Electric universe theories here.

[GeeMack]

[*Any material not relevant or supporting Michael's insane fantasy edited out.*]

Now, how about that lab tested experiment, right here on Earth, mathematically consistent, physically plausible, no fudge factors, nothing metaphysical, repeatable, and objective to the extent that other people reach the same conclusion as you, that shows how you can process images gathered several thousand kilometers above the photosphere in such a way that you can see something several thousand kilometers below the photosphere.

That experiment, which clearly you have done, because all your ideas meet those standards, poses two problems according to contemporary physics. First, there is no method known to anyone except you for seeing anything in any data gathered thousands upon thousands of kilometers from the stuff you supposedly see in it. And second, the photosphere to the depths you're claiming to see, is completely opaque to everyone but you.

This has been asked dozens of times, here and on other forums, and is obviously a point of extreme interest. The explanation will certainly merit you a nomination for a Nobel prize once you let the world in on your secret method! What's the hold up, Michael? Anything in particular stopping you from showing us the experiment?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Thanks GeeMack.

If you're relying upon him for accurate info, you're definitely barking up the wrong tree.

It's interesting that the simplest, most powerful step MM could take to address this issue would be to do a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation, concerning a key aspect of his idea, and post it.

Oh don't worry DRD, I'm working on assembling a couple new pages for my website just for you folks.

Yet, in all the years, and tens of thousands of posts, he has not once actually done that.

Actually, that's not true, but it's silly I haven't put them all in one place, specifically my own website. That is a problem I'm working on correcting.

Now if MM won't - or, perhaps, can't - do even the simplest calculation (or quantification), how could any discussion of his ideas get anywhere?

Oh please. I have actually barked math on command for you personally (I built you a whole spreadsheet in fact) and you totally and utterly ignored it. It was a complete waste of my time. I can't even get you to address a single detail of a single image I've cited, nor comment on any of the images on my website. You have willfully and intentionally ignored these images for over four years. You're afraid to even touch them, let alone "explain" them.

 

[tusenfem]

How exactly did you show his analysis of coronal loops to be "incorrect". Be specific.

I did not show it to be incorrect, I said that it did not describe a flare. If you would please look at Michael Raadu's monograph (which I am sure you have) at the figure I mentioned, you see that Alfvén's model is the release of the circuit energy (most likely through a double layer) and does not include the ejection of part of the loop into interplanetary space.

So according to Alfven, the base of the loops would be emitting photons due to current flow. Do you agree with that assessment? He also stated that the loops would come from under the photosphere and have current flowing through them *UNDER* the photosphere. Do you agree or disagree? Have you looked at the DVD images I have cited that show these loops coming up through the photosphere?

According to mainstream the base of the loops light up too, because of the high energy electrons in the loops, they are very present in X-rays because of bremsstrahlung.
As the currents cannot just disappear, they have to flow somehow below the photosphere. I have no idea where this agree/disagree stuff comes from, not from my discussion of Alfven's work, which was only discussing that he discusses a different process that may or may not occur on the Sun (I personally have always had some difficulty with the magnetic field unwinding in the double layer at the "top" of the loop, see Raadu).

That is absolutely false. There can be no "frozen" plasma in an environment that is composed entirely of light plasma and where coronal loops are current carrying plasma filaments. How do you get "frozen" anything in a environment that is composed of moving particles that cruise through the whole atmosphere at over a million miles per hour?

Djezus frakking klyst! Can't you READ!?!?!??!!?!?!?!?!?
Was I talking about the sun? NO, I was talking in general terms. The EU community just throws out the frozen-in condition, because Alfven said it was wrong. I say, it is not wrong, you have to know when you can or cannot applie frozen-in condition. It was probably to subtile for you to understand.
And from your comment "how do you get frozen-in" shows that you have not got the foggiest what the "frozen-in" condition is. Could you write it down for us please? And where does this rediculous million miles per hour come from? I guess from the solar wind or something, and that is exactly where current papers have discussed, using measurments, when the frozen-in condition holds and when not.

Actually he's very clear about where the has merit (like dense plasma), vs. the places it does not apply like the light, current carrying plasma we find in the solar atmosphere.

What the heck is a "light" plasma, that term does not even have a physical definition (yeah I know a plasma with less density then a heavy plasma, gimme a break!)

And actually, in a "light" plasma it would be easier to have frozen in field, because there the conductivity with be much much higher then for a "heavy" plasma, but I doubt that will get across to you, as you don't know what the frozen-in condition actually is, like so many other plasmaphysical processes you don't understand.

The current is consistently responsible for those million degree coronal loops. That "pinch" and these emissions are a direct result of the currents that flow through the loop.

This is just random ranting, which does not have anything to do with what I commented on. You were talking about a "current carrying Bennet pinch" and I explained that that specification "current carrying" does not make sense, as without a current a Bennet pinch cannot happen. I did not say it did not happen, and in a pinch the heating of plasma is possible yes. I have no idea what exactly you are complaining about here, apart from the fact that you just want to complain, when I made a valid point.

At the point of "short circuit" (not magnetic reconnection) the TOTAL circuit energy determines the amount of energy released at the point of the short circuit. It is not driven by "magnetic reconnection" because the magnetic field drops to zero at a null point and the magnetic field has absolutely no energy whatsoever at a null point. The only thing that could or would release high energy particles at a any short circuit point in the loop the *CURRENT FLOW* that is running through those filaments.

I was not talking about magnetic reconnection, you might have noticed, I was just complaining about the ill-defined term "total circuit energy" (which again you did not define here, but anywhooooooo).

The fact that I was talking about magnetic tension is because in the loop the magnetic field lines are ... looping, and thus there is magnetic tension (even in Alfven's theories there is magnetic tension) and I was just saying that that probably does not get into the calculation of the "circuit energy." That was all, nothing more nothing less.

Next to your misunderstanding of reconnection, there is indeed a small region which is a null point, but then in a much much larger region there are bent field lines, which have tension, but that is all besides the point that I was discussing.

So please go to the Raadu monograph and look at the difference between the Alfven & Carlqvist model for energy release and e.g. the Kaastra model for energy release. It is two very different processes.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Why Sunspots Are Cool

How do you explain a sunspot being composed of plasma that is something like 3000 degrees cooler than the surface of the photosphere? Where does that lower temperature plasma come from and how in the world can it be *SO MUCH* cooler than the photosphere?

That's easy. The magnetic field that surrounds the sunspot inhibits convection. So, the plasma inside the sunspot emits thermal radiation just like the rest of the photosphere, but since no hot plasma can convect into the spot, the energy lost as radiation is not replaced and the spot consequently cools to a lower equilibrium temperature than the rest of the photosphere. The heat energy that does not get into the sunspot is stored in the surrounding photosphere, which has a slightly higher temperature. We can see this manifested as a brighter "plage" region around sunspots. See "Why Spots Are Cool", section 8.2.2, page 249-250 in the book Solar Astrophysics by Peter V. Foukal (Wiley-VCH, 2004, 2nd edition).

 

[Ziggurat]

That's easy. The magnetic field that surrounds the sunspot inhibits convection. So, the plasma inside the sunspot emits thermal radiation just like the rest of the photosphere, but since no hot plasma can convect into the spot, the energy lost as radiation is not replaced and the spot consequently cools to a lower equilibrium temperature than the rest of the photosphere.

Obviously you've been brainwashed by conventional thermodynamics. You probably don't think that heat can spontaneously transfer from a lower temperature object to a higher temperature object either.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Obviously you've been brainwashed by conventional thermodynamics.

No, evidently he's relying upon "magic magnetic fields" that do anything you want them to do, anytime you need them to do something you can't otherwise explain. How does a magnetic field, devoid of physical substance, form under an incredibly large area of the solar interior in a way that is going to block the upwelling of plasma over such a huge area? What does that kind of magnetic field even look like exactly, and *HOW* is it blocking the flow of plasma?

How come these sunspots are *ALWAYS* associated with 171A "hot spots"? Let me guess. Now these magic magnetic fields not only block the flow of plasma from the interior inside the sun, they then performing nifty high energy magic tricks *OVER* the the sunspot too? Tell me exactly what this magnetic field looks like that allows for all this to occur?

 

[tusenfem]

How come these sunspots are *ALWAYS* associated with 171A "hot spots"? Let me guess. Now these magic magnetic fields not only block the flow of plasma from the interior inside the sun, they then performing nifty high energy magic tricks *OVER* the the sunspot too? Tell me exactly what this magnetic field looks like that allows for all this to occur?

Well, the solution to this is easy. It's magnetic fields and 171A is supposed to be iron and iron is magnetic, so the sunspots attract all the iron that is floating around, and iron is dark, so the sunspots are darker than the rest of the surface of the Sun. Simple comme bonjour!

 

[GeeMack]

My posts #806, #819, and #829 are still being ignored. Could be because they ask questions Michael is simply not capable of answering.

And we still haven't seen that experiment that shows how Michael can see 4000+ kilometers below the opaque photosphere by staring for a very long time at a difference graph made from data obtained several thousand kilometers above that opaque photosphere.

Come on, Michael, be honest. There is no such experiment, is there?

(I predict ignorance, lies, and/or a whiny complaint. No reply to my actual concerns will be forthcoming.)

 

[Tim Thompson]

Magnetic Fields Block Plasma

What does that kind of magnetic field even look like exactly, and *HOW* is it blocking the flow of plasma?

This is a joke, right? You forgot the right? How does a magnetic field block plasma? I have a better question: Can you imagine any magnetic field that does not block plasma? That's your homework problem, so get to it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm still waiting for a response, Michael.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is a joke, right? You forgot the right? How does a magnetic field block plasma? I have a better question: Can you imagine any magnetic field that does not block plasma? That's your homework problem, so get to it.

I can "imagine" many things. Blocking the flow of plasma over an area the size of the Earth however is no small feat. What kind of "magnetic field" does something like that? Why are sunspots always related to coronal loop activity if the mass flows to block plasma flows are located under the photosphere?

 

[Michael Mozina]

My posts #806, #819, and #829 are still being ignored.

You can expect me to continue to ignore you as long as you act like a child.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, the solution to this is easy. It's magnetic fields

Which magnetic fields? The ones over or under the photosphere?

and 171A is supposed to be iron and iron is magnetic, so the sunspots attract all the iron that is floating around,

Er, wouldn't it attract *ALL charge particles*?

and iron is dark,

Not that iron. It's a million degrees or more.

so the sunspots are darker than the rest of the surface of the Sun. Simple comme bonjour!

Simply "impossible" is a better description.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm still waiting for a response, Michael.

My response is that you made your mistake here:

Now the visible layer of the sun is radiating about 3.8x1028 Watts outwards, but that layer will radiate inwards as well.

Why? That heat is directly related to the continuous outbound flow of heated particles and the surface of the photosphere does not radiate like a "black body". It's far too thin and far too homogeneously made of neon to act like a black body.

 

[GeeMack]

You can expect me to continue to ignore you as long as you act like a child.

Well, you mean because you can't answer the questions. Got ya.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why?

Because that's what thermally radiating bodies do: they radiate in all directions.

That heat is directly related to the continuous outbound flow of heated particles

Doesn't matter what it's "related" to. The radiation is still going to go in all directions.

and the surface of the photosphere does not radiate like a "black body". It's far too thin and far too homogeneously made of neon to act like a black body.

I don't care what you want to call it (which is why avoided using the word "photosphere"), and at the moment I don't even care what it is. But whatever it is, there's a 6000 K opaque layer which is radiating like a blackbody. We can SEE that, Michael. And it's radiating in all directions, both outwards and inwards.

Notably and predictably absent from your response was any estimation of the correct numbers.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I did not show it to be incorrect, I said that it did not describe a flare.

It does describe the flare. See section four.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/A...r Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

According to mainstream the base of the loops light up too, because of the high energy electrons in the loops, they are very present in X-rays because of bremsstrahlung.

So if loops come up through the photosphere we should be able to observe them, correct? Did you watch that DVD yet and specifically the three flares I cited?

As the currents cannot just disappear, they have to flow somehow below the photosphere.

Then the loops could and would emit light under the photosphere would they not?

I have no idea where this agree/disagree stuff comes from, not from my discussion of Alfven's work, which was only discussing that he discusses a different process that may or may not occur on the Sun

He specifically called magnetic reconnection theory pseudoscience:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Double Layers In Astrophysics.pdf

B. Magnetic Merging -- A Pseudo-Science

Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept. For example, in a paper "Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere" (Alfv6n, 1975), I made a table showing the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozen in magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics. The monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in I. 3, II. 3, and I1.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist.

A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985). They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer. I was naive enough to believe that such a pseudo-science would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred; the "merging" pseudo-science seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some (I personally have always had some difficulty with the magnetic field unwinding in the double layer at the "top" of the loop, see Raadu) of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.

Why do you continue to promote what Alfven referred to as pseudoscience?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because that's what thermally radiating bodies do: they radiate in all directions.

It's not doing that! It's emitting *HEATED PARTICLES* that flow outward.

Doesn't matter what it's "related" to. The radiation is still going to go in all directions.

It is not. It is *FLOWING* away from the surface, toward the heliosphere.

I don't care what you want to call it (which is why avoided using the word "photosphere"), and at the moment I don't even care what it is. But whatever it is, there's a 6000 K opaque layer which is radiating like a blackbody.

No, it's not. The whole thing radiates as a "black body" perhaps, but it isn't the photosphere that does that.

We can SEE that, Michael. And it's radiating in all directions, both outwards and inwards.

No. All you "see" is white light being emitted from mostly neon photosphere. The heat is related to the particle flow, not the surface of the photosphere. It does *NOT* act like a "black body" at the surface at the surface of the photosphere. You *ASSUMED* that.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's not doing that! It's emitting *HEATED PARTICLES* that flow outward.

I don't care what you think is going on, there is a 6000K layer of the sun which is radiating like a blackbody. We can SEE that. And that radiation will go in all directions.

It is not. It is *FLOWING* away from the surface, toward the heliosphere.

Radiation does not "flow". And even if the source of the radiation is flowing outwards, the radiation itself will travel in all directions.

No, it's not. The whole thing radiates as a "black body" perhaps, but it isn't the photosphere that does that.

Once again, I DON'T CARE what layer is doing it. Whatever it is that's radiating as a 6000 K blackbody, it sure as hell isn't underneath your solid layer. And it's going to radiate both outwards and inwards. Claiming it's not the photosphere (which makes no sense, given how the term photosphere is defined) doesn't help you in any way, shape, or form.

No. All you "see" is white light being emitted from mostly neon photosphere.

What we see is a 6000 K blackbody spectrum. That IS the "white light" that we see. You aren't under the delusion that "white light" is a specific frequency, are you?

The heat is related to the particle flow, not the surface of the photosphere. It does *NOT* act like a "black body" at the surface at the surface of the photosphere. You *ASSUMED* that.

No, Michael. I've been very explicit about this: I make no assumptions about where exactly this blackbody spectrum is coming from. I don't care if you want to attribute it to something under the photosphere or not: it's still coming from somewhere. And whatever it is that's giving off 6000 K blackbody outwards is also going to be giving off 6000 K blackbody radiation inwards. That's not an assumption, that's the way blackbody radiation works.

 

[GeeMack]

It's not doing that! It's emitting *HEATED PARTICLES* that flow outward.

It is not. It is *FLOWING* away from the surface, toward the heliosphere.

No, it's not. The whole thing radiates as a "black body" perhaps, but it isn't the photosphere that does that.

No. All you "see" is white light being emitted from mostly neon photosphere. The heat is related to the particle flow, not the surface of the photosphere. It does *NOT* act like a "black body" at the surface at the surface of the photosphere. You *ASSUMED* that.

Those temper tantrums of yours are so, uh, mature, Michael. Jesus, and you call other people childish.

Now where was that lab tested experiment, no fudge factors, nothing metaphysical, mathematically sound, physically reasonable, repeatable, and objective to where other people can reach the same conclusion you reach that shows how you can gather thermal data from many thousand kilometers above the Sun's photosphere and run it through a program that makes it into a difference graph that lets you see something many thousand kilometers below the photosphere?

And how about after all these years and all these people explaining every single detail of those precious running difference images, how about you take a shot at it, Michael. Interesting that you have never ventured to explain why each pixel in those images is the color that it is.

And just how thick is that solid crusty surface on the Sun? How dense? And how about it's thermal characteristics? What temperature is it and how does that square with the elemental composition of that surface? Oh, while you're at it, how about you put some numbers to that elemental composition? In fact, use actual numbers to answer all these questions, because without those kinds of numbers, your claim that there is a solid surface is not rational.

And why is it that you claim Oliver Manuel's work supports your insane solid surface fantasy when in fact he has never said he agrees with the notion?

Oh, and why is it that you use Dr. Hurlburt and LMSAL's research even though he has unambiguously stated that it doesn't show what you think it shows?

And speaking of your lousy attempts to hijack support, is there some reason Alexander Kosovichev says you're completely wrong about your understanding of his research, yet you continue to try to use it to support your delusion?

And maybe you can shed some light on that silly claim you continue to make about Birkeland proposing that the Sun has a solid surface, when nobody, including you, Michael, has ever found anything he said that would support your claim.

You know, I'm just askin'. And reminding any newcomers that you've never been able to support your fantasy with anything other than your ridiculous looks-like-a-bunny lunacy.