Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

So it takes a lot of 171Å activity to generate a sunspot, eh? I've heard those solid surface of the Sun proponents

Plural? You mean you've changed your mind, and suddenly I'm not the only one who supports a solid surface model eh? I suppose I should consider that progress.

say a lot of very, very stupid things over the years, but this has to be one of the stupidest.

You really are incapable of responding to me without the crutch of ad homs. You really are incapable of honest dialog.

You couldn't possibly have actually meant to say that, Michael.

I'm sometimes stunned at how little you really comprehend about solar physics and science in general. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? Sunspots are *CAUSED BY* discharge activity? What discharge activity? Sheesh.

 

[Reality Check]

Coronal loops appear with or without sunspots. In fact it takes a *LOT* of 171A activity to generate a sunspot. The loops are not directly related to sunspot activity other than the fact that no sunspots form without 171A activity. 171A activity happens constantly without any sunspots.

(emphasis added)
I did not notice this before.
Could you cite your source for the assertion that sunspots are created by coronal loops?

This would be a bad sign for your coronal loops are electrical arcs idea. Sunspots are intensely magnetic.

P.S. Did you know that the central umbrae of sunspots are depressions in the photosphere (the Wilson effect observed in 1769!).

 

[Michael Mozina]

The difference is the scale upon which charge separation happens in the solar plasma.
The difference is that Sun is not the Earth.

But they both experience discharge processes in their atmospheres. They aren't exactly the same, but IMO they are more alike than you realize or accept.

They might (citation needed) - the usual tempertaure quoted is 4,000 K to 1,500K. Still no solids at ~4,000 K.

Carbon can form solids at around 4000K. 1500K is plenty cool for solids to form. The photosphere is just another mass separated layer, and cooler layer (like 1500K) reside below the photosphere.

That is right. It is even treated as a fluid in magnetohydrodynamics.

And that fluid like behavior is obvious in that wave in Kosovichev's video in the wave on the surface of the photosphere. Underneath that wave are mass flows around rigid/solid surface features in the form of small discharges all along the surface. We can see the patterns of that solid surface too in Kosovichev's video in the mass flow patterns I circled in his video. Kosovichev was correct to state that they were "mass flows", but the angular persistence is due to the surface crust and the discharge patterns form around the contours of the surface.

I have been quite clear aboout the source of coronal heating. No one knows what it is. That is not "glossing over" - that is stating what the situation is.

I do. Alfven did. Bruce did. Birkeland certainly did.

You cannot have electrical discharges from a hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust that does not exist.

This "thermodynamically impossible chromosphere and corona solar model" you put faith in suffers from similar shortcomings.

There is every way that these loops would not be visible under the photosphere in 171A.

How? We can observe the FEII ions traverse the surface at 1600A to some depth. I'm sure that higher energy wavelengths would penetrate even further into the photosphere.

The plasma is as "hot" as the 1600A filter allows - a maximum of 10,000 K.

So the iron ions in those loops is *AT LEAST* 10,000K and much hotter than the photosphere even before it gets to the surface of the photosphere. Lots of different ions of iron are inside those loops and the 171A images simply show us a different ion inside the same discharge event.

LMSAL claim is:

(emphasis added)
and the pass bands are:
[qimg]http://trace.lmsal.com/TRACE/Images/pastext.gif[/qimg]

Thus the minimum plasma temperature that LMSAL are talking about is 160,000 K (anything cooler than this is not in the 2 images).

First of all, there is no mention in that article of Thompson scattering. Why? Not all the ions need to be a million degrees. Notice how they claimed that the heating occurs *LOW* in the loop? That is because it's heated by the time it becomes visible *UNDER* the photosphere.

There is no magic heating or mysterious heating mechanism involved in these discharge events. Bruce explained all this stuff 50+ years ago. Alfven added the whole field of MHD theory to support the idea and he personally supported the idea of a z-pinch "magnetic rope".

Circuit reconnection is what occurs inside these plasma discharge events. The entire circuit energy of both circuits determines the rate of "reconnection" and what happens of the point of reconnection where *PARTICLES* actually do the physical reconnection process.

The discharge events however are ongoing and continuous and the primary discharge process is between the surface and the heliosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

(emphasis added)
I did not notice this before.
Could you cite your source for the assertion that sunspots are created by coronal loops?

Show me one sunspot event where intense 171/195A activity was nowhere near the sunspot.

This would be a bad sign for your coronal loops are electrical arcs idea. Sunspots are intensely magnetic.

The discharge activity comes up and through the photosphere but the photosphere is simply a mostly neon layer of plasma. Sunspots form when heated silicon plasma from below rises up and through the sunspot, and when electrical activity creates hurricane like formations at the surface of the photosphere, the the eye of a hurricane from space.

P.S. Did you know that the central umbrae of sunspots are depressions in the photosphere (the Wilson effect observed in 1769!).

Yes. There are some nice links to the photosphere from the Swedish 1M telescope on my website. You could also think of the eye of a hurricane as a "depression" in the cloud layer.

 

[Reality Check]

Show me one sunspot event where intense 171/195A activity was nowhere near the sunspot.

First you give me a citation for your assertion.

The discharge activity comes up and through the photosphere but the photosphere is simply a mostly neon layer of plasma. Sunspots form when heated silicon plasma from below rises up and through the sunspot, and when electrical activity creates hurricane like formations at the surface of the photosphere, the the eye of a hurricane from space.

Is it about time for another edition of the many questions that you have not answered except for unsupported assertions?
Nah - not yet.
But the layer questions still need answering (only 5 out of 29 and counting)!

1. How much is "mostly neon" MM? First asked 13 July 2009
2. Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere? First asked 30 July 2009
3. Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer? First asked 30 July 2009
4. What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers? First asked 30 July 2009
5. What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer? First asked 30 July 2009

 

[Reality Check]

What is your physical evidence for the silicon in sunspots?

First asked 7 August 2009
Michael Mozina stated

Sunspots form when heated silicon plasma from below rises up and through the sunspot, and when electrical activity creates hurricane like formations at the surface of the photosphere, the the eye of a hurricane from space.

What is your physical evidence for an elevated level of silicon in sunspots?

For example spectroscopy should show more intense silicon lines from sunspots than from other areas of the photosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Could you cite your source for the assertion that sunspots are created by coronal loops?

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010000/a010074/index.html

I thought you agreed with this animation.

 

[sol invictus]

By the way, Michael, I'm mildly curious as to which (if any) of my items 1-7 you disagree with.

Here's a list of facts:

1. The sun's light is coming from some surface in thermal equilibrium at ~6000K.
2. That surface is nearly opaque to all frequencies of radiation (if it wasn't, it wouldn't emit as a near perfect black body).
3. That surface is either above or below this putative iron surface.
4. If it's above, we couldn't see the iron, because the surface is opaque.
5. If it's below, the iron would either melt or equilibrate at a temperature below 1800K.
6. Since solid (and molten) iron is opaque, if it didn't vaporize it would emit BB radation at a temperature below 6000K, which would mean sunlight would have a BB spectrum below 6000K, which it doesn't.
7. I think we're stuck....

 

[Reality Check]

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010000/a010074/index.html

I thought you agreed with this animation.

I do. The animation looks pretty.
But a conceptual animation is not a citation. A citation is to a book or paper.

The caption is

New studies show that the Sun's active regions -- areas of intense eruptions -- are formed from many small magnetic structures (white loops) that rise from deep within the interior, then pierce the surface to form sunspots (dark areas). These structures appear as giant arches when electrified gas (plasma) passes through their magnetic fields.

So sunspots are created by magnetic loops just as they say.

The question is do all of these loops fill with plasma that is hot enough to show up in the 171A & 195A pass bands as you say?

IMO: You are right. I cannot think of a mechanism that would stop the loops filling with plasma. But there are a lot brighter and knowledgeable people out there who may have the actual answer!

 

[Reality Check]

How does the Iron Sun idea explain sunspot pairing and groups?

First asked 7 August 2009
Michael Mozina, Your Iron Sun model has

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Sunspots form when heated silicon plasma from below rises up and through the sunspot, and when electrical activity creates hurricane like formations at the surface of the photosphere, the the eye of a hurricane from space.

(I assume that sunspot is actually photosphere).
This means that sunspots are independent of each other according to the Iron Sun idea.
But ...
Sunspot

The Wilson effect tells us that sunspots are actually depressions on the sun's surface. This model is supported by observations using the Zeeman effect that show that prototypical sunspots come in pairs with opposite magnetic polarity. From cycle to cycle, the polarities of leading and trailing (with respect to the solar rotation) sunspots change from north/south to south/north and back. Sunspots usually appear in groups.

How does the rising heated silicon plasma create pairs of sunspots with opposite magnetic polarity?

Why does the rising heated silicon plasma usually form groups of sunspots?

 

[Reality Check]

How does the Iron Sun idea explain the sunspot cycle?

First asked 7 August 2009
Michael Mozina, Your Iron Sun model has

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Sunspots form when heated silicon plasma from below rises up and through the sunspot, and when electrical activity creates hurricane like formations at the surface of the photosphere, the the eye of a hurricane from space.

(I assume that sunspot is actually photosphere).

Sunspot activity cycles about every eleven years. This is explained conventionally by magnetic fields starting with the Babcock Model in 1961.

How does the Iron Sun idea explain the sunspot cycle?

 

[Ziggurat]

If he doesn't, then neither do you IMO. I'm willing to concede that there are "discharge events" that can release a BB spectrum. You seem to believe that is now impossible as it relates to the sun. Why?

Whether electrical discharges are the source of the heat for the observed blackbody radiation is irrelevant to my argument. Only the radiation itself matters, and that is a quantity we know with certainty from observations.

Plenty.

"Plenty" is not a sufficient answer. How much? Give me a number.

Would you rather have your finger sitting 1/4 inch in front of the flame for two or three seconds, or 1/4 inch behind the nozzle?

This too is irrelevant. While it is cooler behind the nozzle than in front of it, the flame does no cooling. But in your model, your discharge must be actively cooling the solid surface, or else the surface will heat up from absorbed radiation from the much hotter region above it.

 

[tusenfem]

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.

Well, that basically destroys the Z-pinch heating model at the top of the loops. Thank brantc, you just cut another leg under the electric sun model!

 

[Dancing David]

If he doesn't, then neither do you IMO. I'm willing to concede that there are "discharge events" that can release a BB spectrum. You seem to believe that is now impossible as it relates to the sun. Why?

Because you are violating thermodynamics and haven't stated how much thermionic cooling occurs.

 

[GeeMack]

I'll ask this at the top, Michael, because evidence suggests you might have a reading or attention span problem that prevents you from seeing it when I ask at the end of a posting...

Why on Earth do you continue to cry like a little kid instead of actually coughing up some legitimate responses to questions that might actually support your insane delusion?

Coronal loops appear with or without sunspots. In fact it takes a *LOT* of 171A activity to generate a sunspot. The loops are not directly related to sunspot activity other than the fact that no sunspots form without 171A activity. 171A activity happens constantly without any sunspots.

That's exactly what you wrote, Michael. I said, "I've heard those solid surface of the Sun proponents say a lot of very, very stupid things over the years, but this has to be one of the stupidest." Multiple supporters of your crackpottery? Possibly. I think I've seen two, maybe three of them in all these years. But I contend that there aren't any legitimate physicists who agree with you. And none of those people who have seemed to agree with you were actually physicists or legitimate scientists at any level. None of them could help you with any quantitative support, math, or necessary calculations. None of them could communicate well enough to present your crazy ideas any more cogently than you. And interestingly enough, none of them stuck around for more than a handful of responses, either.

But would you rather next time I say that's one of the stupidest things you've ever said? Because it is.

Plural? You mean you've changed your mind, and suddenly I'm not the only one who supports a solid surface model eh? I suppose I should consider that progress.

Progress? Not one single professional, legitimate scientist on Earth agrees with your insane assertion that the Sun has a solid surface. If you want to call that progress, you know, four years of banging your head on a wall blathering ridiculous, wholly unsupportable nonsense on various Internet forums, and in all that time not being able to acquire a single supporter from the entire world's population of physicists, you go, boy.

You really are incapable of responding to me without the crutch of ad homs. You really are incapable of honest dialog.

You still don't understand what an ad hominem is. Try again. If I say you're wrong because you're an ignorant liar, that's an ad hominem. I'm saying you're wrong, too.

I'm sometimes stunned at how little you really comprehend about solar physics and science in general. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? Sunspots are *CAUSED BY* discharge activity? What discharge activity? Sheesh.

Wow. You're still whining about that "flying stuff" you've never been able to explain? Just exactly why does each pixel in the running difference graph have the color that it has, Michael? Just exactly how is it you can see something through over 4000 kilometers of opaque plasma by looking at a graphic representation of a series of mathematical calculations created from source data that was obtained several thousand kilometers above that opaque plasma? Why is it you've never been able to support your harebrained notion about running difference graphs, Michael? Never in all these years. You've never shown that you understand the construction of running difference images, how they're made and what they actually show. In fact, you continue to demonstrate that your notions about them are very, very wrong. If you ever do get it, only then will you understand just how ridiculous it is for you to keep throwing tantrums about "flying stuff".

And now, how about you bring in the citations that show that "it takes a lot of 171Å activity to generate a sunspot", or have the honesty to acknowledge that that wasn't what you really meant.

Oh, and once more, why on Earth do you continue to get all pissed off at me for simply asking straight forward questions and calling a spade a spade, when you could, if your crazy conjecture was supportable in any way, be actually offering up legitimate, scientific explanations to support all those nutty things you claim?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, that basically destroys the Z-pinch heating model at the top of the loops. Thank brantc, you just cut another leg under the electric sun model!

The loops are hot *all over* due to the discharge inside the loop. Whatever "heating" takes place, takes place along the surface where the loop meet up with the surface. The "base" of these loops are located along the surface.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I do. The animation looks pretty.
But a conceptual animation is not a citation. A citation is to a book or paper.

The caption is

So sunspots are created by magnetic loops just as they say.

You'll notice in the animation that as the loop passes the photosphere it creates the sunspot in the photosphere, in fact two of them where the loops comes up through and back again. That's not actually how it works. The loops generate heat that ultimate lead to sunspot activity, but a the loops pass through the photosphere they actually tend to 'light it up' around the loop or sheet.

The question is do all of these loops fill with plasma that is hot enough to show up in the 171A & 195A pass bands as you say?

Whatever the heating mechanism might be, it occurs low in the loop, and the loops are hot over the entire length of the loop. This is not unlike any normal electrical discharge.

IMO: You are right. I cannot think of a mechanism that would stop the loops filling with plasma. But there are a lot brighter and knowledgeable people out there who may have the actual answer!

The are not any more knowledgeable than you. They can't answer these questions either. Those that can or might are prevented from discussing the actual "cause", because 'electricity' is the forbidden heresy that may not be discussed.

 

[Ziggurat]

Those that can or might are prevented from discussing the actual "cause", because 'electricity' is the forbidden heresy that may not be discussed.

And what, they'll be burned at the stake for doing so? Uh, no. Science is not a giant conspiracy theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And what, they'll be burned at the stake for doing so?

No, they most likely get the "GeeMack treatment" were they are verbally abused and ostracized.

Uh, no. Science is not a giant conspiracy theory.

Well, in most branches of science there is no conspiracy. In astronomy however, EU theory is the "heresy" that will not be tolerated. Go look at the rule system posted over at BAUT. Plasma is an *EXCELLENT* conductor, but any and all electrically oriented theories are treated as "Against The Mainstream" and the rules applied to electrically oriented theories are absurd.

Instead of sticking with a logical and consistent terminology to describe electrical activity in plasma, you guy invented your own pseudoscientific lingo to describe electrical activity in plasma. Instead of calling that process "particle reconnection" to keep in consistent with QM and particle physics theory, or "circuit reconnection" to keep in consistent with MHD theory as Alfven described it, you folk literally invented a whole new term that is intentionally confusing. Magnetic lines form as a full continuum, without beginning and without end. They are incapable of "reconnecting" to another "magnetic lines". Circuits disconnect and reconnect all the time in nature. You folks go *WAY* out of your way to avoid using the term "current flow" and to oversimplify an *electro*magnetic process to call it a "magnetic" process.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here's my understanding of this "debate". MM thinks (?) the sun has a solid iron surface, and that we can image it. The problem is, iron melts at 1800K and boils at 3000K, and the sun emits blackbody radiation with a temperature of nearly 6000K. Same problem for any other substance I know of.

So, how is this possible? Well it's obviously not, but let's be generous and examine the possibilities. Here's a list of facts:

1. 
   The sun's light is coming from some surface in thermal equilibrium at ~6000K.

1. 
   
   Well, light comes from all the plasma in and around the sun, not simply a single surface.
   
   

   That surface is nearly opaque to all frequencies of radiation (if it wasn't, it wouldn't emit as a near perfect black body).

   
   Again, there is no evidence that any single surface emits all these wavelengths of light. It emits a combination of wavelengths from many plasmas at many different temperatures, from a few thousand degrees, up to millions of degrees. It's not a "perfect" black body.
   
   It seems to me that the basic disconnect is that your side insists we calculate all energy based on a "black body" perspective which is itself a gross oversimplification of what is actually going on in term of energy releases from the sun. We observe million degree plasmas in the solar atmosphere that should not be there in a pure "black body" spectrum.