Electric universe theories here.

[Reality Check]

Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles

I missed a good point from Ziggurat which deserves to be in my list of outstanding questions for MM.

MM: You seem to be suggesting that your iron surface/crust is kept cooler than the photosphere (and so does not vaporize) by heated particles being ejected from the Sun.
First asked 18 July 2009
Is my interpretation correct?
Is this your partial answer to
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.
If my interpretation is correct then what is wrong with Ziggurat's calculation below?
Remember that the photoshere (or your neon layer) is observed to be at a temperature of ~6000 K. It is radiating in all directions - including down to your iron surface/crust. That iron surface/crust needs to get rid of the heat somehow.

First asked 16 July 2009 by Ziggurat

Which still tells us nothing about whether your iron shell idea can maintain a temperature far below the 6000 K layer of the sun that we see. I've asked you to quantify your ideas. You repeatedly refuse, even though such a task is easy. Very well, I shall endeavor to do so for you.

Let's say we've got mass being ejected from your solid surface. This mass is supposedly taking heat away with it - it therefore must be mostly on a one-way journey, or else it would take heat back with it from somewhere hotter, and so the solid shell would heat up. So how much mass can we lose on a continual basis? Well, let's ballpark this as being about the same amount of mass we get in the solar wind (that way we don't make the atmosphere above our solid shell any thicker or thinner). That's about 6.7 billion tons per hour, or about 1.7x10⁹ kg/s. Now the visible layer of the sun is radiating about 3.8x10²⁸ Watts outwards, but that layer will radiate inwards as well. In order to keep from heating up, we need to carry away the heat from this. But let's be generous. Let's suppose (with no evidence) that your solid surface is incredibly reflective, so that only 1% of the light is absorbed. Now we only need to carry away 3.8x10²⁶ Joules/sec. This means that each kg of mass that's being ejected must carry with it 2.2x10¹⁷ Joules. In other words, each kg must absorb more than twice its own rest mass in energy. Which, let's be frank, is an absolute absurdity.

OK, so let's see if we can fudge these numbers a bit. Let's suppose that we instead start with a more reasonable heat absorption, and then try to figure out the mass. The energy to ionize a hydrogen atom is 13.6 eV, which corresponds to 1.3x10⁹ J/kg. Each proton and electron will act like an ideal gas molecule in the plasma state, so if we heat up from 0 to 6000 K (we can't heat up any more than that), we get 1.5⁷ J/kg. So the total is still about 1.3x10⁹ J/kg. Of course, I'm being incredibly generous here, since not all the gas would be ionized, and that's clearly the dominant contribution to the heat capacity at these temperatures. So again assuming only 1% absorption, how much mass do we need? 2.9x10¹⁷ kg/s. That's eight orders of magnitude larger than the solar wind. How long could the interior of the sun last losing this much mass? Well, the sun is about 2x10³⁰ kg, so that's about 6.9x10¹² seconds, or roughly 220,000 years. Again, absurd. Clearly that's far too large a mass flow to be sustainable.

The numbers don't work out, Michael. Not by MANY orders of magnitude. This took me maybe 10 minutes. Back of the envelope calculations. Easy to do, no fancy calculus, just simple multiplication, unit conversions, and easy-to-find input numbers. But you didn't do anything like this. You didn't test the fundamental parameters of your own theory to test whether it made even the slightest amount of sense. If you did, you would have realized how absurd it was. Now that you've had the calculations presented to you, what will you make of them? Will you realize your mistake? Or will you bury your head in the sand?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Sunspots and photospheric physics

How exactly did you intend to create a magnetic field the size of Earth?

Why is that a relevant question? The field is there. We call it a "sunspot". The magnetic field in a sunspot umbra is typically 3000 - 4000 Gauss. How the field got there is not at all relevant to the question of whether or not it can stop a plasma from flowing trough it.

Why wouldn't "heat" cross that barrier even if you figured out a way to create such a thing?

Radiant heat will cross the barrier, but convective heat cannot, because charged particles at such low energy cannot hope to flow perpendicular to a field anywhere near that strong. The fact that radiant heat does get in is why the sunspot umbra does not cool below about 3000 to 4000 Kelvins.

I guess you haven't seen the DVD?

No.

When you get it to a format you can watch, freeze the frame at around 30 minutes and 4 seconds. You will observe the coronal loop coming up through the photosphere and it "lights up" the photosphere at the base of the loops.

How do you know it is the photosphere you are looking at and not the chromosphere or transition region?

If the flare originated above the photosphere, that would not happen and the direction of particle flow would be down, not up.

How do you know that?

... but the photosphere is physically incapable of acting like a "black body". It's made of extremely light neon plasma.

How do you know it's neon?
What does "light" mean? What's the density? What's the optical depth?
If the optical depth is high enough, a plasma of any density at all will act like a blackbody. If you say otherwise, then you are simply pretending that physics does not exist.

No, it moves AWAY FROM the surface TOWARD the heliosphere. Heat from a rock in a river will not flow upstream very far before being picked up and carried downstream by a moving water molecule.

That's true only for convective or conductive heat, but it is never true for radiant heat. The photosphere will radiate thermally in all directions with a temperature dependent energy. It will radiate downward just as bright and just as energetic as it radiates upward. Anything below it will feel that heat. This is simple & unavoidable physics.

You're just making up hack stories now and pretending that there is no such thing as "physics". It doesn't work.

 

[Dancing David]

It is not "handwavy" to note that the solar wind flows *outbound*, and that there is constant movement of plasma away from the sun. It is a physical fact.

It is hand wavy, you have not said at all:
1. How much flow there would need to be for this to happen, IE how much mass from where is going to do this.

That is exactly what Ziggy's question asked, and it is EXACTLY what you refuse to answer.
(The capitals are meant to be funny. )

The layer of the sun that emits the most visible light is the neon layer. I'm sure it radiates inward as well as outward, but the particle flow from the surface is constantly aimed away from the surface. The surface is a cathode and it emits charged particles on a continuous basis. The solar wind is continuing to move heat away from the sun.

Where is a lab result that shows that?
Hmmm, Mr. Science Only Happens in a Laboratory?

Where is this, 'refrigeration of the cathode' evidence?

It might be a huge problem were it not for that solar wind you seem to be ignoring.

Nope, that is exactly the direct question you refuse to answer.

If you have a solar size shell or radiating material and then a layer of amterial moving away that protects the iron shell under the radiating layer, how much material has to move away from the iron shell to keep the heat from transferring?

And where is the lab data for this effect?

Well, I don't even have to leave my office to see that effect of a mostly neon plasma emitting white light. Both the bulb and the photosphere have metals and impurities of course, but the white light we observe from the photosphere is related to the elemental composition, not the temperature.

Yup, so the vast majority of the light should be in the spectral lines of He, it is not.

The particle flow from the photosphere may in fact be 6000K, but that is unrelated to the color of the photosphere.

Sure, so you are saying we can't see the radiation from the photosphere? Or that something is opaque above it?

That depends I suppose on what your measuring. If you look at the AVERAGE temperature of the particles coming out of the surface of the photosphere (including electrons and protons), sure it's 6000 K.

So that is the layer that is opaque to the one below it?

No, they will radiate in all directions like any photon but like any photon it can be *ABSORBED* by any atom or any ion or any molecule it encounters.

Nope, that is not the way absorbtion works either. Some larger partciles will abosrb most the of the photons, smaller ones will not. How about plasma?

Well, the photosphere is full of "impurities" and it's not the only thing emitting photons in the visible spectrum. Lots of atoms contribute to the total visible spectrum, not simply the neon layer. It however does in fact "spew" the most light in the visible spectrum.

that is a lot of impurities, how pure was that layer again?

I don't know. I do know that electrons are not the only thing flowing from the sun and that many atoms and ions are capable of absorbing photons in the infrared range.

So how many and how much mass from where is moving away to sheild the iron shell?
Answer Ziggy's question, please.

Does any current carrying thread in plasma (like an ordinary plasma ball) contain *ONLY* electrons?



Of course there is, starting with the constant movement of charged particles toward it.

hand waving, no numbers, no measurements.

Yes there is, starting with the constant movement of charged particles away from it.

hand waving, no numbers, no measurements.

Well, you're right that I haven't settled on *ONE* possible scenario, but fusion and fission could easily produce the necessary excess of protons and electrons.

Where, how and when, and what keeps that from melting and vaporizing the iron shell?

Some of the crust does get "vaporized" by the current flow as evidenced by that "peeling" effect we observe in the RD image.



About the best I might do right now is cite Birkeland's work. His metallic sphere emitted electrons and other ions and produced similar if not identical "processes" in the atmosphere of the sphere.

was it 50% protons?
Did it cool off or get hot?

It produced "coronal loops", "jets", high speed solar wind in one direction and all the other key observations we see in solar images.
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg[/qimg]

So while you are avoiding direct questions:
Where is your lab data for electrons towing protons in a fifty/fifty mix?

 

[tusenfem]

It does describe the flare. See section four.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/A...r Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

And still you cannot read, sigh!!!

So if loops come up through the photosphere we should be able to observe them, correct? Did you watch that DVD yet and specifically the three flares I cited?

First when the electrons are energetically enough, then we will see them clearly in Xrays. No I did not watch the DVD it is lying somewhere on my desk, and I do not expect to see anything new. It's like just pictures of the sun, you can hardly call that a "controlled experiment" so these DVDs may just show anything ...

Then the loops could and would emit light under the photosphere would they not?

No, why would they? Why would closure currents emit light? What do you have in mind?

He specifically called magnetic reconnection theory pseudoscience:

Yes and he was wrong, as a proponent of MHD he is not supposed to see reconnection, because reconnection cannot happen in MHD. And as Alfvén got obsessed with resonances in the Saturnian rings and other stuff, he did not keep up anymore with modern investigations on the phenomenon of magnetic field topology reconfiguration. If it would have interested him, he would have followed it, and he would most likely have seen that indeed the topology of the magnetic field changes in such a way that induction and double layers cannot account for. (and there we go again starting at the point 1 of the discussion)

Why do you continue to promote what Alfven referred to as pseudoscience?

Because it is being observed in space and measured by a multitude of satellites, not in the least the Cluster satellites, that for the first time could measure at 4 points simultaneously. And it is observed in controlled experiments in the laboratory. I am sure Birkeland would have loved to play at the LAPD.

Get to the present, MM, science did not stop after Alfven published his last plasma paper in the late 1980s.

 

[tusenfem]

As tsenfem has noted, Alfven's model of a loop carried current throughout the loop. It would "light up" everywhere, including under the photosphere in Alfven's model.

That is not what I would say, it would only light up where it can light up, e.g. if there is a pinch at the top of the loop (increasing density and heating up, therefore radiating more). As we don't know the closing path of the currents under the photosphere, there is no reason whatsoever to *ASSUME* that they would be radiating under the photosphere.

And then ofcourse there is the question to you: Is it really the currents that are radiating? Naturally, the answer is ...... (we'll leave that for now, see if you have a clue).

I personally prefer Birkeland's model, but the physics related to MHD theory applies to either a plasma or solid surface model.

You *REALLY* got to be kidding here, RIGHT?????? the physics of MHD holds for solid state too?

The later item I cited will demonstrate that matter is moving UP AND AWAY from the photosphere during the flare. If the flare originated above the photosphere, that would not happen and the direction of particle flow would be down, not up.

wow during a flare stuff moves up and away from the photosphere and it cannot happen above the photosphere? You are getting funnier and funnier.

Apparently you have no idea about plasma physics and about solar flares.

 

[tusenfem]

Also you can remove the "perhaps". The nearly nearly black body spectrum is actually measured.

Well you cannot control the sun, RC, so what you measure may as well be green cheese (oops, no that is the Moon, probably an solar eclipse, sorry!). These peeps are making measurements from an uncontrollable experiment, so, you cannot trust that result. The only real controlled sun experiments are those that show that there is a solid iron surface.

 

[brantc]

Hi MM. In reference to a statment that the Sun's photosphere emits a nearly black body spectrum you stated:

First asked 18 July 2009
What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K (i.e. characteristic of matter at 5777 K )?


Also you can remove the "perhaps". The nearly nearly black body spectrum is actually measured.

Hot decreasing density gas balls dont emit blackbody except by the mechanism hypothesized by mainstream(many collisions to the surface).

Plasma emits lines only with the line broadening as the pressure increases.

However solid matter will emit a blackbody spectrum. And considering the UV hump at the end of the solar spectrum that is an anomaly, I might say the sun is a solid electrode arc lamp. But of course that cant be.
And there is no explanation forthcoming from anyone for this feature. That same UV feature is seen in an arc lamp spectrum and is actually the best match.
Arc spectrum.
http://www.mole.com/aboutus/history/images/smpte/1943-06_fig-13.jpg

 

[Tim Thompson]

Plasma Emits Blackbody

Hot decreasing density gas balls dont emit blackbody except by the mechanism hypothesized by mainstream(many collisions to the surface). Plasma emits lines only with the line broadening as the pressure increases.

Not true. Anything with a sufficiently high optical depth will emit temperature dependent black body radiation. There may be line emission or absorption superimposed on the blackbody emission, depending on the specific circumstances.

 

[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.

What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model?
First asked 17 July 2009

What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K?
(MM states that it is not the photosphere)
First asked 18 July 2009

Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles?
First asked 18 July 2009

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not true. Anything with a sufficiently high optical depth will emit temperature dependent black body radiation. There may be line emission or absorption superimposed on the blackbody emission, depending on the specific circumstances.

This sounds like one of those mythical claims that cannot be demonstrated in a lab. Which experiment would you like to cite that demonstrates that a mostly hydrogen and helium plasma, with the density of the photosphere shows that these elements at this density and temperature have the ability to act like a 'black body'? I think you're making this up.

 

[Michael 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?

I can't even believe that you have *COMPLETELY* ignored my answers to such questions. You're quite a trip.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hot decreasing density gas balls dont emit blackbody except by the mechanism hypothesized by mainstream(many collisions to the surface).

That complaint is particularly true at the density and with the elemental compositions they claim for the photosphere. There is no way in hell it's going to act like a "black body" at these extremely light densities, with these extremely light materials. I suggest we both continue to press them for some physical evidence of this claim until they either retract the claim or provide physical evidence to support that claim.

 

[Michael Mozina]

After all, a running difference image is just a graphical representation of a series of very simple mathematical computations.

That is a perfect example of your ignorance. It's not a "simple" image and the photons in the RD image are directly related to solar activities, not some stupid bar graph. Get over the notion that this is a "bar graph" or some "pie chart". You're only making yourself look ridiculous and ignorant. It is not a "graph" of any sort. It is an *IMAGE* of solar activity, with some math applied to that image. As long as you remain *INCAPABLE* of picking out "flying stuff", you only make yourself look ignorant. Everyone else seems to be able to pick out "things" in the image except you. Why is that?

 

[Reality Check]

I can't even believe that you have *COMPLETELY* ignored my answers to such questions. You're quite a trip.

You said that you think that these is more ordinary matter. That is an opinion.
You *COMPLETELY* failed to present any evidence for this.


It is not more massive stars since

1. Astonomers are fairy good at measuring their mass.
2. Dark matter in galactic clusters is measured to be spheriaclly distributed and present between galaxies (no stars).

Where is this normal mass that astronomers have somehow missed?


As for the rest of the questions: I mentioned a couple of things that you have said. Give me links to the actual official MM answers to the questions.

ETA
You imply that you have answered every question so what was the number you gave me for How much is "mostly neon" MM? First asked 13 July 2009

 

[Reality Check]

How does the "mostly neon" surface emit white light

First asked 19 July 2009
You have stated that your neon surface of the Sun (the photosphere?) emits white light. You want that surface to be "mostly neon" to support the mass separation in the Sun and so allow your iron thermodynamically impossible surface/crust to exist.
Neon by itself emits reddish orange light.

What is the mixture of gases in the "mostly neon" surface that allows it to emit the observed white light of the Sun?

Argon happens to emit blue light. So you could add that and hope there is not more argon than neon since that would invalidate your Iron Sun idea.

 

[GeeMack]

That is a perfect example of your ignorance. It's not a "simple" image and the photons in the RD image are directly related to solar activities, not some stupid bar graph. Get over the notion that this is a "bar graph" or some "pie chart". You're only making yourself look ridiculous and ignorant. It is not a "graph" of any sort. It is an *IMAGE* of solar activity, with some math applied to that image. As long as you remain *INCAPABLE* of picking out "flying stuff", you only make yourself look ignorant. Everyone else seems to be able to pick out "things" in the image except you. Why is that?

There are no "things" in that difference graph except a bunch of pixels of course, each one representing the difference in value between the corresponding pixels in a pair of sequential source images. Everyone else seems to accept my explanation that the "things" we see in running difference graphs are pixels. Why is that? Of course you've never ventured to explain why each pixel is the shade that it is. Why is that? I've offered clear and concise explanations, none of which you've even attempted to refute with any more than your usual unsupported crybaby temper tantrums declaring that they're wrong. Why is that? And the good folks at LMSAL say I'm right and you're wrong. Why is that?

And where is that experiment you say you have that shows how you can see over 4000 kilometers through an opaque plasma by looking at a difference graph made using data obtained thousands of kilometers above that opaque plasma, done right here on Earth, nothing metaphysical, no fudge factors, mathematically sound, physically consistent, objective such that other people repeating the experiment come to the same conclusion you've reached? You've ignored this question a couple dozen times now. Why is that?

 

[brantc]

Not true. Anything with a sufficiently high optical depth will emit temperature dependent black body radiation. There may be line emission or absorption superimposed on the blackbody emission, depending on the specific circumstances.

I will say it again. A plasma of a particular density of a particular ion will only emit lines no matter how "deep" it is. Only when you start to compress the plasma do you get the interactions that produce a blackbody spectrum and the property know as "optical depth" that absorbs the full spectrum.
Otherwise you get "absorption" and emission lines.

Some galaxy spectrums. I know that the lines are superimposed on the lower spectrum but it still is not blackbody.
http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/nicole/teaching/ASTR505/lectures/lecture26/slide01.html

Crab Nebula spectrum.
http://www.narrowbandimaging.com/crab_spectrum_page.htm

UV/Optical energy distributions.
http://www.ias.u-psud.fr/dsigale/ecole_herschel/TALKS/jWalcher1.pdf

Ir galaxy spectra.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0811/0811.1533v1.pdf

Not even the CMB is a true theoretical BB!! Its amazing how good it is in the reports. Its too good. It only got that way from assumptions during processing. After reading this paper its easy to see how screwed up the whole "CMB is the remnant of the Big Bang" argument is.
COBE: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-03.PDF

 

[edd]

I will say it again. A plasma of a particular density of a particular ion will only emit lines no matter how "deep" it is. Only when you start to compress the plasma do you get the interactions that produce a blackbody spectrum and the property know as "optical depth" that absorbs the full spectrum.

How much optical depth there is is not solely dependent on the density. Every plasma has some optical depth or another - it's not something that only arises as you compress a plasma as you imply. It's simply that for many systems the optical depth scale is much greater than the physical scale of the object, so you never get to optical depths of order 1 or greater.

Not even the CMB is a true theoretical BB!! Its amazing how good it is in the reports. Its too good. It only got that way from assumptions during processing. After reading this paper its easy to see how screwed up the whole "CMB is the remnant of the Big Bang" argument is.
COBE: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-03.PDF

That's a mildly giggle-worthy paper. All the CMB anisotropies from COBE were thanks to water on the Earth?? Might be plausible given COBE was in a 900km orbit but since all the anisotropies we're studying now were measured by WMAP which is at L2, which is 1,500,000 km further, how can that explanation possibly make the slightest sense? There's a bit of a difference in angle subtended by Earth at 900km and 1.5 million.

 

[Reality Check]

I will say it again. A plasma of a particular density of a particular ion will only emit lines no matter how "deep" it is. Only when you start to compress the plasma do you get the interactions that produce a blackbody spectrum and the property know as "optical depth" that absorbs the full spectrum.
Otherwise you get "absorption" and emission lines.

The photosphere seems to be a "plasma of a particular density of a particular ion" (H-). It is measured to produce a nearly black body spectrum.
Why is it not all "absorption" or emission lines?
Why is the shape close to that of a black body?

The answer is easy - The photosphere has a temerature of ~6000K. That means that there is H2, H, H- and a lot of free electrons in the plasma. The free electrons will absorb and emit light at most wavelengths. This ialmost a balck body. Thus you get nearly a black body spectrum.

Then there is limb darkening. This shows that the photosphere has optical depth.

 

[Dancing David]

This sounds like one of those mythical claims that cannot be demonstrated in a lab. Which experiment would you like to cite that demonstrates that a mostly hydrogen and helium plasma, with the density of the photosphere shows that these elements at this density and temperature have the ability to act like a 'black body'? I think you're making this up.

Hi MM!

How about you show us the lab results for
1. Electron towing in an equal mix of electrons and protons to speeds seen in the solar wind?
2. Your electron refrigeration model, where electron flow keeps the iron shell from being heated by a higher radiating layer?
3. Your model for electrons coming off the iron shell in high enough numbers for #2 without heating the iron shell to melting/vaporization?