Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

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

Er, what difference does it make to you *WHO* does the math? Why does the math to justify a Birkeland solar model have to be done *your* way, by me personally?

You surely expect me to accept *any* quantitative analysis that happens to support your views, so why would you refuse to consider math that supports my position only because I'm not the one that produced it? That isn't even rational.

In order to analyze images we'll have to all agree that the 171A loops start *UNDER* the photosphere and are visible *UNDER* the photosphere. Are we even that far yet?

 

[Reality Check]

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.

Science is not really done by looking at pretty pictures as you tend to do.
Every lensing study, every inflation theory, every dark energy theory, every theory about the universe, and almost every branch of every part of science actually analyze the pretty pictures. They extract numbers from them.

Where are your numbers?

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.

They are large "squiggly lines" and they follow the contours of the sunspots. That would suggest that they are interactions of a single loop with the magnetic fields of the sunspot.

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.

Me too -not.
What I am interpreting the picture as is a single coronal loop coming up.
It is not a "high energy discharge" since we are looking at a plasma and they only support small scale discharges through charge separation (of the order of meters to be generous in the photosphere).
The NASA conceptual animation is the standard model of coronal loops. LMSAL does not disagree with it.
The frame is of activity on and above the sunspot.
The frame is of activity on and above the photosphere.
I think that there may also be light coming from the loop below the photosphere. I am not an astronomer.

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.

Me too -not.
The transition region is above the photosphere.

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".

Not it does not.
Cite the section in Birkelands book where he states that the transition region is below 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 different because of what sunspots are actually areas of intense magnetic activity as measured by scientists.

If the do that, then they could also be potentially seen *under* the photosphere as in this image.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg

Still wrong MM - both images in that composite image are of activity above the photosphere taken in pass bands that exclude white light.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics know that they could will never be seen *under* the photosphere as in that image.
This is really bad science by looking at pretty pictures - you have not even investigated where the features in the image are.

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.

It files!
I know that basic physics tells any scientist that coronal loops are not visible in the 171A pass band under the photosphere because they are heated to > 160,000 K above the photosphere. This is shown by analyzing coronal loops on the limb of the Sun and noting that they are cool near the photosphere and get hot a few 1000 km above it.

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.

There is not doubt that we see loops on the photosphere in the 1600A pass band. They look as if they emerge from the photosphere in the 1600A pass band.
So what?
That is what coronal loops do. That is what I have stated many times before. That is what you have stated many times before - remember the NASA conceptual animation that you like so much?

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.

No. The composite Trace/Yohkoh image is in the 171A and soft X-ray pass bands. All the activity is above the photosphere. It does "relate" to the photosphere in the sense that the coronal loops emerge from the photosphere.

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.

Wrong. They are a MINIMUM of 4,000 K and a MAXIMUM of 10,000 K.

Have you grasped the fact that a pass band is a filter?

They exclude wavelengths outside of their range. The 1600A pass band excludes the radiation from the really hot plasma. To see that you need to look at the same event in the 171A pass band.

 

[Ziggurat]

Er, what difference does it make to you *WHO* does the math? Why does the math to justify a Birkeland solar model have to be done *your* way, by me personally?

I don't care who does the math, Michael. But nobody else (well, other than me) has done the math to analyze your model of cathode refrigeration, and Birkeland sure as hell never did any quantitative analysis of the images you're using. If you can get someone else to do it for you, that's acceptable. If you cannot get anyone else, then it's up to you. You certainly haven't accepted my efforts to do quantitative analysis of your model, even though you can't actually demonstrate what's wrong with my analysis.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, I allege that you can't see anything deeper than about 500 kilometers into the photosphere.

Who cares what you personally allege? Flying stuff? What flying stuff? You certainly have no personal credibility with me.

Even 500 KM falsifies LMSAL's claims about the origin of the base of the loops.

That's pretty well established according to the current state of solar research technology.

So what? LMSAL's position is still toast even if we accept this as fact. All that would mean is that we can only see to some optical depth in these images but the loops are still visible under the photosphere.

Your reliance on pretty pictures and that convoluted logic you've devised in your desperate quest to support your delusion continues to fail you.

I'll bet you didn't even look at the 'pretty pictures'. Loops? What loops? White light images on the DVD? What white light images? For crying out loud.

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.

It doesn't matter one iota in terms of saving LMSAL and their location of the transition region being above rather than below the photosphere. You could "bitch' because that number doesn't support the heliosiesmology data, but then LMSAL is still wrong no matter what.

Here you are, all over the Internet carrying on about crazy things like EU

How is EU theory "crazy" exactly? How is "inflation" and "dark evil energy" not "crazy"?

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.

Alfven spoke that language loud and clear, as did Bruce and Birkeland. You (collectively) however have such closed minds you still call EU theory "crazy". I think your industry needs a little butt kicking at this point in time over all the actual "crazy" stuff they have "made up" over the past few decades like inflation and dark evil energies and magical matter particles with all sorts of unique "properties" they created in a purely ad hoc manner.

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'm not throwing temper tantrums, that's your game. Here in this post again you keep "transferring" your emotional problems to me. You're the only one here that seems to *NEED* to include personal insults in every single post.

I'm not the least bit interested in "hobnobbing" with any "elite". I'm interested in "truth". That motive is quite different than playing a political game of some kind. If they want to talk to me, they know where to find me. I'm easily accessible to all/any of them. When I've had questions I've contacted the appropriate individuals.

Apparently you haven't falsified LMSAL's interpretation of anything to anyone's satisfaction.

The loops absolutely are visible coming up through the "surface" seen in 1600A. That sheet of loops leaves an obvious mark on the photophere.

 

[Reality Check]

...snip usual rant...
Even 500 KM falsifies LMSAL's claims about the origin of the base of the loops.
...snip usual rant...

Wrong yet again MM!
Sun

The coolest layer of the Sun is a temperature minimum region about 500 km above the photosphere, with a temperature of about 4,100 K.[56] This part of the Sun is cool enough to support simple molecules such as carbon monoxide and water, which can be detected by their absorption spectra.[61]
Above the temperature minimum layer is a layer about 2,000 km thick, dominated by a spectrum of emission and absorption lines.[56] It is called the chromosphere from the Greek root chroma, meaning color, because the chromosphere is visible as a colored flash at the beginning and end of total eclipses of the Sun.[48] The temperature in the chromosphere increases gradually with altitude, ranging up to around 20,000 K near the top.[56] In the upper part of chromosphere helium becomes partially ionized.[62]
Above the chromosphere there is a thin (about 200 km) transition region in which the temperature rises rapidly from around 20,000 K in the upper chromosphere to coronal temperatures closer to one million K.[63]

Do the math:
500 km above the photosphere + 2,000 km thick = 2,500 km to the start of the transition zone where the plasma is hot enough to be detected by the 171A pass band.

Thus the base of the loops in the 171A pass band images is at least 2,500 km above the photosphere. The ability to see ~500 km into the photosphere in visible light (and thus measure the increasing tempertaure with depth) does not change this because the 171A pass band filters out visible light.

Therefore LMSAL states that the base of loops in 171A pass band images is at least 2,500 km above the photosphere.They have supported this (as you know) by measuring the temperature along coronal loops:
From their image archive

On the left (top) is a TRACE image taken on 9 August 1999, around 23:00 UT, in the 171Å passband (characteristic of 1 million degree gas; shown as the square root of the measure intensity). High-arching loops stand out, to a height of appriximately 120,000 km, visible along their entire length. The image on the right is a ratio of 195Å to 171Å, and serves as a measure of temperature. This image shows the loops as green along most of their length, demonstrating that the temperature varies little along them (which is why they can be seen in the 171Å image in the first place). The fact that the temperature is so nearly constant along the length requires that most of the heating is concentrated low down, in the bottom 15,000 km or so.

This is of course a real problem for your coronal loops are electrical arc idea. Now you have to explain why the temperature along your electrical arc suddenly changes to ~ 1 million K in a short interval above the photosphere. If we include your "500 KM" then this is still a space of 14,5000 km above the photosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't care who does the math, Michael.

That rings a little hollow after watching you argue with sol for a day or two over the number of photons in an EM field. His position was sound, but you really didn't want to hear the answer. You don't even care about the electrical aspects of coronal loops or the math related to those loops. It's not even evidently something you are the least big curious about. Why?

But nobody else (well, other than me) has done the math to analyze your model of cathode refrigeration,

I never even used that term, *YOU* did. How about the mass separated plasma layers and thermoclines? Why call it "cathode refrigeration"?

and Birkeland sure as hell never did any quantitative analysis of the images you're using.

Birkeland did quantify his "discharge' model. Did you even bother to read it?

If you can get someone else to do it for you, that's acceptable.

Oh, why thank you. Did you finally accept sol's answer by the way?

If you cannot get anyone else, then it's up to you.

It's not UP TO YOU however on which questions I answer and do not answer. There are *LOTS* of things standard solar theory doesn't "answer", like how the solar wind works, what heats the corona, etc. Why would you attempt to falsify any solar model just by attempting to dream up questions I can't personally answer?

You certainly haven't accepted my efforts to do quantitative analysis of your model, even though you can't actually demonstrate what's wrong with my analysis.

What's "wrong" with your analysis is you didn't include any notion of cooler, more dense plasma layers that are located under the photosphere, and you *insist* that we calculate the energy output based on your solar theory of choice.

 

[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 unsupported assertions (new questions in green)

1. What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected? First asked 6th July 2009
2. 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
3. From tusenfem:
   Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkelands book? First asked 7th July 2009
4. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source" and in the same post
5. 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
6. Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible? First asked 8 July 2009
   See this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.
7. Coronal loops are electrical discharges? First asked 10 July 2009
8. Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question? First asked 10 July 2009
9. More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth First asked 13 July 2009
10. Formation of the iron surface First asked 13 July 2009
11. How much is "mostly neon" MM? First asked 13 July 2009
12. Just how useless is the Iron Sun model? First asked 13 July 2009
13. Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina First asked 13 July 2009
14. Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina First asked 13 July 2009He 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.
15. Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested? First asked 14 July 2009
16. 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).
17. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina First asked 14 July 2009MM has one reply in which is mistakenly thinks that this question is about coronal loops.
18. What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model? First asked 17 July 2009
19. 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
20. Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles? First asked 18 July 2009
21. How does the "mostly neon" surface emit white light? First asked 19 July 2009
    Now retracted for
22. Entire photon "spectrum" is composed of all the emissions from all the layers First asked 3 August 2009
23. Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves? First asked 22 July 2009
    Seems to think that 3 pixel differences (full Sun image) or 10's of pixels (limb image) are not detectable. Astronomers would disagree.
24. Evidence for the existence of "dark" electrons First asked 28 July 2008
25. MHD also treats plasmas as particles and circuits according to Alfven First asked 29 July 2009Can you give a citation to where Alfven states that he derives the equations of MHD from collections of particles rather than a fluid?
26. Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere? First asked 30 July 2009
27. Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer? First asked 30 July 2009
28. What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers? First asked 30 July 2009
29. What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer? First asked 30 July 2009

Actual Answers From Michael Mozina:


Unsupported Assertions as Answers from Michal Mozina:

1. How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
   First asked 23rd June 2009
   So far just that astronomers have got the visible masses of galaxies wrong (and another reply with his usual "if we cannot detect it on Earth then it does not exist" non-science).
   Now he is on about dark electrons (see above) as an example of matter that cannot be detected!
2. Why do the composition of the "mostly neon" photoshere and the corona differ?
   First asked 22nd July 2009
   It is "mass separation" - no actual physics cited or experiments. No understanding of the consequences - see the latest questions.

 

[Reality Check]

Explain the shape of your electrical arcs (coronal loops)

You seem to have missed this point that I raised a couple of days ago so I will make it an actual question:

First asked 2 August 2009
There is a frame (or 2 or 3) in the "2001 15 April WL" movie in the TRACE FlaresDVD.img file that shows a coronal loop on top of a sunspot.

Maybe it is an electrical arc from your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust 4800 km below the photosphere that is of unknown temperature, composition and depth.
In that case look at the image closely. The coronal loop enters the photosphere almost vertically. This is what is expected for coronal loops described as magnetic fields (they basically float to the surface of the photosphere and so show up as half loops).
But the source for your electrical arc is a further 4800 km down. This means that your electrical arc is not an "arc" - somehow it is shaped more like a croquet hoop with vertical sides and a circle on top.

Why are your electrical "arcs" actually croquet hoops?

And an extra bonus question:
This looks nothing like Birkeland's images. These have actual arcs.
Why does this frame not disprove what you call "Birkeland's solar model"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wrong yet again MM!
Sun

Er, how is that anything other than an appeal to authority fallacy?

Do the math:
500 km above the photosphere + 2,000 km thick = 2,500 km to the start of the transition zone where the plasma is hot enough to be detected by the 171A pass band.

What heats that loop at that specific location? I would assume even in gas model theory that the loop is "hot" because the material in the core is hot, and the material in the loop is moving faster from the core than other surrounding materials.

FYI, evidently you don't understand the significance of those white footprint patterns in the photosphere. That demonstrates that the loops are "hot" and energetic and pump energy into the photosphere in the area where the current sheet exits upward, and also where is comes back through the photosphere on the other side. The loops are hot throughout the length of the loop. IMO heating does occur at the "surface' where the "discharges" peel away material from the surface. What's the heating mechanisms 2500 KM *above* the photosphere? What about those white loops and footprints in the WL photosphere images?

Thus the base of the loops in the 171A pass band images is at least 2,500 km above the photosphere.

Um, in science, you can't point to the claim in question to try to support your point. In other words, I see strong physical evidence that loops *PASS THROUGH* the photosphere in those WL images. I see nothing in those images to suggest that the loops start *above* the photosphere, or that they are "hotter" one place in the loop compared to any other place in the loop.

The ability to see ~500 km into the photosphere in visible light (and thus measure the increasing tempertaure with depth) does not change this because the 171A pass band filters out visible light.

You're missing a key point here. The 171A pass band shows that the *WHOLE VISIBLE* loop is millions of degrees. They show a "base" of those loops where "solar moss" activity occurs. In a Birkeland model this occurs at the "surface".

Therefore LMSAL states that the base of loops in 171A pass band images is at least 2,500 km above the photosphere.

Yes, I know what they state, and I'm explaining to you why that isn't true and doing so with white light images (for the moment).

This is of course a real problem for your coronal loops are electrical arc idea. Now you have to explain why the temperature along your electrical arc suddenly changes to ~ 1 million K in a short interval above the photosphere.

You have this so backwards I hardly know where to start. Let's start with their first claim:

This image shows the loops as green along most of their length, demonstrating that the temperature varies little along them (which is why they can be seen in the 171Å image in the first place).

So in a discharge theory, they are hot over the whole length because of the current flow inside the filament. The temperature varies little, just as it varies little inside an ordinary plasma ball filament.

Those NASA images show a fully formed, and presumably completely hot loop rising up *THROUGH* the photosphere. They got it right. LMSAL blew it. LMSAL *assumed* their loops become visible somewhere above the photosphere and the evidently have an unidentified heat source in the upper atmosphere. Now part of their "loop" must be hot, and some of it must not be? Which is true? Let's look at the next sentence:

The fact that the temperature is so nearly constant along the length requires that most of the heating is concentrated low down, in the bottom 15,000 km or so.

What "heating" is that? In discharge theory the heating is everywhere, including 'down low' at the surface or down low into the photosphere if you prefer.

If LMSAL's first statement is true, then the heating takes place "low in the atmosphere" whereever they can first see the image. If the photosphere is opaque below 500KM, then the bulk of the heating took place *UNDER* the photosphere before they could "see it" in 171A. There is no physical way to justify LMSAL's position even if we assume the "surface' is the photosphere and it becomes "opaque" at a specific depth. In no way can you physically justify their claim that it was heated "above' the photosphere and only that part of the loop is hot. In fact their own statements fully support a discharge model where the discharges begin at the optical opaque depth of that particular wavelength, but it would necessarily need to begin *UNDER* not over the photosphere to leave those patterns in that WL image I cited.

If we include your "500 KM" then this is still a space of 14,5000 km above the photosphere.

So what is the magic heat source that transforms this "mild mannered" loop you claim is going through the photosphere as in NASA's animation, into a million degree monster that stays at millions of degrees for hours on end?

 

[Ziggurat]

I never even used that term, *YOU* did.

The term accurately describes your idea. That you did not use the term is irrelevant.

How about the mass separated plasma layers and thermoclines?

Funny you should mention mass separation. I provided you with the tools to do some upper bound quantification of this separation, and what did you do? Nothing. No response. Why are you afraid to do the arithmetic to get an answer when I already did the hard part for you?

Why call it "cathode refrigeration"?

Mass separation and thermoclines are not cooling mechanisms. Yet you claim that there is some mechanism, driven by the cathode nature of the solid shell inside the sun, which is driving this cooling mechanism which prevents the shell from heating up to the temperature of its surroundings. Thus, cathode refrigeration is an accurate description of what you have claimed.

Birkeland did quantify his "discharge' model.

He never quantified any cathode refrigeration. I don't believe he even suggested such a thing. Feel free to provide a quote to the contrary, if you feel this is the case.

It's not UP TO YOU however on which questions I answer and do not answer.

No, it isn't. I cannot make you defend your claims. I cannot make you justify your positions. I cannot make you quantify any of your ideas. But I can, and will, point out when you fail to do so. And you have failed to do so.

There are *LOTS* of things standard solar theory doesn't "answer", like how the solar wind works, what heats the corona, etc. Why would you attempt to falsify any solar model just by attempting to dream up questions I can't personally answer?

I'm not asking because you can't answer. Hell, you should be able to. I did. I asked those questions about the basic parameters of your cathode refrigeration because they can falsify the model (always a useful property for questions about a theory) and because they are answerable. It is ultimately those answers, not your inability to find them, which has falsified your model.

What's "wrong" with your analysis is you didn't include any notion of cooler, more dense plasma layers that are located under the photosphere

And what effect will that have on the numbers I gave, and why would it have that effect?

and you *insist* that we calculate the energy output based on your solar theory of choice.

No. The energy output I used is not model dependent (except to the extent that I can claim the sun obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics). It is the OBSERVED power output of the sun.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In that case look at the image closely. The coronal loop enters the photosphere almost vertically. This is what is expected for coronal loops described as magnetic fields (they basically float to the surface of the photosphere and so show up as half loops).
But the source for your electrical arc is a further 4800 km down. This means that your electrical arc is not an "arc" - somehow it is shaped more like a croquet hoop with vertical sides and a circle on top.

Why are your electrical "arcs" actually croquet hoops?

According to Alfven, magnetic lines act as a "guiding center" to the flow pattern of particles. I suppose you "could" look at it that way. There is also a discharge process between the surface and the heliosphere going on (charge attraction) and the loops tend to "grow" throughout the discharge process.

And an extra bonus question:
This looks nothing like Birkeland's images. These have actual arcs.

Pure coincidence that he managed to create similar structures like that? You do realize that loops come in all shapes and sizes, right?

Why does this frame not disprove what you call "Birkeland's solar model"?

That frame is only one frame of what goes on in those loops. When you look at the 171A images, it's clear "loops" come in all shapes and sizes. They "reconnect" to other "circuits" flowing toward the heliosphere, and the "current flow" can even change directions over time. All of these observed behaviors seen in 171A are consistent with Birkeland's experiments. It would call these images "proof" that Birkeland was right.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The term accurately describes your idea. That you did not use the term is irrelevant.

That is pure baloney. "My" idea is that the surface is relatively "cool" (well under 4000K for solids to form), and the lower solar atmosphere is also relatively "cool". I would assume that there is 'discharge heating" process that occurs due to the discharge process between the surface and the heliosphere and that the excess heat is typically carried away from sun with the solar wind.

I think I'm going to call it a day at work, go get a drink and come back to the rest of your post later.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why in the heck is number 7 still on your list RC? I can't even get you or Zig to deal with ANY of Alfven's material, or ANY of Bruce's material, and somehow that is my fault?

 

[Ziggurat]

That is pure baloney. "My" idea is that the surface is relatively "cool" (well under 4000K for solids to form), and the lower solar atmosphere is also relatively "cool".

Yet it's surrounded by a much hotter region which thermally insulates it from deep space. Any time you have a temperature gradient, heat always flows from hot to cold. Simple thermodynamic requirement, Michael, and one which is entirely model independent. So how can it possibly remain colder than what surrounds it? It cannot do so unless some mechanism carries heat from a colder to a hotter region. You know what that's commonly called? Refrigeration.

I would assume that there is 'discharge heating" process that occurs due to the discharge process between the surface and the heliosphere

In other words, your cathode. Hence, cathode refrigeration.

 

[Reality Check]

According to Alfven, magnetic lines act as a "guiding center" to the flow pattern of particles. I suppose you "could" look at it that way. There is also a discharge process between the surface and the heliosphere going on (charge attraction) and the loops tend to "grow" throughout the discharge process.

So now it is electrical arcs guided by a magnetic field to form croquet hoops (not arcs).
Where is the evidence for "croquet hoops"?

Please give a citation to a paper showing a magnetic field from a iron crust that is shaped like a croquet hoop.
According to you, Alfven must have written one or two.

Pure coincidence that he managed to create similar structures like that? You do realize that loops come in all shapes and sizes, right?

Yes - where are the ones shaped like a croquet hoop in his book?

That frame is only one frame of what goes on in those loops. When you look at the 171A images, it's clear "loops" come in all shapes and sizes. They "reconnect" to other "circuits" flowing toward the heliosphere, and the "current flow" can even change directions over time. All of these observed behaviors seen in 171A are consistent with Birkeland's experiments. It would call these images "proof" that Birkeland was right.

The situation is worse for the 171A images. They are even taller croquet hoops!

But you say that all of these are actually croquet hoops. Where are the croquet hoops in Birkeland's experiments?
State the figure number and the position of the croquet hoops.
State where Birkeland says that croquet hoops are possible and his mathematical treatment of them.

 

[Reality Check]

Er, how is that anything other than an appeal to authority fallacy?

Er, it is not. It is a statement of the physics of the Sun as understood by scientists (and as interpreted by the Wikipedia authors!).

What heats that loop at that specific location? I would assume even in gas model theory that the loop is "hot" because the material in the core is hot, and the material in the loop is moving faster from the core than other surrounding materials.

Your description seems to be "it is hot because it is hot and moving fast" which does not sound right.

My impression that there is no heating in the coronal loop. Sorry if I did not state this clearly before.

What we are talking about is the temperature of the plasma that is in the coronal loop. This plasma comes from the environment so it is temperature of the plasma in the photosphere (~6,000 K), temperature minimum region (~4,100 K), chromosphere (risunbg to ~20,000 K), transition region, (rising to ~1,000,000 K) and corona (1–2 million kelvins, however, in the hottest regions it is 8–20 million kelvins).
A real astronomer will probably correct this.

That leads to the coronal heating problem (which is little to do with coronal loops) where mechanism behind the temperature of plasma at various heights is currently unknown.

FYI, evidently you don't understand the significance of those white footprint patterns in the photosphere. That demonstrates that the loops are "hot" and energetic and pump energy into the photosphere in the area where the current sheet exits upward, and also where is comes back through the photosphere on the other side. The loops are hot throughout the length of the loop. IMO heating does occur at the "surface' where the "discharges" peel away material from the surface. What's the heating mechanisms 2500 KM *above* the photosphere? What about those white loops and footprints in the WL photosphere images?

FYI, I understand the significance of those white footprint patterns in the photosphere. That demonstrates that the loops are "hot" (compared to the sunspot with ~4000 K) and energetic and pump energy into the photosphere in the area where the magnetic field exits upward, and also where it comes back through the photosphere on the other side.

Um, in science, you can't point to the claim in question to try to support your point. In other words, I see strong physical evidence that loops *PASS THROUGH* the photosphere in those WL images. I see nothing in those images to suggest that the loops start *above* the photosphere, or that they are "hotter" one place in the loop compared to any other place in the loop.

Um, in science, you can't point to the claim in question to try to support your point. In other words, I see strong physical evidence that loops *DO NOT PASS THROUGH* the photosphere in those WL images. I see nothing in those images to suggest that the loops start *below* the photosphere.

You're missing a key point here. The 171A pass band shows that the *WHOLE VISIBLE* loop is millions of degrees. They show a "base" of those loops where "solar moss" activity occurs. In a Birkeland model this occurs at the "surface".

You are missing a key point here. The WL image proves that the *WHOLE VISIBLE* loop (i.e. visible in WL) has a temperature between 4,000 and 10,000 K.

Yes, I know what they state, and I'm explaining to you why that isn't true and doing so with white light images (for the moment).
You have this so backwards I hardly know where to start. Let's start with their first claim:

This image shows the loops as green along most of their length, demonstrating that the temperature varies little along them (which is why they can be seen in the 171Å image in the first place).

So in a discharge theory, they are hot over the whole length because of the current flow inside the filament. The temperature varies little, just as it varies little inside an ordinary plasma ball filament.

Then the discharge theory is wrong. as my emphaisis shows. The temperature varies a lot in a small region of the coronal loop. Thus it is not an electrical arc.

But you can prove me wrong - just cite or show the calculation that an electric arc can change temperature from ~4000 K to ~1,000,000 K in a distance of about 15,000 km, retain that temperature for many 1000's of km and then drop back to ~4000 K.

Those NASA images show a fully formed, and presumably completely hot loop rising up *THROUGH* the photosphere. They got it right. LMSAL blew it. LMSAL *assumed* their loops become visible somewhere above the photosphere and the evidently have an unidentified heat source in the upper atmosphere. Now part of their "loop" must be hot, and some of it must not be? Which is true? Let's look at the next sentence:

The fact that the temperature is so nearly constant along the length requires that most of the heating is concentrated low down, in the bottom 15,000 km or so.

What "heating" is that? In discharge theory the heating is everywhere, including 'down low' at the surface or down low into the photosphere if you prefer.

It is the heating that they actually measure.
You do get the concept of actually measuring something rather then looking at pictures?
The actual measurment of the heating taking place above the photosphere invalidates the discharge theory.

One more time: No one is stating that coronal loops do not rise out of the photosphere as in the NASA conceptual animation.

LMSAL do not assume that the loops become visible somewhere above the photosphere. Their scientists know basic physics and so know that the 171A pass band is imaging radiation from heated plasma above the photosphere. The 171A pass band can never detect the photosphere.

...snipped usual I want it to be under the photosphere rant...

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yet it's surrounded by a much hotter region which thermally insulates it from deep space.

Er, how do you define "thermal insulation" in the mist of million mile per hour "current flows"? Current flow is uniformly "away from" the surface.

Are you even going to admit that "magnetic reconnection" can be "translated" to "particle reconnection" yet so that it is congruent with QM and particle physics theory? I mean sol went to all the trouble of handing you the math and everything.

Any time you have a temperature gradient, heat always flows from hot to cold.

We also have a "current flow" that is one directional, always away from the sun.

Simple thermodynamic requirement, Michael, and one which is entirely model independent.

So how is that chromosphere emitting at a higher temp than the photosphere? You thermodynamic requirements go up in smoke as we move away from the photosphere and into *HIGHER* temperature plasma.

So how can it possibly remain colder than what surrounds it?

How does that photosphere remain cooler than the corona?

Hence, cathode refrigeration.

I'm afraid that is your own personal lingo. A quick search on Google would suggest that you are the only living human being on Earth to ever use that term. The only scientific term even close was this one:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002APS..MARB26009H

Did you mean "Thermionic Refrigeration"?

 

[Reality Check]

Coronal loops are electrical discharges?

Why in the heck is number 7 still on your list RC? I can't even get you or Zig to deal with ANY of Alfven's material, or ANY of Bruce's material, and somehow that is my fault?

You are right - I need to update the question with your "answers".

First asked 9 July 2009 (Updated 6 August 2009)
From your web site and what you have stated here, it looks like you have an idea that coronal loops are electrical discharges from your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface.
AFAIK The only evidence that you have presented is that they look like the electrical discharges in the experiments that Birkeland did.

Could you present your calculation of the X-ray spectrum from the electrical discharges so that we can see if it matches the observed X-ray spectrum.

Otherwise we will have to assume that the X-ray spectrum from the electrical discharges is like all other observed electrical discharges - narrow bands of emission (a real astronomer may want to confirm this).
So I would expect electrical discharges on the Sun that heat plasma to have an X-ray spectrum that has a broad background with spikes of emission.
This is a problem for your idea because the observed X-ray spectrum is broad band and typical of heated plasma alone.

MM:
"Bruce's material" does not contain a calculation of the X-ray spectrum from the electrical discharges. He states is that they are like lightening. His model is not the Iron Sun model. His model is fatally flawed because is assumes dust particles in the photosphere (which he assumes to be ~4000 K).
Also

A relatively recent paper which knocks much of MM's hero Bruce's work for six (i.e. it shows, in great detail, that Bruce's models are inconsistent with the relevant observations): Radiative MHD simulation of sunspot structure (link is to the abstract of the preprint).

"Alfven's material" is presumably his copy of Alfvén and Carlqvist's 1966 paper (Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and A theory of Solar Flares).
This does not contain a calculation of the X-ray spectrum of electrical discharges. This does not model what we now (2009) know a real solar flare acts like.

 

[Reality Check]

These are some of the questions that MM has been asked and seems incapable of answering other than by unsupported assertions (new question in green).
N.B. Question 7 has been updated with MM's "answers" as per his request.

1. What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected? First asked 6th July 2009
2. 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
3. From tusenfem:
   Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkelands book? First asked 7th July 2009
4. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source" and in the same post
5. 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
6. Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible? First asked 8 July 2009
   See this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.
7. Coronal loops are electrical discharges? First asked 10 July 2009
   This is an updated question with a couple of "answers" from MM.
8. Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question? First asked 10 July 2009
9. More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth First asked 13 July 2009
10. Formation of the iron surface First asked 13 July 2009
11. How much is "mostly neon" MM? First asked 13 July 2009
12. Just how useless is the Iron Sun model? First asked 13 July 2009
13. Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina First asked 13 July 2009
14. Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina First asked 13 July 2009He 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.
15. Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested? First asked 14 July 2009
16. 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).
17. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina First asked 14 July 2009MM has one reply in which is mistakenly thinks that this question is about coronal loops.
18. What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model? First asked 17 July 2009
19. 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
20. Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles? First asked 18 July 2009
21. How does the "mostly neon" surface emit white light? First asked 19 July 2009
    Now retracted for
22. Entire photon "spectrum" is composed of all the emissions from all the layers First asked 3 August 2009
23. Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves? First asked 22 July 2009
    Seems to think that 3 pixel differences (full Sun image) or 10's of pixels (limb image) are not detectable. Astronomers would disagree.
24. Evidence for the existence of "dark" electrons First asked 28 July 2008
25. MHD also treats plasmas as particles and circuits according to Alfven First asked 29 July 2009Can you give a citation to where Alfven states that he derives the equations of MHD from collections of particles rather than a fluid?
26. Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere? First asked 30 July 2009
27. Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer? First asked 30 July 2009
28. What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers? First asked 30 July 2009
29. What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer? First asked 30 July 2009

Actual Answers From Michael Mozina:




Unsupported Assertions as Answers from Michal Mozina:

1. How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
   First asked 23rd June 2009
   So far just that astronomers have got the visible masses of galaxies wrong (and another reply with his usual "if we cannot detect it on Earth then it does not exist" non-science).
   Now he is on about dark electrons (see above) as an example of matter that cannot be detected!
2. Why do the composition of the "mostly neon" photoshere and the corona differ?
   First asked 22nd July 2009
   It is "mass separation" - no actual physics cited or experiments. No understanding of the consequences - see the latest questions.

 

[Reality Check]

Micheal Mozina:
The question Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina First asked 13 July 2009, is about the predicted heating along the electrical arcs (coronal loops).
You may have stated your answer in the recent posts, i.e. the electrical arc heats plasma to millons of degrees along its entire length.

Is this correct?

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 millions of degrees). If images are taken of the footprints of the "hoops" on the photosphere in visible light (as in the movie frame) then there will be big holes seen (no visible light emitted from the million degree plasma). There are no such holes seen.