Electric suns, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

[Michael]

Continuing with the photon KE rant yet again !
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy II

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-41/#post61575350

Anyone who cares to read the conversation can see for themselves that you never once produced a single *external* reference (not yourself) that claimed your statements were correct. The one reference you did provided after three weeks of hounding you for an external support for your claim, stated rather bluntly that your claim was "not correct". You were wrong from day one, and you're incapable of admitting any mistakes as that whole conversation demonstrates quite clearly.

When faced with 7 authors, all of whom claimed that electrical discharges occur in solar flares, you simply go into a pure denial routine, where a "minority" viewpoint suddenly makes you 'right'. Meanwhile you have provided exactly *zero* external references of your own that support your claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. You continue to attempt to put words in Dungey's mouth, ignore 7 authors I cited, and you attempt to impose you bigoted definitions of terms on *me personally*. Get over yourself. Go actually read a textbook on the topic of plasma physics. You have no business engaging in this conversation. The only reason you are here on this particular forum is to harass a single individual, specifically me. You're hounding me all over the internet in fact.

You haven't the slightest clue about either the B or the E orientation of plasma physics, let alone the expertise to put them together into a cohesive view of the universe. The reason for that is quite obvious. You're a victim of your own self imposed ignorance, and you're intent on stuffing that ignorance down everyone's throat.

When cornered and asked for an *external* reference, such as a reference that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, you only cite yourself handwaving away at *my* references, all of whom say *exactly the opposite* of what you're claiming.

A) When did you intend to read a textbook on plasma physics? Did you intend to spend the rest of your life arguing this topic from a place of blind hate and self imposed ignorance?

B) Who did GM talk to at NASA? What was their *exact* quote?

C) Why are you *really* here RC?

D) When will you provide any external authors that claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma?

E) Since you refuse to educate yourself and pickup a textbook on this topic, and you engage in no other conversations besides my conversations, why are you *really* here at Christianforums RC?

 

[RealityCheck01]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-41/#post61575350

Anyone who cares to read the conversation can see for themselves that you never once produced a single *external* reference (not yourself) that claimed your statements were correct.

Everyone can read the conversation for themselves: Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy II
When they do so that can see that you are stating delusions about what I wrote:
My assertions are the textbook physics that

• Photons have no classical kinetic energy and
• they do have relativistic kinetic energy

I quoted the definition of classical kinetic energy (1/2mv^2 ). If you are ignorant of this physics then that is your problem not mine.
I produced an external reference that matched what I asserted.

When faced with 7 authors, all of whom claimed that electrical discharges occur in solar flares, you simply go into a pure denial routine
...usual rant and insults snipped...

When faced with the 7 authors that you cited, I read and understood what they wrote (unlike you!)
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!

You haven't the slightest clue about either the B or the E orientation of plasma physics, ...
...usual rants and insults snipped...

That is really delusional because we have not discussed any "B or the E orientation" of plasma physics in this thread. So you have no idea about my knowledge of the area.

The irrelevance of the inane demand that I read Peratt's book or any other textbook when we are discussing 1 page in Peratt's book!

Michael, when are you going to display any understanding of the textbooks you claim to have read other than obsessing about 1 page in 1 book?

Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!

Starting with an obviuosly flawed act:
Michael analyzes a public relations image that has a processing artifact !!!!
This deserves a Duh!!!! because Michael had and still has no idea what was done to the public relations image to make it pretty. He cherry picked the first light public relations image - there is no 'green line' in the other first light public relations images. He has never found that 'green line' in any other image of the Sun - not even a public relations image!
Michael's response is to continually demand that I read GeeMack's mind to find out who GeeMack contacted at NASA and not to contact NASA at all: 22nd March 2012: Why have you never in almost 2 years, contacted the SDO team about the image?

 

[RealityCheck01]

When faced with 7 authors, all of whom claimed that electrical discharges occur in solar flares,

Michael, Can I take it that you still think that a comet nucleus (made of various ices) is actually plasma?

Michael, Can I take it that you still still do not understand that Tatsuzo Obayashi's paper is about the solar flare equivalent of the auroral electrojet?

If so I will add a section in the Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked! post listing your inability to understand scientific papers.

None of the papers that you have cited are actual electrical discharges in plasma.


Large current densities (Dungey's usage following on from Giovanelli)

1. James Dungey 1
2. James Dungey 2
3. Ronald Giovanelli
4. J. P. Wild (1963)
   ...
5. T. S. Kozhanov (1973)
   ...
6. E. Ya. Vil'koviskii (1974)
   ...

Solar flare equivalent of the auroral electrojet

Tatsuzo Obayashi (1975)
...
​

Your delusion that a solid (a comet nucleus) is plasma!

S. Ibadov (2012)
This is double layers induced at the comet having an "electrical discharge potential". However double layers are "destroyed" rather than "discharged". And the abstract says this happens inside the nucleus not in plasma.
​

 

[RealityCheck01]

Sunquakes, etc.
A minor point but Michael never defines what a sunquake is!

A sunquake is a quake that occurs on the Sun.
Seismic waves produced by sunquakes can shake the Sun to its very center[citation needed], just as earthquakes can cause the entire Earth to shake. However, detectable sunquakes usually involve much more energy than their terrestrial counterparts.
On July 9, 1996 a sunquake was produced by an X2.6 class solar flare and its corresponding coronal mass ejection. According to researchers who reported the event in Nature, this sunquake was comparable to an earthquake of a magnitude 11.3 on the Richter scale. That represents a release of energy approximately 40,000 times greater than the devastating 1906 San Francisco earthquake, and far greater than any earthquake ever recorded. It is unclear how such a relatively modest flare could have liberated sufficient energy to generate such powerful seismic waves.[4][5]
The ESA and NASA spacecraft SOHO records sunquakes as part of its mission to study the sun.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Sunquakes, etc.

Sunquakes and solar flare activity are two of the great remaining mysteries of the sun.

Sunquakes are no mystery. They are quakes on the Sun caused by activity such as solar flares and CME.
Even solar flares are no "great" mystery. Their cause is well established as magnetic reconnection.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Sunquakes, etc.

Sometimes a sunquake results in the solar flare, but a sunquake is not necessarily the only thing that can trigger a solar flare.

Sunquakes are quakes on the Sun caused by activity such as solar flares and CME.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Sunquakes, etc.

The continuous erosion from the electrical arcing at the surface of the sun occasionally weakens the surface along large fault lines resulting in sunquakes.

The usual fantasy about electrical arcing from an iron surface that is now at the actual surface of the Sun (in the photosphere!).

Later on there is:
Errors in Michael's site III (Penumbral filaments belong to sunspots)!
Errors in Michael's site XXIV: The light we see is not from neon

 

[RealityCheck01]

Sunquakes, etc.

In this close-up of a sunspot, we can actually see through this hole in the penumbra filaments to the surface below and see the jagged-edged cracks in the surface that caused these unusual patterns in the missing penumbral filaments.

A new fantasy:
Michael imagines that 4800 kilometers of plasma magically part to reveal his physically impossible iron surface!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Sunquakes, etc.

In the top photo of this page, surface cracks below are clearly visible in the center of the sunspot, or the hole produced by the missing (neon) penumbral filaments.

In the top photo of that page, penumbral filaments are at the top of the photosphere like the rest of the sunspot. These are aligned along magnetic fields and have gaps between them as is often seen.

FYI, Michael: Sunspot

Sunspots are temporary phenomena on the photosphere of the Sun that appear visibly as dark spots compared to surrounding regions. They are caused by intense magnetic activity, which inhibits convection by an effect comparable to the eddy current brake, forming areas of reduced surface temperature. Like magnets, they also have two poles. Although they are at temperatures of roughly 3000–4500 K (2727–4227 °C), the contrast with the surrounding material at about 5780 K (5500 °C) leaves them clearly visible as dark spots, as the luminous intensity of a heated black body (closely approximated by the photosphere) is a function of temperature to the fourth power. If the sunspot were isolated from the surrounding photosphere it would be brighter than an electric arc. Sunspots expand and contract as they move across the surface of the Sun and can be as large as 80,000 kilometers (50,000 mi) in diameter, making the larger ones visible from Earth without the aid of a telescope.[1] They may also travel at relative speeds ("proper motions") of a few hundred m/s when they first emerge onto the solar photosphere.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Sunquakes, etc.

SOHO witnessed something quite remarkable on January 5th 2005 and a second time, just 10 days later on January 15th 2005. On those days, SOHO captured video of two truly MASSIVE sunquakes along a common fault line that spanned about half of the visible surface of the sun.

Most of the rest of the page is Michael fantasizing about seeing fault lines extending across most of the Sun's face in SOHO images ('tectonic plates').
There are links to SOHO videos hosted on his web site so any scientific information has been thrown away, e.g. what is actually in the videos (passband, processing, etc.). This is really bad practice . But the filenames have "dit_195" suggesting difference movies from the 195 A passband, i.e. the light in these images is from above the photosphere.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Shockwaves, etc.

SOHO witnessed and recorded a very remarkable solar eruption on May 13th, 2005.

A link to a SOHO video hosted on his web site so any scientific information has been thrown away, e.g. what is actually in the videos (passband, processing, etc.). This is really bad practice . But the filename has "dit_195" suggesting difference movies from the 195 A passband, i.e. the light in these images is from above the photosphere.

Based on this ignorance, Michael fantasizes about the images being of "shock waves moving through the corona and across the surface of the photosphere and across the surface of the sun itself".

These are shock waves in the images that are traveling through the corona.
ETA (10 Dec 2012)
Or are they even shock waves?
The problem is that we only have Michael's interpretation of this running difference movie and he cannot even get the source of the light being detected correct!
There is a solar flare erupting. Each frame is the difference between 2 original images. Dark areas are where the corona plasma is cooling down. Light areas are where the corona plasma is heating up. As the flare rises up from the Sun towards SOHO, it gets bigger and the areas of plasma being heated & cooled are further apart - giving the illusion of a shock wave.

The photosphere does not emit any detectable light at 195 A - the spectral irradiance at 195 A is so low that it cannot even be graphed.
It is impossible for a surface 4800 km below the top of the photosphere to emit detectable light at any wavelength.
How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?
First asked 24 April 2010
from Outstanding questions for Michael

 

[RealityCheck01]

A Tsunami In The Photosphere Of The Sun

The photosphere of the sun is a turbulent and sometimes violent place, with coronal mass ejections and tsunamis. Dr. Alexander G. Kosovichev, from Stanford University, and Dr. Valentina V. Zharkova from Glasgow University have already demonstrated evidence of seismic (tsunami) activity in the photosphere using data collected by the Michelson Doppler Imager onboard the SOHO spacecraft following a flare on July 9, 1996.

Starts off good but soon reduces to Michael's usual 'I see bunnies in the clouds' logic and some ignorance

The photosphere is a dense plasma layer that behaves a lot like a gooey liquid. It sits above the surface of the sun much like earths oceans cover most of the earth. As we can see from the granular surface video, the plasma layer of the photosphere behaves very much like a pot of boiling hot liquid with a crusty surface.

Just how 'gooey" is the photosphere?
The Earth's oceans are not thousands of kilometers above the surface of the Earth!
The photosphere has no 'crusty surface'

 

[RealityCheck01]

A Tsunami In The Photosphere Of The Sun

Sometimes this results in moving sunspots, where the visible "congealed" surface of the photosphere simply "dissolved" into the upwelling hot plasma from underneath. Once things cool off again, the jelled plasma at the top of the photosphere reforms and the sunspot closes.

Ignorance about what causes sunspots. They are cooler because of magnetic fields not imaginary arcing from and imaginary iron surface.

Sunspots are temporary phenomena on the photosphere of the Sun that appear visibly as dark spots compared to surrounding regions. They are caused by intense magnetic activity, which inhibits convection by an effect comparable to the eddy current brake, forming areas of reduced surface temperature.

 

[RealityCheck01]

A Tsunami In The Photosphere Of The Sun

I must note here that Dr. Kosovichev is a VERY, very nice person, but he in NO WAY endorses my views about there being a "solid" surface on the sun.
In a recent email from Dr. Kosovichev, he explained these features in the following quote:
"The consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions.
We know this from the simultaneous measurements of solar magnetic field, made by SOHO. These are not solid structures which would not have mass flows that we see.
These images are Doppler shift of the spectral line Ni 6768A.
The Doppler shift measures the velocity of mass motions along the line of sight. The darker areas show the motions towards us, and light areas show flows from us. These are not cliffs or anything like this. The movie frames are the running differences of the Doppler shift. For the illustration purpose, the sunquake signal is enhanced by increasing its amplitude by a factor 4."

Congratulations, Michael, on being honest enough to quote someone who says that you are wrong.

The error that you then commit is to ignore the statement of Dr. Kosovichev. You ask the person who actually created the images that you are interpreting about what is actually in the movie and then deny that they know what is in the image !

Dr. Kosovichev states that the consistent structures in the video are not solid objects so you are wrong.

 

[Michael]

Congratulations, Michael, on being honest enough to quote someone who says that you are wrong.

The idea of you congratulating me for being "honest" is like Hitler congratulating me for being "humane".

I suppose I should congratulate you for actually bothering to *read* the website finally. Is that the *first time* you noticed?

The error that you then commit is to ignore the statement of Dr. Kosovichev.

No. I certainly did not ignore his statements, I actively emailed Dr. Kosovichev and solicited his viewpoints and his personal feedback. I discussed our ideas with him at great length, and I posted his preferred response on my website. I certainly didn't *ignore* his opinions. He and I both agreed that the mass in the loops and the images are moving. What we could could not agree upon is why those loops and mass movement patterns form stationary, three dimensional patterns, particularly *under* the photosphere.

 

[Michael]

These are shock waves in the images that are traveling through the corona.

If they were shock waves traveling through the corona the shock wave wouldn't have been deflected at various sharp angles in several different locations. The show the effect of the shock wave hitting *solid features* that deflect the shock wave.

As long as you remain intent on judging a Birkeland model based upon the *assumptions* of a separate and now falsified solar theory, this conversation will not go anywhere. Then again, conversations with you *always* go around in circles because you can never admit to being wrong. For instance you were wrong when you claimed electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. No external author has *ever* supported that claim. You only cite yourself and you go in circles on that issue *in spite* of 7 different authors that all described electrical discharges in plasma and solar flares. You can't even comprehend a simple *definition* of an electrical discharge in plasma as a fast release of stored EM energy. You keep asserting your own *personal need* for dielectric breakdown, where *none is necessary or required* by any author.

Only some lame IT guy that has never read a book imposes such irrational emotional needs upon solar physics. Are you ever going to read a book on plasma physics RC?

 

[Michael]

Sunquakes, etc.

Most of the rest of the page is Michael fantasizing about seeing fault lines extending across most of the Sun's face in SOHO images ('tectonic plates').
There are links to SOHO videos hosted on his web site so any scientific information has been thrown away, e.g. what is actually in the videos (passband, processing, etc.). This is really bad practice . But the filenames have "dit_195" suggesting difference movies from the 195 A passband, i.e. the light in these images is from above the photosphere.

Wow, you actually *did* find a real error! I'm shocked!

FYI, after reviewing SDO images for the past couple of years, it's pretty clear to me (now at least) that the visual process in question was most likely related to a dark filament eruption. It wasn't as obvious when the images were 10 minutes apart, but in 2 second intervals, the filament eruption process is rather clear. I'm a reasonable guy. I'll actually give you that one.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I suppose I should congratulate you for actually bothering to *read* the website finally. Is that the *first time* you noticed?

Wow - your memory is not that great !
Michael's web site: ignoring the expert (Dr. Kosovichev)!
is basically the same as what I posted at JREF:
17th May 2010: the delusional nature of Michael Mozina's fantasy about the Kosovichev movie! (debunked by Dr. Kosovichev)

No. I certainly did not ignore his statements, I actively emailed Dr. Kosovichev and solicited his viewpoints and his personal feedback. I discussed our ideas with him at great length, and I posted his preferred response on my website.

You totally ignored this expert's opinion in when he explicitly states that there are no solid structures in the images.

What we could could not agree upon is why those loops and mass movement patterns form stationary, three dimensional patterns, particularly *under* the photosphere.

And there you go again with the delusion that any image can show light from under the photosphere !

How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?
First asked 24 April 2010
from Outstanding questions for Michael

 

[RealityCheck01]

If they were shock waves traveling through the corona the shock wave wouldn't have been deflected at various sharp angles in several different locations. The show the effect of the shock wave hitting *solid features* that deflect the shock wave.

These are only *solid features* if a person is deluded enough to think that the are *solid features* in the corona.
Read what I wrote:

Shockwaves, etc.

A link to a SOHO video hosted on his web site so any scientific information has been thrown away, e.g. what is actually in the videos (passband, processing, etc.). This is really bad practice . But the filename has "dit_195" suggesting difference movies from the 195 A passband, i.e. the light in these images is from above the photosphere.

Based on this ignorance, Michael fantasizes about the images being of "shock waves moving through the corona and across the surface of the photosphere and across the surface of the sun itself".

These are shock waves in the images that are traveling through the corona.
ETA (10 Dec 2012)
Or are they even shock waves?
The problem is that we only have Michael's interpretation of this running difference movie and he cannot even get the source of the light being detected correct!
There is a solar flare erupting. Each frame is the difference between 2 original images. Dark areas are where the coronal plasma is cooling down. Light areas are where the coronal plasma is heating up. As the flare rises up from the Sun towards SOHO, it gets bigger and the areas of plasma being heated & cooled are further apart - giving the illusion of a shock wave.

The photosphere does not emit any detectable light at 195 A - the spectral irradiance at 195 A is so low that it cannot even be graphed.
It is impossible for a surface 4800 km below the top of the photosphere to emit detectable light at any wavelength.
How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?
First asked 24 April 2010
from Outstanding questions for Michael

 

[RealityCheck01]

Wow, you actually *did* find a real error! I'm shocked!

Wow, I actually *did* find many real errors! I'm am not shocked since your idea is simply wrong as anyone with high school science can see.
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
So the only way that you could support it is by ignoring or dening the science, i.e. making errors .

This error is "light in these images is from above the photosphere" because the 195A (and 171A, etc.) passbands can only detect light from plasma in the transition zone, etc. This is an error that you have throughout your web site as listed in Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!

A honest person would take this bit of science and rewrite their web site accordingly.