Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Reality Check]

MM: How can your "mountain ranges" be at a temperature of at least 160,000 K

How can your "mountain ranges" be at a temperature of at least 160,000 K?
First asked 8 April 2010

 

[Michael Mozina]

No. Surface tension doesn't apply to solids, and even in liquids it's fairly weak and doesn't scale with volume.

Ok, so why doesn't a basketball go completely flat the moment we puncture it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

How can your "mountain ranges" be at a temperature of at least 160,000 K?
First asked 8 April 2010

Why do you ask me the same question and ignore my answer over and over again?

The "light" we observe in the original images comes from the coronal loops or electrical discharges in the atmosphere. At *MOST* we might see light reflected from the surface, but in all likelihood all the light comes from small loops near the surface, but not the surface itself. The surface terrain dictates the emissions patterns, but it too is volcanic and changes over time.

Nobody ever claimed that the whole surface was 160,000K. That's your own little strawman. Scratch that from your list.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok, so why doesn't a basketball go completely flat the moment we puncture it?

Frequently they don't go completely flat. But surface tension isn't involved. Basketballs retain their shape while inflated because of BULK stress within the material, not surface tension. Do you even know what "surface tension" means?

 

[Toke]

Ok, so why doesn't a basketball go completely flat the moment we puncture it?

Perhaps you should read through the calculation on material strength v.s. gravity shown up-tread?
It showed that a hollow iron shell with the mass of the sun have higher gravity to material strength ratio than e.g. a basketball.

 

[Reality Check]

Here's the LMSAL image that demonstrates that the footprints of the loops are located *UNDER*, not above the photosphere. Notice the effect on the surface of the photosphere from the coronal loops passing through it.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15 April 2001 WL.gif

There's the LMSAL image that demonstrates that you have the delusion that the footprints of the loops are located *UNDER*, not above the photosphere. Notice the effect on the surface of the photosphere from the coronal loops passing through it.

The definition of coronal loop footprints is that they are where the coronal loops meet the photosphere. The coronal loops do have an effect on the photosphere since they are magnetic fields passing through a plasma that changes density a lot.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Frequently they don't go completely flat. But surface tension isn't involved. Basketballs retain their shape while inflated because of BULK stress within the material, not surface tension. Do you even know what "surface tension" means?

Well, ok, that was sloppy verbiage on my part going from one analogy to another. I'll concede that point. Let's talk "bulk stress" then as it relates to solids. That same issue still applies. The overall shell need not necessarily be less dense than the material inside the sphere. In no way can you simply "assume" that the core will necessarily be more dense than the outside solids, nor can we know the "depth" of the outside surface simply by looking at from the outside. The overall "mass" might tells us more, but we can't automatically assume any solid shell model will necessarily requires a solid sphere, or a dense core. IMO branc's argument is more likely to work best in a hollow sphere scenario where the sphere acts as a resonance cavity for outside waves of energy. Just my two cents mind you....it is his model after all.

 

[Reality Check]

Why do you ask me the same question and ignore my answer over and over again?

The "light" we observe in the original images comes from the coronal loops or electrical discharges in the atmosphere. At *MOST* we might see light reflected from the surface, but in all likelihood all the light comes from small loops near the surface, but not the surface itself. The surface terrain dictates the emissions patterns, but it too is volcanic and changes over time.

Nobody ever claimed that the whole surface was 160,000K. That's your own little strawman. Scratch that from your list.

Why do you give me the same answer and ignore my question over and over again?

Or maybe this is yet another example of your ignorance.
All of the light in the TRACE RD image comes from material at a temperature > 160,000 K.

 

[jhunter1163]

The substance with the highest known melting point is tantalum hafnium carbide, about 7600 degrees F. Just throwing in my two cents' worth of trivia.

 

[Michael Mozina]

All of the light in the TRACE RD image comes from material at a temperature > 160,000 K.

Yes, I just said that. Nobody said the light came from the surface. It originates in the discharge processes along the surface terrain. The discharge processes are also highly sensitive to volcanic activity which tends to create massive discharges processes in the solar atmosphere.

 

[Ziggurat]

Let's talk "bulk stress" then as it relates to solids. That same issue still applies. The overall shell need not necessarily be less dense than the material inside the sphere. In no way can you simply "assume" that the core will necessarily be more dense than the outside solids, nor can we know the "depth" of the outside surface simply by looking at from the outside.

First off, I made no assumptions about the thickness of the shell. Secondly, both your model and brantc's require that the shell not extend to the core (otherwise the mass of the sun will be wildly wrong), and I included that in my calculations, so I don't know why you're saying that we can't assume the core is more dense when I explicitly included a massless core within my calculations. And third, if you had understood my calculation, you'd know that the required pressures in the shell are higher if there is any mass within the shell. By assuming no mass within the shell, I'm actually being generous to the model.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The substance with the highest known melting point is tantalum hafnium carbide, about 7600 degrees F. Just throwing in my two cents' worth of trivia.

You sell yourself short. It was worth at least a nickel, maybe even a quarter if you'd added the conversion to Kelvins for me.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, I just said that. Nobody said the light came from the surface. It originates in the discharge processes along the surface terrain. The discharge processes are also highly sensitive to volcanic activity which tends to create massive discharges processes in the solar atmosphere.

But your claim is that the RD movie shows actual mountain ranges, not "light ranges". That is impossible.

The other impossible claim is the usual idiocy of discharges in a plasma.

 

[Ziggurat]

You sell yourself short. It was worth at least a nickel, maybe even a quarter if you'd added the conversion to Kelvins for me.

What, you can't do the conversion yourself?

 

[Michael Mozina]

What, you can't do the conversion yourself?

Sure, but I had to think about it.

 

[Reality Check]

Just out of morbid curiosity, how are the RD images I cited a "fraud" in your opinion? How does one "fake" a running difference image exactly?

Just out of morbid curiosity, lets see exactly what you posted:

Originally Posted by GeeMack
What you have said about them is in direct contradiction to the people who created them. You said you could make one. Do it.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/AM-A.JPG
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/AM-B.JPG
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/PM-A.gif
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/PM-B.gif
Let's see you "do" one.

You are saying that thesed 4 images are RD images that you created.

But...

• There is no evidence of this. You have not stated what original images you used or what processing you did.
• They look suspiciously like normal solar images, pehaps with contract turned up.

As GeeMack asked:
First asked 6 April 2010

Which images did you use as your input for the PM-A.gif image? What mathematical process did you apply to obtain your result? In that image, the pixel in column 1371, row 758 has a value of about 20% black. Why is it that color? (Prediction: I don't think you have the qualifications you claim and you can't answer this question because you don't understand running difference images. I predict a tantrum instead because blowing your problems off onto other people is one of your dishonest tactics to distract from the legitimate questions you can't answer.)

Where in that image do you believe you're seeing solid physical features? Why does no professional physicist on Earth agree that's what you're seeing? And perhaps most importantly, what is it about the creation process that makes you think you see physical features below the photosphere when the data gathered to create the original images was taken from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere?
...
In your image PM-A.gif, or any running difference image or video for that matter, what is it about the process of creating a simple graphical representation of a series of mathematical calculations that you believe allows you to see physical features below the photosphere when the data used to create the original images was taken from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere?

 

[Michael Mozina]

But your claim is that the RD movie shows actual mountain ranges, not "light ranges". That is impossible.

You are still not hearing me, or not understanding me. The *ORIGINAL* light sources are coronal loops. The terrain dictates the overall discharge patterns, as does the atmospheric plasma flow.

The other impossible claim is the usual idiocy of discharges in a plasma.

The belief that discharges do not occur in a plasma is itself idiocy. FYI most plasmas (including the photosphere) are "dusty" meaning they are composed of non ionized liquids if not solids, not simply plasma.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Well, keep in mind that solid metals would have an electrostatic attraction, particularly in an electrically active environment.

Solid metals would have an electrostatic attraction or repulsion, depending on their relative charges. On an object the size of brantc's sun, however, electrostatic forces would be utterly irrelevant compared to gravity. (Though maybe not brantc's version of gravity, but we don't know how that's supposed to work yet.)

 

[Michael Mozina]

Solid metals would have an electrostatic attraction or repulsion, depending on their relative charges.

In a "current carrying" environment they would tend to simply collect and act as conductors.

On an object the size of brantc's sun, however, electrostatic forces would be utterly irrelevant compared to gravity.

I'm not so sure about that, particularly in a very active electrical environment. I think that's an assumption based on many unknowns, particularly about the inside of the sphere and the depth of the crust.

(Though maybe not brantc's version of gravity, but we don't know how that's supposed to work yet.)

Me either. GR works for me.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm not so sure about that, particularly in a very active electrical environment. I think that's an assumption based on many unknowns, particularly about the inside of the sphere and the depth of the crust.

Brantc thinks the sun is a roughly 94,000,000 metre thick iron shell, with a radius of 695,000,000 metres and a mass of 7,874 kg m-3. If he envisages some internal supporting structure, he hasn't described it.

If you can envisage some electromagnetic effect which could provide some of the 99.99% missing mechanical support for brantc's iron shell, then by all means let's hear about it.