Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

Liar.

Which *SPECIFIC* detail of this *SPECIFIC* RD or Doppler image did you or anyone else address?

 

[Ziggurat]

That spectrum tells you nothing at all about what the top of the photosphere emits. Get real. All you know is that the *WHOLE THING* emits a lot of wavelengths. You know absolutely nothing about the photosphere from that data.

That's not true. But it's also not relevant. It tells you a temperature, and it tells you that whatever is at that temperature is opaque.

The same thing that happens when you go to the bottom of the atmosphere on the sun. You find a "crust".

Boy, did you miss the point. If you go to the bottom of the ocean, you will find that it's dark. On the proper scale, water is, in fact, opaque to visible light. Same thing with the plasma in the sun's photosphere. That it may look transparent when sitting in a tiny little box is irrelevant.

The *WHOLE* sun may indeed emit a lot of wavelengths. That tells you absolutely nothing about the surface of the photosphere.

The photosphere is by definition where the visible light comes from. If you don't believe that astronomers can measure the depth of the photosphere, that's one thing. But to pretend that light is coming from under the photosphere is, well, nonsensical.

The problem is that my understanding can accommodate and explain the various details of both those images and every image on my website in fact.

And yet, it cannot handle the most basic concepts about temperature.

Not one of you has touched a specific detail of that specific image! What does that tell us?

That I don't care to replicate the work of others on that topic.

You'll find them flying out of the whole sun 24/7. They are found in something called "solar wind".

And in things called plasmas. What's the atmosphere of the sun made out of? Oh, that's right: plasma! Why is it that so many advocates of the idea that conventional astronomy ignores the electromagnetic properties of plasma so often demonstrate that they themselves don't understand the [/i]electromagnetic properties of plasma?[/i]

Most of the rest is rehash, so I won't bother.

Of course. You never bothered the first time, why should now be any different? Why should you address the fact that whatever is under the photosphere must be at least 6000 K hot?

The fact you see a lot of different wavelengths from the whole sun does not tell us squat about the output of the photosphere.

Well, since the photosphere is defined as the part of the sun that emits what we see, I'd say you're axiomatically wrong. But it's still irrelevant: whatever it is we're seeing is at 6000 K, and it's opaque. You can't hide a cooler surface under a 6000 K opaque surface.

With the exception of a very few wavelengths like k-band or white light,

Bwahahahahahaha! Tell me, Michael, what's the wavelength of white light?

I also observe calcium and silicon emissions from deeper layer of the sun too.

If you see emission lines on top of a blackbody spectrum, that means the source is hotter than the blackbody spectrum. Still doesn't help your case, Michael.

You simply use the BB idea as a handy way of calculating energy and opacity, but these things *ASSUME* things that simply are not true

No, Michael. The only thing a blackbody spectrum assumes is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds. There is no other assumption. If you think there is, then you clearly don't understand what a blackbody spectrum means.

including the notion that iron and nickel stay mixed with hydrogen.

No, Michael. When I see a blackbody spectrum, I don't need to conclude anything about the source's composition in order to know that it's a blackbody, it's got a temperature I can determine, and it is opaque. Those are the only conclusions I need to make in order to show that whatever is under the photosphere must be at least 6000 K. Composition is irrelevant to that conclusion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

One of the interesting things about Birkeland is, is that he was a wonderful experimentalist and knew how to interpret the measurements that he made.

Yes, he was quite unlike you folks that don't even comprehend what an actual "control mechanism" looks like or the reason that a control mechanism is required in a real "experiment".

And indeed he inferred that there had to be charged corpuscules coming from the sun (like in MM's signature).

He knew 100 years ago that the sun spewed electrons and ions of every flavor. Your beloved mainstream ridiculed him for 60 or so years until Chapman's elegant but pointless math was put to rest based on in situ satellite measurements of currents in space. Somehow after 100 years, you and the mainstream still remain blind to every other part of his work.

However, as anyone can see (except maybe for MM and Sol88) the solar wind can never be created with the Sun being a cathode, like in Birkies experiments. I am sure Birkie would have realized that too, because the solar wind consists of both electrons and positive ions, which cannot be generated by a cathode.

If you had actually read Birkeland's work like a real scientist should do, you would know that he already understood that particles of the sphere were being deposited as "soot" on the sides of his chamber, requiring him clean it periodically. That is why my sig line is not limited to electrons. Then again, you and every other skeptic (save perhaps Tim) wouldn't have a clue because you've never read his work.

By the way, I wonder if Sol88 is the Mr. Hyde to MM's Dr. Jackyll. S disappears as M pops up ...

Paranoid perhaps?

So, can we stop this rediculous notion of the iron sun (or rather MM not understanding what pictures in different spectral bands mean and how the Sun creates a black body spectrum through local thermal equlibrium) and get to the real stuff here.

What "real" stuff? Unlike Birkeland you folks have *NEVER* created a working model, you don't have a clue why solar wind accelerates, you don't have any evidence that "magnetic reconnection" is fundamentally (at the level of actual physics) any different from "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection" mixed in with a wee bit of induction. All you can do is blind yourself to the obvious reason why a solar atmosphere act like any other atmosphere and releases x-rays and gamma-rays, namely due to electrical discharges. Instead you're hopelessly confused by your own math formulas, you don't have a clue what a 'control mechanism' looks like or what purpose it serves.

The electric universe, there are many questions left that have never been answered:

• comments like "the original charge separation", what does that mean

• 
  
  It means that the core of the sun releases free electrons and protons. The electrons discharge themselves toward the heliosphere (case in Birkeland's experiments) and they drag the protons and other ions along for the ride. Birkeland already knew all of this by the way. He explains this in his book, but alas one has to actually read it.
  
  

  the problem with creating water from machined oxygen ions in the solar wind

  
  Huh? What does that have to do with Birkeland's solar theory.
  
  

  what maintains the enormous currents that create the stars in a z-pinch, and how much current is actually needed

  
  If you'd read Birkeland's book, you'd know that no external currents may be required save perhaps some positively charged interstellar wind. He proposed an internal fission type process and mentioned uranium by name. Not bad for 100 years ago.
  
  

  But now that MM has come to stage, it seems we only get ***WORDS*** with never anything qualitatively

  
  I can certainly explain these images qualitatively right down to small detail. In four years I've yet to see any of you hotshots put your money on the table and explain the actual details of this actual image even qualitatively. I don't even want to see your math until I hear your physical explanation of this process.
  
  

  let along quantitative.

  
  I handed you a whole paper on heliosiesmology just full of quantitative measurements and techniques. I even have confidence in their accuracy myself because I can see the results for myself in his Doppler images. That angular rigid (persistent) structure I circled for you is unlike the fluid nature of plasma.
  
  

  Suddenly 5 pages of "it too" - "is not" with really a nerve wracking and annoying self-interpretation of physics by MM. This goes no where, it would be best to close this thread.

  
  There you go trying to stifle the conversation by closing the thread. You guys can't handle an open and honest debate. If you could, you would simply explain the various details of these two images and that would be that. Since you can't do that, you've stooped to the oldest trick in the book, the personal smear campaign. How pitiful. Pity you can't boil me in oil here and close threads at your leisure at every website in cyberspace. Someday you'll have to either explain these images or accept the fact that you can't. When I finally accepted that fact from the standpoint of standard solar theory, and looked at the images themselves for answers, the answers came. It just took time and research. I was stunned to see that Birkeland had already tested every critical detail of such a model 100 years before I even thought of the idea.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you'd read Birkeland's book, you'd know that no external currents may be required save perhaps some positively charged interstellar wind. He proposed an internal fission type process and mentioned uranium by name. Not bad for 100 years ago.

No, it wasn't a bad guess. Too bad it's wrong.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's not true. But it's also not relevant. It tells you a temperature,

How does it tell you *A* temperature? The sun is certainly not a single temperature.

and it tells you that whatever is at that temperature is opaque.

No, it does not. You made that up, or more accurately, you *ASSUMED* it was the case.

Boy, did you miss the point. If you go to the bottom of the ocean, you will find that it's dark. On the proper scale, water is, in fact, opaque to visible light.

All light penetrates to some depth of water and water is significantly more dense than light hydrogen and helium plasma. Water does not absorb every wavelength at the same rate either, hence the ROYGBIV rule. The wavelength denotes and energy state and the density of the medium is also critically important in understanding which wavelengths are light to penetrate the deepest. You'd also have to really understand the actual elements that make up the thing you describe as well as the temperature and density.

Same thing with the plasma in the sun's photosphere. That it may look transparent when sitting in a tiny little box is irrelevant.

Bull. We can see electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere from space. The medium is critically important. This is another example of your industry's strong need to *OVERSIMPLIFY* every physical process. Chapman's overly simplistic theories were easier to understand and explain mathematically, so the mainstream clung to Chapman's math for 60 years. You put far too much emphasis on a math formula and far too little emphasis on physics and physical tests with real control mechanisms.

The photosphere is by definition where the visible light comes from.

It's a plasma layer of neon, so it just so happens to radiate brightly in visible light. So what? When we observe a sunspot, the upwelling silicon plasma is often hotter and cooler than the surface of the photosphere and yet it's not emitting anywhere near as much visible light as the neon part of the plasma. that is due to it's physical structure, not just it's temperature.

If you don't believe that astronomers can measure the depth of the photosphere, that's one thing. But to pretend that light is coming from under the photosphere is, well, nonsensical.

Actually, sunspot activity might allow you to physically measure it, and I accept the depth attributed to that layer of plasma. I simply don't believe that this layer blocks all light at 171A. I think that idea is nonsensical given the physical evidence.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg

The x-rays are in fact absorbed in the photosphere much faster than the 171A. That's why only the tops of the loops, the parts outside of the photosphere are visible by yohkoh, wheras TRACE sees down to the bottom of the loop, far underneath the photosphere. You are oversimplifying the light absorption process. It's never uniform nor does it block all light instantly, regardless of the medium in question. It's been a long week and I need a beer. I'll look at the rest of your post later to see if I missed something critical.

The main debate here is Tim's comment about density having virtually no importance, and the idea that only one surface is a "black body". That's clearly not correct. The medium of the photosphere will absorb various wavelengths of light at different rates, and the absorption spectrum and rate will be determined by its composition and density.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, it wasn't a bad guess. Too bad it's wrong.

Actually, it's probably right. It's certainly the "simplest" explanation, but something internal or external must be responsible for the solar cycles.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, Michael. The only thing a blackbody spectrum assumes is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds. There is no other assumption. If you think there is, then you clearly don't understand what a blackbody spectrum means.

You aren't paying attention to my argument. I don't believe that the surface of the photosphere is a "black body". Period. It's simply an extremely thin layer of neon plasma sitting between a lighter and hotter helium plasma above and denser, cooler silicon layer below. It's akin to a cloud covering on Earth. It definitely will no radiate as a "black body". No thin plasma acts that way. It emits specific wavelengths based on the elements and their valence shells. The BB concept is simply a handy mathematical construct, much like Chapman's math. It just has no actual physical relevance to the sun. Hydrogen plasma at those densities will not behave like a "black body". If you think otherwise, let's see your physical *EXPERIMENTS* with actual *CONTROL MECHANISMS*.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually, it's probably right.

No, Michael. It's wrong. Neutrino flux proves it's wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

You aren't paying attention to my argument. I don't believe that the surface of the photosphere is a "black body". Period.

In other words, the photosphere isn't really a photosphere at all. Yes, I know that's your claim. I also know that it's irrelevant: whatever it is that we're seeing is a blackbody. That means it's opaque and hot. Whatever is under it is therefore at least that hot as well. I don't care what you think the origin of that radiation is, whether you think it's the photosphere (as actual astronomers do) or if you think it's from something under the photosphere, that blackbody radiation is coming from somewhere. And it sure as hell ain't coming from under your solid shell. So if there's a solid shell under the photosphere, it must be at least 6000 K. Which, well, even you don't swallow that nonsense. But all you're really doing is exchanging a physical absurdity (solds at 6000 K) for a physical impossibility (a cooler region underneath an opaque hot region).

 

[D'rok]

Lurker interlude:

GeeMack and Reality Check have clearly and succinctly explained what Running Difference images are in a fashion that even an arts grad like me can understand. If their explanation is correct, all other issues aside, Michael's entire theory is debunked. I have no reason to think that their explanation is incorrect. Michael has offered no rebuttal but to insist that the images show something that, by their very nature, they cannot.

There is something really tragic here. Michael has hung his hat on something that he appears to be willfully misunderstanding and he is clinging to it like it's the last thing he has. Given his health announcement in his other thread, this may actually be the case. I think he is going to take this futile battle with him to his grave. This makes me a little bit sad.

Going to rub kitty's tummy now.

:End lurker interlude

 

[Ziggurat]

How does it tell you *A* temperature? The sun is certainly not a single temperature.

Yes, there is a range of temperatures coming from the photosphere. They're all close enough together that for these purposes. And yes, you can still assign a single temperature based upon total output energy, and this temperature represents a sort of average of the visible part of the sun.

No, it does not. You made that up, or more accurately, you *ASSUMED* it was the case.

No, Michael. If something emits blackbody radiation, it must be opaque. The sun emits blackbody radiation. It is therefore opaque. This is not an assumption. This is a requirement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

All light penetrates to some depth of water and water is significantly more dense than light hydrogen and helium plasma.

And glass is denser than water, but can be more transparent. So what? Light has a finite penetration depth in plasma. At the temperatures and densities of the photosphere, that penetration depth isn't that large.

Bull.

Wow, did you miss the point. A cup of water looks transparent, but an ocean of water is not. A small box of plasma may look transparent, but tens of kilometers need not be. Where is your physical evidence that the penetration depth of IR, visible, and UV light is longer than the thickness of the photosphere? Oh, that's right: you don't have any.

It's a plasma layer of neon, so it just so happens to radiate brightly in visible light. So what?

What on earth makes you think the photosphere is made of neon?

I simply don't believe that this layer blocks all light at 171A.

Doesn't matter. You can't get significant emissions at 171 A unless you're MUCH hotter than 6000 K. So regardless of how transparent it is at that wavelength, it's still opaque over the region in which anything below 6000 K would be radiating appreciably. Which means you can't have anything under it at colder temperatures.

You are oversimplifying the light absorption process. It's never uniform nor does it block all light instantly, regardless of the medium in question.

Doesn't matter if it's "instant". It still gets blocked. So you can't have something under it that's colder. There's no way around that, Michael.

 

[Ziggurat]

Given his health announcement in his other thread

I think you're confusing him with MacM. They both cling to absurd ideas in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence, but they are different.

 

[GeeMack]

Which *SPECIFIC* detail of this *SPECIFIC* RD or Doppler image did you or anyone else address?

I explained every pixel of your precious running difference image. Every single pixel. Pick a specific pixel and go re-read my explanation. Apply that explanation to the pixel in question. There you go. Specific as hell. I explained it in a way that was understandable by pretty much every English speaking person over about 10 years old, with the exception of those who are mentally ill and/or mentally retarded. Several other members on this and other forums have explained them in great detail, also.

You know DRD, I was naive when I began these conversations 4 years ago. I thought for awhile that some real "scientist' might come along and say something to the effect of: "You know Mr. Mozina, I realize that you believe for the time being that you're observing a surface in these images, but let me explain all the details of these images from the perspective of the standard solar model and I think you'll see why you're wrong about that". I then figured someone might actually "explain" these images in a professional way that left no doubt that I was simply wrong. Nobody ever did that, or even *tried* to do that with any sort of professionalism or attention to detail.

Another lie. Many people have. But you want a real scientist? How about the guy who oversees the TRACE program, Neal Hurlburt of Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory. He addressed your misunderstanding in the most simple, most expert terms possible. When I asked him...

In this video (T171_000828.avi), and other "running difference" images and videos, where there seems to be areas of light and shadow and often the appearance of some sort of surface, it is true that this effect is actually an optical illusion resulting from the process of creating a "running difference" image?

Dr. Hurlburt said...

The answer is yes.

His qualifications? He's responsible for the data acquisition and analysis for the The Transition Region and Coronal Explorer, the TRACE satellite used to gather the images that you so seriously misunderstand. He's the boss man in that department. From his bio web page at LMSAL...

Hurlburt's research revolves around solar convection theory with an emphasis towards the application of modern computational and visualization technologies. He is currently active in developing and applying numerical models of nonlinear compressible MHD to sunspots and dynamos, in the comparison of these simulations to high-resolution solar observations, and in the visualization and management of the large datasets resulting from both simulation and observation. Hurlburt has developed and run his large-scale numerical simulations on many varieties of vector and parallel supercomputers and mini-supercomputers. He has devised, developed and managed several substantial visualization and data processing systems which exploit the latest in interactive graphics, workstations and highspeed networks.​

But Michael, you have a lot of gall. Christ, you can't even explain the image yourself. You can't say which points in the picture represent altitudes how high or depressions how low. You've balked at describing which areas might be artifacts of the running difference image creation process and which might be actual terrain. You have never explained how anyone with any equipment can see anything several thousand kilometers below the photosphere. Certainly no professional astrophysicist on Earth is aware of a way to do it. When asked to provide an objective method to analyze the picture, you know, so other people could come to the same conclusion you have, you have been totally unable to do that. That's when you turn and run, change the subject, totally pussy out, because there is no objective method that can be applied to reach the conclusion you've reached. None.

Michael, you are wrong about running difference images, and you are a bald faced liar. Every time you say your images haven't been explained in detail, you're lying again. And when someone has been proven a liar, as you have, and continues to spew the same lie over and over, it's a symptom of serious mental illness. Even in the world of crackpots you're a failure. With your miserably poor communication skills, your complete lack of math skills, and particularly your inability to be honest, you give even other crackpots a bad name. Do you think your friends would be proud of you knowing you're so attached to your delusion that you've become a compulsive liar to support it? How do you square it with your kids? Teach them, "If you're too stupid to do math and you just don't understand science, go ahead and lie?"

 

[D'rok]

I think you're confusing him with MacM. They both cling to absurd ideas in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence, but they are different.

Whoops! You're correct. My mistake. Sorry Michael!

 

[Reality Check]

IIt seems to me RC that you are overlooking the obvious. The loops are heated over their entire length because they are like any ordinary current carrying thread in plasma. They form filamentary shapes due to the current flow and the magnetic field created by the flow "pinches" these flows into tightly spiraling "ropes". It's not just a part of the loop that is lit and very hot, the whole thing is lit from one base to the other. The bases of the loops however do not "start" or become visible *ONLY* after the reach the corona. They are emitting these high energy wavelengths far below the photosphere and we are able to see them far below the photosphere. The yellow x-ray part of composite image shows us where the loops reach into the corona. While we can only observe the tops of the loops when they reach the corona, we can observe the bases of the loops far underneath the photosphere, deep *INSIDE* the sun. The loops are just as hot below the photosphere and they are also emitting x-rays under the photosphere, but the photosphere absorbs the x-rays, whereas it does not absorb all the photons in 171A.

It seems to me MM that you are overlooking the obvious.
There is no evidence that coronal loops are heated over their entire length.
There is no evidence that coronal loops are heated over that part that is visible above the photosphere.

There is evidence from the TRACE 171A pass band data that a large part of the length of coronal loops in the corona does not vary much in temperature.
That is in fact evidence that the plasma is not heated other than the amount needed to maintain the temperature. But given your lack of knowledge of physics it is not surprising that you think "heated" means "constant temperature".

Then there is the fact you have not presented any evidence for your assertion that that coronal loops are "electric currents".
Is this to be just another of your unfounded assertions such as

• "we can observe the bases of the loops far underneath the photosphere, deep *INSIDE* the sun"
• "The loops are just as hot below the photosphere and they are also emitting x-rays under the photosphere, but the photosphere absorbs the x-rays, whereas it does not absorb all the photons in 171A."

Who is "we" and where did they publish their Nobel Prize wining paper that stated this?
What is your evidence that X-rays are absorbed by the photosphere and UV light is not?

A bit of basic physics:
The core of the Sun is really, really hot since there is fusion happening there - judging by the neutrino flux. This means lots of X-rays are being emitted by the electrons in the core plasma. What happens when something absorbs light? It heats up.
The conclusion of your absorption assertion is that either the photosphere is at typical X-ray temperates (millions of degrees) or no other energetic process (e.g. fusion or even fission) is happening inside the photosphere.
Both conclusions are contradicted by the evidence

• The photosphere is measured to have a temperature of ~6000 K.
• Neutrinos are measured to come from the Sun and the Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein effect confirms that they passed through very large electron densities (as expected at the Sun's core).

It seems to me MM that you are overlooking the obvious:
The composite image is of 2 images taken looking down on the Sun. There is no way from that image alone to tell the height of any of the emissions. For that you need side-on images of coronal loops.

 

[Reality Check]

The surface of the photosphere is not the surface of the sun that my website describes. The surface of the photosphere is simply another atmospheric layer of the sun, not unlike the chromosphere nor more unique than the chromosphere. It's simply the top of the neon layer of plasma, whereas the chromosphere is mostly helium and emits in Helium wavelengths. The actual surface crust is located at around .995R.

You fixating on the temperature of the top of the photosphere is like you fixating on the top of the chromosphere and claiming the photosphere must be at least the same temperature as the chromosphere. In reality, the top of the chromosphere is much hotter than the top of the photosphere. Likewise the top of the silicon layer is significantly more dense and cool than the top of the photosphere.

You need to make sure that you alway qualify "surface" so that pepole do not think that this is the standard usage of the term in solar astronomy, i.e. the visible surface of the Sun (the photosphere).

I am not "fixating" on the temperature of the photosphere - that is the visible surface of the Sun.

The photosphere is not a top of your hypothetical, mythical, "neon layer" assertion.

 

[Reality Check]

Yawn. None of you have touched a single specific detail in the that RD image, the Doppler image or any image I've provided. Take a few course and let me know when you've got an explanation that is attentive to detail.

Liar.

RD TRACE image
We have told you exactly what is in the RD TRACE image - a computer construction of what is changing in the 171A pass pand of the TRACE images.
All of the details are the things that are changing temperature, intensity and position. You want to see fixed features and so you call these measurements of change "mountain ranges".

Doppler image
And your own web site has the explanation of the Doppler image from Dr. Alexander G. Kosovichev:
"The consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions.
We know this from the simultaneous measurements of solar magnetic field, made by SOHO. These are not solid structures which would not have mass flows that we see.
These images are Doppler shift of the spectral line Ni 6768A.
The Doppler shift measures the velocity of mass motions along the line of sight. The darker areas show the motions towards us, and light areas show flows from us. These are not cliffs or anything like this. The movie frames are the running differences of the Doppler shift. For the illustration purpose, the sunquake signal is enhanced by increasing its amplitude by a factor 4."

 

[Michael Mozina]

Lurker interlude:

GeeMack and Reality Check have clearly and succinctly explained what Running Difference images are in a fashion that even an arts grad like me can understand.

So, let's see you put some of your new found knowledge to use and explain some of the *ACTUAL DETAILS* of *THIS SPECIFIC* image. What's the flying stuff, and the peeling we observe along the right during the image? Why are their angular patterns in the image and why don't they change radically over the timeline of the video, particularly during and after the CME event?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Liar.

You are a liar and a con artist. You have intentionally and specifically and *carefully* avoided dealing with any of the specific observations of that RD image. You've given broad handwave type answers rather than focus on any real details related to any specific events in these images. Name a single specific detail or event in the image that you or anyone else has actually dealt with or explained?

 

[Michael Mozina]

RD TRACE image
We have told you exactly what is in the RD TRACE image - a computer construction of what is changing in the 171A pass pand of the TRACE images.

Yes, I know. It also shows what is *NOT* changing as well, including all those angular structures none of you want to talk about or deal with.