Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Ziggurat]

Except of course when you claim a sunspot occurs? Give it up. You can't judge the physics of an electrical solar theory based on SSM specifications!

You still don't get it. The thermodynamic impossibility of your model has nothing to do with the standard solar model. And sunspots aren't relevant. They don't violate thermodynamics.

It would require a more dense plasma flowing in persistent patterns, and of course the persistence of those patterns beg the question about what creates that persistence.

You're inventing things which you have no evidence for, and which would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It could be a more "rigid", more dense plasma.

Hmmm... sounds like you're backtracking.

You guys/gals "hate" the whole EU concept with such a passion, it really doesn't matter what I propose as long as it includes "current flow". You'll never consider it.

Except that the standard model includes current flow. As for "EU concept", well, there is no EU concept, not in any coherent manner. The model you have previously proposed was absolute nonsense. You seem to be backing off from that now, so it's not even clear what the hell you're actually claiming anymore.

 

[Skwinty]

Hi Skwinty: A FITS file contains the actual scientific data. It is what astronomers actually use to analyze images rather than MM's "I see bunnies in pretty pictures" non-science.

The reason that there is no FITS file available for the SDO publicity images is simple: There is no actual released scientific data.
These publicity images were created from raw, first light data sent from SDO.

Real scientific data is due mid-May

Thanks RC.

IIRC I am aware of what a FITS file is, just trying to ascertain if Michael does. The main purpose of the FITS format is to ensure that any astronomer world wide can open the image regardless of which CCD camera was used to take the picture. The Header,and tailer of the FITS file will give additional data wrt telescope, camera, FOV and general comments about the image such as date time etc. The raw image data comprises of the CCD pixel values with no adjustment or compression.

These data will not add any credence to Michaels notions

 

[Reality Check]

So dude, be "flexible". Be willing to think outside your own box *and mine*. You really need to go back to Skwinty's analogy. It's more appropriate than you realize IMO. I'm simply trying to get you to think outside of your own box. I'm not trying to sell you any particular new one. If anything, I'm only suggesting you try an "electrical" box. That's it.

So dude, I am flexible. I am willing to think outside my own box *and yours *. An electrical box would be applicable if it had any basis in fact.

But the EU box is a trap for delusional souls as in the Electric universe theories here thread.

This has nothing to do with your defaming of Birkeland's good name by essentially labeling Kristian Birkeland as having no knowledge of physics, e.g. the simple thermodynamics that make an iron crust impossible.

• Can you understand the stupidity of defaming Birkeland's good name?

I'm really not emotionally attached to the whole "solid" concept, so get over it.

I know.
Your iron "crust" is a fantasy*, so get over it.

* Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.

 

[Dancing David]

False dichotomy. You seem to be saying that they are either aligned and scaled right and you can use them as-is, or they aren't and neither you nor NASA can use them. You're ignoring the option that they are not aligned and scaled properly but NASA knows how to adjust them and you don't because you haven't asked.

NASA does use them, "Lets us make a photo that is visually appealing and rather interesting."

 

[Dancing David]

So, for you, does limb darkening mean that the limb is darker than the corona, or that the limb is darker than the apparent center of the sun's disk, or is it simply the ragged edge of the photosphere? Or is it something else?

It is kind of like a farmer's tan or a driver's tan.

 

[Cuddles]

without respect to empirical experimentation

You do love going on about "empirical", don't you. Yet not a single thing you have done has ever come close to actually being empirical. When Sol Invictus tried getting you to actually come up with something that could be tested in a lab, you just waffled for a bit, then degenerated into abuse and ignoring when it became clear that it was impossible for your nonsensical claims to ever be possible in such a setting. It is painfully obvious to everyone watching that "empirical" is just another of those words of which you have absolutely no clue of the meaning. It would be incredibly sad if it wasn't quite so hilarious to watch you flail about the place.

when I called his use of key terms idiosyncratic ... and then kept right on being idiosyncratic!

You appear to have six extra letters in the middle of that word.

 

[Hellbound]

(OK, I'm back ...)

Sorry, Michael, the standard solar model (which you admit to not knowing) and the laws of thermodynamics (which you admit to not knowing) predict that the Sun isn't mass-fractionate. In a nutshell, fractionation can happen only by diffusion (which is slow; do you know how slow? Every undergrad astronomer has done this calculation) but is erased by thermal diffusion AND by convection. The Sun would take biillions of years to fractionate---and only partially at that---if there were no convection at all. Does this calculation "ignore physics"? Do textbooks have the diffusion constants wrong? Can you go through the standard solar model in Hansen & Kawaler and tell me on what page they make what mistake?

No you can't. You guess that it is wrong.

Just to add to this, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong, but the standard solar model does have some mass seperation, but nothing like the clearly defined layers MM wants to believe in. There do tend to be heavier elements towards the core. However, that's a tendency...it's not like a centrifuge. That's because there's a constant, 24-hour a day, 7-day a week, 52-week-per-year, etc, etc, constant fusion bomb going off in the sun.

As one might expect, this makes for an exteremely efficient mixer (word of warning, do NOT try this to make margaritas at parties!).

Just as an add-on, the surface of that fusion explosion is what we refer to as the photosphere...MM claims to see through the surface of a nuclear blast fireball.

For a table listing the composition see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/suncomp.html. Another good, low-level site is http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/s2.htm.

(Just as an aside, the page at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/sun.html has good info too, including a nice picture of the actual surface of the photosphere).

Anyway, just wanted to throguh that out there to cut off MM's strawman. Heseems to claim that the SSM thinks the sun is all one big soup, with the same composition from the chromosphere to the core. Of course, as he's repeatedly claimed (nay, even bragged about), one doesn't have to understand anything about a theory to proclaim it wrong (or right, as he knows little about his own theory, as well).

 

[Skwinty]

NASA does use them, "Lets us make a photo that is visually appealing and rather interesting."

Also known as "Bubbaliscious" in Mozina parlance.

 

[GeeMack]

You do love going on about "empirical", don't you. Yet not a single thing you have done has ever come close to actually being empirical. When Sol Invictus tried getting you to actually come up with something that could be tested in a lab, you just waffled for a bit, then degenerated into abuse and ignoring when it became clear that it was impossible for your nonsensical claims to ever be possible in such a setting. It is painfully obvious to everyone watching that "empirical" is just another of those words of which you have absolutely no clue of the meaning. It would be incredibly sad if it wasn't quite so hilarious to watch you flail about the place.

So the terms Michael uses, the definitions of which he clearly does not understand include, but are not limited to:

• photosphere
• chromosphere
• opaque
• limb darkening
• idiosyncratic
• empirical

We know if of Michael's arguments contain any of these terms, we can accept them as meaningless gibberish, because although lord knows how hard we've tried to help him understand this stuff, it has been a near futile effort.

Michael, try to narrow your arguments to eliminate the use of those words and phrases if you would. And as we find more terms which you don't understand, we can add them to the list and you can cease using them. It will make this whole communication thing much better for everyone if we prune the parts of your arguments that are causing confusion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

(OK, I'm back ...)

FYI, I'm glad you're back. It was not my intention to alienate you to begin with.

Sorry, Michael, the standard solar model (which you admit to not knowing) and the laws of thermodynamics (which you admit to not knowing) predict that the Sun isn't mass-fractionate.

Ya, but then Manuel's "observation" of mass fractionation was completely ignored.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510001

You folks also have a way of putting words in my mouth. I said I did not know how to apply the laws of thermodynamics property to this solar model at the moment. I did not say I didn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. That's typical of how my words get twisted like a pretzel around here.

In a nutshell, fractionation can happen only by diffusion (which is slow; do you know how slow? Every undergrad astronomer has done this calculation) but is erased by thermal diffusion AND by convection. The Sun would take biillions of years to fractionate---and only partially at that---if there were no convection at all. Does this calculation "ignore physics"? Do textbooks have the diffusion constants wrong? Can you go through the standard solar model in Hansen & Kawaler and tell me on what page they make what mistake?

No you can't. You guess that it is wrong.

No, I *KNOW* that it's wrong because you and those authors never bothered to include any "current flow" in your model. You can't and won't explain the solar wind behaviors without it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What rubbish! You are the one who admitted that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THERMODYNAMICS.

No, I said I do not know how to properly apply thermodynamics to this solar model. Do you see the distinction between those two sentences?

, your statements have no meaning, no basis, no science; they are the nothing more than vacuous blather, hot air and noise!

When hydrogen and iron stay mixed that that type of environment, that's the day that pigs will fly PS. The "blather" is the notion that all the elements stay mixed. They can't stay mixed in such a strong EM and gravitational field. That's never going to happen! The "hot air" is that opacity claim and I'm sure that one way or another SDO will lay waste to that claim. There's enough resolution in that system to ensure that we can thoroughly test every solar model, and that opacity claim is bogus. Sooner or later, one of the wavelengths will allow me to demonstrate that point. It's probably going to be iron. I might be that Carbon filter. It could be the 1700A filter for all I know. What I do know PS is that the SSM is based on notions that violate the laws of physics, they ignore the implications of current flow in their models, and they ignore the role of current flow in space. They have such a nasty aversion to all things EU oriented that they refuse to consider any sort of 'cathode in space' solar model in spite of the fact that it's the one way that is *KNOWN* to produce high speed solar wind. About all I can say PS is that the laws of physics are on my side. Their model ignores the mass flow patterns I showed you in Hinode images. It ignores the effects of those discharge loops on the photosphere as I've shown you in white light images, and it ignores about every law of physics on the books.

Thermodynamically their model stinks to high heaven! They have a million degree corona sitting on top of a 6000 degree surface. Don't even think about lecturing me about thermodynamic problems with this solar model. The SSM doesn't have a leg to stand on because it refuses to acknowledge the role of electricity in space.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This "model" violates at least one law of physics - conservation of energy, or conservation of charge, perhaps both

Where do you get that idea? The is no violation of anything. There is simply kinetic energy being turned into electrical current by means of induction, electrical current released by fission/fusion processes and neutron decay processes. How is that a violation of conservation of energy?

 

[ben m]

Just to add to this, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong, but the standard solar model does have some mass seperation, but nothing like the clearly defined layers MM wants to believe in. There do tend to be heavier elements towards the core. However, that's a tendency...it's not like a centrifuge. That's because there's a constant, 24-hour a day, 7-day a week, 52-week-per-year, etc, etc, constant fusion bomb going off in the sun.

As one might expect, this makes for an exteremely efficient mixer (word of warning, do NOT try this to make margaritas at parties!).

I do think you're wrong. For starters, the Sun is only convecting in the outer 30% or so of its radius. The inner part---where the fusion is happening---is thermally stratified, stable, and does not mix very well. The only evidence I'm aware of for mass fractionation is the (very recent) work of Asplund et. al. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ASPC..336...25A) which seems to point towards a factor of 2 metallicity difference between the convective and radiative zones.

Other stars CAN show large fractionations, but the causes vary. White dwarf stars have strong enough gravity to flat-out overpower diffusion. (They also may have---fanfare please---internal electrostatic fields! See, MM, we deal with electrostatics when the physics tells us to. We're not biased against it.) Giant stars are always forming heavy elements starting at the center, and they do this faster than they the new elements can mix by diffusion, so giants end up "fractionated" by construction---not by settling.

 

[ben m]

Where do you get that idea? The is no violation of anything. There is simply kinetic energy being turned into electrical current by means of induction, electrical current released by fission/fusion processes and neutron decay processes. How is that a violation of conservation of energy?

1) Electrical current is not "released" by nuclear processes. Decay processes release particles with large randomly-directed kinetic energies---also known as "heat". The conversion of current to heat is easy (just conservation of energy); the conversion of heat to current is inviolably constrained by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which you have ignored.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

No, I said I do not know how to properly apply thermodynamics to this solar model. Do you see the distinction between those two sentences?

When hydrogen and iron stay mixed that that type of environment, that's the day that pigs will fly PS.

You don't see the contradiction between (1) saying you don't know how to apply thermodynamics to the standard model and (2) making bold assertions that contradict the laws of thermodynamics as applied to the standard model.

ETA: Come to think of it, I don't see a contradiction there either.

Thermodynamically their model stinks to high heaven! They have a million degree corona sitting on top of a 6000 degree surface. Don't even think about lecturing me about thermodynamic problems with this solar model. The SSM doesn't have a leg to stand on because it refuses to acknowledge the role of electricity in space.

As explained just a few posts above, there is no thermodynamic problem here. Since the sun's magnetic field is a suspected cause of the corona^WP's high temperature, it's hard to argue that the standard solar model "refuses to acknowledge the role of electricity in space".

 

[dasmiller]

When hydrogen and iron stay mixed that that type of environment, that's the day that pigs will fly PS. The "blather" is the notion that all the elements stay mixed. They can't stay mixed in such a strong EM and gravitational field. That's never going to happen!

Without the math, this is simply an argument from incredulity. If you have the computations showing that the sun's fractionation should be rapid and would overwhelm the diffusion (and convection!) effects, then show them. If there are errors in the standard fractionation calculations to which Ben M referred, then show us the errors. But to insist that fractionation of the sun's upper layers is too fast for the SSM without giving any data about how fast that fractionation should be, or why it should be that fast, or what errors there are in the traditional SSM fractionation calculations is . . . well, futile.

Particularly since you've embraced the SERTS data, which showed thoroughly mixed metals far above the photosphere.

 

[ben m]

When hydrogen and iron stay mixed that that type of environment, that's the day that pigs will fly PS. The "blather" is the notion that all the elements stay mixed. They can't stay mixed in such a strong EM and gravitational field. That's never going to happen!

Sure it is. Seriously, Michael, elements DO in principle want to partially "unmix" in the Sun. We teach this to undergrads. We also teach them how to calculate how fast it would happen---the answer is that it would take many longer than the Sun's lifetime for gravitational settling to "win" over diffusion in the absence of convection. In the presence of convection, settling never wins at all.

And---EM fields? EM fields don't sort elements by mass; at best, even in a calutron, they sort atoms by charge-to-mass ratio, and the Sun is not a calutron. Given your complete indifference to ionization (i.e. charge) states, and to your inability to understand the vector aspect of EM fields: you're making that up entirely. I can't even construct a crackpot-level mental picture where this works; you must just be throwing the word in there hoping it will turn out to make a difference.

Again, this is all in Hansen & Kawaler, or the stellar structure book of your choice. In the literature, the world expert on diffusion and element separation is Sylvie Vauclair at Toulouse. Are you going to guess that the mainstream model gets diffusion wrong------or are you going to crack open a book or a paper and point out the mistake?

 

[Hellbound]

I do think you're wrong. For starters, the Sun is only convecting in the outer 30% or so of its radius. The inner part---where the fusion is happening---is thermally stratified, stable, and does not mix very well. The only evidence I'm aware of for mass fractionation is the (very recent) work of Asplund et. al. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ASPC..336...25A) which seems to point towards a factor of 2 metallicity difference between the convective and radiative zones.

Other stars CAN show large fractionations, but the causes vary. White dwarf stars have strong enough gravity to flat-out overpower diffusion. (They also may have---fanfare please---internal electrostatic fields! See, MM, we deal with electrostatics when the physics tells us to. We're not biased against it.) Giant stars are always forming heavy elements starting at the center, and they do this faster than they the new elements can mix by diffusion, so giants end up "fractionated" by construction---not by settling.

Well, incomplete I was trying to keep it simple, and simplified perhaps a bit too much (which was why I linked some webpages that went over it in more detail). And I had intended to cover the creation of heavy elements being a big cause, but somehow forgot.

IN any case, thanks for the clarification and expansion I love you guys!

*giggle*

 

[ben m]

FYI, I'm glad you're back. It was not my intention to alienate you to begin with.

Hey, you know what would make me feel more charitable? DRAW A DIAGRAM OF THE LIMB GEOMETRY OF YOUR MODEL.

You folks also have a way of putting words in my mouth. I said I did not know how to apply the laws of thermodynamics property to this solar model at the moment. I did not say I didn't understand the laws of thermodynamics.

There's no trick to "applying" the laws of thermodynamics to your model. Your model has a cold shell entirely surrounded by (and in close thermal contact with) a thick ultrahot shell (made of unobtanium for the moment---who cares?). It doesn't take a genius to figure out what thermodynamics says about that, Michael. It says the cold shell heats up. You say you want to keep it cool by pumping energy out? Great, that's generically a heat engine. Write down the heat engine equation, show us the hot bath and the cold bath temperature and DO THE MATH. Have you done that at some point in the past five years? No?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sure it is. Seriously, Michael, elements DO in principle want to partially "unmix" in the Sun.

Partially? How exactly do you figure an EM field and gravity well of *that magnitude* aren't going to COMPLETELY unmix the iron from the hydrogen? You point to a bit of convection on the surface of an *INCREDIBLY* light surface and claim that process is going to keep them mixed together in spite of the sun's strong magnetic fields? Gravity alone would cause the lead to separate from the hydrogen. That whole concept about all the elements staying properly mixed together is your "oversimplification" that makes all the other mathematical constructs possible. The moment that one tiny "assumption" is removed from your theory, the whole thing mass separates.

What you teach to your undergrads is not what I published in those papers that I was involved in. It's based on your own flawed notions.

I now understand a lot more about the Achilles heel of the SSM. It's just a matter of figuring out the best way to demonstrate that the layer you claim to be "opaque" is "transparent" to a much greater depth than you realize. Once that is accomplished, everything else will work itself out. I'm comfortable from those first light images that SDO will have that resolution capability. There may not be a solid surface down there, but there certainly is a mass separation process going on, as well as a discharge process between the sun and the heliosphere. Sooner or later that "truth" will prevail and your mathematical oversimplifications will be seen for what they are. I'm not sure exactly when that's going to happen, but with SDO, that time is certainly close IMO.

Ben, this is an electric universe. That sun does act as a "cathode" and interacts with the heliosphere anode. Sooner or later you folks will figure that out. Once you do, things will get easier for me. At the moment, it's really like living in the "dark ages" of this field of science. Literally anything and everything you can't figure out via empirical physics, you folks chalk up to "dark" stuff. It's sad IMO ben, very sad. Sooner or later that will begin to change, and IMO that time is now. SDO represents a unique opportunity to test every facet of the SSM, and it's not going to pass the observational test IMO.