Electric suns, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

[Michael]

You still cannot comprehend that I never state that you claim that the Sun is hollow!
Try again, Michael:

Why? You aren't listening to my answers anyway and you lie about my beliefs just as lied about Alfven's beliefs and Birkeland's beliefs and Peratt's beliefs and Dungey's beliefs, etc.

And you ignored the question Michael, What is the internal energy source power of the Sun?
First asked 17 January 2013. 0 days and counting.

Ive published papers on the topic RC. Have you read or understood them?

When can I expect you to read a book on plasma physics?

Two years and counting!

 

[RealityCheck01]

False.

Are you calling your web site a liar, Michael?
The Surface Model page explicitly states that the Sun has layers of plasma that are arranged by atomic weight with H on the outside - see the first figure on the page.
It explicitly mentions Si and Ca layers.
Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!:
Errors in Michael's site XXV: gooey, insulating Si and crusty Ca layers do not exist!

There is one thing though - you have the fantasy that these layers are "mostly" X layers where X is an element. So below your imaginary Fe layer there are "mostly" X layers. I do not know what element that you fantasize these layers stop at (Pb?). It does not matter - you still have the interior of the Sun as mostly not H and thus no fusion !

 

[Michael]

For other viewers, the speech that Alfven made in the 1986 workshop Double Layers in Astrophysics included

H. Alfvén, “Double layers and circuits in astrophysics,” IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., vol. PS-14, no. 6, p. 788, Dec. 1986
This is Alfvén's personal opinion. For some reason Michael is obsessing about that outdated opinion and ignoring the decades of progress about solar physics since then (and the decades of solar science before the speech).

Those decades of research ended up *falsifying* your beloved gas model theory. SDO heliosiesmology measurements of convection at walking speed rather than jet speed as predicted *falsified* your precious solar theory. You lost your power source for 'reconnection', along with any justification for claiming that elements like iron stay "mixed together' with hydrogen.

For example: review of the evidence for MR in solar activity is Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection (2004).

Bah! Most of it was falsified by SDO last year, and the rest (from the lab) all occurs in current carrying plasma.

 

[Michael]

Are you calling your web site a liar, Michael?

No, I'm calling you a lair. Do you understand anything you read?

The Surface Model page explicitly states that the Sun has layers of plasma that are arranged by atomic weight with H on the outside - see the first figure on the page.

It says nothing about the arrangement of material on the *INSIDE* of the sun.

There is one thing though - you have the fantasy

The only fantasy going on here is your fantasy of correctly representing anyone on these topics. Quote me where I said the sun is hollow. Quote Alfven when he describes the corona in the absence of current. Quote any scientist that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. You don't even know how to tell the truth.

The fantasy you play out is that you're an "expert" on a topic that you've never even read (MHD theory), or an expert at anything other than pure lies and pure sleaze.

 

[Michael]

You really have no idea what the question I asked was:

Michael: Citations to support your assertion of a flow of current through the loops
First asked 11 January 2013. 6 days and counting.
​

You missed out the simple fact that this paper does not mention coronal loops.

He calls them "magnetic ropes" and explains their current carrying nature! You really are all about pure denial and pure misrepresention of fact. You clearly make to effort to understand anything.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Why?

So that you do not make yourself look totally unable to comprehend English, duh !

Ive published papers on the topic RC. Have you read or understood them?

How dumb - I read and understood those 2 papers years ago. And you know this from the discussion of these papers on the JREF forum.

The scientific authors (i.e. not you) of the papers were so ignorant about solar physics that they included your images demonstrating a delusion that images of solar flares in the transition zone can be processed to magically show solid mountain ranges below the photosphere. The basic ignorance is

• images in the 171A passband are of light emitted from material at temperatures of > 160,000 K! Thus no no solids.
• all light from the Sun's body comes from the photosphere so by definition you cannot have an image of anything below the photosphere.

Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!

Errors in Michael's site V (transition region is above photosphere)!!
Errors in Michael's site VI (RD processing does not move original images)!
Errors in Michael's site XIV (no mountain ranges in TRACE RD movie)!
Including the obvious delustiuon that light is emitted from under the photosphere, e.g. How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?
First asked 24 April 2010
​

You still ignored the question Michael, What is the internal energy source power of the Sun?
First asked 17 January 2013. 0 days and counting.

 

[RealityCheck01]

He calls them "magnetic ropes" and explains their current carrying nature

Wow - you really cannot understand a simple question about coronal loops.

Michael: Citations to support your assertion of a flow of current through the loops
First asked 11 January 2013. 6 days and counting.
​

Citing a paper that does not mention coronal loops is idiotic. But then we have someone who seems to retain the delusion that a paper about comet nuclei is about plasma (Michael does not know the difference between a plasma and a solid (comet nucleus)!) .

Michael, Can you understand this paper's title and content?
On the Filamentary Structure of the Solar Corona

On good photographs of the solar corona ...

 

[RealityCheck01]

It says nothing about the arrangement of material on the *INSIDE* of the sun.

That is really a delusion - your layers are *INSIDE* of the sun. They are all below the top of the photosphere.
For example, Michael analyzes a public relations image that has a processing artifact !!!! to get that this Fe layer is 4800 km below the photosphere.

The Surface Model page explicitly states that the Sun has layers of plasma *INSIDE* it that are arranged by atomic weight with H on the outside - see the first figure on the page. The cartoon has

1. a Ferrite layer
2. a Calcium layer
3. a Silicon layer
4. a Neon Layer
5. a Helium Layer
6. a Hydrogen layer

The cartoon shows some ignorance beacuse it does not include most of the layers that that arrangement of plasma by atomic weight should produce. It should be (from the outside inward)

1. H
2. He
3. Li
4. Be
5. B
6. C
7. N
8. O
9. F
10. Ne
11. Na
12. Mg
13. Al
14. Si
15. P
16. S
17. Cl
18. Ar
19. K
20. Ca
21. Sc
22. Ti
23. V
24. Cr
25. Mn
26. Fe
27. Co
28. Ni
29. Cu
30. Zn
31. Ga
32. Ge
33. As
34. Se
35. Br
36. Kr
37. Rb
38. etc. etc.

The Surface Model page explicitly mentions Ne, Si and Ca layers.
Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!:
Errors in Michael's site XXV: gooey, insulating Si and crusty Ca layers do not exist!

 

[RealityCheck01]

The Birkeland Solar Model

The "surface" that Galileo observed was not the surface of the sun, but only the "surface" of the photosphere.

This repeats your ignorance about what the photosphere is - it is the region where light escapes from the body of the Sun. If you see light then it comes from the photosphere, i.e. basically a shell that is ~100 km thick.

Galileo did not observe the "surface" of the photosphere. Galileo observed light from a part of that ~100 km maximum depth.

 

[Michael]

The Birkeland Solar Model

This repeats your ignorance about what the photosphere is - it is the region where light escapes from the body of the Sun.

You're the ignorant one by choice RC because you refuse to even read a book on plasma physics. Light also escapes the corona, the chromosphere and the silicon plasma layer under the mostly Neon photosphere.

You claims about the nature of the photosphere already went up in SDO heliosiesmology smoke RC.

If you see light then it comes from the photosphere, i.e. basically a shell that is ~100 km thick.

False. The 171 images do *not* come from the photosphere and they are not related to the photosphere at 5800 Kelvin. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Galileo did not observe the "surface" of the photosphere. Galileo observed light from a part of that ~100 km maximum depth.

He observed white light from the photosphere. Period.

 

[Michael]

So that you do not make yourself look totally unable to comprehend English, duh !

Considering your track record at misrepresenting my beliefs as well as every other author that I've handed you, and your refusal to read a textbook on MHD theory, it's entirely clear which one of us doesn't understand English or physics.

How dumb - I read and understood those 2 papers years ago. And you know this from the discussion of these papers on the JREF forum.

In your case *reading* and *understanding* are two completely different topics. You've never correctly represented my beliefs, Alfven's beliefs, Peratt's beliefs or anyone else for that matter. Two years and still you understand *nothing*.

The scientific authors (i.e. not you) of the papers were so ignorant

Only one IT guy is ignorant RC, whereas I have actually read several textbooks on plasma physics and I've published relevant papers on these topics, you have not. You're simply legend in your own mind.

images in the 171A passband are of light emitted from material at temperatures of > 160,000 K! Thus no no solids.

Since the loops follow the contrours of the surface and light reflects from that surface, there are in fact "rigid features' in RD images.

All light from the Sun's body comes from the photosphere

Another false claim. Light at 171A doesn't come from the photosphere. 5800 degree plasma cannot emit such light in the first place!

so by definition you cannot have an image of anything below

Only in your willfully ignorant and utterly false definition perhaps.

As always, when I asked you to quote Alfven on the corona *without* current, you refuse to do anything by site your ignorant self over and over and over again.

You still ignored the question Michael, What is the internal energy source power of the Sun?

Of course I did because I've published and handed you papers on that topic. Since you refuse to read them or comprehend them, it's not worth answering again. You're just misrepresenting my statements just like you misrepresent Alfven, Peratt, Dungey and every author I've handed you. You either don't care what I write, or you don't understand it, and I frankly tired of you and your attitude. Can't you understand simple English RC?

 

[Michael]

Wow - you really cannot understand a simple question about coronal loops.

Oh, I understand the question, but apparently you are incapable of reading the answer from Alfven or me, or anyone else.

Michael: Citations to support your assertion of a flow of current through the loops

First asked 11 January 2013. 6 days and counting.​

​

Apparently you fell asleep and you're counting sheep since I handed you two different papers that explained it clearly to you. Alfven used the term "filaments' and "magnetic ropes".

Citing a paper that does not mention coronal loops is idiotic.

The only idiotic statements in this thread come from you. Apparently you refuse to study Alfven's work, so you can't equate magnetic ropes and coronal loops, but Alfven was very clear. The communication breakdown is on your end as usual.

But then we have someone who seems to retain the delusion that a paper about comet nuclei is about plasma (Michael does not know the difference between a plasma and a solid (comet nucleus)!) .

Every author I cited on solar physics claimed your wrong on the discharges in plasma issue. Leave it to you to take *One* paper and ignore the rest. You're just hell bent on remaining the ignorant IT guy forever and ever aparently.

Michael, Can you understand this paper's title and content?
On the Filamentary Structure of the Solar Corona

Yes, but you don't. Those filaments are related to both currents and coronal loops, but you don't care. You don't care about anything other than spewing irrational hate at one guy on the internet. You don't know anything because you won't study anything, and you refuse to learn anything.

 

[Michael]

When can I expect you to quote any scientist that claims that electrical discharges in plasma are impossible? Months of asking you for a reference and counting.....

 

[Loudmouth]

When can I expect you to quote any scientist that claims that electrical discharges in plasma are impossible? Months of asking you for a reference and counting.....

When will you quote any scientist that claims that iron can be solid at several thousand degrees K?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yes, but you don't. Those filaments are related to both currents and coronal loops, but you don't care
...usual irrational insults...

You still cannot understand On the Filamentary Structure of the Solar Corona. There is no mention of corinal loops in the paper.
Your displayed ignorance of solar physics means that no one can take your assertion (that these filaments seen in the corona are related to coronal loops) seriously.

 

[Michael]

When will you quote any scientist that claims that iron can be solid at several thousand degrees K?

I've never made any such claim in the first place so why should I do such a thing?

 

[Michael]

You still cannot understand On the Filamentary Structure of the Solar Corona. There is no mention of corinal loops in the paper.

You are *so* ignorant on this whole topic, it's pitiful. He doesn't use the term "coronal loops" because he personally called them "magnetic ropes"! He doesn't *ever* call them coronal loops because his current carrying magnetic ropes carry current throughout the loop, including *under* the photosphere, not just in the corona!

Your displayed ignorance of solar physics means that no one can take your assertion (that these filaments seen in the corona are related to coronal loops) seriously.

It's impossible to take you seriously because you are a willfully ignorant, angry, belligerent, verbally abusive IT guy that refuses to study anything. More importantly you've never published anything related to astronomy or solar physics, and you simply don't care one iota about "truth". All you are interested in is verbally abusive "hate". When are you going to read any book on MHD theory? You really haven't a clue. It's like having a conversation about physics with an angry cat.

 

[Michael]

When can I expect you to:

A) read any book on MHD theory?

B) produce an *external* reference that ever claimed that electrical discharge are impossible in plasma?

You constantly whine and complain about needing *published* support for any claim, but you always run like a frightened hypocrite every time I ask you for references of any of your plethora of erroneous claims. Where is any *published* author that agrees with you about discharges being "impossible" in plasma? I'm absolutely sure you'll never provide one.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usual insults and delusions about the SDO data snipped...
False. The 171 images do *not* come from the photosphere and they are not related to the photosphere at 5800 Kelvin.

You repeat your ignorance about what the photosphere is - it is the region where light escapes from the body of the Sun.

Light is emitted from the corona, the chromosphere, the temperature minimum and the transition region. These make up the solar atmosphere.

...and the silicon plasma layer under the mostly Neon photosphere.

That statement is actually delusional

• You remain ignorant of the defintion of the photosphere.
  It is the region where light escapes from the body of the Sun.
  Thus no light can be emitted from underneath the photosphere.
• You remain ignorant of the composition of the photosphere (mostly H and He)
• There are no layers in the convection zone.
  You would know this if you knew any solar physics.

As I have said many times before - the 171 images do *not* come from the photosphere and they are not related to the photosphere at 5800 Kelvin. They come from material that is heated to > 160,000 K. They come from the transition region. I suspect we will see you repeating your delusion that the transition region is below the photosphere (see above about why that is a delusion) !

...He observed white light from the photosphere. Period.

Yes. Galileo observed white light from the photosphere. Period.
It is your statement that is wrong:

The "surface" that Galileo observed was not the surface of the sun, but only the "surface" of the photosphere.

It was light emitted from every part of the photosphere not an imaginary "surface".
It was light emitted from 0 km inside the photosphere.
It was light emitted from 1 km inside the photosphere.
It was light emitted from 10 km inside the photosphere.
It was light emitted from 50 km inside the photosphere.
It was light emitted from ~100 km inside the photosphere.
And that is the limit where the science says that the light emitted from the body of the Sun can be detetcted.

Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!

Errors in Michael's site XXV: gooey, insulating Si and crusty Ca layers do not exist!
Errors in Michael's site IV (below? the photosphere)
Errors in Michael's site V (transition region is above photosphere)!!
Errors in Michael's site VI (RD processing does not move original images)!
Errors in Michael's site XIV (no mountain ranges in TRACE RD movie)!

​

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usual insults and delusions snipped...
Since the loops follow the contrours of the surface and light reflects from that surface, there are in fact "rigid features' in RD images.

Repeating a delusion does not make it true, Michael !
Here is the science from Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!

Errors in Michael's site VI (RD processing does not move original images)!
Errors in Michael's site XIV (no mountain ranges in TRACE RD movie)!

​

Another false claim. Light at 171A doesn't come from the photosphere. 5800 degree plasma cannot emit such light in the first place!

Another display of the inability to understand English.
The photosphere is the region where light escapes from the body of the Sun. Light at 171A doesn't come from the photosphere. 5800 degree plasma cannot emit such light in the first place! You need plasma at a temperature > 160,000 K to emit such light in the first place !

Only in your willfully ignorant and utterly false definition perhaps.

So you have the fantasy that all of the scientists in the world are using a willfully ignorant and utterly false definition of photosphere !

The photosphere of an astronomical object is the region from which externally received light originates. The term itself is derived from Ancient Greek roots, φῶς, φωτός/phos, photos meaning "light" and σφαῖρα/sphaira meaning "sphere", in reference to the fact that it is a spheric surface perceived to emit light. It extends into a star's surface until the gas becomes opaque, equivalent to an optical depth of approximately 2/3.[1] In other words, a photosphere is the deepest region of a luminous object, usually a star, that is transparent to photons of certain wavelengths.

Can you understand simple English Michael?

Of course I did because I've published and handed you papers on that topic.

You have cited the crackpot papers that you have published that idiotically have a neutron star as the Sun's power source.
You are lying about me refusing to read them or comprehend them.
I have read and comprehended that they are crackpot, invalid papers.
Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!

Errors in Michael's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong)!
​

Can you understand simple English Michael?