Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[DeiRenDopa]

That part that seems to be "too honest", the "truth" that you can't seem to handle is the fact that Birkeland's solar model is *NOT* dependent upon a solid surface and never was dependent upon a solid surface. You can't handle the truth.

That may be so.

However, the MM solar "model" - which is what we are discussing (if that's an appropriate description) - is dependent on:

* Mozplasma
* Mozode
* Mozeparation
* Mozcharge
* Mozwind
* Moztronium

(and, no doubt, other Moz-thingies, such as magic inflation dark energy bunnies magic Moz-physics bunnies).

Strangely, none of these Moz-thingies has any empirical justification, none have been simulated in real science experiments here on Earth, and none meet the burden of proof from the standpoint of empirical physics in any lab on Earth.

Curious, huh?

 

[GeeMack]

A lie? You really think that is civil conversation? Really? How can you whine about me being uncivil to you when you call me a liar or a fraud just about every single day? Honestly GM, what planet are you from anyway? Who do you think buys your song and dance routine anyway? Civil? Hoy.

The only "lie" around here is that I ever personally limited myself to *A SINGLE* subset of Birkeland's solar theories, or that Birkeland's solar theories are somehow limited to a solid surface. That's *YOUR* strawman, and YOUR lie, not mine. I said "rigid" in those papers, not "solid". I defy you to find the term "solid' in any of them.

Nice tantrum, Michael.

So I see you're abandoning the claim that the Sun has a solid iron surface. Why don't you have the honesty and integrity to just say it, flat out? Is it too much to expect that kind of decency and honesty out of you? I mean, I can understand why you'd be embarrassed after claiming so positively and so vigorously for all these years that the Sun does have a solid surface, but now that you've changed your mind, how about a clear statement to that effect?

Oh, and nothing about a solid or rigid surface was a subset of Birkeland's notion of the Sun. We all know it, and worst of all, you know it. And your argument implying that it was is a lie.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So does your 'rigid' mean anything other than 'more dense?' That may clear things up a bit; many of us didn't see how going from 'solid' to 'rigid' changed anything, but if you simply meant 'more dense,' then I think we're all pretty confortable with the idea that as you go farther below the photosphere, the density goes up. I think we'd all assumed that 'rigid' meant the material had some resistance to static (as in non-dynamic, not as in static electricity) shear or tension.

The major difference is that the current flow would create a series of "double layers" in a cathode solar model that were somewhat separated by the element. The dynamic nature of the environment means there are particles flowing through every layer, but overall there should be "layers" where density gradients change rapidly underneath of the surface of the photosphere.

I would personally expect that any sort of iron layer would be entirely embedded inside the neon layer. The loops will carry iron up and through the neon, and the ionization state of the neon will matter in terms of where we first observe the iron lines. A low ionization state would mean the iron lines don't become visible until they exit the neon, whereas a high ionization that would leave us with a "disk" that fits inside the surface of the photosphere, in RD images. That's why the whole RD thing is important to me. I need to be sure of the ionization states of various plasma double layers.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nice tantrum, Michael.

This coming from the guy that has already called me liar today, and what, it's only 11:00 or so my time. You could set new records today at the rate you're going. Well, probably not actually. You've set some big time records on the "liar liar" thing.

So I see you're abandoning the claim that the Sun has a solid iron surface.

No, I am busting your bogus claim that Birkeland's cathode model is limited to a solid surface model or that I have committed myself exclusively to a single solar model.

Why don't you have the honesty and integrity to just say it, flat out?

You do not even know what those words mean either. Add them to your "opaque/civil" list of words you don't comprehend.

Oh, and nothing about a solid or rigid surface was a subset of Birkeland's notion of the Sun. We all know it, and worst of all, you know it. And your argument implying that it was is a lie.

You are the only liar among us GM. You've called Birkeland a bozo. Don't lie and pretend to defend his good name. It only makes you look like the worlds biggest hypocrite, as does every claim you make about *ME* being "uncivil" to you, or "me" throwing a "tantrum". You're a walking talking temper tantrum on parade.

 

[ben m]

A low ionization state would mean the iron lines don't become visible until they exit the neon, whereas a high ionization that would leave us with a "disk" that fits inside the surface of the photosphere, in RD images. That's why the whole RD thing is important to me. I need to be sure of the ionization states of various plasma double layers.

a) Why not in non-RD images, Michael? You spent 30 pages pointing at iron-line emission features in a normal image, not subtracted from anything (except the PR guy's photoshop filter) and you have not explained why this method got dropped from your repertoire.

b) Disk? What disk? The sun isn't a disk, it's a sphere. The image is a disk. What's the geometry that translates the 3D reality into the 2D image? DRAW A DIAGRAM ALREADY. It's not just me who has asked.

c) It's strange that you have explicitly, repeatedly, used emission line data to tell you other things' ionization states. The presence of 171A light tells you that some iron is Fe X or whatever; you were perfectly happy to cite SERTS emission lines to tell you that some neon is Ne IV and Ne V and so on. But as soon as I show you another spectrum showing all of the H I, He I, He II, Ca I, Ca II, OH, H2O, etc., you regress to this bizarre claim. "NOW you don't learn anything about the ionization state from looking at the ionization states", you say, "NOW the only way (!) to learn anything about the ionization state is this bizarre RD limb procedure I invented out of thin air a few days ago and can't actually explain." Nice double standard there, Michael. You explicitly ignore any data that doesn't support you.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

In order to answer sols remaining questions, I need a better handle on the "current flows" that are directly involved in flowing through that "layer" of neon. Get it? I can't go to the next step without dealing with the current flow directly.

Why has it taken you, what, five years to get to this MM?

In particular, how come you have not - AFAICS - availed yourself of the thousands of high-resolution magnetograms of the Sun that are freely available? I mean, as Alfvén is such a hero of yours, and as you've read his collective works as assiduously as those of Birkeland, you know full well that you can get some robust bounded estimates of current flows from magnetograms (you may also need dopplergrams, but they are available too), and you must surely know how to go about this, right?

 

[GeeMack]

The major difference is that the current flow would create a series of "double layers" in a cathode solar model that were somewhat separated by the element. The dynamic nature of the environment means there are particles flowing through every layer, but overall there should be "layers" where density gradients change rapidly underneath of the surface of the photosphere.

I would personally expect that any sort of iron layer would be entirely embedded inside the neon layer. The loops will carry iron up and through the neon, and the ionization state of the neon will matter in terms of where we first observe the iron lines. A low ionization state would mean the iron lines don't become visible until they exit the neon, whereas a high ionization that would leave us with a "disk" that fits inside the surface of the photosphere, in RD images. That's why the whole RD thing is important to me. I need to be sure of the ionization states of various plasma double layers.

First, dasmiller was asking you to make yourself clear on the distinction between "solid" and "rigid". You're willful ignorance of his actual question is noted.

And more importantly, you do not have the qualifications to understand what a running difference image is, what it shows, why and how it is made, where the data comes from that is used to make it, and what the results of making one means. You simply do not have those qualifications. You apparently have some sort of bizarre dependence on that wholly incorrect, unqualified, and unfounded opinion, and any argument you make based on that opinion is ludicrously wrong.

 

[GeeMack]

This coming from the guy that has already called me liar today, and what, it's only 11:00 or so my time. You could set new records today at the rate you're going. Well, probably not actually. You've set some big time records on the "liar liar" thing.

No, I am busting your bogus claim that Birkeland's cathode model is limited to a solid surface model or that I have committed myself exclusively to a single solar model.

You do not even know what those words mean either. Add them to your "opaque/civil" list of words you don't comprehend.

You are the only liar among us GM. You've called Birkeland a bozo. Don't lie and pretend to defend his good name. It only makes you look like the worlds biggest hypocrite, as does every claim you make about *ME* being "uncivil" to you, or "me" throwing a "tantrum". You're a walking talking temper tantrum on parade.

For the record, your uncivil personal attack here is noted.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why not in non-RD images, Michael?

The RD images are simply more definitive IMO. That averaged high cadence RD image process that created that first image on my website is the one I'm mostly interested in. That should tell me if light is actually coming up and through that convecting layer. The basic images can be "interpreted' in a number of subjective ways, but the RD images should fit inside the convecting surface, or I have some major rethinking to do.

 

[Michael Mozina]

For the record, your uncivil personal attack here is noted.

How is it that you can call me a liar and a fraud and a crackpot and a crank *EVERY SINGLE DAY* and not think that is an "uncivil personal attack"?

 

[dasmiller]

The major difference is that the current flow would create a series of "double layers" in a cathode solar model that were somewhat separated by the element. <remainder snipped>

But the question was whether you meant "rigid" to mean anything other than "more dense." Did you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

But the question was whether you meant "rigid" to mean anything other than "more dense." Did you?

Yes. I would expect that the next "layer" is mostly silicon and that the plasmas are mass separated into various elements, not all the elements convecting in the same layer.

 

[D'rok]

What exactly on his list do you personally believe somehow falsifies a generic brand of a cathode solar model? I'll admit the surface may not be a 'solid', it may only be "rigid' (as in more dense) than the neon.

You really haven't been paying attention at all have you? Tim has gone to great lengths to show how your model is thermodynamically impossible. There are reams and reams of posts from Sol, Tusenfem, Ben et al on how your claims about plasma, electricity, mass separation, geometry, etc. all are conclusively disproven by real science with a real empirical pedigree.

I have carefully explained the six step process that I personally need to go through to "falsify" or verify at least major parts of this solar model. The RD image that emerges must fit inside the surface of that convecting layer, or I have to do some soul searching.

The cathode aspects of this solar model however would still be applicable, even *IF* that "prediction" doesn't "pan out" all that well. Even in that case, I couldn't simply "assume" that *NO* brand of a "cathode solar model" was applicable to what I was observing.

I guess about all I can tell you is that unless and until they can empirically duplicate and replicate the 'predictions" of Birkeland's experiments in real experiments of their own that do not require "current flow" between a cathode sun and an anode heliosphere, I will still continue to support an "electric" solar model for the rest of my life. I guess that probably makes no sense to you, but as I've said, I'm more attached to a "cathode sun" than I am attached to a "solid surface solar model". The term "rigid" in those papers was not accidental, but rather it was intended to keep the work as true to Birkeland's original intent as possible.

Nothing you do when you interpret an image falsifies anything. On the contrary, your interpretations are falsified because they violate known physics - physics that has that empirical pedigree that you so admire. For your interpretations to falsify known physics, you have to overcome all of the empirical, experimental pedigree upon which it is based. Get in the lab and get busy!

And it is patently obvious even to a layperson that Birkeland's terella experiments were not meant to model the sun. If you think there is something there worth exploring, then get in the lab and get busy! You are acting like a petulant hypocrite.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The RD images are simply more definitive IMO. That averaged high cadence RD image process that created that first image on my website is the one I'm mostly interested in. That should tell me if light is actually coming up and through that convecting layer. The basic images can be "interpreted' in a number of subjective ways, but the RD images should fit inside the convecting surface, or I have some major rethinking to do.

(bold added)

How do you know it's "convecting" MM?

What do you mean when you use the term "convecting" MM?

In terms of the "MM scientific process"*, haven't you omitted the "Empirical Experimentation" step?

* "the scientific process is supposed to work something like: Observation->Need To Understand That Observation->Empirical Idea->Empirical Experimentation->Numerical Prediction->"

 

[GeeMack]

The RD images are simply more definitive IMO. That averaged high cadence RD image process that created that first image on my website is the one I'm mostly interested in. That should tell me if light is actually coming up and through that convecting layer. The basic images can be "interpreted' in a number of subjective ways, but the RD images should fit inside the convecting surface, or I have some major rethinking to do.

Again I'll point out that your qualifications to understand solar imagery of any type have been challenged, and you have been unable to demonstrate that you possess any such qualifications. What you see in that image on your web site is an optical illusion as explained by Dr. Neal Hurlburt, the fellow at LMSAL responsible for the acquisition, production, and analysis of that image. As for providing "evidence" of a solid or rigid surface, it is fraudulent because it does no such thing.

 

[ben m]

You've called Birkeland a bozo.

You know what? I bet every 19th century scientist would sound like a bozo if there was some crackpot ignoring his best work (on aurorae) and hammering away over and over again on his premature and now-discredited speculations.

Imagine that there was someone who spent five years on a discussion board insisting that Newton PROVED ALCHEMY and you're all idiots for not recognizing it; that LEWIS PROVED ATOMS ARE CUBES and anyone who says otherwise is pushing math bunnies; and so on. Newton and Lewis would start to look like bozos too, after five years of that constant nonsense.

Every 19th century scientist made mistakes, Birkeland included. The ones further ahead of the data---like the ones doing space physics before spaceflight---made more errors than the safer ones. Let the errors die quietly, Michael, that's what happened to everyone else's. Let Birkeland be remembered for his excellent aurora work and let's forget about the sad and misguided planet-formation and solar theories.

 

[dasmiller]

Yes. I would expect that the next "layer" is mostly silicon and that the plasmas are mass separated into various elements, not all the elements convecting in the same layer.

I understand about your belief that the elements are layered, but I'm having trouble connecting that to my question about what you mean by "rigid." Does it simply mean "more dense," or (as this answer seems to imply) does it mean "more dense and of homogenous composition?" Does "rigid" have any connection to the more conventional definitions related to resistance to tension and static shear?

 

[Tim Thompson]

No Iron "Surface" for the Sun

The best explanation for this anomaly is the the sun has a solid surface.

Sun's constant size surprises scientists
(PhysOrg.com) -- A group of astronomers led by the University of Hawaii's Dr. Jeff Kuhn has found that in recent times the sun's size has been remarkably constant. Its diameter has changed by less than one part in a million over the last 12 years. ...

Here is the research paper that is the basis of the news report.

One solar cycle of solar astrometry with MDI/SOHO
Emilio, Kuhn & Bush; Solar and Stellar Variability: Impact on Earth and Planets, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, IAU Symposium, Volume 264, p. 21-32, February 2010
Abstract: In this work we describe the method and results of precise solar astrometry made with the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI), on board the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), during one complete solar cycle. We measured an upper limit to the solar radius variation, the absolute solar radius value and the solar shape. Our results are 22 mas peak-to-peak upper limit for the solar radius variation over the solar cycle, the absolute radius was measured as 959.28 ± 0.15 arcsec at 1 AU and the difference between polar and equatorial solar radii in 1997 was 5 km and about three times larger in 2001.

And here is the response from Cuddles:

Nice try, but you seem to have missed a rather important point. If you heat a metre long rod of steel by a single degree*, it will increase in length by around 1.15*10^-5. That's a fair bit more than one part in a million. So your claim of a solid iron surface on the Sun would actually result in much, much bigger variations in size than are observed, and so is already known to be completely inconsistent with reality.

*Note that this is at 25^oC. Oddly enough, no-one's ever measured the thermal expansion coefficient at 6000^o.

I have to agree, although I think the problem for a solid surface is actually rather larger than one would expect simply from this response alone. As has already been pointed out numerous times, a solid or "rigid" iron surface are both strongly ruled out by elementary thermodynamics, a branch of physics which brantc & Mozina seem to hold in utter contempt. But it stands unchallenged anyway.

However, compare the results reported above to the results reported here:

On the Variability of the Apparent Solar Radius
Chapman, Dobias & Walton; Astrophysical Journal 681(2): 1689-1702, July 2008
Abstract: Full-disk photometric solar images at a wavelength of 672.3 nm have been obtained daily since 1986 using the CFDT1 (Cartesian Full Disk Telescope No. 1). An analysis of these images from 1986 through the end of 2004 December has shown a peak-to-peak variation in the geocentric north-south solar radius of 0.136+/-0.01, approximately in phase with the solar cycle. The multiple correlation coefficient squared is R²=0.0404 (R=0.2). While this correlation coefficient is small, due to the large number of data points (N=4042), the level of significance is less than 0.02. The radius had a maximum value near the times of maximum activity for solar cycles 22 and 23.

The SOHO MDI Instrument observes the sun at a wavelength of 676.78 nm, the center wavelength of a neutral Nickel absorption feature in the photosphere. This wavelength is not too far from the 672.3 nm reported here. Yet the ground based measurements show a variability in apparent solar radius of nearly 14%. These variations are geocentric, so changes due to the changing Earth-sun distance have been removed. These observations appear to me to be inconsistent with the observations reported above by Emilio, Kuhn & Bush. So I will withhold an ultimate judgement until this apparent conflict is resolved.

However, it should be fairly obvious that the solar radius is not fixed, but still variable even in the research pointed to by brantc. One would not normally appeal to a solid surface to explain a smaller than expected cycle of expansion & contraction. But with a little physical insight, as Cuddles gives us, normal thermal expansion would actually imply a larger than observed change in radius. But of course there are no measurements of thermal expansion of iron at 6000 Kelvins, since iron is a vapor at such temperatures. So one must wonder exactly why a solid iron surface is supposed to be the "best explanation" for anything that is observed to happen at temperatures where physics requires iron to be a vapor. Hence, I think the rejection of the claim by brantc is in order.

But see also this ...

Variability of the solar shape (before space dedicated missions)
Rozelot, Damiani & Lefebvre; journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 71(17-18): 1683-1694, December 2009
Abstract: Shrinking or expansion of the solar shape and irradiance variations are ultimately related to solar activity. We give here a review on existing ground-based or space solar radius measurements, extending the concept to shape changes. We show how helioseismology results allow us to look at the variations below the surface, where changes are not uniform, putting in evidence a new shallow layer, the leptocline, which is the seat of solar asphericities, radius variations with the 11-yr cycle and the cradle of complex physical processes: partial ionization of the light elements, opacities changes, superadiabaticity, strong gradient of rotation and pressure. Based on such physical grounds, we show why it is important to get accurate measurements from scheduled dedicated space missions: PICARD, SDO, DynaMICCS, ASTROMETRIA, SPHERIS. Such measurements will provide us a unique opportunity to study in detail the relationship between global solar properties and changes in the Sun's interior.

Here we see a recent example from a long list of helioseismology research which quite conclusively proves that there cannot be any solid surface below the visible photosphere of the sun. Curiously, Mozina claims quite the contrary, that helioseismology does reveal a solid, or at least "rigid" surface below the visible photosphere, commonly citing Lefebvre & Kosovichev, 2005 as a justification, despite the obvious fact that the paper actually directly rules out a solid or rigid surface of any kind.

So, we have both thermodynamics and helioseismology ruling out a solid or rigid surface. We have brantc claiming a "solid" surface explains expansion and contraction better than a non-solid surface. And we have Mozina insisting that the data from helioseismology which rules out a rigid surface actually requires it (and he is apparently the only living person who interprets the data in that way). Any reasonably intelligent person must be quite exasperated by such insane devotion to the physically impossible.

 

[GeeMack]

And it is patently obvious even to a layperson that Birkeland's terella experiments were not meant to model the sun. If you think there is something there worth exploring, then get in the lab and get busy! You are acting like a petulant hypocrite.

That speaks to my earlier comment about the total and complete lack of adding a single shred of new material to the crackpot claim over the last five years. No lab work. No experiments. No taking a couple of math or science classes. No reading any of the textbooks that have been suggested by Tim Thompson, among others. No fleshing it out with mathematical support. Not even any new ways to phrase the crackpot conjecture. Literally everything you're reading here has been put forward as arguments on various forums all over the Internet for a half a decade. And as arguments, they're all crap. Nothing is changed. Nothing has advanced. Not one bit of actual work has been done to support this insane claim.

And I'll bet a $20 bill that Michael will be back to calling his mythical surface "solid" before he even leaves this forum. You've probably noticed how he's done a lot of dancing around evading the issue and refusing to actually say it's not solid.

Say it, Michael: "The surface of the Sun is not solid."

 

[dasmiller]

Yet the ground based measurements show a variability in apparent solar radius of nearly 14%. These variations are geocentric, so changes due to the changing Earth-sun distance have been removed.

Do you have a cite for that? 14% variability sounds very large to me.