Electric universe theories here.

[Ziggurat]

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

Not true.

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 UV hump is well understood: it comes from the fact that we're actually seeing a range of temperatures, including above 5780 K. It's rather well explained, and limb darkening measurements give us a depth profile of this temperature variation. I'm afraid you haven't demonstrated any holes in conventional solar physics, merely your own ignorance of the topic.

That same UV feature is seen in an arc lamp spectrum and is actually the best match.

Um... you do know that the light in an arc lamp comes from hot plasma, don't you? No, apparently not.

 

[brantc]

Not true.

Show me a blackbody spectrum from a plasma in a lab. Come on I dare you!!! Or from the 500 miles of atmosphere/ionosphere.

That UV hump is well understood: it comes from the fact that we're actually seeing a range of temperatures, including above 5780 K. It's rather well explained, and limb darkening measurements give us a depth profile of this temperature variation. I'm afraid you haven't demonstrated any holes in conventional solar physics, merely your own ignorance of the topic.

Are you claiming that the solar blackbody is hotter than 5780 K, or that it is a line emission tacked on the end of the blackbody curve?

Um... you do know that the light in an arc lamp comes from hot plasma, don't you? No, apparently not.

Actually I thought it came from a combination of the solid electrodes blackbody spectrum and the hot plasma line spectrum.

 

[D'rok]

Yes, you keep saying that. But how much heat is it moving away from the sun? How much heat can it move away from the sun? Is that enough to keep your solid shell layer colder than the 6000 K part of the sun that we see? Why can't you answer such basic, fundamental questions about your own theory? Why was it left to me to do the calculations? And if you don't like my calculations, why don't you provide what you consider more accurate numbers? Like I said before, these aren't complex calculations. They're rather easy, in fact. But you consistently refuse to quantify any of your ideas.

Bump for Michael. Enquiring lurkers want to know.

 

[Reality Check]

Show me a blackbody spectrum from a plasma in a lab. Come on I dare you!!! Or from the 500 miles of atmosphere/ionosphere.

We can show you the nearly black body spectrum from the photosphere ("500 miles of atmosphere/ionosphere"?).

I wonder what a “Black-Body” Anode–Cathode Assembly is?
Anode Plasma Plume Development in a Vacuum Arc With a “Black-Body” Anode–Cathode Assembly.

ETA
Emission of Sub-millimetre Electromagnetic Radiation from Hot Plasma in ZETA

The first results are reported of experiments using a technique new to plasma research, namely spectroscopy in the far infra-red region (wavelength 0.1-1.6 mm). The shapes of the spectra obtained from zeta are consistent with the observed radiation being entirely due to free-free transitions (bremsstrahlung) and become characteristic of black-body emission at the longer wavelengths. The measured absolute values of the surface brightness of the discharge are in agreement (subject to reasonable assumptions) with the predictions of quantum theory.

 

[Ziggurat]

Show me a blackbody spectrum from a plasma in a lab.

You really don't have a clue about optical depth, do you? Furthermore, it's beside the point. Michael is claiming that the surface of the sun is much cooler than the roughly 6000 K temperature we observe. Whatever the source of that blackbody radiation, be it plasma, gas, liquid, or even solid, it's at around 6000 K (and 5780 counts), and it sure as hell isn't under a solid surface. Which makes his claim thermodynamically impossible.

Oh, and the light from modern xenon arc lamps comes mostly from the plasma, and it's roughly blackbody. Is that lab enough for you?

Are you claiming that the solar blackbody is hotter than 5780 K, or that it is a line emission tacked on the end of the blackbody curve?

Neither. The blackbody curve isn't exact because it comes from multiple depths at different temperatures. The 5780 K figure is a sort of average. Some of the light (that UV hump in particular) comes from something hotter than 5780 K. For the purposes of calculating the temperature of any solid surface, it's the total radiant power the surface is exposed to, so these subtleties don't really matter, and 5780 K is good enough.

Actually I thought it came from a combination of the solid electrodes blackbody spectrum and the hot plasma line spectrum.

Carbon arc lamp light comes largely from the carbon, but modern arc lamps use tungsten electrodes and a xenon gas or a xenon-mercury mix. And in these lamps, the vast majority of the light comes from the plasma. In fact, you don't want much light to come from the electrodes, since you want to keep them cool to prolong lamp lifetime. And the light coming from the plasma is not a line spectrum, but is close to a daylight spectrum.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Optical depth

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.

You already asked and I already answered.

Where do you propose that one might build a 1000 km long plasma tube to contain the experiment? How do you propose to conduct the experiment, if and when it is built?

You constantly revert to an insistence on controlled laboratory experiments. But you yourself will reject even the most controlled of laboratory experiments, when they contradict your pre-conceptions, as you do with magnetic reconnection. So why should anyone be impressed by your insistence that other people adhere to criteria that you will not adhere to yourself?

And you fail to notice that some things cannot be demonstrated to your satisfaction in any conceivable controlled laboratory experiment. This is one example. Even a "thick" plasma, let alone a "thin" plasma, can be transparent or translucent under laboratory conditions, while being opaque in nature because nature exists on spatial scales that cannot be duplicated in any laboratory. The photosphere of the sun is on the order of 1000 km deep. So the concept at work here is what astronomers call column density. Even where the photosphere is "thin", with a hydrogen atom number density about 9x10¹² atoms/cm³, a column of that plasma 1000 km long will hold 9x10²⁰ atoms. A real photospheric column will hold rather more than that, since that is based on a minimum density, probably closer to 10²⁴ or 10²⁵ neutral hydrogen atoms. Is that "thin"?

I told you once before that "thin" is irrelevant. You don't believe me of course, but that's no surprise. But I'll say it again anyway. "Thin" is irrelevant, whether you like it or not. We call it "physics", and the key concept here is optical depth. The optical depth of anything depends not only on "thin" or "thick" (both of which you have yet to quantitatively define), but on the absorption coefficient of the material at the wavelength(s) of interest. A strong absorption coefficient means strong absorption, even in a "thin" material, while a weak absorption coefficient can mean weak absorption, even for a "thick" material. After all, ordinary glass has about 1,000,000 times the mass density of the solar photosphere, and is "thick" by colloquial standards, but totally transparent to eyeball wavelengths of light, while totally opaque at other wavelengths.

You must pay attention to the relevant physics, just as you demand of others to do the same, or you just wind up in a thread dominated by a sea of insults and minor conversations on unimportant points, as you are now.

You clearly don't have any idea what the words optical depth mean, so let me fill you in. It's nothing more complicated than the absorption integrated along the path length. Every plasma has a path length. Every plasma has a wavelength dependent absorption spectrum. Therefore every plasma has an optical depth. It is therefore a necessary consequence of the laws of physics that if the optical depth is high enough then no photons at all will transmit through the plasma along the given path length. If you're going to tell me that sounds like something I just made up I am going to laugh in your face in a very insulting manner because it is a very insultingly stupid thing to say.

Who cares about laboratory experiments anyway? You asked for magnetic reconnection experiments and I gave them to you. Your response was to reject them for no reason other than you don't like the results. You asked for laboratory measurements of neutrino oscillations, and I gave you those too. You did the same thing, just toss them out because you don't like the answer. It's no use trying to dig up experiments for you because you will just toss them out & ignore them for no good reason at all. So it's just not worth the effort, not for you.

Besides, you don't have any "controlled laboratory experiments" to show that the sun has a crust, that the photosphere is made of neon, or that the sun is powered by electrical discharges. So who are you to go around demanding such things from others? And since you are already on record as explicitly denying the validity of the scientific method in general, and the laws of physics more specifically, that puts you on pretty thin ice. Or in your case, thin plasma (assuming we ever find out what "thin" is supposed to mean).

 

[Tim Thompson]

Plasma Emits Blackbody II

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.

And I will once again say: No. You are wrong.

Some galaxy spectrums. ... Crab Nebula spectrum. ... UV/Optical energy distributions. ... Ir galaxy spectra.

All irrelevant. Those are all optically thin so naturally they don't emit easily detectable black body radiation. But they all do in fact emit some black body radiation because everything that has a temperature does. It just doesn't show up in observations not designed with the appropriate sensitivity & band width.

Not even the CMB is a true theoretical BB!!

Hogwash. The CMB has a true black body spectral energy distribution. The "paper" you link to is rubbish.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You know, this is turning out to be a repeat of the 'discussion' on the Casimir effect ... great wodges of obfuscation, hand-waving, word salad, misdirection, etc, etc, etc by MM ... but no answers to simple, straight-forward back-of-the-envelope calculations (indeed, even the refusal to acknowledge the existence of such calculations is cannily familiar).

Why are you even here? You absolutely *refuse* to stand up and show a little a backbone and scientifically explain even two satellite images. You're afraid. You can't handle the images, so you're bashing he messenger. Do you really think this technique has any effect on me personally, or that it makes you "look good" somehow? If so, you're only fooling yourself. If you want to impress me and the readers, lets hear you explain the images.

(bold added)

I think a poll of readers would show that the impression they have of my posts is positive (for avoidance of doubt, I care not a bit about what they think of me, only what they think of what I write) ... with you as an exception (we already know that Sol88 is also not at all impressed).

Long before we started on RD images etc, I concluded that:

a) you don't understand the nature of the data which images are but one visual representation of; and

b) you are not interested in learning about such images; and

c) unless and until we can get mutual agreement on the *quantitative* nature of the data (represented as images), there will be no meaningful discussion.

Perhaps the best, recent, illustration of this in post #1088 in this thread:

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. It produced "coronal loops", "jets", high speed solar wind in one direction and all the other key observations we see in solar images.
[image omitted]

I'm sure you recall that I asked you about this pair of images before, and specifically about how you concluded that the two are related, *quantitatively*.

Do you remember how you replied to my questions?

I was amazed to learn that you had done no work whatsoever to demonstrate a quantitative relationship between the two; instead, it seemed that you relied entirely upon your personal perception of visual similarities!

But, as always, perhaps I am wrong ... can you show how the two are related, *quantitatively*?

 

[tusenfem]

This DVD of movies is a compilation of flares taken at various wavelengths, including white light, 171A, etc.

So, I downloaded and burned the DVD a while ago, and I just checked it.
Now supposedly I am to look at something at 30 minutes and 4 seconds.
I guess it is at "play all movies" (combined X Flares part 1, part 2, filament flares, flare evolution) let me click on it and see if I can get to 30:04.
At 29:30 images of a sunspot (I knew the Sun was Dutch!!), orange sun, black spots, gray umbrae
At 30:00 we see the spot rotating to the limb.
At 30:04 .... nothing
Guess I am watching the wrong movie?

Oh, in an earlier message it is at 30:10, 30:56 and 45:15
At 30:10 the spot has reached the limb
At 30:30 the movie changes to flares nice arcades building up at the beginning something "shoots away" at 30:32
At 30:40 change to green showing an loop and bright footpoints and some kind of streamer.
At 30:41, the loop has evolved into an arcade. This arcade is dynamic, but little emission in it, the flows seem to take place mainly in the lower shorter loops. Interesting to see.
at 30:52 change to orange again and sunspots near the limb.
at 30:56 nothing just a sunspot going to the limb

Let's go to 45 minutes
at 45:00 a black and white image of a sunspot going to the limb and as it reaches the limb there seems to be emission "around" the sunspot at 45:08

at 45:30 change to Xray emission from loops, showing flows through the loops (i.e. moving bright blobs along the field lines)
at 45:49 a nice build up of a large loop
at 45:58 something that looks like a flare
then lots of activity in the magnetic loops, "flaring" and "throwing plasma around" and as it it a top view of the action, we cannot really see what is happening completely, although there are events that appear to eject stuff upward, which "blind" the camera now and then.
It's facinating to watch all that activity and some of the things can probably be described by Alfvén's "unwinding of the flux tube" and some can be described by the Kaastra model of a flare.

at about 50 mins there is a side view of a region with loops. a nice build up of an arcade until 52:09 or so and then an explosion with stuff being ejected upward, out of the image (i.e. away from the sun), and the rest of the loops are short again, in agreement with the Kaastra model. At the same time there is activity in the smaller loops, maybe in agreement with the Alfvén model.

Note that there seem to be large explosions that eject matter but it gets "bend around" further away. This is because some of these flaring loops are covered with larger arcades that are virtually devoid of plasma, but will stop some of the ejecta and lead them back to the "surface" of the Sun.

So, what exactly was I supposed to be looking at here?

I am sure I am interpreting it all completely wrong.

 

[Michael Mozina]

(bold added)

I think a poll of readers would show that the impression they have of my posts is positive (for avoidance of doubt, I care not a bit about what they think of me, only what they think of what I write) ... with you as an exception (we already know that Sol88 is also not at all impressed).

Why are you here then? What useful thing have you said about either of the images I've cited here or any image on my website?

Long before we started on RD images etc, I concluded that:

a) you don't understand the nature of the data which images are but one visual representation of; and

Why should I care one iota what you think? Demonstrate it. Explain the images for us and stop playing the role of a coward. It's easy to hurl insults from the peanut gallery. It's a lot harder to explain the images.

b) you are not interested in learning about such images; and

I'd *LOVE* to hear your explanation for these images, in fact I'd love to hear ANY explanation of these images. About the only thing your side has offered is "Flying stuff? What flying stuff" in the middle of a CME event! What BS. You folks can't "teach" me anything of scientific value by avoiding the images altogether. All you're demonstrating to me is that you're clueless about these images and you don't know how to explain them and therefore you run like hell from them. That's what I've "learned" over the last four years from you and your EU lynching buddies.

c) unless and until we can get mutual agreement on the *quantitative* nature of the data (represented as images), there will be no meaningful discussion.

Most of the "basic" quantitative information about these images is freely available on the internet from LMSAL and/or NASA. You should be able to meaningfully discuss them, with or without my help. You won't touch them because you are afraid to do so.

Perhaps the best, recent, illustration of this in post #1088 in this thread:

I'm sure you recall that I asked you about this pair of images before, and specifically about how you concluded that the two are related, *quantitatively*.

Gah! Not every single piece of "knowledge" comes from math. Bruce provided you folks with tons of math. You ignore his work entirely. Alfven did the same. You folks gave him the Nobel prize and then ignored that too. I want to hear you explain these image *QUALITATIVELY* in terms of "cause/effect" relationships, and physical explanations of what's going on in the images. You can't and won't do that. Your motives are based on fear and your actions are less than ethical. You refuse to touch the images in question but these are the images that changed my opinions about solar theory. All you're telling me by this behavior is that you cannot and will not address them 'scientifically' on any level at all. The only thing you've done is toss out road blocks, ignore the images and hurl insults. Anyone can do that. If you have some special scientific abilities based on your superior math skills, let see you use such skills to explain the images in *QUALITATIVE* as well as *QUANTITATIVE* ways. I don't care how you go about doing it, but do something useful!

All I smell from your side of the aisle is fear. I give RC some credit (1 point) for describing at least on cause effect relationship in the image. I'd give him a point for the identifying the light source too, but then he sort of blew the whole "bar graph" notion and ignored the fact that all the photons come from the sun, and those patterns are related to the light patterns on the sun.

If you have some special skills due to your superior math skills, *DEMONSTRATE THEM FOR US*!

 

[Michael Mozina]

And I will once again say: No. You are wrong.

Say it all you like, but unless you can demonstrate that point in a real controlled test of concept it's not much more than a hollow claim. Have you watched the DVD yet?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You really don't have a clue about optical depth, do you?

It has nothing to do with "understanding" your claim. We simply lack belief in your statements. Got an empirical test to settle this dispute? Unlike many of your claims, this one should be something you can demonstrate in a standard scientific manner.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, I downloaded and burned the DVD a while ago, and I just checked it.
Now supposedly I am to look at something at 30 minutes and 4 seconds.
I guess it is at "play all movies" (combined X Flares part 1, part 2, filament flares, flare evolution) let me click on it and see if I can get to 30:04.
At 29:30 images of a sunspot (I knew the Sun was Dutch!!), orange sun, black spots, gray umbrae
At 30:00 we see the spot rotating to the limb.
At 30:04 .... nothing
Guess I am watching the wrong movie?

Which video did you download? I'm guessing you simply "missed it" because the other videos do not show the photosphere. I guess I'll have to freeze the specific frames for you and post them to my website. I"m busy at work today, but I'll work on it this evening.

So, what exactly was I supposed to be looking at here?

In the image at 30:04, you'll see the loops come out of the photosphere and light up the photosphere at the bases of the loops. If the loops were *ABOVE* the photosphere, that wouldn't happen.

I am sure I am interpreting it all completely wrong.

You can't "interpret" something if you can't see it. I guess I'll freeze the frames myself and post you a link when they are online so at least we can have a real discussion about them.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Cluster_Shows_How_Solar_Wind_Is_Heated_999.html

Electromagnetic fluctuations, including waves and turbulence, are a likely source for this heating, both in the lower corona and in the solar wind. But so far, exactly how turbulence heated the matter composing the solar wind remained unclear.

OMG. They actually mentioned the term "electro" in combination with magnetism. I'm absolutely stunned. Usually in these press releases all we see is "magnetic" this, and "magnetic" that. It's nice to see someone include the electron flow in the process. I think the Cluster team is the mainstream's only hope of enlightenment. They seem to have discovered the importance of the electron:

"For the first time, we could show that only a fraction of the energy of the turbulence goes to the protons while most of it continues cascading down to smaller scales, in fact to the electron scale. In other words, the true dissipation scale of the turbulence, where the energy goes into heat, is at the electron scale", says Fouad Sahraoui, lead author of the study.

The electron flow drives the parade boys and girls. It heats the plasma due to the fact that plasma is not a "perfect" conductor and it experiences resistance and turbulance. The turbulence they observe is related to the *PINCH* effect inside the plasma due to the *CURRENT FLOW* inside those filaments.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Why are you here then? What useful thing have you said about either of the images I've cited here or any image on my website?



Why should I care one iota what you think? Demonstrate it. Explain the images for us and stop playing the role of a coward. It's easy to hurl insults from the peanut gallery. It's a lot harder to explain the images.



I'd *LOVE* to hear your explanation for these images, in fact I'd love to hear ANY explanation of these images. About the only thing your side has offered is "Flying stuff? What flying stuff" in the middle of a CME event! What BS. You folks can't "teach" me anything of scientific value by avoiding the images altogether. All you're demonstrating to me is that you're clueless about these images and you don't know how to explain them and therefore you run like hell from them. That's what I've "learned" over the last four years from you and your EU lynching buddies.



Most of the "basic" quantitative information about these images is freely available on the internet from LMSAL and/or NASA. You should be able to meaningfully discuss them, with or without my help. You won't touch them because you are afraid to do so.

Perhaps the best, recent, illustration of this in post #1088 in this thread:



Gah! Not every single piece of "knowledge" comes from math. Bruce provided you folks with tons of math. You ignore his work entirely. Alfven did the same. You folks gave him the Nobel prize and then ignored that too. I want to hear you explain these image *QUALITATIVELY* in terms of "cause/effect" relationships, and physical explanations of what's going on in the images. You can't and won't do that. Your motives are based on fear and your actions are less than ethical. You refuse to touch the images in question but these are the images that changed my opinions about solar theory. All you're telling me by this behavior is that you cannot and will not address them 'scientifically' on any level at all. The only thing you've done is toss out road blocks, ignore the images and hurl insults. Anyone can do that. If you have some special scientific abilities based on your superior math skills, let see you use such skills to explain the images in *QUALITATIVE* as well as *QUANTITATIVE* ways. I don't care how you go about doing it, but do something useful!

All I smell from your side of the aisle is fear. I give RC some credit (1 point) for describing at least on cause effect relationship in the image. I'd give him a point for the identifying the light source too, but then he sort of blew the whole "bar graph" notion and ignored the fact that all the photons come from the sun, and those patterns are related to the light patterns on the sun.

If you have some special skills due to your superior math skills, *DEMONSTRATE THEM FOR US*!

(bold added)

Perhaps you have difficulty remembering what JREF Forum members have said in response to your claims, per what they wrote in their posts?

Perhaps you remember quite well but choose to lie about it?

Perhaps ... ?

It would seem that there's little point continuing to respond to what you write.

But one last attempt ...

The first images you posted here, in the JREF Forum, IIRC, are the two you copied, yet again, in post #1088 in this thread; specifically, a reproduction of a photograph of one of Birkeland's terrella experiments and a soft x-ray image of the Sun by Yohkoh. On your website this pair is captioned "Dr. Kristian Birkeland produced results in his experiments with an electromagnetic cathode sphere in his lab in the early 1900's that mirror observations from the Yohkoh satellite. Notice the energy and the photon emissions are concentrated in the arcs in both images. Coincidence?"

So, how did you conclude that "the energy and the photon emissions are concentrated in the arcs in both images"?

What steps did you take to make your conclusion independently, objectively verifiable?

PS Aren't you the one making claims about the Sun having a solid surface (or is it a rigid one)? Doesn't the burden of substantiating that claim, through objectively verifiable *quantitative* analysis rest with you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm assuming this is one of those "press release'' errors?

From the Cluster article:

For instance, the solar wind arises because the extreme temperature of its source region, the solar corona, enables matter to escape the Sun's gravity. The solar corona is located millions of kilometres above the Sun's surface, the photosphere, however, the photosphere has an estimated temperature of 'only' 6000 degrees.

Are they really attempting to claim that "heat' drives the solar wind process, or is that just one of those 'press release' errors?

Here was an interesting comment.....

The heating mechanism of the solar corona is unclear and has been an open question for decades. Similarly, heating of the solar wind itself is also observed up to 50 Astronomical Units (AU) from the Sun (1 AU is the average distance between the Sun and Earth).

So how exactly does the sun heat plasma at over 50 AU if not due to a discharge process between the sun and the heliosphere?

I really do not understand how your industry can see all these different pieces of the electric puzzle and still not be able to put them together to be able to see the whole picture. It's like watching the blind lead the blind.

 

[Reality Check]

Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves?

First asked 22 July 2009
Michael Mozina:
Your assertion is that images taken in the the 171A pass band of the TRACE instrument can see 4800 kilometers into the Sun down to your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust.
Images taken in the the visible light pass band of the TRACE instrument will show only the photosphere.
The physics tells us that this is wrong since the optical depth of the photosphere is too low to allow this (around 500 kilometers from memory).

An effect of your assertion would be that if images are taken of the same event at the same time in the 171A pass band and in visible light then the surface seen in the images will move by 4800 kilometers.

For an image of the entire Sun, the diameter will change by about 0.7%. The TRACE instrument uses a 1024 by 1024 CCD detector. Thus the 2 images will differ by about 7 pixels, i.e. the Sun will shrink by ~3 pixels on all sides between a visible light image and a 171A pass band image.

The effect will be larger for events on the limb of the Sun.

These effects would be quite easy to see so there are two questions here:

• Can you give some examples of images showing this effect?
• Why have no astronomers noticed this?

To start you off: Have a look at these 171A pass band and white light pass band images.

This solar X-class flare was observed by TRACE at 16:43UT on 22 November 1998, in the 171Å passband (characteristic of 1-million degree gas; in gold, on the left), 1600Å UV passband (characteristic of thousands to hundred thousand degrees; in red on the right), and in the white-light passband (mostly visible light; in pale yellow in the right).

The 171 A pass band image does not have a clear "surface" crossing the lower edge but it does have one crossing the left edge.

To my eye the 171 A pass band image "surface" is about the same (or even a few pixels above)the white band pass band image "surface" on the left hand side. I would have expected it to be tens of pixels blow the white light pass band image according to your assertion.

There is an unclear crossing of the 171A "surface" at the bottom and it does appear below the white light surface (photosphere). But that still means that your iron surface pokes up onto the photosphere at least one point.

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Cluster_Shows_How_Solar_Wind_Is_Heated_999.html

OMG. They actually mentioned the term "electro" in combination with magnetism. I'm absolutely stunned. Usually in these press releases all we see is "magnetic" this, and "magnetic" that. It's nice to see someone include the electron flow in the process. I think the Cluster team is the mainstream's only hope of enlightenment. They seem to have discovered the importance of the electron

OMG. Are you still ignorant of the fact that astronomers know about electromagnetism and know when it is appropriate to use it?
They are also quite aware that the solar wind contains both electrons and protons.

 

[Ziggurat]

It has nothing to do with "understanding" your claim. We simply lack belief in your statements. Got an empirical test to settle this dispute?

Yes: Xenon arc lamps. They are plasma light sources which emit across a very broad spectral range from very small (< 1 cm) sources. So brantc is wrong, plasmas can (and do) emit across a very broad spectrum, and not simply at emission lines. And because of optical depth effects, the larger the source, the closer to blackbody it will be.

Unlike many of your claims, this one should be something you can demonstrate in a standard scientific manner.

That's rich. Care to quantify any of the fundamental parameters of your model that I asked you about before? If my numbers are wrong, what are the right numbers? You can't answer that, can you? Nope. You will continue to avoid quantifying any of your ideas.

 

[Michael Mozina]

OMG. Are you still ignorant of the fact that astronomers know about electromagnetism and know when it is appropriate to use it?

If they knew when it was appropriate to use it, they wouldn't still by mystified by the heating process!

They are also quite aware that the solar wind contains both electrons and protons.

Ya, but they fail to acknowledge the "electo"part of "electromagnetism" in about 99% of their press releases and printed papers. Why is that? When they talk about these charged particles whipping by the Earth at a million miles an hour, never do they refer to it as "current flow", but that is exactly what it is.