Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[GeeMack]

I am of the personal impression that the sun does in fact have a rocky volcanic "crust" just like any planet.

Okay, so you believe it is solid. Why didn't you just say so instead of making those bogus arguments about it being rigid?

That may or may not "pan out" depending on what I see in those full sphere, high resolution RD images.

You will see what you believe to be a solid surface. I can predict that with some degree of certainty based on the fact that you believe you see it in other running difference images. If, on the other hand, you actually had any idea what those images represent, you'd see why people condsider that part of your argument to be so totally ridiculous.

 

[Ziggurat]

I do however personally entertain *ANY NUMBER* of "cathode" solar models, not all of which might "pan out". Only time and more resolution will tell.

Michael, how will time and resolution resolve anything more when your cathode model hasn't been quantified to begin with? You don't have the most basic quantities of your model. You don't even know how the most basic quantities of the model relate to each other. Your model is essentially non-existent.

Even if it turns out that the sun does not have a "solid", but only a "rigid" layer of iron plasma, it would still be a "Birkeland solar model" so long as it acts as a cathode and discharges to the heliosphere.

In other words, your model is unfalsifiable, because you won't actually quantify anything about the "cathode" or the "discharges". You aren't doing science, Michael.

Even if I abandon the solid surface concept some day, it's highly unlikely I will abandon the Birkeland solar model unless the mainstream can duplicate his empirical work in a lab

Once again, you reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of science. It isn't necessary to prove the standard model in order to disprove the "Birkeland" solar model. It's possible they are both wrong.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Solar Surface Fusion? Not Likely. III

Nuclear fusion reactions generate both neutrinos and gamma rays. However, from the sun we see only neutrinos, but none of the gamma rays. If, as you say, "neutrino emission is from fusion activity on the surface of the sun", then the obvious question is ... Where are all the gamma rays that we should see but don't see?

Just one more example of Mozina willing to completely ignore physics when it gets in the way of his cherished notions.

What are you talking about? We see *PLENTY* of gamma rays Tim! What do you think Rhessi observes anyway?

Yet another example of Mozina working hard to prove that he has no idea what the word "physics" actually means. All of those gamma rays observed by RHESSI, or anything else, coming from the sun are 100% irrelevant. They have nothing at all to do with this particular point, a fact which would be obvious to anyone who actually understood the relevant physics. The CNO fusion reactions which Mozina falsely claims to see evidence for near the solar surface do not generate random gamma rays (Mozina thinks a gamma ray is a gamma ray and who cares what its energy is). Rather, the CNO reactions will generate narrow band gamma emission with extremely specific gamma ray energies that are immediately identifiable as CNO gamma rays and nothing else.

Your own fake paper appealed to gamma rays specifically identified with electron-positron annihilation (0.511 MeV) and neutron capture by hydrogen nuclei (2.223 MeV), neither of which can be attributed to and CNO specific process. All of the gamma rays seen emitted by the sun can be identified with non CNO specific processes, such as the ones I have already mentioned, or perhaps various other examples of neutron capture (e.g., Arkhangelskaja, et al., 2009), thermal or bremsstrahlung emission (e.g., Nakariakov, et al, 2010), pion decay (e.g., Chupp & Ryan, 2009), nuclear de-excitation (e.g., Murphy, et al, 2007), inverse Compton scattering of cosmic rays (e.g., Orlando & Strong, 2008), radioactive decay of neutron activated unstable isotopes (e.g., Tatischeff, et al., 2006).

You can't just say you see lots of gamma rays and let it go at that, it's a totally pointless claim. Either you see CNO specific gamma rays or you don't. If there are CNO nuclear reactions going on at or above the photosphere of the sun, then you see CNO specific gamma rays, period. We do not see any CNO specific gamma rays. Therefore there are no CNO reactions going on at or above the photosphere. The claim in your paper is quite wimpy at best, since just about every nuclear reaction you can think of will generate copious electron-positron annihilation, and there are likewise many ways to get all those free neutrons to capture. So the only way your paper can present "evidence" for CNO reactions is to arbitrarily assume in advance that there are such reactions, and then claim that those reactions are the most likely source for the electrons, positrons and neutrons, so naturally there must be CNO reactions going on. Very circular reasoning. There is no way that paper would ever have been approve for publication by anyone who understood nuclear astrophysics, which is probably why it wound up in an industrial nuclear fusion journal. It's a crappy paper.

 

[Michael Mozina]

One that supports your fantasies.

I think it's quaint that you buy their dead inflation deities, pseudoscientific math formulas (according to Alfven), and you'll accept dark stuff by the truck load but you think an empirically demonstrated theory is a 'fantasy'? That's really funny from my perspective.

One that shows how you can violate thermodynamics.

You cannot judge this theory by SSM thermodynamic standards. Their model isn't even *ELECTRIC* in the first place, so "forgetabout it". You'll have to rethink the whole energy release problem in a much more complex way, and I assure you it's "ugly" in terms of the mathematical expressions of such a model. I have no evidence any laws of physics are being violated simply by scaling *BIRKELANDS* solar model to size. What I do know it that it will not be easy to describe thermodynamically.

One that shows that it is possible for highly ionized neon plasma to actually exist and to be transparent to the depths you require.

I don't think that's possible here on Earth, certainly not on my shoestring budget. The SERTS data tells you that it "exists" at a very highly ionized state. What it doesn't tell you is where it's located. The images would tells is whether it is concentrated in the coronal loops, or found throughout the photosphere. That was the purpose of that Ne "prediction". I think that's something we can more easily "test" in an image than try to duplicate here on Earth and I would accept the outcome of that "test" as a valid falsification mechanism of the highly ionized neon concept.

One that shows that this plasma is not only possible, but existent in the sun.

The SERTS data shows you it's in the sun. It doesn't tell you where it is, but it certainly tells you it's there. If the SSM is to believed, it must also be within 500KM of that surface that convects in the gband wavelength.

]One that shows that measurements of the sun's density are wrong.

I don't think they are necessarily wrong until we reach the surface by the way. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing the new heliosiesmology images.

One that shows that existing measurements of the mixture of elements in the sun are wrong.

FYI, that Ne+3/+4 "test" would tell us if it's right or wrong in one full disk image.

One that shows that elements can be separated into layers by mass in the sun.

Type in "mass separation EM fields" in Google or Bing.

The alternative? Stop making wild speculations that are entirely unsupported by any empirical evidence while crowing on about "empirical" and "in the lab".

Everything I have suggested has in fact been tested in the lab 100 years ago by Birkeland and his friends. My impression is that Birkeland paid for that information with his life probably due to an overexposure to x-rays, not only in his solar experiments, but also in his profession in general. The least these guys today could do is duplicate his work, or read it and implement it, one or the other.

 

[Tim Thompson]

No Iron "Surface" for the Sun II

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

The cite is the abstract that I posted in that message.

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.

You're right, it is an uncomfortably large number. I haven't read the paper yet and it may be I am overlooking something trivial, or maybe they really did not remove the effect of changing Earth-Sun distance (although a phase relationship with the solar cycle is hard to understand if they did not). I don't know, but don't have time to deal with it for a few days now. There may be real problem with the data, or there may be a real problem with me. We'll see.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yet another example of Mozina working hard to prove that he has no idea what the word "physics" actually means. All of those gamma rays observed by RHESSI, or anything else, coming from the sun are 100% irrelevant. They have nothing at all to do with this particular point, a fact which would be obvious to anyone who actually understood the relevant physics. The CNO fusion reactions which Mozina falsely claims to see evidence for near the solar surface do not generate random gamma rays (Mozina thinks a gamma ray is a gamma ray and who cares what its energy is). Rather, the CNO reactions will generate narrow band gamma emission with extremely specific gamma ray energies that are immediately identifiable as CNO gamma rays and nothing else.

WOAH! Strawman alert! Who said anything about "nothing else"?

 

[Ziggurat]

Everything I have suggested has in fact been tested in the lab 100 years ago by Birkeland and his friends.

Not even close. For example, nothing about Birkeland's experiments showed that you could maintain a colder surface underneath a hotter mostly opaque layer of the sun (and yes, Michael, the ~6000 K layer is still mostly opaque EVEN IF it's completely transparent to 171 Angstrom light). The thermodynamic impossibility of your model is not supported by anything Birkeland ever did did.

There are other issues like the difference between generating plasma via electric discharge through a gas versus electric discharge in an environment which is fully plasma to begin with, the issue of

which existed for Birkeland's model but don't for the sun, the minor detail that Birkeland charged his model with an external power source and the sun has no external power source, etc, etc.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So the only way your paper can present "evidence" for CNO reactions is to arbitrarily assume in advance that there are such reactions, and then claim that those reactions are the most likely source for the electrons, positrons and neutrons, so naturally there must be CNO reactions going on. Very circular reasoning.

You mean like *ALL* the astronomy papers ever written on the topics of "dark energy", ""dark matter", and "inflation" don't use that same circular logic you just accused me of? Please! You blew the irony meter apart on that one! I can't tell you how many papers I've read that used *EXACTLY* that same circular reasoning Tim! Your whole industry does not have an empirical leg to stand on as it relates to "dark energy", "dark matter", or "inflation", and the only way you justify them is via circular logic!

 

[Michael Mozina]

The cite is the abstract that I posted in that message.



You're right, it is an uncomfortably large number.

Ya, and I can just imagine you guys howling at the top of your lungs if I had ever said such a thing. And you wonder why I don't bark math on command around here.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Okay, so you believe it is solid. Why didn't you just say so instead of making those bogus arguments about it being rigid?

The "bogus argument" was you suggesting that a Birkeland solar model was somehow limited to a solid surface solar model. It about electricity, not the state of the materials. He did however use *IRON* in his calculations of the mass of the universe. Why?

You will see what you believe to be a solid surface. I can predict that with some degree of certainty based on the fact that you believe you see it in other running difference images. If, on the other hand, you actually had any idea what those images represent, you'd see why people condsider that part of your argument to be so totally ridiculous.

What's totally ridiculous is your denial about Birkeland not having a solar model. That was the ridiculous part.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

In the past 100 years of your mathematical progresses, not one of you can duplicate an experiment even close to what Birkeland came up with 100 years ago. No solar wind demonstrations in the lab. No corona produced in the lab. No coronal loops around a sphere produced in the lab. No high speed "jets" produced in the lab. The only thing you've ever produced in the lab is "circuit reconnection" between two circuits of flowing plasma which you called "magnetic reconnection". Hoy.

In the past five years or so of your internet posting, not once have you provided *empirical*, experiments-done-in-the-lab demonstration of *any* of the following:

Mozplasma
Mozode
Mozeparation
Mozcharge
Mozwind
Moztronium

*EVERY ONE* of these is essential for the MM solar "model" to work!

So far the only thing you've produced is magic inflation dark energy bunnies magic Moz-physics bunnies. Hoy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And by "rigid" you mean . . .?

I mean that Kosovichev was correct that there are likely to be 'mass flows' associated with these "long lived structures", particularly all along the edges. Those are mass flows inside the discharge loops following the contours of the solid surface IMO. The bulk of the mass flow takes place in "small" coronal loops, not the big ones that come up and through the convecting surface in gband images. The RD process should "work" because that light/heat is concentrated in the loops along the "surface". The "pie chart of temperatures" relates to that surface, not the gband surface IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm really amused at the dark energy issue and how you *ASSUME* it has nothing to do with that "acceleration" you can't explain called the "solar wind". You all seem to believe that 70% of our physical universe is composed of this stuff, and causes the whole thing to accelerate, but you also *assume* it has no effect on gravitationally bound objects. You guys make this stuff up as you go evidently. This is *SO* much like a religion it's not funny. You have to believe Xenu the inflation deity gave his very existence to get the party started. We then have to believe the magic dark energy genies make the whole thing accelerate but *NEVER* effect anything with mass in a controlled "test". We have to believe that "physics" as we understand it only constitutes about 4% of the whole physical universe. And you guys have the nerve to call me a "crackpot"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh ya, we also have to assume that Alfven was completely clueless about MHD theory (he rejected magnetic reconnection theory his entire career) and crazy when he described how "circuits" work in space.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Since Birkeland already created solar wind of both types of ions, and a hot corona around a sphere

I guess we need to add "solar wind", and "hot corona" to the list, as Birkeland most certainly did not create either of these things in his lab!

They don't know how because they *REFUSE* to consider that evil electricity thing that Birkeland used in his lab.

Hmm, ...

Current Helicity of the Large-Scale Photospheric Magnetic Field

Vector Magnetic Fields and Electric Currents From the Imaging Vector Magnetograph

ILCT: Recovering Photospheric Velocities from Magnetograms by Combining the Induction Equation with Local Correlation Tracking

Vertical Lorentz Force and Cross-Field Currents in the Photospheric Magnetic Fields of Solar Active Regions

Reduction, analysis, and properties of electric current systems in solar active regions

Can We Improve the Preprocessing of Photospheric Vector Magnetograms by the Inclusion of Chromospheric Observations?

I guess we need to add "electricity" to the list too.

Think about it for a second D'rok. Birkeland demonstrated that a cathode and positive charge bombardment of a sphere produced aurora around a sphere. He then used that information to make predictions and even simulations of the sun's activities.

And "simulations" as well as "the sun's activities"

To simply "reject" that cathode "explanation" without an empirical replacement is the epitome of scientific folly. If they can't explain it even after 100 years of trying, don't you think they should at least revisit the idea in the lab?

But MM, the "cathode "explanation"" is but a figment of your imagination (a delusion, perhaps?)

In the real world there is only the MM solar "model", which includes the following magic inflation dark energy bunnies magic Moz-physics bunnies:

Mozplasma
Mozode
Mozeparation
Mozcharge
Mozwind
Moztronium

 

[brantc]

Does elementary particle spin count as motion? Well, maybe. But I don't see how you can call it current. So magnetic fields don't need current.

Yes, spin doesnt really exist in an electron. Its from the Stern-Gerlach Experiment. I dont know exactly where the magnetic field comes from in an electron. Current is motion of electrons in some direction.
Maybe the wave motion of the electron, but its not like you can scoop up some magnetic field particles in the same way you can isolate an electron. Magnetic fields are always associated with charge.

Again. You can find charge at a macroscopic scale by itself.
For magnetism it requires the motion of the electron at the macroscopic scale. Maybe when they move their domains line up....

I can put a bunch of charges together and the level of charge increases. And I dont have to line them up. To increase the magnetic field at the microscopic level I have to line up the "magnetic domains".

"The term "electron spin" is not to be taken literally in the classical sense as a description of the origin of the magnetic moment described above. To be sure, a spinning sphere of charge can produce a magnetic moment, but the magnitude of the magnetic moment obtained above cannot be reasonably modeled by considering the electron as a spinning sphere. High energy scattering from electrons shows no "size" of the electron down to a resolution of about 10-3 fermis, and at that size a preposterously high spin rate of some 1032 radian/s would be required to match the observed angular momentum."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/spin.html#c4

 

[Michael Mozina]

Is there anything else I should be aware of that I'm giving up in terms of real empirical physics that I should be warned about before I think about rejoining your hostile little metaphysical religion?

 

[dasmiller]

I The SERTS data tells you that it "exists" at a very highly ionized state.

The SERTS data does NOT tell you that your completely-highly-ionized Neon exists anywhere. It tells us that there is some neon in a variety of ionization states in the corona. According to your model:

a) the photospheric neon is much, much more highly ionized than the neon in the SERTS data, despite the fact that the photosphere is much cooler than the corona. This makes your neon layer inconsistent with the SERTS data.

b) the photospheric neon is completely (to better than 99.9999999%) to Ne+6 or higher. This makes your neon layer inconsistent with the the SERTS data which showed the expected variety of ionization states.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Oh ya, we also have to assume that Alfven was completely clueless about MHD theory (he rejected magnetic reconnection theory his entire career) and crazy when he described how "circuits" work in space.

Strange, then, that so many papers - published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals - seem to make use of MHD (including all those upside-down-triangly thingies, drunken letter d's, etc) wrt observed solar phenomena.

Would you like to pick a handful of them, and show us all - in full and glorious detail - how the authors of those papers are "completely clueless about MHD theory"?

And if you can't do that, how do you know MHD has been mis-applied or misunderstood?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I need to see a full sphere resolution RD movie,

Sounds like we're in for a long wait. I enjoyed Avatar in 3D, but James Cameron hasn't yet figured out how to display a full sphere in his movies.

Or maybe I'm overthinking this, in which case we should add "sphere" and "resolution" to the list of words that Michael Mozina uses without understanding what they mean.