Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Dancing David]

So instead of pointing me to a l;ist of everything you've ever published, leaving me to wade through pages and pages that don't concernt he specific question I asked, can you point me to wher those specific questions get answered? Or at least the specific paper?

You're the one trying to support your theory; if you don't care enough to provide the evidence in an accessible manner, that's your choice.

Nope this is when someone will say the standard model can't explain the solar wind, that plasma balls are science and come up with a silly defintion of empirical science.

 

[Dancing David]

Actually it does show up in the spectral data. This whole model was built using SERTS spectroscopic data. At first I was highly perplexed by the various neon ions present in the data until I realized that some of these ions were being ionized in/by the coronal loops.

Gas model theory is based on the *ASSUMPTION* that every element in the sun is mixed and stays exactly at the same temperature at the surface of the photosphere.

In reality however plasmas separate, particularly around EM fields and heavier elements like iron tend to sink to the lower and cooler areas, whereas the upper atmosphere (where it's hottest) is primarily composed of hydrogen and helium. The hydrogen corona radiates at the hottest temperatures. The primarily helium chromosphere is also much hotter than the photosphere. They count up photons and "assume" an abundance figure that has no useful purpose since the elements don't stay mixed.

I actually had an epiphany moment when I finally realized that the photosphere was composed of a thin layer of neon, and then and only then did the SERTS data make any sense to me.

So what keeps the layers separated? What force acts counter to the obvious convection occuring in the photosphere Michael?

Simple question.

 

[Dancing David]

That true, but there are all kinds of elements flowing through every layer. There's no layer that is universally made of a single substance.



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

The driving force is "electricity". Birkeland created these same kinds of white light discharge loops in his atmosphere too. He also created 'jets' now seen in Hinode images and predicted high speed solar wind, the aurora, etc.

So where is the evidence for these current flowing in space? Where is the charge difference that powers this 'electric' sun?


It sure doesn't show up in the magnetic fields or anything.

 

[Dancing David]

FYI, because the solar atmosphere experiences a constant discharge process, and because the sun has a strong magnetic field, the atmospheric plasmas are constantly being separated, right down to the isotope. Because the sun's atmosphere is so dynamic and explosive however, elements and various ions flow through all the layers and everything moves and flows in a plasma atmosphere. There is however a strong tendency not only mass separate the layers, but even separation of ions within the layers. We use the EM field to separate ions here on Earth too by the way.

Funny thing that, where is this charge sepration occuring for the 'electricity'?

What methods are used to detect it?

And why is the solar wind mixed and neutral?

 

[Dancing David]

No wonder you're so ignorant.

No Michael, that is my meme from many an electric sun and PC thread, here is the deal, you just show us a picture and you say "It looks like a bunny, therefore a bunny exists."

This has been common to many a thread on PC and Scott's Electric Sun, with the best being BAC and the Cygnus loop, where he said that the braided structure was 'obviously' a product of electric Birkeland current. (Although currently there is a great bunny picture show going on about photons becoming electrons.)

So once again, instead of showing pictures I will ask you something more pertinent:

1. What evidence is there for the charge separation that drives your 'electric' sun?
2. Why does the solar wind show a mix of ions a neutral material ?

These are simple questions that lie at the heart of demonstrating your hypothesis to be true.

 

[Dancing David]

It doesn't "necessarily" have to be neon, but the photosphere and loops can't be the same material, and the material in the umbra cannot be the same material as the photosphere.

Nice assertion and lack of any sort of evidence. Nice speculation however.

That is a hypothesis and not a theory.

 

[Dancing David]

The whole sun produces wavelengths that fall into the visible spectrum. That layer provides most of it.



So based on your logic, if I look at the neon light in my office, and look at a spectral output of that light, I would have to determine that it was roughly six thousand degrees Kelvin, it's "opaque" and I could not make *ANY* assumption about it's composition?

Sheesh, you were demolished on this before and the blackbody spectrun MM, stay away from it.

Since when is the sun comparable to your flourescent tube?

 

[Dancing David]

FYI, this is your own self defense mechanism talking and it's not true. I have a very broad understanding of many branches of physics. You just feel the need to prop your position up by attacking my credibility. I understand of course, but it's simply a self defense mechanism on your part. If you have a "better" scientific explanation of that image, go for it. If not, no amount of belittling me as a person will make me go away or I would have gone away a long time ago.

No Michael, this where the rubber meets the road, physics is not just about great ideas, it is about the mathematical verification of models and matching data.

And it separtes the bunny picture shows from real physics.

1. Why si the solar wind composed of different types of ions?
2. Where are the charges that create the 'electric' sun?

(And please don't point to the heliopause again, the charge difference is not enough to light up the sun.)

 

[Cuddles]

He means except for the published papers of course. I'm sure he wasn't trying to mislead you or anything....

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1

So instead of pointing me to a l;ist of everything you've ever published, leaving me to wade through pages and pages that don't concernt he specific question I asked

I wouldn't worry, it shouldn't take too long to wade through all 5 of them. In fact, wading through them could be quite amusing. For example, you might notice that only 3 of them were actually published in journals. Of the other two, one is virtually identical to one of the published papers and appears in a crackpot conference - First (and only) Crisis in Cosmology Conference, 2006 - which attracted a grand total of 34 papers. Even better, the second was not published at all. Despite claiming to have appeared in the Hirschegg Workshop 06: Astrophysics and Nuclear Structure, a look at their website shows that it was actually submitted as an abstract, but was not selected to be presented at the workshop. None of the authors attended.

It appears that all of Michael's work was "published" between June 2005 and October 2006. There is also some surprising similarity in the figures of most of them, almost as if they are not presenting original research but instead just rearranging the same claims. Since then, as far as I can tell from the evidence he has presented, he has done nothing. The fact that many of those figures would be familiar to readers of Michael's threads here and elsewhere tends to support that.

Most amusingly of all, we were presented with this esteemed publishing history in counter to the claim that Michael cannot back up his claims with maths. It turns out that none of those "five" "papers" actually contain any maths. None. Whatsoever. The closest it gets is one paper that contains two things labelled as equations. One is an experimental result equivalent to saying x = 1, the other a statement that x*y = constant. I suppose you could call that maths if you wanted to be picky, but it could hardly be considered to address the actual point at hand.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's more specific than that. The corona is mostly transparent.

Ya, because it's mostly thin hydrogen plasma. All the layers get progressively more dense and cooler as we descend into the atmosphere.

The heating mechanism is not a "mystery", it's called "electricity" and "coronal loops". It's only a mystery to you guys because you *refuse* to consider the one logical method to explain it due to your extreme and irrational prejudice against anything and everything related to EU theory.

That means the photosphere can radiatively couple to deep space, and dissipate more heat through the corona than it absorbs even at lower temperature.

True, and every plasma layer can do that because of the discharge between the surface and the heliosphere, and because each layer is covered by lighter layers.

In contrast, the photosphere is mostly opaque.

That seems to be the magic SPF infinity claim you have never bothered to demonstrate. All the satellite images show all kinds of stuff below the photosphere in images of a sunspot. All the iron ion wavelengths penetrate the photosphere and even x-rays seem to be visible below the photosphere in that Hinode image you folks keep ignoring. That image will be the first one on my "RC list" of all the things you guys avoid like the plague.

Your whole argument seems to hinge on your false belief that the photosphere is "opaque" to every single wavelength of light, regardless of energy state, regardless of wavelength and regardless of the images that blow that theory away.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So what keeps the layers separated? What force acts counter to the obvious convection occuring in the photosphere Michael?

Simple question.

The simple answer is gravity and the EM field around the sun, the same field(s) we use to separate ions here on Earth. The EM field is the primary separation mechanism IMO, but the coronal rain activity is mostly related to the effects of gravity rather than the EM field so both gravity and the EM field play a roll.

 

[Skwinty]

I wouldn't worry, it shouldn't take too long to wade through all 5 of them. In fact, wading through them could be quite amusing."

My observations about Mozina's "papers".
Mozina notices ....
Mozina shows....
Mozina concludes.....
Mozina reports ....

Its as if the other authors distance themselves from Mozina.


And my all time favourite:

"While viewing images from SOHO’s EIT program, I finally stumbled across the raw (unprocessed EIT images) marked “DIT” images that are stored in SOHO’s daily archives. After downloading a number of these larger “DIT” (grey) files, including several "running difference" images, it became quite apparent that many of the finer details revealed in the raw EIT images are simply lost during the computer enhancement process that is used to create the more familiar EIT colorized images that are displayed on SOHO’s website. That evening in April of 2005, all my beliefs about the sun changed."

 

[Michael Mozina]

Notice how everyone avoided the images again in their responses? That unwillingness to deal with the details of the images is directly related to the weakness of your arguments and the strength of mine. All of you have some "busy work" for me, but not one of you wants to deal with that "Flying stuff" in the RD image. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?". Honestly, if you really expect to "convince me" of anything, you'll have to start dealing openly and honestly with the satellite imagery. It seems like only the "new folks" to the conversation have even attempted any sort of "explanation". The primary detractors of this theory *NEVER* attempt to explain the "details" of the images in question or how they relates to solar physical processes.

Instead, the self professed skeptical guru on RD images looks at the images and goes "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" You guys aren't going to convince me of anything by living in pure denial and avoiding the data that kills your theories.

 

[D'rok]

The heating mechanism is not a "mystery", it's called "electricity" and "coronal loops". It's only a mystery to you guys because you *refuse* to consider the one logical method to explain it due to your extreme and irrational prejudice against anything and everything related to EU theory.

Lurker's perspective:

This would explain coronal heating, except it is rejected as an explanation because it pretty much violates everything else that astronomers actually know about the sun, and a good bit about what physicists know about physics generally.

That's not even a deal-breaker. It just means that you have a rather large evidentiary burden to show that most of what astronomers think they actually know about the sun is actually false. The burden is even higher regarding the ways in which your ideas conflict with fundamental physics.

You are hopelessly failing to meet this evidentiary burden. You post the same two or three pictures over and over. You need to do much, much more than this. You need to take your hypothesis and develop a theory from which you can make quantitative predictions. You need to do this. You can't rely on retro-fitting ancient experiments from Birkeland or Alfven or whoever.

My advice: Leave this place. The time you spend here is preventing you from doing the science that you need to do if you care about your ideas. Come back when you have results.

 

[Michael Mozina]

My observations about Mozina's "papers".
Mozina notices ....

Yes, and that seems to be the primary difference between us and our positions. I "observe" the "Flying stuff" in the RD images. GM doesn't because evidently he's blind because it's damn obvious in the image. I asked Tim (another primary detractor) to download and look at that white light image, and instead of finding it, he comes back and says "What white light images?". Honestly, the lack of observational skills seems to the the biggest problem around here with the skeptics. Nobody "observes" any of the details of the images. Nobody comments on the details of the images. Nobody wants to look at the images because they don't jive with your preconceived ideas and your "looks like a math bunny" ad hoc claims about the opacity of the photosphere.

 

[Skwinty]

Notice how everyone avoided the images again in their responses?

Michael,
Look at the image of the sun on APOD today. How do you expect to see mountains and persistent rigid structures in this seething nuclear furnace??

 

[Michael Mozina]

So where is the evidence for these current flowing in space?

It's in that high speed solar wind that Birkeland "predicted" based on his experiments with charge separation between the sphere and box.

Where is the charge difference that powers this 'electric' sun?

Between the surface and the heliosphere.

It sure doesn't show up in the magnetic fields or anything.

You mean except for all those "magnetically reconnecting" ones that supposedly power the aurora, the same aurora that Birkeland also predicted with his "electric sun" theories?

 

[D'rok]

Michael,
Look at the image of the sun on APOD today. How do you expect to see mountains and persistent rigid structures in this seething nuclear furnace??

Check out this amazing picture. I don't really know it's provenance, but holy cow.

http://www.spaceweather.com/submiss...1770.jpg?PHPSESSID=ho7f808jc2b3mjtpdnoj0ko613

 

[phunk]

That seems to be the magic SPF infinity claim you have never bothered to demonstrate. All the satellite images show all kinds of stuff below the photosphere in images of a sunspot. All the iron ion wavelengths penetrate the photosphere and even x-rays seem to be visible below the photosphere in that Hinode image you folks keep ignoring. That image will be the first one on my "RC list" of all the things you guys avoid like the plague.

Your whole argument seems to hinge on your false belief that the photosphere is "opaque" to every single wavelength of light, regardless of energy state, regardless of wavelength and regardless of the images that blow that theory away.

How do you not understand this yet. The photosphere is DEFINED to end at the depth where it's completely opaque. You can argue about how deep that goes, but arguing that it's not opaque makes no sense.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael,
Look at the image of the sun on APOD today. How do you expect to see mountains and persistent rigid structures in this seething nuclear furnace??

I don't expect to see anything rigid on the surface of the photosphere Skwinty. It boils and moves like an ordinary plasma. The "solid surface" is located far below the convecting "plasma" surface of the photosphere. The analogy here that comes to mind is you asking me to look at a cloud layer and asking to find the "solid surface" in that layer. It's not found in that layer, so I would not expect to find it there.