Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

First off, the "neon" lights in your office quite likely don't contain neon.

That's highly unlikely actually. This is a very old buildiing and the bulbs look to be just as old.

Secondly, it's not the noble gas which emits most of the primary light, it's mercury vapor. Noble gases (it doesn't need to be neon) are chosen because they're non-reactive, not because there's something special about the light they give off.

The light it does give off does fall into the visible spectrum however and that shows up in the spectral output as discrete lines, the same lines we see in SERTS.

Third, the light you see is not the light given off by the gas, but by the phosphors coating the tube.

Yes, and likewise the elements in the neon also give of light.

And fourth, it's not white light. It's a spectrum which looks white to our eyes because we can only pick up three colors, but it isn't white.

Nobody claimed otherwise.

So... yet one more in an endless string of epic fails.

You jumped from your own strawman to epic fail. Gee, if only you'd addressed my points instead of your own strawman and offered your own "better" explanation for that same image.

 

[Reality Check]

What is the Iron Sun prediction for the amount of silicon in the umbra of sunspots

Yep. Keep in mind that the umbra however is composed of upwelling silicon plasma from the layer below the photosphere, and that's why it doesn't "glow" in white light. That's also why the bright areas follow the contours of the penumbra, not the just the loops.

What is your physical evidence for the silicon in sunspots?
First asked 7 August 2009

And for that matter:
First asked 16 April 2010
Michael Mozina,
What is the prediction from the Iron Sun model of the amount of silicon in the umbra of sunspots and how does this fit with the observed composition of the umbra?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, you are being given "busy work" because you clearly don't understand basic physics.

FYI, this is your own self defense mechanism talking and it's not true. I have a very broad understanding of many branches of physics. You just feel the need to prop your position up by attacking my credibility. I understand of course, but it's simply a self defense mechanism on your part. If you have a "better" scientific explanation of that image, go for it. If not, no amount of belittling me as a person will make me go away or I would have gone away a long time ago.

 

[GeeMack]

No, you don't limit your attacks to ideas, you go after individuals. You went after those RD images with a vengeance and you had your head up your...... the whole time.

I attack your whacked out interpretation of what you think you're seeing in running difference images because I happen to have some expertise in that area. You, on the other hand, have no qualifications to speak with any authority on that subject, and you've shown it time and time again. Fact is, when it comes to that particular part of these discussions, I'm right and you're wrong. And I've got all the professional physicists on Earth and all the other sane intelligent people in this conversation on my side. Don't be a sore loser.

Tim and some of these other guys are quite capable of shredding your ridiculous claims from the areas of their expertise. I go after your nutty fantasy from mine. Don't get all bent at me because you can't hold your own in any area you choose to discuss. Learn some science, some physics, learn about running difference images, learn some thermodynamics. Because if you don't, people are going to continue to mop the floor with your silly ideas every time you start typing.

If there's one thing you should have learned over the past five years it's this: Nobody is going to let you get away with making up crap like you do. That's not how science works. That's why you get banned from some forums for refusing to pull your weight and why you end up tucking your tail and walking away from other forums because people ride you hard for ignoring stacks of legitimate questions. Hey, it's science. If you don't have the real stuff, and so far everyone pretty much agrees that you don't, don't play.

You need to get out more then because I've seen some real doozies in my day. Inflation, negative pressure vacuums, dark energy, etc, etc, etc.

Yeah, and your approach towards science hasn't let you make any headway in arguing those areas either, has it? Have you ever stopped to consider that you simply do not have the qualifications to speak with any expertise or authority on any of those subjects?

 

[Ziggurat]

That's highly unlikely actually. This is a very old buildiing and the bulbs look to be just as old.

The use of other noble gases is not a terribly recent innovation.

The light it does give off does fall into the visible spectrum however and that shows up in the spectral output as discrete lines, the same lines we see in SERTS.

Are neon spectral lines the only lines present, Michael?

Yes, and likewise the elements in the neon also give of light.

The only other element in the noble gas is mercury. The mercury gives off the vast majority of the primary light, and that is mostly ultraviolet light. The phosphors coating the tube convert that light into visible light. The light you see is not from the mercury or the noble gas.

Nobody claimed otherwise.

If you're now admitting that it's not white light, then what the hell relevance does it have to my statement about white light? Jeeze, Michael, talk about a back pedal. This was week even by your admittedly low standards.

 

[GeeMack]

[...] Do you try to prove it's robust so that you might be able to convince scientists (besides one guy in Rolla, Missouri) that you're on to something? [...]

Note: Even that guy in Rolla, Missouri, a fully fledged crackpot in his own right, doesn't agree with Michael on the issue of that physically impossible solid iron surface.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I attack your whacked out interpretation of what you think you're seeing in running difference images because I happen to have some expertise in that area.

BS. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?". Save your breath.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think it's time to call it a day and go grab a bear, I mean beer.

 

[Ziggurat]

FYI, this is your own self defense mechanism talking and it's not true. I have a very broad understanding of many branches of physics.

You keep proving otherwise. My favorite is still your suggestion that a sun-sized solid shell is gravitationally equivalent to a small water bubble. If you really understood basic physics, you'd know why that comparison was so laughably absurd.

So, are you ever going to get around to making any quantitative predictions with your revolutionary model? Or are you determined to go the Godel route? Maybe you prefer Proust's example, it's a little better suited to this internet age.

 

[Reality Check]

Why is this iron crust thermodynamically impossible

Hopefully this explanation of why the Iron Sun crust is thermodynamically impossible is simple enough for Michael Mozina to understand .

Why is this iron crust thermodynamically impossible?

• Consider a sphere made of any material or combination of materials.
• Place any energy source at the center of the sphere.
• Wait a while.

What is the resulting temperature distribution within the sphere?
The center of the sphere is hot. The temperature decreases as you approach the surface of the sphere. The surface of the sphere has the lowest temperature.
Thus if you measure the temperature of the surface then everything inside must be at a higher temperature.


Science has confirmed this with the Sun:

• The photosphere is at a temperature of ~6000 K
• The temperature is measured to increase with depth to ~9400 K at 500 km.
• The properties of the Sun (composition, energy output, temperatures, neutrino flux, etc.) match those predicted by the energy source being a fusion process requiring temperatures of millions of K at the core.

Thus the interior of the Sun must be hotter than 9400 K below 500 km. The Iron Sun crust has to be at a temperature at which it has vaporized and so does not exist.

Why is the corona hotter than the photosphere?
MM keeps asking this as well.
The actual mechanism is unknown (coronal heating problem).
My understanding is that there is no thermodynamic problem with this because of one simple fact: the corona is physically different from the photosphere.
Photosphere

• Within the photosphere you have both conductive and radiative transfer of heat. Above the photosphere the radiative transfer of heat dominates.
• The photosphere has a density much greater then the chromosphere or corona.

NASA - Sun

• "The average density of the photosphere is less than one-millionth of a gram per cubic centimeter. This may seem to be an extremely low density, but there are tens of trillions to hundreds of trillions of individual particles in each cubic centimeter."
• "The density of the chromosphere is about 10 billion to 100 billion particles per cubic centimeter."
• "In the part of the corona nearest the solar surface, the temperature is about 1 million to 6 million K, and the density is about 100 million to 1 billion particles per cubic centimeter."

 

[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
36. Where did your "mountain ranges" go in Active Region 9143 when it got to the limb? First asked 14 April 2010
37. Do RD movies of inactive regions show "mountain ranges"? First asked 14 April 2010
38. Just how high are your "mountain ranges"? First asked 14 April 2010 with 2 parts
    1. The first problem is that there are no light sources for the second image! It is an image of the entire Sun.
       So where do the shadows come from?
    2. Why do your "mountain ranges" seem to be an order of magnitude higher in the second image?
39. How does your iron crust exist when there are convection currents moving through it? First asked 15 April 2010
    (probably needs a followup explaining that the helioseismology papers he cites show that his iron crust is a horizontal convection current of plasma moving at 1300 km/s!)
40. Why does the apparent height of your "mountain ranges" depend on the timing of source images for the RD process when the light sources and mountains in the images are the same? First asked 15 April 2010
41. Why does the lighting of your "mountain ranges" move depending on the RD process? First asked 15 April 2010
42. Why are the coronal loops in the RD images aligned along your "mountain ranges" rather than between them as expect fro electrical discharges? First asked 15 April 2010

Actual Answers From Michael Mozina:

 

[Ziggurat]

Why is the corona hotter than the photosphere?
MM keeps asking this as well.
The actual mechanism is unknown (coronal heating problem).
My understanding is that there is no thermodynamic problem with this because of one simple fact: the corona is physically different from the photosphere.

It's more specific than that. The corona is mostly transparent. That means the photosphere can radiatively couple to deep space, and dissipate more heat through the corona than it absorbs even at lower temperature. In contrast, the photosphere is mostly opaque. Anything underneath it cannot radiatively couple to anything outside it. So whatever is underneath the photosphere must be at least as hot as the photosphere.

 

[Toke]

The age of a building does not matter in regard to age of lights used, as fluorescent tubes have limited lifespan.

Here is a link explaining the colour mix in more detail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp#Phosphors_and_the_spectrum_of_emitted_light

 

[brantc]

Bwahahahahaha! You really need to read up on terms before you use them. Magnetostriction is a change in lattice constant in response to a change in magnetization, not current or electric field. And the effect is pretty small. ESPECIALLY if you're not well below the Curie temperature, and even you haven't been willing to claim the surface is that cold. There's not a chance in hell you could generate those kinds of velocities with magnetostriction, not even with pure Terfenol-D. Which, according to you, the sun is not. Hell, your own model of mass separation pretty much prohibits any of that stuff from forming, given the mass disparity between iron and the lanthanides.

Yet another epic fail of physics ignorance.

So you dont think that a current that generates a magnetic field when it flows will cause magnetostriction in the surrounding material? Maybe the effect is small but I still say it exists. It generates an effect large enough to detect current flows under the surface.
Below the surface is cooler than the surface. The curie temp is 768°C or 1414 °F for iron. Not too far away from 1000C.

 

[Reality Check]

So you dont think that a current that generates a magnetic field when it flows will cause magnetostriction in the surrounding material? Maybe the effect is small but I still say it exists. It generates an effect large enough to detect current flows under the surface.
Below the surface is cooler than the surface. The curie temp is 768°C or 1414 °F for iron. Not too far away from 1000C.

Still wrong brantc:

• The photosphere is at an average temperature of ~6000 K.
• Temperature increases with depth to ~9400 K at 500 km deep.
• Thus your iron shell does not exist and there can be no magnetostriction.

There is no place in or on the Sun that is at 1000C.

 

[Ziggurat]

So you dont think that a current that generates a magnetic field when it flows will cause magnetostriction in the surrounding material?

Magnetization causes magnetostriction. Yes, current can induce magetization (though it's NOT the same thing as a magnetic field), but you still had the mechanism wrong, and that has practical consequences. The direction of magnetostriction will be perpendicular to the current in your scenario.

Maybe the effect is small but I still say it exists. It generates an effect large enough to detect current flows under the surface.

Nope. Not even close. Crunch the numbers, brantc.

Below the surface is cooler than the surface.

Still clinging to obvious violations of thermodynamics, I see. Sorry, not possible.

 

[tusenfem]

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15%20April%202001%20WL.gif[/qimg]

Yes, it certainly can be.

No it cannot, which would be clear if you really had read my discussion of what Birkeland writes in his book, especially the part about it being a discharge between the cathode ball and the anode wall of the vacuum box.

You might want to spend some time on discussing why you think this is the same, in view of my discussion.

 

[tusenfem]

He means except for the published papers of course. I'm sure he wasn't trying to mislead you or anything....

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1

You might want to scratch the last three of those "papers" as apparently they were never published except on ARXIV (which does not count, really, now does it). So, you published one "solar phyiscs" paper and did not even publish it in a astrophysical journal, but in the Journal of Fusion Energy, probably because ApJ or something like it would not publish such a meager paper.

Gotta love the last sentence though:

We look forward to other explanations for these findings [7-21].

 

[Tubbythin]

It doesn't "necessarily" have to be neon, but the photosphere and loops can't be the same material, and the material in the umbra cannot be the same material as the photosphere.

Why not?

 

[Dancing David]

If you look at that image carefully you'll note that the brightest areas are not the loops themselves, but the photosphere. That is because the photosphere is primarily composed of neon and is most sensitive to the electrical current in terms of it's white light output. The loops are primarily heavier elements like iron and also lighter elements like carbon, but it's not as efficient at creating white light. The light on the surface cannot be a reflection from the loops, otherwise the loops would be the brightest thing in the image and the surface reflections would be less bright.

Sorry Michael, but that something even I know better, the primary emission lines from the photosphere are not neon.

That is just funny and rather odd. You can't demonstrate it to be true and you know it contradicts all sorts of evidence.

Much less where all this magic current comes from.

Have you figured out how to have the mix of ions and neutral material in your giant discharge tube yet, if it was a 'waves and fluid motion' we would see discrete layers in the solar wind, we don't.