Electric universe theories here.

[tusenfem]

How about we discuss "currents in the solar atmosphere" then since they are related to this conversation?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/A...r Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

Naturally, I know that paper by Alfvén, because it has the first description of the formation of a double layer by a density dip in the current carrying plasma.

But note, Alfvén and Carlqvist discuss that there is going to be a pinch and an increase in current, with the creation of a strong electric field along the magnetic field (big loops that close under the photosphere). It is well known that when the flow of the electrons starts exceeding the thermal velocity that instabilities can occur in the plasma.

However interesting this paper may be, it does not discuss a real solar flare. It shows that the stored energy in the magnetic field and the circuit should be sufficient to lead to the accelerations that are observed in solar flares. However, it does not say anything about how the loop that gets unstable will split into two parts (this from real observations) and a "closed cloud" is ejected from the top, whereas a closed loop (closing under the photosphere) remains at the sun. The energy that is released in what A&C call the "discharge" is the (magnetic)energy of the circuit, and they completely ignore the original magnetic field of the loop.

However, the paper is nice, but should be seen in context of the time it was published, 1966. Since then, the field of solar plasma physics and flares has moved on.

Ya right. You ignored what Alfven himself wrote about solar atmospheric events in favor of a magnetic reconnection mythology that he personally called "pseudoscience", and yet you claim to "honor" him? How does that work exactly? There must really be a big, fat, juicy rationalization in there somewhere.

You seem to be against all further development of science, it seems. If it were to you, we would only learn what Alfvén wrote in his three books and then nothing. And then only supplement it with some work by O. Manuel and yourself.

Like I have said before and will say again, Alfvén was a great scientist, but also great scientists can get things wrong (heck even I get things wrong sometimes). Alfvén could not accept RX, well okay, so be it. He was also wrong in his book "worlds - antiworlds" and there are things that have never been seen/verified in his "evolution of the solar system". At the time that those books were written, they were probably top notch, but they have not stood the flow of time well, unlike his MHD, his double layers (do you know how much scepticism he, my PhD supervisor and I have gotten?)

Your reasoning that we do not honour Alfvén correctly is the same to say that we dishonour Descartes because we do not accept his model anymore that matter is made of small vortices in some eather.

How did positive ions get ejected from the sphere according to Birkeland?

You tell me

 

[tusenfem]

Too bad that you don't realize the relevance of your own quotes. At least the irony was not lost on me.

I am glad to amuse you.

No, most "plasma" is not fully ionized and includes plenty of "dust" (solids, liquids, gasses), hence the term "dusty plasma". That's the state of most plasma.

liquids in a plasma??????????????????????????? Apparently, you have no idea what a dusty plasma is, either.

If you did, you sure are silent on specific questions, like how Birkeland explained flying positive ions.

A quote from Birkeland's book (book page 668, pdf page 772) about postive and negative charges and the Sun:

It is at present not easy to see how a negative tension should be continually created by the sun in relation to space.
It is of course possible to imagine that a surplus of positive ions is always being carried away from the sun or that negative ions are always being carried towards the sun, and that the negative tension is produced in this manner; and that the balance is maintained to some extent by distinct disruptive discharges, as we have presupposed.

Okay, let's go to the model on book page 678

Our analysis will show that particles from the central body may be so ejected that they afterward move in approximately circular paths near those in which the centrifugal force due to the revolution movement counterbalances the attraction of gravitation ; and one could naturally believe that it is just
these globules which condense and form large spheres.

This is a way of creating the planets from matter that comes from the Sun.

Then something about the emitted particles (but no mention yet how it is emitted, book page 680)

Hence it follows that if the- particle at a certain moment is retreating from the globe, it will continue to do so until it comes to a boundary-circle; but
it will touch this and then turn inwards.

It' we imagine a particle that is expelled from the magnetic equator of the globe, and assume that after a limited time it comes to the nearest boundary-circle, it will move back to the globe again, along a path that is symmetrical to the one by which it moved out, i. e. the outward and inward going paths lie symmetrically about the radius vector to the point on the boundary-circle in which the tangent takes place.

Then he first does normal expelling of the particles (but does not say how they get expelled) and then on book page 682 :

We shall now deal with the problem in a general way, that is to say with an arbitrary value of the angle of expulsion or in other words the angle between the radial vector and the direction of motion at the initial moment.

This is basically all for positive particles, and then he goes through the same derivation for negative particles. And then sort of conclusions starting on page 697:

135. We have discussed above the problem of the mouvement of an electrically charged particle about a magnetic and gravitating sphere, when the particle is ejected in the plane of the magnetic equator, and thus always remains there. We saw that there were boundary-circles towards which the particles, under certain conditions, could draw nearer and nearer, this giving rise to the formation of planets. It still remains for us to investigate the conditions outside the plane of the equator whether the formation of planets is also possible there, when the particles are flung out anywhere on the sphere or not.

And then up to the end (and the start of Tome III) there is no discussion about how the particles get expelled, there is no mention of the electrons dragging along the ions, there is NOTHING that MM claims there should be in there, except for the pictures that Birkeland made of his experiments, those ARE there. I begin to wonder if MM really read the book, or at least the part that he said was important with respect to the solar wind etc.

Birkeland's terrela's were in a constant state of discharge toward the sides of the chamber but discharges also occurred all along the surface of the sphere. Why do you suppose that was?

Yes, and that are LATER pictures by Birkeland, in which he moves to an "analogue of the Sun" and you see discharges from the globe not coming back. The loops are there for an analogue for the rings of Saturn.

I thought you said you read his work which includes the following quotes just before publishing the image in question:

He evidently thought they were related to solar activity, not Saturn's rings. Notice he "discovered" something about the sun during his experiments? That's called the "empirical scientific method" and a true "prediction" born of experimentation.

With all the quotes and detailed comments I have made on Birkeland's work now (here and on page 12) I think you can hardly claim I did not read the book (well not everything in the book, (so that will give you room to accuse me of not reading)). Something similar totally lacks from your defense of Birkeland's work. Maybe you should put some effort in doing some REAL defense.

Holy cow your post is long. I'll have to "nibble" at it today between tech calls.

Yeah, life sucks, work on it, and give us some details, and show me where I went wrong in the analysis in this message, that Birkeland never ever says anything about the solar wind and electrons dragging ions along.

 

[tusenfem]

According to Birkeland himself it *WAS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE SUN AND THE CORONA!*. You can of course accuse Birkeland of being stupid, but he personally equated these events to solar coronal activity. I really get the impression that you're young and "winging it" as it relates to Birkeland's actual writings. How could anyone miss the fact he equated all of these events to solar activity?

Wrong, MM!

If you would really READ what Birkeland writes in his book with respect to figure 247 (your famous loops).

If the magnetisation of the globe be reduced (or the tension of the discharge increased) gradually, the luminous ring round the globe will be reduced to a minimum size, after which another equatorial ring is developed and expands rapidly (Fig. 247 b). It has been possible for the ring to develope in such a manner that it could easily be deincstrated(??) by radiation on the most distant wall of my large vacuum-tube (see fig. 217). The corresponding
ring would then have a diameter of 70 cm., while the diameter of the globe was 8 cm. It is a corresponding primary ring of radiant matter about the sun that in my opinion can give an efficient explanation of the various zodiacal light-phenomena.

Birkeland was after the zodiacal light and not the solar flares here.
And then he moves on to his theory how the planets are created through matter expelled from the Sun (see my previous message above)

Did you read the book Michael Mozina or did you just look at the pretty pictures?

 

[GeeMack]

Did you read the book Michael Mozina or did you just look at the pretty pictures?

All evidence points to the latter.

 

[Reality Check]

Outstanding questions for Micheal Mozina

These are some of the questions that MM has been asked and seems incapable of answering other than by spouting unsupported assertions.

The perpetual dark matter question:
How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
(first asked 23rd June 2009).

What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected?
(first asked 6th July 2009).

A post that seemed to retract his "mountain ranges" on the TRACE 171A RD animation evoked this question:
What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona.
(first asked 6th July 2009).

From tusenfem:
Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkelands book?
(asked 7th July 2009)

Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source" and in the same post
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).
(first asked 7th July 2009).

Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible?
(first asked 8 July 2009).
Also see this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.

Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
(first asked 10 July 2009).

Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question?
(first asked 10 July 2009)

More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth
(First asked 13 July 2009)

Formation of the iron surface
(First asked 13 July 2009)

How much is "mostly neon" MM?
First asked 13 July 2009

Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?
(First asked 13 July 2009)

Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina
First asked 13 July 2009

Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina
First asked 13 July 2009
He does link to his copy of Alfvén and Carlqvist's 1966 paper (Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and A theory of Solar Flares). This does not model what we now know a real solar flare acts like.

Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested?
First asked 14 July 2009

Is Saturn the Sun?
First asked 14 July 2009
(Birkelands Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings but MM compares it to to the Sun).

Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
First asked 14 July 2009
MM has one reply in which is mistakenly thinks that this question is about coronal loops.

In addition:
Is your "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass" paper correct when it states that the Trace satellite using a 171 Å filter can see below the photosphere?
If so can you cite the paper or textbook that proves this because there are plenty of textbooks that say this is impossible. The Wikipedia article on the photosphere is quite clear.

All you have to do is show that the optical depth of the Sun's photosphere is at least 4800 kilometres. For a mathematical and physical genius like you this should be really easy .
Perhaps your co-author O. Manuel did the calculations?

 

[Dancing David]

MM,

Okay so you have layers under the photosphere, which I did read before. What keeps the heat from being transferred through the layers to the 'iron crust'?

Are there large vacum spaces between the layers or are they opaque to infrared radiation?

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM,

Okay so you have layers under the photosphere, which I did read before. What keeps the heat from being transferred through the layers to the 'iron crust'?

The flow of current drives heat away from the surface, toward the heliosphere. The crust is also covered by a relatively cool layer of plasma. It does not always prevent heat from being transferred to specific points on the surface, specifically the points that are at location of discharges. The arcs actually peel material from surface and it ionizes these bits of iron inside the coronal loops.

Typically however the flow of particles is up and away from the surface and the heat is being carried away from the surface by the particle flow toward the photosphere and heliosphere.

Are there large vacum spaces between the layers or are they opaque to infrared radiation?

I would assume that all the layers physically touch each other and that we can see the neon meet up with the silicon at the base of the penumbral filaments, and we can see the neon meet the helium chromosphere at the top of the photosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Naturally, I know that paper by Alfvén, because it has the first description of the formation of a double layer by a density dip in the current carrying plasma.

Yet you reject it in favor of something Alfven called "pseudoscience"?

But note, Alfvén and Carlqvist discuss that there is going to be a pinch

You mean like an electrical z-pinch process? Why did you folks reject this idea again?

and an increase in current, with the creation of a strong electric field along the magnetic field

Oh, you mean like an ordinary plasma thread like in an ordinary plasma ball, only much larger?

(big loops that close under the photosphere).

Wait a minute. The current carrying z-pinch threads close *UNDER* the photosphere? I thought you folks claimed that I made up this stuff all by myself? Now you admit that they beat me to the idea by 50 years? Which is it?

It is well known that when the flow of the electrons starts exceeding the thermal velocity that instabilities can occur in the plasma.

And we get "heat" and light and all the things we see in electrical discharges here on Earth.

However interesting this paper may be, it does not discuss a real solar flare.

A "real" one? What's a "fake" solar flare?

It shows that the stored energy in the magnetic field and the circuit should be sufficient to lead to the accelerations that are observed in solar flares.

It also talks about how the energy of the whole loop can become ejected in these events as a large burst too. Never once does it say squat about "magnetic reconnection". Why is that? These are the guys that wrote MHD theory. What did they say about your beloved magnetic reconnection theory in relationship to these flare events? Nothing? Nothing at all? Oh wait, Alfven did say something about magnetic reconnection theory, but it wasn't kind. That didn't stop you from continuing your pseudoscientific pursuits rather than taking the advice of the masters.

However, it does not say anything about how the loop that gets unstable will split into two parts (this from real observations)

What's all that talk about disruption of the current due to maximum plasma current and his mention of "short-circuits"?

and a "closed cloud" is ejected from the top, whereas a closed loop (closing under the photosphere) remains at the sun.

At the "photosphere surface" you mean? You guys seem to be ignorant of some basic things here. Alfven *NEVER* attributed solar events to "magnetic reconnection". He loathed the idea in fact. He was quite specific about the base of the *DISCHARGE LOOPS* or z-pinch filaments. They didn't begin *ABOVE* the photosphere. The guys that wrote MHD theory don't buy your notions about coronal loop footprint starting inside the corona.

The energy that is released in what A&C call the "discharge" is the (magnetic)energy of the circuit, and they completely ignore the original magnetic field of the loop.

The magnetic field is wound around the current flow! It's a current carrying z-pinch filament. When the circuit is cut, the energy in the magnetic field is released *IN THE WHOLE THREAD AT ONCE*. That's the idea behind the flare.

However, the paper is nice, but should be seen in context of the time it was published, 1966. Since then, the field of solar plasma physics and flares has moved on. You seem to be against all further development of science, it seems.

You'll have to demonstrate you actually "developed" and didn't get lost in what Alfven refers to as pseudoscience. None of you seem to be able to even explain what is physically unique and different in MR energy releases compared to say ordinary induction, or particle reconnection or circuit reconnection. I see no "development" since you still seem mystified by how loops function, where they originate, where they start to "carry current", etc.

If it were to you, we would only learn what Alfvén wrote in his three books and then nothing. And then only supplement it with some work by O. Manuel and yourself.

You would learn Alfven's work, and Birkeland's work *PROPERLY* and you would be free to "built upon" it all you like. I simply wouldn't teach you something that Alfven specifically rejected. Oh, I'm sure I'd show you satellite images too, but that really isn't "my work", it's the work of all the folks at NASA and LMSAL and other places that put these images together. It's the theory you guys screwed up so badly. It has been presented properly by Birkeland and Alfven and others.

Like I have said before and will say again, Alfvén was a great scientist,

You speak out of both sides of your mouth IMO. You won't even allow anyone to discuss his full body of work, or even this paper on your website for more than 30 days. If you respect him, you have a very weird way of showing it. You respect him so much you persecute anyone who continues to follow in his footsteps?

but also great scientists can get things wrong (heck even I get things wrong sometimes).

LOL! Ya, you're right, you do get things wrong sometimes, including your belief in "magnetic reconnection" theory. You first have to demonstrate that he was wrong. What was "wrong" about this paper?

Alfvén could not accept RX, well okay, so be it. He was also wrong in his book "worlds - antiworlds" and there are things that have never been seen/verified in his "evolution of the solar system".

For the record, we do in fact observe "matter/antimatter" clouds and annihlation signatures near the center of even our own galaxy.

At the time that those books were written, they were probably top notch, but they have not stood the flow of time well, unlike his MHD, his double layers (do you know how much scepticism he, my PhD supervisor and I have gotten?)

The way I see things, you deserve the skepticism, whereas Alfven deserved the Nobel prize. I don't believe that your theories will stand the test of time, whereas you Alfven's have and will continue to stand the test of time and will continue to be verified by satellite images, like that one on the DVD that shows the loops *COMING THROUGH* the photosphere during the flare event, just as Alfven and crew "predicted". Of course you don't look at "pretty pictures" to verify or falsify anything.

Your reasoning that we do not honour Alfvén correctly is the same to say that we dishonour Descartes because we do not accept his model anymore that matter is made of small vortices in some eather.

You ban people who vocally promote his work. You refuse to allow even this paper to be fully discussed beyond 90 days on your website. If you honor and respect his work, why not discuss it openly and freely? Right or wrong, why would you refuse to allow it to even be discussed when you are in a position of authority? Why all the witch trials for everything related to EU theory over at BAUT? You don't honor his work. You don't even respect his work. You openly fight and argue against it on every public forum. You openly hostile toward his theories on websites where you moderate. If you honored and respected his work, you wouldn't be having this discussion with me now, you'd simply agree with me and we'd be done. Your actions speak much louder than your words, and your actions are incongruent with your statements. You use and abuse his work when it suits you and you persecute the parts of his work that you don't personally like. Who do you think you're fooling here?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Can you read - I no longer think that Birkeland's globe was solid. You corrected me and I accepted your correction.
Get over it.

You also suggested that the idea that magnetic fields guiding the loops was a "handwave" when it fact it was a "lab tested" scientific fact. You had never seen the SOHO RD archives before I told you where to find them too, and you expect me to "get over" that one as well. How many of your errors and limitations must I correct before you accept the fact that I know more about this subject than you do?

I will not sue you but I will point out a couple of problems:
The first is that these neutrons are inside a plasma under enormous pressure in the Sun's core. There will be some that decay immediately but others will collide with atoms and be absorbed (not decay). This will reduce the production of protons and electrons. This is not really a problem for your idea since you have not produced any testable, falsifiable predictions from it (no mathematics means no numbers and no predictions!). You are free to arbitrary set the production of protons and electrons to anything you like.

I would not set them arbitrarily, I would have to properly measure them (hasn't been done yet) and then come up with a number that was "postdicted" from observation. Since the first part hasn't really been done very well yet, what's the point of "guessing"?

The second is that the decay of neutrons produces electron anti-neutrinos. Fusion produces electron neutrinos.
I suspect that scientists at naeutrino observatories can tell the difference.

Well, I'm still researching that very question. I'll let you know when I figure it out.

 

[Michael Mozina]

They are real objects that show real movement in real original images.

The same photons you see in the original image are directly related to the photon intensity in the RD images.

The RD process turns the original images into graphical representations of the changes in the original images.

It's not a "graph". It's not a "pie chart". It not an abstract object. It's an image of real things. It's a bunch of photons aligned in an image that is actually a composite image of the original last image (and all it's photons) with the previous image (photons) subtracted from the first one. You are trying to compare it to a graph when in fact it is not a graph. It is an image showing movement of objects as can be seen in the light and dark areas of the image.

You are attempting to create an abstract concept of what is actually a relatively simple image of visible things and objects in a state of movement. The white spots of the RD LASCO image are still stars just as they are in the last original image. The dark shadows to the left of the star is the location of the star in the previous image. If you can't recognize *objects* and *things* in the image, you aren't trying. Even D'rok was able to pick out stars in the Lasco images. If you can't do that too, and pick out the "flying stuff" we see in CME events, you are intentionally ignoring the data.

 

[Dancing David]

The flow of current drives heat away from the surface, toward the heliosphere.

I am trying to understand this, you are stating that the whole of the photosphere is in constant motion away from the 'surface'? because I am trying to understand how it gets around common thermodynamics. You have transfer of heat energy from a number of mechanisms and somehow you are saying that you have a layer that does not transfer heat to other layers.

So say we have just mechanical transmission of heat energy and transfer through radiation.

What keeps the kinetic energy of one layer from being transferred to another?
What blocks the radiation from transferring energy from one layer to another?

The crust is also covered by a relatively cool layer of plasma.

Again what separates these layers and prevents the transfer of heat energy?

It does not always prevent heat from being transferred to specific points on the surface, specifically the points that are at location of discharges. The arcs actually peel material from surface and it ionizes these bits of iron inside the coronal loops.

Typically however the flow of particles is up and away from the surface and the heat is being carried away from the surface by the particle flow toward the photosphere and heliosphere.

But I don't see how that is going to work, you are going to get conventional convection in a gravitational field, you will have radiation transferring heat as well.

I still don't get it.

It would appear that granules in the photosphere undergo convections.

Is there any data you can point to about this current flow leading to temperatures separation?

I would assume that all the layers physically touch each other and that we can see the neon meet up with the silicon at the base of the penumbral filaments, and we can see the neon meet the helium chromosphere at the top of the photosphere.

But they are in contact, so they will transfer kinetic energy exclsuive of radiative energy.

I don't understand.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wrong, MM!

OMG, not only are you wrong, you're dead wrong. The image in question is directly compared to the events in the "solar corona", not Jupiter. The *RINGS* he created were sufficient to explain the rings of Jupiter in his mind, but the looping discharges he directly compared to the solar corona. I've already posted the paragraphs in question three times now. How stuck in denial are you anyway? The whole chapter is related to "THE SUN ------". He specifically compares that image to the solar corona.

I'm beginning to think that the only thing you guys did is look at the pretty pictures and ignore the written parts altogether. Birkeland's OWN WORDS:

In the above-mentioned experiments, it (can be) seen how the rays from the polar regions bend down in a simple curve about the equatorial plane of the globe, to continue their course outwards from the globe in the vicinity of this plane. An aureole is thereby produced about the magnetic globe, with ray-structure at the poles, the whole thing strongly resembling pictures of the sun's corona.

He compares these images to the *SUN'S CORONA* not the atmosphere of Jupiter. Wake up and smell the coffee boys and girls.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I am trying to understand this, you are stating that the whole of the photosphere is in constant motion away from the 'surface'?

No, the photosphere IMO is an atmospheric layer, like a cloud layer of plasma. It's physically "connected" to other layers of the atmosphere. It's not moving away as a whole, although it is in fact "boiling"' particle from the top of the surface, like electrons and protons flowing through a cloud layer. It's just a double layer of neon plasma sitting on other double layers of plasma that surround the crust.

because I am trying to understand how it gets around common thermodynamics. You have transfer of heat energy from a number of mechanisms and somehow you are saying that you have a layer that does not transfer heat to other layers.

Heat is mostly generated in the coronal loops due to current flows inside the loops and the fact plasma is not a "perfect" conductor. This heat is "carried upwards" with the flow of particles from the surface. The surface is a cathode that emits particles on a continuous basis and the flow of particles is always (well usually) away from the surface, toward the photosphere. That heat is carried out of the photosphere by those same particles.

So say we have just mechanical transmission of heat energy and transfer through radiation.

Well, it's a bit more complicated, because there is a direction of charged particle flow going on here that moves all heat away from the surface.

What keeps the kinetic energy of one layer from being transferred to another?

During CME events and sunspot activity, nothing. We see plasma blow up and through the photosphere in that DVD limb image.

What blocks the radiation from transferring energy from one layer to another?

Nothing. It flows *THROUGH* the layers for the most part with the particles. The layers do pick up heat through this process, but they emit heat too in the form of photons and particle flow.

Again what separates these layers and prevents the transfer of heat energy?

The are ordinary double layers of plasma. The current flow creates a mass separation process that separates the layers into various elements and even arranges the layers individual by ion. That is simply a "tendency" however because CME events can and do toss material through all the layers, and electrons and protons flow upwards through all the layers.

It would appear that granules in the photosphere undergo convections.

I agree. That is the heat that is rising up through the photosphere, but don't assume that all the heat is in the neon, but rather in the protons and electrons flowing *THROUGH* the neon.

Is there any data you can point to about this current flow leading to temperatures separation?

That a very good question. I'll have to see what I can find. I know I've seen papers about mass separation due to currents, but I"m not sure if I've ever looked for evidence of temperature separation before.

 

[Ziggurat]

Heat is mostly generated in the coronal loops due to current flows inside the loops and the fact plasma is not a "perfect" conductor. This heat is "carried upwards" with the flow of particles from the surface.

It will radiate in all directions. Regardless of where it's generated, the 6000 K visible part of the sun will radiate inwards. This will cause a net flow of heat inwards unless whatever is under it is at higher temperature. And a net inwards flow of heat is, well, not sustainable for 5 billion years.

The surface is a cathode that emits particles on a continuous basis and the flow of particles is always (well usually) away from the surface, toward the photosphere. That heat is carried out of the photosphere by those same particles.

Heat never flows spontaneously from cold to hot, which is what you're claiming is happening. That's a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I agree. That is the heat that is rising up through the photosphere, but don't assume that all the heat is in the neon, but rather in the protons and electrons flowing *THROUGH* the neon.

Yeah, um... no. What do you think the mean free path is? Do you honestly think it's longer for a proton or an electron than it is for a visible photon?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It will radiate in all directions.

Sure, but it's sitting in the middle of a "current flow" of charged particles that are moving in a specific direction. Which direction do you figure the heat will travel?

Regardless of where it's generated, the 6000 K visible part of the sun will radiate inwards.

No, it's constantly discharging *AWAY FROM* the surface, meaning the charged particle flow is always up and away from the surface. The charged particles are the primary heat source, not the neon of the photosphere. Any heat that is radiated toward the surface, is going to be absorbed and carried away more more particles flowing up from below.

For purposes of analogy, you might imagine a "heat source" that is sitting in the middle of a steam of water. Yes, the heat will radiate (upstream), but the particle flow of the river will eventually absorb the heat and carry it downstream again, away from the original heat source, and away from any object that is located far upstream.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sure, but it's sitting in the middle of a "current flow" of charged particles that are moving in a specific direction. Which direction do you figure the heat will travel?

Currents don't automatically carry heat at all. And the visible layer will radiate both outwards and inwards: current will have zero effect on that.

No, it's constantly discharging *AWAY FROM* the surface

Don't be stupid. If it's a flow of electrons and protons, how on earth is it a "discharge"? And if there's a charge imbalance in the current, well, that's clearly not sustainable either - even you should be able to figure out why.

The charged particles are the primary heat source, not the neon of the photosphere.

Are you saying that this flow is being driven by the heat of the solid surface? If so, then it would necessarily be hotter than your neon layer. If not, then that's irrelevant to the fact that your neon layer would still heat up whatever is under it until that underneath layer reached the temperature of the neon layer.

Any heat that is radiated toward the surface, is going to be absorbed and carried away more more particles flowing up from below.

That sounds an awful lot like you're claiming that heat will drive this particle flow. But again we run into a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics: if the particle flow is being driven by heat, and is carrying heat, then it can only carry that heat to a colder place, if CANNOT carry heat somewhere hotter.

For purposes of analogy, you might imagine a "heat source" that is sitting in the middle of a steam of water. Yes, the heat will radiate downstream, but the particle flow of the river will eventually absorb the heat and carry it downstream again, away from the original heat source, and away from any object that is located far upstream.

So try that out with numbers. What's the size of this mass flow? How much heat capacity does it have? How much heat can it absorb per second? How much heat would it need to carry away in order to keep your solid shell from rising in temperature?

If you actually try to quantify your model, you will quickly learn how absurd a notion it is. But of course, you never quantify anything you do. It's always and only pictures.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Currents don't automatically carry heat at all.

Of course they do. Electron temperatures in current carrying plasma can often exceed the temperature of the plasma ions by multiple OOMS. Currents (all charged particles) have a "temperature" and heat associated with them which moves with the particles.

And the visible layer will radiate both outwards and inwards: current will have zero effect on that.

Like the analogy I used early, yes the heat will radiate both upstream and downstream, but the water will eventually carry all the heat downstream.

Don't be stupid. If it's a flow of electrons and protons, how on earth is it a "discharge"?

Any movement of any charged particle is technically a "current flow". The surface acts as a cathode, but other particles can and do flow away from the sun and blow by the Earth at over a million miles an hour. Both the positively charge particles *and* the negatively charged particles are a form of 'current flow'.

And if there's a charge imbalance in the current, well, that's clearly not sustainable either - even you should be able to figure out why.

If you read Birkeland's theory, you'll understand why it will sustain the charge.

Are you saying that this flow is being driven by the heat of the solid surface?

No, I'm saying that the surface is charged negative compared to the heliosphere and it is in a constant state of discharge (towards the heliopshere). The heat does not drive the particle flow, the charge separation drives the particle flow and the heat gets picked up and carried away in the current, like the water absorbs the heat in river analogy and carries it downstream. Some particles are probably hotter than the neon layer. Some might be cooler too. They will all still exit the photosphere however due to the charge attraction between the surface and the heliosphere. It has little to do with heat, and lots to do with charge separation.

If you actually try to quantify your model, you will quickly learn how absurd a notion it is. But of course, you never quantify anything you do. It's always and only pictures.

That's not so. I've even barked math on command for DRD in forums like this before, to utterly no avail. It's a huge waste of time to throw math at you folks. Alfven did that already and you ignored HUNDREDS of his papers. Bruce did that too. Have you even read his work? What difference does math make to you folks?

It's only when we look at "pictures" that we can actually see if a model matches prediction or it does not. Alfven's theory about the loops being z-pinch filaments that originate under the photosphere jives perfectly with the visual images of the photosphere during a flare in the DVD. We can see the base of the loops light up the material in the photosphere and even observe the loops in white light coming up through the photosphere. Your mathematical theories related to the bases of these loops is hopelessly and utterly flawed and the images demonstrate this fact. It's not the math that destroys your coronal loop theory, it's those pretty little pictures that blow it out of the water.

 

[Tubbythin]

Just so I'm completely clear, what exactly would you expect to observe differently in these data sets if there was a fission process responsible for most of the energy releases?

Antineutrinos (not to mention a completely different abundance of the elements in the Sun).

 

[Tubbythin]

That's not so. I've even barked math on command for DRD in forums like this before, to utterly no avail. It's a huge waste of time to throw math at you folks. Alfven did that already and you ignored HUNDREDS of his papers. Bruce did that too. Have you even read his work? What difference does math make to you folks?

Are you saying Alfven and Bruce support your iron Sun model? If not then they haven't done the maths.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Antineutrinos (not to mention a completely different abundance of the elements in the Sun).

I guess I'm not very clear how that gear specifically differentiates between an electron neutrino "hit", and an antineutrino "hit". Could you explain that part to me a bit? That would probably clear things up pretty quickly.

FYI, I would expect that other types of shall we say "high energy" fission processes (collisions) in the core would eventually start to kick out other types of neutrinos. I seriously doubt that the collisions and decay reactions in the core would be completely limited to one type of neutrino. Do the other neutrino detectors have the ability to differentiate to the level of sign? I understand the sensitivity to other types of flavors, but I'm still unclear about the ability to differentiate between neutrinos and antineutrinos.