Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Jack by the hedge]

Depends on the model of gravity you use.

I'm all ears.

You have a model of gravity in which an iron shell can exist which the conventional model says is 10,000 times too heavy to support itself?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have a question about that image. It appears to show a solid surface with ridges and other terrain elevation features.

That is exactly what it does show, just like the ridges that are observable in Kosovichev's Doppler image. The "lifespan" and behaviors of these features is not like the behaviors and lifespan of plasma "structures".

These features can be seen in the image because they have distinct highlights and shadows that make them appear to be strongly and directionally illuminated, from a source located to the upper right of the area (since the highlights face that direction and the shadows are opposite) and from an elevation considerably above the plane of the surface (because the shadows are short).

My question for the iron sun proponents is, what's the source of that directional illumination?

The sun is rotating between images. That consistent rotation from left to right between images creates what you're calling a "directional" illumination, although the loops themselves are the light source.

If we're going to interpret the image based on what it looks like, it sure looks like there's a directionally localized light source brighter than the sun's surface shining on the sun's surface. What and where is that light source?

Respectfully,
Myriad

The "light source(s)" are the coronal loops. They are discharge processes that heat the plasma to millions of degrees. The rotation of the sun between the two images is what creates the directional component, as does the movement of plasma past the surfaces. The "windward" side of the mountain ranges experience more electrical activity, and that too can (and does) have some influence on what we observe. The direction of plasma can be observed pretty clearly during the CME as particles from the surface blow from the bottom right toward the upper left of the image.

Keep in mind that brightly lit areas will rotate right, leaving a darker outline to the left. Each image is a composite image from two images taken a short time (10-30 minutes) apart. The movement of active areas between images creates what you're describing as the directional component of the lighting. The lighting however is strictly limited to "electrified plasma' inside the coronal loops.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Iron's quite ductile, isn't it? I was just wondering how large a hollow iron sphere could be before it ceased to be rigid enough and collapsed under its own gravity. Don't really know where to begin, though.

Short answer: Not that big...


A

 

[Michael Mozina]

Care to explain these images?
[qimg]http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/2000apr4/SOHO/20000404_1632_c2rdif.gif[/qimg]
Apparently there are giant mountains extending out from the "surface" of the sun like spokes.

Um, no. If you watch more than a single image (you can't tell anything from one RD image), you'll notice that everything in the image changes over time. The only "patterns" you'll observe in LASCO RD images are the stars in the background because like the surface features of the sun, they are consistent from one frame to the next. The plasma flowing off the sun however is highly mobile and nothing stays "rigid" from one frame to the next.

Either that, or interpreting light and dark parts of a running difference image as terrain features doesn't actually work.

You can't tell what's solid from a single frame of a RD movie. The only way you'll notice "rigid features" is to observe many RD images over time. The LASCO RD images show a very clear pattern of change over time because the plasma is moving away from the sun. Unlike the 171A images, moving plasma is not stationary.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let's go through the calculation. I'll consider a small square patch of this surface, of sides LxL and depth z. The volume is L²z, and the mass is pL²z where p is the density. The weight of the shell is a bit tricker. At the outer surface, the gravity is g, but it's zero at the inner surface, and it varies linearly between the two. So the average gravity will be half the surface gravity, so the weight will be gpL²z/2.

OK, what keeps this patch of surface from falling inwards?

Surface tension and electromagnetic influences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXsvy2tBJlU

According to your overly simplistic thinking, the water shell should crush the air bubble, but it does not. Why not?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The term "resonant cavity" in this usage doesn't mean the sun *has* a cavity within it, just the modes of oscillation follow similar principles.

How? How does plasma that is thinner than air at sea level act as a "resonant cavity"? Nice trick from ultra thin plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yeah "in a lab", but last time I looked. labs could not duplicate Solar conditions.

Labs seem to duplicate the conditions necessary to heat plasma to millions of degrees. It requires "electricity".

And just WHERE do you come up with your fanciful percentages? I submit that you pull them from your rectum -- prove me wrong.

How much of Lambda-CDM theory is composed of ordinary matter and energy that show up here on Earth? Don't even get me started......

 

[Michael Mozina]

And there is the problem already mentioned that the temperture is observed to increase with depth.

Baloney. The corona radiates at millions of degrees. The chromosphere is about 20,000K. The photosphere is closer to 5700K. The deeper we go into the atmosphere the cooler it gets as the plasmas become more dense.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ok so now the surface is a bit mushy or "mostly solid" and made of 'unknownium' (since you apparently don't know what you want to claim it is made of).

It's a crust made of ordinary elements from the periodic table. It's not homogeneous.

It does seem though that you are not asserting it to be a hollow sphere.

No, I would assume the core is composed of pressurized plasma.

You do understand that heat energy (usually measured in calories) moves from a higher temperature to a lower temperature, don’t you? So your hotter “outer layers” would, well, heat up the inner layers.

The outer layers are thin, hot and they are traversed by charged particles flowing *AWAY FROM* the sun. The heat is going to be picked up and carried away by the charged particles flowing from the sun.

You do understand that heat energy is also radiantly transferred in all directions, don’t you? It doesn’t need “particles” (other then photons) to “carry’ it anywhere including from your hotter outer layers to your “mostly solid” “crust”.

Sure, but those photons are going to run into charged particles flowing from the sun.

For some bizarre reason you just seem to want to ‘simply suggest’ that “Heat is carried away from the crust of sun by the constant flow of particles away from the sun” without any regard for thermodynamics whatsoever.

That's simply not true. By your logic the photosphere cannot be cooler than the chromosphere or the corona, but it is. Evidently the thermodynamics involved in heating the solar atmosphere is lot more complicated than you think. By your logic the corona should heat the photosphere to millions of degrees.

 

[Humanzee]

MM, just a quick lurker question. You say the images posted on your site show a solid solar surface. And that those images where created with an image processing method called 'running difference'. Would an RD image of a gasous sun look very similar to your images? If not, why not?

Thanks - H

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, so far it appears that we have another retreat by MM.

Pfftt. Neither you or Geemack have touched Kosovichev's image. What are those "rigid features" under the photosphere in the areas I circled in this image?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi

Notice how the wave passes over the rigid outlines PS? Please explain how those rigid features persist over the lifetime of the video, and why they do not change their shape due to movements of the wave.

The only one "retreating" around here are you folks. You won't touch the images. GM thinks he "explained every pixel" of a specific RD image simply by describing the technique. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" That's just pathetic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM, just a quick lurker question. You say the images posted on your site show a solid solar surface. And that those images where created with an image processing method called 'running difference'. Would an RD image of a gasous sun look very similar to your images? If not, why not?

Thanks - H

There are Nickel ion Doppler images on my website as well as RD images by the way, including Kosovichev's video.

Yes, a plasma sun or surface looks very different that what we observe in 171A or 195A or 284A, the iron ion wavelengths. If for instance you take a look at the 304A images, or g-band images, you see very different sorts of features, and no "rigidness" over an extended period of time. That is due to the movement of plasma over time. The structures of the photosphere come and go in about 8 minute intervals. Plasma is "liquid like" in it's movements just as Kosovichev's wave demonstrates. The features under the wave however are "rigid" and not act like a liquid. They don't move in the same way. They don't change their shape as quickly.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi

Watch the wave pass over the rigid outlines to the left of the epicenter of the wave. The wave is caused by a volcanic event. If you look closely enough you'll even see a single dark pixel in the epicenter of the wave just before the wave begins to form. You're literally watching a volcanic event disturb the surface of the photosphere.

 

[Humanzee]

I appreciate the response. I am checking the linked site to where that avi came from and how it was made. Is that a RD image?

Thanks - H

 

[Ziggurat]

Surface tension and electromagnetic influences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXsvy2tBJlU

According to your overly simplistic thinking, the water shell should crush the air bubble, but it does not. Why not?

Use my equation, figure out what the pressure from gravity should be. Don't assume the answer (which is obviously all you did), calculate it. How big is the gravitational self-pressure for that bubble? Does my model actually predict that the air bubble should be crushed? Or are you as wrong as ever?

Physics is quantitative. I quantified. Can you do the same? No, you cannot. Not even when someone hands you the relevant equations.

 

[tusenfem]

The source of the illumination is the discharges at the base of the loop(footprints) as well as the loops it self. Same as arc welding or a arc lamp!!! This takes place with the light from ionized iron(77,000 to 1.5 million K).

The light source in the images is the loop itself as well as the footprints at the end of the loop arc.

I wonder, do you get the same mountains when you look in another spectral line? Can you please show us that the 171 A and the 193 A images show the same mountain ridges?

 

[Reality Check]

Pfftt. Neither you or Geemack have touched Kosovichev's image. What are those "rigid features" under the photosphere in the areas I circled in this image?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/tsunami1.JPG

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi

Notice how the wave passes over the rigid outlines PS? Please explain how those rigid features persist over the lifetime of the video, and why they do not change their shape due to movements of the wave.

The only one "retreating" around here are you folks. You won't touch the images. GM thinks he "explained every pixel" of a specific RD image simply by describing the technique. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" That's just pathetic.

Pfftt.
Your continued ignorance is what is pathetic.

• GM and I have explained every pixel in the RD movie. You are the one deluded enough to think the adjoining regions of heating anfd cooling plasma in the corona are mountain ranges.
• There is "flying stuff" in the movie. As the TRACE astronomers state this "flying stuff" is "the ejected material very well, first flying upward at several hundred kilometers per second. Later, some of it is seen to fall back as a dark cloud."

Apparently you cannot read your own web site:

I must note here that Dr. Kosovichev is a VERY, very nice person, but he in NO WAY endorses my views about there being a "solid" surface on the sun. In a recent email from Dr. Kosovichev, he explained these features in the following quote:
"The consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions.
We know this from the simultaneous measurements of solar magnetic field, made by SOHO. These are not solid structures which would not have mass flows that we see.
These images are Doppler shift of the spectral line Ni 6768A.
The Doppler shift measures the velocity of mass motions along the line of sight. The darker areas show the motions towards us, and light areas show flows from us. These are not cliffs or anything like this. The movie frames are the running differences of the Doppler shift. For the illustration purpose, the sunquake signal is enhanced by increasing its amplitude by a factor 4."

 

[Reality Check]

Baloney. The corona radiates at millions of degrees. The chromosphere is about 20,000K. The photosphere is closer to 5700K. The deeper we go into the atmosphere the cooler it gets as the plasmas become more dense.

Baloney.
The corona radiates at millions of degrees. The chromosphere is about 20,000K. The photosphere is closer to 5700K.
Measurements of temperature under the photosphere show that temperature then increases.

Furthermore, one must remember that 5777 Kelvins is an effective temperature, a best fit blackbody to an actual thermal emission that is a superposition of blackbody emission curves that are generated at different depths in the photosphere. Limb observations of the sun make it possible to retrieve the temperature structure of the photosphere as a function of depth, in much the same way as limb observations of Earth's atmosphere by satellites allows us to retrieve temperature profiles for the Earth's atmosphere (see, e.g., Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal, Wiley-VCh 2004, chapter 5: "The photosphere"; The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres by David Gray, Cambridge University Press 2005, 3rd edition). The temperature at the lowest level we can determine is 9400 Kelvins. We don't see much of that on Earth, because of the opacity of the overlying layers. But your iron surface is pretty much hugging the 9400 Kelvin base of the photosphere. To the best of my knowledge, the highest boiling point for any element is Rhenium, which boils at 5869 Kelvins, so no known element can survive as a solid or even as a liquid at the temperature found at the base of the photosphere.

The iron surface of the sun is thermodynamic toast, and "thermalize" is a pleasant fiction that bears no resemblance to the physics of this universe.

Michael Mozina:
Rather than derailing brantc's thread, perhaps your would like to continue the discussion of your "Iron Sun" delusion where you brought it up originally in this forum.
Start by answering this question: How can your iron "crust" not be a plasma at a temperature of at least 9400 K?

 

[GeeMack]

Edited: This post became redundant after my postings that follow.

 

[GeeMack]

That is exactly what it does show, just like the ridges that are observable in Kosovichev's Doppler image. The "lifespan" and behaviors of these features is not like the behaviors and lifespan of plasma "structures".

That is, of course, a lie. There are no surface features in a running difference image. And Kosovichev's research clearly shows that there is nothing solid about the surface of the Sun.

The sun is rotating between images. That consistent rotation from left to right between images creates what you're calling a "directional" illumination, although the loops themselves are the light source.

That is, of course, another lie. The light source in a running difference image is the LEDs in your computer monitor. It is a graph, a visual representation of a series of mathematical calculations. The original images used as the source for the calculations are data gathered from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. It is impossible for the results of a computer generated graph to show anything below the photosphere.

The "light source(s)" are the coronal loops. They are discharge processes that heat the plasma to millions of degrees. The rotation of the sun between the two images is what creates the directional component, as does the movement of plasma past the surfaces. The "windward" side of the mountain ranges experience more electrical activity, and that too can (and does) have some influence on what we observe. The direction of plasma can be observed pretty clearly during the CME as particles from the surface blow from the bottom right toward the upper left of the image.

That is another lie. You have no qualifications to speak with any expertise on the issue of running difference images. There are no mountain ranges, valleys, nothing. It is impossible to generate a graphical representation of change between images of data gathered from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere and somehow magically turn the output into a picture of a surface far below the photosphere. Impossible.

Keep in mind that brightly lit areas will rotate right, leaving a darker outline to the left. Each image is a composite image from two images taken a short time (10-30 minutes) apart. The movement of active areas between images creates what you're describing as the directional component of the lighting. The lighting however is strictly limited to "electrified plasma' inside the coronal loops.

The light comes from the inside of your computer monitor. A running difference image is a graph showing the mathematical difference between pixels in a series of images.

 

[GeeMack]

Um, no. If you watch more than a single image (you can't tell anything from one RD image), you'll notice that everything in the image changes over time. The only "patterns" you'll observe in LASCO RD images are the stars in the background because like the surface features of the sun, they are consistent from one frame to the next. The plasma flowing off the sun however is highly mobile and nothing stays "rigid" from one frame to the next.



You can't tell what's solid from a single frame of a RD movie. The only way you'll notice "rigid features" is to observe many RD images over time. The LASCO RD images show a very clear pattern of change over time because the plasma is moving away from the sun. Unlike the 171A images, moving plasma is not stationary.

And once again your qualification to understand running difference images has been challenged. Remember, you were given the opportunity to explain, pixel by pixel, exactly how a running difference image is made. I did it, but you abandoned that opportunity. You were asked to explain the process you used to make your fake running difference images, and because you were caught in a lie, you abandoned that request.

And aside from the fact that you can't explain running difference graphs, you have a bigger problem in the fact that the data used to create the original source images was taken from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. It can't possibly show anything below the photosphere. For you to claim it does is a lie.

Don't forget, the challenge has been offered. Pick a piece of solar video, one of those 171Å videos from the STEREO web site maybe, and you can I can both process it into a running difference video. We'll see who has the results to match those posted by LMSAL and NASA. We'll both explain how we got our results. But if you're not up to the challenge, if you really aren't the expert on running difference images that you claim to be, if you really are willing to publicly admit defeat and admit that you have failed, that's okay. Nobody really thinks you can do it anyway.