Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Dancing David]

C'mon Michael. Focus. Sol. Opacity. Plasma.

Tilting at windmills is much more fun!

 

[Dancing David]

This is worth repeating ...

As is an earlier, slightly different prediction (actually it was a description, but it's easily turned into a prediction): lather, wash, rinse, repeat.

(I think it was ben_m's description, but maybe I'm mis-remembering)

I prefer blather, wash, rinse , repeat.

(Not my quote)

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/447006main_fulldiskmulticolor-orig_new1_full.jpg

I don't have a photoionization problem because this is an electric solar model, but you certainly have a *HUGE* problem. How come we see all those iron lines *UNDER* the photosphere along the limb between the jagged mass flow patterns that are "opaque" and the surface of the photosphere?

Oooooh, giant flaming bunny picture.

 

[ben m]

It also fails to jive with the SERTS spectral data. The neon glows in many ion wavelengths, and less brightly at the lowest end of energy the spectrum. Details matter folks.

Michael, you keep going back and forth between citing and rejecting this data. The SERTS data shows ions in the corona. The corona indeed shows ionized material---material which, if a few hundred m thick (at solar density), would be opaque to practically everything below 3000A. In fact, corona data does a nice job of illustrating how conditions like "current" (according to MM), "2,000,000K electron temperature", and "far from equilibrium" do not magically give you a plasma with no neutrals. They give you a thermal-ish distribution. "Very few at the lowest end" gives you plenty of opacity.

Elsewhere you keep claiming nothing whatsoever at the lowest end, an absurd sort of condition for which you will find no precedent anywhere in the Universe. Don't cite CERTS's, or anyone else's, corona data as though it supports this condition.

 

[Michael Mozina]

10^10V across 2000km of Ne plasma? Same temperature and density as before when the voltage gets switched on?

Before we do this I want to know something. Suppose you settle on some parameters and I go through this and discover - wonder of wonders - that 2000km of Plasmozina™ 2.0 is just as opaque to 171A radiation as 1.0 was.

One of two things could happen:

a) you say "You're correct, my model has been falsified. I was wrong. Back to the drawing board to start over from scratch."

b) you say "Oh, I forgot to tell you my plasma is full of luminiferous aether elves that help each 171A photon slide by all those nasty Ne atoms."

Which is it going to be? Because the first time we did this, you took something that looked a heck of a lot like option b). And like I said, if your model isn't falsifiable, it isn't science - and arguing with people over their religious faith is really boring.

FYI, I haven't forgotten you. I'll resist responding to anyone but you for awhile now in this thread so that we can stay on topic, and I don't get lost in trivial issues.

In terms of the number of attempts before I give up, that's hard to answer. If you come up with a valid scientific "issue" that I simply can't resolve, I'll stop and admit that I have a problem I can't currently resolve. I'll happily let you gloat a little too. If however you're going to be a "skeptic", I figure that you owe me at least three strikes. That first attempt was a little "iffy" IMO because you attempted to judge the theory based on standard theory conditions, not the conditions of this model specifically. We just had not gotten that far. I'll give you that "strike" however, only because it clarified for me the problems with the standard model as it relates to that SDO image and it happened in a very timely manner all things considered. It was worth it to me to watch that strawman burn and realize the full impact of that SDO image as it relates to standard theory.

Normally speaking I would want to work as a "team" in coming up with these numbers. In other words I would want you to be on my side and looking for solutions rather than looking for "problems" as you perceive them. In this case I actually prefer a bit of "scientific tension" and skepticism so that I can be certain that I didn't forget or overlook any critical "issue" that might be a real show stopper.

FYI, you aren't making it easy by keeping us all in suspense about the Ne/H "simplified" scenario we talked about earlier so that we can see if we are even in the right ballpark.

In terms of impurities that we will want to add to the neon, we'll need to add some constraints to the energy states of the elements inside that 'layer', and we should constrain the elements to the solar wind elements IMO. I'd rather we stick with the solar wind elements now that I see that I was off a bit on the distance to the surface.

IMO the energy state constraint of elements in the neon should be based upon the energy state that we agree relates to the neon energy states. In other words since we have constrained the neon layer to Ne+4 and Ne+5 energy states, other elements inside the neon "mixture" should necessarily fall into that overall energy range. Higher ionization states we should assume relate to the coronal loop activity rather than the elements embedded in the neon. Anything we find in the SERTS data at a lower energy state should be assumed to relate to the chromosphere emissions rather than photosphere emissions.

In terms of voltages, I'll be honest sol, I'm *really* struggling to constrain that number for you. Whatever number we/I come up with for voltages and current flow have to match the energy state of the neon in terms of density and current flow. It has to have a clear relationship to solar wind speed, although I'm less certain of exactly how that connection works, and where the full acceleration process occurs, which probably isn't in the neon.

Give me a bit more time on the voltage aspect. I'll try to get you a number by the end of the day. I may need ta couple of tries to get that one "right" and you'll probably have to help me out with that one.

 

[Dancing David]

There are NO (zero, none, nada, zip) ions in a low energy state inside the photosphere. That's the standard model's problem not mine. All the neon is at *LEAST* +4 or better and any reionization necessary will occur due to current flow long before a photon gets involved.

No electric solar model is threatened by these images. No non electric solar model can explain them. It's as simple as that.

Um, then why does the surface temperature appear to be 6,000F ?

 

[Michael Mozina]

b) you say "Oh, I forgot to tell you my plasma is full of luminiferous aether elves that help each 171A photon slide by all those nasty Ne atoms."

That line made me giggle.

Considering all those dark energy elves and inflation gnomes that you have plugging the gaps of your otherwise falsified BB theory, I'm in great shape.

My first big "problem" was fixed just by turning on the electricity. "Hey look, it's unplugged!"

 

[ben m]

Higher ionization states we should assume relate to the coronal loop activity rather than the elements embedded in the neon. Anything we find in the SERTS data at a lower energy state should be assumed to relate to the chromosphere emissions rather than photosphere emissions.

Shorter MM:

"Because you can't constrain 3D structure from a 2D image, I will assume the photosphere is transparent. Thereafter, taking advantage of the lack of 3D, I will deduce what is in front of, in, and behind the photosphere."

"I can glance at this 2D image and assume I'm seeing a 3D structure. Therefore, taking advantage of the height of this structure and where I assume it goes vertically, I deduce that the photosphere is transparent."

Whatever number we/I come up with for voltages and current flow have to match the energy state of the neon in terms of density and current flow.

But here's Sol's "Mozina 1.0/2.0/3.0" objection again. What happens if you can't name a current state which generates (via normal plasma physics evaluated by Sol) your desired ion distribution? Do you:

a) Say, "Wow, it looks like a Ne+4/+5/+6 plasma is actually deeply implausible. I should stop offhandedly-assuming that it's there, and arguing vehemently when anyone objects."

b) Say, "I guessed that 10^20V would do it, Sol said it doesn't---not by a long shot. I see now that 10^20V was not correct---there must be SOME OTHER plasma condition that generates this ion distribution. Sorry, this failure doesn't prove anything whatsoever."

 

[Michael Mozina]

Shorter MM:

"Because you can't constrain 3D structure from a 2D image, I will assume the photosphere is transparent. Thereafter, taking advantage of the lack of 3D, I will deduce what is in front of, in, and behind the photosphere."

Look, I didn't invent the SDO gear. I didn't create those images. It's not my imagination that the iron lines come up and through the bottom of the heliosphere and leave green band between the photosphere surface, and the limb darkened areas of the image. Your theory doesn't jive with the satellite image, and no "non-electric" sun could explain that image. What would you like me to do, ignore the images that falsify your theory? Ya, that's exactly what you want me to do because that's exactly what you folks do.

a) Say, "Wow, it looks like a Ne+4/+5/+6 plasma is actually deeply implausible.

Actually I already adjusted the model a bit based on your criticism. What, no credit? I agreed that the +6 probably relates to coronal loop activity for you.

Whether is seems "deeply implausible" to you or not, the SERTS data demonstrates that NEON is highly ionized and "glows" at many temperatures. Implausible or not, it's happening.

I can't say I'll hit the voltage/amps right on the first attempt, and I may need some help working it out. I do however have great confidence in the solar model because I've seen it work in a lab, and many of the voltages and amperage aspects are documented and discussed by Birkeland. There's nothing "magical" about current flow and electricity, but simply pulling numbers out of thin air is somewhat difficult. I'm not simply going to give up because you or sol can't figure out a solution.

The "solution" to your first "major" objection was as simple as turning on the power.

 

[sol invictus]

If however you're going to be a "skeptic", I figure that you owe me at least three strikes. That first attempt was a little "iffy" IMO because you attempted to judge the theory based on standard theory conditions, not the conditions of this model specifically. We just had not gotten that far. I'll give you that "strike" however, only because it clarified for me the problems with the standard model as it relates to that SDO image and it happened in a very timely manner all things considered.

Since you suggested it.... done! You have two strikes to go.

You need to tell me now, before going on, how you will react if you use both of them up and your model still doesn't work.

In terms of impurities that we will want to add to the neon, we'll need to add some constraints to the energy states of the elements inside that 'layer', and we should constrain the elements to the solar wind elements IMO. I'd rather we stick with the solar wind elements now that I see that I was off a bit on the distance to the surface.

OK.

IMO the energy state constraint of elements in the neon should be based upon the energy state that we agree relates to the neon energy states.

There is no such thing as an "energy state constraint". We're talking science, not magic. In science you cannot control the energy state of every single one of the 10^30 or so Ne atoms in your plasma. All you can do is set up conditions, like temperature (or total energy), voltage, chemical mixture, etc. The populations of the various states are determined by those conditions plus the laws of physics.

In other words since we have constrained the neon layer to Ne+4 and Ne+5 energy states, other elements inside the neon "mixture" should necessarily fall into that overall energy range.

We cannot proceed that way - it's inconsistent with the basic, empirically tested, centuries-old laws of physics. If your model makes sense, we could test it in a lab (modulo the difficulty in preventing the lab from melting). So until you tell me how - in the lab - you're going to force every single Ne atom to be in one of those states, I can't help you.

In terms of voltages, I'll be honest sol, I'm *really* struggling to constrain that number for you. Whatever number we/I come up with for voltages and current flow have to match the energy state of the neon in terms of density and current flow. It has to have a clear relationship to solar wind speed, although I'm less certain of exactly how that connection works, and where the full acceleration process occurs, which probably isn't in the neon.

Give me a bit more time on the voltage aspect. I'll try to get you a number by the end of the day. I may need ta couple of tries to get that one "right" and you'll probably have to help me out with that one.

OK. But I won't (and can't) go on until you agree I'm allowed to use the laws of physics to determine things like the populations of excited states.

 

[ben m]

Look, I didn't invent the SDO gear. I didn't create those images. It's not my imagination that the iron lines come up and through the bottom of the heliosphere and leave green band between the photosphere surface, and the limb darkened areas of the image. Your theory doesn't jive with the satellite image, and no "non-electric" sun could explain that image. What would you like me to do, ignore the images that falsify your theory? Ya, that's exactly what you want me to do because that's exactly what you folks do.

Listen, MM, nobody else can see it. I can't see it. I look at that photo and I see a sphere with a black disc and green features. There is no visual way to tell whether those features are behind the disk, or on top of the disk, or in front of the disk. (Visually speaking, I'd say they look like they're in front of the disk.) You keep insisting otherwise, but I literally have no idea what makes you so certain.

Normally I can look at (say) a purported Bigfoot photo, and I can say, "Yeah, I can see why you'd label those pixels as eyes and this edge as a shoulder". I'd disagree, but at least I can tell what their logic is. I have no idea what your logic is here, Michael. I think your sun photo looks less like a transparent surface than a Bigfoot photos look like Bigfoot.

Meanwhile, every other stellar astronomer on Earth is looking at photos of the Sun in H-alpha, HeI, CaII, Mg II, CO, O2, H2O, N2, and those photos all look like they're coming from the surface. But in response you're saying the OPPOSITE of what you say about the TRACE image---now, suddenly, you're saying "Things that look like they're in/on a surface are sometimes actually in front of it". Exactly the analysis you dismiss when it disagrees with you.

Actually I already adjusted the model a bit based on your criticism. What, no credit? I agreed that the +6 probably relates to coronal loop activity for you.

You both agree and disagree, since you continue citing coronal loop ionization states when people criticize your photosphere. (see I understand what sol did, and *IF* those conditions were applicable he'd be correct. Those conditions however are 'strawman' conditions and do not apply to this specific (or any EU oriented) solar model in any way. It also fails to jive with the SERTS spectral data. The neon glows in many ion wavelengths, and less brightly at the lowest end of energy the spectrum. Details matter folks.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

Whether is seems "deeply implausible" to you or not, the SERTS data demonstrates that NEON is highly ionized and "glows" at many temperatures. Implausible or not, it's happening.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND---is SERTS, which identifies a lot of Ne-III-rich plasma, telling us about the corona (in which case it doesn't tell us about the photosphere, so stop citing it)? Or about the photosphere (in which case the photosphere is opaque)?

I can't say I'll hit the voltage/amps right on the first attempt, and I may need some help working it out.

That's fine. What you are doing is fine-tuning a mathematical model to see whether its free parameters can be made consistent with data on a system you can't actually experiment on. The last time I checked you disapproved of this approach.

I do however have great confidence in the solar model because I've seen it work in a lab, and many of the voltages and amperage aspects are documented and discussed by Birkeland. There's nothing "magical" about current flow and electricity,

We're not asking you to be confident in your solar model. We're asking you about the very, very narrow sub-sub-subquestion of your model: "Does current flowing through a Ne/He plasma put it into an ultrapure NeV, NeVI, NeVII state". This cannot be true on the Sun unless it is a normal consequence of E&M, plasma physics, and thermodynamics. If plasma simply can't get into this state, period, then it's not going to find a mysterious way to do so on the Sun---the photosphere doesn't know that you want it to be opaque, and decide which laws of thermodynamics it needs to ignore to satisfy you. The photosphere does know the laws of thermodynamics, and it will obey them whether or not that makes the photosphere opaque. Understand?

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, sol...

The density number we selected (standard density at the surface of the photosphere) applies with the voltage turned on (mass flows running through it), and the gravitational field applied (compressing it). Keep in mind the helium layer is also experiencing mass flows up and through that layer too.

I have no clue how any of the mass flow parameters (electrons/protons through the neon) effects the density changes with depth, but the heliosiesmology images from SDO look *BEAUTIFUL* to me so I'd have to assume that the density changes with depth also apply to the neon layer. I completely trust the validity of the field of heliosiesmology, and it wouldn't work correctly if the density were not the same as standard theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Since you suggested it.... done! You have two strikes to go.

You need to tell me now, before going on, how you will react if you use both of them up and your model still doesn't work.

I suppose that depends on *why* it doesn't work, and how serious the problem seems to me. I can't really cross that bridge until I come to it however, so I'll have to wait and see I suppose. Don't worry though, I'll let you gloat to your hearts content while I'm working out a "fix".

There is no such thing as an "energy state constraint".

There is in this solar model. You have to do this "based on the model" or the strikes mean nothing. I'll just call that "ball one", "ball two" and I'll let you walk me to first if you start that routine.

We're talking science, not magic.

"Current flow" isn't "magic" and it's outcome is "predictable" and also "testable" (real control mechanisms and everything) in a purely empirical manner. Stop with the "magic" stuff. Trust me. You don't have an empirical leg to stand on.

In science you cannot control the energy state of every single one of the 10^30 or so Ne atoms in your plasma.

No, but you can provide a continuous flow through the plasma and put the plasma into "glow mode". We can also assume that the *CURRENT FLOW*, not the 171A light will do any and all necessary ionization to the plasma.

All you can do is set up conditions, like temperature (or total energy), voltage, chemical mixture, etc. The populations of the various states are determined by those conditions plus the laws of physics.

I'll let you verify that the laws of physics aren't violated, but you can't stick something like a +8 neon ion into the photosphere. We agreed those energy states related to the loops. Likewise you can't stick any ion in the neon that has a higher or lower energy state than the Ne+4 or Ne+5. If it's possible for the ion to reach that energy state somehow inside the plasma due to the current flow, well, that's understandable, but you have to at least start with a plasma state of all ions in an energy range of Ne+4 through Ne+5. Whatever happens from that point forward due to the current flow and physics, well so be it.

OK. But I won't (and can't) go on until you agree I'm allowed to use the laws of physics to determine things like the populations of excited states.

Yes, I absolutely expect (and insist) that you to use the laws of physics, but you have to at least begin with the initial conditions that I set. If the current flow through the neon changes things inside the plasma I will just have to live with it, but you can't stick highly energized ions, or lower energy state ions inside the neon layer initially.

 

[sol invictus]

There is in this solar model. You have to do this "based on the model" or the strikes mean nothing.

Nope, that doesn't cut it. If you disagree, tell me what I need to do in the lab to create your magic Moplazma 2.0. If you can't do that, you don't have a model - you have a fantasy.

"Current flow" isn't "magic" and it's outcome is "predictable" and also "testable" (real control mechanisms and everything) in a purely empirical manner.

Indeed. If your model is "Ne plasma at density blah and temperature blah with such and such a current flowing through it", that's fine - just say so. But your model cannot be "all Ne atoms are in such and such states because I want it that way". That's not a model, that's magic.

Yes, I absolutely expect (and insist) that you to use the laws of physics, but you have to at least begin with the initial conditions that I set. If the current flow through the neon changes things inside the plasma I will just have to live with it, but you can't stick highly energized ions, or lower energy state ions inside the neon layer initially.

If you insist, we can start in a state where all the Ne is ionized at whatever levels you want - even if such a state is completely impossible to set up in a lab. I'm willing to allow that because it won't make the slightest bit of difference.

The plasma will very rapidly equilibrate to its thermal population levels, no matter what the initial state. Some of those quintuply ionized Ne are going to grab five electrons and neutralize themselves, some 4, some 3, etc. Some initially unionized Ne - if there is any - will get ionized. That whole process will proceed until it reaches an equilibrium, and once it does, we can calculate the populations.

There's no way to stop those pesky neon atoms from interacting, Michael - they obey the laws of physics, not you.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the current flow through the neon changes things inside the plasma I will just have to live with it, but you can't stick highly energized ions, or lower energy state ions inside the neon layer initially.

It doesn't matter what you start with, Michael. The ions will not stay in only those ionization states, but will pread out into a thermalized distribution of many ionization states unless something makes them stay there. Current can't do it, and heat can't do it. Even ignoring the fact that there's no way to get them all into only those ionization states to begin with, it can't last.

 

[ben m]

Yes, I absolutely expect (and insist) that you to use the laws of physics, but you have to at least begin with the initial conditions that I set. If the current flow through the neon changes things inside the plasma I will just have to live with it, but you can't stick highly energized ions, or lower energy state ions inside the neon layer initially.

This is really an extraordinary level of misunderstanding. It doesn't make a difference for Sol's calculation, but it's just amazing.

MM, in a plasma this dense it takes something less than a nanosecond for your "initial conditions" to be completely erased. After a nanosecond, the plasma doesn't remember anything about your initial conditions except for things like the energy density, external electric field, etc.

ETA: What Sol and Zig said.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Listen, MM, nobody else can see it. I can't see it.

Well, that's hardly surprising to me ben. This crew isn't very attentive to details in my experience. You don't see that gap between the chromosphere emissions and the limb darkened region?

I look at that photo and I see a sphere with a black disc and green features. There is no visual way to tell whether those features are behind the disk, or on top of the disk, or in front of the disk.

It doesn't really make much difference at the limb because I can see where the limb actually becomes "opaque/darkened" and I can see where the chromosphere begins. There's a gap of about 20 pixels. There should not be a gap at all.

FYI the bottom of the image shows the emissions going *THROUGH* it.

(Visually speaking, I'd say they look like they're in front of the disk.) You keep insisting otherwise, but I literally have no idea what makes you so certain.

I'm certain because there is a clear, discernible "gap" between the chromosphere emissions and the limb darkened area all around the image, not just in one region or two. I can (and do) observe those emissions at the 6:00 position traversing through that region very clearly even if you can't see it.

Meanwhile, every other stellar astronomer on Earth is looking at photos of the Sun in H-alpha, HeI, CaII, Mg II, CO, O2, H2O, N2, and those photos all look like they're coming from the surface. But in response you're saying the OPPOSITE of what you say about the TRACE image---now, suddenly, you're saying "Things that look like they're in/on a surface are sometimes actually in front of it". Exactly the analysis you dismiss when it disagrees with you.

This model has very different implications than the standard theory because of the current flow. You can't simply ignore them because you don't like them. I'm allowed to "postdict" a fit too, just like you.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND---is SERTS, which identifies a lot of Ne-III-rich plasma, telling us about the corona (in which case it doesn't tell us about the photosphere, so stop citing it)? Or about the photosphere (in which case the photosphere is opaque)?

I have already made a key "prediction" related to the location of various Ne ions ben. You're welcome to check it out if you like. If Ne+4 isn't directly related to the photosphere, and is only found in coronal loops, this solar model is toast. That's a real "prediction" of this model Ben. It's an "energy state" type of prediction that is radically different from standard theory. According to standard theory we would expect to see few if any emissions from the photosphere in Ne+4. I would expect the photosphere to light up like a neon sign at that wavelength.

That's fine. What you are doing is fine-tuning a mathematical model to see whether its free parameters can be made consistent with data on a system you can't actually experiment on. The last time I checked you disapproved of this approach.

What would you suggest? We can't recreate the exact conditions here on Earth. I don't have a problem letting you folks "scale to size", nor have I ever complained about scaling known forces of nature.

We're not asking you to be confident in your solar model. We're asking you about the very, very narrow sub-sub-subquestion of your model: "Does current flowing through a Ne/He plasma put it into an ultrapure NeV, NeVI, NeVII state".

It's simply at a stable and high energy state that falls within that range that is due to the current flow traversing that "layer". It's not "ultra pure" so much as "uniformly current carrying" plasma. The current flow keeps it at a very high energy state and re ionizes the ions if necessary.

This cannot be true on the Sun unless it is a normal consequence of E&M, plasma physics, and thermodynamics.

It must be so because Birkeland had no trouble at all getting his plasma to "glow" with the power turned on.

Ben, the problem is that you're still trying to judge the validity of the model without fully understanding it. It works just like Birkeland's terella and it's not all that mysterious in terms of particle flow. In fact Birkeland does all sorts of calculations related to that particle flow in his books. You simply aren't applying the proper parameters to the model. Continuous current flow from the surface to the heliosphere isn't "optional", it's "necessary" to make it work.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It doesn't matter what you start with, Michael.

Great! Let's just start my way then and see what happens.

 

[Ziggurat]

Great! Let's just start my way then and see what happens.

The plasma will rapidly thermalize to a distribution including many ionization levels.

How rapidly? Well, we can ballpark that by calculating the mean free path length and the thermal velocity of the ions. Care to take a stab at that, or do you need help? Just pick a temperature and a density, and we can even do it for you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The plasma will rapidly thermalize to a distribution including many ionization levels.

How rapidly? Well, we can ballpark that by calculating the mean free path length and the thermal velocity of the ions. Care to take a stab at that, or do you need help? Just pick a temperature and a density, and we can even do it for you.

Won't you need to pick a voltage and amperage that is related to that "glow mode" I talked about? How and why did you calculate anything without including that current flow?