Micheal's solar model

[RealityCheck01]

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2001/november7/sunspot-117.html
...

You cite a 2001 news article and think that is the current understanding of sunspots by astronomers ?
It is standard astrophysics that sunspots are cooler because of magnetic fields - I was taught that 30 years ago! This not magic. Sunspot

Sunspots are temporary phenomena on the photosphere of the Sun that appear as dark spots compared to surrounding regions. They are areas of reduced surface temperature caused by concentrations of magnetic field flux that inhibit convection.

The mainstream was faced with measurements of the flow of plasma in sunspots in 2001. We now know (including you Michael) that sunspots act like giant eggbeaters mixing up the Sun to depth of ~20,000 K from memory but Michael can cite the paper if he wants.

 

[RealityCheck01]

FYI, keep in mind that I would estimate that the neon 'photosphere' double layer is only about 7000KM thick based on penumbral filament studies,

Keep in mind that this is a fantasy until actual evidence is supplied.
There is no "neon 'photosphere'" because the photosphere is measured to be mostly hydrogen.
This is a double layer in plasma physics. They are typically 10s of Debye lengths in thickness

Hannes Alfvén pointed out that: "In a low density plasma, localized space charge regions may build up large potential drops over distances of the order of some tens of the Debye lengths. Such regions have been called electric double layers. An electric double layer is the simplest space charge distribution that gives a potential drop in the layer and a vanishing electric field on each side of the layer. In the laboratory, double layers have been studied for half a century, but their importance in cosmic plasmas has not been generally recognized."[citation needed]

The Debye length of the photosphere is not kilometers or even thousands of kilometers - it is in the scale of micrometers.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Whatever the writer's concern about Juergen's solar model with respect to convection at the surface of the photosphere, it *pales* in comparison the *two order of magnitude* problem in the mainstream model.

The citation of a paper (via a climate change denial web site) measuring convection destroying your layers !
I asked you when you first mentioned this paper years ago but let us try again:
13 December 2016 Michael: Why does the measured convection in the Sun not destroy your "layers"?
Anomalously weak solar convection by Hanasoge et. al. and published in 2012.

And since you mention neutrinos:
13 December 2016 Michael: Does your model of the Sun produce the observed neutrino flux from fusion?
The problem with answering yes is that the known laws of physics means that the core of the Sun is millions of degrees hot and so the Sun's temperature most cool as heat is transferred by radiation and convection to its surface which has a measured temperature of ~5700 K. Thus goodbye to your "solid/rigid iron surface/crust/layer" or whatever you are calling it today.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Keep in mind that I also entertain the possibility that I'm simply seeing ...

This is only what you have been imagining that you have been seeing for the last 11 years.
What you actually looked at was images of solar flares thousands of kilometers above the photosphere (the TRACE running difference movie) and Doppler measurements of plasma rising and falling as pointed out by the astronomer who produced them!

 

[Michael]

The really amazing thing is

.... your verbally abusive style of communication. That's not really that "amazing", just sad actually.

ignorance about solar physics and the Sun hidden in that single word "layered" !
It is chromosphere surrounded by transition region surrounded by corona. These are not distinct layers. They merge with each other.

Nobody suggested they didn't "merge" with each other, so apparently you're just ignorant of the contents of the conversation (again).

 

[Michael]

The inanity of

The insanity of your constant verbal abuse is absurd. I guess that since you don't have any valid scientific criticism, all you can do is hurl a constant stream of personal insults into every single post. Do you even know how to have an honest scientific conversation of do you cheat in every single debate you engage in?

citing a climate change denial web site instead of the scientific literature, Michael.

The website in question cited the relevant material. If you're too lazy to read it, that's nobody's fault by your own.

This is the paper: Anomalously weak solar convection by Hanasoge et. al. and published in 2012.

And........Drum roll.....it shows your numbers were off by two entire orders of magnitude. Now what? Let me guess? You're going to simply ignore the problem and bury your head in the sand like usual?

What is scientific progress is finding a probable flaw in the computer modeling of convection in the Sun by measurements of convection in the Sun.

How is it "progress" if you keep pretending there's nothing wrong with your model? Denial isn't "progress", it's just more denial.

What is ignorant is claiming that there are layers in the Sun

Your own model has "layers" RC, including actual names for them and everything, including terms like "photosphere", "chromosphere" and "corona". You're apparently ignorant of your own model RC.

and then citing the measurement of convection in the Sun that should go through those "layers".

Eh? You've only shown "convection' at the top of the photosphere, and movement of plasma below that layer that is 100 times *slower* than your model "predicted". Denial, denial, and more denial.

What is maybe 11 years of ignorance of solar physics is making the claim back in 2005 when a glance of an astrophysics textbook will tell your that the convection zone of the Sun makes that impossible.

In 2005 they were spewing convection numbers that were 100 times *wrong*.

For the last four years you've been living in pure denial of *key flaws* in your beliefs related to solar physics and pretending to know anything about plasma when you've claimed that discharges are "impossible" in plasma, and "reconnection" requires no transfer of energy! Oy Vey.

 

[Michael]

This is only what you have been imagining that you have been seeing for the last 11 years.
What you actually looked at was images of solar flares thousands of kilometers above the photosphere (the TRACE running difference movie) and Doppler measurements of plasma rising and falling as pointed out by the astronomer who produced them!

As much as you'd love to believe otherwise, coronal loops are not two dimensional features in the solar atmosphere, instead they are *three* dimensional features that last for *hours*, meaning they're actually three dimensions plus time. For those *hours* on end, circuits light up the solar atmosphere, all over the solar atmosphere. Birkeland even simulated that feature in his lab.

They even leave their heat and magnetic field signatures on the surface of the photosphere in real time as anyone can see in SDO images. There is not magic 'transition layer' where they begin, they begin far *beneath* the surface of the photosphere and some of them are large enough to rise *through* the surface of the photosphere. Those which are that large leave their heat signatures in 1600A and magnetic field signatures in magnetogram images.

Birkeland knew more about solar atmospheric physics than mainstream astrophysicists to this day. They keep playing with "pseudoscience" in terms of the math, all of which was made obsolete by Alfven's double layer paper.

 

[Michael]

13 December 2016 Michael: Why does the measured convection in the Sun not destroy your "layers"?
Anomalously weak solar convection by Hanasoge et. al. and published in 2012.

Because it's not occurring at "fast" speeds as you claimed beneath the "rigid" surface, it's got *slow* movements of mass, mostly related to current flow through the surface.

Any actual "convection" we observe at the surface of the photosphere is related to heat released above the rigid surface, and below the surface of the photosphere.

And since you mention neutrinos:
13 December 2016 Michael: Does your model of the Sun produce the observed neutrino flux from fusion?

You evidently never listened to my answer RC because I've told you repeatedly, that Birkeland's model is internally powered, and probably from fusion.

The problem with answering yes is that the known laws of physics means that the core of the Sun is millions of degrees hot

So what? The core of our own planet is hotter than the surface too.

and so the Sun's temperature most cool as heat is transferred by radiation and convection to its surface which has a measured temperature of ~5700 K.

Only the surface of the photosphere is that temperature, but it's not the "coolest" layer in a Birkeland cathode solar model RC. It's just *another layer*, not unlike the 20,000 degree chromosphere that sits *above* the photosphere.

Thus goodbye to your "solid/rigid iron surface/crust/layer" or whatever you are calling it today.

You keep ignoring the additional atmospheric layers in Birkeland's model, and the fact that *much cooler* plasma is routinely observed in sunspots, *thousands* of degrees cooler in fact.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Because ...

"your" is not spelt "Birkeland"! Read the title of this thread.
13 December 2016 Michael: Why does the measured convection in the Sun not destroy your "layers"?
13 December 2016 Michael: Does your model of the Sun produce the observed neutrino flux from fusion?

The assertions addressed in another forum have sort of surfaced (pun intended) again, e.g. an imaginary "cool atmosphere of silicon plasma that allows the solids to form a crust". The measured temperature of the photosphere is ~5700 K which is above the melting and boing point of iron and other elements!
18th May 2010 Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked

8 July 2009 Michael: Can you show that the solid iron surface in your idea is thermodynamically possible?

That is the solid iron surface either

• would not have heated up to the temperature of the surrounding layers in the last ~4 billion years and vaporized or
• the temperature of the surrounding layers are < 2000 K.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You keep ignoring the additional atmospheric layers in Birkeland's model, ...

An aside:
19 January 2017 Michael: Cite the additional atmospheric layers that Birkeland wrote about in his model.
That sounds like a fantasy that someone attached to his invalid idea that the Sun is a cathode in his book.

 

[Michael]

The really amazing thing is ignorance about solar physics and the Sun hidden in that single word "layered" !
It is chromosphere surrounded by transition region surrounded by corona. These are not distinct layers. They merge with each other.

The really amazing thing about debating you is the fact you almost exclusively resort to the use of strawmen, insults and personal attacks rather than discussing physics. It's obvious that you don't understand the physics because you tried to leave out the plasma entirely, so apparently you have to resort to childish insults.

Are you still ignorant of MHD theory, or did you bother to finally read a real textbook on the topic RC?

Nobody every claimed that the layers were not "mixed together" to some degree in Birkeland's plasma layered model too. You constantly go out of your way to *misrepresent* my statements and my website, just like you constantly misrepresent Dungey, Peratt, Somov and everyone else.

 

[Michael]

The inanity of citing a climate change denial web site instead of the scientific literature, Michael.

The citation to the published and peer reviewed paper is listed in the article, and your beloved Bridgman seemed to be willing to post on that website RC. The source itself is published and it *defied* and destroys your so called "predictions" by a whopping factor of 100 times! That's two entire orders of magnitude!

Rather than address the points, you're trying to attack the messenger. How sadly predictable.

This is the paper: Anomalously weak solar convection by Hanasoge et. al. and published in 2012.

What is scientific progress is finding a probable flaw in the computer modeling of convection in the Sun by measurements of convection in the Sun.

You missed the mark by two whole orders of magnitude RC, and those "currents" were supposed to be producing the big "magnetic fields" you're trying to use to produce "magnetic reconnection" with. You've got a two order of magnitude problem with your atmospheric power source.

You don't even want to acknowledge the severity of the problem!

What is ignorant

For a guy that refuses to read a textbook on MHD theory before trying to debate "magnetic reconnection" in cyberspace, you really toss out a lot of loaded language and personal insults.

Is that really all you know how to do? Wouldn't your time be more productively spent reading an actual textbook so that you can grasp the idea that MHD theory is all about *plasma* and the transfer of magnetic field energy into *plasma particle movement*?

is claiming that there are layers in the Sun and then citing the measurement of convection in the Sun that should go through those "layers".

Mass movement in the form of current is taking place in any Birkeland cathode solar model RC. When are you going to embrace that reality?

What is maybe 11 years of ignorance of solar physics is making the claim back in 2005 when a glance of an astrophysics textbook will tell your that the convection zone of the Sun makes that impossible.

Nothing of the sort is true. *If* your convection predictions had actually *matched* the measured convection, you might have an argument. As it stands, your own model is falsified, and you've never revised over four years and counting. Tick, tick, tick.....

Birkeland's model *requires* massive amounts of mass movement to occur as current flows for the core and from lower layers of the sun up to the surface and out into space on a *constant* basis. In no way could a Birkeland model not contain mass movement up into the upper atmospheres of the sun.

 

[Michael]

An aside:
19 January 2017 Michael: Cite the additional atmospheric layers that Birkeland wrote about in his model.
That sounds like a fantasy that someone attached to his invalid idea that the Sun is a cathode in his book.

Birkeland didn't describe a plasma separated model, nor did I ever claim that he did. Adding atmospheric plasma layers doesn't fundamentally change anything else about the physics of his model, and we can already see how it lights up the corona in the *simplest* of models.

 

[Aryeh]

Michael asked me to start a new thread about his solar model
so here it is .

Unless Michael has come up with a new solar model in the last few months then this is his idea that the Sun has a rigid iron crust.
Here is his web site: The surface of the Sun. The sun has a rigid iron surface located under the photosphere that is revealed by satellite imagery The solar surface sits beneath the sun's visible photosphere and is electrically active.

There are many problems with this idea starting with the little fact that the photosphere is defined as the region where light escapes from the Sun. Thus by definition you can not see light from "under the photosphere" !
The opacity of the photosphere means that you cannot even see more than 100 kilometers below the top of the photosphere. Astronomers have tried really hard to look as deep as they can into the photosphere and that is the limit that physics stops them at.

The next problem is that the temperature of the photosphere is ~5700 K as he admits here (but will probably retract) and the mainstream evidence supports. The melting point of Fe is 1811 K. So no iron surface can exist, rigid or not.

So let us see if Michael presents an actual model and predictions.

Have you seen a phase diagram?

You can have, for example, "ice" at 100k can exist as a liquid under enough pressure. Or, ice can exist at 300K can exist in the absence of enough pressure.

If we assume a stellar structure is overwhelmingly massive from the radius to the center, then the core absolutely can be rigid iron.

Also, a plasma can be "rigid," especially under the right EM conditions (Yukawa.)

 

[Michael]

"your" is not spelt "Birkeland"! Read the title of this thread.

Since I never claimed to take credit for Birkeland's cathode solar model, you're now putting words in my mouth. I never claimed it was "my" model to begin with. Do you ever tell the truth or is the constant smear campaign your only "trick"?

13 December 2016 Michael: Why does the measured convection in the Sun not destroy your "layers"?

Like all the things on your lists, I've explained it to you several times. Mass movement of charged particles is a *requirement* of Birkeland's model, through *all* the solar layers, without exception.

There must be some mass movement if only in the form of electrons from the core and lower solar depths, toward the surface and out into space. Movement of mass is a *prediction* of this model.

13 December 2016 Michael: Does your model of the Sun produce the observed neutrino flux from fusion?

Yep. Birkeland called it a "transmutation of elements". I'd assume that fusion takes place in Bennett Pinches flowing both inside and outside of the sun.

The assertions addressed in another forum have sort of surfaced (pun intended) again, e.g. an imaginary "cool atmosphere of silicon plasma that allows the solids to form a crust". The measured temperature of the photosphere is ~5700 K which is above the melting and boing point of iron and other elements!

Plasma that is measured to be *thousands* of degrees cooler than the surface of the photosphere have been observed during sunspot activity which fully supports the conclusion that more dense, cooler plasma layers may exist under the surface of the photosphere. The chromosphere is also much hotter than the surface of the more dense photosphere. So what?
I'll simply ignore the links to yourself. Even the SAFFIRE experiments found that the surface of the sphere itself was cooler than the surrounding plasma.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Like all the things on your lists, I've explained it to you several times.

Fantasies are not answers.
You have layers. We have measured convection currents mixing up the Sun's interior. So you need to explain how these currents of plasma through your layers do not destroy the layers.
Birkeland died before fusion was discovered ! His "transmutation of elements" is radioactivity, e.g. from radium.
Birkeland currents do not produce fusion.

Another fantasy so:
8 February 2017 Michael: Cite the measurement of solar plasma in or below the photosphere cooler than the melting point of Fe.
Melting point because you claim "iron mountain ranges", iron surface/crust/layer/whatever you imagine today.

In the real world:

• The measured temperature of the photosphere is ~5700 K.
• The measured composition of the photosphere is mostly H and He with traces of other elements.
• The lowest temperatures of the photosphere are the ~3000 K of sunspots. Sunspots are not a layer covering the surface of the Sun !
• Fusion at the core means that the temperature of the interior of the Sun is hotter than the photosphere.
• The chromosphere is part of the solar atmosphere, not solar body. The cause of its increasing temperature as with the transition region above it has not been definitely determined.

13 December 2016 Michael: Why does the measured convection in the Sun not destroy your "layers"?
13 December 2016 Michael: Does your model of the Sun produce the observed neutrino flux from fusion?

At ISF: 18th May 2010 Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked

8 July 2009 Michael: Can you show that the solid iron surface in your idea is thermodynamically possible?

 

[Michael]

Fantasies are not answers.

Ad homs aren't arguments. My beliefs work in the lab RC:

Wake me up when you can replicate that aurora and a that corona with "magnetic reconnection" in a real lab experiment.

You have layers. We have measured convection currents mixing up the Sun's interior.

You have *walking speed* movement of charged particles which don't even have to be ions for that matter!

So you need to explain how these currents of plasma through your layers do not destroy the layers.

It's called *current flow* RC. That doesn't necessarily "destroy" a solid. Get the idea?

Birkeland died before fusion was discovered ! His "transmutation of elements" is radioactivity, e.g. from radium.

Well, that may be the closest thing to an "true" statement I've ever heard you utter. It's true that he died before fusion was discovered, but I'm sure he would have switched gears quickly once he found out.

Birkeland currents do not produce fusion.

False.

I'm basically going to ignore all your nonsense about iron. I don't even *need* that surface to be a "solid" RC, and you know it. You're just bearing false witness against me again, just like you do to everyone in the EU/PC community. It's your "thing" evidently?

What's wrong RC? Did you get bored today or what?

 

[Michael]

When can I expect to see you produce a published author that ever claimed that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma? Never!

 

[RealityCheck01]

10 February 2017 Michael: Why do the measured convection currents at temperatures of > ~5700 K not melt your layers?
This is not the fantasy of "iron mountain ranges", iron surface/crust/layer/"whatever you imagine today" on the surface of the Sun which is the photosphere. This is all of the other imaginary layers.

The gibberish of It's called *current flow* RC. That doesn't necessarily "destroy" a solid when we are talking about the flow of plasma (electrons and ions) implies you think all of your layers are solid !

8 February 2017 Michael: Cite the measurement of solar plasma in or below the photosphere cooler than the melting point of Fe.

13 December 2016 Michael: Why does the measured convection in the Sun not destroy your "layers"?
13 December 2016 Michael: Does your model of the Sun produce the observed neutrino flux from fusion?

At ISF: 18th May 2010 Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked
8 July 2009 Michael: Can you show that the solid iron surface in your idea is thermodynamically possible?

 

[Michael]

10 February 2017 Michael: Why do the measured convection currents at temperatures of > ~5700 K not melt your layers?

That relatively "hot" plasma corona around the solid sphere doesn't melt the sphere because it's not "opaque" enough or dense enough to hold enough heat to have any great effect on a much more dense "crust". The same physics applies to Birkeland's model in the real world.

This is not the fantasy of "iron mountain ranges", iron surface/crust/layer/"whatever you imagine today" on the surface of the Sun which is the photosphere.

Apparently you have some *fantasy* that Birkeland's model doesn't work in the lab, but it does. It's not a "fantasy" RC, it's a *working model* of the solar model described on my website.

The various *plasma* layers have various temperatures. The corona is *hotter* than the layer below it, and the chromosphere is *hotter* than the layer below the chromosphere too. Particle flow occurs through *all* the plasma layers, not just the photosphere.

This is all of the other imaginary layers.

You mean the chromosphere and corona are "imaginary" layers in your model too?

The gibberish of It's called *current flow* RC. That doesn't necessarily "destroy" a solid when we are talking about the flow of plasma (electrons and ions) implies you think all of your layers are solid !

The only "gibberish" is coming out of your mouth because Birkeland built a *working model*. You could *never* get a full corona out of "magnetic reconnection" even you actually understood what that term really meant.

8 February 2017 Michael: Cite the measurement of solar plasma in or below the photosphere cooler than the melting point of Fe.

I'll jump right on that request for you right *after* I see your missing math homework assignment from *five full years ago*!

For anyone reading along, we routinely observe *lower* temperatures in sunspots because plasma layers under the surface of the photosphere are cooler than the photosphere, just as the photosphere is cooler than the chromosphere, and the chromosphere is cooler than the corona.

I have answered all of your questions *countless* times, and each and every time you simply ignore the answer, and repeat your question. It's like talking to a deaf person with a bad attitude. I'm wasting my breath and we both know it. You don't even care about the answers in the first place because you are not looking for knowledge, you're looking for a fight.

I think you dug up every thread again tonight, so I guess it's stalker night at CRUS.