that this data supports your solar model. I don't personally think it supports ANY proposed solar model at the moment, but things may have changed in the last couple of years. A concept related to solar core production however is not an "experiment", nor will it ever take the place of a real experiment with a real control mechanism. Neutrino physics has *NEVER* needed to rely upon uncontrolled events or anything other than typical controlled experimentation. FYI, even the detectors they build are based upon the principle of lepton conservation/specific particle interactions at the level of particle physics.

 

[GeeMack]

There are no limitations in demonstrating your case here on Earth based on all the ordinary controlled type experimentation that is part of all branches of science. You have an *OBLIGATION* to do so if you want to claim that this data supports your solar model.

And where, by the way, is that experiment that shows how you can see thousands of kilometers beneath an opaque surface using data gathered from thousands of kilometers above that surface, done right here on Earth, mathematically and physically consistent, no fudge factors, nothing metaphysical, repeatable, and objective such that other people come to the same conclusion you've reached?

I've asked this over a dozen times. I think by now, given your continued ignorance, that you simply aren't able to point out the experiment. I think that since you must apply your own standards, or admit to being a hypocrite, your insane notions about running difference images don't meet your obligation, therefore you can't claim that this data supports your solar model.

Running difference images, in fact all images from the TRACE program in particular, are eliminated from the pool of potential evidence to support the crazy fantasy that the Sun has a solid surface... or I guess we're calling it a crust now. Wouldn't you agree, Michael?

 

[Tubbythin]

Even assuming it is correct, it isn't exactly "controlled". In say an "ideal" world, where we could setup detectors and transmitters, we might send out say only electron neutrinos but detect tau neutrinos at some distance too. We turn off the source and we notice the tau detector stops detecting anything. We turn on the transmitter again, and the tau detector detects hits again. That would be an idealized way of demonstrating flavor oscillation in a lab. Ok, it's not quite that simple in the real world, but our goal here is to physically demonstrate a "cause/effect" relationship here between transmitter and detector, and we have no control mechanism in that scenario. I'll grant you it has a root in particle physics, and particle relationships.

In an ideal world neutrinos would be easy to detect (but only when we wanted to). It isn't an ideal world though.

 

[tusenfem]

I guess, Michael Mozina, the fact that I (or the Opacity Project) am (is) not allowed to use math to calculate something simple and observed in many an object or experiment is a sign at the wall why you have never answered my questions about Birkeland's math. Basically, I guess you don't understand math, otherwise you would have answered my question about where Birkeland talks about accelerating electrons and dragging along the protons (which is utter impossible). I only asked this simple question like 10 pages ago.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In an ideal world neutrinos would be easy to detect (but only when we wanted to). It isn't an ideal world though.

Sure, I agree, but then look at the history here of the neutrino. It's never been "easy", but it has always been based upon empirical physics and empirical "controlled" testing. Even the postulation of it's very existence came from the careful measurement of nuclear decay reactions from physical lab tests. Either a physical law was being violated (all energy is not preserved), or there was some as of yet unidentified particle of energy. Even building experiments took a lot of planning, and effort and nothing was left to chance. The "evidence" of the confirmation of the neutrino is also found in a "controlled" experiment where the reactor could be turned off and the effect of it's deactivation could be observed. To even conduct these tests, they had to happen deep in the Earth, with the purest and cleanest of environments with very little margin of error. It's never been "easy", but that's what makes it so valuable and so critical.

I'm willing to concede that this technology *MAY* become useful in determining the validity of various solar models. At the moment however, a "missing" (non detected) neutrino might be due to any number of influences, none of which I can rule out without further experimentation. I'm more than happy to fund such an area of research however because it is an "EMPIRICAL" form of science and nothing is, or should be left to chance.

 

[tusenfem]

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

Yes, because the atmosphere of the Earth is a good insulator, which can break down and create a conducting channel through which a discharge can take place. I guess even you will agree that the Sun is a plasma (apart from your imaginary iron shell). How are you going to create a charge build up in this plasma to, at one point get a "discharge"? There is just no way to do it, especially because the coronal loops (and yes I will call them loops and not partial or whatever, because you also call them loops in your own papers) start and end at basically the same surface. So there should be regions with strongly different charge concentrations on the surface of the sun, in order to get a "discharge." And then for some reason or other the "discharge" takes a looping, with that creating a current aligned magnetic field (which is also impossible). So, to end this "rant:" there are no discharges like Earth lightning on the Sun.

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?

Those things that "fling loads of plasma into space" are NOT discharges. They are "exploding magnetic fields."

And what the frak is a "light plasma." Such a term does not exist in plasma physics. You can have a dense plasma (but that need not mean anything) what is important in radiation processis is the optical depth of the plasma, it can either be transparent or opaque, and that depends on wavelength, density and length of the plasma column. For your information, here is a pdf about radiative transfer in stellar atmospheres, by Prof. Rob Rutten from Utrecht University. All the basics are explained here.

About the discharge, see above.

We call it the photosphere, because that is where the photons come from, it is the layer of last scattering, any photon coming from a deeper layer will still be absorbed-reemitted. And I did not claim any density for the photosphere. But checking the web I find >10¹².

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.

Okay, this first sentence is not even possible neon photosphere emitting whic light from far above the photosphere. Either it is the photosphere or not, make up your mind.

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

Birkeland did not do anything of the kind. Please show me exactly where he is scaling, doing the math, etc etc. You are supposedly the expert on whatever Birkie did, but when we ask you where Birkie wrote it down, calculated it, or whatever, we get an answer "read the book it's all in there." I went through the math after page 664, where allegedly discusses how the solar wind works (electrons dragging the ions along) and I did not find a thing! (Maybe I cannot search well enough.)

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.

But if Birkie does math, it is all okay, yeah right ....
The "math" of that page has been applied to many an object and has been proven to be correct. But observations are not controlled experiments, so you can just dump it in the waste basket.

I left the DVD at work, so I have no chance to watch it, but I doubt that your interpretation of what you see has any merit, because basically you don't understand solar and plasma physics. Thus your interpretation will be strongly hampered. But what exactly am I supposed to see? I guess flares going of (magnetic reconnection) the top part of the loop flying away, whereas the bottom part of the loop is a smaller loop and oscillates. But then, you cannot trust these observations, because the hardly fulfil the "controlled experiment" criterium to which you adhere so much. So I think I might just dump the DVD into the waste basket.

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?

No, as long as you say that there is an iron shell in the Sun, there will be no agreement possible. The photosphere is made from mainly H and then some He and then some metals.

There is no way that helioseismology will determine what the photosphere is made of. Just look at the definition of photosphere, the region from which the photons can escape the plasma of the Sun and therefore can be observed.

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 have seen my share of flare, Micheal Mozina, don't start assuming what I have and have not seen. I doubt Birkeland knew what the photosphere was, so I doubt that he claims that you can see these things below it. Where exactly is that in his book? You keep claiming more and more about what Birkeland predicted, soon you will say he discovered Neptune.

And why would hot gas in a coronal loop not be visible "over long distances" (another sentence that does not make any sense), it is a optically very thin plasma, so photons can flow through it unhindered.

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.

And you really think that solar physicists (e.g. from Utrecht University) have never watched videos of flares to improve their models? You really think you are the only one who watches these things?

In order to take what you say seriously, you would first have to show that you understand what observations in various wavelength bands really show. That discussion has been done before, and you really do not have the foggiest on what band passed filtered images show.

Ah, and don't forget that in order to do his terrella experiments, Birkeland needed to put a magnet inside the "Earth" and in order to get his "coronal loops" he also needed a magnetic field in the "Earth/Sun", thus the magnetic fields of these loops (by your own reasoning, because Birkeland did it like that) needs to be internal to the Sun, and not created by the currents flowing along the field lines of the coronal loops (which is impossible anyway, as explained to you many a time in this thread).

 

[Michael Mozina]

I guess, Michael Mozina, the fact that I (or the Opacity Project) am (is) not allowed to use math to calculate something simple

First of all, it's not at all "simple". You and I can't even agree on what the photosphere is made of! How can it then be a "simple" calculation? In your mind, I'm sure it's all very 'simple'. In a mass separated solar model, it's not as "simple" as you seem to imagine.

Secondly, you folks are notoriously dependent upon mathematical models to the absolute exclusion of the visual evidence and the visual observations that might actually confirm (or falsify) your mathematical models. Never mind the math that reveals that "stratification subsurface", or the math that reveals those persistent structures in the wave of Kosovichev's video. You're only interested in a *SINGLE* calculation done specifically your way, based upon your specific assumptions and criteria. Why? What about those images from the DVD? Did you even bother to look at them yet, specifically the three photosphere discharge events? The visual evidence doesn't jive with your theory. The photosphere "lights up" along the base of the arcs and the arcs can clearly be seen in white light. There is nothing I have left to chance here, but you have to actually do your homework and compare *observation* to actual theory.

and observed in many an object or experiment is a sign at the wall why you have never answered my questions about Birkeland's math.

Why should I bark math here at your command, when I have no reason to believe you've even read the math related to Birkeland's theories? He spend *YEARS* of his life, as did Alfven, providing you folks with math. What good did any of it do exactly? How much of it have you actually personally read? Have you read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven? Have you actually read Birkeland's mathematical presentations?

Basically, I guess you don't understand math, otherwise you would have answered my question about where Birkeland talks about accelerating electrons and dragging along the protons (which is utter impossible).

I understand the math just fine, but math was never a legitimate substitute for physical experimentation. What makes Birkeland's work so valuable is not simply the math, but also his *PHYSICAL EXPERIMENTS*. You guys forgot the importance of physical experimentation IMO. You sit around plugging numbers into spread sheets or math formulas, never once looking up from your desk to test anything in a lab, or even to compare your theories to real satellites in space and what they show us. Nevermind that the stratification subsurface blocks the flow of plasma at around 4800 KM. Nevermind that this is supposed to be an "open convection zone". Nevermind those rigid persistent features in the image. Flying plasma? What flying plasma? Hoy. Even getting you folks to talk about these images and to address specific features of specific images is impossible. I can't even get a reasonable answer from anywhere here except maybe Tim, and DD and *OCCASIONALLY* you. I give you a lot of credit on your neutrino answers. The details observed in the images however seem to be everyone's Kryptonite.

Let's see you go back now and answer some of the questions I posed to Tim, particularly as it relates to the three events I cited.

Your questions seem "simple" to you because your working with an "oversimplified" physical model. You're *assuming* all the elements stay pretty evenly mixed together at the surface of the photosphere. That is not how it works in a mass separated model. It's not nearly as "easy" as you imagine.