Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Reality Check]

Many thanks, Tim Thompson for On Kristian Birkeland and Solar Models

If anyone is interested, the full text of his book "Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition, 1901-1902" Volumes I and II is available for free. It is a 158 MB PDF file.

The speculative parts of the book start on page 611 with

• Chapter V "IS IT POSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN ZODIACAL LIGHT, COMETS' TAILS, AND SATURN'S RING BY MEANS OF CORPUSCULAR RAYS?"

and continue into

• Chapter VI "ON POSSIBLE ELECTRIC PHENOMENA IN SOLAR SYSTEMS AND NEBULAE."
  N.B. We now know that "nebulae" are galaxies.

The Sun is covered from page 662 ("Experiments showing Analogies to Solar Phenomena").

 

[dasmiller]

Remember that Mozina always speaks derisively of mathematics, totally overlooking the key role of mathematics in modern science.

The analogy that strikes me is a bunch of us watching a French TV show. In this analogy, you and Sol and Ben and a few others are fluent in French, I had a couple years of French back in high school, MM doesn't speak a word of it. And yet he keeps insisting that the rest of us are completely wrong about the subject of the show, and doesn't see why understanding French would help to understand the show.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You've staked your public reputation on a bet with me that pi will have a different value in the Mozinaverse. And you're going to prove this with an RD image of the sun.

Doesn't this worry you at all?

I really feel sorry for you D'rok because you're walking into the middle of what has already been a five year soap opera that spans so many different boards, even I've lost count. Over the past years I've been virtually executed twice, called a crackpot at least 10,000 times (mostly by GM) and I've been the single biggest vocal critic of not only mainstream solar theory, but mainstream cosmology theory in general. They hate me.

Let me see I can recap things for you just a bit, and for the lurkers I'll backtrack a bit so they can more easily follow along in the conversation.

Keep in mind that the value of any solar model (any scientific model) is how well it can "predict" the outcome of various "tests", generally done via "observation". The reason I quantified some predictions is so that you'll be able to see how well I do as the SDO data finally starts to be "published" through the "proper channels".

After putting my numbers on the table, I have been trying to get some of the mainstream proponents to quantify their theory as well so that we can see how well each theory "predicted" the outcome of the SDO observations.

Since GM seemed to be having a devil of a time coming up with any real numbers, Dear Mr. Spock was kind enough to work with GM to come up with *SOME* type of quantification related to GM's concept of a RD image. Their numbers put the disk far outside the photosphere. Unfortunately the numbers they came up with don't relate to the actual "rigid feature disk", they most likely related to the outside edges of the coronal loops rather than the disk itself. That's directly related to GM's pitiful understanding of a RD image, not due to Spock's math by the way.

Tim was kind enough to actually demonstrate exactly how clueless that GM *still* seems to be since Tim found papers for us that estimate the diameter of the disk that GM cannot find at closer to 7000KM outside of the photosphere. Tim's papers are much closer to the visual numbers since they are based upon observation, not math alone.

Tim is pretty much the resident "EU sun hater". Evidently he got started in that role before I even got involved in the EU concepts based on what I saw in satellite images. He's a very good resource of reading material by the way, and I find myself liking him in spite of his position. What's not to like?

Sol and Ben are probably your best math/chemistry analysts and probably my favorite characters in this little five year melodrama. DRD has typically played the role of grand inquisitor at most boards but mostly she's been kicking back here. I'm not sure what's up with that change of heart exactly, but she's turned into a more likable character.

Tusenfem is the resident "magnetic reconnection" expert. IMO that term is just a bad name for "circuit reconnection", so we've gone back and forth over that issue now a number of times.

Suffice to say, these are the main cast members what I would call the "heavy duty EU haters". They don't just dislike the solar theory I've presented, they loathe the whole concept of an electric universe, but unfortunately for them, that's what the SDO images tell us. FYI, that "EU hater" thing is not true of sol, Spock or Ben. They seemed to simply get drawn into the conversation for their own reasons.

I'm trying to get one or more of them to now bet on the RD "disk" size we might find in SDO images. Based on Tim's papers and Spock's efforts, we should not expect the "disk" to be about 1.1R and the rounded edges extending out to several R.

This now allows us to "test" our competing theories in the SDO data. *IF* Birkeland's model is correct, and long cadence RD image in 171A should produce a outline like you see in the SOHO image that fits nicely *INSIDE the chromosphere. There should be about 4800 KM around all the edges.

According to mainstream theory, the disk should larger than the base of the chromosophere.

These are mutually exclusive concepts by the way. According to mainstream theory, the surface of the "opaque photosphere' is about 6000K so any/all iron ion wavelengths should be blocked in about 3.5 meters, making it *impossible* to "see light" under the chromosophere in their theory.

Even if GM never is man enough to put his hair on the line, at least now we have two theories that are reasonably well quantified so we should be able to 'test' both ideas in the SDO data.

That's pretty much where things sit.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Of MM's green/dark image --

If the dark stuff is the iron and the green surface ring is "not iron, but glowing stuff ", how come I can see green stuff floating all over the dark stuff elsewhere?

The iron lines originate at the surface but extend far into the corona. They also come from all parts of the surface, not simply the limbs. We can just see the "glow" more clearly at the limbs.

Does it rain up there?

Yes. It's called coronal rain.

Does the iron have great big rust holes in it, letting the green glow through from behind ? Would this mean there's green glowy stuff *behind* the iron?

The glowing stuff *is* the iron inside the discharge loops lighting up the atmosphere.

Those lines we see are the discharge filaments rising from the surface up through the chromosphere. That green glowing region is 4800km of opaque math bunny disaster. The limbs do not become "opaque" for about 4800km under that chromosphere. The area that they claim is "opaque" is "aglow" and obviously it's not "opaque" (GM definition). Only at the 4800Km point do we see any GM style "opaqueness" where all light is actually blocked. That point where it becomes GM style opaque is the iron surface.

 

[dasmiller]

The glowing stuff *is* the iron inside the discharge loops lighting up the atmosphere.

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/sdo/sd01.jpg[/qimg]

Does it strike you as puzzling that the 'atmosphere' has such a clean, sharp edge? And that it is nowhere ruffled by the huge upwellings of plasma that apparently go right through it? And that there's little or no 'atmosphere' around the 3:00 position of the composite image?

 

[ben m]

Only at the 4800Km point do we see any GM style "opaqueness" where all light is actually blocked. That point where it becomes GM style opaque is the iron surface.

The black is where the iron becomes opaque? What? Michael, you've been arguing that the green stuff is a glowing atmosphere above the iron. You've been arguing that the iron is behind the green stuff.

But now you're saying that the green light stops because something opaque appears---behind it????

Think about the geometry of that for a few seconds, Michael. This must be why I never understood your 3D-model-to-2D-image projections---you were doing something too nonsensical to believe.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The black is where the iron becomes opaque?

The black is where the surface becomes opaque. There's stuff flying round in the atmosphere too.

What? Michael, you've been arguing that the green stuff is a glowing atmosphere above the iron.

It is. It's an ionized silicon and neon atmosphere with highly iron light coming from inside the coronal loops rising up and through the chromosphere and into the corona.

You've been arguing that the iron is behind the green stuff.

The "opaque' (GM style) limb is the surface ben. This isn't complicated. The light green area between the surface and the chromosphere is lit up from the discharges through the coronal loops. The green light directly related to the ionized iron from the surface being ionized by the discharge process inside the loops.

But now you're saying that the green light stops because something opaque appears---behind it????

No. The atmosphere is only so thick Ben. The discharges can only occur with that distance. it's a distance of 4800KM. It's lit up like a Christmas tree due to all the light being emitted inside the discharge loops. The limbs go dark at the surface.

You simply do not understand what I'm saying yet ben. When you get the epiphany, it's all makes sense.

Ben, the surface is the dark limb where it becomes GM style opaque. That amosphere is highly ionized and has iron discharge filaments passing up and through it, far into the corona. I've always needed something like this resolution, with a clear chromosphere ring to be able to demonstrate this, but SDO provides me with that capability.

You might also go checkout the MDI images Ben. In the first image there is a very angular "persistent structure", right under the photosphere, with discharge processes visible all along the sides of the rigid feature. Both the Doppler equipment and the AIA imaging equipment show 'rigid features" at about 4800KM +- 1200KM under the surface of the neon layer.

There's no way this can be a mistake Ben. I've been looking at satellite images now for 20 years. I have dreamed of the day to have images of this sort of resolution to make my case, and that day has come. I've put forth my predictions, and I have verified them in the SDO images now. You folks don't even seem to be interested in looking at at 16megapixel image simply because it's in the JPG format. You folks throw away pixels like they are meaningless, whereas I treat them all like gold. You can't throw away enough pixels in SDO images to make your problem go away ben. You have a 4800KM credibility gap in that opaque math bunny claim all round the limb.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Does it strike you as puzzling that the 'atmosphere' has such a clean, sharp edge?

Not really. It's layered. Right above the surface is silicon (I'm going to remove the calcium layer from my model very soon). Above that sits another, evidently thinner layer of neon). It should have rounded edges near the chromosphere and jagged edges at the surface.

And that it is nowhere ruffled by the huge upwellings of plasma that apparently go right through it?

I don't know what you mean by that because I see all sorts of action around the limbs, both in white light and in iron related activity. Some areas are "quiet",whereas some look to be more active.

And that there's little or no 'atmosphere' around the 3:00 position of the composite image?

That was the hardest region to get any readings because it's "drowned out" by the light in front. I don't really see it as anything more than a lighting issue related to timing. I'm sure if we waited till the bright areas rotated over the horizon that it has the same region too.

There's just no way that the 4800 figure I got from Kosovichev SOHO MDI data could match so perfectly with that opaque limb unless this model is right. It fits down to within 24KM to the numbers I picked out of Kosovichev's data. That cannot be a "coincidence".

 

[Michael Mozina]

What do you say to the post quoted below, Michael?

Neither this result (that the 171A disk is larger than the optical disk) nor its opposite would (necessarily) disconfirm the standard model, for reasons ben has been trying to explain to you. But it does appear to rule out your own model, based on what you said it predicted.

Am I right? Does this falsify your iron sun model?

It will if it holds up to SDO style scrutiny. We now seem to have two very well defined numbers. One should put the RD image "disk" 7000+ km above the base of the chromosphere, whereas the other puts it 4800 km under the chromosphere.

One good long cadence 171A RD SDO image that is shown in relationship to that red chromophere should do the trick. If the standard model is correct, the RD outline should be well into the red. If Birkeland's model is correct, the jagged surface should be outlined inside the red part by 4800KM and we should see lines coming up from under the red part in coronal loops that should be easiest to spot near the poles.

Is anyone other that D'rok going to ante up a public change of opinion on the outcome of any of these predictions?

I "predict" that the RD image disk that GM cannot see will fit nicely inside that red chromosphere, and your opaque math bunny claims will die a complete death at that point.

 

[Tim Thompson]

On Kristian Birkeland and Solar Models II

Tim, does this mean that the "terrella"---the thing Michael always juxtaposes with photos of the Sun to argue that Birkeland had the truth about solar flares---was only ever meant to be a model of the Earth and aurorae?

His terrella experiments were almost exclusively related to the Earth and the aurora borealis/australis.

I have the 2-volume polar expedition book, though I have not thoroughly explored all 900+ pages of it. As far as I can tell, Birkeland's terrella was intended only to model the earth and electric currents in earth's magnetic field. While Birkeland, like many other curious scientists of his times, was interested in the sun, he never produced anything that could be called a "model" of the sun, in any serious sense, so far as I know.

You can see similarities in Birkeland's thinking and later in Alfven's. Birkeland genuinely pioneered the idea of electric currents in space, it was his baby. So naturally he wanted it to explain everything. He thought the zodiacal light was an electrical phenomenon, but we now know that it is sunlight reflecting off of dust in the plane of the solar system. Birkeland also thought that the discharging of charged particles from the sun could be responsible for its light & heat as well, while we now know that it's the other way around; it's the heat of the sun that is responsible for the light and the charged particles. It's natural that Birkeland thought the way he did, and 100 years ago those were ideas that deserved serious attention, such was the state of knowledge at the time. But 100 years later, we know a great deal more. Science has left some of Birkeland's ideas behind.

Hannes Alfven was the major architect of modern plasma physics and magnetohydrodynamics. It should come as no surprise that he, like Birkeland before him, wanted his brainchild to be the key to understanding everything. When Alfven was at his peak in the 1950's & 1960's, he developed plasma cosmology, to compete with big bang & steady state cosmologies. He received a Nobel Prize for his plasma physics, but his plasma cosmology is now an anachronism that is known not to work. Like Birkeland he had a lot of ideas, and like Birkeland, some were left behind by science, while others pushed science forward.

Alfven & Einstein also shared a common failure. Einstein invented quantum mechanics, and then decided it was wrong. Alfven invented magnetohydrodynamics, and then decided it was wrong. But both Alfven & Einstein were themselves wrong, and both became somewhat anachronistic in their later years, both left behind by advancing science.

One of Mozina's many mistakes is to elevate Birkeland & Alfven to demigod status. But science leaves everybody behind sooner or later. It left Birkeland behind, it left Einstein behind and it left Alfven behind. I would say it left Mozina behind too, but then, Mozina was never able to keep up in the first place.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have the 2-volume polar expedition book, though I have not thoroughly explored all 900+ pages of it. As far as I can tell, Birkeland's terrella was intended only to model the earth and electric currents in earth's magnetic field.

Keep reading. I think the solar implications get covered around page 660 or so.

 

[ben m]

If the standard model is correct, the RD outline should be well into the red.

Nope, wrong wrong wrong wrong. I explained it five times; in fact you asked "can you explain that", and I pointed you to my earlier explaination. Several other people have posted similar explanations.

Do bigger fonts help? What does it take to get you to read these posts? Blinking text? All caps?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have been looking at this image, and I don't see the green line in this one:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/firstlight/preview/composite20100330_4096.jpg

I'd say that's because there is no chromosphere overlay, so you can't see the light between the dark limbs and the chromosphere. The light may not be green in that image but there would be light between the GM style opaque limb and the chomosphere. It all depends on the coloring scheme of the image and the wavelengths, but there will always be some kind of light between the chromosphere and the opaque limb under the chromosphere, and it will always be 4800km in distance.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope, wrong wrong wrong wrong. I explained it five times; in fact you asked "can you explain that", and I pointed you to my earlier explaination. Several other people have posted similar explanations.

Do bigger fonts help? What does it take to get you to read these posts? Blinking text? All caps?

Ya, you better go through it again, because there is no way in hell I can see under the surface of the photosphere according to you so there is no way the RD disk could come out smaller than the chromospehere. What did I miss about "opaque" that really isn't "opaque" until the 4800KM mark?

 

[ben m]

The black is where the surface becomes opaque. There's stuff flying round in the atmosphere too.

The surface becomes opaque when you're looking through it at a shallow angle? Nonsense.

No. The atmosphere is only so thick Ben. The discharges can only occur with that distance. it's a distance of 4800KM. It's lit up like a Christmas tree due to all the light being emitted inside the discharge loops. The limbs go dark at the surface.

Word salad.

You simply do not understand what I'm saying yet ben.

Darn right.

When you get the epiphany, it's all makes sense.

I don't want an epiphany, I want a DIAGRAM. Scientists don't discover things, write crappy explanations, and wait around for other people to see the light. They explain it as clearly as possible; if the first explanation doesn't work they do it better and try again.

DRAW A DIAGRAM. It'll help you as well as everyone else.

Ben, the surface is the dark limb where it becomes GM style opaque. That amosphere is highly ionized and has iron discharge filaments passing up and through it, far into the corona. I've always needed something like this resolution, with a clear chromosphere ring to be able to demonstrate this, but SDO provides me with that capability.

A) Nope, backwards. An opaque surface gets worse (i.e. more opaque, darker) closer to the limb (steeper viewing angle) and makes the limb DARKER. You've described the opposite---something that's brighter at the limb and darker straight-on? Opacity doesn't give you that.

B) If the difference between the "green" area (seen at a steep angle) and the "black" area (seen closer to face on) has to do with the surface opacity, then it doesn't have a darn thing to do with the depth of anything, nor with the iron. If that's how it works, then the position of the green-black transition depends only on the details of the opacity that you just attributed it to.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Please explain carefully again ben how the sharp, highly feature filled outlined "disk" in this image could possibly fit *INSIDE* the chromosphere in standard theory?

 

[ben m]

Ya, you better go through it again, because there is no way in hell I can see under the surface of the photosphere according to you so there is no way the RD disk could come out smaller than the chromospehere. What did I miss about "opaque" that really isn't "opaque" until the 4800KM mark?

You ignored it the first five times. Tell me what you failed to understand then. Do it. Quote the posts.

Here's another try. Limb darkening caused by opacity: take a line-of-sight which projects 5000km centerward of the surface. You're looking nearly-across the surface and very slightly down at an angle of about 7 degrees. Take a line of sight which projects 4000km centerwards of the surface; you're looking down at an even shallower angle of 6 degrees. Do the geometry---the 6 degree line of sight has a lot further to go through any layer than the 7 degree line of sight does. Further to go = harder for light to get out.

ETA: You've used up all of your strikes on this one, MM. I don't want to see another "oh gosh, I just don't see it, explain it" post on this point, MM. If your next post doesn't contain an honest attempt at a trigonometric calculation---it's not hard---then you're back on ignore.

 

[Michael Mozina]

A running difference image is a graph, like a pie chart or a bar graph, a sort of areal histogram. There is no such thing as a running difference outline of a sphere. .

Boloney! That disk outline is unmistakable and it's going to fit inside the chromosphere with 4800Km to spare just as I predicted. If you want to challenge me for real you will have to do so numerically. Since we all know that your hair is more important to you than your professional pride, we all know that's never going to happen. At least we know who the Alpha male is around here. All those math skills and you can't compete with a guy who can't balance his checkbook according to you. How sad for you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You ignored it the first five times.

I'm ignoring it because it came with no "numbers". I need a real numerical prediction out of you at 171A just like I did. Where should I see that RD image outline? Where should I see the limb darkening? How did you arrive at your figure?

 

[ben m]

I'm ignoring it because it came with no "numbers". I need a real numerical prediction out of you at 171A just like I did. Where should I see that RD image outline? Where should I see the limb darkening? How did you arrive at your figure?

"Five times"? I arrived at that figure by counting the posts.

The whole point of the calculation is to show that "where to see the outline in 2D" depends sensitively on the corona/chromosphere and is NOT the same thing as measuring the 3D radius of the emission.

Last chance, Michael---how well do you understand the trigonometry that relates the 3D radius (for which I DO have a prediction) to the appearance of the 2D outline (for which I don't?). The difference is trigonometry, which I invite you to calculate. Read my posts, I practically did it for you. No trig = you're on ignore.