Electric universe theories here.

[Reality Check]

From the Cluster article:
Are they really attempting to claim that "heat' drives the solar wind process, or is that just one of those 'press release' errors?

It is yet another of your misinterpretations. No 'heat' is mentioned.
extreme temperature = fast moving particles = can escape from the Sun.

Here was an interesting comment.....

So how exactly does the sun heat plasma at over 50 AU if not due to a discharge process between the sun and the heliosphere?

Probably a little thing called eletromagnetism.
Not a "discharge process" until you give us the numbers.

I really do not understand how your industry can see all these different pieces of the electric puzzle and still not be able to put them together to be able to see the whole picture. It's like watching the blind lead the blind.

What industry?

Publish your model for the "discharge process between the sun and the heliosphere", produce some numbers to compare to observations and astromers will be glad to look at it.

Just spew unsupported assertions and you will be ignore as a crackpot.

 

[Reality Check]

If they knew when it was appropriate to use it, they wouldn't still by mystified by the heating process!

Ya, but they fail to acknowledge the "electo"part of "electromagnetism" in about 99% of their press releases and printed papers. Why is that? When they talk about these charged particles whipping by the Earth at a million miles an hour, never do they refer to it as "current flow", but that is exactly what it is.

They are not mysified by the heating process. They have a couple of models that they are testing against actual data. That is what the press release is about.

The scientists do not emphasis the "electo"part of "electromagnetism" because the magnetic part is what they detect.

It is not current flow. It is electron and proton flow.
If it was current flow then it would have stopped quickly as the Sun built up a charge.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It is ye another of your misinterpretations. No 'heat' is mentioned.
extreme temperature = fast moving particles = can escape from the Sun.

So it is you impression that the million mile per hour solar wind is direct result of plasma *TEMPERATURE*?

Probably a little thing called eletromagnetism.
Not a "discharge process" until you give us the numbers.

What was wrong with all of Bruce's "numbers"?
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm

 

[Reality Check]

Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

Since you are active again perhaps you can answer (or give links to where you have already answered) these questions.

These are some of the questions that MM has been asked and seems incapable of answering other than by spouting unsupported assertions.

The perpetual dark matter question:
How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
(first asked 23rd June 2009).

What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected?
(first asked 6th July 2009).

A post that seemed to retract his "mountain ranges" on the TRACE 171A RD animation evoked this question:
What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona.
(first asked 6th July 2009).

From tusenfem:
Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkelands book?
(asked 7th July 2009)

Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source" and in the same post
Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
(first asked 7th July 2009).

Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible?
(first asked 8 July 2009).
Also see this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.

Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
(first asked 10 July 2009).

Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question?
(first asked 10 July 2009)

More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth
(First asked 13 July 2009)

Formation of the iron surface
(First asked 13 July 2009)

How much is "mostly neon" MM?
First asked 13 July 2009

Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?
(First asked 13 July 2009)

Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina
First asked 13 July 2009

Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina
First asked 13 July 2009
He does link to his copy of Alfvén and Carlqvist's 1966 paper (Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and A theory of Solar Flares). This does not model what we now know a real solar flare acts like.

Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested?
First asked 14 July 2009

Is Saturn the Sun?
First asked 14 July 2009
(Birkelands Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings but MM compares it to to the Sun).

Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
First asked 14 July 2009
MM has one reply in which is mistakenly thinks that this question is about coronal loops.

What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model?
First asked 17 July 2009

What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K?
(MM states that it is not the photosphere)
First asked 18 July 2009

Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles?
First asked 18 July 2009

How does the "mostly neon" surface emit white light?
First asked 19 July 2009

Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves?
First asked 22 July 2009

 

[Michael Mozina]

They are not mysified by the heating process. They have a couple of models that they are testing against actual data. That is what the press release is about.

So what is heating the plasma at 50 AU?

The scientists do not emphasis the "electo"part of "electromagnetism" because the magnetic part is what they detect.

That's no excuse. The current flow is what *CREATES* the magnetic field that they detect.

It is not current flow. It is electron and proton flow.

Your statement only demonstrates my point.

If it was current flow then it would have stopped quickly as the Sun built up a charge.

It doesn't "build up" a charge, it's *CONSTANTLY DISCHARGING* toward the heliosphere and it's surface is charged negative (compared to the heliosphere) due to the energy that is constantly being released in the sun.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Since you are active again perhaps you can answer (or give links to where you have already answered) these questions.

These are some of the questions that MM has been asked and seems incapable of answering other than by spouting unsupported assertions.

The perpetual dark matter question:
How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
(first asked 23rd June 2009).

When you continue to repeat nonsense like this that has *ALREADY* been addressed over a period of months in a whole separate thread, you lose all credibility entirely.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes: Xenon arc lamps.

In case you didn't notice Xenon and Tungsten isn't equal to Hydrogen and Helium. No comparison and no points.

They are plasma light sources which emit across a very broad spectral range from very small (< 1 cm) sources.

How much Xenon is in the photosphere? It may emit across a "broad" spectrum, but where is your evidence it acts like a perfect "black body" (emits all wavelengths) at any temperature?

So brantc is wrong, plasmas can (and do) emit across a very broad spectrum, and not simply at emission lines.

Xenon has *MANY* more valence shell configurations than hydrogen and helium. You're comparing apples to oranges and neglecting to mention that small little fact. You're also ignoring that fact that while it may have a "broader" spectrum due to it's greater number of valence shell configurations, it is not a "black body" emission.

And because of optical depth effects, the larger the source, the closer to blackbody it will be.

The "optical depth" argument is pointless unless you have empirical support of this idea based on the elements you claim apply to the photosphere. There is no "optical depth" process that is immediately going to block all wavelengths of light in first meter of the photosphere.

That's rich. Care to quantify any of the fundamental parameters of your model that I asked you about before? If my numbers are wrong, what are the right numbers? You can't answer that, can you? Nope. You will continue to avoid quantifying any of your ideas.

As it relates to the discharge process, Bruce and Alfven already quantified these numbers in great detail. Did you even bother to read them, yes or no? If so, where did they make a mistake in their presentation of this discharge process?

 

[Reality Check]

So it is you impression that the million mile per hour solar wind is direct result of plasma *TEMPERATURE*?

No. It is my impression that it is due to one of the models that have been proposed and are being tested.

The quote is not about the source of the temperature of the million mile per hour solar wind. It is abut the fact that that temperature allows matter to escape the Sun's gravity.

For instance, the solar wind arises because the extreme temperature of its source region, the solar corona, enables matter to escape the Sun's gravity. The solar corona is located millions of kilometres above the Sun's surface, the photosphere, however, the photosphere has an estimated temperature of 'only' 6000 degrees.

What was wrong with all of Bruce's "numbers"?
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm

Nothing except the fact that he does not actually produce any for the modern obervations of the Sun.

What you need to do is find a paper that applies his theory to data that is more current - say in the last 20 years or so.

 

[Reality Check]

When you continue to repeat nonsense like this that has *ALREADY* been addressed over a period of months in a whole separate thread, you lose all credibility entirely.

While you continue to repeat nonsense like this, you are merely making an idiot of yourself.
Many of the questions have *NEVER* been addressed over a period of months in this thread.
Thus you lose all credibility entirely.

What is the "whole separate thread"?
If it exists then you could produce the links to the answers.
Until you do you are merely lying.

Lets start with this: You imply that you have answered every question so what was the number you gave for How much is "mostly neon" MM? First asked 13 July 2009.

ETA:
Maybe you mean that you have only answered this one out of the 20 or so questions. In that sense you are right - you have answered it but your answer is wrong. I will update the question to include this.

 

[Ziggurat]

In case you didn't notice Xenon isn't Hydrogen and Helium.

I'm well aware of that. But brantc said that plasmas only emitted spectral lines, not broad spectra, and that claim is clearly wrong. But you couldn't figure that out, so you challenged me. And when I disproved you, you fall back on this weak excuse.

But while we're talking about hydrogen and helium, why would you think that xenon plasma can emit as a blackbody but hydrogen and helium can't? They may not have the same optical depths, but what's so special about xenon that makes it do what you claim these other elements cannot do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

It may emit across a "broad" spectrum, but where is your evidence it acts like a perfect "black body" (emits all wavelengths) at any temperature?

Once again, you demonstrate that you've got no clue about optical depth.

Xenon has *MANY* more valence shell configurations than hydrogen and helium.

Which would give it more emission lines. But if a plasma can only emit at emission lines, and not across a broad spectra, that still can't account for xenon's light output. Which means that there must be other mechanisms not dependent upon the electron orbitals that operate in a plasma. And these mechanisms should be generic. What are some candidate mechanisms? Oh yeah: how about free electrons?

You're also ignoring that fact that while it may have a "broader" spectrum due to it's greater number of valence shell configurations, it is not a "black body" emission.

It will be if the source is large enough. Again, optical depth. A concept you apparently have no clue about.

The "optical depth" argument is pointless unless you have empirical support of this idea

Not so. You'd know why it's relevant if you understood what it meant. But you clearly don't. LSo let me try to explain it to you: emissivity is equal to absorptivity. If a substance has any emissivity at a frequency, it's also got absorptivity at that frequency. So some of the light incident upon it will get absorbed. If you make that substance thick enough, then basically all of the light incident upon it will be absorbed. Kind of like sunglasses: stack enough of them on top of each other, and you can't see through anymore. The optical depth is a method of measuring how thick it needs to be to absorb most of the light. For xenon plasma in an arc lamp, that's something on the order of centimeters. Hold a CD up to a bright light sometime, and you'll find out that there's a nonzero optical depth even for solid metal. Now, what happens to the emissivity if we've made our substance thick enough to have an absorptivity close to 1? Well, obviously the emissivity is close to 1 as well. What does that mean? It's basically a blackbody!

There is no "optical depth" process that is immediately going to block all wavelengths of light in first meter of the photosphere.

Well, duh. We know that. We can even measure the optical depth. And it's not even constant for different wavelength.

As it relates to the discharge process, Bruce and Alfven already quantified these numbers in great detail.

I don't believe you, because I don't believe that either of them ever constructed a model of the sun which had a solid surface. But go on, disprove me. Link to where they quantified the properties of your model. Then we can compare my numbers to their numbers, and try to figure out who is right.

Edit: I see you added tungsten to your point about xenon arc lamps. Which just shows you haven't been paying attention. The tungsten is only for the electrodes. But the electrodes aren't the source of the light in a xenon arc lamp, the plasma is.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No. It is my impression that it is due to one of the models that have been proposed and are being tested.

So, just so I'm not misrepresenting your positions, you believe it's *possible* and *reasonable* that the consistent million mile per hour flow of protons and electrons from the sun is related to their temperature?

Nothing except the fact that he does not actually produce any for the modern obervations of the Sun.

Non responsive. You didn't address his observations or his math, and the age of those observations is irrelevant.

What you need to do is find a paper that applies his theory to data that is more current - say in the last 20 years or so.

Why? Physics is physics. Solar physics (what actually occurs on the sun) hasn't changed since Bruce wrote that paper. Why can't you address his work as it is written? Why do you need something "more current'? That sounds like a complete dodge.

 

[Reality Check]

First asked on 23rd June. 2009.
No real response yet (22rd July 2009 and counting).


How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?

• galaxy rotation curves (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
• the motion of galxies in galactic clusters (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
• the actual measurement of the mass density of galactic clusters showing that about 2% is in the galaxies and IGM (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, indirect measurement)
• the two actual measurements of the separation of dark matter from normal matter:
  • NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (Bullet Cluster)
  • another observation (MACS J0025.4-1222)
    (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, direct measurements of the separation of dark and normal matter)
• A bit of supporting evidence is that the Millennium Run used the Lambda-CDM model to replicate the large-scale structure of the universe. CDM = Cold Dark Matter.

So far we have seen

• Michael Mozina's usual inability to understand what empirical means with his "empirical measurments of an *CONTROLLED* experiment" nonsense.
• His personal opinion that somehow astronomers have underestimated the visible mass of galaxies. That would have to by a factor of 50 or more.

The last unsupported assertion from MM (if correct) would effect the first 2 bits of evidence. But

• How is the mass of the visible matter astronomers are accounting for measured incorrectly?
• Is the Sun two times heavier than orbital mechanics say that it is? 10 times? 50 times? 100 times? Or greater?
• What about the measured masses of other stars (which is also measured using orbital mecahnics)?

 

[tusenfem]

Which video did you download? I'm guessing you simply "missed it" because the other videos do not show the photosphere. I guess I'll have to freeze the specific frames for you and post them to my website. I"m busy at work today, but I'll work on it this evening.

I downloaded exactly the file that you told us to download, FlaresDVD.img, that was about 3.5 GB large.

Don't bother to put in on your website. This is another show that you are totally incapable of giving exaxt information.

In the image at 30:04, you'll see the loops come out of the photosphere and light up the photosphere at the bases of the loops. If the loops were *ABOVE* the photosphere, that wouldn't happen.

Of course do magnetic loops come out of the photosphere, they are created in the Sun and then emerge through buoyancy forces (which you probably do not believe). If there are currents flowing in the loops, then from mainstream it is expected that the loops light up. The loops at their highest points are far above the photosphere.

Apparently, you cannot even envision this simple event. You seem to see somthing magically there, which is not there. I have seen enough flux tubes come out of the sun in the DVD that you told me to download. There was nothing magically there.

You can't "interpret" something if you can't see it. I guess I'll freeze the frames myself and post you a link when they are online so at least we can have a real discussion about them.

I am sure that the DVD I watched shows nothing else as what you supposedly have seen. This is all a farce, you probably just made it up, and now someone checked and ... it's not there. Just like the calculations of the electrons dragging along the ions in an electric field are not in the Birkeland book.

If you want to convince us, you have to at least give the correct information.

 

[Reality Check]

So, just so I'm not misrepresenting your positions, you believe it's *possible* and *reasonable* that the consistent million mile per hour flow of protons and electrons from the sun is related to their temperature?

It is *possible* and *reasonable* that the consistent million mile per hour flow of protons and electrons from the sun is related to their temperature.

Non responsive. You didn't address his observations or his math, and the age of those observations is irrelevant.

What math?
In the "Solar Discharge Temperature" prediction (the topic we are talking about), he merely compares lightening to hypothetical electrical discharges on the Sun.

Why? Physics is physics. Solar physics (what actually occurs on the sun) hasn't changed since Bruce wrote that paper. Why can't you address his work as it is written? Why do you need something "more current'? That sounds like a complete dodge.

The point is that his work may have been vaild for the knowledge of the Sun in 1968.
There have been a few more observations of the Sun in that last 41 years .
These may or may not invalidate his work.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm well aware of that. But brantc said that plasmas only emitted spectral lines, not broad spectra, and that claim is clearly wrong.

No, it's not "wrong", you simply selected a plasma with more valence shell configurations and therefore a broader spectral output. It' is however still limited to emitting photons at wavelengths related to the valence shell configurations of the plasma. In no way did you help your argument, in fact you shot it in the foot. Try showing me a "broad spectrum" from hydrogen and helium. It won't happen because there are fewer valence shells in these materials and therefore fewer spectral lines.

But you couldn't figure that out, so you challenged me. And when I disproved you, you fall back on this weak excuse.

Your argument is pathetically weak. It's unrelated to solar physics too, at least according to you, because an arc lamp requires a constant source of electricity and you folks reject an electric sun theory. It's unrelated to the photosphere too because the photosphere is not composed of xenon and heavy elements. According to you it's mostly hydrogen and helium, and these elements are incapable of putting out the same spectral lines as Xenon.

But while we're talking about hydrogen and helium, why would you think that xenon plasma can emit as a blackbody but hydrogen and helium can't?

Because hydrogen and helium lack the internal valence shell configurations as Xenon! These lighter elements are not capable of emitting the same spectral lines!

 

[tusenfem]

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Cluster_Shows_How_Solar_Wind_Is_Heated_999.html

OMG. They actually mentioned the term "electro" in combination with magnetism. I'm absolutely stunned. Usually in these press releases all we see is "magnetic" this, and "magnetic" that. It's nice to see someone include the electron flow in the process. I think the Cluster team is the mainstream's only hope of enlightenment. They seem to have discovered the importance of the electron:

Oh sit on it, MM, in all of my papers electro is in there (but then I am in the Cluster team, even in the top 10 of first-author publications after 1000 Cluster/DoubleStar papers ex aequo on #5). You apparently have no knowledge about what modern mainstream plasma(astro)/space physics is all about. Did you read my last paper, in which I discussed currents, looked at electron data, etc etc.? I guess not.

The electron flow drives the parade boys and girls. It heats the plasma due to the fact that plasma is not a "perfect" conductor and it experiences resistance and turbulance. The turbulence they observe is related to the *PINCH* effect inside the plasma due to the *CURRENT FLOW* inside those filaments.

And apparently you have no knowledge about how energy cascading happens in plasmas. This has *NOTHING* to do with electron flow, it has *NOTHING* to do with conductivity, and it has *NOTHINH* to do with a pinch effect. Your ignorance of modern plasma physics is staggering, why not stay at MHD and uncle Hannes, and please don't do any modern stuff.

 

[Reality Check]

Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

These are some of the questions that MM has been asked and seems incapable of answering other than by spouting unsupported assertions.

The perpetual dark matter question:
How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
(first asked 23rd June 2009).
So far just an unsupported assertion that astronomers have got the masses of galaxies wrong.

What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected?
(first asked 6th July 2009).

A post that seemed to retract his "mountain ranges" on the TRACE 171A RD animation evoked this question:
What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona.
(first asked 6th July 2009).

From tusenfem:
Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkelands book?
(asked 7th July 2009)

Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source" and in the same post
Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
(first asked 7th July 2009).

Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible?
(first asked 8 July 2009).
Also see this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.

Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
(first asked 10 July 2009).

Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question?
(first asked 10 July 2009)

More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth
(First asked 13 July 2009)

Formation of the iron surface
(First asked 13 July 2009)

How much is "mostly neon" MM?
First asked 13 July 2009

Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?
(First asked 13 July 2009)

Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina
First asked 13 July 2009

Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina
First asked 13 July 2009
He does link to his copy of Alfvén and Carlqvist's 1966 paper (Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and A theory of Solar Flares). This does not model what we now know a real solar flare acts like.

Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested?
First asked 14 July 2009

Is Saturn the Sun?
First asked 14 July 2009
(Birkelands Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings but MM compares it to to the Sun).

Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
First asked 14 July 2009
MM has one reply in which is mistakenly thinks that this question is about coronal loops.

What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model?
First asked 17 July 2009

What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K?
(MM states that it is not the photosphere)
First asked 18 July 2009

Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles?
First asked 18 July 2009

How does the "mostly neon" surface emit white light?
First asked 19 July 2009

Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves?
First asked 22 July 2009


Actual Answers From Michael Mozina:

 

[Michael Mozina]

It is *possible* and *reasonable* that the consistent million mile per hour flow of protons and electrons from the sun is related to their temperature.

What temperature is the solar wind?

What math?

This is a silly question. Did you even read the paper, yes or no?

In the "Solar Discharge Temperature" prediction (the topic we are talking about), he merely compares lightening to hypothetical electrical discharges on the Sun.

What the hell do you think is consistently heatings plasma to millions of degrees in the solar atmosphere where the surface temperature of the photosphere is only 6,000 degrees Kelvin?

The part I find absolutely amazing is that we can point the Rhessi satellite at the Earth and see "hot plasma" form in the Earth's atmosphere that emits x-rays and even gamma rays. We know for a fact that these are caused by "electrical discharges' in the Earth's atmosphere. We point the exact same instrument at the solar atmosphere, see the same emissions from it's atmosphere and you can't figure out that it is related to electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. It's like you folks have a mental block or something.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/rhessi_tgf.html

 

[tusenfem]

Ya, but they fail to acknowledge the "electo"part of "electromagnetism" in about 99% of their press releases and printed papers. Why is that? When they talk about these charged particles whipping by the Earth at a million miles an hour, never do they refer to it as "current flow", but that is exactly what it is.

Care to explain how the solar wind is supposed to be a current, when there is equal positive and negative charge flowing at the same speed?

How do you define "current flow"? I guess you have your own EU definition of current.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped...Because hydrogen and helium lack the internal valence shell configurations as Xenon! These lighter elements are not capable of emitting the same spectral lines!

If you were correct then your "mostly neon" photosphere would emit emit only the wavelengths corresponding to its "internal valence shell configurations". These do not correspond to a black body spectrum. These are at specific wavelengths (mostly reddish-orange).

If you add in argon say to give a blue element to the light then you get white light. But still no black body spectrum.

The reason for a nearly black body spectrum is the ability of free electrons to join H atoms (forming H- atoms) and giving off a photon. These electrons give off a range of photons corresponding to their energy.