Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

[Michael Mozina]

Should we dig through the posts and bring up all the responses to Alfvén's papers and Mann's papers and show that the above argument is definitively a lie?

Your definitive LIES begin with "Electrical discharges in plasmas? What discharges?" When it comes to science and physics you're totally and completely clueless. If you didn't attack the individual, you couldn't hold your own in any real science oriented debate. You're a one trick personal attack pony. Your only claim to fame is that you are RELENTLESS in your personal attacks and your denial quotient is off scale.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Arguing without qualification to understand the matter being discussed is, by definition, an argument from ignorance.

That's why you constantly are arguing from ignorance? "Electrical Discharges in plasma? What discharges? Dark filament eruptions? What dark filament? Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" Utterly Pathetic............

 

[Michael Mozina]

quite the contrary, the plasma of the solar photosphere will be far more likely to interfere with the higher energy wavelengths.

That depends *ENTIRELY* on the ionization state of the photosphere Tim. We've already discussed the fact that you folks completely *IGNORE* the current flow process between the cathode sun and the heliosphere so you completely blow the ionization state of the photosphere.

But I can say that I have a clear memory of you claiming to see fully 3-dimensional motion in flat 2-dimensional pictures, with no other supportive evidence for the claim. That said, your claim "It comes from UNDER the surface of the photosphere ... " is nothing but a figment of your over-active imagination.

You're also intent on ignoring the limb observations now too Tim? When we look at the limb of an active region, like the one going over the horizon at about the 2:00 position, we can see all sorts of materials coming up and through the photosphere Tim. We can see it "light up" the plasmas at the surface of the photosphere too. Take a gander at the active region going over horizon tell me you can't see materials rising up out of the photosphere.

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_1600.mpg

Are we going back to the bad old days of "science by pretty picture"?

No Tim, it's called OBSERVATION. It's an important part of "science".

You and LMSAL have a SERIOUS problem. Your 'theories' don't jive with the PHYSICS we observe in 1600A images. The high energy discharges come up and through the surface of the photosphere just as my theories "predict". Meanwhile LMSAL claims that the footprints of the loop, where the heating process occurs, and solar moss takes place, is something like 1200KM ABOVE the photosphere! BS. LMSAL's claims are complete BS.

 

[ben m]

Wake up Michael.

We've shown you time and time again that magnetic reconnection exists in the equations of E&M and plasma physics. Tusenfem showed you explicitly where Alfven used an approximation to the underlying laws of plasma physics, and that the approximation ignores the possibility of reconnection. (That's not to say it's not a useful approximation, but like all approximations it is useful sometimes---calculating wave speeds, for example---and not others.) And, finally, the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment at Princeton, whose operators (and funders and publishers and referees & etc. etc.) claim to have seen reconnection.

And as usual you've heard this all before, and you conveniently forget about it every time you want to go on your automatic, content-free, counterfactual "I'm-trying-to-do-real-physics-but-you-guys-refuse-to-reply-to-Alfven" rant once again.

 

[ben m]

That depends *ENTIRELY* on the ionization state of the photosphere Tim. We've already discussed the fact that you folks completely *IGNORE* the current flow process between the cathode sun and the heliosphere so you completely blow the ionization state of the photosphere.

We humored you through the construction of a completely nonsensical ionization state of a hypothetical neon photosphere, Michael. I'm amused that you have now adopted this yuk-fest as a tenet of Iron Sun Theory.

There is no question whatsoever about the photosphere being hyperionized out-of-equilibrium neon. We made it up purely for the exercise of walking you through how stupid it was. All available evidence points to the photosphere being a bath of ordinary hydrogen in very good thermal, ionization, and hydrostatic equilibrium.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wake up Michael.

We've shown you time and time again that magnetic reconnection exists in the equations of E&M and plasma physics.

That's right. As long as it appears in an "equation" it must exist according to you folks. You can't even begin to look at the PHYSICS part of the process because the moment you actually do that, the whole argument falls apart. At the level of actual particle physics, only PARTICLES, CURRENTS and CIRCUITS do any "reconnecting". There are no "monopoles" to transfer pure magnetic field energy into another field. All energy is KINETIC by it's NATURE, and it's transferred by descreet, quantized PARTICLES and PHOTONS.

Tusenfem showed you explicitly where Alfven used an approximation to the underlying laws of plasma physics, and that the approximation ignores the possibility of reconnection.

Since monopoles don't exist, it's not a possibility Ben. The transfer of particle kinetic energy to other particles is not "magnetic reconnection". The transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is called *INDUCTION*, not "magnetic reconnection".

And as usual you've heard this all before, and you conveniently forget about it every time you want to go on your automatic, content-free, counterfactual "I'm-trying-to-do-real-physics-but-you-guys-refuse-to-reply-to-Alfven" rant once again.

Boloney ben. I went through those experiments with you. We looked at the fact that the actual reconnection process occurred between two CURRENTS, not two simple "magnetic lines". You're attempting to DUMB DOWN an ELECTRICALLY DRIVEN process to the B orientation just so you can call the whole thing "magnetic reconnection". BS.

 

[Michael Mozina]

We humored you through the construction of a completely nonsensical ionization state of a hypothetical neon photosphere, Michael.

I realize it's nonsensical to you Ben because you refuse to consider the possibility that the sun works as Birkeland claimed. You refuse to consider the possibility that is acts as a "cathode" with respect to the heliosphere. In short, you simply refuse to consider Birkeland's theory seriously and look at the ramifications it has on things like the ionization state of the solar atmosphere, in spite of the fact that Birkeland PREDICTED a constant stream of both types of high speed particles to come from the sun (and they do).

I'm amused that you have now adopted this yuk-fest as a tenet of Iron Sun Theory.

I'm amused that you're amused. How else would I even SEE an iron sun?

There is no question whatsoever about the photosphere being hyperionized out-of-equilibrium neon. We made it up purely for the exercise of walking you through how stupid it was. All available evidence points to the photosphere being a bath of ordinary hydrogen in very good thermal, ionization, and hydrostatic equilibrium.

FYI in Birkeland's model, the photosphere CANNOT be in equilibrium because it's sitting in the middle of a constantly changing, but ever present electrical current that flows between the surface and the heliosphere. It CANNOT be in equilibrium in Birkeland's model and it cannot be non ionized anymore than a neon bulb can be non ionized with currents running through it.

 

[ben m]

That's right. As long as it appears in an "equation" it must exist according to you folks.

Sometimes you find something in an equation that doesn't quite correspond to reality. This is not one of those times.

Boloney ben. I went through those experiments with you.

I'm glad you remember that this happened at all! It's nice to be accused of being simply wrong rather than be accused of ignoring everything.

 

[GeeMack]

That depends *ENTIRELY* on the ionization state of the photosphere Tim. We've already discussed the fact that you folks completely *IGNORE* the current flow process between the cathode sun and the heliosphere so you completely blow the ionization state of the photosphere.


You're also intent on ignoring the limb observations now too Tim? When we look at the limb of an active region, like the one going over the horizon at about the 2:00 position, we can see all sorts of materials coming up and through the photosphere Tim. We can see it "light up" the plasmas at the surface of the photosphere too. Take a gander at the active region going over horizon tell me you can't see materials rising up out of the photosphere.

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_1600.mpg

The 1600Å filter is used to develop a graphical representation of temperature, something like 5,000 to 100,000 degrees. There's no "lighting up" going on other than some pixels in the resulting graphic are, out of necessity, brighter than others. It is a quintessential argument from ignorance to claim otherwise. So no, nobody can see materials rising up out of the photosphere even if some people mistakenly believe they can.

No Tim, it's called OBSERVATION. It's an important part of "science".

Observation and jumping to preconceived conclusions without objective quantitative analysis is just making guesses. Bad guesses in this case. Wrong guesses. And guessing at conclusions without the qualifications to understand the graphics is an argument from ignorance.

You and LMSAL have a SERIOUS problem. Your 'theories' don't jive with the PHYSICS we observe in 1600A images. The high energy discharges come and and through the surface of the photosphere just as my theories "predict". Meanwhile LMSAL claims that the footprints of the loop, where the heating process occurs, and solar moss takes place, is something like 1200KM ABOVE the photosphere! BS. LMSAL's claims are complete BS.

Yes, all those scientists at LMSAL and not a single one has ever figured it out.

There are ways of measuring the location of various thermal characteristics in the atmosphere of the Sun. Hint: It is done with the different filters which are used to obtain solar imagery, which aren't really pictures so much as they are graphical representations of thermal activity. Observing those variations straight on, at the limb, and everywhere in between, then applying some fairly simple geometry will tell us how far above the photosphere all that stuff is happening.

 

[Almo]

I really fail to see why you folks feel compelled to discuss *PEOPLE* rather than the topic.

Because you refuse to learn anything about physics. You just spout your weird theories. People like Tim are very patient, and give long, well-written, excellent explanations about why you are wrong.

And you ignore them, and just repeat some useless garbage again.

It's fine to discuss physics without hardcore training in it, if you're willing to listen to people who do. You have demonstrated that you are not. Hence the discussion inevitably will turn to you, instead of the physics.

 

[Reality Check]

Remember when Mozina tried to discover how the photosphere could be transparent to keV radiation, and he concluded that the entire photosphere had to be made up of neon? And that the neon had to be hyper-ionized, in violation of thermodynamic and hydrostatic equilibrium, and magically prevented from emitting million-kelvin-like radiation at 16,000,000,000 times the brightness of the Sun?

I forget what came out of that discussion. I think the conclusions were (a) Mozina doesn't know enough physics to have an intelligent discussion of this sort of thing, (b) the iron sun model is really, really, really wrong.

What came out of the discussion was MM's usual tactic of ignoring the physical problems with his fantasies.

From the Iron Sun thread (Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked!), we have
Question 17: Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere?
and related to this
19: What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers?
24: Where are the controllable empirical experiments showing the Iron Sun mass separation?
51: How does the SERTS data show that all of the neon and silcon in the Sun's atmosphere is highly ionized?

And since he has mentioned the 2 papers that cite his web site and his 'interpretation' of a running difference move:

the delusional nature of Michael Mozina's fantasy about the TRACE RD 171A movie!
​

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because you refuse to learn anything about physics.

That's definitely not true. I've learn A LOT about physics in my lifetime, and a lot from these boards in fact. In just the last 5 years I've read more physics text books than I'd read in the previous 20, including two by Hannes Alfven.

You just spout your weird theories.

You are entitled to your opinions, Tim is entitled to his, and I am entitled to mine, even if they seem a little "weird" to someone else.

People like Tim are very patient, and give long, well-written, excellent explanations about why you are wrong.

Well, I agree with you that Tim is very patient, he gives long, well-written, excellent explanations about why he personally *BELIEVES* that I am wrong. FYI, I actually kinda like Tim and he's given me a wealth of useful reading materials over the years. Believe me when I say that I've learned a lot from Tim over the last 5 or 6 years that we've discussed these topics in cyberspace, both here and at other boards.

The problem is that Tim and I see the universe very differently. After reading about Birkeland's terrella experiments, Alfven's MHD theories and cosmology theories, etc, I just can't see the universe the same way anymore. I realize that Tim cannot see it my way too. Tim either can't conceive of or cannot accept the idea of a cathode sun that electrically interacts with the heliosphere as Birkeland suggested. I can. We see the sun differently as a result. Tim cannot understand why the photosphere would be highly ionized in a Birkeland solar model, but I can. He therefore does not believe the photosphere to be a "current carrying" plasma, and therefore it cannot be highly ionized in his opinion. I understand that. I just don't agree with it.

In Birkeland's cathode sun universe, the photosphere MUST be highly ionized because it's sitting between the cathode below and the heliosphere above and conducting current on a 24/7 basis. It's impossible for that surface to NOT be highly ionized in a cathode sun theory.

And you ignore them, and just repeat some useless garbage again.

I don't actually "ignore" them. In fact it is *VERY* important for me to "understand" exactly why I disagree with someone like sol, or ben or Tim or any of the many other scientists that I've come to respect during these conversations. I have to understand why I disagree with them.

FYI, Birkeland's cathode sun theories are not "some useless garbage". His solar model was the first solar model to "predict" high speed solar wind from the sun, both positively and negatively charged particles. That was a true "prediction" by the way. It's something he actually learned via active experimentation in the lab.

It's fine to discuss physics without hardcore training in it, if you're willing to listen to people who do. You have demonstrated that you are not. Hence the discussion inevitably will turn to you, instead of the physics.

No, it will inevitably turn to Alfven and Birkeland and other "professionals" that put forth these ideas in the first place. I won't allow the conversation to fixate on me, just on the physics and the differences of opinions that exist. The personal stuff is actually sad and pathetic IMO. Tim typically doesn't do that. Occasionally he and ben and even sol lose their cool, but by and large they are true "scientists" in every sense of the word, even from my perspective. PS and GM however seem intent on personal attack, character assassination, and trash talk. Neither of them has cited a single flaw in Mann and Onel's work. Neither of them has cited a single flaw in Alfven's work for that matter. Neither of them has accepted the fact that MATHEMATICAL EVIDENCE has already been presented to support an "electric sun" theory. They sit their in pure denial and hurl insults from the peanut gallery. How sad.

 

[ben m]

FYI in Birkeland's model, the photosphere CANNOT be in equilibrium because it's sitting in the middle of a constantly changing, but ever present electrical current that flows between the surface and the heliosphere. It CANNOT be in equilibrium in Birkeland's model and it cannot be non ionized anymore than a neon bulb can be non ionized with currents running through it.

Your MozNeon nonsense was not possible in equilibrium or out of it. Why don't you start walking me through the numerical details of how far out of equilibrium you think this plasma is? For starters, what's the current density (in amperes) and the electric field (in V/m)?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your MozNeon nonsense was not possible in equilibrium or out of it. Why don't you start walking me through the numerical details of how far out of equilibrium you think this plasma is? For starters, what's the current density (in amperes) and the electric field (in V/m)?

According to Birkeland (and Alfven) we're talking 600 million to a billion volts. I'll have to do some reading of Birkelands work to even get close to the right current density, but I suspect Birkeland was in the right ballpark on those numbers too. You'd probably have to use standard density numbers at the surface of the photosphere and assume the cathode surface is about 4800KM under the surface of the photosphere to work out a current density.

 

[Reality Check]

Michael Mozina proves that the Sun has exploded

I realize it's nonsensical to you Ben because you refuse to consider the possibility that the sun works as Birkeland claimed. You refuse to consider the possibility that is acts as a "cathode" with respect to the heliosphere.

You are lying about Birkeland. He never claimed that the sun acted as a cathode to the heliosphere.
What he stated was that his experiments on the electrical discharges from a metallic (usually brass) ball in a vacuum chamber were analogies of activity on the Sun.

He was not ignorant enough to think that the Sun was an actual brass ball as the EU crowd and you think.

You are also lying about us.
We have considered consider the possibility that the Sun acts as a cathode with respect to the heliosphere.
We have found that this is wrong for the simple reason that the solar wind is neutral, i.e. there is no net charge flowing between the Sun and the heliosphere.

FYI in Birkeland's model, the photosphere CANNOT be in equilibrium because it's sitting in the middle of a constantly changing, but ever present electrical current that flows between the surface and the heliosphere.

FYI: You are living in the wrong universe.
In this universe, Birkeland has not such model or you would have answered Please cite Birkeland's "cathode solar model" (asked 16th September 2010). But this is not surprising given Michael Mozina's delusions about Birkeland's work(citing his work on brass balls in support of an iron sun idea is especially amusing).

In this universe observations have found no such currents.
Thus there is no point in having fantasies about a non-existent current being in equilibrium or not.

What does a 'ever present electrical current' do MM?
It creates a charge on the Sun. Too big of a charge and the Sun explodes !

On the global electrostatic charge of stars (77 Coulombs before the Sun explodes)

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your MozNeon nonsense was not possible in equilibrium or out of it. Why don't you start walking me through the numerical details of how far out of equilibrium you think this plasma is? For starters, what's the current density (in amperes) and the electric field (in V/m)?

FYI, I suppose you could also work backwards from our previous conversation about the necessary ionization states, and Birkeland's original voltages (600 million volts). As I recall, all the Neon had to be in a +4 to +5 ionization state to not interfere with the iron ion wavelengths. I think we all agreed that any ion of Neon in the SERTS data with a higher ionization state than +5 was probably related to coronal loop activity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are lying about Birkeland. He never claimed that the sun acted as a cathode to the heliosphere.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3

Denial is an ugly thing RC. Falsely calling me a liar when there are so many available references on his cathode sun theories is just stupid IMO. Who do you think you're fooling anyway? Even the "newbies" can see through that BS.

 

[D'rok]

You know, there is something oddly comforting about leaving the forum for months and months, then coming back to find that all the Mozina threads haven't moved a single picometre in the entire time I've been away.

It's like the Quack of Gibraltar.

BTW: One gets interesting results when one googles "birkeland solar model".
http://www.google.ca/search?q="birk...s=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

Yup. Two pages of Mozina and nothing but Mozina.

 

[Reality Check]

How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust

Well, I agree with you that Tim is very patient, he gives long, well-written, excellent explanations about why he personally *BELIEVES* that I am wrong.

You are wrong: Tim gives long, well-written, excellent explanations about why the *PHYSICS* shows that you are wrong.

For example: The opacity of the Sun's plasma means that the emission through the photosphere cannot be more than a photon per year from any layer that is 4800 km below the surface of the Sun.
Thus it is absurd to claim to see that layer in any image taken of the Sun.

This is not a *BELIEF*. This is a *FACT OF PHYSICS*.

P.S. How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?

Originally Posted by dasmiller
As others have said, opacity is independent of light intensity. "Opaque" is ultimately a matter of degree; opacity is a measure of how opaque a thing is.

But on a more practical level, things can get very opaque very quickly. If we take GM's diagram, which showed 37% transmittance at 350 km and 4% transmittance at 400 km, then that 50 km of plasma blocked about 90% of the light. If the plasma didn't get denser with depth (it does) and kept the same level of ionization, we'd expect it to block another 90% of the light every 50 km.

So, starting at 400 km with 1/25 of the light getting through (4%)
depth . . . light coming through
400 km . . . . 1/25
450 km . . . . 1/250
500 km . . . . 1/2500
550 km . . . . 1/25,000
600 km . . . . 1/250,000
650 km . . . . 1/2,500,000
700 km . . . . 1/25,000,000
750 km . . . . 1/250,000,000
800 km . . . . 1/2.5E9
900 km . . . . 1/2.5E11
1000 km . . . . 1/2.5E13
1500 km . . . . 1/2.5E23
2000 km . . . . 1/2.5E33
3000 km . . . . 1/2.5E53

Thus, if we relied on photons simply passing through 3000 km of that plasma to provide us with light, the entire sun would emit an average of 1 photon every 4 years. That's pretty opaque.

 

[Reality Check]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3

Denial is an ugly thing RC. Falsely calling me a liar when there are so many available references on his cathode sun theories is just stupid IMO. Who do you think you're fooling anyway? Even the "newbies" can see through that BS.

And once again - this is a report about a speech: Where are the scientific papers on Birkeland's solar model?

Ignorance is an ugly thing MM. This is the only reference that you have produced on Birekland'cathode sun theories and it is a stupid reference. Any one with 2 brain cells can see that this is at best an opinion, not a theory.

ETA
Do you also believe that the planets were created from positive atoms from the Sun as the reporter stated?

Try reading the atricle: It is all about Birkeland's beliefs. Science has shown that this belief was wrong because there is no such current.