Electric universe theories here.

[Reality Check]

Ok. My point is still valid. Just because you *think* they oscillate, and even have some real "evidence" they oscillate, even by my standards, you don't know that they oscillate yet.

I do not care about your "standards" which are abysmally low given that you believe in an Iron Sun idea that seems to have no predictions, i.e. no numbers to match observations.
I do not *think* that neutrinos oscillate. I see that the scientific evidence is that they oscillate.

What is your scientific evidence that neutrinos do not oscillate?

In terms of pure "resolution"? "A lot" I've never seen a real time neutrino image of the sun in resolutions rivaling a SOSO image. When that happens, you let me know. Until then, I'd say "a lot". IMO however it's the one thing you SHOULD BE doing. I couldn't care less about your invisible creation mythos friends, but when real things show up in empirical experiments, I'm happy to fund it.

Well, in an ideal world, we would have at least 4-8 megapixel resolution in real time. Detectors would be efficient, not horribly inefficient. We would be able to detect them individually by flavor and do so in high resolution of all flavors as well as the "sum total" detection methods now available.

Are you that dumb? Do you know what neutrinos are?

FYI, I'm only interested now in how you eliminated the possibility of interference in the one type of electron neutrino detector, but the rest looks, well, "ok" by me, if not "ideal" by anyone's standards.

Are you under the delusion that I did these experiments?

What "interference" and from what are you talking about?

And what "one type of electron neutrino detector"?
There are a dozen neutrino observatories using neutrino beams produced in several faculties. They use several different types of detectors that can detect the various types of neutrino.
For some strange reason you want to look at each paper produced by the experiments individually. We are going to be here for a long. long time!

...snipped usual image rant...

 

[Reality Check]

Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?

First asked 15 July 2009
Michael Mozina
This has probably been asked before but lets try again:

What are the numeric predictions of the Iron Sun model that can be tested against actual empirical measurements?



A few examples that current solar physics derives and your model should be able to provide:

• What is the spectrum of the Sun from the photosphere (given that in your model it is "mostly neon")?
• What is the speed of sound profile of the Sun?
• What is the density profile of the Sun?
• What is the neutrino flux?

But I would be interested in any numbers at all that can be compared to measurements.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I do not care about your "standards" which are abysmally low

Compared to your beloved inflation genies? Please....

given that you believe in an Iron Sun idea that seems to have no predictions,

You mean *except for* every one of Birkeland's predictions about jets, loops, high speed solar wind and electric currents (in your lingo "magnetic ropes), ect?

i.e. no numbers to match observations.

I guess you never read even a single paper that Oliver wrote, not a single paper by Kosovichev, or a single paper I've been involved in.

I do not *think* that neutrinos oscillate. I see that the sciebtific evidence is that they oscillate.

Fine. I'm more than happy to grant you that they "may" and perhaps do oscillate. Whoop-de-doo. My beliefs are not predicated upon the outcome of that specific debate and they never have been. I don't really care unless you can use that tidbit of knowledge to explain the images on my website in terms of cause/effect relationships and specific details. I did not base my beliefs upon the oscillation issue in any way, and even if the evidence favors your position at the moment, so what? Does that explain the images I've cited? No. Does it eliminate *ANY* other solar model? No, no more so than your lack of prediction of oscillation in advance falsified standard solar theory when all neutrino types were found. It would simply be an 'unexplained" issue, just like these images remain "unexplained" based on gas model solar theories.

What is your scientific evidence that neutrinos do not oscillate?

I don't have any evidence that they do not oscillate. I would even go so far as to grant you that there is "limited evidence" in favor *OF* oscillation, but it's irrelevant to these images. It's not as though your side has provide all the answers to all the questions I've posed to you either. So what?

Are you that dumb? Do you know what neutrinos are?

Excuse me? Oh wait, you can't control yourself.

What "interference" and from what are you talking about?

I'm talking about the interference patterns that show up in QM and in double slit experiments. What are you talking about?

 

[Michael Mozina]

First asked 15 July 2009
Michael Mozina
This has probably been asked before but lets try again:

What are the numeric predictions of the Iron Sun model that can be tested against actual empirical measurements?

Did you read Birkeland's work, yes or no? Did you find *ANY* numerical "predictions" related to his experiments in that volume? Yes or no will suffice.

Did you see any "predictions" in his work related to the mass found in "flying ions" compared to the mass found in suns and planets? Did he even come close to coming up with an accurate number? If not, why not? Did he *OVERESTIMATE* or underestimate the mass we might find in flying ions? Hint, you should already know this answer and you should have already cited it as a "failed" prediction and you should already be able to explain why he failed that prediction.

 

[GeeMack]

Flying plasma? What flying plasma? Explanation in terms of cause/effect relationships and specific image events? What explanation? You gave no explanation you Liar.

Well, of course I did explain them, thoroughly. Everyone except you understands. You just ignored the explanations because it goes against your delusion. But we've been through this before and the results have been that, well...

You seem to have conceded the point that you are an ignorant liar. My posts #806, #819, and #829 remain uncontested. They continue to stand without a single iota of rebuttal from you or from anyone else in this forum. No more playing kid scientist for you, Michael. If you can't go back and address the questions I raised, I think it's safe to assume you are unable to do so. Do you have the stuff, or don't you? Give it one more shot, why don't you? When it comes to having a tenable position on the subjects of this discussion, so far you're a loser.

No you go back like a good little science boy and explain the issues raised in posts #806, #819, and #829. If you can't, you can't. We'll all understand. In fact, we're already pretty sure you can't.

 

[Reality Check]

You mean *except for* every one of Birkeland's predictions about jets, loops, high speed solar wind and electric currents (in your lingo "magnetic ropes), ect?

What numeric value did Birkeland predict for the speed of the solar wind (what page in his book?) and how does it match the observed value?

I have read his book. I did not see any numeric predictions about jets, loops (coronal?) or high speed solar wind.

I guess you never read even a single paper that Oliver wrote, not a single paper by Kosovichev, or a single paper I've been involved in.

Then you are wrong.
I have read several papers by Kosovichev, Oliver and you.

Fine. I'm more than happy to grant you that they "may" and perhaps do oscillate. Whoop-de-doo. My beliefs are not predicated upon the outcome of that specific debate and they never have been. I don't really care unless you can use that tidbit of knowledge to explain the images on my website in terms of cause/effect relationships and specific details. ...snipped...

This is nothing to do with your usual lies about the images that have ben explaind many times here and in other fora.

This is to do with your total failure to match the observed flux of solar neutrinos (even without oscillations) from your idea.

This is about your logical fallacy (false dichotomy) that a non-existent defect in the current solar model is a point in favor of any other solar model.
This is a typical crackpot fallacy. They state that there is evidence against theory A and so this must be evidence for theory B. They conveniently forget about theories B, C, D and Z.
Your fallacy is even worse because it is only your personal opinion that there is evidence against theory A.

I'm talking about the interference patterns that show up in QM and in double slit experiments. What are you talking about?

I was not talking about interfence patterns - you were.

Now show that these interfernce patterns of yours happen in the experiments. For example a beam of neutrinos is produced by a nuclear reactor. Its interaction with matter is so little that of the billions of neutrinos emitted per second only a few tens per second will be detected.
How does this beam interfer and with what?

Or just cite the paper or textbook that you got this interesting phenomena from.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

This one, for example, contains some irony that is really rich, and it is doubly amusing because I'm 99% sure you did not intend it.

Dude, what you are 'seeing', in the RD images, the narrow-band soft x-ray images, etc, etc, etc is mathematical models!

I've never suggested that math that was applied to *known* objects (like iron) was a bad thing. Are you trying to paint me as someone who dislikes or distrusts the use of math? Is that your weird little goal? Sorry, let's nip that fallacy in the bud right now.

I'm a *HUGE* fan of technology, and math when it's applied to real things like real space gear that real scientists really launch into space. That's all "good" use of math and physical cause/effect science from my perspective.

It's only when you attempt to justify your dogma and faith in the "dark arts" via math alone that I'm going to complain about. Inflation fairies with mythical properties? Not unless you can "show me" here on Earth. "Dark evil energies" manipulating the whole physical universe? Not unless you can show me you aren't making this up in your head right here on Earth in an empirical test of concept.

Any use of math on physical objects identified by science (including subatomic particles) are fine by me. Just don't slap math to the side of a pack of dark magic gnomes and expect me to take you seriously. [...]

Let's take but one example, shall we?

That's silly. It's already been done by Birkeland over 100 years ago. His sphere had a "plasma" atmosphere around it, and it had no problem creating discharges in the atmosphere.

Notice the loops in the B&W image from Birkeland's terella experiments?

Okey dokey ... so where are the detailed, *mathematical* calculations (a.k.a. models) which show - in objective, independently verifiable detail - that the soft x-ray *models* (based on the outputs from CCD chips, or whatever) have any relationship *whatsoever* to Birkeland's silver halide photographs?

IIRC, I asked you something similar, many weeks or months ago, and you didn't actually answer ...

[blatantly obvious attempts to avoid answering, or addressing, the points/questions that go to the heart of MM's claims deleted]

So, are you going to answer the many direct, pertinent questions about Bikeland's math (cited by several JREF Forum members), or not?

Several JREF Forum members have asked you, MM, direct questions, pertinent to the ideas you yourself have presented, as presented. AFAIK, you have not answered any of them.

Why?

GeeMack has made the point, persistently, that you have obviously failed to convey your insights to anyone, in the sense that there is an indication that your ideas are scientifically sound, or that they have sufficient scientific merit as to warrant further investigation. If so, why? I mean, if the case you are presenting is so scientifically compelling (as you so obviously believe it is), the easiest thing for anyone with even a half-way decent BSc in physics to do is take your stuff, turn the (quantitative) handle, write a landmark paper, get it published, and a return trip to Stockholm is guaranteed.

Have you ever wondered why it is that you have had such an epic failure of traction, over n years? Do you genuinely believe, for example, that you have such a profound insight into the observed behaviour of the universe? An insight that thousands of people with demonstrably greater intellect, and far broader and deeper grasp of the relevant history and physics (including astronomy) than you have hithertofore missed?

And if you do, truly, believe this, why do you suppose that you have been so singularly and spectactularly unsuccessful in making your case, over so many years?

 

[Tim Thompson]

photons through a plasma

You and I both know darn well that highly energetic 171a photons will penetrate *SOME* distance through a light plasma atmosphere. We can argue about "how far", but you can't claim it won't go *ANY* distance.

At no time have I ever suggested any such thing.

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.

And there you go again, putting the camera right next to the arc. Show me the post where I even began to hint at any such thing!

Now, same plasma, same camera, same arc. But put the camera 1000 km from the arc. Do we say "of course some photons have to get through"? I never said photons would not penetrate "some distance". I said that photons might not penetrate a very long distance, so try to stick to the same subject this time.

Now, are you telling me that you know, for a certain fact without any question at all, that at least "some" of the high energy photons must be able to penetrate any length of photospheric plasma?

I am telling you that I know, as an absolutely certain fact beyond any possibility of question, that if the optical depth of the plasma is high enough, then no detectable photons at all will penetrate a sufficiently long path length through the plasma. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Comments on Neutrino Oscillations

I'm guessing we're lumping a "grand total" somewhere and subtracting the total number of electron neutrinos detected and *assuming* the total includes other types of neutrinos.

Why guess? Why not go to the source? see Direct Evidence for Neutrino Flavor Transformation from Neutral-Current Interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory; Q.R. Ahmad, et al., (the SNO Collaboration), Physical Review Letters 89(1): paper 011301, July 2002. This paper reports the combined results of solar neutrino measurements from 3 experiments.

• Charged current (sensitive to electron neutrinos only)
• Neutral current (equally sensitive to all 3 neutrino types)
• Elastic Scattering (sensitive to all 3 neutrino types, but not equally)

The neutral current reaction detects a total number of neutrinos that is equal to the total number of electron neutrinos expected from the sun. The charged current reaction detects only electron neutrinos. The difference between them matches the expected number of electron neutrinos which are expected to oscillate on their way through the sun. The elastic scattering reaction provides a check which confirms the results from the other two experiments. The elastic scattering reaction is important because, while sensitive to all 3 neutrino types, it is more sensitive to electron neutrinos, while less sensitive to muon & tau neutrinos. So the elastic scattering results will be skewed compared to the neutral current results (it being equally sensitive to all 3 types), so it provides an independent check on the total number of detected neutrinos. If they disagree, then the entire package is invalid. If they agree (which they do), then the obvious conclusion is that solar neutrinos are oscillating in practice as anticipated by theory. This is a valid scientific result and a valid observation of solar neutrino oscillations.

Furthermore, see First Results from KamLAND: Evidence for Reactor Antineutrino Disappearance; K. Eguchi, et al., (the KamLAND collaboration), Physical Review Letters 90(2): paper 021802, January 2003. This was the first reported direct observation of the oscillation of neutrinos produced by nuclear reactors. See figure 4, which shows the drop in neutrino counts at about 100 km, compared to the expectations of oscillation theory, which are consistent with the observations.

Both papers have garnered over 1000 citations so far, and other groups have achieved similar results. Observation of both solar neutrinos and reactor produced neutrinos agree with the same theory of neutrino oscillation. That is important because the oscillation is caused by the passage of the neutrino through matter, in the one case thousands of kilometers of solar matter, and in the other case through 100 kilometers of Earth. But the single same theory of neutrino oscillation, the MSW effect, explains both observations. That's hard to come up with as a random accident, and is compelling evidence that neutrinos oscillate.

The entire physics community considers the neutrino problem solved, and for good reason. You are of course free to ignore them and go your own way, pretending that there is some open question that puts it all in doubt. But you will be deservedly alone in that thinking.

 

[Reality Check]

Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina

The Iron Sun model states that coronal loops are electrical arcs that start on your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust, travel through 4800 kilometers of convection zone and photosphere (highly conductive plasma!), goes in a "hoop" through the corona and then plunges back into the photosphere and convection zone to merge with the iron surface/crust again.

First asked 13 July 2009
How does the temperature of the plasma vary along the electrical arc as the arc travels up to the corona (and back down to the iron surface/crust)?

My very limited knowledge of electrical arcs suggests that any heating of the plasma by the arc will be the same throughout the length of the arc.
This seems to literally blow holes in your Iron Sun model since the footprints of the coronal "hoops" will be at temperatures of millions of degrees (especially where the arc reenters the photosphere after heating the corona to a millions of degrees). If images are taken of the footprints of the "hoops" on the photosphere in visible light then there will be big holes seen (no visible light emitted from the million degree plasma).
I have seen no such holes in active coronal loop footprints. However I am sure that you can point me to 100's of these images.

Alternately:
First asked 13 July 2009
Can you tell me why the electrical arc (coronal loop) does not heat the photosphere plasma greatly but does heat the less dense corona plasma to millions of degrees?

 

[Reality Check]

Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina

The Iron Sun model states that coronal loops are electrical arcs that start on your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust, travel through 4800 kilometers of convection zone and photosphere (highly conductive plasma!), goes in a curve through the corona and then plunges back into the photosphere and convection zone to merge with the iron surface/crust again.

First asked 13 July 2009
How does the electrical arc keep its shape and direction while traveling through the highly conductive plasma above your iron surface/crust?

I am sure that you can cite a textbook with a chapter on the formation of electrical arcs in highly conductive media like plasma rather than the normally non-conductive media such as air as used in Birkland's terrella experiments.
This sounds like something plasma scientists must have been researching and publishing papers on for decades. So a couple of citations to papers on the subject should be easy to find.

 

[tusenfem]

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?

Oh, boohoohooo! MM it is clear you have no idea about the math that Birkeland and Alfvén have done. If you cannot even give the correct location for one of your claims.

What good did it do Birkeland and Alfvén?
We have Birkeland currents (plus a lot of other stuff that B invented, not necessarily in the space physics area)
We have Alfvén waves, we use MHD, everyone sees Alfvén as the father of modern plasma physics.

And yes, I went through the math by Birkeland, you might have noticed a little message about it on page 12.

 

[tusenfem]

Nice quote. I wonder if you folks are really able to keep an open mind to "what is" and what has been "lab tested"?

Not open enough to believe a iron shell inside the Sun

Sure, but it's not "fully" ionized. It's "dusty" plasma.

What are the "s supposed to mean here. Is this another redefinition of yours, that we are unaware of? Naturaly it is not "fully" ionized in the way that, take your favourite iron, will not have lost all of its electrons, and in the outer layers of the sun there are even neutrals present. I have no idea what you mean by "dusty" is that "dusty" as in the usual definition of larger particles in a plasma or what?

Exactly the same way Birkeland achieved it. I'm going to charge the surface of the sphere as a cathode and create a discharge process between the surface and the heliosphere. Birkeland described the voltages by the way. Did you read them?

I read them, how often do I have to say that? (see page 12!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
And you don't want a discharge between the sun and the heliosphere, you want a discharge from surface to surface.

That's silly. It's already been done by Birkeland over 100 years ago. His sphere had a "plasma" atmosphere around it, and it had no problem creating discharges in the atmosphere.

Notice the loops in the B&W image from Birkeland's terella experiments?

From Birkeland, just to give the readers a background:

It is by powerful magnetisation of the magnetisable globe that the phenomenon answering to Saturn's rings is produced. During this process, polar radiation and disruptive discharges at the equator such as that shown in fig. 247a (which happens to be a unipolar discharge) [this is MM's picture of the "loops"] may also occur, if the current intensity of discharge is great. If the magnetisation of the globe be reduced (or the tension of the discharge increased) gradually, the luminous ring round the globe will be reduced to a minimum size, after which another equatorial ring is developed and expands rapidly (Fig 247 b).

So Birkeland was trying to model Saturn in this picture. For those who do not know what a "unipolar discharge" is, the following:

from here
Discharge in a fine tube is a simple way of generating a dielectric barrier discharge microplasma jet under atmospheric pressure (AP). Since its electrodes are directly connected by a dielectric, discharge behaviour in this kind of tubular-electrode plasma could be significantly different from that of a parallel-plate plasma source having planar electrodes.

Which is a breakdown of the dielectric, like in a plasma ball. And to advance a bit on that, inside a plasma ball there is no plasma (unlike you would think from the name). The only plasma in that ball is in the discharges from the central ball to the glass sphere.

Now, there is no dielectric in the Sun, it is a plasma, so the idea that there would be discharges is interesting, but basically impossible.

I love how you claim something is "impossible' when it's already been physically recreated in a lab over 100 years ago. It's not "impossible" as you can see from the image I cited.

Because Birkeland's experiment, although very interesting to create the aurora, does not well describe the physics of the Sun nor does it describe well the physics of Saturn's rings. Therefore, it is impossible.

If you mean "induction", sure it plays a role in the "flinging' of plasma. If you're talking about 'magnetic reconnection', forgetaboutit. Only circuits and particles are physically capable of "reconnecting". Magnetic lines form as a whole and complete continuum, without beginning and without end, and *without* reconnecting to any other magnetic lines.

Induction cannot replace magnetic reconnection, you cannot change the topology of the magnetic field using only induction.

The plasma in the plasma ball on my desk is a "light" and very dusty plasma. I can see the light from a single candle through a foot of it as though it's not even there. I'm sure I'd see my arc welder through it too.

The gas in a plasma ball is not plasma, only when a discharge takes place does the gas get ionized.

The *DENSITY* does however matter, and you're claiming that the density at the surface of the photosphere is very thin. Your "opacity" numbers are based upon a *NON* mass separated "assumption".
Does it assume all the elements stay mixed together at the surface of the photosphere?
Which photons? All of them? The photons from the loops? The photons seen in 1600A? They all come from the photosphere in your opinion?
"Last scattering"? For *EVERY SINGLE* wavelength? Surely not every wavelength will operate the same way?

Apparently, you have no knowledge about radiative transport in plasmas. Too bad, because it is highly important. Naturally I do not mean "at all wavelengths" if you would have read carefully, you would have seen that I wrote that "he optical depth of the plasma, it can either be transparent or opaque, and that depends on wavelength, density and length of the plasma column." That is why the photoshpere is not just a flat surface it is a layer with a certain thickness.

And naturally I do not say that the photons from the coronal loops come from the photosphere, the idea is ludicrous. These emissions are "superposed" onto the radiation that is coming from the photosphere.

I love how you say it "will-be" in such a casual manner as though this is already certain. It's not. It's certainly going to be wavelength dependent and not every wavelength can or would be absorbed at the same rate. Even scuba diving taught me that light does not get absorbed at the same rate. Red light does not penetrate as deeply as blue light, or yellow light.

Have you frakking READ what I wrote!?!?!?!?! I specifically wrote, like any other (plasma)(astro)physicist would do that the optical depth is WAVELENGTH DEPENDENT.

How does that compare to say the plasma in an ordinary plasma ball?

Plasma balls are irrelevant, because they have no plasma.

The photosphere is a double layer of neon. The white light above the photosphere comes from the arcs. The white light along the bases of the loops is brightly lit on both sides, just as a birkeland solar model predicts.

And what kind of double layer would that be, a current carrying DL, or a boundary DL, and what is causing it to be a DL and what is the electric field, and why would the photosphere be made out of neon?

And again, hone your writing skills "the white light along the bases is of the loops is brightly lit on both sides?" how can light be lit? Sounds really profound MM, until you read what is really written.

His math relates to the flow of both positively and negatively charged particles. What did you get from that math?

I went through the math (see my message on page 12) and there was NOTHING I could find on this process. The motion of charged particles near a gravitating magnetized sphere, no solar wind there, please, if I am mistaken, show me where exactly Birkeland explains the process that YOU are promoting.

In other words, observational evidence be damned. You don't even care to see it. Why would you? It blows your whole show.

Oh, boy are you childish! Don't you forget ever anything to take home from work. The number of times I forget my cell phone on my desk .......

But then observations of flares are not what you would call "controlled experiments" so why would we believe any results coming from them.

I can easily see "flying stuff" and real objects in RD images, and I can see mass movements at the bases of the arcs all along the transitional region. I guess I'm more of any "expert" than the rest of you as it relates to solar physics and satellite image analysis. You can't even see the flying stuff evidently without someone holding your hand for a week. The fact you guys let GM get away with claiming the persistence has anything to do with the RD technique says volumes.

In those images you will see that the arcs come up through the surface of the photosphere, they light up the surface of the photosphere on both sides of the arcs, and blow plasma from the surface of the photosphere up and into the chromosphere. All of that is consistent with the discharge occurring *UNDER AND THROUGH* the photosphere, not high above it. Why is the plasma moving upwards rather than downwards if the primary "blast" is high above the photosphere?

the plasma filling the magnetic loop is also very consistent with just the shear motion of the foot points, generating an electric field along the field lines and a current/plasma flow is set up. This is not what one call a discharge, because there is no break down of any dielectric which refrained the "charge separation" to equalize.

No, I don't toss away any observations. They are the key to validating and falsifying any and all solar models. By your logic, the "flare" should have originate above the photosphere, it has no particular reason to light up the surface of the photosphere at the bases of the arcs, and plasma at the surface of the photosphere would be likely to be blow *DOWNWARD* from the blast above, not upwards and into the chromosphere. The physics doesn't work in your favor.

But they are not controlled experiments, MM!

You have totally no idea about solar flares theory, do you? In all models of solar flares it is expected that the footpoints brighten. And no, the plasma would not be "blasted downward" because in those magnetic loops the plasma is magnetized.

How do I verify your claim?

So let's see an iron sphere in the sun. How big?
How does it stay stable?
How much uranium is creating all that heat and current?
How does fission of uranium create a current anyway?
How do I verify your claims?

I agree. It can only tell us what is underneath of the photosphere in mathematical terms. There's another example of a bunch more math that you folks simply ignore.

That is not what I said, MM, I said that you can use helioseismology to determine what the photosphere is made of, one of your claims to which I replied, and now you try to twist it around in such a way that helioseismologist don't know squat. You are so frakking insincere in the way you discuss. Can you back up your claim that anything is ignored?

I'm aware of the definitions. I'm also aware of the fact that they are gross oversimplifications and just plain wrong. Sure, the photosphere emits the most *VISIBLE* light. That is primarily due to it's elemental composition (neon).

And why exactly should it be made of neon, why not of helium, which is the "solar particle".

I'm just so used to getting pathetic answers at this point, and it's hard to believe you've really seen this stuff, or it wouldn't be something you take so lightly as to not bother looking at it or explaining it before commenting on it.
I doubt you are correct because he already simulated a "glowing' plasma atmosphere.
He could certainly see below his glowing plasma around the sphere to describe the origin of the loops and their relationship to physical bumps on the sphere. Evidently you think he was some sort of simpleton.
Na, that was evidently Galileo that did that.

More Birkeland blah blah about things he never even heard of.

Lot's of peeps are working on solar flares in lots of different wavelengths for observations. Once more, you are not the sole person in the world who watches soho movies and you are certainly no expert on solar flares.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm talking about the interference patterns that show up in QM and in double slit experiments. What are you talking about?

Hi MM,

This seems to be really grasping at straws.

It is possible but not really plausible.

1. What would create the slit?


We are talking aboiout the weakly interacting neutrinos after all. Your model here, what would make the slit?

2. Why would the intereference pattern be so large as to have an area the size of a detector?

 

[Dancing David]

Hi MM,

I would swear that you just said that the existance of the crust of iron under the photosphere is a prediction of your model and that you should geta pass on one 'prediction' not being able to match the data.

Nope, that is your model. IE hypothesis.

You have yet to explain how it is possible, that is not a prediction, having it is a hypothesis.

How does a 'crust of iron' exist under the photosphere which has a temperature of 6000 degrees?

Double layers will not stop the transfer of heat through radiation of photons. So what keeps this 'crust of iron' below the point of melting and/or vaporization?

 

[Michael Mozina]

At no time have I ever suggested any such thing.

Then all we can possibly be discussing and/or arguing about is the *distance* such photons will travel. It's not a question of *if*, it's a question of "how far". That is going to be light source dependent, will it not? In other words a very bright arc is likely to penetrate further through the plasma than a weaker one?

And there you go again, putting the camera right next to the arc. Show me the post where I even began to hint at any such thing!

The distance of the camera is less relevant than the density and opacity of the material in the photosphere. It's also going to be dependent on the location of the discharge itself. The loops obvious rise high into the atmosphere, so light might originate somewhere below the surface and still be visible in the surface of the photosphere in the white light wavelengths. The event at 30:04ish seconds shows a distinct set of loops rising up through the photosphere and lighting up the material of the photosphere at the bases of the loops. The last event I cited shows the physics of the movement of the photosphere material when the flare occurs and blow photosphere material up and away from the event.

Now, same plasma, same camera, same arc. But put the camera 1000 km from the arc.

Suppose it's a 2000 KM arc? Will we see light below the photosphere?

Do we say "of course some photons have to get through"? I never said photons would not penetrate "some distance". I said that photons might not penetrate a very long distance, so try to stick to the same subject this time.

I'm still waiting to hear you explain what the material is made of that blocks the light in 171A in those original images?

I am telling you that I know, as an absolutely certain fact beyond any possibility of question, that if the optical depth of the plasma is high enough, then no detectable photons at all will penetrate a sufficiently long path length through the plasma. Do you agree or disagree?

I disagree. I disagree with the idea that the optical depth is high enough.

The photons in blue occur for quite a distance in these images, even after the x-rays start to be absorbed. While I agree with your basic idea in general terms, the iron ion wavelengths seems to be a horse of a different color.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The neutral current reaction detects a total number of neutrinos that is equal to the total number of electron neutrinos expected from the sun. The charged current reaction detects only electron neutrinos. The difference between them matches the expected number of electron neutrinos which are expected to oscillate on their way through the sun.

The sun isn't a controllable source and we can't inspect it's core, or turn it on and off. Ok, yes, the *TOTAL* count matches prediction, but that is really begging the question. *IF* we assume they oscillate, yes the matching total helps your case. If we assume they do not oscillate, the same data falsifies your solar model. We still would need to physically demonstrate this oscillation process in a controlled way.

Furthermore, see First Results from KamLAND: Evidence for Reactor Antineutrino Disappearance; K. Eguchi, et al., (the KamLAND collaboration), Physical Review Letters 90(2): paper 021802, January 2003. This was the first reported direct observation of the oscillation of neutrinos produced by nuclear reactors. See figure 4, which shows the drop in neutrino counts at about 100 km, compared to the expectations of oscillation theory, which are consistent with the observations.

The problem is that I can't tell if the 'disappearance' is related to an oscillation of flavor, of sign, due to scattering effects, due to some interference pattern related to the one type of detector or some other influence. This paper and this empirical technique has a lot promise, and it's definitely on the right track, but frankly I'm going to punt on this issue.

I going to simply remind everyone that I have already agreed that there is "some" evidence to support this idea even by empirical standards. Such data would not and does not falsify any other solar model, nor does it address the images on my website. I'm going to be *VERY* busy this week, and I really don't have the time now to get dragged into a million side issues. I'd really like to hear your response to Kosovichev's Doppler image and explanation, and the DVD images, particularly the 1600A and the three white light images I cited.

The entire physics community considers the neutrino problem solved, and for good reason. You are of course free to ignore them and go your own way, pretending that there is some open question that puts it all in doubt. But you will be deservedly alone in that thinking.

Actually I don't consider the problem "unresolved" at this point either Tim. Perhaps it is still "unresolved" as it relates to a Birkeland solar model, with fission core, but so what? The "neutrino problem" went unresolved in standard theory for 30 years and nobody abandoned the gas model theory over the issue during that timeframe.

The only thing that isn't "fully demonstrated" IMO is the oscillation process itself via direct empirical testing. I don't really even see how that is currently possible since none of the current detector systems seems to be capable of isolating the muon or tau neutrinos independently from the other types of neutrinos. While we can directly observe electron neutrinos independently from the other types of neutrinos, we have to "infer" the existence of the other two types (actually 5 other types if you include sign) of neutrinos from the "total" of various other detectors, less the detected number of electron neutrinos.

The problem here is that even a small scattering process might result in interference patterns in one type of detector more than another and/or result "missing" electron neutrino detections. I can't simply automatically *assume* that a "missing" neutrino = an oscillated neutrino.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hi MM,

This seems to be really grasping at straws.

It is possible but not really plausible.

1. What would create the slit?

A gravitational scattering effect might created multiple neutrino paths over time. The release of neutrinos may not all occur at exactly the same point or place. There could be any number of ways to create interference patterns in neutrino emissions for all I know.

We are talking aboiout the weakly interacting neutrinos after all. Your model here, what would make the slit?

All we need the neutrinos to do is take different paths through the sun on their way out of the sun. Any sort of gravitational scattering process could in theory at least generate some sort of interference pattern. Yes, it's a "long shot". No, it's not impossible.

2. Why would the intereference pattern be so large as to have an area the size of a detector?

I don't know. The problem here is that we don't really observe a high percentage of neutrinos in our current detectors. We see only a *very* small sampling of events. Even relatively minor interference processes could have an effect on a single "hit/miss' event and that one effect would then be amplified greatly due to the fact that we receive so few hits anyway.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, boohoohooo! MM it is clear you have no idea about the math that Birkeland and Alfvén have done. If you cannot even give the correct location for one of your claims.

How about we discuss "currents in the solar atmosphere" then since they are related to this conversation?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/A...r Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

We have Birkeland currents (plus a lot of other stuff that B invented, not necessarily in the space physics area)
We have Alfvén waves, we use MHD, everyone sees Alfvén as the father of modern plasma physics.

Ya right. You ignored what Alfven himself wrote about solar atmospheric events in favor of a magnetic reconnection mythology that he personally called "pseudoscience", and yet you claim to "honor" him? How does that work exactly? There must really be a big, fat, juicy rationalization in there somewhere.

And yes, I went through the math by Birkeland, you might have noticed a little message about it on page 12.

How did positive ions get ejected from the sphere according to Birkeland?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let's take but one example, shall we?

You mean you're simply going to ignore every question I posed to you, you aren't ever going to discuss the images directly, and you're going to continue to play the role of "Grand Inqisitor", is that it?

Okey dokey ... so where are the detailed, *mathematical* calculations (a.k.a. models) which show - in objective, independently verifiable detail - that the soft x-ray *models* (based on the outputs from CCD chips, or whatever) have any relationship *whatsoever* to Birkeland's silver halide photographs?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/A...r Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

IIRC, I asked you something similar, many weeks or months ago, and you didn't actually answer ...

How many of my questions have you answered? How many "explanations" have you put forth for that RD image or Doppler image? How many years have you avoided these images now? Four years? Five years?

So, are you going to answer the many direct, pertinent questions about Bikeland's math (cited by several JREF Forum members), or not?

Birkeland's math is only part of the math available to you. You have Bruce's math, Alfven's math, Birkeland's math. Did any of that math do anything for you? If not, why not, and what makes you think me barking math on command is going to have any effect whatsoever if the Nobel scientist didn't convince you?

Several JREF Forum members have asked you, MM, direct questions, pertinent to the ideas you yourself have presented, as presented. AFAIK, you have not answered any of them.

Baloney. I've answered many of them. There are some I probably can't and haven't answered, but so what? Have you answered any of my questions at all? At least RC is making some attempt at addressing the actual image. Even D'rok made an honest attempt to "understand" what I was saying and to respond to the specific points I presented to him/her. You one the other hand, hide from the questions, you won't ever attempt to "explain' the images I have cited for you and Tim and everyone else here to look at. It's all freely available to you so you have no excuse except the fact you're just damn lazy.

GeeMack has made the point, persistently, that you have obviously failed to convey your insights to anyone,

I have conveyed the ideas to everyone who wants to comprehend them. Many people can "understand" your idea and simply disagree with it, or parts of it, or whatever. I can't worry about who agrees or disagrees with me, but I can 'convey the ideas' just fine to anyone who *WANTS* to understand them. I can explain them visually too via satellite imagery and empirical tests. As the saying goes: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.". I can't make anyone "agree" with me. That's something only an individual can *choose* to do.

in the sense that there is an indication that your ideas are scientifically sound, or that they have sufficient scientific merit as to warrant further investigation.

They are not only scientifically sound, they have already been lab tested DRD. You can bitch and moan about scaling all you like, but Birkeland *CREATED* discharge loops that look almost identical to coronal loops. He discussed them and filmed them and suggested they may play an important role in solar physics. Your song and dance denial routine won't change history. Jets? What Jets? Persistent high speed solar wind? What solar wind? Coronal loops, what coronal loops? He filmed and wrote about all of these things.

If so, why? I mean, if the case you are presenting is so scientifically compelling (as you so obviously believe it is), the easiest thing for anyone with even a half-way decent BSc in physics to do is take your stuff, turn the (quantitative) handle, write a landmark paper, get it published, and a return trip to Stockholm is guaranteed.

Birkeland beat me to these ideas by 100 years. Alfven and Bruce both described "discharge" processes related to solar physics. You don't figure they deserve the credit?

Have you ever wondered why it is that you have had such an epic failure of traction, over n years?

At first I did, but now I understand much better. It's not only that I have to fight an uphill battle related to a solid surface solar model. Convincing your crew of something so radical is bad enough. It turns out however that this part is actually probably "easier" than getting you folks to let go of your *extreme irrational prejudice* toward everything "electrical" in space. Just look at the witch trials on BAUT. They aren't just directed at me, or an iron sun theory. They are directed at *EVERY SINGLE EU THEORY UNDER THE SUNS*. You folks are obviously deathly afraid of even the very concept of embracing *ANY* EU concept that might be presented. You have a knee jerk reaction to anything with with words "current flow' or "electricity". You never mention "electromagnetic fields', you only publish things if they talk about 'magnetic yada yada yada". God forbid anyone should note that Alfven called your magnetic reconnection theories "pseudoscience'.

The irrational prejudices of your industry are bizarre. I'll be the first one to admit that an iron sun theory isn't "mainstream", but the flow of charged particles in space is undeniable. That is called "current flow" and "electromagnetic waves".

Do you genuinely believe, for example, that you have such a profound insight into the observed behaviour of the universe?

I believe that Birkeland had a profound insight inthe the observed behaviors of the physical universe based on his life's work. I have satellite images, the internet and 21st century images to support his insights. Alfven and Bruce also had "insights". My insights don't seem to be either unique to me, or something I thought of all on my own.

An insight that thousands of people with demonstrably greater intellect,

Pfft. You don't have much of an ego problem do you? If you really had a greater intellect, you would explain the RD and Doppler images using the gas model solar theory and be done by now. Since you don't have any "explanations", all you have evidently are "proclamations" and egotistical ones at that.

and far broader and deeper grasp of the relevant history

Pfft. To this very day, have you even bothered to personally read Cosmic Plasma, yes or no? Had you read Birkeland's work before you met me, yes or no?

and physics (including astronomy)

You mean the guys that believe in inflation genies and dark energy gnomes? What "physics" are you talking about? You can't get these things to PHYSICALLY do anything to anything in a lab. You're talking about a group of mathematical myth makers that have NO (as in ZERO) physical support for their beliefs. Inflation is literally so "supernatural' that even you don't profess to be a "believer". Got a gram of 'dark matter'? Got any evidence at all that "dark energy" can "cause" (as in proven cause/effect demonstrations) plasma to "accelerate" over time?

You have no great understanding of "physics". You have a giant inability to explain what you would add to a "perfect" vacuum to create "negative pressure" in the vacuum and a dogmatic failed based belief system related to "dark evil thingies".