Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

Now, we know the above to be facts. Yet rather than address those facts, you choose to quibble with my using the term "graph" to describe a graph?

No, I'm laughing at your "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" comments and the fact you can't find find any flying stuff in running difference "graphs" of the sun.

​

 

[GeeMack]

No, I'm laughing at your "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" comments and the fact you can't find find any flying stuff in running difference "graphs" of the sun.

Oh, then you must have missed (or were being willfully ignorant of) my explanation showing how badly you misunderstand that issue when I explained it earlier in this thread. You obviously missed (or were being willfully ignorant of) Reality Check's explanation, too. And you clearly weren't paying attention (or were being willfully ignorant again) when it was explained to you many times on other forums over the years.

But really, you have an opportunity to actually demonstrate that what I've said is wrong, scientifically, with an experiment done in a lab right here on Earth, quantitatively, with no fudge factors and nothing metaphysical, and objectively so that other people can reach the same conclusion you've reached. But instead of doing that, you're still crying about the flying stuff which has been clearly explained several times?

You could show the method you use to see through thousands of kilometers of opaque plasma, a feat heretofore considered impossible by man and science, a feat previously attributed only to gods, a feat which, if explained, would inarguably earn you a Nobel prize. But you choose not to describe the method, and instead you bitch and moan about seeing flying stuff that you still misunderstand?

You use that LMSAL graph to support your insane fantasy about the Sun, yet you reject out of hand LMSAL's own explanation of that image, an explanation which clearly shows you're wrong. You could provide a quantitative, pixel by pixel explanation as I have and as so many others have, and show that Dr. Hurlburt is wrong about his understanding of the acquisition and processing of the data used to create it. You could show that he's wrong in his understanding of the method and result of producing a running difference image. You could show that his interpretation is incorrect. But all you have to offer is more mouth manure complaining because when it comes to that flying stuff, you still don't get it?

All you've ever offered to explain that graph is your simple assertion that it looks like something to you. You've whined it and you've cried it. You've stomped your feet and thrown tantrums about it. You've put it in UPPER CASE and surrounded it with *ASTERISKS*. You've liberally sprinkled it with "quote marks" and you've repeated it incessantly. But it's still just your assertion. Don't you see that? It's still nothing more than you claiming you're right because you say you're right. That's not science, Michael. That's religion. That's insane. That's fantasy. That's delusional. That's mentally ill. That's trolling. That's lying. That's pulling a great big practical joke on forums all over the internet. But it's not science. And in no way does it support your crazy claim.

Now if there's anyone who still doesn't understand the process of constructing a running difference graphic or assembling some of those graphs into an animation, and who would like a more specific explanation as to how very wrong Michael is about this stuff, just ask.

 

[Michael Mozina]

One loop or many?

 

[Reality Check]

One loop or many?

That is easy to answer: Both.

• One loop is visible sitting above the photosphere in the white light frame.
• Many loops are visible in the 171 and 1600 pass bands.

The conclusion is that there are many coronal loops recorded in that X-ray flare event.

Have you found the Print Screen key on your keyboard yet?
You may be using a Mac which probably has a different way of capturing the screen contents.

The "2001 15 April 1600" movie shows the activity better. This pass band observes C-I, FeII and the continuum (material at a temperature of 4,000 to 10,000 K). There is a nice flare starting at ~13:35, a bright area corresponding to the loop in WL at ~13:55 and then a good arcade of loops form.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is easy to answer: Both.

• One loop is visible sitting above the photosphere in the white light frame.
• Many loops are visible in the 171 and 1600 pass bands.

The conclusion is that there are many coronal loops recorded in that X-ray flare event.

Ok, I agree. What other "white light" evidence can you cite to support the idea that multiple loops come through the photosphere? How does that answer relate to the previous frame(s) in the video?

Have you found the Print Screen key on your keyboard yet?

Yes, but unfortunately that function does not record the image on my laptop. I suspect that is due to the DVD player software that came with my laptop. I'll need to try it on another machine when I get time. I'm up to my ears in programming at the moment. It's clear that you have the DVD and you have located the images in question.

As you know that DVD also contains many other flare events as seen in white light, but I'd like to see how attentive to detail this group actually is with *THIS* white light series of images and how they relate to the 171A and 1600A images on the same DVD. We can then talk about the Bastille day flare, but we need to try an "easy" event before we get to the more complicate ones.

As you said, the 171A and 1600A images show significantly more of the high energy coronal loops activity than the WL images, but they are in fact all related "physically" in some way shape or form to the WL images and the sunspots and the patterns of light in the photosphere. They are all related to the coronal loops seen in 171A images by the iron that is being ionized inside the coronal loop.

The "2001 15 April 1600" movie shows the activity better. This pass band observes C-I, FeII and the continuum (material at a temperature of 4,000 to 10,000 K). There is a nice flare starting at ~13:35, a bright area corresponding to the loop in WL at ~13:55 and then a good arcade of loops form.

Well, look at it this way. Iron is being ionized in those z-pinch coronal loop filaments. The FeII ions are simply more visible in the 1600A image evidently. That is to be expected.

 

[Reality Check]

Ok, I agree. What other "white light" evidence can you cite to support the idea that multiple loops come through the photosphere? How does that answer relate to the previous frame(s) in the video?

There is no other "white light" evidence. The fact that the loops exist in other pass bands shows that they exist.

As you know that DVD also contains many other flare events as seen in white light, but I'd like to see how attentive to detail this group actually is with *THIS* white light series of images and how they relate to the 171A and 1600A images on the same DVD. We can then talk about the Bastille day flare, but we need to try an "easy" event before we get to the more complicate ones.

I have looked at a few of these WL movies and they are quite ordinary - just sunspots wandering around as the Sun rotates.

As you said, the 171A and 1600A images show significantly more of the high energy coronal loops activity than the WL images, but they are in fact all related "physically" in some way shape or form to the WL images and the sunspots and the patterns of light in the photosphere. They are all related to the coronal loops seen in 171A images by the iron that is being ionized inside the coronal loop.

That is right - they are physically related as in being part of the same set of movies and even the same X-ray flare event.

Well, look at it this way. Iron is being ionized in those z-pinch coronal loop filaments. The FeII ions are simply more visible in the 1600A image evidently. That is to be expected.

That is to be expected since FeII ions emit light within the 1600 pass band.
About your introduction of "z-pinch". Z-pinch is a technique used in experimental plasma machines. I am not aware that there is evidence for it on the Sun or elsewhere.
Can you cite the paper or textbook that shows that z-pinches happen in coronal loops?

 

[Michael Mozina]

There is no other "white light" evidence. The fact that the loops exist in other pass bands shows that they exist.

Actually even in the visible light image there are clear signs of more than one loop, starting with the fact we can see several of them (if you look closely), the shape of the loops (more like a heart than a single arc), and the footprints where they come up through the photosphere are elongated, not little "point like" areas of the surface. IMO, you folks really don't seem very attentive to details, even in very ordinary white light images. There are many more details to be seen in these white light images, such as the surface changes between that frame you posted and the previous frame.

I have looked at a few of these WL movies and they are quite ordinary - just sunspots wandering around as the Sun rotates.

It's more the "white light" around the loops during flaring events I expect you to observe. The areas around the sunspots do not seem to "light up" in quite the same way as the rest of the photosphere during the flare activity. Why?

That is right - they are physically related as in being part of the same set of movies and even the same X-ray flare event.

So it should be clear that the loops originate far below the surface of the photosphere. If the loops are hot enough to light up the photosphere and show up in white light images, there is no reason to believe we would not be able to see them under the photosphere in high energy wavelengths.

That is to be expected since FeII ions emit light within the 1600 pass band.

In these images the loops are clearly visible rising through that surface. Where is that surface we see in 1600A in your opinion in relationship to the photosphere?

About your introduction of "z-pinch". Z-pinch is a technique used in experimental plasma machines. I am not aware that there is evidence for it on the Sun or elsewhere.

Other than those million degree coronal loops that spit out gamma rays like discharges here on Earth?

Can you cite the paper or textbook that shows that z-pinches happen in coronal loops?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/On The Fimamentary Structure Of The Solar Corona.pdf

Alfven defines a "magnetic rope" in his book "Cosmic Plasma" in the following manner:

"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research. As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."

 

[Reality Check]

Actually even in the visible light image there are clear signs of more than one loop, starting with the fact we can see several of them (if you look closely), the shape of the loops (more like a heart than a single arc), and the footprints where they come up through the photosphere are elongated, not little "point like" areas of the surface. IMO, you folks really don't seem very attentive to details, even in very ordinary white light images. There are many more details to be seen in these white light images, such as the surface changes between that frame you posted and the previous frame.

You see multiple loops. I see 1 loop. That is the problem with doing science with pretty pictures.

The footprints are not points. That is what I would expect when the magnetic field of a cornal loop (or loops) interacts with the plasma and magnetic fields of the sunspot in the photosphere.
I would also expect the surface to change as the coronal loop emerges.

I still do not see what relevance this frame (or 2 or 3) has to your Iron Sun idea.

It's more the "white light" around the loops during flaring events I expect you to observe. The areas around the sunspots do not seem to "light up" in quite the same way as the rest of the photosphere during the flare activity. Why?

Maybe becasue a sunspot is different from the rest of the photosphere.

So it should be clear that the loops originate far below the surface of the photosphere. If the loops are hot enough to light up the photosphere and show up in white light images, there is no reason to believe we would not be able to see them under the photosphere in high energy wavelengths.

It is clear that the loops originate below the photosphere.
That is what coronal loops do.
That is what the standard models of coronal loops state.
That is what the NASA conceptial video you have linked to and posted frames from states.

There is no no reason to believe we would be able to see them under the photosphere in "high energy wavelengths", e.g. 171A.

In these images the loops are clearly visible rising through that surface. Where is that surface we see in 1600A in your opinion in relationship to the photosphere?

The surface is really close to and may actually be the photosphere.
In these images the loops are clearly visible rising from or under that surface. There is no way to tell which. I would guess the latter (under).

And once again that is what we expect for the 1600A pass band. Coronal loops emerging from under the photosphere would be visible in the 1600A pass band since it covers material with temperatures of 4,000 K to 10,000 K, i.e. includes the photosphere plasma and the cooler sunspot plasma.
I am surprised though that the sunspots are not shown in that movie.

Now look at the same event in the 171A pass band. This pass band covers with temperatures of 160,000K to 2,000,000 K. Thus we would not expect to see any activity from the photosphere in that movie. All the activity is in the transition zone or above.

Interesting little observation: Have you noticed that the 1600A movie shows less of the Sun's curvature than the 171A movie?
Look at the bottom of the 2 movies and note the gap in the 1600A movie that is not in the 171A movie
This suggests that the 171A movie is of a bigger Sun than the 1600A movie. It also suggests the danger of doing science with pretty pictures since the movies could be cropped in different ways.

Other than those million degree coronal loops that spit out gamma rays like discharges here on Earth?

The question was:

Can you cite the paper or textbook that shows that z-pinches happen in coronal loops?

Is your answer no?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You see multiple loops. I see 1 loop. That is the problem with doing science with pretty pictures.

I really don't "get" this degrading thing you folks do about "pretty pictures" when it comes to *MY* ideas, yet you rely on them *HEAVILY* in every lensing study, every inflation theory, every dark energy theory, every theory about the universe, and almost every branch of every part of science. I'm afraid that "pretty picture analysis" is a *necessary* component to any sort of scientific study and *certainly* every astronomy theory.

The footprints are not points.

They are large "squiggly lines" and they follow the contours of the sunspots. That would suggest that there are "many' loops traversing the photosphere in a "sheet" like structure, not unlike the things we observe in the Bastille Day flare.

That is what I would expect when the magnetic field of a cornal loop (or loops) interacts with the plasma and magnetic fields of the sunspot in the photosphere.

Me too, but what you're acknowledging here is that a high energy discharge is coming up and *THROUGH* the photosphere, meaning that NASA video is correct, meaning LMSAL's is "incorrect" about the loops being visible only above the photosphere.

I would also expect the surface to change as the coronal loop emerges.

Me too, but that demonstrates that the flare is originating under the photosphere and blowing up and through the photosphere. All of these behaviors suggest that the "transition region" is *under* not over the photosphere.

I still do not see what relevance this frame (or 2 or 3) has to your Iron Sun idea.

It shows that the "transition region" is not located over the photosphere, but rather it is located *under* the photosphere as Birkeland's model "predicts".

Maybe becasue a sunspot is different from the rest of the photosphere.

Agree, but then why is it different? In this solar model it is different because it's made of a different element, it's mostly silicon instead of mostly neon. Therefore any "discharge" through the silicon isn't necessarily going to have the same "white light" effect in the areas of the sunspots.

It is clear that the loops originate below the photosphere.
That is what coronal loops do.

If the do that, then they could also be potentially seen *under* the photosphere as in this image.

There is no no reason to believe we would be able to see them under the photosphere in "high energy wavelengths", e.g. 171A.

There is *every* reason to believe we would see them to *SOME DEPTH*. You can whine about that 4800km figure, but try whining about 10KM or 100KM. It won't fly.

The surface is really close to and may actually be the photosphere.

Well, if we go with the idea that this surface is the photosphere, then we can certainly see loops under the photosphere in all those 1600A images. There can be no doubt that we see loops coming up through the surface that is seen in 1600A.

In these images the loops are clearly visible rising from or under that surface. There is no way to tell which. I would guess the latter (under).

So then that composite Trace/Yohkoh image could easily relate to the photosphere surface as well, and show us that the footprints of 171A images originate far *UNDER* the surface of the photosphere.

And once again that is what we expect for the 1600A pass band. Coronal loops emerging from under the photosphere would be visible in the 1600A pass band since it covers material with temperatures of 4,000 K to 10,000 K, i.e. includes the photosphere plasma and the cooler sunspot plasma.

Those 'bright loops' we see are a MINIMUM of 10K, but according to LMSAL the loops is "hot" over the whole course of the loop. In other words, it could be "millions" of degrees, not just 10,000K. If that is true, then there is no reason to believe that the 171A images originate over the photosphere and every reason to believe they would be visible through the photosphere to at least *SOME* depth.

I need to stop here at the moment, but thing about these things and look at those Bastille Day flare images for awhile.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Is your answer no?

I can only assume you didn't read the paper I cited or the quote from Alfven about the definition of a "magnetic rope"?

 

[Ziggurat]

I really don't "get" this degrading thing you folks do about "pretty pictures" when it comes to *MY* ideas, yet you rely on them *HEAVILY* in every lensing study

Because the images in lensing studies are quantified. People don't simply take the images and say, "hey, it LOOKS line a lense to me". When you can come up with a quantitative model to explain your images, then you can elevate them above just "pretty pictures". But I know you can't, and won't, do that.

I'm afraid that "pretty picture analysis" is a *necessary* component to any sort of scientific study and *certainly* every astronomy theory.

Yes, Michael: astronomy relies heavily upon quantitative analysis of images. Where's your quantitative analysis? Nowhere to be found.

 

[GeeMack]

If the do that, then they could also be potentially seen *under* the photosphere as in this image.

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg[/qimg]

Nope. You can't see under the photosphere in that image. For two very good reasons. First, the data used to create that image was obtained from above the photosphere. And second, at least equally as important, the photosphere is opaque to any wavelength beyond a depth of about 500 kilometers.

Now if you could possibly show us the lab tested experiment that allows you to see below that opaque photosphere by looking at a graphical assembly of data obtained from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, you might just be on to something. Make sure that experiment can be done right here on Earth, with no fudge factors and nothing metaphysical, mathematically consistent, physically plausible, repeatable, and objective so that other people can come to the same conclusion you've reached. Let the world know your method, quantitatively, not your subjective interpretation of some pretty pictures.

You won't... because you can't.

(Here's where you could respond with, "Yes, I can. And here's how it's done..." But instead of attempting to support your insane claim, you'll throw another tantrum. Whine. Cry. Complain. Ignore. Because other than your assertion that it's true because you say so, you've got nothing, Michael. Not a damned thing. Looks-like-a-bunny. Pussy science. )

ETA: Looks like Ziggurat got in ahead of me with this.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because the images in lensing studies are quantified.

These images are well "quantified" too. There are many papers related to these wavelengths and what they detect.

People don't simply take the images and say, "hey, it LOOKS line a lense to me".

No, but they can say "hey, it looks like more than a single loop (star,planet,whatever) in that image!

When you can come up with a quantitative model to explain your images,

Birkeland, Alfven and Bruce already did that as it relates to coronal loops. I can't even get you to address any of those quantifications. What's up with that?

then you can elevate them above just "pretty pictures". But I know you can't, and won't, do that.

Not all "understanding" is mathematical in nature. We can get some idea about the origin of the loops in these images based on what we observe in the image without requiring a ton of math or by relying upon math alone. In fact math alone *will not* resolve this issue. The loops reach millions of degrees and come up through the photosphere and are visible under the photosphere even in white light in the image prior to the flare. During the flare we can see the effect on the photosphere. None of that requires "math", but rather "careful observation". I can't seem to get that from you folks. I ask simple questions like "what's that flying stuff", and I get answers like "flying stuff? What flying stuff?". I ask you folks to look at a flare image and it took all four of you something like 2 weeks to find it even when I narrowed the window down to a few second window. Hell none of you were sure even a week and a half later whether there were any white light images on the whole DVD. Were it not for RC you'd all probably *STILL* be trying to claim the images aren't there at all, and you personally would still be arguing from a place of pure ignorance because you were too lazy to even download the images and look at them.

Yes, Michael: astronomy relies heavily upon quantitative analysis of images.

It has completely forgotten the importance and necessity of "qualitative" analysis of not only images, but of whole *physical processes*. All the quantitative analysis you might ever do on lensing data will never tell you what that "missing matter' is made of.

Where's your quantitative analysis? Nowhere to be found.

You have not even touched Alfven's work. Why? How about Birkeland's quantitative analysis? Have you even personally bothered to lift a finger and study it? Bruce?

 

[Ziggurat]

These images are well "quantified" too. There are many papers related to these wavelengths and what they detect.

But your analysis of the images is not.

Birkeland, Alfven and Bruce already did that as it relates to coronal loops. I can't even get you to address any of those quantifications. What's up with that?

Why should I? I'm not disputing what they say, because I have no interest in doing so. It's what you (and you alone) are saying that I'm interested in here.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope. You can't see under the photosphere in that image. For two very good reasons. First, the data used to create that image was obtained from above the photosphere.

BS. You *ALLEGE* this to be the case, but the WL images show that the loops come up through the photosphere and they loops are hot even before they get through the photosphere.

And second, at least equally as important, the photosphere is opaque to any wavelength beyond a depth of about 500 kilometers.

The very worst you could do is quibble over the depth issue, but you can't avoid the fact that the loops originate under the photosphere and the optical depth is ultimately a "pure guestimate" at it relate to various wavelengths.

Now if you could possibly show us the lab tested experiment that allows you to see below that opaque photosphere by looking at a graphical assembly of data obtained from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, you might just be on to something.

I don't have to do that. All I have to do is show that the bases of the loops can be seen to *SOME* distance under the photosphere. LMSAL's "interpretation' as to the location of the bases of the loops is then falsified. I could just a rightly argue that the "bases of the loops" seen in that image is determined by the optical depth of the photosphere and has nothing to do with the surface. It still would demonstrate that the loops originate *UNDER* not over the photosphere.

You don't even seem to 'get' this whole "experiment" thing. I'm not dissing your solar theory because you can't create a sustained fusion reaction in plasma. I'm dissing it because it doesn't jive with observation.

I'm not expecting you to physically demonstrate every idea, I simply expect you to "qualify" ideas like inflation and dark energy and SUSY particles in actual controlled empirical experiments so that I know that they are not a figment of your overactive imagination.

Nothing I have proposed cannot be physically tested in lab, if not by me, by someone else. Electrical currents show up in real experiments. Compare and contrast that with inflation or dark energy. They don't do anything to anything in any controlled experiment. These are *COMPLETELY* different complaints than whining about the fact you can't sustain a fusion reaction in plasma. I don't care that you can't sustain a fusion reaction, it is still a KNOWN physical process in nature. It may not be capable of being sustained in the core as you suggest, but at least I know that fusion happens in nature. Inflation doesn't happen in nature. Inflation is dead and evidently impotent in nature today. That's what makes it pseudoscience, whereas you fusion solar theory is not pseudoscience, even if it's wrong.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But your analysis of the images is not.

Well, not so far, but so far I can't even get you to download the images and look at them! We can't agree that the Trace/Yohkoh overlay image shows us photosphere boundaries, so there is no way to look at those images mathematically yet and come to any specific number related to depth.

Have we all even agreed to "assume" that the 1600A "surface" is in fact the photosphere? I'm willing do that for the sake of argument and loop analysis, but how do we begin to analyze stuff mathematically yet if we can't agree on any of the basics?

Why should I?

Because maybe they are right about the fact these are atmospheric discharges even if I'm wrong about a surface? Aren't you even scientifically curious?

I'm not disputing what they say, because I have no interest in doing so. It's what you (and you alone) are saying that I'm interested in here.

In other words, your "motive" is not pure scientific curiosity, it's an ego battle thing with you?

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, not so far

So what's stopping you, Michael? I'm certainly not. You've spent years at this already. What's the holdup?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So what's stopping you, Michael? I'm certainly not. You've spent years at this already. What's the holdup?

There is no "hold up" from my perspective and the math has already been done by someone far more competent than myself IMO, using a very sophisticated set of techniques. That 4800KM figure is directly related to heliosiemology data, the fact that downdrafting plasma in a sunspot goes flat at about 4800KM under the photosphere.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is no "hold up" from my perspective

Sure there is. You haven't quantified any of your beliefs. You haven't done any quantitative analysis on any of your images. There is indeed a holdup.

and the math has already been done by someone far more competent than myself IMO, using a very sophisticated set of techniques. That 4800KM figure is directly related to heliosiemology data, the fact that downdrafting plasma in a sunspot goes flat at about 4800KM under the photosphere.

So somebody else did quantitative analysis of something else. Yeah, real persuasive there, Michael.

 

[GeeMack]

BS. You *ALLEGE* this to be the case, but the WL images show that the loops come up through the photosphere and they loops are hot even before they get through the photosphere.

Yes, I allege that you can't see anything deeper than about 500 kilometers into the photosphere. That's pretty well established according to the current state of solar research technology. Whether or not a magnetic field, an electrical charge, or even a sharp pencil can make its way through an opaque surface doesn't change that. Your reliance on pretty pictures and that convoluted logic you've devised in your desperate quest to support your delusion continues to fail you.

The very worst you could do is quibble over the depth issue, but you can't avoid the fact that the loops originate under the photosphere and the optical depth is ultimately a "pure guestimate" at it relate to various wavelengths.

Actually it's been explained several times that the current understanding of the optical depth of the photosphere isn't a matter of guessing, but rather a matter of a quantitative analysis. Given modern scientific data gathering and analysis techniques, it is pretty well accepted that you can't see more than about 500 kilometers into the photosphere, your personal incredulity and ignorance notwithstanding. Now if you could quantitatively demonstrate that you can actually see deeper than that, the entire field of solar physics would likely stop in its tracks and hear what you've got to say about it. Obviously you're not saying it in a way that they find compelling.

But that does bring up a valid concern. I'm reminded of those Truthers who come to the JREF forum to shout out their truth about the massive conspiracy surrounding the 9/11 attacks. They waste their time and energy here rather than taking their truth to legal authorities who might actually do something about it. Here you are, all over the Internet carrying on about crazy things like EU and a solid surface on the Sun instead of actually addressing the world of physics in a way that might actually get the word out where you can change some minds.

What do Kosovichev and Hoeksema and Schou from Stanford think of your research? (Oh, never mind. We already know Kosovichev doesn't agree with you.) How does LMSAL's Dr. Hurlburt and the rest of his team feel about your position? (Oh, wait. They think you're wrong, too.) Okay, when Neil deGrasse Tyson looked over your latest presentation, what was his opinion? Where's the material you wrote comparing Bahcall's ideas to yours? Shouldn't you be hobnobbing with the elite in the field and quantitatively, legitimately, scientifically critiquing the latest and best accepted theories if you want to actually be taken seriously? Instead you're throwing temper tantrums on an Internet forum?

I don't have to do that. All I have to do is show that the bases of the loops can be seen to *SOME* distance under the photosphere. LMSAL's "interpretation' as to the location of the bases of the loops is then falsified. I could just a rightly argue that the "bases of the loops" seen in that image is determined by the optical depth of the photosphere and has nothing to do with the surface. It still would demonstrate that the loops originate *UNDER* not over the photosphere.

Apparently you haven't falsified LMSAL's interpretation of anything to anyone's satisfaction. I'm pretty sure when you do show their analysis to be wrong, in a quantitative way, and communicate it so they actually understand what the hell you're talking about, you'll have their attention. And really, again, aren't you wasting a lot of time and effort arguing on a bunch of dumb Internet forums when you've got a hold on something so big that it will overturn the entire science of solar physics as we know it?

You don't even seem to 'get' this whole "experiment" thing. I'm not dissing your solar theory because you can't create a sustained fusion reaction in plasma. I'm dissing it because it doesn't jive with observation.

Seems that every person on the face of this planet who works in the field of solar physics feels it does jive with observation, at least enough that they aren't going back to the drawing board to start over because of a few unanswered questions. Science is about creating an explanation, a model that most effectively matches all the known data, and at the very least doesn't contain any glaring contradictions with that data. If the standard solar model was as wrong as you seem to think it is, the primary effort of professional researchers and educators wouldn't be to tweak what we've got. It would be to run it through the shredder and start over. But that's not happening. And there's a damned good reason for it. The current state of solar physics, the standard model, the understanding of the Sun's mass, density, elemental composition, physical function, and thermal characteristics, all do jive with observation.

I'm not expecting you to physically demonstrate every idea, I simply expect you to "qualify" ideas like inflation and dark energy and SUSY particles in actual controlled empirical experiments so that I know that they are not a figment of your overactive imagination.

And as long as you've been blathering on the Internet with your insane solid surface of the Sun crap, people have been asking you for that same level of qualification. They've read Birkeland. They've tried to find where he actually made the assertions you're making. They've tried to find the predictions you claim he made. What they find is that you've made convoluted ad hoc connections to a brass ball and/or a photo of an idea Birkeland had about Saturn, for God's sake. They've tried to make the correlation between his experiments and what you claim to be the results of those experiments. And oddly enough, nobody has ever been able to see what you see in them. Oddly enough, you've never been able to point to a particular description of an experiment or a particular set of calculations and say, "There! That's where Birkeland was specific about his notion that the Sun has a solid surface. That's where Birkeland's math shows, better than all our current observations and understanding, that the Sun is a great big old cathode/anode and all those loops and ejections are actually bigass sparks like arc welding or lightning." Never. Not once.

No, Michael, your exclusive basis for support is your ridiculous looks-like-a-bunny method and some radical misunderstandings of other people's mostly obsolete work. And as much as you'd like to think your qualitative interpretation should stand on its own without quantitative support, the quantitative evidence exists, masses of it, all coordinated and non-conflicting, all wrapped up in tissue paper with pink ribbons around it, to show that your qualitative analysis is wrong.

Nothing I have proposed cannot be physically tested in lab, if not by me, by someone else. Electrical currents show up in real experiments. Compare and contrast that with inflation or dark energy. They don't do anything to anything in any controlled experiment. These are *COMPLETELY* different complaints than whining about the fact you can't sustain a fusion reaction in plasma. I don't care that you can't sustain a fusion reaction, it is still a KNOWN physical process in nature. It may not be capable of being sustained in the core as you suggest, but at least I know that fusion happens in nature. Inflation doesn't happen in nature. Inflation is dead and evidently impotent in nature today. That's what makes it pseudoscience, whereas you fusion solar theory is not pseudoscience, even if it's wrong.

Nothing you have proposed cannot be physically tested in a lab, well, except a few little things. Like for example, you haven't been able to point to the experiment where you or anyone else can see something several thousand kilometers below the opaque photosphere by looking at a graphical assembly of a series of mathematical computations created using data acquired several thousand kilometers above the photosphere.