Micheal's solar model

[Michael]

For anyone who is really interested in Birkeland's (not mine) solar model, this two minute video is an *excellent* introduction to Birkeland's cathode solar model.

This two minute video explains all the basic concepts, including the heat source of the corona (current flow from the cathode surface) and the "cause" of planetary aurora which we find around *many* planets in our solar system.

The constant particle flow from the sun is a form of kinetic energy, and it tends to heat up the "atmosphere" of both the sun and the Earth's aurora. That constant flow of current is the heat source of the upper atmosphere of the sun which is how and why the outside layers can be hotter than the inside ones. The surface of the sphere itself can be *much* cooler than the hot thin plasma which is surrounding the sphere.

 

[RealityCheck01]

For anyone who is really interested in Birkeland's (not mine) solar model, this two minute video is an *excellent* introduction to Birkeland's cathode solar model.

14 February 2017 Michael: A lie that a video is about the irrelevant Birkeland's cathode solar model.
The Planeterrella - Polar Light Simulation

Dr Gabrielle Provan of the University of Leicester Physics & Astronomy department demonstrates how Aurora Borealis (or the Northern Lights) are created.

Using a Planeterrella designed by CNRS scientist Jean Lilensten she recreates Kristian Birkeland's 100+ year old experiment. Showing how charged particles within solar winds coming from our Sun collide with atoms in the Earth's atmosphere to create a natural light display.

The narrator has the history slightly wrong. Birkeland's experiments used a version of the terrella which has been around for 300 years. He added a vacuum chamber. He had a single sphere, not have 2 spheres as in a planeterralla.

Nowhere is any "cathode solar model" mentioned.

The large sphere merely generates the electron component of the solar wind to interact with the smaller sphere. A pity that the proton component cannot also be generated because that is also interesting aurora physics.

 

[RealityCheck01]

That relatively "hot" plasma corona ..

You need to revise your understanding of the Sun - the corona is not convection currents inside the body of the Sun !
10 February 2017 Michael: Why do the measured convection currents at temperatures of > ~5700 K not melt your layers?
This is addition to the measured convection currents mixing up the convection zone plasma and destroying his imaginary layers (see below).

14 February 2017 Michael: Does not address the "It's called *current flow*" gibberish implying his layers are solid, e.g. solid iron layer, solid silicon layer, solid neon layer, etc.
This is the basic fact that convection currents have been measured in the Sun's convection zone where he imagines Fe, Si, Ne, etc. layers to be.

Fantasies not addressing questions are not answers to:
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]

14 February 2017 Michael: A lie that a video is about the irrelevant Birkeland's cathode solar model.
The Planeterrella - Polar Light Simulation

Evidently you think that as it relates to science you get to subjectively play the role of God, and decide 'truth', and then you get to call everyone a "liar" who disagrees with you. What a completely *unethical* way to debate *any* topic!

The only lies are the one's that you keep repeating. Birkeland's model simply and easily explains the sun's corona, and the planetary aurora, and unlike your nonsense, his ideas *work in the lab*!

Nowhere is any "cathode solar model" mentioned.

So what? They got the wiring right and that's why it works too.

The large sphere merely generates the electron component of the solar wind to interact with the smaller sphere. A pity that the proton component cannot also be generated because that is also interesting aurora physics.

Actually it's a pity that you keep squandering all public funds on invisible snipe hunts instead of building upon his *working model*.

 

[Michael]

You need to revise your understanding of the Sun - the corona is not convection currents inside the body of the Sun !

It is a *lie* to suggest I even made that claim in the first place! You have exactly *zero* ethics. You simply *lie* about what I actually said in virtually every single post, and then you have the utter audacity to claim that *I* lied! Wow!

By your definition of a lie, you *lied* about the sun having fast convection, and you just lied about what I said! What have you ever said about EU/PC theory that was actually true?

I've answered all your other questions *repeatedly* and you simply ignore the answers

 

[RealityCheck01]

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.

For people interested in the real world:
14 February 2017 Michael: A ignorant fantasy denies the real mechanism for sunspot cooling!
There is no evidence of "plasma layers" except in his imagination.
There is no evidence that this imaginary plasma layers are cooler than the photosphere except in his imagination.
Basic astrophysics shows that the temperature inside a body of a star has to increase with depth. There has to be higher temperatures to create higher pressures to support the increasing mass of plasma above as depth increases.

A lie by omission - the photosphere and parts of the solar atmosphere are

1. Photosphere - about 5,777 K
2. temperature minimum region - about 4,100 K
3. chromosphere - 4,100 K to 20,000 K
4. transition region - 20,000 K to abut 1,000,000 K
5. corona - average of 1,000,000–2,000,000 K; with hottest regions of 8,000,000–20,000,000 K

There is no steady decrease of temperature down into the photosphere.

This is a 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. Sunspots usually appear in pairs of opposite magnetic polarity.[2] Their number varies according to the approximately 11-year solar cycle.

Convection mixes up the top 3rd of the Sun: Convection zone. The obvious signature of this is granules which are the top of convective cells. These mix up the surface of the Sun so that the surface should be roughly the same temperature. But sunspots vane concentrations of magnetic fields which inhibit convection. That allows a sunspot to radiate heat without being replenished quickly by convection. Thus sunspots are cooler then the surrounding plasma.

 

[RealityCheck01]

It is...

It is:
14 February 2017 Michael: Ignorantly replied to a question about convection currents inside the Sun with irrelevant corona and aurora stuff.
The question:
10 February 2017 Michael: Why do the measured convection currents at temperatures of > ~5700 K not melt your layers?
The ignorant reply about relatively "hot" plasma corona with the irrelevant video about an aurora simulator.

ETA:
14 February 2017 Michael: A lie that a video is about the irrelevant Birkeland's cathode solar model when it is not mentioned.

 

[Michael]

For people interested in the real world:
14 February 2017 Michael: A ignorant fantasy denies the real mechanism for sunspot cooling!

Notice how RC is trying to play the role of 'science god'? He decides what is 'truth', and any and every other theory about the sun, or cosmology is labeled an 'ignorant fantasy" simply so he can engage himself in personal attack and sleazy debate tactics. Does anyone wonder why the mainstream is still wallowing around in "dark" ignorance?

There is no evidence of "plasma layers" except in his imagination.

Even the mainstream claims there's a photosphere, a chromosphere, a 'transition layer' (which doesn't even exist) and a corona. That's four layers right there. Apparently the maintream is imaginary too.

There is no evidence that this imaginary plasma layers are cooler than the photosphere except in his imagination.

Except of course that the corona is known to be hotter than the chromosphere which known to be hotter than the photosphere which is known to be hotter than plasma inside sunspots.

Basic astrophysics shows that the temperature inside a body of a star has to increase with depth.

False. Only *your solar theory* requires that to be true. Birkeland's *working* model has a *cooler* surface than the surrounding blue plasma.

There has to be higher temperatures to create higher pressures to support the increasing mass of plasma above as depth increases.

Again, that only applies to *your* model oh great science diety.

In case you don't get it yet, your model, and your *theory* (not proven fact) is irrelevant to Birkeland's solar model. His model is *different* from your model, and his model is not obligated to have exactly the same "predictions" that your model has.

 

[Michael]

This is a sunspot

Convection mixes up the top 3rd of the Sun: Convection zone. The obvious signature of this is granules which are the top of convective cells. These mix up the surface of the Sun so that the surface should be roughly the same temperature. But sunspots vane concentrations of magnetic fields which inhibit convection. That allows a sunspot to radiate heat without being replenished quickly by convection. Thus sunspots are cooler then the surrounding plasma.

Correction: That is a sunspot "theory", it is not "truth", and RC isn't the science god and the definer of 'truth'.

In Birkeland's sunspot model there is simply another cooler plasma layer located under the surface of the photophere and occasionally that cooler plasma rises up an through the surface of the photophere during intense coronal loop activity. That is a completely different sunspot *theory* which would apply to Birkeland's solar model rather than the standard solar model.

 

[Michael]

It is:

Do you ever tell the truth?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yes:
14 February 2017 Michael: Ignorantly replied to a question about convection currents inside the Sun with irrelevant corona and aurora stuff.
14 February 2017 Michael: A ignorant fantasy with a lie by omission denies the real mechanism for sunspot cooling!

Anyone can view that video and see the truth of 14 February 2017 Michael: A lie that a video is about the irrelevant Birkeland's cathode solar model when it is not mentioned.

 

[RealityCheck01]

That is a sunspot "theory",..

That is the scientific theory of sunspots based on empirical evidence.
What we have from you is a physically impossible story about sunspots exposing cooler plasma with no empirical evidence and a small lie by emission. But you can fix that:
14 February 2017 Michael: Is the temperature of the temperature minimum greater than the photosphere?
An honest answer will just leave a fantasy with no empirical evidence.

14 February 2017 Michael: A ignorant fantasy with a lie by omission denies the real mechanism for sunspot cooling!

14 February 2017 Michael: Does not address the "It's called *current flow*" gibberish implying his layers are solid, e.g. solid iron layer, solid silicon layer, solid neon layer, etc.

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

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]

That is the scientific theory of sunspots based on empirical evidence.

Beats me. I've never seen you use magical magnetic field lines to supposedly cool off 6000 thousand degee plasma by thousands of degree for hours on end in a lab. If so, show your work. Everything I've red so far sounds like a complete handwave: "Trust us, it's possible".

What we have from you is a physically impossible story about sunspots exposing cooler plasma with no empirical evidence

Ooopss you told a lie since sunspots have been observed to be cooler than the surrounding plasma.

Why do you keep asking the same questions and ignoring my answers. Is this a real conversation or is this just pure harassment? You keep dragging up the threads to ask questions I've already answered, in some case *multiple* times.

I'm not telling 'lie' simply because I don't agree with you. Get over yourself oh great verbally abusive physics deity.

You aren't the "keeper of the truth". In fact you aren't even interested in an honest scientific debate or any of my answers.

 

[Michael]

RC, I've been around the internet for over 10 years debating a myriad of different ideas on many topics, and I've never met anyone as unethical as you. You've called me a liar every time you've posted here simply because I disagree with you. It doesn't matter what the topic has been, or whether you were actually correct, you simply called things "lies" because you didn't agree with them. You're verbally abusive. You're a two bit bully, and you're incapable of being truthful about Thornhill's neutrino predictions, Somovs *inclusion* of charged particles or Dungey's demonstration that electrical discharges are *possible* in plasma. You still don't have any useful math to support your nonsense, and you keep going around in circles simply to engage yourself in personal harassment and while you continuously bear false witness against everyone associated with EU/PC theory. I've never met anyone on the internet with less ethics than you.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Ooopss you told a lie since sunspots have been observed to be cooler than the surrounding plasma.

15 February 2017 Michael: A lie that I did not state that sunspots have been observed to be cooler than the surrounding plasma.
Here is the Wikipedia article yet again: Sunspot

The point was that you, Michael, yourself, not anyone else have a fantasy that there is a cooler plasma layer that sunspots expose and that you have no empirical evidence for that cooler plasma layer.

 

[RealityCheck01]

RC, I've been around the internet for over 10 years, ....

Insults do not make the over 11 year old delusion of "iron mountain ranges" on the surface of the Sun based on images of hydrogen + helium + etc. plasma thousand of kilometers above the surface any less deluded, Michael.
Not displaying ignorance would help.
Showing that you can learn about the Sun would help, e.g. a stable star has a temperature that increases with depth within its body.
Learning that a scientific model is not a series of "I see bunnies in the clouds" assertions would help.
Providing empirical evidence for "iron mountain ranges/iron layer/iron crust/iron whatever" would definitely help.

I called the omission the temperature minimum a lie by omission because anyone who learns about the Sun knows that the temperature above the photosphere decreases to the temperature minimum and then increases. You did not list the temperature minimum. You must have a comprehensive knowledge of the Sun or at least have read the Wikipedia article on the Sun ! That implies the omission is a lie.

But I have given you a chance to turn that omission into a mistake:
14 February 2017 Michael: Is the temperature of the temperature minimum greater than the photosphere?

14 February 2017 Michael: A ignorant fantasy with a lie by omission denies the real mechanism for sunspot cooling!

14 February 2017 Michael: Does not address the "It's called *current flow*" gibberish implying his layers are solid, e.g. solid iron layer, solid silicon layer, solid neon layer, etc.

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

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]

15 February 2017 Michael: A lie that I did not state that sunspots have been observed to be cooler than the surrounding plasma.
Here is the Wikipedia article yet again: Sunspot

The point was that you, Michael, yourself, not anyone else have a fantasy that there is a cooler plasma layer that sunspots expose and that you have no empirical evidence for that cooler plasma layer.

That is false. The mere presence of cooler plasma in sunspots is evidence of cooler layers *in Birkeland's model*!

Despite what you think, you don't get to decide what is a "lie" and what is not a lie based upon your own personal *opinions* and *biases*.

 

[Michael]

Insults do not make ...

Insults do not make Birkeland's terella experiments go away RC:

That *surface* in that model is cooler than the atmospheric plasma RC. Deal with it. Furthermore his model is not based upon the same *principles* as the standard model.

As long as you keep pretending to be the 'keeper or truth', you will never correctly understand *any* EU/PC solar model.

Does Juergen's, Alfven's, or Birkeland's solar model predict "no" neutrinos RC, yes or no?

 

[Michael]

14 February 2017 Michael: A ignorant fantasy with a lie by omission denies the real mechanism for sunspot cooling!

The fact that I do not believe your handwaves about magnetic lines supposedly heating plasma to millions of degrees above sunspots, somehow magically cool the plasma thousands of degrees. You have *never* demonstrated such a thing in the lab, and you never could demonstrate that claim in a lab, so you have no right whatsoever to claim to know what the 'real' mechanism might be. You have a *theory*, and *idea* of what it might be. I have a different one. That doesn't automatically make you right and me wrong, nor does it make either idea a "lie".

You cheat at debate at every turn. You have zero ethics in debate, none at all.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The fact that I do not believe your handwaves about magnetic lines supposedly heating plasma to millions of degrees above sunspots, somehow magically cool the plasma thousands of degrees..

You do insist on digging yourself even deeper into a pit of ignorance, Michael.
16 February 2017 Michael: Thinks magnetic fields cooling sunspots has to do with the proposed mechanisms to heat the corona!

16 February 2017 Michael: Is magnetic reconnection in plasma (a proposed coronal heating mechanism) impossible or hand waving?
16 February 2017 Michael: Are Alfvén waves (a proposed coronal heating mechanism) impossible or hand waving?

14 February 2017 Michael: A ignorant fantasy with a lie by omission denies the real mechanism for sunspot cooling!

For others:
The cooling of sunspots is via magnetic fields inhibiting convection. The higher magnetic field strength of a sunspot makes the plasma more viscous. An analogy would be a drop of oil on water where water and oil drop do not mix. If a sunspot was separate from its surrounding plasma (it is not!) then it would radiate energy and cool down to whatever temperature would be supplied by radiation that plasma. Now add mixing by convection. Normal mixing would raise the sunspot up to the average temperature. Smaller mixing raises the sunspot up to a smaller temperature.

Two proposed mechanisms for coronal heating which both have observational support are magnetic reconnection in the (which Michael believes in !) and Alfvén waves (Michael has cited Hannes Alfvén).