Electric suns, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

[Michael]

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

Why would you give me a WIKI page link to a *falsified* solar model?

That solar model was utterly falsified by SDO data in 2012 RC! If that WIKI page was ever relevant to solar physics, it doesn't mean a thing in 2012! That model has been *falsified* RC!

 

[Michael]

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

Nope. Without fast convection, there is no justification for claiming that the elements stay 'mixed together' at that surface. The sun's atmosphere is mass separated by the element due to strong gravitational and EM influences. The overly simplistic notion that all elements stay mixed up together in the solar atmosphere is based upon the *assumption* of fast convection. Since the convection *assumption* was falsified, so is your claim about elements staying mixed together in the solar atmosphere. The sun is a plasma *diffuser* that separates elements by atomic weight RC.

[astro-ph/0609509] The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass

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

No, it's not. The predictions that the neon photosphere is mostly in the +3 and +4 state is actually 'the' most important next prediction of the Birkeland solar model on my website. The most important prediction was the location of the solar surface at 4800KM, which was confirmed in the SDO "first light" images:

A Blog About Solar Theory-The Solar Coronal, The Chromosphere And The Photosphere.

The SERTS spectral data shows almost no photon output for Neon ions in a low ionized state, or non ionized state based upon a non electric solar model. It does however show that the sun radiates an abundance of photons from *very high* energy Neon ions (+4 and up).

The reason that the now falsified standard model didn't "predict" an abundance of Neon in the sun, it because it *assumes* any Neon in the photosphere is in a non ionized state, or very low ionized (+1) state. Since they never factored in the kinetic energy from the discharge current that traverses that layer, they never realized how much Neon they missed.

Now that they have to start over again with their claims related to mass separation, it will be interesting to see how they decide to 'fix' their now falsified model.

 

[Michael]

As best as I can tell RC, your entire approach in this thread is to *ignore* the slow convection speed falsification of your solar model entirely, and to keep spewing *assumptions* at me from a *now falsified* solar model. Is that your strategy? I was wrong before. You didn't bring a knife to a gunfight, you actually brought a broken *plastic toy* knife to a gunfight. Go back to JREF before you humiliate yourself any further RC. You have nothing to teach me on any topic related to solar or plasma physics. Have you even published a single paper on the topic of solar physics?

 

[RealityCheck01]

As best as I can tell RC, your entire approach in this thread is to *ignore* the slow convection speed falsification of your solar model entirely,
..usual rant snipped...?

I have not ignored your constant error in stating that this falsifies the entire solar model. This result means that the convection part of the solar will need amending or replaceing.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Without fast convection, ...

Wow, your ignorance of phsyics and the Sun really shows up in that statement, Michael.
Any mixing by convection at any speed will mix up the photosphere.

Your "mass separated by the element" claim is easily seen to be seen as a fantasy because the convections cells that mix up the photosphere are actually visible: granule

Granules on the photosphere of the Sun are caused by convection currents (thermal columns, Bénard cells) of plasma within the Sun's convective zone. The grainy appearance of the solar photosphere is produced by the tops of these convective cells and is called granulation.
The rising part of the granules is located in the center where the plasma is hotter. The outer edge of the granules is darker due to the cooler descending plasma. In addition to the visible appearance, which would be explained by convective motion, Doppler shift measurements of the light from individual granules provides evidence for the convective nature of the granules.
A typical granule has a diameter on the order of 1,000 kilometers and lasts 8 to 20 minutes before dissipating. At any one time, the Sun's surface is covered by about 4 million granules. Below the photosphere is a layer of "supergranules" up to 30,000 kilometers in diameter with lifespans of up to 24 hours.

No, it's not.

Yes it is - the composition of the mixed by convection photosphere is:
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.

SDO "first light" images:
A Blog About Solar Theory-The Solar Coronal, The Chromosphere And The Photosphere.

That attempt to to analyze a PR image yet again! - it leads to the wrong results because they make the images pretty! You also did the rather ddumb act ofnot checking to see what the PR team did to the image.

From Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked!

• Did you cherry pick the SDO image to support your fantasy? - the answer is yes. MM saw a "green line" in one PR image and ignored its absence in another.
• The SDO image"green line" is a processing artifact as confirmed by the NASA team.

MM: Why have you never in over 2 years, contacted the SDO team about the image?

So you tdo the inane act of analysing a PR image without knowong what the PR team did to the image. You that state that you iron surface is 4800 km below the top of the photosphere. But you also claim that you can see that surface in images. What happens if we assume that your iron surface is so hot that it is as bright as the Sun?
Outstanding questions for Michael (27 days and counting!)
How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?
17th October 2012 (27 days and counting)

I will point out that your inability to answer simple questions (e.g. the temperature of the Sun!) does not reflect will on your knowledge of physics.

It does however show that the sun radiates an abundance of photons from *very high* energy Neon ions (+4 and up).
...fanasies about 'discharge current' snipped...

Yes - that is what neon plasma does.
Just lik Fe IX is iron at a temperature of 160,000 K to 2,000,000.
That is basic physics, Michael, - you need energy to ionize atoms. The more electrons that are removed means the higher the energy and the higher the temperature needed.

 

[RealityCheck01]

As requested, Micheal, I have been rerading your web site and here are the errors that it contains (so far!) from the first 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)!!
Errors in Micheal's site VI (RD processing does not move original images)!
Errors in Micheal's site VII (Sun rotates non-uniformly)!
Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!
Onward!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site

...electrical model of the sun originally described by Dr. Kristian Birkeland in the early 1900's and later verified by Dr. Charles Bruce and Dr. Oliver Manuel.

Dr. Kristian Birkeland never described a model of the Sun.
He made an analogy between his images of his experiment and images of the Sun, zodiacal light, the rings of Saturn and nebulae (galaxies). He may have actually thought that his experiment was reproducing actual solar activity, zodiacal light, the rings of Saturn and nebulae (galaxies). An hypothesis is not a scientific model.
He was wrong about this (see the next post).
Dr. Charles Bruce debunked theory cannot verify anything.

Dr. Oliver Manuel had a theory that the Sun contained a neutron star. That is easily seen to be wrong:
Errors in Micheal's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was 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)!
Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site

Citing Dr. Kristian Birkeland to support your idea, Micheal, is not recommended because he was wrong about the Sun and many other things. This is not surprising since he was writing in 1913 and had to work with the knowledge of the day.

Kristian Olaf Birkeland (13 December 1867 – 15 June 1917) was a Norwegian scientist. He is best remembered as the person who first elucidated the nature of the Aurora borealis. In order to fund his research on the aurorae, he invented the electromagnetic cannon and the Birkeland-Eyde process of fixing nitrogen from the air.

What he got right:

• The nature of the Aurora borealis.
• The existence of the solar wind.

What he got wrong:

• Solar flares are not related to his electrical discharges.
• Sunspots are not related to his electrical discharges.
• Zodiacal light is not related to his electrical discharges.
• The rings of Saturn are not related to his electrical discharges.
• Galaxies (nebulae) are not related to his electrical discharges.
• Planetary formation is not related to his electrical discharges.
  Think about:
  Why so few planets formed over billions of years?
  Why do the planets not have a wide range of ages (from billions to new!)?
  Why are gas giants not formed in the inner solar systen where his positrive particles are concentrated?
• The Sun is powered by fusion not radioactivity (his 'transmutation of elements') from e.g. radium.

Micheal: The basic point is that if you blindly accept his solar "model" by ignoring everything we have learned in the past century then you have to also accept his other ideas, e.g. that the rings of Saturn are not made of ice particles and that galaxies are electric discharges within the Milky Way. That is obviously 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)!
Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site IX (No Birkeland electrical model of the sun)!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site

More citations of Dr. Oliver Manuel which tends to make you look incompetent since his theory is obviously wrong.
The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass

1. Michael, you have the non-scientific requirement that things be detect din the lab before that can exist, e.g. dark matter. This is non-scientific because it does not exist in science. Science allows things to exist when their existence can be deduced from observations and the laws of physics, e.g. quarks have never been detected in the lab.
   What if we follow your little fantasy though?
   The materials that neutron stars should be made of have never been detected in the lab thus neutron stars (according to you) cannot exist. They are "mythical sky entities"! In this case it is hypocritical of you to site a theory that you cannot believe in.
2. The minimum mass of a typical neutron star is 1.4 solar masses (otherwise it is a white dwarf star!) . The minimum mass expected of a neutron star is ~1 solar mass (Determination of the mass of the neutron star in SMC X-1, LMC X-4 and Cen X-3 with VLT/UVES).
   Michael pointed out that there are theoretical papers about lower mass neutron+quark stars but see the first point and realize that this citation is even worse because these hypothetical objects have never been observed. For example, A model of low-mass neutron stars with a quark core
3. A neutron star has a very high surface gravity of up to 100,000,000,000 times that of Earth. Add a solar plasma and that plasma is plated onto the neutron star !
4. A neutron star has a very high surface gravity of up to 100,000,000,000 times that of Earth. Add a solar plasma and as it is plated onto the surface of the neutron star , is crushed to fusion temperatures and pressures thus blowing up the Sun .
5. A neutron star has a very strong magnetic field and spins. Add a solar plasma and we have a pulsar. The Sun is not emitting gigantic jets of electromagnetic radiation consistant with a pulsar .
6. His proposed composition (basically that found in merorites) of the Sun leads to a star that is not the Sun!
7. More of Dr. Oliver Manuel's errors in his Iron Sun idea, basially bad nuclear physics and my second point above.
8. His layers are ruled out by helioseismology which agree with the standard solar model - a relatively smooth increase in density with depth, not dozens of abrupt changes in density.
9. His layers are ruled out in the photosphere by the fact of convection - granules.
10. His layers are ruled out in the convection zone by ... convection!
    See below.
11. His layers are ruled out in the convection zone by the measurement of convection!
    For example: Anomalously Weak Solar Convection
12. His figure 1 ("The top section is a "running difference" image of the Sun's iron-rich sub-surface
    from the Trace satellite using a 171 Å filter sensitive to Fe (IX) and Fe (X) emissions.") is just physically wrong. He either included it without thinking about the physics involved or is ignorant of a simple bit of physics: The TRACE instrument 171 A passband is collecting light from >160,000 K plasma in the transition zone, i.e. above the photosphere. Ditto for the bottom 4 images in the 195 A passband (>500,000 K plasma).
    Errors in Micheal's site XIV (no mountain ranges in TRACE RD movie)!
13. The paper was written in 2006 when the solution to the solar neutrino problem (neutrino oscillation) had been known for 5 years. But Manuel states that as a problem in his conclusion based on a citation to a 1988 book!

Dr. Oliver Manuel would not have written The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass if he has known some basic astrophysics that rules out the sorting by atomic mass:
Convection zone

The convection zone of a star is the range of radii in which energy is transported primarily by convection. In the radiation zone, energy is transported by radiation. Stellar convection consists of mass movement of plasma within the star which usually forms a circular convection current with the heated plasma ascending and the cooled plasma descending.

Sun's convection zone:

In the Sun's outer layer, from its surface to approximately 200,000 km below (70% of the solar radius away from the center), the solar plasma is not dense enough or hot enough to transfer the thermal energy of the interior outward through radiation; in other words it is opaque enough. As a result, thermal convection occurs as thermal columns carry hot material to the surface (photosphere) of the Sun.

The links in 3 and 4 are from a poster (ben m) on JREF whose research interests mostly overlap Dr. Oliver Manuels:

I mostly do experimental nuclear, particle, and neutrino physics but I've also forayed into stellar interiors (and unusual nuclear physics therein), the solar wind, and geochemistry (including meteorites).

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)!
Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site IX (No Birkeland electrical model of the sun)!
Errors in Micheal's site X (Birkeland was mostly wrong)!

 

[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%
...
Neon 0.12%

The photosphere is hydrogen and helium.
Neon and silcon are tiny percentages.
This addresses what the web page actually says (photosphere is neon).

In case Micheal repeats his denial of the physics that shows that this is the composition of the photosphere, I have added the fact that convection mixes the top layer of the Sun (including the photosphere).
Granule and Supergranulation

Supergranulation is a particular pattern of convection cells on the Sun's surface called supergranules. It was discovered in the 1950s by A.B.Hart using Doppler velocity measurements showing horizontal flows on the photosphere (flow speed about 300 to 500 m/s, a tenth of that in the smaller granules). Later work (1960s) by Leighton, Noyes and Simon established a typical size of about 30000 km for supergranules with a lifetime of about 24 hours.[1]

This mixing probably extends to a depth of ~30,000 km (assuming that there are no deeper regions of convection cells!) since convection cells tend to be as deep as they are wide as far as I can determine.
It certainly mixes up the photosphere (100 km).

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

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site

In this case they find a double sided, stratified layer that is centered at around .99R and begins at about .995R, or just under the surface of the photosphere.

The paper is Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle by Sandrine Lefebvre, Alexander Kosovichev (2005)

...We have found a variability of the ``helioseismic'' radius in antiphase with the solar activity, with the strongest variations of the stratification being just below the surface around 0.995$R_{\odot}$. Besides, the radius of the deeper layers of the Sun, between 0.975$R_{\odot}$ and 0.99$R_{\odot}$ changes in phase with the 11-year cycle.

This is not the detection of a single layer. It is detection of variations of stratification at various radii:

• A strong change in stratification at 0.995Ro
• More changes in stratification at levels between 0.975Ro and 0.99Ro.

This is evidence agains an solid iron surface since this is a heilosemisolgy model that just has plasma in it.

ETA: Thanks Micheal, for pointing out the decimal point mistake and thus your web page is even more wrong than I thought!
The next point is that 0.995Ro is 3480 km (equatorial radius). This is 3380 km deeper than the bottom of the photosphere (~100km) not "just under".

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)!
Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site IX (No Birkeland electrical model of the sun)!
Errors in Micheal's site X (Birkeland was mostly wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong)!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site
From Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle by Sandrine Lefebvre, Alexander Kosovichev (2005)
ETA: Thanks Micheal for pointing out the decimal point error.
Micheal gets 3480 km for the deph of his iron surface.

Micheal does not recognize the contradiction the he has with his invalid assertion from a PR image.
A Blog About Solar Theory-The Solar Coronal, The Chromosphere And The Photosphere.


That is an attempt to to analyze a PR image yet again! - it leads to the wrong results because they make the images pretty:

• Did you cherry pick the SDO image to support your fantasy? - the answer is yes. MM saw a "green line" in one PR image and ignored its absence in another.
• The SDO image"green line" is a processing artifact as confirmed by the NASA team.
• MM: Why have you never in over 2 years, contacted the SDO team about the image?

Micheal gets 4800 km for the depth of his iron surface.



So just where is your iron surface, Micheal?

• 348 km?
• 4800 km?
• 20,000 km?
• some other number?

Of course if you admit your mistake in trying to analyze a pretty PR picture then we can stick with 348 km (under the photosphere and thus invisible).

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)!
Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site IX (No Birkeland electrical model of the sun)!
Errors in Micheal's site X (Birkeland was mostly wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site XII (Kosovichev (2005) shows no iron surface)!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site
Now onto the first image on the web page with the caption:

This is an example of a "running difference" image of the sun's surface revealed by the TRACE satellite using its 171 angstrom filter. This filter is specifically sensitive to iron ion (FE IX/X) emissions and records a C3.3 flare and mass ejection in AR 9143 in 171Å on 28 Aug. 2000. The flare activity is caused by increased electrical activity as fast moving plasma sweeps over surface ridges, resulting in increased electrical activity on the windward side of the mountain ranges.

Warning - this is going to be a long post! I may have to split it up.

Let us start with what the astronomers say is in that picture. The TRACE description of the movie is

This is a snapshot of Active Region 9143 observed with TRACE in the 171Å passband, showing bright material around 1 million degrees. This image, taken at 17:07UT on August 28, 2000, shows the corona during a C3.3 flare, associated with a mass ejection (towards the upper left of the image). The associated 3.3MB shows the flare and mass ejection as a difference movie: where the image turns bright, the solar corona has become brighter after 16UT, and where it turns black it has dimmed. This shows the ejected material very well, first flying upward at several hundred kilometers per second. Later, some of it is seen to fall back as a dark cloud.

No mountain ranges, just the C3.3 flare and a CME.
No increased electrical activity, just the C3.3 flare and a CME.
No evidence for Michael's assertions.
Lots of science that says that Michael is wrong:

1. The original images are of activity in the transition zone which is above the photosphere.
   Michael Mozina's error is that he thinks the running difference processing magically reveals features that are 1000's of kilometers below the phososphere.
2. The original images are of a flare and coronal mass ejection (CME). The processing means that the images are still of a flare and CME.
   Michael Mozina's error is that he was fooled by the illusion of mountain ranges in images of a solar flare.
3. The original images are of plasma at a temperature between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K.
   Michael Mozina's error is that he thinks that the running difference processing magically reveals material that is < 3000K (if he persists in his iron crust idea).
4. The original images basically show temperature. The running difference image thus show changing temperatures.
   They do not contain shadows cast by mountains.
5. The original images are from the Sun where all features are interally illuminated, i.e. there is no other "sun" to cause shadows especially moving shadows which may be picked up by RD processing.
6. The nasty thing about mis-interpreting the dark areas in the RD movie as shadows is that there would have to be light sources in the RD movie. That is impossible because the RD movie shows changes in temperature. See above why changing light sources in the original images do not create shadows.
7. There is also the interesting fact that the "shadows" in the RD movie point in just about every direction except the upper right, i.e. for some reason there are no "light sources" on the lower left.

Every pixel in the RD movie can be explained by physics not 'I see bunnies in the could' fantasies:

• The running difference process itself explains every pixel in the RD movie as the difference between 2 original pixels.
• The solar processes that cause the changes in the RD movie are shown in the original images - flares and a CME event.

The actual features in the RD movie are

• Flecks of moving, changing temperature corresponding to the CME event. Thie is obvious for the actual CME event as a bright flow of speckles. There is also evidence of some CME material cooling as it falls with the appearance of dark specks.
• Areas of persistant increasing temperature.
• Areas of persistant decreasing temperature.
• ETA: These areas increase or decrease in size as the the flare changes shape.
• ETA: These areas rotate as the flare rotates.

The last 2 areas happen to be aligned along the flare. This means that they are side-by-side. This causes the illusion of mountain ranges that can fool people who are ignorant of what the images actually contain. What is actually happening is that plasma is rising up one side of the flare (and heating) and falling down the other side and cooling. This is typical behavior of plasma in flares. Plasma spirals along the magnetic lines.

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)!
Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site IX (No Birkeland electrical model of the sun)!
Errors in Micheal's site X (Birkeland was mostly wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site XII (Kosovichev (2005) shows no iron surface)!
Errors in Micheal's site XIII (3480 km is not 4800 km)!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Notice this link Micheal ?
The original images are of plasma at a temperature between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K.

Micheal: Do you read the science that is supplied?
It seems that you ignore a lot and keep on ignoring it for years !

In this case you ignored what the TRACE instrument actually measures in the 171 band (173A passband on the page). If you had read teh specificatgions of the TRACE instrument then you would have picked up on a typo in Michael Mozina's fantasy shown by the TRACE RD 171A movie posted on 15th May 2010 (and maybe in my other postes on teh subject). I wrote 600,000 rather then 160,000!

This is a strange omission of knowledge given that you seem to claim to be a TRACE image expert. You should known better than me what the TRACE instrument does.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site
Second image on the web page with the caption:

This "running Difference" image of the sun's surface was captured by SOHO. This NASA image was taken on May 27th 2005 at 19:13 using the 195A filter that is sensitive to iron ion emissions. These same complex visible surface structures are visible even days and weeks later.

Pretty much the same errors in Errors in Micheal's site XIV (no mountain ranges in TRACE RD movie)!
This is a 195A passband so the images are of plasma at 500,000 K to 2,000,000 K.

As for the vague "visible even days and weeks later" that just suggests that the movie is of solar prominences (which are filaments against the face of the Sun).

A prominence forms over timescales of about a day, and stable prominences may persist in the corona for several months.

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)!
Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site IX (No Birkeland electrical model of the sun)!
Errors in Micheal's site X (Birkeland was mostly wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site XII (Kosovichev (2005) shows no iron surface)!
Errors in Micheal's site XIII (3480 km is not 4800 km)!
Errors in Micheal's site XIV (no mountain ranges in TRACE RD movie)!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site
Third image on the web page with the caption:

The surface can also be seen in raw satellite images. This close up standard image of the surface layer is provided by Trace using its 171 angstrom filter. This close up image shows remarkable surface detail and also shows a close up view of the solar wind created from the electrical arcs. These arcs create streamers as they travel through the sun's outer atmosphere of mass separated plasmas.

A complete fantasy about the image:

• A surface below the photosphere cannot be seen by definition otherwise it would be in the photosphere.
• The opacity of the photosphere means that a surface 4800 km below the top of the photosphere with the temperature of the Sun will emit less than 1 photon a year.
• The TRACE instrument 171A passband is light emitted from plasma at a temperature of 160,000 to 2,000,000 K.
• Actual electrical arcs (as in discharges) are physically impossible in plasma (no dielectric meduim to break down).
• There are no "mass separated plasmas" above the photosphere - the plasma there is quite transparent and we would see the layers.
• There are no "mass separated plasmas" in or for a distance below the photosphere due to convection. See Errors in Micheal's site II (photosphere is not Ne and Si)!

Ditto for the fourth image on the page where Micheal actually states that this is in the transition zone, i.e. above the photosphere!

Ditto for the fifth image on the page where Micheal actually states that this is in the transition zone, i.e. above the photosphere!

The sixth and seventh images are just pictures of iron-based minerals that Micheal imagines his iron surface might be made up of. He may as well put up pictures of the Brooklyn Bridge !

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)!
Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site IX (No Birkeland electrical model of the sun)!
Errors in Micheal's site X (Birkeland was mostly wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site XII (Kosovichev (2005) shows no iron surface)!
Errors in Micheal's site XIII (3480 km is not 4800 km)!
Errors in Micheal's site XIV (no mountain ranges in TRACE RD movie)!
Errors in Micheal's site XV (no surface structures in SOHO RD movie)!

 

[Michael]

I have not ignored your constant error in stating that this falsifies the entire solar model. This result means that the convection part of the solar will need amending or replaceing.

Psst! Here's where it's headed:

[astro-ph/0609509] The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass

Without a fast convection process, there is no possibility that the heavier elements like Iron and Nickel will stay mixed together with Hydrogen and Helium. The sun is a plasma *diffuser*, not a plasma mixer.

 

[Michael]

Wow, your ignorance of phsyics and the Sun really shows up in that statement, Michael.

Have you published any papers related to solar physics or astronomy RC? Have you read a book on the topic of plasma physics yet? Have you "learned" that photons have kinetic energy yet? Have you learned that the Russians, the Japanese, Bruce, Peratt, Dungey, and Giovanelli were all correct when they claimed that electrical discharges *do* occur in plasma?

Any mixing by convection at any speed will mix up the photosphere.

No, a "little" mixing won't do. It would take a *huge* amount of "mixing" to keep wispy thin hydrogen and helium to stay mixed together with Carbon, Lead, Iron, Nickel, Gold, etc.

Your "mass separated by the element" claim is easily seen to be seen as a fantasy because the convections cells that mix up the photosphere are actually visible: granule

It's not a question of *if*, it's a question of "how much" RC.

Yes it is - the composition of the mixed by convection photosphere is:
Sun

Emphasis added to hopefully help you understand.

It's pointless for you to throw a *falsified* model at me and attempt to use that now *falsified* model to falsify *a different* solar theory RC. It's not rational to do that, but that doesn't seem to stop you. Apparently you do not appreciate the importance of the *speed* of convection. Without fast convection the sun will diffuse the elements in the atmosphere and separate them by the element.

That attempt to to analyze a PR image yet again! - it leads to the wrong results because they make the images pretty! You also did the rather ddumb act ofnot checking to see what the PR team did to the image.

Those "pretty PR images" blow your solar theories out of the water. They clearly demonstrate that the "transition region" sits *under*, not over the surface of the photosphere, and its located at 4800KM under that surface as I *predicted* based on Kosovichev's heliosiesmology data.

From Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked!

You're trying to "debunk" a solar model based upon your falsified claims about the "opacity" of the photosphere. It's not impossible for the photosphere to be 6000K underneath of a 20,000K chromosphere. Likewise it's possible for cooler, thicker plasma layers to sit under the 5800K photosphere. In fact we *regularly* observe *lower* temperatures during sunspot activity.

Did you cherry pick the SDO image to support your fantasy? - the answer is yes. MM saw a "green line" in one PR image and ignored its absence in another.

The answer is *no*, and you haven't even "correctly" explained why it's a 'green' line in the first place!

• The SDO image"green line" is a processing artifact as confirmed by the NASA team.

False! Who at the "NASA Team" made that claim RC? Some unknown "magician" at JREF made that claim.

MM: Why have you never in over 2 years, contacted the SDO team about the image?

Why would I need to do that RC? It's not like I don't have a trillion other images to look at and play with. It's not like I can't watch those 'discharges' take place on daily basis in 1600A images. It's not like I can't see the actual effect the surface of the photosphere from the loops as they traverse the surface of the photosphere.

So you tdo the inane act of analysing a PR image without knowong what the PR team did to the image.

I know exactly what they did with the image RC. They overlaid two iron ion wavelengths, assigned them blue and yellow. They also took an image of the chromosphere, and chopped out the circumference of the photosphere. They they overlaid these two composite images on top of one another to show the relative location of the photosphere in comparison the the surface of the photosphere. I'm sure they "expected" them to show the transition region sitting about 1200 KM *above* the photosphere, but its clearly sitting 4800KM *under* that surface as I *predicted* prior to the launch of SDO.

It's You that state that you iron surface is 4800 km below the top of the photosphere. But you also claim that you can see that surface in images. What happens if we assume that your iron surface is so hot that it is as bright as the Sun?

It's actually much *cooler* than the surface of the photosphere, just as the surface of the photosphere is cooler than the top of the chromosphere.

I've answered your questions dozens of times over and you simply refuse to accept or even listen to any answer I give you.

You then spam the thread with more links to things I've answered *years* ago. (and counting)

Yes - that is what neon plasma does.

You apparently know very little about the behaviors of plasma because you've never read a book on the topic of plasma physics. I strongly recommend you do that someday.

 

[Michael]

Micheal's web site
Now onto the first image on the web page with the caption:

Warning - this is going to be a long post! I may have to split it up.

Let us start with what the astronomers say is in that picture. The TRACE description of the movie is

No mountain ranges, just the C3.3 flare and a CME.

There are a whole series of "persistent" features in the RD image, before, during and after the CME event. Those persistent structures aren't dispersed by the CME, nor are they much affected by it. Those same persistent features show up in all RD images in the iron ion wavelengths, but most clearly in 171A, and 193A and 131A wavelengths.

No increased electrical activity, just the C3.3 flare and a CME.

The CME itself *is* and electrical discharge RC. Dungey explained that to you. Peratt explained that to you. The Russians explained it. The Japanese explained it too. Only some IT guy that's never read a book on the topic of plasma physics seems to have a tough time with it.

No evidence for Michael's assertions.

False. Dungey himself made the electrical connection between flares and discharges RC. The running difference (probably running averaged actually) images show a clear pattern of *rigid persistence* that is not found in the structures of the photosphere plasmas that come and go in about 8 minute intervals. Those features are persistent for *hours*, and *days*.

Lots of science that says that Michael is wrong:

1. The original images are of activity in the transition zone which is above the photosphere.

Nope. That first light SDO image was designed to show *exactly* where the transition region is located in relationship to the photosphere/chromosphere boundary, and it's located 4800KM *UNDER* the photosphere.

Michael Mozina's error is that he thinks the running difference processing magically reveals features that are 1000's of kilometers below the phososphere.

No, your error is that you misplaced the location of that transition region just like LMSAL did.

The original images are of a flare and coronal mass ejection (CME). The processing means that the images are still of a flare and CME.

Yes. IT's also known as an electrical discharge in plasma where 'stored EM energy is quickly converted into kinetic energy.'

Michael Mozina's error is that he was fooled by the illusion of mountain ranges in images of a solar flare.

I wasn't fooled at all, which is why my 'predictions' agreed with SDO first light images without any modification of any sort. Kosovichev *nailed* it.

1. The original images are of plasma at a temperature between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K.

Hey, you got *something* right.

Michael Mozina's error is that he thinks that the running difference processing magically reveals material that is < 3000K (if he persists in his iron crust idea).

There's nothing 'magical' about persistent solids. They persist on Earth all the time.

The original images basically show temperature. The running difference image thus show changing temperatures.

Sort of. They show change as well as persistence actually.

They do not contain shadows cast by mountains.

They contain mountains and other rigid features that affect the output of light.

The original images are from the Sun where all features are interally illuminated, i.e. there is no other "sun" to cause shadows especially moving shadows which may be picked up by RD processing.

The 'shadows', If I'm following your argument correctly, are the areas that were *active* which have moved between the two RD images. The area that high emission points moved from is 'shadowed' in the RD image.

The nasty thing about mis-interpreting the dark areas in the RD movie as shadows is that there would have to be light sources in the RD movie. That is impossible because the RD movie shows changes in temperature. See above why changing light sources in the original images do not create shadows.

Speaking of light sources, can you even name the light source of the original images RC?

There is also the interesting fact that the "shadows" in the RD movie point in just about every direction except the upper right, i.e. for some reason there are no "light sources" on the lower left.Every pixel in the RD movie can be explained by physics not 'I see bunnies in the could' fantasies:

The only 'fantasy' is you believing you can understand images related to plasma physics without ever reading a book on the topic RC. That's the real 'fantasy' in play here.

The running difference process itself explains every pixel in the RD movie as the difference between 2 original pixels.

True, but that doesn't explain the persistent features.

The solar processes that cause the changes in the RD movie are shown in the original images - flares and a CME event.

True, but again, that doesn't explain the *persistent features*.

The actual features in the RD movie are

• Flecks of moving, changing temperature corresponding to the CME event.

That would be fine if all the areas were moving. Since they aren't, you've got a problem.

Thie is obvious for the actual CME event as a bright flow of speckles. There is also evidence of some CME material cooling as it falls with the appearance of dark specks.

There is in fact heated 'plasma' that is ejected by the CME discharge event, which does fall back to the surface, leaving changes on the surface as it does so. There also a large bit of surface erosion going on shortly after the CME in the right corner.

Areas of persistant increasing temperature.

Actually, you're closer. I won't spoil the fun yet.

• Areas of persistant decreasing temperature.

The last 2 areas happen to be aligned along the flare. This means that they are side-by-side.

Well, that is "kind of" correct, but you didn't explain why the various areas increase or decrease. The active areas *rotate* to the right between the two images that are used to create RD images. The persistence if the images relates to the persistence of the light sources. Did you figure out what they are yet?

This causes the illusion of mountain ranges that can fool people who are ignorant of what the images actually contain.

You mean people that have never read a book on plasma physics?

What is actually happening is that plasma is rising up one side of the flare (and heating) and falling down the other side and cooling.

False. The persistent features have nothing to do with heating or cooling on one of plasma or other, nor heating or cooling from the flare. And you were actually doing pretty good too. It's directly related to the *rotation* of the sun between the images RC.

This is typical behavior of plasma in flares. Plasma spirals along the magnetic lines.

Its also utterly irrelevant to the issue of persistent features.

The rest of your stuff is pure spam and it's already been addressed. It's irrational to attempt to judge one solar model based upon the *falsified assumptions* of another!

Standard solar theory has been falsified RC. Deal with it.

 

[Michael]

Micheal's web site

The paper is Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle by Sandrine Lefebvre, Alexander Kosovichev (2005)



This is not the detection of a single layer. It is detection of variations of stratification at various radii:

• A strong change in stratification at 0.995Ro
• More changes in stratification at levels between 0.975Ro and 0.99Ro.

This is evidence agains an solid iron surface since this is a heilosemisolgy model that just has plasma in it.

No, solids can increase the sound speed as well, not just hot plasma.

The next point is that 0.995Ro is 348 km (equatorial radius). This is 250 km deeper than the bottom of the photosphere (~100km) not "just under".

Psst: Check your decimal point.