Electric suns, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

[Michael]

Wow RC. I've asked you at least dozen times now to support your two claims about photon kinetic energy and electrical discharges in plasma with *external* resources. Everyone is waiting to see if you actually do that. Do you intend to quote yourself forever, or did you intend to actually find an external resource to support your claims? I'm not really waiting to see if you do it, because I already know you won't. Other readers however might actually be curious to find out if you even can provide external references that claim photons have no kinetic energy and electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. Can you? Yes or no? Inquiring readers want to know.

 

[RealityCheck01]

FYI, we all know what you *actually* wrote RC:

FYI, we all know that you do not nderstand what I *actually* wrote:

That is more ignorance- if a photon p[asses kinetic energy thehn its speed must change!
The speed of light for a photon in vacuum is constant.

Really mixed up spelling wise but the context is obvious. Kinetic energy that depends on speed is classical kinetic energy: 1/2 mv^2.

Since that confused you, I made the point explicit in Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!

 

[RealityCheck01]

1 percent of predicted convection won't keep iron and hydrogen mixed together at the surface of the photosphere. You're dreaming (again).

The ignorance of the Sun is astounding because that iron and hydrogen mixed together is actually measured!

Photospheric composition (by mass)
Hydrogen73.46%[11]Helium24.85%Oxygen0.77%Carbon0.29%Iron0.16%Neon0.12%Nitrogen0.09%Silicon0.07%Magnesium0.05%Sulfur0.04%

It's not mixed elements as you imagine, it's mostly neon in a +4 ionization state with other impurities of course.

I do not imagine- see above. And what you actually replied to was

There is another bit of ignorance: convection does not create opacity. Opacity is a property of any material.

Whether that "material" is pure or mixed or Ne (IV), it still has opacity.

That's not what the real scientists say RC.

No real scientists at that climate change denial web site, Michael !
What the real scientists say is that they have measured convection at 100 times less than expected, Michael .
This is not no convection - that is convection.

...usual insults snipped...
For example, ...

It is impossible to teach you anything on the topics of photon physics or plasma physics or solar physics that you have already made up your mind on. For example, you have made up your mind that the temperature of the Sun decreases with depth. So you have denied the science in this thread and for years elsewhere:
Iron Sun Surface idea is Thermodynamically Impossible!
Iron Sun Surface idea is destroyed by convection! (I was going to rewrite that post to be cleared in the hope that you would understand it but this seems a waste of time now)
Solar temperatures increase with depth thus no iron surface!

you have made no effort whatsoever to actually *understand* the solar model I have presented.

I do understand the solar model you have presented.
It fails abysmally at its postulate of the 'solid/maybe solid' 'iron/iron ferrite/iron + other stuff' surface/crust/mountain ranges' which cannot exist (see above).

So apparently you've never even bothered to even read the website in all these years.

So apparently you ever even bothered to even understand what I have ever written. So after all these years:
18th May 2010 Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked!
This post caontains the reasons that an iron surface cannot exists in the Sun (as above). There is a list of your unsupported assertions about Birkeland's book. There is a list of questions that you have not been able to answer for 3 years now. An example:
13th July 2009: Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?

What are the numeric predictions of the Iron Sun model that can be tested against actual empirical measurements?

A few examples that current solar physics derives and your model should be able to provide:

• What is the spectrum of the Sun from the photosphere (given that in your model it is "mostly neon")?
• What is the speed of sound profile of the Sun?
• What is the density profile of the Sun?
• What is the neutrino flux?

Three years and your model seems to have remained devoid of actual numbers!
It also contains comments about the 'science' in your web site.
Michael Mozina's fantasy about the TRACE RD 171A movie! (debunked by simple physics)
Michael Mozina's fantasy about the Kosovichev movie! (debunked by Dr. Kosovichev)
However your web site is interesting as a case study in just how wrong using "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic can go so I will post more analysis here.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Bzzt. You apparently can't read:
1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

Bzzt. You apparently can't understand:
1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
Is a title not a definition.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Can you? Yes or no? Inquiring readers want to know.

Yes - read the citations in:
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR is not a discharge and is obsolete!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Iron Sun Surface idea is Thermodynamically Impossible!
Iron Sun Surface idea is destroyed by convection!
Solar temperatures increase with depth thus no iron surface!

Now let us look at Micheal's web site
The first thing I noticed when I looked at the site a few years ago was lots of text and pretty pictures but no mathematics (the language of science!).

Minor point:
The front page is out of date. It mentions "Electrically Driven Solar Flares" and Micheal has told us that the 'electrical discharges' he is talking about are the large current densities in magnetic reconnection. This is MR driving the solar flare and the electrical currents.
Micheal: You should replace "Electrically Driven Solar Flares" with "Magnetic Reconnection Driven Solar Flares" .

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site

In reality however, the sun's photosphere is only a "liquid-like" plasma layer made of neon that covers the actual surface of the sun. That visible layer we see with our eyes is composed of penumbral filaments that are several hundred kilometers deep. This visible neon plasma layer that we call the photosphere, and a thicker, more dense atmospheric layer composed of silicon plasma, entirely covers the actual rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer of the sun.

In reality however, we can measure the composition of the photosphere and it is not neon or even mostly neon: Sun

Photospheric composition (by mass)
Hydrogen 73.46%[11]
Helium 24.85%
Oxygen 0.77%
Carbon 0.29%
Iron 0.16%
Neon 0.12%
Nitrogen 0.09%
Silicon 0.07%
Magnesium 0.05%
Sulfur 0.04%

The photosphere is hydrogen and helium.
Neon and silcon are tiny percentages.

Errors in Micheal's site I (minor revision needed)

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site

That visible layer we see with our eyes is composed of penumbral filaments that are several hundred kilometers deep.

Whoops!
Penumbral in the context of solar physics means the outer parts of sunspots. They have a filament structure thus papers like Twisting Motions of Sunspot Penumbral Filaments.
The link goes to a nice movie showing a sunspot and its penumbral filaments.

The photosphere is not made up of sunspots or their penumbral filaments.

Errors in Micheal's site I (minor revision needed)
Errors in Micheal's site II (photosphere is not Ne and Si)!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site

In this case the sun's photosphere is very bright and we cannot see the darker, more rigid surface features below the photosphere without the aid of satellite technology.

We can certainly look into the photosphere and to do that we do need the "aid of satellite technology", i.e. instruments with filters like those on the TRACE spacecraft.

However we cannot see 'below the photosphere' as in seeing features that are below the bottom of the photosphere. The photosphere is the volume from which the Sun emits light. If we can see something then it is in the photosphere!

Astronomers have looked at the photosphere at various wavelengths trying to see as deep as they can into it. The limit seems to be ~100 km:
How deep can we see into the Sun.

Seens to be a minor problem - just replace below with in.

Errors in Micheal's site I (minor revision needed)
Errors in Micheal's site II (photosphere is not Ne and Si)!
Errors in Micheal's site III (Penumbral filaments belong to sunspots)!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site

In addition, recent studies of solar wind suggest that solar wind also originates on the same transition layer under the photosphere as do the electrically charged coronal loops.

Sun

The parts of the Sun above the photosphere are referred to collectively as the solar atmosphere.[62] They can be viewed with telescopes operating across the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio through visible light to gamma rays, and comprise five principal zones: the temperature minimum, the chromosphere, the transition region, the corona, and the heliosphere.[62]

Micheal's first link is to Solar Wind Origin in Coronal Funnels

A Chinese-German team of scientists have identified the magnetic structures in the solar corona where the fast solar wind originates. Using images and Doppler maps from the Solar Ultraviolet Measurements of Emitted Radiation (SUMER) spectrometer and magnetograms delivered by the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) on the space-based Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) of ESA and NASA, they observed solar wind flows coming from funnel-shaped magnetic fields which are anchored in the lanes of the magnetic network near the surface of the Sun.

(emphasis added)
The scientists talk about the solar atmosphere, i.e. above the photosphere.

Micheal's second link is broken but to a movie, not a scientific publication.

He repeats this error:

NASA's SOHO satellite and the Trace satellite program have both imaged this transition layer of the sun that sits beneath the photosphere.

The link is to SOHO reveals how sunspots take a stranglehold on the Sun
Sunspots are in the photosphere!
No mention of the transition regon or a 'transition layer' in the news article.

Errors in Micheal's site I (minor revision needed)
Errors in Micheal's site II (photosphere is not Ne and Si)!
Errors in Micheal's site III (Penumbral filaments belong to sunspots)!
Errors in Micheal's site IV (below? the photosphere)

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site

The running difference imaging technique used by both NASA and Lockheed Martin have revealed to us for the first time that the sun is not simply a ball of hydrogen gas; it has a hard and rigid ferrite surface below the visible photosphere that can be seen in all of the images on this page!

The running difference (RD) imaging transformation of original images as used by many astronomers does not alter the position of the original images. If the original images are from above the photosphere then the RD images are still of activity happening above the photosphere.
The real purpose of RD processing it to emphasis changes in the original images.

So 'hard and rigid ferrite surface below the visible photosphere' is wrong.
I will get to the other reasons that Micheal's interpretation of RD images is wrong when I get to the images on this page.

Errors in Micheal's site I (minor revision needed)
Errors in Micheal's site II (photosphere is not Ne and Si)!
Errors in Micheal's site III (Penumbral filaments belong to sunspots)!
Errors in Micheal's site IV (below? the photosphere)
Errors in Micheal's site V (transition region is above photosphere)!!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site

Just as Birkeland surmised, it turns out that the sun has a highly defined surface that rotates (uniformly) every 27.3 days. Dr. Birkeland was at least 100 years ahead of his time.

What is missing is any citation of Birkeland stating that the Sun rotates uniformly or even a period for that rotation.

The link is to a movie, not any scientific literature, and that movie is not of the Sun rotating (uniformly) every 27.3 days. It is of the Sun rotating (and processed into an RD movie) but the Sun does not rotate uniformly:

The period of this actual rotation is approximately 25.6 days at the equator and 33.5 days at the poles. However, due to our constantly changing vantage point from the Earth as it orbits the Sun, the apparent rotation of the star at its equator is about 28 days.[38]

Errors in Micheal's site I (minor revision needed)
Errors in Micheal's site II (photosphere is not Ne and Si)!
Errors in Micheal's site III (Penumbral filaments belong to sunspots)!
Errors in Micheal's site IV (below? the photosphere)
Errors in Micheal's site V (transition region is above photosphere)!!
Errors in Micheal's site VI (RD processing does not move original images)!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site

Dr. Charles Bruce. Dr. Bruce documented a number of solar atmospheric phenomenon that were directly related to electrical discharges from the solar surface.

Dr. Bruce never documented any solar atmospheric phenomenon . What he did was imagine that there was actual lightning on the Sun (and other places in astronomy). This is a typical expert in one field (lightning for Bruce) making bad mistakes when they apply their field elsewhere.

The link above is unfortunate because it is to an in-house journal rather than to Dr. Bruce's actual papers on the subject.
However the probelm with citing Dr. Bruce's actual papers on the subject is that it reveals that few people thought the papers were worth citing. For example: Temperatures reached in Electrical Discharges in the Solar Atmosphere has had 3 citatons in 52 years!

Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong for that simple reason that the Sun is plasma and so it is physically impossible to get actual lightning there (no dielectric medum to breakdown).

Bruce tries to get around this by making the plasma dusty but:

• There is no dust at the temperature of the Sun. This is ~5700 K.
  Even sunspots have a temperature of ~3100 K but he needs dust everywhere.
• Electrical discharges emit narrow band X-rays that have never been observed from the Sun.
  The broad-band X-rays emitted during solar flares are consistent with heating and the the acceleration of electrons, not electrical discharges.
• He wants to explain solar flares that are "as much as 150,000 km above the "surface" of the sun" where the temperatures are in millions of degrees.
• 50 years after his theory and observations of the Sun has never detected the dust. In fact no solids at all have ever been observed on the Sun.

Errors in Micheal's site I (minor revision needed)
Errors in Micheal's site II (photosphere is not Ne and Si)!
Errors in Micheal's site III (Penumbral filaments belong to sunspots)!
Errors in Micheal's site IV (below? the photosphere)
Errors in Micheal's site V (transition region is above photosphere)!!
Errors in Micheal's site VI (RD processing does not move original images)!
Errors in Micheal's site VII (Sun rotates non-uniformly)!

 

[RealityCheck01]

If anyone is interested in the properties of dustly plasmas then a good place to start is Dusty plasmas and applications in space and industry (PDF) by Robert L. Merlino (2006).

 

[Michael]

The ignorance of the Sun is astounding because that iron and hydrogen mixed together is actually measured!

Your ignorance of recent events is astounding (we'll not really). If your convection numbers weren't falsified, you might be able to make that claim. Since you're two whole orders of magnitude off, you don't measure anything of the sort!

I can see you're just going to spam the board with more of your *own* claims! You're like a one man spam army!

Who actually cares what you think on *any* topic RC? You've never read a book on plasma physics. You can't understand a *simple* definition of an electrical discharge in plasma. You're verbally abusive in virtually every post, and you've made *at least* a half dozen unsupported statements. Every time I've asked you for *external* support of your claims, you go right back to linking to your *own* posts! It's like you think by linking to a ton of your previous *personal claims* that you've 'proven' something! You're so out of touch with reality it's simply pathetic. You don't understand the first thing about photons or plasma physics. You're not even qualified to speak on this topic RC.

When might I expect you to cite a reference to demonstrate that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma RC? Whom shall I believe, the world of physicists and astronomers, or some IT guy that never read a single textbook on plasma physics? Get real!

 

[Michael]

FYI, we all know that you do not nderstand what I *actually* wrote:

I quoted you. You're *outrageously wrong* on every word I quoted. You consistently refuse to backup your claim with an *external* resource like any hater on the planet. Haters are all alike.

Really mixed up spelling wise but the context is obvious. Kinetic energy that depends on speed is classical kinetic energy: 1/2 mv^2.

Your use of the term "classical" is another red herring. You can't produce a single reference outside of yourself that claims the kinetic energy of a photon is always zero as you claimed. It's an outright lie and you've never retracted it, nor supported it with something *outside* of yourself. Pathetic.

Since that confused you, I made the point explicit in Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!

You've never cited a reference that say there is any difference between the "classical" kinetic energy of a photon and any other definition of a photon. The "classical" wrap is your way of trying to weasel out of what you actually said. Where's you *external* reference? Two days and counting! Tick, tick, tick.....

 

[Michael]

Photospheric composition (by mass)
Hydrogen 73.46%[11]
Helium 24.85%
Oxygen 0.77%
Carbon 0.29%
Iron 0.16%
Neon 0.12%
Nitrogen 0.09%
Silicon 0.07%
Magnesium 0.05%
Sulfur 0.04%​

​

It occurs to me that after reading through your recent posts that you apparently brought a knife to a gunfight.

Evidently you think it's still 2011 when mainstream solar theory hadn't been falsified outright by slow convection speeds. Without fast convection, there is no certainly (or even any likelihood) that heavy elements like Nickel and Iron will stay "mixed together" with wispy thin elements like hydrogen and helium.

What we've "measured" in the upper solar atmosphere are the "trace" amounts of heavy elements embedded in the neon photosphere, not the entire composition of the sun.

​

The photosphere is hydrogen and helium.

No, it's not. It's mostly Neon in a +3 to +4 ionization state, with an abundance of other elements embedded in that neon plasma layer in just about the percentages you suggested.

Neon and silcon are tiny percentages.

Neon in a *non* or *low* ionized state exists in miniscule percentages. Most of the neon is in the +4 ionization state due to the currents flowing from the surface below out toward the heliosphere, right though the Neon photosphere.

Like Neon, Silicon in *high* ionization states is well represented in the solar spectral output. Like the Neon plamsa double layer, the Silicon plasma double layer is highly energized by the constant flow of current through that layer.

RC, it's 2012, not 2010. In 2012 SDO falsified standard solar theory, like it or not. It's not my fault. I didn't do it. It just happened. Take a deep breath. Relax, and stop trying to impose your *falsified solar belief system* upon an entirely *different* solar model. You can't rationally do that, particularly now that standard theory has been falsified by SDO helioseismology data.

In short, put down that knife before you hurt yourself.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usual rants snipped...

Here is the link I gave you to a Wikipedia page containing an actual citation.

Sun
​

Read it and you may fix that astounding ignorance about the composition of the photosphere where iron and hydrogen mixed together is actually measured!

Since you did not recognize the reference in the quote from article:
"The Sun's Vital Statistics". Stanford Solar Center. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/vitalstats.html. Retrieved 2008-07-29. , citing Eddy, J. (1979). A New Sun: The Solar Results From Skylab. NASA. p. 37. NASA SP-402. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-402/contents.htm.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...ignorance and rants snipped...
What we've "measured" in the upper solar atmosphere are the "trace" amounts of heavy elements embedded in the neon photosphere, not the entire composition of the sun.

What we've measured in the photosphere are the "trace" amounts of heavy elements embedded in the hydrogen + helium photosphere
Sun

Photospheric composition (by mass)
Hydrogen 73.46%[11]
Helium 24.85%
Oxygen 0.77%
Carbon 0.29%
Iron 0.16%
Neon 0.12%
Nitrogen 0.09%
Silicon 0.07%
Magnesium 0.05%
Sulfur 0.04%
"The Sun's Vital Statistics". Stanford Solar Center. The Sun's Vital Statistics. Retrieved 2008-07-29. , citing Eddy, J. (1979). A New Sun: The Solar Results From Skylab. NASA. p. 37. NASA SP-402. contents.

Emphasis added to hopefully help you understand.

ETA
You may not even remember what you wrote on your web site so I will repeat it here:
Micheal's web site

This visible neon plasma layer that we call the photosphere, and a thicker, more dense atmospheric layer composed of silicon plasma, entirely covers the actual rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer of the sun.

You are claiming that the photosphere is made of neon. That is wrong.

Errors in Micheal's site I (minor revision needed)
Errors in Micheal's site II (photosphere is not Ne and Si)!
Errors in Micheal's site III (Penumbral filaments belong to sunspots)!
Errors in Micheal's site IV (below? the photosphere)
Errors in Micheal's site V (transition region is above photosphere)!!
Errors in Micheal's site VI (RD processing does not move original images)!
Errors in Micheal's site VII (Sun rotates non-uniformly)!

 

[RealityCheck01]

You missed out:
Errors in Micheal's site I (minor revision needed)

The front page is out of date. It mentions "Electrically Driven Solar Flares" and Micheal has told us that the 'electrical discharges' he is talking about are the large current densities in magnetic reconnection. This is MR driving the solar flare and the electrical currents.
Micheal: You should replace "Electrically Driven Solar Flares" with "Magnetic Reconnection Driven Solar Flares" .