Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
W.D.Clinger said:
:)


So that's why Michael Mozina doesn't talk about the math.
Click to expand...

Argh! FYI, *I* am the one that cited the supercomputer simulation of a sunspot and explained how it ties in with the images and mass flow patterns. You folks ignored that math *ENTIRELY*. Now what? More math? What about the other math? What about all the images that show the mass flows coming *up and through* the photosphere at high velocity?

Since when did empirical physics exclude thermodynamics?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Thermodynamically you can't begin with the premise that the photosphere "Layer" is last atmospheric "layer" of the sun. Just as the chromosphere is hotter and less dense than the photosphere, the neon photosphere, is hotter than the silicon plasma. Just as the chromosphere's temperature is cooler at the bottom where it meets up with the photosphere, and hotter where it meets up with the corona, the photosphere is "hottest" at the top and cooler underneath (although not during sunspot activity). That cooler layer of silicon is what keeps the surface from melting and the movement of charged particle from the surface continuously moves heat away from the surface toward the heliosphere.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Sol on the other hand is actually interested in science, and I am very interested in the numbers he comes up with. I know they will be "accurate" and "fair".
Click to expand...


And when sol tells you that you can't see through 2100 to 3500 kilometers of opaque plasma you'll say, "Okay, thanks. I accept that, and now I understand that I'm not able to see a solid surface over a thousand miles through opaque plasma. I guess I was wrong."

Michael Mozina, destroying mainstream solar theory by looking at pictures since 2005.

Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Michael reveals once again that he doesn't have a clue about thermodynamics and black body radiation.
Click to expand...

No, once again Zig demonstrates that he hasn't been paying attention to my solar model or my statements and somehow still believes that I believe that the surface of the photosphere acts like a "black body".
 
Michael Mozina said:
Frankly, disproving your solar theories really wasn't what I expected to get into in this thread, but that seems to be a necessary next step due to your claim about "opacity". That bizarre claim simply doesn't jive with any of the the satellite imagery or even ground based photosphere images.
Click to expand...


But of course it has been demonstrated beyond anyone's doubt that you don't have the qualifications to properly analyze or understand solar imagery of any sort. So that makes your comment above a simple unsubstantiated opinion which has, in fact, been demonstrated to be false by real scientists doing real science in a variety of scientific disciplines.

Scientists who can actually do a little math, by the way. :p
 
GeeMack said:
And when sol tells you that you can't see through 2100 to 3500 kilometers of opaque plasma
Click to expand...

Sol isn't like you GM. He's intelligent and chooses his words carefully. Without knowing the intensity of the light source and the thickness of the neon layer, how would he know if I could "see through it"? I don't think anyone makes those kinds of bush league mistakes besides you.

you'll say, "Okay, thanks. I accept that, and now I understand that I'm not able to see a solid surface over a thousand miles through opaque plasma. I guess I was wrong."
Click to expand...

I will accept his opacity statements as true, (whereas I would never trust your math), I will do my best to "learn"" from them, and I will consider them very carefully as they relate to this solar model. I very much appreciate his efforts and I respect his scientific honesty and integrity. That's a whole lot more than I can say for you.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I will accept his opacity statements as true, (whereas I would never trust your math), I will do my best to "learn"" from them, and I will consider them very carefully as they relate to this solar model. I very much appreciate his efforts and I respect his scientific honesty and integrity. That's a whole lot more than I can say for you.
Click to expand...


But you will not accept it if he shows that you can't see your thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface over 3000 kilometers into the surface of the Sun, correct?
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, once again Zig demonstrates that he hasn't been paying attention to my solar model or my statements and somehow still believes that I believe that the surface of the photosphere acts like a "black body".
Click to expand...

Yup, I was right, you didn't understand it at all.

The connection between absorptivity and emissivity applies regardless of whether the object in question is itself a blackbody. The blackbody spectrum is a limiting case for everything. Both emissivity and absorptivity (which are equal) of a non-blackbody object are measured in relationship to a blackbody object. What this means is that you cannot absorb light unless you can also emit it. Your statement about composition affecting emission but not absorption (ie, opacity) is therefore complete nonsense. The details of your solar model are irrelevant to that. The only thing that matters is thermodynamics. You'd know that if you understood thermodynamics, but you clearly don't.
 
Michael Mozina said:
[...] high velocity [...] hotter [...] less dense [...] hotter [...] temperature is cooler [...] at the bottom [...] hotter [...] "hottest" [...] cooler [...] cooler [...] movement [...] continuously [...]
Click to expand...


This is an example of how quantitative Michael's argument gets.
 
A quick comment on opacity. The opacity will tell you how much of the light from behind an absorber makes it to the front of the absorber---in MM's example, if three layers of cloth together have 99% opacity, then a 100W light bulb behind the cloth will provide as much light as a 1W bulb in front of them. "Sure", says MM, "As long as the opacity is not exactly 100.0000%, I will be able to see it".

In the case of the Sun, though, MM claims to be able to see a badly-absorbed light source---Sol will shortly tell us how badly obscured it is---in the presence of an extremely bright light source (the rest of the photosphere, in fact) in front of it. This is a whole different claim.

Let's call the peak intensity of supposed "iron layer" A, and the rest of the photosphere B, and let's assume that the photosphere's opacity (at the depth of the iron) is 99.9%. A photo of this sun at a bright spot on the iron will show an intensity of B+0.001*A. Imagine that the iron layer also has a dark spot with intensity zero; a photo of this location will show intensity B. Notice that these intensities differ only very, very slightly---the dark spot doesn't look really "dark" compared to the bright spot. Rather, they're both at nearly the same intensity B and the bright spot is a tiny amount brighter.

Therefore the contrast of an actual image of MM's iron surface would be extremely small. It's not like asking "can I see the flashlight through three layers of socks". It's like asking "can I see a flashlight behind three layers of socks hidden in the stadium lights at Fenway Park" Fenway + a flashlight is bright. Fenway without a flashlight is almost exactly the same brightness.

And "0.1% transmission" is absurdly optimistic; I await Sol's calculation. B = A is optimistic. Keep in mind also that B can vary---a 1 degree change in photosphere temperature is a 0.1% change in brightness, which shows up as "dark spots" in an image. What's the actual, unstretched, no-photo-processing contrast in your iron sun images, MM?
 
tusenfem said:
I have gone through this and described everything that happens in the plasma device, I am not going to go through it again, because you will not understand anyway.
Click to expand...

Why do you continue to insult me??

Anyone can go and look at my posts and tusenfems/Tim posts and see that my description is consistent with experiment and observation, whereas Tim and tusenfems description is consistent with MHD and theory.

As far as I am concerned the type of science that you practice is called "scientism".
If you have issues with the description of the process in the paper I posted, address that. That would be considered science if you did that.

DONT INSULT ME ANYMORE!!!!!!!!

Plasmoids do not "happen" they are created by reconnection.
Click to expand...
You're going to argue about the usage of the word "happen"?

The reconnection takes place, and then the plasmoid is pinched off of the filament. The plasmoid happens after the reconnection even though it is caused by the reconnection.
Do I have to say that every time?

Part of a substorm (which is not just one thing it is a whole collection of procecces that successively take place in the magnetotail) is reconnection, basically the say second part in the substorm process (growth phase, current sheet thinning, reconnection with bursty bulk flow, generation of field aligned (now really) Birkeland currents and aurora generation, recovery phase, stretching of the magnetotail again)
Click to expand...

Its good that you understand all that happens in between so that I dont have to repeat the whole story. We have an agreed upon knowledge base so that when I say something, the processes that take place to get to that point dont have to be reiterated!!!

So as it stands you have not disagreed with the description in the paper.

So there it is folks.

Reconnection is driven by electric currents that makes flux tubes where the reconnection happens.
 
Michael Mozina said:
So does Neon or Hydrogen emit 171A?
Click to expand...

Yes (though how much depends on several factors). But it doesn't make any difference to what I said: opacity is still directly connected to emissivity, whatever your composition is. The statement of yours I quoted was nonsense. I didn't quote it because of what it says about your model, I quoted it because of what it says about your understanding of physics. And it shows quite clearly that your understanding is severely lacking. This question of yours doesn't address that misunderstanding, but is either a further demonstration that you don't understand the issues, or an attempt to derail this particular line of discussion because of what it reveals about you.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes (though how much depends on several factors). But it doesn't make any difference to what I said: opacity is still directly connected to emissivity, whatever your composition is.
Click to expand...

Just how many different wavelengths do you figure that neon and hydrogen combined can emit?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Just how many different wavelengths do you figure that neon and hydrogen combined can emit?
Click to expand...

In a plasma? Any and all wavelengths. The optical depth will be different at different wavelengths, but it won't be infinity for any of them. Why is this news to you? Why isn't it already obvious?
 
brantc said:
Anyone can go and look at my posts and tusenfems/Tim posts and see that my description is consistent with experiment and observation, whereas Tim and tusenfems description is consistent with MHD and theory.

As far as I am concerned the type of science that you practice is called "scientism".
If you have issues with the description of the process in the paper I posted, address that. That would be considered science if you did that.
Click to expand...

I have gone through the whole experiment and explained it all to you pages ago. You keep on coming with the "fact" that reconnection can only happen between flux tubes, because you only look at specific events. The lab experiment where from first principles there are two interacting flux tubes or the specific case of a FTE (flux transfer event) but you eagerly neglect to look at the normal solar wind with southward magnetic field being pressed against the magnetopause, the compression of the magnetotail, the interaction of Ganymede's field with the Jovian magnetic field etc. etc. etc. The case in which flux tube(s) reconnect (because at an FTE there is only 1 flux tube) are special cases.

I have no issues with the paper(s), I have issues with the way you are interperting them and describing what happens, and using your own special lingo that does not jive with physics.

brantc said:
You're going to argue about the usage of the word "happen"?

The reconnection takes place, and then the plasmoid is pinched off of the filament. The plasmoid happens after the reconnection even though it is caused by the reconnection.
Do I have to say that every time?
Click to expand...

Yes, "happen" is something that "takes place" not "something that is created." Had you said "a plasmoid is created" no problem, but the fact that you use "happen" shows that there is something wrong in the way you think about it.
Naturally, then we have not even started on "pinched off the filament" because that leaves much to be debated too.

brantc said:
Its good that you understand all that happens in between so that I dont have to repeat the whole story. We have an agreed upon knowledge base so that when I say something, the processes that take place to get to that point dont have to be reiterated!!!
Click to expand...

AFAIK you have never written down all the processes that make up a substorm.

brantc said:
So as it stands you have not disagreed with the description in the paper.

So there it is folks.

Reconnection is driven by electric currents that makes flux tubes where the reconnection happens.
Click to expand...

And naturally the boldes part is bogus. It may make sense in your mind, but totally misses what exactly is happening in reconnection. If one reads this, it gives the impression that you ahve a plasma, you drive a current through it and whammy reconnection happens, which naturally is absurd. The first requirement is that there is at least a field direction difference from which the fields get the possibility to reconnect.

Example, if I have the solar wind with "normal" northerly directed magnetic field, and it gets pressed to the magnetopause of the Earth, there will be currents (because of the pressure gradients in the field) but reconnection? NO WAY!
 
Ziggurat said:
In a plasma? Any and all wavelengths. The optical depth will be different at different wavelengths, but it won't be infinity for any of them. Why is this news to you? Why isn't it already obvious?
Click to expand...

How many valence shells are in each element, and how many wavelengths can each element emit?
 
When you answer that question, tell me which valence shell transition emits 171A in either element.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom