Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Reality Check]

These are some of the questions that MM has been asked about his Iron Sun idea and seems incapable of answering other than by unsupported assertions.

1. What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected? First asked 6th July 2009
2. 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
3. From tusenfem:
   Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book? First asked 7th July 2009
4. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source" and in the same post
5. 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
6. Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible? First asked 8 July 2009
   See this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.
7. Coronal loops are electrical discharges? First asked 10 July 2009
   This is an updated question with a couple of "answers" from MM.
8. Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question? First asked 10 July 2009
9. More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth First asked 13 July 2009
10. Formation of the iron surface First asked 13 July 2009
11. How much is "mostly neon" MM? First asked 13 July 2009
12. Just how useless is the Iron Sun model? First asked 13 July 2009
13. Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina First asked 13 July 2009
14. Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina First asked 13 July 2009He 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.
15. Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested? First asked 14 July 2009
16. 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).
17. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina First asked 14 July 2009MM has one reply in which is mistakenly thinks that this question is about coronal loops.
18. What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model? First asked 17 July 2009
19. 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
20. Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles? First asked 18 July 2009
21. Entire photon "spectrum" is composed of all the emissions from all the layers First asked 3 August 2009
22. Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves? First asked 22 July 2009
    Seems to think that 3 pixel differences (full Sun image) or 10's of pixels (limb image) are not detectable. Astronomers would disagree.
23. Evidence for the existence of "dark" electrons First asked 28 July 2008
24. Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere? First asked 30 July 2009
25. Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer? First asked 30 July 2009
26. What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers? First asked 30 July 2009
27. What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer? First asked 30 July 2009
28. Explain the shape of your electrical arcs (coronal loops) First asked 2 August 2009
29. What is your physical evidence for the silicon in sunspots? First asked 7 August 2009
30. How do MM's "layers" survive the convection currents in the Sun? First asked 26 December 2009
31. Where are the controllable empirical experiments showing the Iron Sun mass separation?
    First asked 5 January 2010
32. How can your iron "crust" not be a plasma at a temperature of at least 9400 K?
    First asked 7 April 2010
33. How can your "mountain ranges" be at a temperature of at least 160,000 K?
    First asked 8 April 2010
34. Where is the spike of Fe composition in the remnants of novae and supernovae?
    First asked 8 April 2010
35. Which images did you use as your input for the PM-A.gif image, etc.?
    First asked 8 April 2010

Actual Answers From Michael Mozina:

 

[Reality Check]

In other words, even though brantc went to all the trouble to demonstrate the basic flaw in your argument, and even though I've shown you the satellite images that blow your theory out of the water, you simply ignore them, call them 'gibberish' and go back to pure denial. Yawn.

In other words, you did not understand brantc's post. What a surprise !
He describes how RD images are made which GeeMack already knows.
He them makes the same ignorant, unsupported and wrong assertion about electrical discharges in plasmas that you make.
The satellite images blow your Iron Sun idea out of the water. He never addresses the simple physics that the TRACE instrument in the 171A pass band can only see light from plasma at > 160,000 K.
The gibberish comes from you.
You are in pure denial (see the list of outstanding questions)
Yawn.

 

[phunk]

I asked this a while ago but don't think I saw an answer. Have you found the same 'solid' surface features in images taken on different dates?

 

[dasmiller]

How about those *NASA* RD images that show the same "persistent features" for days on end?

So, is the Great Red Spot on Jupiter necessarily solid? It's been there for centuries.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, is the Great Red Spot on Jupiter necessarily solid? It's been there for centuries.

Nah. You can watch it "swirl" in the atmosphere like any hurricane from space.

Plasma is however like a dense gas or a liquid. It's mobile by it's nature and unlikely to remain "rigid" in terms of shape, size, etc. The "structures" of the photosphere tend to come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals. That change is obvious. In the RD image, even the CME has very little effect on the overall patterns and their persistence. Some "dust" (for lack of a better term) flies off the CME event and drifts in the plasma atmosphere until it falls back the surface again as "coronal rain". You can even see the pattern changes caused by that process on the image itself. We can even see the "pealing' effect along the right side and the discharges erode surface material in their path.

In the Doppler image, the wave is clear evidence of the validity of Kososichev's technique. It works well and visually demonstrates the moving nature of the wave on the surface of the photosphere. The items I circled are under that wave and are distorted by that wave, but their "lifespan" and "pattern persistence" is unlike anything else in the overall image. We would expect the *ENTIRE* area to show no clear pattern of persistence in terms of shape or size since the whole thing is presumably composed of "flowing plasma". If however there are persistent patterns under the wave (which there are), they can't be made of the same material as the photosphere in terms of density. They aren't even effected by force of the the event that created the wave in terms of their outline, their shape, or their longevity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I asked this a while ago but don't think I saw an answer. Have you found the same 'solid' surface features in images taken on different dates?

Oh, absolutely. The website has a series of RD SOHO images taken from NASA archives that show the same persistence over days. You can download those movies from my website, but the original images actually come from NASA RD archives, I did not personally create them. I simply strung them together in movie format. (Just letting you know, lest GM go ballistic again).

 

[Michael Mozina]

In other words, you did not understand brantc's post. What a surprise !

What are you blathering on about? Nobody ever disputed the *TECHNIQUE* of how a RD image is created. I've simply bitched about the fact that GM has *NEVER* put together a solar process with a single observation in any relevant solar RD image of the solar surface in the 195A or 171A wavelengths. The technique has never been in dispute. I'm just waiting for him to "explain" anything in the relevant image in terms of solar physics, solar processes and in terms of the CME event that occurs during the video.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

OMG. Do you *EVER* listen or respond to an answer? Your lists are utterly meaningless because you never update them. You simply use it like a sledgehammer and stuff the dog in to give it some air of legitimacy. I guess you hope nobody ever reads the thread eh?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Perpetual Student does not need to since Dr. Kosovichev has explained the various features of different images as stated on your web site:

No, he didn't explain their persistence in any way. All he did is explain how the technique works and give his opinion that it did not represent something solid. What he failed to do, and never did, even in our emails is offer any sort of satisfactory explanation of the actual "cause" of that persistent pattern. Nothing about his technique "caused" that pattern as the wave clearly demonstrates, as does the overall pattern of "change" in the image. Only certain features under the wave show any persistence and he never offered a valid explanation of the cause of such a feature in the image.

I felt I owed him that quote since I referenced his work, but I also cited the shortcomings of his comments. It's easy to say "I don't think the cause is A), but it's another thing entirely to actually offer a valid B) option. Never did he offer me a B) to choose from, and without an alternative to choose from, A) is still the only option on the table.

If you have a better "explanation" for those persistent patterns, I'm all ears. You're welcome to email him yourself. Links to his website can be found on the tsunami tab of my website. He's a wonderful man, a great scientist and I respect his work. He took the time to answer many of my countless questions and I'm sure if you send him an email, he'll be happy to reply to you.

 

[GeeMack]

In other words you don't have a reference and you pulled the numbers out of your back pocket. When cornered on the issue, you expect me to do your research. Right.

Let's see, how would Michael Mozina handle this? Oh, yeah. It's somewhere in here.

Now remember, all the professional physicists on Earth generally agree with Dr. Kosovichev on the nature of the Sun's composition. You're the one making a claim that is at odds with all of contemporary physics. You're the one who dangled Kosovichev's research out there as "evidence" to support your crazy claim.

Understand this: Alexander Kosovichev's helioseismology data shows that there is mass moving at over a thousand meters per second up, down, and sideways through and within your supposedly solid surface which, according to any sane person's definition of solid, is impossible. His research is your own reference. His quote on your web site makes it clear that he doesn't accept your claim that there is anything solid there. If you want to show that some other interpretation is legitimate, do your own damned homework.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Understand this: Alexander Kosovichev's helioseismology data shows......

Which published paper?

 

[dasmiller]

Nah. You can watch it "swirl" in the atmosphere like any hurricane from space.

if you have sufficient resolution, yes. In a blurry, distant image, it looks very static. I glanced through your site and I didn't see any images of 'solid' features that had anywhere near the resolution that you'd need to see the swirling motion of the great red spot, for example. Maybe they're there and I missed them, but . . .

The items I circled are under that wave and are distorted by that wave, but their "lifespan" and "pattern persistence" is unlike anything else in the overall image. We would expect the *ENTIRE* area to show no clear pattern of persistence in terms of shape or size since the whole thing is presumably composed of "flowing plasma". If however there are persistent patterns under the wave (which there are), they can't be made of the same material as the photosphere in terms of density. They aren't even effected by force of the the event that created the wave in terms of their outline, their shape, or their longevity.

The "more persistent so it must not be plasma" argument isn't working for me.
Within our atmosphere, which is paper-thin compared to the photosphere, we often have different layers working almost independently of each other. High- and low-altitude cloud decks move right past each other. Surface-level winds are pretty much independent of the jet stream. In fact, surface-level winds may change direction and intensity on a scale of seconds to minutes; the jet stream changes on a scale of weeks. Yet it's all air, and the surface-level winds are only a few km from the jet stream.

 

[GeeMack]

Which published paper?

Do your own homework. I gave you the link where you can find a discussion of the issue and further links to the specific material you yourself referenced in that discussion.

Have that running difference video ready yet?

 

[Reality Check]

What are you blathering on about? Nobody ever disputed the *TECHNIQUE* of how a RD image is created. I've simply bitched about the fact that GM has *NEVER* put together a solar process with a single observation in any relevant solar RD image of the solar surface in the 195A or 171A wavelengths. The technique has never been in dispute. I'm just waiting for him to "explain" anything in the relevant image in terms of solar physics, solar processes and in terms of the CME event that occurs during the video.

That is right: Nobody ever disputed the *TECHNIQUE* of how a RD image is created. And that is what brantc's post is about.

GM probably agrees with what RD movies actually show as far as the terms of solar physics, solar processes and in terms of the CME event that occurs during the video:

• The light areas are plasma that is heating.
• The dark areas are plasma that is cooling.
• These light and dark areas are aligned to either side of flares giving the illusion of "mountain ranges".
• The moving dark cloud is a moving, cooling CME as stated by the TRACE astronomers.
• The original images are of plasma at a temperature of > 160,000 K and in the chromosphere and corona, i.e. 1000's of kilometers above the photosphere. The RD processing does not magically change this.

Some other points about the "light sources" in the RD movie:

• His "shadows" on the TRACE 171A RD animation point in most directions meaning that just about every "shadow" has its own personal light source.
• There are no multiple "shadows" which means that each light source is a beam on the "mountain" that MM believes is casting the shadow.
• MM may think that the shadows are a result of the Sun's rotation but then the different directions disproves this.
• The "shadows" are obviously aligned along the lines of the flares in the original images. They are paired with bright areas that just happen to be on the other side of the flares in the original images.
  This gives the optical illusion of mountain ranges. Thus MM's idea that there are shadows and light sources to cast them.

 

[Reality Check]

OMG. Do you *EVER* listen or respond to an answer? Your lists are utterly meaningless because you never update them. You simply use it like a sledgehammer and stuff the dog in to give it some air of legitimacy. I guess you hope nobody ever reads the thread eh?

OMG. Do you *EVER* listen or respond to an question with anything but gibberish?
I stuff the dog in to give it to show how pitiful you are at answering questions
I guess you hope nobody ever reads the thread eh, MM?

How can your "mountain ranges" be at a temperature of at least 160,000 K?
has not been answered in any intelligent sense by you.
The original images in the TRACE RD movie are of light from material at a temperature of > 160,000 K (i.e. plasma) and in the chromosphere and corona, i.e. 1000's of kilometers above the photosphere. The RD processing does not magically change this.

 

[Reality Check]

Please explain for us why we can see the bases of the coronal loops in 171A from the Trace spacecraft (Blue), but we only observe the the tops of the loops in Yohkoh x-ray images (Yellow)? If the loops are millions of degrees at the bases of the loops as indicated by the TRACE 171A filters, why aren't they emitting x-rays too at the bases of the loops, or why are the x-rays being absorbed near the bases of the loops, and not at the top of the loops?

Another bit ignorance from you MM.

Maybe some baby talk will help:
Thing cool at one end and hot at top. It emit light in 171A band.
Sane thing very hot at above top. It emit light in x-ray band.
Take 2 pictures in the separate bands.
Surprise! One picture shows all of thing. Other picture shows top of thing.

 

[Reality Check]

They're akin to lightening discharges in the atmospheres of a planet. They aren't limited to a single "layer" of the solar atmosphere.

You do know that the Sun's atmosphere is not the atmosphere of a planet?
That thare are some small difference like it being a plasma?
That electrical discharges are impossible in a plasma becuse it is ionized?

Or are you just ignoring basic physics as usual?

No, that's NOT what it's "designed to do". It is designed to pickup higher energy wavelengths of light from wherever they might occur.

That is correct.
It just so happens that observations and the laws of physics means that light from material at > 160,000 K is only seen from the chromosphere and corona.
The observations are easy: Mask the Sun, look at the light and note that 171A passband light only comes from the chromosphere and corona.

This leaves the possiblity that there is a source of 171A passband light below the photosphere that is as string an emitter as the chromosphere and corona. The optical depth of the photosphere tells us that this source must be in the first few hundred kilometers (1000 km to be generous). But measurements of the photosphere also show that it has a temperature of ~5777 K at the top (lower in sunspots) and that the temperature increases to 9400 K by a depth of 500 km.
There is no material at a temperature of > 160,000 K close enough to the top of the photosphere to emit light in the 171A passband.

But maybe you will continue with your delusion that your thermodynamically impossible, invisible iron crust has electrical discharges that are at > 160,000 K and it is these that TRACE sees.
Big problem with that - you have placed your iron 1000's of km below the photosphere (was it 0.997 of the solar radius?). Any light from your discharges will be scattered multiple times on the way to the top of the photosphere and end up leaving it in a random direction. No "mountain range" illusion !

 

[Reality Check]

It's not the "cloud" that is unexplained, it's that outside shell of iron rich materials that really doesn't fit current theory IMO.

Actually the observation of Fe-rich ejecta has been seen in a Type 1A supernova and is explained by current theory. This is interesting stellar physyics.
IRON-RICH EJECTA IN THE SUPERNOVA REMNANT DEM L71 (PDF)

Note that the ejecta as a whole is in a thick egg-shaped shell but the observations do not show a Fe-rich shell within the shell, possible because of low resolution.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do your own homework.

Your claim, your homework dude. I know of no published Kosovichev material that would help you explain the numbers you keep spewing.

Have that running difference video ready yet?

Er, no, I haven't even sat down yet at the machine with IDL and Festival installed. Just out of curiosity what software did you intend to use to create your "real" RD video? How will I know it's "real" rather than "fake"? When can I expect to see it? At least I've had the common decency to post you a link to 4 RD images I personally created, whether you're happy with them or not.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Another bit ignorance from you MM.

Maybe some baby talk will help:
Thing cool at one end and hot at top.

Thing plenty hot enough everywhere to emit x-rays everywhere. How it get hot on top and not on bottom?

It emit light in 171A band.

So wouldn't million degree plus plasma be emitting x-rays down at the base of such a loop?

Sane thing very hot at above top. It emit light in x-ray band.

So where does the extra heat come from baby?

Take 2 pictures in the separate bands.
Surprise! One picture shows all of thing. Other picture shows top of thing.

Now all you have to do is explain how multimillion degree plasma below doesn't emit xrays, and where the top of the loops pickup all this extra heat, and why it only happens in the loops.

Think baby think!