Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[dasmiller]

Actually, the peak was *way* above the Ne+4 energy state. By the time we get to the +2 energy state there's almost no neon emissions.

By the time we got down to +2, the emissions were about 2 orders of magnitude lower. That's still billions of times more Ne+2 than your transparent Ne layer allows.

I'd love to see an NE+3 or +4 image of the sun. I suspect it would look exactly as I predicted, and not as you predict. In other words I would predict that the entire surface of the photosphere is "lit up" in those wavelengths, whereas your theory would suggest that the activity was limited to the coronal loops. One visual test would falsify one of our models.

"My" theory isn't that detailed; I'm not a solar physicist. Ne should be present (at relatively low concentrations) throughout the sun, so I'd expect to see Ne lines from the photosphere. I don't know enough about how the ionization states relate to temperature to have an opinion about whether we'd see much Ne+3 from the photosphere vs. the corona. You'd have to ask one of the others.

 

[ben m]

Actually, the peak was *way* above the Ne+4 energy state. By the time we get to the +2 energy state there's almost no neon emissions. The silicon tends to work much the same way by the way. I'd love to see an NE+3 or +4 image of the sun. I suspect it would look exactly as I predicted, and not as you predict. In other words I would predict that the entire surface of the photosphere is "lit up" in those wavelengths, whereas your theory would suggest that the activity was limited to the coronal loops. One visual test would falsify one of our models.

Michael? The reason SERTS does not see much Ne+2 is that SERTS is an extreme ultraviolet telescope. Ne+2 doesn't emit (much) in the EUV, so it is invisible to SERTS. In fact, Neon is very hard to see in the photosphere for good atomic-physics reasons---the photosphere at 6000K is too cold to ionize it, remember? It's also too cold to excite it.

Meanwhile, optical spectroscopy of the Sun---the type of spectroscopy which is actually sensitive to low ionization states---sees lots of Fe I, Fe II, Ca I, Ca II, O2, OH, H2O, CO2. Exactly the sorts of ionization states you expect to see in a 6000K plasma with no weirdness. (a list is ftp://ftp.noao.edu/fts/linelist/Moore)

Why is there so much Ca II on the Sun, Michael? Surely your magic "ionize 99.9999% of everything to +4 or more" beams would be hitting this also? But they're not, because there is no such beam.

 

[Skwinty]

Meanwhile, optical spectroscopy of the Sun---the type of spectroscopy which is actually sensitive to low ionization states---sees lots of Fe I, Fe II, Ca I, Ca II, O2, OH, H2O, CO2. Exactly the sorts of ionization states you expect to see in a 6000K plasma with no weirdness. (a list is ftp://ftp.noao.edu/fts/linelist/Moore)

Thanks Ben, I have been looking for that impressive list

 

[Michael Mozina]

You have me confused with your own strawmen. I carefully avoided making any claims about what dark energy is beyond a placeholder for whatever is accelerating the expansion of the Universe and I flat out stated that dark energy has nothing to do with solar wind acceleration. Your assumptions otherwise are not justified by everything else in this thread so far.

We are getting way off topic now, but...

You may indeed have carefully avoided the mainstream pitfalls, but in their desire to quantify everything they observe, they have indeed made claims about the abundance figures of "dark energy", "dark matter" and normal baryonic materials. None of those percentages can be justified via empirical physics, nor can your claim that "dark energy' has any effect on unbound systems be verified in any empirical way here on Earth. It's just one of those claims that one either "accepts on faith" or they don't. I'm a "show me" sort of individual.

My point was if it doesn't interact with gravitationally bound systems, then there's no real justification for stuffing it into GR in the first place. You're simply taking a single condition and stuffing gaps of that one condition full of invisible friends that you cannot empirically justify.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

One of the instruments on SDO is the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager, HMI for short.

What does the HMI do?

"HMI makes measurements of the motion of the solar photosphere to study solar oscillations and measurements of the polarization in a specific spectral line to study all three components of the photospheric magnetic field."

And what does this data help us to work out?

"It also produces data to enable estimates of the coronal magnetic field"

And how does HMI acquire the empirical (observational) data?

"The HMI instrument design and observing strategy are based on the highly successful MDI instrument, with several important improvements. HMI will observe the full solar disk in the Fe I absorption line at 6173Å with a resolution of 1 arc-second. HMI consists of a refracting telescope, a polarization selector, an image stabilization system, a narrow band tunable filter and two 4096 pixel CCD cameras with mechanical shutters and control electronics. The continuous data rate is 55Mbits/s."

In some more detail:

"HMI will provide the first full-disk continuous observations of solar magnetic fields in all orientations. Prior measurements (e.g. MDI) measured only the component of the field along the line of sight to the observer.The new measurements should improve our understanding of the 3-D structure of the evolving field.We can only measure the fields in the layer of the atmosphere where most all of the light originates (photosphere) and we can then compute estimates of the field in the upper atmosphere where AIA observes the effects of the fields."

And there's this, tantalizing, statement:

"Examples of science data products from SOHO/MDI. Improved versions of these can be made with HMI observations:"

And what's on that list? I'll choose just four:

"E. MHD model of the magnetic structure of the corona.

F. Synoptic map of the subsurface flows at a depth of 7 Mm

G. SOHO/EIT image and magnetic field lines computed from the photospheric field.

I. Vector field image showing the magnetic connectivity in sunspots."

Now as MM knows extremely well, being a keen student of Hannes Alfvén, once you know B and v (which the SDO HMI data products will provide), you can work out E and j!

Or, in simple terms, SDO will provide the raw data from which robust estimates of mass flows, ion mass flows, and current flows can be derived.

(Source for the above. If anyone's interested in published papers describing how things like MDH models can be built - complete with upside-down-triangly thingies, drunken letter d's, and so on - just ask, and I'll provide you with some references).

 

[dasmiller]

Ne should be present (at relatively low concentrations) throughout the sun, so I'd expect to see Ne lines from the photosphere.

In fact, Neon is very hard to see in the photosphere for good atomic-physics reasons---the photosphere at 6000K is too cold to ionize it, remember?

Okay, so maybe not

 

[Michael Mozina]

Okay, so maybe not

The SSM and the model I've proposed are *extremely* different in that respect. It's a legitimate falsification mechanism of this solar model, and perhaps the SSM as well.

 

[Skwinty]

(Source for the above. If anyone's interested in published papers describing how things like MDH models can be built - complete with upside-down-triangly thingies, drunken letter d's, and so on - just ask, and I'll provide you with some references).

Excellent, lets have some references.

 

[Michael Mozina]

One of the instruments on SDO is the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager, HMI for short.

That would be the next generation tool that brought us this image:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi

I don't think it's going to help your case.

 

[Hellbound]

My point was if it doesn't interact with gravitationally bound systems, then there's no real justification for stuffing it into GR in the first place. You're simply taking a single condition and stuffing gaps of that one condition full of invisible friends that you cannot empirically justify.

Hey, GeeMack, add GR to the list.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Here comes a fun part.

Given MM's oft stated (does that qualify as an understatement?) interest in "current flows", does it seem somewhat strange to any reader that he never (AFAICS) mentioned the existing capabilities of SOHO/MDI?

Perhaps even more strange, given his statements concerning how SDO will destroy the standard solar model, not once has he referred to HMI and the data products it is expected to produce?

I mean, trying to infer the existence of current flows from running difference AIA image movies is surely an exercise in futility, isn't it? Yet, as you can plainly see from the selection of MM material in my earlier post (and many other posts), it is precisely the absence of any bounds on the current flows - from direct observation - that MM says is hindering his ability to crush the SSM with his math!

A horrible, completely uncharitable, thought has popped into my head ... maybe MM never mentioned any of this because it requires an understanding of the math bunnies in Alfvén's Nobel Prize winning work on MHD (you know, those upside-down-triangly thingies, etc)? Or, worse, because Birkeland didn't say how you can get E and j if you know B and v, therefore it can't be done? Or, worstest of all, you can't work out current flows by visual inspection of images?!?

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, keep in mind that there there are at least three types of mass flows related to this solar model, the ion flows, the flows of solids, and most importantly the flow of electron mass.

 

[nescafe]

It's just one of those claims that one either "accepts on faith" or they don't.

You really don't understand how science works at all, do you? "Accepting on faith" has nothing to do with it, "accepting provisionally" until a better explanation comes along is more like it.

I'm a "show me" sort of individual.

How ironic. Every single aspect of your solar model has been demolished by people far more knowlegable than you or I, and you still cling to your fantasy of being a hardheaded empiricist.

My point was if it doesn't interact with gravitationally bound systems, then there's no real justification for stuffing it into GR in the first place. You're simply taking a single condition and stuffing gaps of that one condition full of invisible friends that you cannot empirically justify.

Emperically, the Universe is expanding. Emperically, the rate at which it is expanding is increasing. It is a really bizzare observation, but has been verified enough times to be beyond reasonable doubt. General Relativity is the mathematical framework we use to describe how the Universe works at large scales -- if it cannot model the bizzare (but verified) observation that the expansion of the Universe is accellerating, then it is broken. Therefore, we modify our framework to have the capability to explain our observations. This is how science works.

Moreover, General Relativity does not just model gravitationally bound systems -- if that is all it did, it would be useless for most of cosmology.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Given MM's oft stated (does that qualify as an understatement?) interest in "current flows", does it seem somewhat strange to any reader that he never (AFAICS) mentioned the existing capabilities of SOHO/MDI?

You mean except for that tsunami image and the 4800 figure I've been using for years now?

 

[Ziggurat]

Moreover, General Relativity does not just model gravitationally bound systems

Neither is Newtonian gravity. The theory for bound and unbound systems is exactly the same.

Yet another example of Michael's stunning ignorance of basic physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You really don't understand how science works at all, do you? "Accepting on faith" has nothing to do with it, "accepting provisionally" until a better explanation comes along is more like it.

IMO the term "I don't know" is a "better" scientific answer. It sure beats hearing statements like "70+ of the universe is made of "dark energy" which has no effect on gravitationally bound systems.". You folks made up the 70% figure, and the whole concept it doesn't interact with gravitationally bound systems. You can't demonstrate either point empirically, it's something I have to "take on faith".

Emperically, the Universe is expanding. Emperically, the rate at which it is expanding is increasing.

Empirically, none of those things are in any way related to:

A) dead inflation genies
B) evil dark energies
C) magic stuff.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Given MM's oft stated (does that qualify as an understatement?) interest in "current flows", does it seem somewhat strange to any reader that he never (AFAICS) mentioned the existing capabilities of SOHO/MDI?

You mean except for that tsunami image and the 4800 figure I've been using for years now?

Um, er, ... and you have used this image to produce bounded estimates of "current flows" where, exactly?

Shall I quote your posts on the central importance of ""cathode" solar models" to you, and the lesser importance of "rigid" or "solid" surfaces or layers?

If you have known about the capabilities of SOHO/MDI "for years now", how come you've never said a word about how you - using Alfvén's MHD - can *prove* Birkeland right, by producing quantitative estimates of the current flows, and showing that they match Birkeland's "predictions"?

 

[Ziggurat]

Empirically, none of those things are in any way related to:

A) dead inflation genies
B) evil dark energies
C) magic stuff.

And none of that is relevant to the topic of this thread, which is the sun. This is just a desperate attempt by you to change the topic, since your solar "model" is failing so spectacularly.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael? The reason SERTS does not see much Ne+2 is that SERTS is an extreme ultraviolet telescope. Ne+2 doesn't emit (much) in the EUV, so it is invisible to SERTS. In fact, Neon is very hard to see in the photosphere for good atomic-physics reasons---the photosphere at 6000K is too cold to ionize it, remember? It's also too cold to excite it.

Here is what I don't get about you ben. You see all those various ionization states of neon, oxygen, silicon, etc, at all different temperatures. The temperature of the photosphere is way too cold to produce them, and you ignore the one force of nature that can produce them and does produce those temperature states here on Earth and in the lab. I just don't get it. You guys are *so* unwilling to entertain the concept of a "solar discharge" that you will literally wallow around in pseudoscience for years. Birkleland's work is not only lost of you folks, it's *intentionally* lost of you folks because you simply don't want to hear it. The "easiest" and "simplest" way is simply ignored in favor of pseudoscientific math bunny nonsense that doesn't even get you in the ballpark of actually empirically duplicating Birkeland's work. It's sad IMO, just sad. The whole thing is driven by blind bigotry toward all things "electric" in space.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

FYI, keep in mind that there there are at least three types of mass flows related to this solar model, the ion flows, the flows of solids, and most importantly the flow of electron mass.

And where, exactly, did Birkeland make explicit these three?

Where did he predict what they are, on (and in) the Sun?

And how do these three map onto "mass flow(s)" and "current flow(s)"?

Finally, what is "the flow of electron mass"?