Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

It sounds as though someone may be in absolute and pure denial concerning the meaning of the false colors in this image.

By the way, the image in question also contains clear and obvious thin vertical lines along its left hand edge, and darker horizontal lines along its bottom edge. I can't wait to hear Michael Mozina's explanation for those bunnies.

Look closely at the 6:00 position and you'll see the iron lines are very bright where they *come up and through* that presumably "opaque" photosphere. Sorry, but your opaque math bunny does not hold up to visual scrutiny in even the first round of SDO images. DOA math bunny......

 

[Michael Mozina]

Strictly on pure fantasy,in my opinion.

Observation is not a "fantasy". Somewhere along the line you folks simply forgot the value of observation and you no longer even care about observation. All that matters to you are your cute cuddly math bunnies, even if they don't even come *CLOSE* to explaining the observations. Got a "better" scientific explanation to explain why your opaque photosphere isn't even close to being opaque?

 

[Ziggurat]

You mean the fact I don't rely *STRICTLY* on math like you folks?

You don't rely on math at all, Michael. You have never, ever, in all these years, formed a quantitative prediction about any parameter of your model. It is entirely hand waving.

As I've said before, you being right would be the most pathetic option. It would mean that your inability to actually do any math whatsoever was keeping the truth from being accepted. What kind of person stumbles upon a revolutionary truth, and then can't convince anyone of it because they can't even do algebra?

 

[Dancing David]

We're waiting to look at the neon ion line intensity breakdowns from something like SERTS (any source actually) to see how much of the neon is ionized and to what degree. If the neon intensity lines peak at Ne+1, +2, or +3, I'd say I have a problem.

But is that the overall spectrum of the photosphere?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Provide us with the maths bunnies and prove your theory then. Why do you always leave the stuff that requires actual knowledge to others? Incompetence or laziness?

The latter. You folks are the ones hung up on the math. I'm mostly interested n the physics and the physical processes going on. You're the one that needs new math bunnies, not me. If you NEED them so badly, go for it. The old ones are dead now.

 

[Dancing David]

Dear Ben and Sol,

FYI Ben, I apologize again for my comments yesterday afternoon. I should have simply gone with my original comments in the morning and I probably would have done so if the SERTS data was handy. I suppose I got exactly what I deserved for letting my ego get the better of me.

You did however also "assume" something about this solar model that simply isn't true IMO as I attempted to demonstrate with the previous link. In this solar model, the neon layer is smack dab in the middle of a very powerful discharge process between the surface below and the heliosphere. The plasma is *highly* ionized, not neutral, not +1, not +2, or even +3 as the spectral intensity data related to Ne ions demonstrates. There is no possibility in this model of these ions being "ionized" by this wavelength due to their very high energy state and the 'current flow' running through it.

Sol,

For purposes of moving the opacity discussion forward, I propose the follow:

I accept Ben's (and your) previous statements as true related to ionization process, however in this model they simply do not apply.

For purposes of calculating an opacity number, I suggest we "assume" (which we can debate later) that all the Ne ions in the opaque neon layer range from +4 through +6. Furthermore we will assume (again we can debate it later) that anything above Ne +6 occurs strictly in the coronal loop discharges, and any emissions from Ne +3 or less occurs in the non opaque chromosphere as the the neon ions rise through the neon layer into the chromosphere, emit some photons and cool off, and then return to the electrified neon layer again. Is that acceptable to you?

Then why does it appear that layer is only 6,000 F, or which layer is this neon layer?

 

[Michael Mozina]

What kind of person stumbles upon a revolutionary truth, and then can't convince anyone of it because they can't even do algebra?

I don't know. I don't know anyone like that. What kind of person simply ignores the direct observations that blow away their theories?

 

[Dancing David]

This (any) electric sun model is very different than the ordinary standard model. The entire atmosphere around the surface is "current carrying" plasma that is highly ionized by the electrical discharge process occurring between the surface and the heliosphere. There is no possibility of either the silicon, the neon, or the helium layers to be in "low energy" states because of the current flow traversing the plasmas.

Oxygen is selectively expelled from the plasmas and that behavior has been seen in the lab too. It's certainly present in the spectrum and certainly flows through the neon, as do many elements, particularly the lightest elements. Inside that layer however they are still "highly electrified" and stay that way (in that high energy state) until they reach the chromosphere.

Any "impurities" that introduce into the neon should certainly include oxygen IMO, and all the elements we find in solar wind data.

"The article refers to everything but H and He as 'trace elements,' suggesting that that the layer-formerly-known-as-neon-but-possibly-better-named-as-oxygen is primarily H and He."

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Look closely at the 6:00 position and you'll see the iron lines are very bright where they *come up and through* that presumably "opaque" photosphere. Sorry, but your opaque math bunny does not hold up to visual scrutiny in even the first round of SDO images. DOA math bunny......

Before we bury the math bunny, you should explain why you think green represents "iron lines".

 

[Cuddles]

Somehow I doubt the coauthors of our papers would agree with you.
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1

As yes, your "papers". Would that include the one that was never published at the workshop that none of you attended? You keep ignoring this, but it's not going to go away as long as you keep pretending that your pathetic list of publications (and non-publications) actually means anything.


On the other hand, I have to agree that it is unfair to keep calling Michael's observations "bunnies". It's clearly a blimp.

 

[Dancing David]

The irony of course is that my energized neon layer must eventually also be "opaque", and yet I could still see underneath of whatever number sol comes up with as it relates to "opacity". You are so clueless about scientific terms that you're actually comedic relief.

Then you missed the calculation Sol I showed, you can't see anything near the iron surface.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5861963&postcount=1472

Thanks Ben - that's extremely helpful.

Neon ionization: The temperature we're taking for this plasma is of order 6000K, which corresponds to about .5eV. Because neon is a noble gas, its ionization energy is high - around 20eV - and its first excited state is a large fraction of that. That means very little of the neon in the Mozina plasma will be ionized, because there is a huge Boltzmann suppression e-20eV/.5eV~10-17.5. So nearly all the neon will be neutral and in its ground state.


Photon energy: The wavelength of interest is 171A, or 72eV of energy per photon. That's far above the ionization energy for neon (20eV). Therefore, as Ben says, the photons in this band can scatter by ionizing neon atoms. The cross section for that in the 171A range is a bit larger than 10^-18 cm^2. Since I'm trying to systematically underestimate the opacity, I'll use 10^-18.


Bound-free opacity: We now have the information necessary to compute one of the contributions to opacity, the one coming from ionizing neutral neon. The opacity is κ=nσ/ρ, where n is the number density (of neutral neon in this case), σ is the cross section for scattering with the photon, and ρ is the mass density. The number density is the mass density 10^-7 g/cm^3 divided by the mass per neon atom (3.5E-23g), which gives n=3*10^15 neon atoms/cm^3. Multiplying both sides by ρ, we have κρ=1/(3.5*10^2 cm).


Attenuation of 171A radiation: The intensity after passing through some thickness of material is I(x)=I0e-xρκ, where I0 is the intensity at the source or when the radiation first enters the plasma and x is the thickness. So what this tells us is that for every 350cm=3.5m of plasma our 171A radiation passes through, its intensity is attenuated by a factor of e=2.71. To give some sense of what that means, after propagating through 1km of plasma, the intensity will be reduced by a factor of about e^(-1000/3.5)=10^-124.


Necessary intensity of source for visibility: Therefore, for one photon to make it through a 1km thickness of Mozina plasma, we'd need about 10^124 photons to be emitted by the source. Each photon carries 10^-17J of energy. So that's 10^107J of energy emitted by the source, which is vastly more energy than there is in the entire observable universe. In other words it is impossible for even one photon of 171A radiation to propagate through 1km of the Mozina plasma, no matter what the source.

I may well have made an error somewhere in there, so I invite critiques. Thanks to all - I learned from this.

I believe that says 3.5 m to opacity, no?

 

[sol invictus]

You mean the fact I don't rely *STRICTLY* on math like you folks?

Michael, the formula I used to estimate the opacity - the one that shows that a 90% Ne plasma at 6000K and 10^-7 g/cm^3 is opaque to 171A radiation if it's more than a few meters thick - is based on the results of thousands of controlled laboratory experiments. It doesn't rely on much math beyond multiplication.

From your previous posts, I thought that approach (using controlled lab data) was the one you advocate. That's why I wanted to take a piece of your model - the claim that you can see 1000's of km into the photosphere with 171A light - and see how it held up when we test it using just the kind of lab data you argued so strongly for in the past.

The ball is in your court - if your model requires seeing through 1000s of km of Ne plasma with 171A light, you have to provide a scenario in which we can test that in the lab. If not, you're guilty of precisely what you accuse everyone else of - inventing hypothetical entities (in your case, a Ne plasma transparent to 171A light) to save your model.

So I'm still waiting for you to tell me how to create your plasma in a lab, or at least what its rough characteristics are. Once you do, we'll again estimate its opacity and see if your model is possible. Isn't that what science is about - you come up with a hypothesis, and then you check and test it in as many ways as you can think of, until it either fails or you're pretty sure it's correct?

 

[Dancing David]

No Ben, it's not. The neon layer is *already ionized* beyond the point that 171A is going to do anything. The constant "current flow" through the layer creates two temperatures, the ion temperatures and the electrons temperatures. The layer is already in at least a +4 energy state so what is 171A light going to do to it?

Not go through it but act as though it is opaque?

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't know. I don't know anyone like that.

Indeed. You aren't like that, because you don't have a revolutionary truth to reveal, but only a crackpot theory. Which is why, time and time again, we discover yet another aspect of basic physics of which you are ignorant. And why time and time again your theories fail catastrophically. I'm surprised Sol was able to get as far with you as he did, but it appears you are now abandoning your discussion with him. It was inevitable at some point, since it points to yet another complete failure for your theory.

 

[Dancing David]

You'll have to explain why you think anything violates the laws of physics to me. Keep in mind that it is not uncommon in current carrying plasma for ion temperatures and electron temperatures to vary by a whole order of magnitude or more.

Because MM, Sol I is trying to dry lab a situation similar to the observed photosphere and it has an observed temperature of 6000 F, the goal is to determine the opacity of something similar to the observed photosphere, which I beleive relates to the neon layer in your model.

So that is where the 6000 F comes from.

 

[ben m]

Look closely at the 6:00 position and you'll see the iron lines are very bright where they *come up and through* that presumably "opaque" photosphere. Sorry, but your opaque math bunny does not hold up to visual scrutiny in even the first round of SDO images. DOA math bunny......

No, Michael, you're looking at features in front of the photosphere.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Michael, the formula I used to estimate the opacity - the one that shows that a 90% Ne plasma at 6000K and 10^-7 g/cm^3 is opaque to 171A radiation if it's more than a few meters thick - is based on the results of thousands of controlled laboratory experiments. It doesn't rely on much math beyond multiplication.

From your previous posts, I thought that approach (using controlled lab data) was the one you advocate. That's why I wanted to take a piece of your model - the claim that you can see 1000's of km into the photosphere with 171A light - and see how it held up when we test it using just the kind of lab data you argued so strongly for in the past.

The ball is in your court - if your model requires seeing through 1000s of km of Ne plasma with 171A light, you have to provide a scenario in which we can test that in the lab. If not, you're guilty of precisely what you accuse everyone else of - inventing hypothetical entities (in your case, a Ne plasma transparent to 171A light) to save your model.

So I'm still waiting for you to tell me how to create your plasma in a lab, or at least what its rough characteristics are. Once you do, we'll again estimate its opacity and see if your model is possible. Isn't that what science is about - you come up with a hypothesis, and then you check and test it in as many ways as you can think of, until it either fails or you're pretty sure it's correct?

Re the last sentence: in MM's case it's even stronger than that.

Unless and until something can be demonstrated, *empirically*, in a lab its reality (validity, truth, whatever) is at least suspect if not to-be-dismissed-at-once.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, the formula I used to estimate the opacity - the one that shows that a 90% Ne plasma at 6000K and 10^-7 g/cm^3 is opaque to 171A radiation if it's more than a few meters thick - is based on the results of thousands of controlled laboratory experiments. It doesn't rely on much math beyond multiplication.

Sure, but it relies upon *many* (actually in your case one related to photoinization) assumption that simply does not apply to the topic or conditions in question.

Poor Mr. Opacity Bunny

Born 1940's? (Hydrogen Sun theory)
Died 2010 (SDO Images)

RIP

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, Michael, you're looking at features in front of the photosphere.

No, actually I'm looking at features in front, inside of, and behind the photosphere. The limbs tell it all Ben. The math bunny is dead and it's never coming back. The iron lines *all* (not just one wavelength) originate underneath of the photosphere as the helium emissions, and limb darkening process demonstrates. There's simply no way the opaque math bunny is coming back from the observationally dead.

 

[Hellbound]

Just a point to make to MM:

Observation is science, for certain values of science.

Typically, Observation is the first step. Fromt hat observation on should them form a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, then put the results out there to be evaluated byt he scientific community. At that point the testing is picked about, problems identified, controls tightened, alternative theories produced, and a new hypothesis which takes this into account is formed. Another experiment is run, and so forth, and eventually we get a robust, powerufl theory that fits the facts and predicts new ones.

So far, you've got observation. You've taken the first steps to creating a hypothesis. But you've skipped everything else...and then you have the arrogance to think everyone should accept your poorly-formed hypthesis as if it were a well-tested theory?

Sorry, short-cuts don't work in science (see Cold Fusion).