Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Reality Check]

You and I see things *very* differently. My little ego would have *loved* to call this "my idea", but dude, Birkeland and *his whole team* beat me to this idea by 100 years. ....

But dude, Birkeland and *his whole team* would not be dumb enough to ignore thermodynamics and actually think that there was an iron crust in the Sun.

This is your fantasy* not his.

Micheal Mozina has a habit of essentially labeling Kristian Birkeland as having no knowledge of physics, e.g. the simple thermodynamics that make an iron crust impossible.

• Can you understand the stupidity of defaming Birkeland's good name?

* Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.

 

[Reality Check]

RC, I don't pretend to understand the thermodynamics of how it all works yet. ... Get real.

Michael Mozina, if you do not understand that simple fact that as you approcah a source of heat then you get hotter then you really need to get real.

Thermodynamics tells us that your iron crust fantasy* cannot exist.
Your delusion of seeing it in RD images constructed from images of the corona is just that - a delusion.

Maybe you should teach your chldren that as you get closer to a fire it get colder since that is the only way your iron crust fantasy* can exist.

* Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.

 

[Reality Check]

Just out of curiosity RC?

How long do you think it would take an opponent of the SSM to create a list of questions that I personally could not answer about the SSM? Would the length of that list of unanswered questions falsify or verify the SSM in your mind somehow?

There are many questions that the current solar model does not answer. Judging by your ignorance of basic physics like thermodynamics, I would say an an "opponent of the SSM" would take about 5 seconds to create a list of questions that you personally cannot answer. The length of the list says would say nothing about the SSM - just your ignorance of the SSM.

But my list is about your fantasy* and your ignorance of it, the physics that debunks it and the unsupprted assertions you spout.

Just out of curiosity MM?
Try this simple question. All you have to do is be able to read (you can read, can you ):

• Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"

* Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.

 

[Perpetual Student]

RC, I don't pretend to understand the thermodynamics of how it all works yet. I'm still working on few "basic" predictions like where the surface is located with respect to that convection surface we see in white light. If you can't accept that, oh well, but a lack of an 'explanation' on my part is not a valid falsification of this or any scientific theory. I couldn't begin to explain the thermodynamics of the SSM and how your corona gets to millions of degree temps. Does that mean the SSM is falsified too? Get real.

If you don't understand thermodynamics, how could you possibly pretend to have a "model" of the sun? Can't you see how patently absurd that is?

 

[GeeMack]

You and I see things *very* differently. My little ego would have *loved* to call this "my idea", but dude, Birkeland and *his whole team* beat me to this idea by 100 years.

Kristian Birkeland never suggested the Sun has a solid iron surface. Your claim that he did is a lie. Still. Again. Every time you say it it's a lie. Stop blaming the dead guy for your very own made up crackpot conjecture. It's a despicable argument to make.

 

[GeeMack]

Just out of curiosity RC?

How long do you think it would take an opponent of the SSM to create a list of questions that I personally could not answer about the SSM? Would the length of that list of unanswered questions falsify or verify the SSM in your mind somehow?

I'd venture to guess that most of us here agree you could write a list of virtually infinite length, given the time, of questions you can't answer about the standard solar model. You've demonstrated that you don't possess the qualifications necessary to understand it in even the most rudimentary, grade school science class way. But the point is, there are dozens upon dozens of questions that you can't answer about your very own crackpot conjecture.

 

[Ziggurat]

RC, I don't pretend to understand the thermodynamics of how it all works yet. I'm still working on few "basic" predictions like where the surface is located with respect to that convection surface we see in white light.

Michael, the thermodynamics IS a basic feature of any solar model. You can't brush it under the rug. The problem is not that you haven't worked out all the details, the problem is that thermodynamics prohibits your model. And you still don't understand why.

I couldn't begin to explain the thermodynamics of the SSM

The basics are quite simple. Heat is generated on the inside, and it flows outwards.

and how your corona gets to millions of degree temps.

That's not a thermodynamics problem. The corona is transparent, so its temperature is basically irrelevant to the thermodynamics of the rest of the sun. And because it's transparent, it doesn't take a lot of power to heat it up either. Quibble all you want to about the mechanism of heating, but the thermodynamics of the problem are indeed simple and well understood.

And no, I don't care if the photosphere is transparent to 171 Angstrom light, that's actually quite irrelevant to the thermodynamic impossibility of your model. But again, you don't have a clue as to why, because you don't understand thermodynamics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you don't understand thermodynamics, how could you possibly pretend to have a "model" of the sun? Can't you see how patently absurd that is?

I think I need to backup here and explain something to you for a second. A "cathode solar model" does not and never has depended upon a "solid surface". I'm not even emotionally attached to there even being an actual "solid" surface. I'm only attached to their being a more "rigid" surface under the surface of the photosphere. If the thermodynamics don't happen to work out correctly to support a solid surface, so be it. I'm willing to adapt and be open to new ideas. Their side is the side that "fears change", not me. I'm actually more emotionally attached to a "cathode solar model" than I am attached to a "solid surface solar model".

All I can say is that when I personally look at all the images the "best" way I can explain them is with an actual solid crust. I could end up being wrong about that, and that is why I "capitulated" on the term "solid" and went with "rigid". I'm flexible. Their side is not flexible. Even *IF* all of those wavelengths happened to have been calibrated, in the final analysis, it's really no skin off my nose. I'm willing to adapt. They are not. We'll have to see how things turn out, but I am personally not afraid to adapt to what I find in the SDO images, even *IF* that happens to lead me eventually back to the SSM. I seriously doubt that will ever happen. I think it's much more likely I"ll have to "settle" on a "rigid surface" and be happy with an electrically active, plasma layered solar model. Whatever eventually happens, it's really not a big issue to me one way or the other. My livelihood is unaffected by whatever might come to pass. All I can say is that I am very glad to represent a "cathode solar model", even if they *HATE* the fact I will forever call it a "Birkeland solar model", with or without a "solid surface". I'm sure Birkeland and his team would adapt to what they see, but I believe that the sun is in fact a "cathode in space". Stay tuned for the results.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, the thermodynamics IS a basic feature of any solar model. You can't brush it under the rug.

Zig, I"m *NOT* brushing it under the rug. The only published thing I"m attached to is the term "rigid", not "solid". I can't be sure that the thermodynamics will work out in favor of a "solid' surface.

I'm still trying to pin down a depth of the "rigid features" I see in the MDI images, and other types of imagery.

To be honest Zig, those GIF's were very interesting and I appreciated you pointing them out for me. I'm personally willing to accept them as calibrated or uncalibrated images because either way, they falsify *your* solar model.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm still trying to pin down a depth of the "rigid features" I see in the MDI images, and other types of imagery.

You do remember the word for seeing things that aren't there? It's "hallucination". You are not seeing a solid surface, and you can't make it all better by making it even more vague with the term "rigid". You don't have the qualifications necessary to understand solar imagery of any sort. Your opinion and any argument you make based on that opinion is worthless.

 

[Ziggurat]

Zig, I"m *NOT* brushing it under the rug.

Yes, Michael, you are. You refuse to accept that your surface cannot possibly be colder than 5700 K. Belief in a colder interior is exactly equivalent to belief in perpetual motion machines.

The only published thing I"m attached to is the term "rigid", not "solid". I can't be sure that the thermodynamics will work out in favor of a "solid' surface.

How is it going to be rigid if it's not solid? But it doesn't matter. I can be sure that the thermodynamics will not work out in favor of a solid or even liquid surface. Rigidity just makes no sense. And it doesn't even matter whether it's solid or rigid or whatever, it would still be gravitationally impossible. You have no mechanism of keeping it from collapse. ESPECIALLY if it's not solid. And don't even try posting about water bubbles again until you calculate the gravitational pressure for one of those.

To be honest Zig, those GIF's were very interesting and I appreciated you pointing them out for me. I'm personally willing to accept them as calibrated or uncalibrated images because either way, they falsify *your* solar model.

No, Michael, they don't.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You do remember the word for seeing things that aren't there? It's "hallucination".

Thus spoke the champion of civil discourse.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, Michael, you are. You refuse to accept that your surface cannot possibly be colder than 5700 K.

Which "surface" do you mean in a plasma layered model?

Belief in a colder interior is exactly equivalent to belief in perpetual motion machines.

Except of course when you claim a sunspot occurs? Give it up. You can't judge the physics of an electrical solar theory based on SSM specifications!

How is it going to be rigid if it's not solid?

It would require a more dense plasma flowing in persistent patterns, and of course the persistence of those patterns beg the question about what creates that persistence.

But it doesn't matter. I can be sure that the thermodynamics will not work out in favor of a solid or even liquid surface.

It could be a more "rigid", more dense plasma.

Rigidity just makes no sense. And it doesn't even matter whether it's solid or rigid or whatever, it would still be gravitationally impossible. You have no mechanism of keeping it from collapse. ESPECIALLY if it's not solid. And don't even try posting about water bubbles again until you calculate the gravitational pressure for one of those.

Again, it may not make "sense" to you, but you're so busy trying to undermine the model you aren't really all that interested in any "variations" on the same theme, or even interested in how it might work. You guys/gals "hate" the whole EU concept with such a passion, it really doesn't matter what I propose as long as it includes "current flow". You'll never consider it.

No, Michael, they don't.

Actually you're right. Only if they are already calibrated does it falsify both solar models simultaneously. Even that would be a "victory" from my perspective because I can adapt and be happy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But dude, Birkeland and *his whole team* would not be dumb enough to ignore thermodynamics and actually think that there was an iron crust in the Sun.

So dude, be "flexible". Be willing to think outside your own box *and mine*. You really need to go back to Skwinty's analogy. It's more appropriate than you realize IMO. I'm simply trying to get you to think outside of your own box. I'm not trying to sell you any particular new one. If anything, I'm only suggesting you try an "electrical" box. That's it. I'm really not emotionally attached to the whole "solid" concept, so get over it.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I think I need to backup here and explain something to you for a second. A "cathode solar model" does not and never has depended upon a "solid surface". I'm not even emotionally attached to there even being an actual "solid" surface. I'm only attached to their being a more "rigid" surface under the surface of the photosphere. If the thermodynamics don't happen to work out correctly to support a solid surface, so be it. I'm willing to adapt and be open to new ideas. Their side is the side that "fears change", not me. I'm actually more emotionally attached to a "cathode solar model" than I am attached to a "solid surface solar model".

All I can say is that when I personally look at all the images the "best" way I can explain them is with an actual solid crust. I could end up being wrong about that, and that is why I "capitulated" on the term "solid" and went with "rigid". I'm flexible. Their side is not flexible. Even *IF* all of those wavelengths happened to have been calibrated, in the final analysis, it's really no skin off my nose. I'm willing to adapt. They are not. We'll have to see how things turn out, but I am personally not afraid to adapt to what I find in the SDO images, even *IF* that happens to lead me eventually back to the SSM. I seriously doubt that will ever happen. I think it's much more likely I"ll have to "settle" on a "rigid surface" and be happy with an electrically active, plasma layered solar model. Whatever eventually happens, it's really not a big issue to me one way or the other. My livelihood is unaffected by whatever might come to pass. All I can say is that I am very glad to represent a "cathode solar model", even if they *HATE* the fact I will forever call it a "Birkeland solar model", with or without a "solid surface". I'm sure Birkeland and his team would adapt to what they see, but I believe that the sun is in fact a "cathode in space". Stay tuned for the results.

I first started to follow this thread out of idle curiosity. I don't really know enough physics to thoroughly understand the standard solar model, but I have had a lifelong passion for science (including extensive reading) and a fairly good mathematics background, which has enabled me to be pretty good at evaluating scientific evidence -- as a layman -- and in a general sense. Because of this thread, I have come to understand a little bit more about how solar physics is done.
Now, you say that you don't understand thermodynamics, yet you pretend to have your very own personal solar model that contradicts the last hundred years of real science? Does that really make any sense to you?
It would be like someone who says he doesn't understand mathematics, but he knows that there are only a finite number of primes and when you show him the well known proof attributed to Euclid, he dismisses it and says he doesn't understand it. He argues for many hours over many weeks about his theory about the primes and then says, "ah, but maybe I will study more math some day, so I can show the world that I am right." What could you possibly say to such an idiot?
I am sorry to say that you are a certified crackpot, just like my fictitious friend who ignorantly contests the infinitude of the primes. It is amazing that so many knowledgeable people here have spent so may hours in vain trying to educate you, when you clearly have no capacity to learn. This is really so sad!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because of this thread, I have come to understand a little bit more about how solar physics is done.

If by "done" you mean in gross violation of the laws of physics, no regard for observation, and without respect to empirical experimentation, that's not exactly "comforting". When iron and helium stay mixed in a EM and gravitation field as large as the sun, that will be the day that pigs fly. Sorry PS, but how it's "done" simply violates all the laws of physics, starting with a complete disregard for the mass flow patterns through the photosphere.

 

[ben m]

If by "done" you mean in gross violation of the laws of physics, no regard for observation, and without respect to empirical experimentation, that's not exactly "comforting". When iron and helium stay mixed in a EM and gravitation field as large as the sun, that will be the day that pigs fly. Sorry PS, but how it's "done" simply violates all the laws of physics, starting with a complete disregard for the mass flow patterns through the photosphere.

(OK, I'm back ...)

Sorry, Michael, the standard solar model (which you admit to not knowing) and the laws of thermodynamics (which you admit to not knowing) predict that the Sun isn't mass-fractionate. In a nutshell, fractionation can happen only by diffusion (which is slow; do you know how slow? Every undergrad astronomer has done this calculation) but is erased by thermal diffusion AND by convection. The Sun would take biillions of years to fractionate---and only partially at that---if there were no convection at all. Does this calculation "ignore physics"? Do textbooks have the diffusion constants wrong? Can you go through the standard solar model in Hansen & Kawaler and tell me on what page they make what mistake?

No you can't. You guess that it is wrong.

 

[Perpetual Student]

If by "done" you mean in gross violation of the laws of physics, no regard for observation, and without respect to empirical experimentation, that's not exactly "comforting". When iron and helium stay mixed in a EM and gravitation field as large as the sun, that will be the day that pigs fly. Sorry PS, but how it's "done" simply violates all the laws of physics, starting with a complete disregard for the mass flow patterns through the photosphere.

What rubbish! You are the one who admitted that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THERMODYNAMICS. Consequently, your statements have no meaning, no basis, no science; they are the nothing more than vacuous blather, hot air and noise!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Thanks to PS, I can quote two most interesting posts by MM (bold added).

I think I need to backup here and explain something to you for a second. A "cathode solar model" does not and never has depended upon a "solid surface". I'm not even emotionally attached to there even being an actual "solid" surface. I'm only attached to their being a more "rigid" surface under the surface of the photosphere. If the thermodynamics don't happen to work out correctly to support a solid surface, so be it. I'm willing to adapt and be open to new ideas. Their side is the side that "fears change", not me. I'm actually more emotionally attached to a "cathode solar model" than I am attached to a "solid surface solar model".

All I can say is that when I personally look at all the images the "best" way I can explain them is with an actual solid crust. I could end up being wrong about that, and that is why I "capitulated" on the term "solid" and went with "rigid". I'm flexible. Their side is not flexible. Even *IF* all of those wavelengths happened to have been calibrated, in the final analysis, it's really no skin off my nose. I'm willing to adapt. They are not. We'll have to see how things turn out, but I am personally not afraid to adapt to what I find in the SDO images, even *IF* that happens to lead me eventually back to the SSM. I seriously doubt that will ever happen. I think it's much more likely I"ll have to "settle" on a "rigid surface" and be happy with an electrically active, plasma layered solar model. Whatever eventually happens, it's really not a big issue to me one way or the other. My livelihood is unaffected by whatever might come to pass. All I can say is that I am very glad to represent a "cathode solar model", even if they *HATE* the fact I will forever call it a "Birkeland solar model", with or without a "solid surface". I'm sure Birkeland and his team would adapt to what they see, but I believe that the sun is in fact a "cathode in space". Stay tuned for the results.

and

If by "done" you mean in gross violation of the laws of physics, no regard for observation, and without respect to empirical experimentation, that's not exactly "comforting". When iron and helium stay mixed in a EM and gravitation field as large as the sun, that will be the day that pigs fly. Sorry PS, but how it's "done" simply violates all the laws of physics, starting with a complete disregard for the mass flow patterns through the photosphere.

Now true to form, MM has not said what this "cathode solar model" is, but earlier in the thread he referenced it (and in other JREF threads put more meat on the bare less-than-a-dozen-or-so-words full description).

To remind readers: in this so-called model, the Sun is powered by a giant inter-stellar (or inter-galactic) current, with a voltage drop of ~10^10 volts somewhere between heliopause (or heliosheath) and photosphere, and the charge carrier being electrons (flowing into the Sun).

This "model" violates at least one law of physics - conservation of energy, or conservation of charge, perhaps both (see Tom Bridgman, for example; note that there are some minor errors).

Ironic, then, to read of MM's concerns about "gross violation of the laws of physics, no regard for observation, and without respect to empirical experimentation"!

 

[ben m]

Catching up again, I see that:

a) You're still busily looking at limb images without having thought about the geometry. You still don't know the difference between looking at a cross-section-slice and looking along a limb. I gave you the world's easiest-to-use diagram and you ignored it entirely. Amazing.

b) You're still busily interpreting limb images as though "3000 km (actually 80,000km) of transparent Si/Ne plasma" was a sensible option---and you dropped any pretense of being interested in whether this is physically possible. Unbelievable.

c) You've still devoted exactly zero attention, in 30 pages, to the most basic known-for-400-years facts about the Sun: that its visible light spectrum is that of a 6000K blackbody with atomic and molecular absorption lines. Bizarre.

d) You went from "I've won, the SDO green stripe proves it" to "the data is confusing because I don't know how to scale and overlay wavelengths" to "forget about the raw data, the only thing that matters is difference images"---and you did so without a hint of awareness or contrition. Would it kill you to say "sorry I was so abusive to everyone who disputed my initial SDO interpretation, I learned something and I want to do it better next time"? Shameless.