Electric suns, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

[RealityCheck01]

...irrelevant rant about conduction in plasma snippedd..
....usual insults snipped...

The best I can get from the post is that you agree that plasmas conduct and thus a silicon plasma is not an insulator (cannot "insulate" arcs which do not exist anyway) !
Errors in Micheal's site XXV: gooey, insulating Si and crusty Ca layers do not exist!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Whoops - this is the third page!
Micheal's web site: Hubble's Satellite Evidence

Studies of quasars in the early universe demonstrate the presence of large quantities of iron, casting serious doubt on the gas model in recent years.

At last - a link that is not to an image ! Pity that it is to a news article rather than a scientific paper.
So where are these "large quantities of iron"?
Report: cosmos could be much older than thought (2002)

But iron in the quasar, known as APM 8279+5255, was three times more plentiful than in our solar system, which puzzled astronomers.

This is not support for Michaels idea because his idea predicts no numbers of the amount of iron in any star let alone the Sun. Casting doubts another theory in the expectation that it supports yours is the fallacy of false dichotomy.

The paper is Discovery of an ionized Fe-K edge in the z=3.91 Broad Absorption Line Quasar APM 08279+5255 with XMM-Newton by G. Hasinger, N. Schartel, S. Komossa (ApJ (Letters), 2002)

Recent XMM-Newton observations of the high-redshift, lensed, broad absorption line (BAL) quasi-stellar object APM 08279+5255, one of the most luminous objects in the universe, allowed the detection of a high column density absorber ($N_H \approx 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$) in the form of a K-shell absorption edge of significantly ionized iron (Fe XV - XVIII) and corresponding ionized lower-energy absorption. Our findings confirm a basic prediction of phenomenological geometry models for the BAL outflow and can constrain the size of the absorbing region. The Fe/O abundance of the absorbing material is significantly higher than solar (Fe/O = 2-5), giving interesting constraints on the gas enrichment history in the early Universe.

Note that this is a ratio between the amount of iron and oxygen, not the amount of iron as in the news article.

17 Errors in Micheal's site on the first page alone!

Errors in Micheal's site XVIII (solar model explains lots)!
Errors in Micheal's site XIX (the Galileo gambit , etc.)!
Errors in Micheal's site XX: an observation confirming the standard model!
Errors in Micheal's site XXI: iron ferrite ions do not exist!
Errors in Micheal's site XXII: Batteries do not "release free protons and electrons"!
Errors in Micheal's site XXIII: the photosphere is easily understood!
Errors in Micheal's site XXIV: The light we see is not from neon
Errors in Micheal's site XXV: gooey, insulating Si and crusty Ca layers do not exist!

 

[Michael]

The best I can get from the post is that you agree that plasmas conduct and thus a silicon plasma is not an insulator (cannot "insulate" arcs which do not exist anyway) !

Your participation in this thread amounts to pure harassment. You have no desire to have a real discussion on this topic. You haven't read a book on this topic in over two years of playing the role of cyber-starker. You continue to judge Birkeland's solar model based upon a *falsified* solar theory that has already bitten the dust in SDO imagery. The electrical discharges occur in the solar atmosphere, just as Birkeland, Dungey, Bruce, Giovanelli, the Russians and the Japanese claimed. Only one IT guy can't read and comprehend a simple definition of an electrical discharge in plasma.

What are you doing here RC? You have nothing to teach anyone on this topic because you known nothing about it. You continue to misrepresent my statements, just as you misrepresented Peratt's definition, and just as you stuffed words in Dungey's mouth. You aren't even the slightest bit interested in what the actual experts had to say. Typical hater denial at it's finest.

 

[Michael]

Gee, you apparently have lied.....

The only one lying consistently in this thread is you and you alone. You have been dishonest about my statements. You've been dishonest about some emotional need you have for a dielectric breakdown that nobody but you imposed. You misrepresented Dungey's statements. You misrepresented every author I cited in fact. You stuck in pure denial of basic physics, and you completely refuse to read a book on this topic so you remain stuck in pure ignorance. There is no conversation happening between us. There's just you dishing out endless rants filled with hate about a subject you know absolutely nothing about, and refuse to learn anything about.

Why are you stalking me RC?

 

[Michael]

Continuing your ignorance of what neutron stars are made of, Michael !

That's another topic about which you know absolutely nothing about and of course you've never published any papers on that topic either. There you go again ignoring the clear difference between something that does show up in a lab like a neutron, and your pathetic impotent on Earth "dark" stuff.

 

[RealityCheck01]

That's another topic about which you know absolutely nothing about and of course you've never published any papers on that topic either.

That is an idoitic insult and denmand -because the informaiton about what neutron stars are made up of is in tedxtbooks and all over the internet !
FYI, Michael: Neutron star

A neutron star is a type of stellar remnant that can result from the gravitational collapse of a massive star during a Type II, Type Ib or Type Ic supernova event. Such stars are composed almost entirely of neutrons, which are subatomic particles without electrical charge and with slightly larger mass than protons. Neutron stars are very hot and are supported against further collapse by quantum degeneracy pressure due to the Pauli exclusion principle. This principle states that no two neutrons (or any other fermionic particles) can occupy the same place and quantum state simultaneously.

The popular term for what neutron stars is made of is neutronium. The more scientific term is neutron degenerate matter

Neutron degeneracy is analogous to electron degeneracy and is demonstrated in neutron stars, which are primarily supported by the pressure from a degenerate neutron gas.[7] This happens when a stellar core above 1.44 solar masses, the Chandrasekhar limit, collapses and is not halted by the degenerate electrons. As the star collapses, the Fermi energy of the electrons increases to the point where it is energetically favorable for them to combine with protons to produce neutrons (via inverse beta decay, also termed "neutralization" and electron capture). The result of this collapse is an extremely compact star composed of nuclear matter, which is predominantly a degenerate neutron gas, sometimes called neutronium, with a small admixture of degenerate proton and electron gases.

We have never had neutron degenerate matter in the lab.

We can use the laws of physics and observations about neutrons, model what neutron degenerate matter does and match what we see in neutron stars (mostly!).
But then we can also use the laws of physics and observations about dark matter model what dark matters does and match what we see in the universe (mostly!).

So you are between a rock and a hard place - in order to allow neutron stars to exist, you allow have to allow dark matter to exist!

A more complete version of Michael: by your non-science definition of empirical: Neutrons stars do not exist!
21st November 2012

 

[RealityCheck01]

Whoops - this is the third page!
Micheal's web site: Hubble's Satellite Evidence
Michael sees bunnies in the clouds yet again!


The images on the page are Michael spinning fantasies about and repeating his ignorance about the contents of solar images.

• 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)!

The images on the page are Michael spinning fantasies about and repeating his ignorance about the contents of solar images. The fantasies are about plasma following curved magnetic fields being 'electrical arcs'. The repeated ignorance is his inability to understand that the transition region is above the photosphere and so images taken of filaments, coronal loops and flares in the transition region are images of objects that are above the photosphere. Michael remains ignorant of what the photosphere is and that no light can be detected from below the photosphere.

One image is of 'solar moss': Trace Spacecraft Discovers Moss on the Sun (1999)

The moss consists of hot gas at about two million degrees Fahrenheit which emits extreme ultraviolet light observed by the TRACE instrument. It occurs in large patches, about 6,000 - 12,000 miles in extent, and appears between 1,000 - 1,500 miles above the Sun's visible surface, sometimes reaching more than 3,000 miles high. It looks "spongy" because the patches are composed of small bright elements interlaced with dark voids in the TRACE images. These voids are caused by jets of cooler gas from the Sun's lower atmosphere, the chromosphere, which is at about 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The bright moss elements move around and can vary in brightness over very short periods of time -- 30 seconds or less.

Emphasis added.

17 Errors in Micheal's site on the first page alone!

Errors in Micheal's site XVIII (solar model explains lots)!
Errors in Micheal's site XIX (the Galileo gambit , etc.)!
Errors in Micheal's site XX: an observation confirming the standard model!
Errors in Micheal's site XXI: iron ferrite ions do not exist!
Errors in Micheal's site XXII: Batteries do not "release free protons and electrons"!
Errors in Micheal's site XXIII: the photosphere is easily understood!
Errors in Micheal's site XXIV: The light we see is not from neon
Errors in Micheal's site XXV: gooey, insulating Si and crusty Ca layers do not exist!
Errors in Micheal's site XXVI: Fallacy of false dichotomy

 

[RealityCheck01]

17 Errors in Micheal's site on the first page alone!

And another 8 in The Birkeland Solar Model, but some of those are repeats of his unsupported assertions (fantasies) and ignorance about the Sun on the first page.
Errors in Micheal's site XVIII (solar model explains lots)!
Errors in Micheal's site XIX (the Galileo gambit , etc.)!
Errors in Micheal's site XX: an observation confirming the standard model!
Errors in Micheal's site XXI: iron ferrite ions do not exist!
Errors in Micheal's site XXII: Batteries do not "release free protons and electrons"!
Errors in Micheal's site XXIII: the photosphere is easily understood!
Errors in Micheal's site XXIV: The light we see is not from neon
Errors in Micheal's site XXV: gooey, insulating Si and crusty Ca layers do not exist!

Whoops - this is the third page!
Errors in Micheal's site XXVI: Fallacy of false dichotomy
Errors in Micheal's site XXVII: Bunnies in the clouds yet again!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Before going onto yet more unsupported assertions (fantasies) and bits of ignorance about the Sun on Michael's third page, I will have a look at a fundemaental error that Michael makes on his SDO Begins Rewriting The Book On Solar Physics blog entry on 24 Aptil 2010 (over 2 years ago!).

This is the major error of having no idea how an image was constructed!
The first light images from a telescope are just the first images that are taken. They are of little scientific value (and usually of low quality) because calibration of the telescope is ongoing. This is especially true for instruments on spacecraft like the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO).

If a couple of first light images are then combined to make a public relations image then it is idiotic to try to analyze the resulting image as if it contained scientific data without finding out whether it was manipulated to make it pretty.

If you do that rather silly act and find something then it is even dumber not to confirm your finding by repeating your analysis with other images. Replication of results is a cornerstone of physics.

So what does Michael do?
He analyzes a public relations image without having any idea what was done to it !
29th April 2010: Michael cherry picked the SDO image to support his fantasy and ignored the absence of the green line in other first light images!

Michael has never repeated his analysis on any scientific data from SDO or any other source.

Michael ignores simple problems with his analysis such as the green line vanishes at some positions!

Michael displays his denial of basic physics such as the defintion of the phtosophere (if we see light then it is from the photosphere which is ~100 km deep!) and the optical depth of solar plasma is small (100 kmat the very best wavelength, 50 km in general). It is physcially impossible to see any light from 4800 km under the surface of the Sun:
Errors in Michael's site IV (below? the photosphere)
24 April 2010: How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?

A JREF poster asked the SDO team what they did to get the image:
4th May 2010 I have contacted the SDO science team at NASA ...

I have contacted the SDO science team at NASA and have received word back on the image that occupied pretty much all of Michael's attention for the past week. Since he first started crowing about his discovery, over a thousand posts have gone by. During that time Michael has been insulting, belligerent, ignorant of relevant questions, badgering, uncivil, and treated pretty much everyone in this discussion like crap.

Here's the word straight from NASA. When they map the color values, the behavior of the pixels outside the limb is treated differently than the portion of the image over the disk. A gradient filter is applied to the image so the off-disk area will be enhanced to bring out details. That filter causes a discontinuity at the apparent limb because of a slight inequality of the radius of the filter and the solar image.

The green line is there because of the processing.

Does Michael contact the SDO science team at NASA to check out this claim?
He does not ! He continues with the insulting and uncivil behavior noted above by basically calling the poster a liar.
22nd March 2012: Why have you never in almost 2 years, contacted the SDO team about the image?

 

[Michael]

I have contacted the SDO science team at NASA and have received word back on the image that occupied pretty much all of Michael's attention for the past week. Since he first started crowing about his discovery, over a thousand posts have gone by. During that time Michael has been insulting, belligerent, ignorant of relevant questions, badgering, uncivil, and treated pretty much everyone in this discussion like crap.

Here's the word straight from NASA. When they map the color values, the behavior of the pixels outside the limb is treated differently than the portion of the image over the disk. A gradient filter is applied to the image so the off-disk area will be enhanced to bring out details. That filter causes a discontinuity at the apparent limb because of a slight inequality of the radius of the filter and the solar image.

The green line is there because of the processing.

The individual that made that statement uses a pot leaf as his avatar. He did not mention any individual he contacted, and his statement is utterly irrational and utterly preposterous. Nobody at NASA would ever make such a bush league mistake about why the horizon line is green. It's green because the iron ion wavelengths were assigned blue and yellow and they combine to create a *green* horizon line.

When oh when can we expect you to pick up a textbook on plasma physics RC, or did you intend to spend the rest of your entire natural life arguing this topic from a place of blind ignorance as well as blind hatred?

Who was the individual at NASA that GM talked to, and what was their *exact quote*?

 

[Michael]

That is an idoitic insult...

It's an idiotic insult that you're involved in a topic you don't understand and refuse to study. Unlike me, you've never published anything related to topics in space, and you've not read any plasma physics textbooks, yet you insist on stalking me around the internet and professing to be an expert on various topics that you simply know nothing about. That is the idiotic insult RC.

It's a busy week at work so there's no point in going through your nonsense point by point.

Here are the three questions I want you to answer for us RC.

A) Since you profess to be an expert on these topics, when can we expect you to actually sit down and *read a textbook* on the topic of plasma physics?

B) Who at NASA did GM talk to about the SDO first light image, and what was their *exact quote* on that image?

C) Since you do not understand plasma physics and therefore cannot teach plasma physics, why are you *really* here at Christian forums?

I doubt you'll ever answer any of these questions. Well, maybe you'll handwave away at the last one.

 

[RealityCheck01]

He did not mention any individual he contacted, and his statement is utterly irrational and utterly preposterous.

His statement is utterly rational and exactly what anyone rational would suspect for the generation of a public relations image.
To make it pretty they applied a filter to enhance the appearance of the solar atmosphere.

Yep - GM did not provide any contact details !
You seem to fantasize that the SDO team at NASA are a secret team hidden away from the public !
22nd March 2012: Why have you never in almost 2 years, contacted the SDO team about the image?

This does not remove the ignorance in Michael analyzes a public relations image that the SDO team says has a processing artifact!
For example:
4th May 2010 I (GeeMack) have contacted the SDO science team at NASA ...

I have contacted the SDO science team at NASA and have received word back on the image that occupied pretty much all of Michael's attention for the past week. Since he first started crowing about his discovery, over a thousand posts have gone by. During that time Michael has been insulting, belligerent, ignorant of relevant questions, badgering, uncivil, and treated pretty much everyone in this discussion like crap.

Here's the word straight from NASA. When they map the color values, the behavior of the pixels outside the limb is treated differently than the portion of the image over the disk. A gradient filter is applied to the image so the off-disk area will be enhanced to bring out details. That filter causes a discontinuity at the apparent limb because of a slight inequality of the radius of the filter and the solar image.

The green line is there because of the processing.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usial rant snipped...
Here are the questions I want you to answer for us RC.

A) You are lying - I am not professing to be an expert. I am professing that your errors are so basic that anyone with the ability to even Google can see that they are errors. The fact that I have have a post-graduate level education in physics just makes it easier for me to understand your basic errors and do the research to back it up.

For example, the basic physics of

1. The Sun has a core temperature of ~13,000,000 K.
2. The Sun has a surface temperature of ~5700 K.
3. The second law of thermodynamics means that the temperature of the interior of the Sun is between ~13,000,000 K and ~5700 K.
   (there is a caveat there but you have never pointed this out! But it leads to science fictional solutions to create an iron surface))
4. Thus nowhere within it is the temperature below the melting piint of iron (or any other element!).

Explained (and the science denied by Michael for over three years!):
8th July 2009: Your hypothetical solid iron surface has been in thermal contact with at least one object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for about 4.57 billion years.
17th April 2010: Why this iron crust thermodynamically impossible
17th April 2010: Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible IV

Even your ability to understand English is in doubt :

The convective part of the convective zone of the Sun (the outer 70% of the Sun) means that there are convection currents rising through the plasma (like the convection currents rising through a pot of boiling water). These go right gthrough your non-existant iron surface and mix up your fantasy of layers of Si, Ne, etc.
​

B) GM did not mention who he contacted. Bad GM!
You have never even tried to contact the SDO team:22nd March 2012: Why have you never in almost 2 years, contacted the SDO team about the image?
Bad, bad Michael !

You cherry picked the image:
29th April 2010: Did you cherry pick the SDO image to support your fantasy? - the answer is yes. Michael saw a "green line" in one PR image and ignored its absence in another.
Bad, bad, bad Michael !

You have ignored all of the other (millions?) SDO images that should also have your "green line" in them.
Bad, bad, bad, bad Michael !

C) To show how you are mistaken about me not understanding plasma physics for a start !
Serously - I came to this thread to point out just how bad your idea about the Sun was. Then you asked me to read your web site. I did and it is so bad that I am going to post a full ananlysis of it here.
Remember Michael that you can remove any of the errors that I mention by updating your web site to include references to the scientific literature (rather than to your fantasies about what you see in solar images). Tell me and I will remove the error from my list.

Of course the only bit of "plasma physics" that we have really debated is:
Claim 1: Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! Claim 2: The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is Dungey's large current density (not really a discharge ) and is obsolete!

What other actual plasma physics doi you want to debate, Michael ?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site: Hubble's Satellite Evidence

According to NASA, recent Hubble images suggest that silicon and iron and neon and all the basic building blocks of the universe are ANCIENT compared to gas model predictions.

Hubble glimpses earliest stars (2003) (not that recent!)

Observations made with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) indicate the first stars formed as little as 200 million years after the Big Bang - much earlier than previously thought.

The evidence comes from data showing large amounts of iron present in very distant, ancient quasars. This iron must have been made in the massive explosions that ended the lives of the first generation of stars in the cosmos.
...
Hubble's work pushes back the era of the very first stars in the Universe to as early as 200 million years after the Big Bang.

This is much earlier than previously thought, though it is in agreement with very recent results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, which looks at the background radiation from the young Universe.

A minor error on the web page is that there is no mention of silicon or neon or "all the basic building blocks" in the article - just iron and carbon.

The results are not problem for the "gas model". This is the detection of iron in the earliest (Population II) stars. That iron would have been formed in even earlier (Population III) stars which have so far not been detected.

27 Errors in Micheal's site in the first 3 pages!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site: Hubble's Satellite Evidence

The Big Bang may have never have been an explosive singularity at all. It may have simply been a collision of preexisting matter like a big "slam", ...

This misinterpretation of the Big Bang as an explosion of matter is quite ignorant.
The Big Bang was not an "explosive singularity" and nothing to do with a collision of matter. The Big Bang was the universe expanding from a very hot, dense state (not a singularity) when atoms, stars and galaxies did not exist.

27 Errors in Micheal's site in the first 3 pages!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Michael's web site: Hubble's Satellite Evidence

As they watch two galaxies collide, they used spectral analysis to isolate the most abundant elements released in these collisions.
...colliding stars...

Antennae: Chandra Locates Mother Lode of Planetary Ore in Colliding Galaxies (2004)

This montage of Chandra images shows a pair of interacting galaxies known as The Antennae. Rich deposits of neon, magnesium, and silicon were discovered in the interstellar gas of this system.
...
Direct hits between stars are extremely rare when galaxies collide, but huge gas clouds can crash into each other at high speeds, creating shock waves that heat the clouds and the surrounding gas to millions of degrees.

The primary error is Michael not understanding the results. This is not observations of colliding starts. It is observations of colliding gas.
The rest of the text about the Chandra results is based on that basic reading comprehension error.

The results match the predictions of the gas model, i.e. colliding galaxies can cause

a stellar baby boom. The most massive of these young stars race through their evolution in a few million years and explode as supernovas. Heavy elements manufactured inside these stars are blown away by the explosions that further heat the gas clouds and enrich them with heavy elements such as neon, magnesium, silicon and iron.

This is the typical behaviour of starburst galaxies.

27 Errors in Michael's site in the first 3 pages!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Michael's web site: Hubble's Satellite Evidence

Some other tantalizing clues from Harvard include rather impressive ferrite ion clouds circling black holes ...

Chandra Deep Field-North: Iron Spectra from Supermassive Black Holes (2005)

Using Chandra spectra obtained from more than 300 supermassive black holes in the centers of galaxies, a team of astronomers has been able to determine the amount of iron near the black holes (light blue in illustration on the right).
...
Similar results corresponding to times ranging from 5 billion years to 9 billion years in the past show that the amount of iron around black holes has not changed significantly over the past 11 billion years. This implies that most of the iron in the galaxies that contain these supermassive black holes was created before the Universe was about 2 billion years old, when galaxies were very young.

Whoops - no "impressive ferrite ion clouds"!
Because: Errors in Micheal's site XXI: iron ferrite ions do not exist!

The observation that iron has been around since the universe was ~2 billion years old is not a problem for the gas model .

27 Errors in Michael's site in the first 3 pages!

 

[Michael]

A) You are lying -

No, you are lying by claiming to have answered my question without actually answering it! When can I expect you to pull the ignorant log from your own eye and actually read a textbook on plasma physics, or did you intend to spend the rest of your natural life arguing from a place of pure ignorance of this topic?

You don't know the first thing about plasma physics, starting with the fact that electrical discharges *do* occur in plasmas! You might as well be handwaving at Darwin's work without actually reading it either!

You can't even properly judge *any* solar model based on what knowledge you have. All you can do is *pretend* to know something about this topic when clearly you do not know the first thing about it.

B) GM did not mention who he contacted. Bad GM!

He made up the whole thing! He never contacted NASA or they would have explained to him why the horizon line is green. He never did figure that out, so it's impossible that he actually talked to anyone at SDO. You didn't answer that question either.

C) To show how you are mistaken about me not understanding plasma physics for a start !
Serously - I came to this thread to point out just how bad your idea about the Sun was. Then you asked me to read your web site. I did and it is so bad that I am going to post a full ananlysis of it here.

You don't have the knowledge or the technical skills to point out *actual* errors so you just make them up as you go based on your pure ignorance of plasma physics. Did you add your erroneous claim that discharges are impossible in plasma so that's an error too? Give me break. You don't know the first thing about plasma physics, and you're intent on judging a Birkeland solar model based upon *falsified claims* of mainstream gas model theory, a theory that has already bitten the dust in SDO imagery.

0 for 3. You didn't answer that one honestly either or you would have come right out and honestly admitted that you're here stalking me personally. That's you only intent in being at Christianforums in fact. You don't participate in any other conversations here, just *my* threads. You know absolutely nothing about this topic, and you refuse to read a textbook on this topic, and have refused to do so for more than 2 full years. You're like a hater on a hate mission without a real clue about actual physics. In your backwards world of denial based physics, electrical discharges are impossible in plasma and photons have no kinetic energy. You're utterly clueless about these topics, and you have no interest in an honest conversation about this topic.

Gee, 27 *non* errors that you've found so far, while never once reading a single textbook on plasma physics, and without ever having published a single paper related to astronomy. You're a legend in your own mind on this topic none the less. Haters are all alike. The topics change, but the behaviors of haters never changes. It's denial at it finest.

 

[RealityCheck01]

No, you are lying ...

Since you want a fuller response:
A) i] You are lying because I have never said that I am an expert in any field of physics.
ii} Not until we get to talking about actual plasma physics rather then one page in a book that you have lied about (quote mined).

Your usual lie about GM so:
B) 4th May 2010 I (GeeMack) have contacted the SDO science team at NASA ...

I have contacted the SDO science team at NASA and have received word back on the image that occupied pretty much all of Michael's attention for the past week. Since he first started crowing about his discovery, over a thousand posts have gone by. During that time Michael has been insulting, belligerent, ignorant of relevant questions, badgering, uncivil, and treated pretty much everyone in this discussion like crap.

Here's the word straight from NASA. When they map the color values, the behavior of the pixels outside the limb is treated differently than the portion of the image over the disk. A gradient filter is applied to the image so the off-disk area will be enhanced to bring out details. That filter causes a discontinuity at the apparent limb because of a slight inequality of the radius of the filter and the solar image.

The green line is there because of the processing.

C) I do understand plasma physics. I am not here to teach you plasma physics because you have shown no sign of being willing to learn or understand plasma physics (cue regurgitation of you having read books!).
I am here to show other people that your ideas about the Sun are fantasies:
8th July 2009: Your hypothetical solid iron surface has been in thermal contact with at least one object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for about 4.57 billion years.
17th April 2010: Why this iron crust thermodynamically impossible
17th April 2010: Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible IV

I know that you have displayed a total inability over the past 3 years to learn even quite simple science like

• Center of Sun very hot.
• Surface of Sun not so hot.
• Thus interior of Sun between very hot and not so hot and no iron surface.

Your web site just makes things worse !
For example, your own mistakes:
Errors in Micheal's site XXI: iron ferrite ions do not exist!
Errors in Micheal's site XXIII: the photosphere is easily understood!
Errors in Micheal's site XXIV: The light we see from the Sun is not from neon
Errors in Micheal's site XXVII: Bunnies in the clouds yet again!
Errors in Micheal's site II (photosphere is not Ne and Si)!
Errors in Micheal's site V (transition region is above photosphere)!!

The practise of citing imaginary and mistaken theories:.
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]

Michael's web site: Hubble's Satellite Evidence
The next fantasy about evidence is
Cassiopeia A: Elemental Image Of Exploded Star
Repeated some ignorance :Errors in Micheal's site XXI: iron ferrite ions do not exist!

And the inability to read what you cite Michael. The images in the article support an iron layer above the silocon and calcium layers. You have just cited more evidence dbunking your idea .

A new 14 hour Chandra observation of the supernova remnant Cassiopeia A has given the best map yet of heavy elements ejected in a supernova explosion. Upper left: Broadband X-ray image of Cassiopeia A (Cas A) Upper right: Image made by X rays from silicon ions. Lower left: Image made by X rays from calcium ions. Lower right: Image made by X rays from iron ions. All images are 8.5 arc minutes on a side (corresponding to 28.2 light years at a distance of 11,000 light years).
These images are designed to show the distribution of some of the elements ejected in the explosion that produced Cas A. The elements are part of a gas that has a temperature of about 50 million degrees Celsius. The colors represent intensity of X rays, with yellow the most intense, then red, purple, and green.
The broadband image, which shows all the X rays detected from Cas A, is more symmetric than the others. This could be due to the presence of X rays from synchrotron radiation by extremely high-energy particles spiraling in the magnetic field of the remnant, or to shock waves traveling through material puffed off thousands of years before the supernova.
The silicon image shows a bright, broad jet breaking out of the upper left side of the remnant, and faint streamers in an opposite direction. This jet could be due to an asymmetry in the explosion.
The calcium image is similar to the silicon image, but less bright and clumpier. The iron image shows significant differences from other images. Since iron is the heaviest element shown, these maps support the suggestion that the layers of the star were overturned either before or during the explosion.

(emphasis added)
That there is an overturn of layers is a feature of stellar structure from the standard solar model that you are ignorant about, Michael.

• Apply the solar model to a star the mass of the Sun and there is a radiation zone inside a convection zone. Convection mixes up the top 70% of the Sun. No layers are possible !
• Apply the solar model to a star that is over 1.5 times the mass of the Sun and the radiative zone forms above the convection zone. This allows gravity to sort the traces of elements in the mostly hydrogen plasma by mass. Layers of trace element enhanced H plasma are possible !

27 Errors in Michael's site in the first 3 pages!