Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

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

Look, I'm the one at bat, so if everyone agrees it makes no difference how we calculate it, please do it my way, ok?

Honestly, if it doesn't matter, let's just do the calculation my way and I'll accept the outcome. I don't want to bicker about it all day.

 

[sol invictus]

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

I can't until you finish specifying the conditions. As for starting with all Ne ionized at +4 or whatever, as I said it won't matter in the slightest (so long as the plasma is net neutral, obviously), so we can do that. But all it will mean is that the first sentence of my analysis will be an estimate of the thermalization time, followed by the Saha (equilibrium) calculation of the thermal population levels. I promise to think it through, but I can't see any way that initial condition will matter in the slightest (and it's also completely impossible to ever set up, but never mind that).

Just to give you a sense - what you're asking for is roughly equivalent to the following. Consider the air in the room you're sitting in. Each molecule has some position and some velocity. Now suppose you freeze time, grab each molecule individually with tweezers, and move it so it sits on a vertex of a perfectly regular cubical array. So when you're done, at t=0 the air molecules are arranged in a perfectly square 3D grid. However you don't change their velocities* - once you start time going again, each one has the velocity it did before you relocated it. OK?

How long do you think that grid will last? How long after t=0 do you think it will be possible to detect the fact that the molecules were ever in such a grid?

Think about it.


*If you set the velocities to zero, you've reduced the temperature of the gas to absolute zero. They'll all fall down, and eventually thermalize at some very low T set by their gravitational potential energy.

 

[Ziggurat]

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?

I haven't calculated anything yet. I'm just telling you what will happen. I don't need to include the current flow to find the equilibrium timescale. Current may affect the equilibrium distribution via temperature and electron chemical potential (ie, it cannot create a distribution with only Ne-IV and Ne-V), but only temperature will matter for the equilibration time. And I'm letting you pick the temperature.

 

[sol invictus]

Here's what we've got so far:

2000km thick layer of Moplazma™ 2.0

~90%Ne, ~10%H, plus impurities based somehow on solar wind abundances (but I don't think we'll need those anyway)

density~10^-7 g/cm^3, using standard helioseismology models to sharpen and/or predict the density profile with depth if necessary

voltage across the 2000km to be determined

temperature to be determined (note that voltage and temperature aren't independent - a large voltage will drive a large current, which will heat the plasma)

initial population - all Ne ionized to +4 or +5, all other species ionized to a state in that same energy range (note - that's impossible for H, but I suppose you just want all the H to be ionized?)

 

[Michael Mozina]

I can't until you finish specifying the conditions.

Is there any particular reason we deviated from the "simplified" version we talked about earlier with just H+ ions? It sounds like we're going to have to haggle over the elements and ion states till the cows come home, and I would sure like to see if I'm at least in the ballpark before we "complicate" the model. Care to just do the simplified version for us just to see if the concept is even viable? We can stuff other elements, and debate ionization states later but I sure would like to see that simplified opacity calculation based on H+ and Ne+4 and +5. I don't care about the energy state of H+.

 

[sol invictus]

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.

Incidentally, Michael - I'm not an expert on helioseismology, but I suspect it also wouldn't work if the temperature were significantly different from the standard theory. We can discuss that if and when it becomes necessary, but I doubt that you'd be able to get away with changing the T of the photosphere by more than an order of magnitude (and probably much less) without messing things up pretty badly.

I don't know what you have in mind for the temperature; it's just something to bear in mind.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Incidentally, Michael - I'm not an expert on helioseismology, but I suspect it also wouldn't work if the temperature were significantly different from the standard theory. We can discuss that if and when it becomes necessary, but I doubt that you'd be able to get away with changing the T of the photosphere by more than an order of magnitude (and probably much less) without messing things up pretty badly.

I don't know what you have in mind for the temperature; it's just something to bear in mind.

I suspect you're exactly right about the temp part too which is why I picked a 6K number to start with for the ion temperature.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is there any particular reason we deviated from the "simplified" version we talked about earlier with just H+ ions?

Because your model is not H+ ions. Your model is a mostly neon plasma. Calculating the opacity of neon is therefore sufficient to put a lower bound on the opacity (adding more elements won't make it less transparent).

Since H+ ions obviously have no electrons, there are no bound-free transitions. Opacity comes primarily from Thompson and Compton scattering from free electrons. That calculation is quite different from the bound-free transition cross section for ions. Such scattering will ALSO contribute to the opacity of a neon plasma (so there's a non-infinite optical depth for 171 A light regardless of the ionization states), but we've already got most of the info for doing the bound-free transition opacity in neon (which will be a lower limit on the total opacity).

It sounds like we're going to have to haggle over the elements and ion states till the cows come home

We'll accept whatever elements you want to input. But you don't get to choose ionization states arbitrarily, because those can't be controlled arbitrarily.

 

[sol invictus]

Is there any particular reason we deviated from the "simplified" version we talked about earlier with just H+ ions? It sounds like we're going to have to haggle over the elements and ion states till the cows come home, and I would sure like to see if I'm at least in the ballpark before we "complicate" the model. Care to just do the simplified version for us just to see if the concept is even viable? We can stuff other elements, and debate ionization states later but I sure would like to see that simplified opacity calculation based on H+ and Ne+4 and +5. I don't care about the energy state of H+.

Just fill in the blanks, Michael.

I need the voltage across the 2000km layer.

I need the temperature of the plasma (either specified before we switch on the voltage, or after - but in the latter case we'll have to make sure those two are consistent).

Once you give me those I'll post the parameters you've specified and get your confirmation, then we can proceed. That will be your second strike (or home run, as the case may be).

 

[GeeMack]

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.

Actually you've made a couple of very amateur, yet very serious mistakes already with your interpretation of that SDO image. Nobody wants you to ignore the image. Everyone wants you to stop the looks-like-a-bunny junior scientist routine and actually take this stuff seriously. Don't you recall my posting...

I have some expertise in graphics creation, manipulation, and processing, so I've done some very basic analysis on these two images. Obviously there are problems with Michael's interpretation of the first one. Several problems. Well, let's go as far as to say he's just plain wrong. But since he fancies himself qualified to understand solar imagery, since he pretty much bases his entire claim on his interpretation of various satellite imagery, let's see if he can come up with some of the most glaring problems on his own. You know, before NASA puts out the press release about this bombshell, about how they stared at this image for hours and hours and suddenly had an epiphany, and in a moment of unprecedented awareness, mainstream solar physics gets destroyed! Maybe Michael can give them a heads-up and help them avoid the embarrassment of being so horribly wrong.

Now don't you think you ought to get it right before you continue to dangle those problems in front of us? Don't you think you should at least figure out what the problems are? I'll tell you what, you get started and I'll tell you if you're on the right path.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

You know, just so no newbies or lurkers get the wrong idea, we really should make a point of letting them know you're lying whenever you try to infer that Birkeland had some kind of solar model that is remotely like the piece of unsupportable fantasy that you keep blathering about here.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

Since you claim to completely trust the field of helioseismology, why is it that you continue to reject the findings of research in that field which show mass moving up, down, and sideways throughout your made up solid surface? Mass flowing at 1300 meters per second is not consistent in any way with anyone's definition of the word solid. Or rigid. Or any other weasel words you can possibly come up with to make your solid match the definition of a fluid-like fast moving plasma.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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.

You know, just so no newbies or lurkers get the wrong idea, we really should make a point of letting them know you're lying whenever you try to infer that Birkeland had some kind of solar model that is remotely like the piece of unsupportable fantasy that you keep blathering about here.

As MM is, by his own words, thoroughly familiar with Birkeland's work, would it be reasonable to expect him to provide the voltage, etc parameters to sol quickly?

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/446715main_fulldiskmulticolor-orig_full.jpg

Man, I am just so impressed with that image. I simply cannot believe the resolution of SDO. I feel like a kid in a candy store. It's almost surreal when I zoom in to look at the limbs and that dark surface below the photosphere will all those clear lines show the location of the photosphere/chromosphere boundary. I'm so excited!

 

[Toke]

It is a real pretty picture.

I have a program called "Xaos Fractal Zoomer" it makes really pretty pictures too.
Is there any big difference in their relevance to what is happening inside the sun?

 

[GeeMack]

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?

You're missing some serious problems with your analysis of that image, Michael. As somewhat of an expert in the area of graphics analysis and processing, I have found a few issues that you're apparently unaware of, or if you have noticed them, you're ignoring them.

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.

Again, there are glaring problems with you interpretation. Until you correct those you're going to continue to be wrong.

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

See above.

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.

See above, again. When you do an actual analysis of the image, you'll see the problems. If you'd like some help, just get started by pointing out a few of the flaws and I'll get you closer with some of the details.

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.

And again, anytime you try to claim that your crazy conjecture is Birkeland's solar model or like Birkeland's terrella, you're lying.

 

[GeeMack]

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/446715main_fulldiskmulticolor-orig_full.jpg

Man, I am just so impressed with that image. I simply cannot believe the resolution of SDO. I feel like a kid in a candy store. It's almost surreal when I zoom in to look at the limbs and that dark surface below the photosphere will all those clear lines show the location of the photosphere/chromosphere boundary. I'm so excited!

You've proven yourself wholly unqualified to understand what you're seeing in any solar imagery, and this one is no exception. You're wrong. I'll be happy to point out exactly where once you demonstrate that you even remotely understand some of the flaws in your interpretation so far.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Since you claim to completely trust the field of helioseismology, why is it that you continue to reject the findings of research in that field which show mass moving up, down, and sideways throughout your made up solid surface? Mass flowing at 1300 meters per second is not consistent in any way with anyone's definition of the word solid. Or rigid. Or any other weasel words you can possibly come up with to make your solid match the definition of a fluid-like fast moving plasma.

Lies, lies, lies, ya.....

 

[Michael Mozina]

Seeing that dark outline under the photosphere/chomosphere boundary is simply breathtaking at this resolution. I'm simply stunned and awed.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It is a real pretty picture.

I have a program called "Xaos Fractal Zoomer" it makes really pretty pictures too.
Is there any big difference in their relevance to what is happening inside the sun?

Absolutely. Look at the limb darkening process and how it starts about 7200KM below the photosphere/chromosphere boundary. That limb darkening we observe is directly related to the "surface of the sun". That is "opaque" (GM style) because it's a solid. Current carrying, highly ionized plasma isn't necessarily opaque and this image demonstrates that too.