Electric universe theories here.

[Zeuzzz]

Do you think that the TRACE detector using a 171A pass band filter can detect any radiation from the photosphere or below?

I'm sure that the the TRACE detector using a 171A pass band filter is collecting valid data; the real question is are they collecting it from the place on the sun they think they are?

In no expert in these exact areas. But remain as dubious as mapping what really is going on under the photosphere via the 171A pass band filter than I do about the proclamations that helioseismologists have proven everything about the internal consituents of the sun (though some helioseismology is fine, but I find their certainly they have it all proven beyond repute disturbing). Till better methods are deveoped to map definitively the internal makeup of the sun (cant see how thats gonna happen for a looooong while) the more room has to be given to alternative explanations.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Got any rough future predictions mike for your iron sun theory? Would be interested.

I think I'll spend more time over the next few weeks over at Space.com making some actual predictions and less time here beating my head against a wall.

I would say that I can begin to "predict' that CME events will tend to congregate near the hot zones seen in 195A images and now that the new solar cycle is starting to heat up it will be possible to predict a few CME events based on what's going on in the 195A images. The one thing that is predictable in Birkeland's model is that major surface volcanic eruptions are probably going to result in high amounts of electrical activity, sunspots if it get's hot enough, and probably CME events, particularly when it "blows" for the first time in a while.

 

[Reality Check]

Here is the TRACE website. This is what TRACE can see @ 17.1nm.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodoverview.html

As you can see it can also see coronal loops. They must be hot enough. It can also see the foot prints of the loop. The loops BEGIN under the photosphere.

There are many images on that page taken in all of the pass bands of the TRACE detector. You need to read the description in the linked pages to find out what pass band is being used and whether they are composite images.
For example

A combination of two images taken by TRACE on 7 March 2000, around 00:25UT. The yellow image shows the 195Å passband, or plasma at approximately 1.5 million degrees. The purplish image shows the brightest structures in the 1600Å passband, which shows the location of magnetic field, with the exception of the spots and small pores, which are dark at that wavelength. What makes this image peculiar is the loop configuration in the red circle in the full-sized image: coronal loops have their footpoints on a ridge running right through the middle of a supergranular convection cell where there is hardly any strong field either in bright faculae or in dark pores.

(emphasis added)
The 1600Å passband covers 4000 to 1000 K, i.e. includes the photosphere. So here the composite image includes the footprint in the photosphere.

The TRACE detector using the 171A passband sees the bases of coronal loops as the lowest portion of the loops that it can detect, not the actual footprints on the photosphere.

The reason for the loops shape is the right hand rule.

That sounds right.

There is no other reason for their existence other than to equalize charge between 2 points on a surface.

That is wrong. Firstly you need to separate charge before the discharge but in solar plasmas the charge separation is ~metres not 1000's of kilometers. Thus you need a separate unknown mechanism to somehow separate the charges. Even so IMHO the discharge would be along the surface.

If you are seeing the loop footprint you are see under the photosphere.

If you are seeing the footprint in visible light then you are seeing the photosphere.

If you use the TOPS data base you will that find in a plasma the density of the photosphere there is a non extinction point at about UV.
That means UV passes through.

I assume that yoiu mean the TOPS Opacities (the same one that a poster called upriver at BAUT was going to look at in yet another old surface of the sun thread).
What parameters did you enter?

If you use a model that incorporates thermionic emission then that solves 99% of all the problems with the solar wind, heavy ion acceleration etc.

Citation please?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm sure that the the TRACE detector using a 171A pass band filter is collecting valid data; the real question is are they collecting it from the place on the sun they think they are?

That is the real question alright. Keep in mind that they named TRACE before launch. They *ASSUMED* they would find a "layer" and they assumed it would be located between the chromosphere and corona. All of this was "assumed" before the craft was even put into space. All of it's equipment is physically capable of seeing loops starting at any depth above the photosphere even based on their own theories, and unless you honestly believe that light plasma is going to block all wavelengths of light at a shallow depth, it's very possible that these wavelengths could be seen to a great distance under the photosphere.

In no expert in these exact areas. But remain as dubious as mapping what really is going on under the photosphere via the 171A pass band filter than I do about the proclamations that helioseismologists have proven everything about the internal consituents of the sun (though some helioseismology is fine, but I find their certainly they have it all proven beyond repute disturbing). Till better methods are deveoped to map definitively the internal makeup of the sun (cant see how thats gonna happen for a looooong while) the more room has to be given to alternative explanations.

Kosovichev's heliosiesmology paper makes it clear that there is a "stratification subsurface" sitting smack dab in what is supposed to be an open convection zone according to standard theory. That convection process is highly important to their whole theory because supposedly it keeps hydrogen mixed with iron and nickel. Since that layer block the flow of plasma from above and also from below, it blows their whole theory out of the water. Helioseismology data does not support the standard solar model from the photosphere to a depth of .90R in any way. They'd love you to believe that is the case mind you, but the evidence is quite the opposite. That stratification subsurface is a major problem for their theory.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111

Kosovichev is perhaps the only person on the planet who actually might be able to "predict" an eruptive event before it occurred at the surface because his method correctly measures the movement of plasma and the lack of movement of plasma in specific areas as well. Heliosiesmology data does no support the gas model theory, particularly at .995R where all sorts of unexpected events occur in sound waves.

 

[Reality Check]

I'm sure that the the TRACE detector using a 171A pass band filter is collecting valid data; the real question is are they collecting it from the place on the sun they think they are?

In no expert in these exact areas. But remain as dubious as mapping what really is going on under the photosphere via the 171A pass band filter than I do about the proclamations that helioseismologists have proven everything about the internal consituents of the sun (though some helioseismology is fine, but I find their certainly they have it all proven beyond repute disturbing). Till better methods are deveoped to map definitively the internal makeup of the sun (cant see how thats gonna happen for a looooong while) the more room has to be given to alternative explanations.

I am not what you mean by "place on the sun". Do you think that they do not know where they are pointing the detector?

MM was the one claiming that the 171A pass band can see below the photosphere (he has retracted this in his last few posts but his web site still claims this).

Scientists designed the TRACE detector to include a 171A pass band filter so that they could look at activity in the transition zone and corona. They thus minimized the effect of UV light from the photosphere (IMHO to zero but I am prepared to be corrected - MM this is a hint).

I agree with helioseismologists having not "proven everything about the internal consituents of the sun". But then I suspect that helioseismologists would say the same.

MM doe have an alternative "explanation". He does not have an alternative hypothesis. His current (and future) predictions are the usual handwaving thing we usually see from crackpots. Before he even has a hypothesis he has to be able to match actual data from his model - the testable, flasifiable predictions part of the scientific process. This means mathematics (do not hold your breath !).

He cannot even calculate the temperature of his thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface. All he says is that he

• Assumes that it exists (without any evidence).
• Assumes that it is solid (not plasma as in O. Manuel's Iron Sun model).
• Assumes that it is made mostly of iron.
• Thus (since iron has a melting point of ~2000 K) its temperature must be < 2000.

He ignores that a photosphere temperature of ~6000 K means that the interior of the Sun must be hotter than this. Note that the photosphere is where visible light (and its energy) can escape the sun.
He ignores that an internal power source for the Sun (the standard fusion model or his seemingly preferred fission model) creates the same amount of energy, the same temperature profile and thus the same 1000's of K up to the photosphere.

 

[Sol88]

Started Electric comet thread.

 

[Reality Check]

That is the real question alright. Keep in mind that they named TRACE before launch. They *ASSUMED* they would find a "layer" and they assumed it would be located between the chromosphere and corona. All of this was "assumed" before the craft was even put into space. All of it's equipment is physically capable of seeing loops starting at any depth above the photosphere even based on their own theories, and unless you honestly believe that light plasma is going to block all wavelengths of light at a shallow depth, it's very possible that these wavelengths could be seen to a great distance under the photosphere.

They did not assume that they would not be able to detect the photosphere in the 171A pass band. They selected that pass band to exclude the interference of UV radiation when they wanted to just look at activity in the transition zone and corona. The other pass bands allow looking at the photosphere, etc.

Kosovichev's heliosiesmology paper makes it clear that there is a "stratification subsurface" sitting smack dab in what is supposed to be an open convection zone according to standard theory. That convection process is highly important to their whole theory because supposedly it keeps hydrogen mixed with iron and nickel. Since that layer block the flow of plasma from above and also from below, it blows their whole theory out of the water. Helioseismology data does not support the standard solar model from the photosphere to a depth of .90R in any way. They'd love you to believe that is the case mind you, but the evidence is quite the opposite. That stratification subsurface is a major problem for their theory.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111

Kosovichev is perhaps the only person on the planet who actually might be able to "predict" an eruptive event before it occurred at the surface because his method correctly measures the movement of plasma and the lack of movement of plasma in specific areas as well. Heliosiesmology data does no support the gas model theory, particularly at .995R where all sorts of unexpected events occur in sound waves.

Zeuzzz - I hope that when you read the paper that you can see the misinterpretation that MM has placed on it. Basically all the paper says is that the stratification detected in the Sun's plasma moves during the sunspot cycle. There is one stratification layer that varies the least at 0.99 R_o (changes about 10km).

This is all fairly standard solar physics.

MM needs to show that this known stratification is due to his thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface of unknown depth. This should be really easy. Plasma and sold iron are very different in density and their speed of sound. He should be able to find published papers showing the abrupt change in the speed of sound in his iron layer (densities are less accurate). We are still waiting.

You have to also ask why astronomers could predict the formation of sunspots on the back of the Sun (and verify the the prediction when they rotated into view) using helioseismology models that did not include MM's magic iron layer.

 

[tusenfem]

Baloney. Birkeland built a working solar system in a lab.

Birkeland build an analogue as he claims himself somewhere after page 664

Are you telling me that the flow of cathode electrons will have no influence on the movement of positively charged ions in a lab?

Birkeland does not seem to discuss this in the whole bunch of pages that I went through and commented on (and you nicely ignored). And apparently you are unable to provide the evidence yourself, with your standard reply "read it in Birkelands book." It is not in the book!

Why are you dragging me personally into the comet theory side of this issue? That's really not my gig. I would assume that the oxygen atoms come from the comet's surface and electrically interact with the protons in the solar wind.

Okay, then don't reply to this point, I will leave it to Sol88 who apparently thinks it important enough to open a thread on it. Join in if you like.

It's where a charged proton meets a charged electron and they "reconnect' at the level of actual physics. I've yet to hear your side of the aisle explain what is physically unique about 'magnetic reconnection" that can be physically demonstrated to be unique and different from ordinary electrical interactions in plasma. How did you determine for instance that "magnetic reconnection" is different from ordinary current sheet acceleration, and/or standard induction processes?

Oh, you mean recombination!
That has been explained by me and by Tim Thompson and we have given papers about the specific signatures that are supposed to be there at the reconnection point (e.g. the quadrupolar Hall signature) which do not happen in any other process and again the change of topology of the magnetic field cannot be obtained by induction.

The plasma, after reconnection, is accelerated perpendicular to the magnetic field, i.e. it is magnetized and is pulled along by the magnetic field lines that reduce their magnetic tension (i.e. they want to straighten out instead of being bent so much as in the X-configuration). This is impossible to obtain through induction or "curent sheet acceleration" (whatever the latter may be, but I guess things like double layers, and they will not accelerate plasma in perpendicular directions to the magnetic field).

That X point you're talking about is simply a "short circuit" point, and the *TOTAL CIRCUIT ENERGY* will have a direct influence on the outcome of what occurs there. Furthermore, it is not the "magnetic lines' that are actually changing, it is the "current flow" that is "inside" that "magnetic line" that changes direction and therefore the topology of the "lines" follow suit. The "magnetic lines" are there *ONLY BECAUSE* the current flow is there sustaining the field. If there was no current flow, you'd have not "magnetic line" or any energy to release at the intersection point. A NULL point in a pure "magnetic line" has no energy at all at the NULL point that it could possibly pass on to a charged particle. There's no energy at a null point of magnetic lines, but lots of energy at a point of "short circuit".

Then draw us a complete picture, Michael Mozina, show us how your circuit reconnection works, and the short circuit and and and. All we get is descriptive words, but a picture is much clearer, show us MM.
Naturally, a null point would not have magnetic energy, but that is only a very small region, for the rest the field lines are bent strongly and thus there is lots of tension. However, to get the field lines to bend in the X-configuration as shown in the figure that I linked, the currents need to flow in and out of the paper. But still, there is no short circuit.

You downplay their importance to the point of absurdity. Everything in the media an in the published papers talks about "magnetic" this, "magnetic" that, never "electromagnetic" this, or "current flow". They talk about charge particle flow as through they are neutral atoms, much as you treat solar wind. It's CURRENT FLOW that occurs between the surface and the heliosphere just as Birkeland *DEMONSTRATED IN A LAB* over 100 years ago! Gah. You're industry is so screwed up, it's almost hopeless.

Yadayadayada, downplay my ass! For press releases the description with magnetic field lines is usually the easiest, because there are just lines to talk about. To turn it around and give the current description would mean a large complication of the whole picture, that for the general audience is no longer understandable, because currents tend to be perpendicular to the magnetic fields that they generate etc.

The fact that you have not made the step that you understand that both descriptions are usually (in 95%) equivalent, that's your problem.

Just to end, my last magnetotail paper was called:
Magnetotail dipolarization and associated current systems observed by Cluster and Double Star (JGR 2008)
with the following abstract:

A dipolarization and its associated current systems are studied using Cluster, Double Star TC1, and ground-based observations. The Cluster spacecraft are located approximately 16 RE downtail near 0030 LT. The Double Star TC1 spacecraft is located more earthward at approximately 7 RE just before local midnight. Auroral observations by the Wideband Imaging Camera on the Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration spacecraft are used to determine the onset times of substorms. It is shown that the magnetic phenomena at the earthward site of a magnetic reconfiguration region are governed by field-aligned currents, which in their turn generate auroral brightenings near the foot points of the spacecraft. It is also shown that the inward and outward motion of the dipolarization front near Cluster has a direct influence on the parallel plasma flow at TC1, indicating a piston mechanism. Just like a piston, the inward moving dipolarization at Cluster pushes in plasma along with the flux transport, which turns to parallel plasma flow at TC1. When the flow reverses at Cluster, i.e., outgoing flux transport, the plasma gets ‘‘sucked out’’ again, which is directly reflected in the plasma data from TC1.

 

[tusenfem]

I agree MM, the fallacies employed by some of those arguing against you are quite a spectacle. I just ignore posts like that one with emotive overtones, and reply to the posts that raise genuine scientific queries.

Wow, I guess you then ignore basically all of MM's posts.

 

[tusenfem]

Point 2

HUH?

 

[Vermonter]

If you got the point, you would realize it's a valid complaint. Since you don't see it as a valid complaint, I don't think you really do get the point. Empirical physics is the best thing since sliced bread. It allows us to determine actual cause/effect relationships in real world circumstances. It also allows us to "test" ideas in real life with real control mechanisms.

I really don't think you've done much work in chemistry or physics labs, because it doesn't always work like that. Even the lab profs and TAs don't have this obsession with "empirical" physics.

Ya, it's nearly a full moon tonight.

That's about the only thing I agree with you on.

From a skeptics point of view, it sure looks that way. There seems to be a rush to come up with new and improved versions of "dark" stuff, and inflation variations galore. None of you seem to be the least be concerned that none of these things show up in a lab.

It's a popular concept, and so a lot of researchers are exploring different versions and different hypotheses. It's healthy science. I honestly don't care if these things don't show up in a lab. Ask any credible astronomer or physicist and they will laugh at you if you demand to have them reproduce something in a lab. We can't create a star in a lab, does that mean stars don't exist? What about the Moon? Or a comet? We've even landed probes on comets, but they don't show up in a lab. I guess that means they don't exist. This is why no one takes you seriously.

Well, when I see you folks look down at Birkeland's work, or Alfven's cosmology theories or Bruce's solar discharge theories I start to wonder if you've spent too much time away from the lab. You seem to have very little appreciation for the amount of skepticism there is for the things that hold your beliefs together, and you seem to show little interest in demonstrating any part of your theories in real life experiments. It's all paper and math and computer modeling with no regard for how nature actually functions. We point Rhessi at the Earth and we observe gamma rays from discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. We point the same exact piece of gear at the sun, observe gamma rays in it's atmosphere and you guys exclaim "magnetic reconnection did it". Come on. Your whole industry suffers from an acute case of "OMG we forget to test our theories in a lab".

Birkeland's work is over 100 years old. Some of it stood the test of time, some of it was shelved. Theories change or die, and often will change and die. You seem to suffer from "OMG it wasn't tested in a lab it's false!" Go tell that to an evolutionary biologist, it's the same arguement that the Creationists and Intelligent Designers use to try and prove their pet theory is right. The exact same arguement.

Birkeland had no trouble creating high energy discharges in the atmosphere of his terella. He "predicted" their existence based on what he learned in the lab in fact in the "tried and true", "better than sliced bread" approach to "empirical physics". That's what real science is all about.

So? He used a bronze (or was it brass?) globe. You claim the sun is iron. He made a prediction based on what information and knowledge he had at the time. As it turns out when we sent probes out there to investigate...he was wrong. Nuclear physics hadn't even been touched on during his lifetime, electricity was "the big thing". Even looking at the two pictures you spam on here, they don't even look the same. You can't even get the scale right. You can't even accept that an iron surface is impossible because of the observed temperatures, let alone what gravity would likely do to a hollow sphere of that radius.

Now you're welcome to believe in any number of dark and evil entities and any number of dead inflation deities, but they have never and will never have any effect on any experiment on Earth. In all the time LIGO has been in operation, not one bit of "dark matter" has shown up, not once. Dark energy seems to be physically shy around objects with mass, and inflation is dead and can never be physically "tested" in any empirical sense. Your beliefs are more akin to a religious belief system than real "science". Nothing like "dark energy" shows up in the particle physics, but lots of "electrons" show up in the lab.

Blah, blah. Deities, inflation fairies. It's boring. Any physics professor would probably have ejected you from the classroom, but that's just me. Inflation is dead, we all hail a dead god. All hail Mozina, for he is righteous in his damnation of the false prophets.

I really wish you did "get it", but since you think it's "ok" to believe in dark energy, dark matter and inflation theories of all kinds *WITHOUT* even the hope of ever creating experiments to verify your claims make me seriously doubt that you actually do get it. I wouldn't mind so much that you believed in these things if you weren't attempting to exclude other theories from the classroom and from publication in mainstream publications. I see lots of material from Scott, Peratt and others published in EEIE publications, but never in the astrophysical journal or anything "mainstream". Why is that?

I don't believe in anything. I'm skeptical optimist at best. You know, we'll probably never prove half of what we want in a lab. So? Does that violate years of actual, credible research to fit your inane requirements? I'm glad you don't teach, I'd feel sorry for your students. You don't see material from those authors in actual astrophysical journals because they're barking up the wrong tree, for one, and that they can't provide arguements and evidence to back up their claims. Credible, legitimate journals require things like mathematical derivations and proofs, something we'll never see from the EE'ers. If you can't even be willing to try and do the math behind it, then you really have no place in trying to prove something. As my professors have said, "math is the language of physics". This is true.

 

[Reality Check]

What exactly did you expect me to say about it? Birkeland identified the original current source (fission). He identified a discharge process between the surface and the heliosphere and even simulated coronal loops, jets, solar wind, etc. What did you guys do to demonstrate any of your claims in a physical way in controlled experimentation?

Missed a couple of the usual MM assertions in this post:

• Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source".
• Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).

We already know that he experimented with electrical discharges on metallic globes that looked like coronal loops and jets. He was even the first person to identify the solar wind as electrons and later electrons with ions.
We also know that his analogies were only valid for his knowledge of 100 years ago. The only lasting result from his work was his spot on theory of origin of the aurora.

 

[GeeMack]

You really are the single strangest character I've met in cyberspace. It doesn't matter how many times you're shown to be wrong, you just keep bouncing back for more.

[... snipped a bunch of crybaby whining...]

What other kind of "test" did you have in mind?

Why, a controlled experiment, one we can replicate, that lets us see thousands of kilometers below the photosphere using difference graphs made from images of 171Å wavelength emissions obtained from the coronal region thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, of course. Ideally it would be an experiment we can do in a lab right here on Earth, in order to accommodate your standards of evidence, Michael. And to be scientifically useful, it must be objective, meaning other people must be able to reach the same conclusion as you.

 

[Reality Check]

You didn't hear me or understand me or you would realize it's not a "lie". The contours we observe are a direct result of the surface contours and we do in fact see the outlines of mountains in these images.

They are not actual mountain ranges. They are records of changes in activity in the corona (temperature and position changes).

Your web site lies when it states:
"The flare activity is caused by increased electrical activity as fast moving plasma sweeps over surface ridges, resulting in increased electrical activity on the windward side of the mountain ranges."
There is no surface in the corona.
There are no "ridges" in the corona.
There are no "mountain ranges" in the corona.

How is Birkeland''s terella "thermodynamically impossible"? You keep stating the most irrational things. His "discharge loops" and cathode rays didn't instantly melt his sphere did they?

Are you serious or just playing dumb?
Birkeland's terella is definitely thermodynamically possible - here on Earth.

Have you actualy read his book?
You do know that he did not have a fusion source in the middle of his metallic globes?
You do know that he did not have a layer of plasma on the outside of his metallic globes?

The fact is that your crackpot idea of a solid iron surface is thermodynamically impossible because it is sandwiched between

• The 6000 K temperature of the photosphere and
• The 13,600,000 K temperature of the solar core (whatever the power source).

The second law of thermodynamics means that a cold body (< 2000 K) in contact with 2 hot bodies will heat up unless there is someway to cool it.
Where is your refrigerator on the Sun?

 

[D'rok]

You didn't hear me or understand me or you would realize it's not a "lie". The contours we observe are a direct result of the surface contours and we do in fact see the outlines of mountains in these images.

How could we be seeing outlines of mountains in these images unless the mountains themselves were changing in between shots? Doesn't the process of generating RD images eliminate static features? What's the "running difference" between a mountain and itself that would cause it to show up?

 

[Zeuzzz]

That is the real question alright. Keep in mind that they named TRACE before launch. They *ASSUMED* they would find a "layer" and they assumed it would be located between the chromosphere and corona. All of this was "assumed" before the craft was even put into space. All of it's equipment is physically capable of seeing loops starting at any depth above the photosphere even based on their own theories, and unless you honestly believe that light plasma is going to block all wavelengths of light at a shallow depth, it's very possible that these wavelengths could be seen to a great distance under the photosphere.

All valid points. This is where the ambiguity between distant astrophysics/cosmology and normal in situ laboratory physics comes in, all we have to go on in distant space is the EM radiation and (limited) other data we can collect; its the fact that there are numerous equally valid interpretations of the data that people cant get their heads around.

Kosovichev's heliosiesmology paper makes it clear that there is a "stratification subsurface" sitting smack dab in what is supposed to be an open convection zone according to standard theory. That convection process is highly important to their whole theory because supposedly it keeps hydrogen mixed with iron and nickel. Since that layer block the flow of plasma from above and also from below, it blows their whole theory out of the water. Helioseismology data does not support the standard solar model from the photosphere to a depth of .90R in any way. They'd love you to believe that is the case mind you, but the evidence is quite the opposite. That stratification subsurface is a major problem for their theory.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111

Kosovichev is perhaps the only person on the planet who actually might be able to "predict" an eruptive event before it occurred at the surface because his method correctly measures the movement of plasma and the lack of movement of plasma in specific areas as well. Heliosiesmology data does no support the gas model theory, particularly at .995R where all sorts of unexpected events occur in sound waves.

Nice Hadn't seen this before. I think that anyone with any common sense can see that the *standard* (gas/fluid) model of the sun is patently obserd, and has long been falsified. Only when you reconsider the full properties of the sun as a ball of plasma will you get to the bottom of the matter. This post I wrote elsewhere may be relevent, and I think that Juergens may still be correct even to this day.

If you ignore the silly convective models and pay attention to how quick solar prominences move about and how readily sunspot penumbra repudiate standard convective conventions, you soon realise that the sun is more dynamic than most current models and simple gas laws appreciate. The sun is a dynamic ionized plasma, dominated by EM forces and complex plasma physics. Not dominated by the slow convective gas models first proposed decades ago by Eddington, years before plasma behaviour and EM influences were even being considered.

In eddintons standard nucler fusion core model the energy produced supposedly rises slowly away from the centre first by radiation (no movement of material) and then by convection (a flow of matter upwards). The granulation we see on the surface are supposedly the tops of 150,000 mile long convection columns where the heat has risen, then cools, then falls back down.

But if this complete process really takes 150,000 years, then why do the granules change shape and even disappear in a matter of hours?

As Juergens pointed out many years ago:

"If one calculates the Rayleigh number [the likelihood of smooth laminar flow] appropriate to the bottom of the solar photosphere, one finds that it exceeds the critical value by five powers of ten and therefore the solar granulation should on this basis be an entirely random phenomenon. The fact that the observed granules have a pronounced cellular structure and a bright-dark asymmetry has not yet been explained by theory.''(18)

Many facile assertions to the contrary, it becomes increasingly obvious that photospheric granulation is explainable in terms of convection only if we disregard what we know about convection. Surely the cellular structure is not to be expected."

Donald Scott also re-iterates the same problem in a breif article here

In the hypothesized 'convection zone‘ the question is not whether convection or conduction occurs. The question is: Since the Reynolds number is so large (remember that how it is numerically evaluated is based on many assumptions about a region we cannot observe), any convection must be turbulent, not laminar, flow. But the photospheric tufts‘ that we do observe are claimed to be the tops of laminar columns that reach from the Sun‘s radiative zone all the way up to the photosphere. How these stable columns can exist in the highly turbulent convection zone is what is being questioned. Dr. Eugene N. Parker, perhaps the most eminent solar astronomer, worried in print [1] that, "the Reynolds number [in the convection zone] is on the order of 10¹² and, perhaps worse, the convective zone is vertically stratified.”

[1] The physics of the Sun and the gateway to the stars
Parker, Eugene N.
Physics Today, Volume 53, Issue 6, June 2000, pp.26-31

"Sunspot Penumbra Shock Astrophysicists

Textbook theory of sunspot activity faces new difficulties posed by the magnetically confined structures of the penumbra. The old idea that the penumbra filaments are “convection currents” must now give way to new evidence that electric currents dominate these solar structures."

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060418penumbra.htm

For decades, the standard model of the Sun treated the penumbra filaments as “convection cells”, columns of hot gases transporting heat from the interior to the surface. Astrophysicists formulated such concepts while under the spell of gravity and familiar gas laws. Seeing the Sun as an isolated island in space, they had no other tools to work with.

But proponents of the Electric Universe assert that there are no isolated islands in the universe. They contend that concepts of simple heat transport are alien to the plasma discharge behavior evident in sunspot activity. As Wallace Thornhill observed, the penumbra filaments “bear no resemblance to any known form of convection in a hot gas, magnetic fields or no”.

So we pose the question: what is controlling the behavior of the penumbra in these pictures—magnetic fields or gas laws? The new profile of the solar atmosphere has left the astrophysicists in a state of ambivalence. The APOD folks do not describe the network of interacting filaments as “convection cells”. They say simply, “Here magnetic field lines can be clearly followed outward from the sunspot to distant regions”. That is not the behavior of convection cells!

 

[Zeuzzz]

The fact is that your crackpot idea of a solid iron surface is thermodynamically impossible because it is sandwiched between

• The 6000 K temperature of the photosphere and
• The 13,600,000 K temperature of the solar core (whatever the power source).

The second law of thermodynamics means that a cold body (< 2000 K) in contact with 2 hot bodies will heat up unless there is someway to cool it.
Where is your refrigerator on the Sun?

Enough of the crackpot accusations RealityCheck, one day we might make such accusations back against you to see how you like it. As in my opinion many of the scientific ideas your adhere to are complete crackpottendom. But emotive words like this do nothing other than provoke unecissary emotions.

I would think (based on what EU material I have read) that they doubt that the core of the sun is at 13,600,000 K. But rather the hottest area of the sun is outside of itself in the corona where the glow discharge is taking place (~2⁶ Kelvin compared to vastly lesser ~6³ of the photosphere) and the inner sun is much cooler than most people realize. The corona is millions of degrees hotter than the surface of the sun, and no-one really knows why (in standard models anyway). So if mainstream physics has no definitive models about this, I dont see any reason why not giving an exact answer to this question falsifies anything much. Anymore than the inexplicability of the temparature of the corona falsifies the standard model. But michael may very well have an answer I dont want to tread on his toes here, we'll soon see

 

[Michael Mozina]

How could we be seeing outlines of mountains in these images unless the mountains themselves were changing in between shots?

They are experiencing subtle lighting shifts between shots the individual shots, and they are moving left to right in the image between shots.

Doesn't the process of generating RD images eliminate static features?

No, not necessarily. If the features themselves are relatively static, they will show up in a running difference image. If you look at a RD LASCO-C3 RD image for example you'll notice a background pattern of stars in the image. They move slightly of course during the image so you'll always see the shadow of bright stars to the left of such images. The fact they are physically there, and that they collectively form a relatively stable pattern is easily visible in the RD images too. As long as the features themselves are static or persistent, they will show up in a RD image.

What's the "running difference" between a mountain and itself that would cause it to show up?

First of all, the surface moves between the two original images, as do all the various light sources. The windward side of every mountain range is typically "lit up" due to the plasma flow past the surface structures whereas the leeward side of these structures is typically less electrically active. That makes these structures particularly visible.

Birkeland noted that the arcs of his discharges tended to congregate at the "bumps" of the surface of his terella That's true with the sun too since volcanic activity typically generates most of the activity in an active region like the one in the southern hemisphere that is facing us right now in SOHO images. All sunspot activity is located in and around these volcanic active regions just as they have formed over that active region in recent days. Not every active regions forms a sunspot, but sunspots only form above/around active regions.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm sure that the the TRACE detector using a 171A pass band filter is collecting valid data; the real question is are they collecting it from the place on the sun they think they are?

Yes.

In no expert in these exact areas.

Obviously.

But remain as dubious as mapping what really is going on under the photosphere via the 171A pass band filter than I do about the proclamations that helioseismologists have proven everything about the internal consituents of the sun (though some helioseismology is fine, but I find their certainly they have it all proven beyond repute disturbing).

Images gathered from the corona showing 171Å emissions have nothing to do with the photosphere, or anything below it. Michael's mythical solid surface is 3500 to 4000 kilometers below the photosphere. Those images from the TRACE program are taken from the transition region, ~2000 kilometers above the photosphere and outward.

There are several thousand kilometers difference between the location of the 171Å images and that wacky solid iron surface. A few thousand of those kilometers are opaque to light at any wavelength. Michael's claim of seeing a solid surface in the running difference images, even if we ignore his ridiculous misunderstanding about them showing any actual real stuff, would be like claiming some imaging technique could see the French Alps from Chicago, in a straight line through the Earth.

Helioseismology data shows mass moving at thousands of kilometers per hour directly up, down, and laterally through Michael's solid surface. His "solid" surface, being totally fluid in its composition throughout, and having none of the properties generally attributed to a normally defined solid, is obviously unlike any solid anyone has ever described before. So unlike it that it would require a complete redefinition of the word "solid".

Also, nobody is claiming the level of certainty about the internal makeup of the Sun that you seem to think they are. That's not how science works, contrary to the misperceptions of crackpots like Michael.

Till better methods are deveoped to map definitively the internal makeup of the sun (cant see how thats gonna happen for a looooong while) the more room has to be given to alternative explanations.

Any alternative explanation that matches all the observations, is consistent with the principles of physics, provides predictions that are validated by new data, and holds up to objective scrutiny are given all the room in the world. No such alternative explanations are offered by the PC/EU nutters, and have absolutely no relationship to Michael's insane solid surface Sun fantasy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

They are not actual mountain ranges. They are records of changes in activity in the corona (temperature and position changes).

False. That would not explain the stable features in the image or the behaviors we observe in the images.

Your web site lies when it states:
"The flare activity is caused by increased electrical activity as fast moving plasma sweeps over surface ridges, resulting in increased electrical activity on the windward side of the mountain ranges."

Yes, and I mentioned that to you here too. You're ignoring that little visual tidbid, but it's quite visible in the image.

There is no surface in the corona.

The bases of the loops are not located in the corona, and they are not located in the corona even in standard theory.

There are no "ridges" in the corona.

There are however persistent angular features in these images that you never addressed, not even once.

There are no "mountain ranges" in the corona.

I agree, but these images do not originate in the corona.

Are you serious or just playing dumb?
Birkeland's terella is definitely thermodynamically possible - here on Earth.

It's thermodynamically possible EVERYWHERE, not just on Earth. You can't ignore empirical experiments.

Have you actualy read his book?

Yes, and two of Alfven's books too. I doubt any of you have read "Cosmic Plasma" where he specifically applies MHD theory to objects in space. He wasn't a big fan of "magnetic reconnection", in fact he called it "pseudoscience".

You do know that he did not have a fusion source in the middle of his metallic globes?

You do know he mentioned uranium by name as a probable power source don't you?

You do know that he did not have a layer of plasma on the outside of his metallic globes?

You evidently did not read the book. Several of his images show the plasma on the outside of the globe.

The fact is that your crackpot idea of a solid iron surface is

Your crackpot statements are both rude, and irrational. You've certainly heard the term "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones"? You folks believe in at least 3 different things that do not exist in nature, never show up in a lab experiment and are figments of your collective imagination. Please refrain from lecturing me about ideas. All of my ideas are:

A) lab tested
B) work in a lab here on Earth
C) involve only known and demonstrated forces of nature
D) rely on no metaphysical fudge factors of any sort.

Inflation is one of those things you folks simply "dreamed up" in human imagination. I can even tell you which specific human imagination invented the idea, namely Guth. Not one of you can show inflation does anything to anything else in a lab. Not one of you even bats an eye at the fact you will *NEVER* be able to demonstrate inflation in a lab in controlled experimentation. "Dark" stuff is just more gap filler to prop up your otherwise dead theory. In fact the whole Lambda-Gumby theory is 96% metaphysical gap filler, and only 4% actual "physics".

There is absolutely nothing about my beliefs that are even in the same "crackpot league" as inflation faeries, dark energy gnomes and dark matter beans. At worst my ideas are all based on demonstrated laws of physics and just happen to be incorrect. Your beliefs on the other hand are an act of pure faith in metaphysics and you can't distinguish inflation, or dark things from magic if we use the same math and apply it to magic elves.

I've already done your list several times and yet you still repeat the same nonsense. That just tells me you aren't even listening or responding to my points.