Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://solarb.msfc.nasa.gov/movies/sakao.mpg

Speaking of momentum, the still Hinode overlay image doesn't show the mass movement along the coronal loops. This movie however gives you a better idea of the mass movements that occur in these "centralized" oval discharge processes. Watch the left side of the image and the mass movements related to the coronal loop activity.

That movement of mass up and through the photosphere is typically what's driving the sunspot shape and size. It's coming UP THROUGH the photosphere and pushes the neon layer out of the way.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Not actually. It simply has to have "momentum".
Click to expand...

How much, Michael? And how high can that momentum propel your silicon plasma? Numbers, Michael. It's an easy calculation to ballpark. All you need is the thickness of the silicon plasma layer and the temperature difference, and you can get an estimate of how much momentum that will give you. Is it enough? Run the numbers, Michael. Or if you can't, give me those parameters and I'll run them for you.
 
http://solar-b.nao.ac.jp/QLmovies/movie_sirius/2010/03/14/FG_CAM20100314150429_174906.mpg

Just to remove all doubt, here's a recent Hinode image of a sunspot. Watch the upper right side of the sunspot's penumbral filaments. You'll notice 3 different discharges right through the filaments in upper side, and another major discharge the lights up the lower surface of the photosphere.

These images clearly demonstrate the effect of the loops coming up and through the photosphere.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The filaments extend to a depth of anywhere from 2000 (typically 3000) to 3750 KM and then abruptly end right there. There's no dimming or brightening going on along the filament as it descends into the umbra and no blurriness either. There is no magic point where the filaments all blur to nothing, in fact some of them extend a long way (twice as far?) into the umbra compared to others. There's no indication of "hot and cold running convection zones" where the bright regions extend *ALL THE WAY DOWN THE HOLE*. Instead the filaments all terminate at a specific point, no blurriness, no dimming, no single location where they all go dark. We can clearly see the ends of the filaments wiggling around at the bottom where they meet up with not BRIGHTER plasma, but simply "dark plasma".
Click to expand...

Michael, you seem like a decent guy. I feel for you, honest. But I can't for the life of me understand how you can still claim to see 3750 km into the solar atmosphere after what's been posted in this (and other) threads. You won't listen to GeeMack or others who have appropriate expertise. I have no expertise, but I tried to say it plainly and non-confrontationally, like this:

Plain fact: we can't capture light from below ~450km of the sun's atmosphere with any imaging technology we currently possess, period. You cannot claim to see below that in any of the images you present.
Click to expand...
Why do you not acknowledge the truth of this? Or, alternatively, show that is factually wrong - that there is imaging technology that has the capacity to capture light from ~3000km into the solar atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
Michael, you seem like a decent guy. I feel for you, honest. But I can't for the life of me understand how you can still claim to see 3750 km into the solar atmosphere after what's been posted in this (and other) threads. You won't listen to GeeMack or others who have appropriate expertise. I have no expertise, but I tried to say it plainly and non-confrontationally, like this:

Why do you not acknowledge the truth of this? Or, alternatively, show that is factually wrong - that there is imaging technology that has the capacity to capture light from ~3000km into the solar atmosphere.
Click to expand...

The problem is that they are feeding you a "math bunny". It looks pretty. It sounds nice. It just doesn't jive with the satellite evidence. The first movie shows the correlation between the movement of the coronal loops and the penumbral filament outline in the sunspot above the discharge zone. The second image shows at least 4-5 such discharges through the penumbral filaments. There's no possible way that LMSAL's positioning of coronal loops *ABOVE* the photosphere can possibly be correct because the influence of the loops is clearly visible on the photosphere in virtually every wavelength under the sun.

http://solarb.msfc.nasa.gov/movies/xrt_pfi_gband_20061113.mpg
http://solar-b.nao.ac.jp/QLmovies/movie_sirius/2010/03/14/FG_CAM20100314150429_174906.mpg
 
Last edited:
How did you determine that the filaments "abruptly end right there"

Michael Mozina said:
The filaments extend to a depth of anywhere from 2000 (typically 3000) to 3750 KM and then abruptly end right there. ...
Click to expand...

We already have
But this requires yet another question:
First asked 19 April 2010
Michael Mozina,
How did you determine that the filaments "abruptly end right there" from the images?

P.S.
 
Citation for the LMSAL claim that coronal loops all originate *ABOVE* the photosphere

Michael Mozina said:
If however the loops all originate *ABOVE* the photosphere as LMSAL claims, there's no reason for the loops to follow the contours of the filaments. Are you all saying that this alignment of angles and loops with the penumbral filament angles is purely a coincidence?
Click to expand...
First asked 19 April 2010
Michael Mozina,
Please give your citation for the LMSAL claim that coronal loops all originate *ABOVE* the photosphere?

FYI:
No astronomer claims this. Coronal loops originate from below the photosphere. Their footprints are in the photosphere because the photosphere (by definition). So sometimes they refer to loops informally, e.g. especially in web pages, as coming from the photosphere.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://solarb.msfc.nasa.gov/movies/xrt_pfi_gband_20061113.mpg

FYI, I still haven't heard even one of you comment on the fact that when the coronal loops are overlaid on a sunspot image, the loops and penumbral filaments line up perfectly, angles and everything with flow of coronal loops...
Click to expand...
Firstly they do not line up "perfectly". There are points at which the penumbral filaments point at different angles from the coronal loops. But this is just my opinion from looking the movie. I may be as deluded as you :rolleyes:. But look 5 seconds into the movie - there is a distinct angle between penumbral filaments on the right hand side point and the loops.

Secondly I would expect that there would be a correlation between the structure of the penumbral filaments and coronal loops. They are in similar magnetic fields. There should be a trend to be oriented the same way.

Thirdly: Just like you this is an opinion only. My physics degree is well out of date and not in solar physics.
Your opinion though seems to be passed on a fairly total lack of physics knowledge, e.g. the physics that makes your iron crust thermodynamically impossible.
 
Last edited:
Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind

Michael Mozina said:
It's in that high speed solar wind that Birkeland "predicted" based on his experiments with charge separation between the sphere and box.
Click to expand...
Your assertions about Birkeland's predictions have also been covered in another thread:
But maybe you have answers now?
(there are electron beams emitted from solar flares but there are not the solar wind)
 
Michael Mozina said:
No because the silicon layer is cooler to start with. As it "heats up" from the activity near the surface, it expands. The temperature however was lower to start with, so it's still "cooler" than the layer above it just as parts of the photosphere plasma might reach say 7000K causing that plasma to expand, but it is still not "hotter than" the chromosphere.
Click to expand...

The question was why does it rise to the surface, not about the prominences. For something to rise to the surface of a boiling liquid or similar situation, for convection to occur, you have bouancy because of the heat content (and the associated density), so the question was what causes the upwelling of the silicon area into the neon layer.

If not convection then what?

It is cooler than the surrounding 'surface' of the sun. The question was not about the chromosphere.
 
Tim Thompson said:
I said it this way, "under these circumstances", so I could lead into a related topic, which I will present here. Mozina assumes that the sun below the photosphere must be cooler than the photosphere, partly out of unreasonable preconception, and partly by seriously misinterpreting the images & physics of sunspots. As I have already shown extensively elsewhere, scientists can derive the temperature profile with depth of the photosphere, primarily through observations of the bright solar limb projected against the dark background of empty space (Post 915 and links therein). This is enough by itself to refute Mozina's claims, but the high temperature of the subphotosphere is revealed in other ways as well.

Photospheric Bright Points
See Astronomy Picture of the Day for April 16 2010 and the associated research paper Magnetic bright points in the quiet sun; Sanchez Almeida, et al., 2010, accepted for publication in Astrophysical Journal Letters. In a field of view 68.5 x 68.5 arcseconds the authors count 2380 bright points concentrated in the dark lanes of relatively cool downwelling plasma between the bright upwelling granular cores. These intergranular bright points were discovered in 1974 (Mehltretter, 1974) and are thought to represent a significant fraction of the unresolved photospheric magnetic flux, where "unresolved" refers to magnetic structures of angular size below the spatial resolution capabilities of solar telescopes. The bright points are thought to represent the ends of spaghetti like magnetic structures that reach into the hotter subphotosphere. While the dark lane material around the points is downwelling, the material inside the magnetic filaments is upwelling, hot subphotosphere plasma, which explains why the bright points are bright.

We have known for quite a while that there are magnetic structures, supporting kilo-Gauss magnetic fields, that have not been spatially resolved (Beckers, 1977; Solanki, 1993). It has been assumed, because it makes perfectly good sense and is consistent with observations and plasma physics, that the bright points are magnetic structures, despite their being below the spatial resolution of photospheric magnetic field measurements (e.g., de Wijn, et al., 2008). Furthermore, recent higher spatial resolution photospheric magnetic field studies continue to correlate the bright points with still unresolved magnetic structures (e.g., Viticchie, et al., 2009). So the assumption that bright points represent magnetic structures that reach into the subphotosphere is not simply an arbitrary assumption, but rather an assumption based on a combination of increasingly high resolution observations of the solar photosphere and well known plasma physics.

So these bright points represent yet another line of evidence pointing to a subphotosphere that is hotter, not cooler, than the observed photosphere. This is also consistent with the independent derivation of the photospheric temperature profile based on solar limb observations.

Umbral Bright points
Bright points, much the same as those discussed above, are not relegated only to the dark lanes between photospheric granules. They also occur in the dark umbra and penumbra of sunspots (e.g., Prasad Choudhary & Shimizu, 2010). These bright points are also associated with small spatial scale magnetic fields and are also hotter than the surrounding material. There is no reason to believe that these bright points are any different than the bright points found in the quiet photosphere. These bright points are also windows into the deeper & hotter photosphere. Note that umbral bright points are consistently hotter with increasing distance from the center of the umbra, exactly what one would expect given the standard model of sunspots.

About the Photosphere
Let me briefly summarize the standard science of the solar photosphere. We derive a temperature profile with depth from limb observations and conclude that the temperature increases with depth, all the way to the limit of observability. This conclusion is supported by independent observations of bright points in the quiet solar photosphere, as well as the umbrae & penumbrae of sunspots. This conclusion is further supported by simple, ordinary physics; if you compress something, it heats up. The subphotosphere must be warmer than the photosphere because it has all the weight of the photosphere pressing down on it. Hence, even if the sun had no internal heat source, it would still be required by physics that the subphotosphere be hotter, not cooler. However, if we add the obvious internal heat source by nuclear fusion (or any other internal mechanism), then once again the outflow of energy from the deep interior requires that the subphotosphere be hotter, not cooler.
...
Click to expand...


Thanks!
 
Michael Mozina said:
The filaments extend to a depth of anywhere from 2000 (typically 3000) to 3750 KM and then abruptly end right there. There's no dimming or brightening going on along the filament as it descends into the umbra and no blurriness either. There is no magic point where the filaments all blur to nothing, in fact some of them extend a long way (twice as far?) into the umbra compared to others. There's no indication of "hot and cold running convection zones" where the bright regions extend *ALL THE WAY DOWN THE HOLE*. Instead the filaments all terminate at a specific point, no blurriness, no dimming, no single location where they all go dark. We can clearly see the ends of the filaments wiggling around at the bottom where they meet up with not BRIGHTER plasma, but simply "dark plasma".
Click to expand...

A sunspot is a hole 2000-3750 km deep?

Is that what you mean to say?
 
Michael Mozina said:
It is being heated by the discharge process in the lower atmosphere and typically by volcanic activity from the surface. That extra heat is transferred to the silicon plasma and causes it to become less dense and rise up into the upper atmosphere. If there is enough heat (typically volcanic activity is required) then the plasma becomes hotter (than the ambient temp of say 3-4 thousand Kelvin, and thins out and rises up quickly in the atmosphere. The density gradient between the hot silicon and neon isn't great enough to stop the upwelling of the hot silicon plasma.
Click to expand...
Then one would not be darker and the other brighter, if they are the same approximate temperature.

So why is one brighter and one darker again?
Once it reaches the lighter helium chromosphere however, it has no where to go but to "fan out" which is why we see angular indentations in the sunspot, where the silicon plasma has displaced the neon.
Click to expand...

That makes even less sense , i am really confused by your explanation.

Why does it rise through the higher temperature hydrogen photosphere?
Along the sides of the sunspot however, the plasma eventually cools off and slides back down along the filaments. That second video is extremely interesting, particularly along the sides of the umbra. Lots of action going on there.

Eventually the surface volcanic activity ends, the discharge process "settles down" and the heat is more evenly distributed around the atmosphere and the neon layer closes up again.

The point here is that the mainstream's position doesn't even jive with *ONE* sunspot image, and I haven't even gotten out the "good stuff" where Hinode images show the same exact pattern of "layering" in various wavelengths.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
The problem is that they are feeding you a "math bunny". It looks pretty. It sounds nice. It just doesn't jive with the satellite evidence. The first movie shows the correlation between the movement of the coronal loops and the penumbral filament outline in the sunspot above the discharge zone. The second image shows at least 4-5 such discharges through the penumbral filaments. There's no possible way that LMSAL's positioning of coronal loops *ABOVE* the photosphere can possibly be correct because the influence of the loops is clearly visible on the photosphere in virtually every wavelength under the sun.

http://solarb.msfc.nasa.gov/movies/xrt_pfi_gband_20061113.mpg
http://solar-b.nao.ac.jp/QLmovies/movie_sirius/2010/03/14/FG_CAM20100314150429_174906.mpg
Click to expand...

So if they measure the optical density of plasma in a lab and it supports the idea that a 450 km layer of plasma would be opaque to the wavelengths in the images, what would that mean MM?
 
Michael Mozina said:
The filaments extend to a depth of anywhere from 2000 (typically 3000) to 3750 KM and then abruptly end right there. There's no dimming or brightening going on along the filament as it descends into the umbra and no blurriness either. There is no magic point where the filaments all blur to nothing, in fact some of them extend a long way (twice as far?) into the umbra compared to others. There's no indication of "hot and cold running convection zones" where the bright regions extend *ALL THE WAY DOWN THE HOLE*. Instead the filaments all terminate at a specific point, no blurriness, no dimming, no single location where they all go dark. We can clearly see the ends of the filaments wiggling around at the bottom where they meet up with not BRIGHTER plasma, but simply "dark plasma".
Click to expand...


Your qualifications to make such an assessment have been challenged and you refused to demonstrate that you are qualified. You're making this up, from scratch. It's fiction, an invention created by your misconception and misunderstanding.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It is being heated by the discharge process in the lower atmosphere and typically by volcanic activity from the surface. That extra heat is transferred to the silicon plasma and causes it to become less dense and rise up into the upper atmosphere. If there is enough heat (typically volcanic activity is required) then the plasma becomes hotter (than the ambient temp of say 3-4 thousand Kelvin, and thins out and rises up quickly in the atmosphere. The density gradient between the hot silicon and neon isn't great enough to stop the upwelling of the hot silicon plasma. Once it reaches the lighter helium chromosphere however, it has no where to go but to "fan out" which is why we see angular indentations in the sunspot, where the silicon plasma has displaced the neon. Along the sides of the sunspot however, the plasma eventually cools off and slides back down along the filaments. That second video is extremely interesting, particularly along the sides of the umbra. Lots of action going on there.

Eventually the surface volcanic activity ends, the discharge process "settles down" and the heat is more evenly distributed around the atmosphere and the neon layer closes up again.
Click to expand...


And the paper(s) you offer as reference to those claims about volcanoes? You have stated that your own standard of evidence is, well, let's let you speak for yourself...

Michael Mozina said:
Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that [crackpot idea] out of your ^ss.
Click to expand...

Also, your assessment, your unqualified opinion of any imagery or videos is not evidence of anything except your overactive imagination. It doesn't support your claim. Your argument has failed.

The point here is that the mainstream's position doesn't even jive with *ONE* sunspot image, and I haven't even gotten out the "good stuff" where Hinode images show the same exact pattern of "layering" in various wavelengths.
Click to expand...


Michael, you have been asked to demonstrate that you are qualified to understand and properly analyze solar images. You refused to do it. It has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you do not understand what you're claiming to see in these images. Nothing you say in the way of your opinion is acceptable as evidence to support your claim.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://solarb.msfc.nasa.gov/movies/xrt_pfi_gband_20061113.mpg

FYI, I still haven't heard even one of you comment on the fact that when the coronal loops are overlaid on a sunspot image, the loops and penumbral filaments line up perfectly, angles and everything with flow of coronal loops. If the loops are located under the photosphere, that makes perfect sense, and we have an excellent physical alignment between the loops and the filaments, most likely related to which "path" provided the least resistance and the effect that has on the photosphere. If however the loops all originate *ABOVE* the photosphere as LMSAL claims, there's no reason for the loops to follow the contours of the filaments. Are you all saying that this alignment of angles and loops with the penumbral filament angles is purely a coincidence?
Click to expand...


Pretty much all of us have commented on your assessment of the images. You have been shown to be wholly unqualified to make a valid assessment. You're fantasizing a three dimensional situation by looking at a two dimensional image. You have been asked to provide the method that you apply to viewing those images that others can apply, objectively and quantitatively, to reach the same conclusion you've reached. There is no such method. You're guessing, and your guess is wrong.

You cannot see through the photosphere. Anything you claim to be going on below the photosphere has been shown to be unsupported drivel, a piece of fiction developed by you, from scratch, to support your crackpot notion of a solid surfaced Sun.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The only thing that is "dishonest" is the fact that you run like hell from every detail of that RD image as it relates to solar physics. The other side of your "dishonesty" is having claimed to have "explained every pixel" of the LMSAL RD movie when in fact you haven't "explained" anything except the light source, something I personally had to tell you over five years ago. Let's hear your "explanation" in terms of solar processes and see how your relate those solar processes to the "flying stuff" and the "persistent patterns" in the image.
Click to expand...


Five years ago I knew that the "light source" for a running difference image was the glowing phosphorous inside your computer monitor. Other than the fact that most of us probably have flat screen LED monitors these says, the source is essentially the same. In the creation of a running difference graph a computer program makes the lighter pixels lighter as a result of a mathematical calculation applied to corresponding pixels in a pair of source images. It has been instructed to do that. This is actually quite simple stuff, conceptually anyway, for those who understand graphics and computer programming. :p

The "flying stuff" is where the position of "flying stuff" changed a lot between the source images. This has been explained to you many times. I've explained it. Reality Check explained it. Several people here and on a few other forums have explained it. For you to suggest that it hasn't been explained is a lie.

And the "persistent patterns" are where the position of moving plasma, more flying stuff by the way, changed more slowly between the source images. Again that would be moving plasma, or more appropriately moving thermal characteristics. It's all moving. It's all flying stuff, Michael. None of it is solid. Your continued interjection of that issue into the discussion is a dishonest attempt to distract from the real issue, which at this point seems to be your total inability to quantify anything at all about your crackpot conjecture.

In terms of solar processes and solar physics, at a little over 400 kilometers into the photosphere, because of the increased density of the plasma with depth, it becomes impossible to see anything you claim to see below that point. Anyone who believes they are seeing anything "solid" in a running difference image, or any solar videos or imagery for that matter, is mistaken for one or more of several possible reasons, not the least likely of which include that they may be delusional, hallucinating, lying, too stupid to understand, uneducated, or otherwise uninformed. I'm sure you agree that it's impossible to see through a thousand miles of opaque material, without supernatural powers, scientifically speaking, in terms of solar physics. :rolleyes:

Tim Thompson said:
I think there can be no doubt at this point but that the Mozina argument concerning the nature of the solar photosphere is as completely refuted as an argument can be.
Click to expand...


No doubt.
 
Dancing David said:
So if they measure the optical density of plasma in a lab and it supports the idea that a 450 km layer of plasma would be opaque to the wavelengths in the images, what would that mean MM?
Click to expand...

It would mean that the umbra of that Hinode video cannot possibly be made of the material you claim. It would also mean very little unless you can demonstrate that iron and hydrogen stay "mixed" and your experiment applies to the issue in question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom