Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
That line sounds remarkably like that line from the Wizard of Oz: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. :)

You folks have an emotional and mathematical NEED for that surface to be "opaque" when clearly it's not "opaque" to even white light to the bottom of the penumbral filaments which themselves cannot possibly be "500 KM". Your downfall is that opacity claim because it fails every observational "test" we put it to.
Click to expand...
Thi post sounds like a deluded person thinking that they are the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz.:)

You have an emothonal and delusional NEED for the photosphere to be "transparent" when clearly it is defined not to be.

The images you are obsessed with do not show any movement of of filaments into or out of the sunspot. We see filaments move across the sunspot and wiggle about. There is not depth information in the images that can be derived just by looking at them. This is your "I see bunnies" delusion as in your "mountain ranges" in running difference images.

However I have no problem with the penumbral filaments originating in the sides of the sunspot depression and then climbing out of sunspot.
If we assume that the filaments do this then these filaments can be a maximum of 1500 km deep into the photosphere: a maximum of 1000 km for the sunspot depression plus a maximum of 500 km when viewed in a specific wavelength and much less in other wavelength.

If I were to be as deluded as you and thought that I could see a depth in the movies then I would guess that the filiaments originated about 200 km below the sunspot (~100 km for the optical depth of the photosphere and then another ~100 km to the highest point in the sunspot).

Your downfall is that the physics behind opacity is so simple that you cannot understand it. It also matches every observational test we put it to, e.g. limb darkening.
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, not only does the surface of the photosphere show the impact of the discharge loops in the CA-H Hinode images, it also shows up in the Gband images as well. Sweet!

http://solar-b.nao.ac.jp/QLmovies/movie_sirius/2006/12/13/FG_CAM20061213000021_235843.mpg
http://solar-b.nao.ac.jp/QLmovies/movie_sirius/2006/12/13/FG_GBM20061213000018_235840.mpg
Click to expand...
FYI, Michael Mozina, that fact that coronal loops emerging into the photosphere have an impact on the photosphere is only unknown to you.
 
Last edited:
Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked

This iron crust within the Sun idea of Micheal Mozina is very easy to disprove (big surprise :eye-poppi!): It is thermodynamically impossible since it must be at a temperature of at least 9400 K (as measured within the photosphere) and so be a plasma. This has been pointed out to MM many times over the years. Here are some of the explanations given to him that he continues to not be able to understand:
This alone makes his idea into a complete fantasy and his continued belief with it a delusion and so we could stop there but... The continuous issuing of unsupported assertions, displays of ignorance of physics and fantasies about what he imagines in images are illustrated in this list of unanswered questions. The first question was asked on 6th July 2009.

  1. What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected?
  2. 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.
  3. Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
  4. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
  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).
  6. Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
  7. Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question?
  8. More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth
  9. Formation of the iron surface
  10. How much is "mostly neon" MM?
  11. Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?
  12. Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina
  13. Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina.
  14. Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested?
  15. Is Saturn the Sun?
  16. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
  17. What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model?
  18. What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K?
  19. Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles?
  20. Entire photon "spectrum" is composed of all the emissions from all the layers
  21. Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves?
  22. Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere?
  23. Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer?
  24. What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers?
  25. What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer?
  26. Explain the shape of your electrical arcs (coronal loops)
  27. What is your physical evidence for the silicon in sunspots?
  28. How do MM's "layers" survive the convection currents in the Sun?
  29. Where are the controllable empirical experiments showing the Iron Sun mass separation?
  30. How can your iron "crust" not be a plasma at a temperature of at least 9400 K?
  31. How can your "mountain ranges" be at a temperature of at least 160,000 K?
  32. Where is the spike of Fe composition in the remnants of novae and supernovae?
  33. Which images did you use as your input for the PM-A.gif image, etc.?
  34. Where did your "mountain ranges" go in Active Region 9143 when it got to the limb?
  35. Do RD movies of inactive regions show "mountain ranges"?
  36. Just how high are your "mountain ranges"?
  37. How does your iron crust exist when there are convection currents moving through it?
  38. Why does the apparent height of your "mountain ranges" depend on the timing of source images for the RD process when the light sources and mountains in the images are the same?
  39. Why does the lighting of your "mountain ranges" move depending on the RD process?
  40. Why are the coronal loops in the RD images aligned along your "mountain ranges" rather than between them as expect fro electrical discharges?
  41. Why are the sunspot umbra not "mostly" iron plasma (Fe was also detected by SERTS as was C and a dozen more elements)?
  42. Can you show how you calculated that "3000-3750 KM" figure for the photosphere depth?
  43. How did you determine that the filaments "abruptly end right there"?
  44. Citation for the LMSAL claim that coronal loops all originate *ABOVE* the photosphere?
  45. Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind
  46. How did you measure the curvature of penumbral filaments in the Hinode images?
  47. How does your Iron Sun fantasy create the observed magnetic field of the Sun?
  48. Calculation for the depth of the SOT_ca_061213flare_cl_lg.mpg filament?
 
Can you understand that the photosphere is defined to be opaque

First asked 22 April 2010
Micheal Mozina
The definition of the photosphere has been pointed out to you many times and you almost got:
Michael Mozina said:
I don't debate that that is the definition. I simply do not believe anything other than the solid surface is "opaque" to every wavelength under the sun.

What shall we call that bright shiny surface in gband then for the purposes of communication since I will not and do not agree that it is "opaque"?
Click to expand...
The defintion of the photosphere is
The photosphere of an astronomical object is the region from which externally received light originates. The term itself is derived from Ancient Greek roots, φῶς, φωτός/phos, photos meaning "light" and σφαῖρα/sphaira meaning "ball," in reference to the fact that it is a ball-shaped surface perceived to emit light. It extends into a star's surface until the gas becomes opaque, equivalent to an optical depth of approximately 2/3[1]. In other words, a photosphere is the deepest region of a luminous object, usually a star, that is transparent to photons of certain wavelengths.
Click to expand...
Thus "that bright shiny surface in gband" is the photosphere (the surface where the gband light escapes the Sun).

Since you like pretty pictures: Animated explanation of the Photosphere (University of Glamorgan) - actually more about sunspots.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No apparently that's your own strawman so you can kick it around today and pretend it's me. Yawn.

I'm stuck using your piss poor terms, like it or not. Shall we switch over to my terms and just call it the "neon layer" then?
Click to expand...

MM, so if plasma has some opacity, then there will be some point at which that plasma (in the sun) is going to be unable to radiate ouwards to space, because it will be absorbed by the layer in that direction and re-emitted.

So if we say that the area where the plasma can radiate to is a transition zone, then we have the layer just right below that level, that is called the photosphere.

Now , do you believe that there is a layer where the plasma is opaque to the radiation (in that outwards radiation is absorbed), how deep would that be?
 
phunk said:
No! Read and pay attention. There is nothing cool flowing into the umbra to create a sunspot. It isn't cool material coming up from below, it is stagnant material radiating its heat away into space without some of the heat being replaced from below.
Click to expand...

So there is the answer MM, you have an area that is radiating more heat than it receives. But it is not under a layer of higher temperature, as is your 'solid' surace.

So it can have a heat budget that radiates more than it receives, possibly.
 
Michael Mozina said:
But that very same logic doesn't work for me and a Birkeland solar model because?
Click to expand...

Because your iron surface is below a layer of higher energy (temperature) and so unlike the sun spot which is on the surface it can not loose heat through radiation to space.

That is if we think that there is an opacity to the plasma that is around 450 km.
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, the shell isn't solid iron IMO, it's a standard volcanic 'crust' like the Earth, or like Mercury in terms of overall composition. It's probably more metallic than either the Earth or Mercury, but it's not likely to be made of solid iron IMO and it has "plasma pressure" inside the shell. :) Just an FYI....
Click to expand...

That doesn't help MM, if you have a solidy type crust, it is going to be still very thin compared to the volume of the sun, probably thinner than an eggshell in comparison. THe lower density will make it somewhat thinker, but you now have a crubly ston like surface, which is worse in terms of strength.

Much less what provides the energy to keep the plasma inside the sphere in a plasma state.
 
Ziggurat said:
How much plasma pressure, Michael? Ballpark it for me, Michael, and I'll see how much difference it makes to the calculations. Then we can also talk about the temperature and density needed to create that pressure, and see if that's consistent with your model.
Click to expand...

"Squawk, Polly wants a cracker"

:D
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ya, sorry about that too. You of all people really didn't deserve it. :) A long busy day at work and semantic filled nonsense on the boards can get me grouchy sometimes. Sorry. :)



I can't believe that it took me all these years, and all these debates to figure it out, but I finally understand the Achilles heel of mainstream solar theory.
http://solar-b.nao.ac.jp/news/070321Flare/SOT_ca_061213flare_cl_lg.mpg

That little plasma filament threading it's way deep down into the umbra is the poison arrow that destroys your opacity claim, your solar theories, and turns your opacity math bunnies into dust bunnies in the annals of human history.

I'm taking a deep breath, grabbing a cup of coffee and then I'll be back..... :)
Click to expand...


So how do you know, or can you verify , that what you is a plasma filiment threading 'deep', is at what depth?

Is that 'depth', how deep, if it is at 450 km, it does nothing for the opacity issue.

(It is a quantity that is measured in a lab as well.) :)
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Not necessarily. It depends on a lot of factors including the energy source(s) and whether it's an internal or external energy source.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379
Click to expand...

Reality Check said:
That is a really silly presentation at a conference.
Click to expand...

That's what Michael would like everyone to think. However, as I noted earlier when I posted about these "papers" that he loves referring to, it's actually rather worse than that. That presentation was never presented or published at all. It was submitted to the Hirschegg 2006 workshop, but was not selected for presentation, and none of the authors even attended. As far as I can tell, the only place this "paper" exists is on Arxiv. So it seems Michael is being rather dishonest when he links to it in support of his claims, since it is no more a published scientific paper than his posts here.
 
No little plasma (penumbral) filament

Tim Thompson said:
There is no little plasma filament threading its way into the umbra in the movie you present. You can't even even figure out a picture.
Click to expand...
On looking at the movie a second time, I have agree with Tim Thompson - that is not a penumbral filament.
It is a filament of plasma but
  • It looks nothing like the penumbral filaments.
  • Changes in it are correlated with changes in the ribbon flare.
    • You can see the ribbon flare becoming active and the filament getting brighter.
    • You can see bright areas developing in the flare and the filament at the same time.
    • You can see the filament vanishing as the flare vanishes.
  • The killer point is that throughout the flare the penumbral filaments remain fairly static.
This makes it clear that the plasma filament you are refering to is part of the flare that is happening in the chromosphere, 1000's of kilometers above the photosphere.

Massive Flare on 13 December 2006
SOT images in Ca II H spectral line shows separating flare ribbon in the chromosphere. Fine structure of flare loops are also noticed. The field of view is 216" by 108" corresponding to 1.6×10^5km by 7.9×10^4km on the Sun.
Click to expand...
 
Tim Thompson said:
If you want to continue the discussion in that thread, by all means do so. But your continued insisting that "magnetic reconnection" is really "circuit reconnection" is just plain stupid. I was even able to demonstrate the reality of magnetic reconnection in laboratory plasma experiments (e.g., Comments on Magnetic Reconnection III; Magnetic Reconnection Redux X), but you still reject it.

Magnetic reconnection is a physically real process directly observed in laboratory plasma experiments. Circuit reconnection is stupid and indefensible.
Click to expand...

It sure is a real lab process.
It starts with a plasma flux tube carrying a current. The 2 parts of the flux tube "touch" causing the current to flow in a different direction momentarily (Across the tubes).
Then the tubes reform along the parallel fields lines.
Flux tubes have a structure that is a field aligned current surrounded by a helical sheath(Curl >0) according CLUSTER and THEMIS observation.. i.e They carry a current.

So they carry current first. When the "reconnection" happens this current stops/switches direction and then reforms the flux tubes along field lines.

This is what happens in the lab and at the magnetosphere with FTEs.

Call it what you want but an electric current flowing through the flux tubes is driving the whole process. The reconnection happens because there is an instability in the flux tube; large current flow. This changes the (magnetic)forces between them allowing the reconnection to happen.

I just use the term reconnection so that you guys dont pop a biscuit every time theres a discussion. Other wise we would never get past the terminology to the actually workings of the process..
 
Gee, not to be paranoid or anything, but all my Hinode links just went dead. Hmmm. Is someone getting nervous, or are you guys just sucking the Japanese bandwidth to the point that someone got worried and locked down the links? :)
 
brantc said:
My model is different than Michael's.

Dont confuse the 2.

This is his thread now.
Click to expand...

Great! We have two geniuses with alternative theories of solar physics, both of which are fundamentally contrary to the views of thousands of far better qualified specialists! Hmm, I dunno -- which one will I believe? which one will I believe? -- quite a dilemma!
 
Perpetual Student said:
Great! We have two geniuses with alternative theories of solar physics, both of which are fundamentally contrary to the views of thousands of far better qualified specialists! Hmm, I dunno -- which one will I believe? which one will I believe? -- quite a dilemma!
Click to expand...

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg

I suggest you start by believing your own eyes. There's simply no way that the length of the penumbral filaments supports their "opacity" claims, and that's only the start. That Hinode images (suddenly "forbidden") definitely shows a thread winding it's way down the umbra. There's absolutely no visual support whatsoever that the photosphere is 'opaque" at 500KM. In fact there is plenty of visual evidence to blow that concept out of the water, starting the the Gband images.

Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math. :)
 
Can you take a screenshot of that video, highlight one of the filiments, and tell us how long you think it is, and how deep it goes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom