Micheal's solar model

[RealityCheck01]

At ISF: 18th May 2010 Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked
His solar "model" is 13 years and counting of

1. An "iron mountain ranges on the Sun" delusion.
2. Denial of the theory and evidence that the Sun has a convective zone (observed convection cells and from 2012 currents!) and thus no layers in its outer third.
3. The delusion that taking a running difference of images turns images of a solar flare in the corona (solar atmosphere!) into iron mountain ridges on the Sun's surface.
4. A lie that some TRACE images of the solar corona thousands of kilometers above the surface of the Sun are "of the sun's surface".

However Michael is insisting in adding another delusion to the model.
This is Kristian Birkeland. His main success was showing that aurora are (mainly) caused by currents now named after him: Birkeland currents. We know about the component of the aurora that he may not have known about - the light emitted by protons exciting atoms.

He had a primitive solar model in his book that scientists know today was understandably wrong and thus ignore. A radioactivity (e.g. from radium) powered Sun that emitted only electrons travelling almost the speed of light which hit the Earth, thus aurora. Radium and other "radio-elements" as a source of energy from "disintegration" first appears on page 314 in the "THE SOURCE OF THE SUN'S HEAT" chapter.
A newspaper report also has him stating that the Sun is a cathode in a lecture.
Nuclear fusion as a source of the Sun's energy was not proposed until 1920, 3 years after Birkeland's death.

Today

• We know that the Sun is powered by fusion at its center.
• We know that the Sun emits a neutral solar wind that is both ions (mostly protons) and electrons.
• We know that the solar wind has a speed much slower than the speed of light (fast solar wind ~750 km/s, c = 299,792 km/s).

The delusion is about what the Planeterrella is. Anyone who can understand English will read that The Planeterrella - Polar Light Simulation is a demonstration or reproduction of Birkeland's aurora model.

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 Planeterrella: an amazing polar light simulator states that the device is available for school demonstrations.

 

[RealityCheck01]

More personal ad hom insults and pure nonsense too. ...

It is not an ad hom to state that people demonstrating ignorance and delusions as in the couple of many examples that I gave are ignorant and deluded.

The EU authors Talbott and Thornhill are ignorant and deluded about astronomy. For example they have the delusion that comets are rocks blasted from the surface of planets by electrical discharges from other planets in recent time! They have a fantasy about the Sun not being fusion powered at the core according to Findlay in his book. That means that the Sun is a white dwarf star, not the star that we observe (see below).

David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill are ignorant and deluded because they write ignorance and delusions.
David Talbott wrote the "The Saturn Myth" book with the delusion that old myths trumps physics so "within human memory extraordinary changes in the planetary system occurred" and "Accounts of Saturn's appearance suggest that the planet hung ominously close to the earth".

The delusion that "Grand Canyons" are blasted out by electrical discharges because of spiral galaxy fantasies!

The delusion that craters are the result of electrical discharges mainly because they are extremely ignorant about how craters are created from impacts.

They both have the "comets are rocks blasted from the surface of planets by electrical discharges from other planets in recent times" delusion.

Thornhill is documented on the Thunderbolts web site as lying for 13 years about confirmed predictions for the Deep Impact mission. This is their Predictions Confirmed page. For example there is the lie that a flash was detected before impact when there was a flash on impact and a flash after impact as predicted by experiments. Each "confirmation" by a press release of scientists reacting is a lie (comments similar to "wow that was bright"!).

Thornhill and maybe Talbott has the delusion that gravity is electromagnetic, e.g. from a blog article in 2008 "Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons". Thornhill still has this delusion since he presented it at a recent EU conference.

Their denial of GR is abysmal ignorance that GR has passed every test that we have thrown at it from the bending of light by the Sun to detection of gravitational waves.

An easy way to see the wide extent of ignorance and delusions from Thornhill (which may be or may be not shared with Talbott) is to read his blog. For example an article unchanged since 2001 is the delusion that solar neutrinos have not been detected after the announcement that they had been detected !
N.B. That article starts with Thornhill explaining why the laws of physics means that Sun (and stars in general) has to have an internal heat source but

Donald Scott is at least ignorant about stars. However we do not know whether he is deluded enough to believe that comets are rocks blasted from the surface of planets by electrical discharges from other planets in recent times, deny GR, etc.
On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis which includes:

Helioseismological data pins dowm the interior temperature quite nicely, as high as about 15,000,000 Kelvins in the deep solar core (see "Solar Models: current epoch and time dependences, neutrinos, and helioseismological properties.", Bahcall, Pinsonneault & Basu, 17 October 2000).

The Electric Sky, Short-circuited (PDF) by W.T. Bridgman
D. E. Scott Rebuts T. Bridgman (PDF)
W. T. Bridgman replies on his blog: More comments on "The Electric Sky, Short-Circuited"

 

[Michael]

It is not an ad hom to state that people demonstrating ignorance and delusions as in the couple of many examples that I gave are ignorant and deluded.

David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill are ignorant and deluded because they write ignorance and delusions.

In that case you've consistently demonstrated your own severe ignorance and delusion with respect to the neutrino predictions of their solar model, of the temperature gradients of Birkeland's model, of electrical discharges in plasma, of the term 'magnetic reconection", of Olber's lame paradox, etc, etc, etc. Who are you to talk about ignorance and delusions after claiming that their EU/PC solar model predicts 'no neutrino"? Talk about stuffing you own foot in your mouth....

David Talbott wrote the "The Saturn Myth" book with the delusion that old myths trumps physics so "within human memory extraordinary changes in the planetary system occurred" and "Accounts of Saturn's appearance suggest that the planet hung ominously close to the earth".

So what? You folks wrote a ton of papers claiming that solar convection occurred a jet speeds only to find out your model is now toast!

The delusion that "Grand Canyons" are blasted out by electrical discharges because of spiral galaxy fantasies!

Well, admittedly that one seems rather far fetched IMO too, but no more far fetched than your convection nonsense or your denial of electrical discharges in plasma after being handed Dungey's paper on that topic.

The delusion that craters are the result of electrical discharges mainly because they are extremely ignorant about how craters are created from impacts.

At least the know that Juergens' solar model produces neutrinos.

Thornhill is documented on the Thunderbolts web site as lying for 13 years about confirmed predictions for the Deep Impact mission.

You folk are documented to have lied about the speed of convection for *decades*. So what?

You're now hijacking a thread about a *cathode* solar model to attempt to bash Thornhill and he doesn't even support a cathode model in the first place! Stop hijacking the thread Mr. "no neutrinos".

 

[Michael]

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

The entire ISF crew failed to produce that missing math formula that your promised me, and that I asked you for. They never set anyone straight over that "no neutrino" nonsense either so your "homies" aren't exactly "experts" in on EU/PC theory in the first place. Have you even read a book on MHD theory yet?

His solar "model" is 13 years and counting of

You keep falsely trying to give me personal credit for *Birkeland's* cathode solar model, and his model is now over a *century* old, not just 13 years. You're constantly showing your own delusions and your own ignorance of this topic.

Apparently your whole basis of trying to write off a *working model* is based on what you heard on some lame website where most of the cited posts come from *you personally*.

We've been over your list *dozens* of times yet you engage in the same useless gish-gallop routine. Why do you even dig up these threads if you don't care about my answers?

1. An "iron mountain ranges on the Sun" delusion.

You can't explain the persistent structures seen in iron ion running difference images, but I sure can.

1. Denial of the theory and evidence that the Sun has a convective

False. Birkeland's model *requires* mass movement of current toward the surface so it wouldn't work without mass movement. Your in denial of the fact that your model *failed* those mass movement predictions.

1. zone (observed convection cells and from 2012 currents!) and thus no layers in its outer third.

False. The convection cells are generated by heat released between the rigid cathode surface and the surface of the photosphere. That heat has nothing to do with your 1 percent of convection speeds under the cathode.

1. The delusion that taking a running difference of images turns images of a solar flare in the corona (solar atmosphere!) into iron mountain ridges on the Sun's surface.

I've yet to hear you explain a single RD image or the rigid features in those images RC.

1. A lie that some TRACE images of the solar corona thousands of kilometers above the surface of the Sun are "of the sun's surface".

It's unethical of you to assume your own model is "true" and call every other interpretation of those images a "lie". That's just your own ego running amuck and it's a demonstration of the unethical nature of your tirades.

However Michael is insisting in adding another delusion to the model. This is Kristian Birkeland. His main success was showing that aurora are (mainly) caused by currents now named after him: Birkeland currents. We know about the component of the aurora that he may not have known about - the light emitted by protons exciting atoms.

I'm pretty sure he knew about exited atoms RC.

He had a primitive solar model in his book

No, he had a *working*, advanced, well thought through model with which he made *numerous* correct predictions about the sun, including coronal loops, polar jets, both types of charged particles in solar wind, cathode rays, a hot full sphere corona, etc.

Your model is so primitive you can't even generate and sustain a full sphere corona in a lab, or cathode rays.

that scientists know today was understandably wrong and thus ignore.

Most of them don't know anything about it, and neither do you. What you *think* you know is simply wrong and misguided.

A radioactivity (e.g. from radium) powered Sun that emitted only electrons travelling almost the speed of light which hit the Earth, thus aurora.

See, there's proof positive that you're clueless about his model because he didn't just predict electrons came from the sun, he predicted that *both* types of charged particles flowed from the sun, and into the Earth. You're simply clueless about how his model *actually* works as you have demonstrated repeatedly.

Radium and other "radio-elements" as a source of energy from "disintegration" first appears on page 314 in the "THE SOURCE OF THE SUN'S HEAT" chapter.

He assumed the sun was internally powered by a "transmutation of elements" and even fission wasn't understood back then, let alone fusion. I'm sure he would have embraced fusion had he lived to see it discovered.

A newspaper report also has him stating that the Sun is a cathode in a lecture.

That times reporter knew more about his model than you do. He reports that Birkeland predicted *both* types of charged particles. What's your problem? Talk about ignorance and delusions.

Nuclear fusion as a source of the Sun's energy was not proposed until 1920, 3 years after Birkeland's death.

Exactly. Had he lived long enough to hear about it, I'm sure he would have jumped on the bandwagon. He "predicted" it was internally powered by a "transmutation of elements" in fact.

Today

• We know that the Sun is powered by fusion at its center.

Which is perfectly congruent with his model.

• We know that the Sun emits a neutral solar wind that is both ions (mostly protons) and electrons.

Which he successfully predicted. He also successfully predicted cathode rays which your industry euphemistically refers to as "strahl".

• We know that the solar wind has a speed much slower than the speed of light (fast solar wind ~750 km/s, c = 299,792 km/s).

We also know it sometimes emits particles at a significant percentage of the speed of light.

The delusion is about what the Planeterrella is. Anyone who can understand English will read that The Planeterrella - Polar Light Simulation is a demonstration or reproduction of Birkeland's aurora model.

It's a working demonstration of his solar model as well. It even produces a hot, sustained, full sphere corona, which is more than you've *ever* done with your now falsified model.

The Planeterrella: an amazing polar light simulator states that the device is available for school demonstrations.

Right, because unlike your broken and lame model, his model actually *works*!

 

[Michael]

Another obvious delusion in the model is that a series of images of a mostly hydrogen solar flare in the solar atmosphere becomes iron mountain ridges on the Sun's surface by mathematical transformations of the images.

I've yet to hear you explain those rigid features we observe in all iron ion RD images of the sun starting with this 171A RD image.

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi

The TRACE spacecraft recorded a coronal mass ejection and associated flare on August 28, 2000 in the 171A passband (light emitted from Fe atoms that have lost 9 electrons). The images were turned into a running difference movie where each frame is the difference between two successive images to emphasize the changes in light (heating and cooling plasma).

That's a nice explanation of the mechanics or RD images, but it doesn't even begin to explain the persistence of those rigid features that we observe in the RD image and the movie which do not change in position during the flare process.

Images of the Sun taken by the Transition Region and Coronal Explorer

Yes RC, it's clearly marked as a 'Trace' image on my website too.

This is images in the solar corona because that is where plasma with temperatures ~1 million K happens in the solar atmosphere - yet another bit of years long denial !

No, it just demonstrates your own ignorance and your own delusions because I'm well aware that *some* coronal loops rise up and through the surface of the photosphere and some flares occur above the surface of the photosphere. Not all of them do however.

The model's "running difference movie" delusion is like someone taking a series of pictures of a mountain 10 kilometers away, taking the difference between the pictures, looking at the resulting movie and asserting that the mountain is now 100 kilometers away and made of pink candy floss!

You're the one claiming it's all made of light wispy thin convecting candy floss plasma but those rigid features do not move during the flare. In fact those rigid features are in exactly the same positions for over 45 minutes in that RD movie.

In case anyone thinks I am exaggerating the models delusional nature, read about it for yourself at his web site, The Surface Of The Sun.

He's exaggerating. I know for a fact that there's no mention of pink candy floss on that website.

The first image on the page is the "running difference movie" delusion with the caption "This is an example of a "running difference" image of the sun's surface revealed by the TRACE satellite using its 171 angstrom filter. This filter is specifically sensitive to iron ion (FE IX/X) emissions and records a C3.3 flare and mass ejection in AR 9143 in 171Å on 28 Aug. 2000. The flare activity is caused by increased electrical activity as fast moving plasma sweeps over surface ridges, resulting in increased electrical activity on the windward side of the mountain ranges".

Yep, and that's exactly what's happening too. Unlike that smooth cathode surface in the working model on youtube, there's actually some
rigid surface structures on the surface of the solar cathode.

If you look closely at the surface of that cathode, you'll see many electrical discharges occurring all over the surface of the cathode which is exactly the discharge process that occurs in a solar flare.

The model lies about TRACE images being "of the sun's surface" when they are of the solar corona at thousands of kilometers above the surface of the Sun and temperatures of about 1 million K.

RC, your model isn't "truth". Your opinions are not "truth", they are simply opinions based on a now *falsified* solar model. My opinions are different from your, but that does not make my opinions lies. Get over your huge ego already. You aren't the solar decider of 'truth'.

 

[RealityCheck01]

At ISF: 18th May 2010 Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked
His solar "model" is 13 years and counting of

1. An "iron mountain ranges on the Sun" delusion.
2. Denial of the theory and evidence that the Sun has a convective zone (observed convection cells and from 2012 currents!) and thus no layers in its outer third.
3. The delusion that taking a running difference of images turns images of a solar flare in the corona (solar atmosphere!) into iron mountain ridges on the Sun's surface.
4. A lie that some TRACE images of the solar corona thousands of kilometers above the surface of the Sun are "of the sun's surface".
5. A fantasy that that Birkeland's "Sun powered by fission + electron emission" solar model is valid today leads to a lie that the Planeterrella (a demonstration of his aurora model) is an experiment on Birkeland's solar model.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I've yet to hear you explain those rigid features we observe in all iron ion RD images of the sun starting with this 171A RD image.
....

Getting to 8 years of this lie since this was explained at ISF: 18th May 2010 Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked.
There is the delusional nature of Michael Mozina's fantasy* shown by the TRACE RD 171A movie (15th May 2010)

• The running difference process itself explains every pixel in the RD movie as the difference between 2 original pixels.

• The solar processes that cause the changes in the RD movie are shown in the original images - flares and a CME event.

I recall other posts where I explained the features of these images of a solar flare and CME. Other posters tried to explain the details of RD movies including that one.

9 March 2018 Michael: A "rigid features we observe in all iron ion RD images" lie.
You have been citing only this 1 RD movie for 13 years.
There are no rigid features an any "iron ion RD images" because they are images of plasma at > 160,000 K, e.g. that one RD movie is of mostly H plasma in a solar flare and CME at about 1 million degrees in the solar corona.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The next issue with Michael's solar "model" is the vital question: How is the Sun powered in the model?
After many years there seems to be no answer to that question except going on about multiple Thunderbolts stories. Maybe it is somewhere in his web site - Michael?

Contrast this to the scientific model of the Sun where there is a power source backed up by theory and evidence. The known and working laws of physics show that the Sun must have a temperature and pressure increasing with depth. Calculations give numbers that show that fusion must happen there. We have detected the neutrino flux that this fusion produces which matches the energy output of the Sun.
We measure the energy spectrum of the neutrinos and get a "thermalized" spectrum, i.e. the neutrinos that were emitted at specific energies have interacted with the body of the Sun to change energies. That needs matter at a high density such as the density of water (guess the density of plasma at the core of the Sun). Read an astrophysicist explaining this at Just-So Story.
In 2014, we detected neutrinos from the proton–proton chain reaction. Read an astrophysicist explaining this at Common Core.

 

[RealityCheck01]

An almost irrelevant insanely invalid power source for the Sun is in this paper:
The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass by O. Manuel, S. A. Kamat, M. Mozina (Michael). The minor relevance is the inclusion of Michael's delusion that images of solar flares at 1 million degrees in the solar atmosphere become iron mountain ridges on the surface when their difference is taken (Fig 1) but as a lie about a "iron-rich sub-surface". Plus that diffusions results in layers.

What makes the paper insanely invalid though is something that Michael does not seem to support as a power source - a neutron star at the core of the Sun !
This is a neutron star

Typically, neutron stars have a radius on the order of 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) and a mass between 1.4 and 3 solar masses.[2]

The Sun oddly enough has a mass of 1 solar mass.

That is not what gives the insanity. Neutron stars have a surface gravity of about 200 billion times that of the Earth. Put a neutron star inside the Sun and its surface gravity collapses the solar plasma and we get a fatter neutron star. Not very much fatter because the collapse heats up and compresses the plasma, fusion happens and the Sun has a supernova phase !

That neutron stars have magnetic fields that are 100 million to 1 quadrillion times as strong as that of the Earth makes putting one in the Sun just minor insanity.

We also have to wonder what the fast spin of a neutron star would do to the Sun - make it spin in hours, minutes, or seconds?

 

[Michael]

At ISF: 18th May 2010 Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked
His solar "model" is 13 years and counting of

Yawn. You "debunk" EU/PC models by flat out lying about them, ignoring every answer you ask for, and then repeating the same list of lies over and over and over again. It's a sad and dishonest gish-gallop routine.

Case in point:

1. An "iron mountain ranges on the Sun" delusion.
2. Denial of the theory and evidence that the Sun has a convective zone (observed convection cells and from 2012 currents!) and thus no layers in its outer third.
3. The delusion that taking a running difference of images turns images of a solar flare in the corona (solar atmosphere!) into iron mountain ridges on the Sun's surface.
4. A lie that some TRACE images of the solar corona thousands of kilometers above the surface of the Sun are "of the sun's surface".
5. A fantasy that that Birkeland's "Sun powered by fission + electron emission" solar model is valid today leads to a lie that the Planeterrella (a demonstration of his aurora model) is an experiment on Birkeland's solar model.

I *just* addressed every single one of those issues yesterday in this post, which you simply ignored and then you just repeated and reposted the same pack of lies again.

Micheal's solar model

 

[Michael]

Getting to 8 years of this lie since this was explained at ISF:

No you didn't. You did *not* explain the rigid features of that RD image or the rigid angular structures in that image. You simply repeated your own dogma from a different solar model as "fact".

I recall other posts where I explained the features of these images of a solar flare and CME. Other posters tried to explain the details of RD movies including that one.

All I asked you to do is explain the *rigid* features of the image and you never did that.

9 March 2018 Michael: A "rigid features we observe in all iron ion RD images" lie.

We can see those angular rigid features in the image and the movie RC:

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi

You've *never* explained them.

You have been citing only this 1 RD movie for 13 years.

It's the *only* one I need too. You're welcome to use the 131A images on Helioviewer and use the RD filter and you'll observe the same rigid features. I'd recommend about a 15 minute difference between images for best results.

There are no rigid features an any "iron ion RD images" because they are images of plasma at > 160,000 K, e.g. that one RD movie is of mostly H plasma in a solar flare and CME at about 1 million degrees in the solar corona.

Only the plasma itself in the *raw* images are superheated. The RD images show the rigidness of the emission patterns which have nothing to do with heated plasma. They show where the plasma emissions change over time, or don't change over time. In this case they don't change over time. Try that with a helium filter (305A) and you'll get totally different results.

 

[Michael]

The next issue with Michael's solar "model" is the vital question: How is the Sun powered in the model?

Had you read Birkeland's work as I suggested *years* ago you'd know that answer RC. He claimed it was a "transmutation of elements" and I've supported fusion from day one.

After many years there seems to be no answer to that question except going on about multiple Thunderbolts stories.

That's another lie. Like all your questions, I've given you that answer repeatedly and you simply ignored it like you continue to ignore it. There are *multiple* solar models to choose from within the context of EU/PC theory RC. I've told you that a ton of times too, not that you have a clue about *any* EU/PC solar model because *none* of them predict "no neutrinos" as you've lied about for years.

Maybe it is somewhere in his web site - Michael?

You'll find that answer pretty much everywhere we've talked RC. You just never listen.

Contrast this to the scientific model of the Sun where there is a power source backed up by theory and evidence.

LOL! That same 'evidence' supports the model on my website because ultimately they're both internally powered (by fusion) models.

The known and working laws of physics show that the Sun must have a temperature and pressure increasing with depth. Calculations give numbers that show that fusion must happen there. We have detected the neutrino flux that this fusion produces which matches the energy output of the Sun.

So you basically support Birkeland's *successful prediction* of an internally powered sun that is powered by what he called a "transmutation of elements' and what we'd call fusion today. Thanks for agreeing with that much.

We measure the energy spectrum of the neutrinos and get a "thermalized" spectrum, i.e. the neutrinos that were emitted at specific energies have interacted with the body of the Sun to change energies. That needs matter at a high density such as the density of water (guess the density of plasma at the core of the Sun). Read an astrophysicist explaining this at Just-So Story.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news RC, but your ignorance is showing. That particular blog entry discusses a *completely different* solar model entirely, and it's not even about Birkeland's model. It's also totally wrong too.

In 2014, we detected neutrinos from the proton–proton chain reaction. Read an astrophysicist explaining this at Common Core.

So basically what you're doing here is acknowledging that Birkeland correctly predicted that the sun was internally powered by a transmutation of elements. Thanks for agreeing with Birkeland and with me.

 

[Michael]

An almost irrelevant insanely invalid power source for the Sun is in this paper:
The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass by O. Manuel, S. A. Kamat, M. Mozina (Michael).

You'll notice that the paper in question is *published*, something you never do. How many published papers have you done that are related to astronomy RC? The last time I asked you it was *zero* according to you. Did that change? You don't seem to tell the truth that often however, I suppose it could be almost any number. Enlighten us RC. How many papers have your published that are actually related to astronomy or solar physics. Don't be bashful now, and be honest.

The minor relevance is the inclusion of Michael's delusion that images of solar flares at 1 million degrees in the solar atmosphere become iron mountain ridges on the surface when their difference is taken (Fig 1) but as a lie about a "iron-rich sub-surface". Plus that diffusions results in layers.

Again, the "delusion" is your own because that papers (and all of our papers) discuss *running difference* images, not raw images. We don't observe those same rigid structures in the raw images.

What makes the paper insanely invalid though is something that Michael does not seem to support as a power source - a neutron star at the core of the Sun !

The neutron star simply rotates and it converts rotational spin energy into electrical plasma pinches which in turn generate fusion. It's still a fusion generation process RC.

This is a neutron star

The Sun oddly enough has a mass of 1 solar mass.

Neutron material and stars can decay over time and they can presumably be anywhere in size from about .1 solar masses up to almost 2 solar masses.

That is not what gives the insanity.

You're the last one that should be talking about "insanity" since you keep insanely repeating the same false claims over and over again like your "no neutrino" nonsense. That's an insane claim and it's a flat out lie.

Neutron stars have a surface gravity of about 200 billion times that of the Earth. Put a neutron star inside the Sun and its surface gravity collapses the solar plasma and we get a fatter neutron star. Not very much fatter because the collapse heats up and compresses the plasma, fusion happens and the Sun has a supernova phase !

No, actually the crust of a neutron star is positively charged and made of iron and nickel that have been stripped of all their electrons. That positively charged core generates charge repulsion that prevents collapse into the core.

That neutron stars have magnetic fields that are 100 million to 1 quadrillion times as strong as that of the Earth makes putting one in the Sun just minor insanity.

It's insane that you refuse to listen to any my answers or explanations and you repeat the same false statements over and over again. The size (and depth) of the core makes *a huge difference* to the strength of the magnetic field.

We also have to wonder what the fast spin of a neutron star would do to the Sun - make it spin in hours, minutes, or seconds?

The core rotates every five minutes or so which is why we observe five minute oscillations on the surface.

I've explained *all* of this to you over and over again yet you insanely repeat you same false claims. Do you any ethics at all?

 

[RealityCheck01]

...addressed every single one of those issues yesterday in this post

9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that a list of "cathode" fantasies and lies addressed the solar model list.
For example, he needs to show that images of plasma at a million degrees in the solar atmosphere can become "iron mountain ridges" on the ~5700 K surface of the Sun just by taking the difference between the images.

Where is his evidence that the photosphere (the surface of the Sun) at ~5700 K emits enough 171A light from Fe ions at temperatures of a million degrees to be detected by the TRACE spacecraft.

How does he explain that the TRACE spacecraft took images of solar flares from the limb of the Sun in the 171A pass band (so the background is empty space) and astronomers do not state that these solar flares are inside or on the photosphere?

A speculation: What if a RD movie were made of a flare on the limb in the 171A pass band and it shows "iron mountain ridges". Would Michael claim that there are "iron mountain ridges" in empty space!

I will may ignore any incoherent fantasies until he posts coherent physics or even a bit of math. Unfortunately that means ignoring entire posts!

The growing Michael's solar "model" list
Mostly covered 8 years ago in 18th May 2010 Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked but there may be new ignorance, delusions or even lies popping up.

ETA: There are the usual lies, more lies and ignorant delusions!

• A repeated lie that I cannot explain the images in "An "iron mountain ranges on the Sun" delusion. when I explained then years ago (they are images of solar flares tuned into an RD movie)
• A "Birkeland's model *requires* mass movement of current" lie when Birkeland does not address the internal structure of the Sun (unless he can give a citation).
• A "convection cells are generated by heat released between the rigid cathode surface and the surface of the photosphere" delusion.
• A lie that he resolves The delusion that taking a running difference of images turns images of a solar flare in the corona (solar atmosphere!) into iron mountain ridges on the Sun's surface.
• A lie that he explained A lie that some TRACE images of the solar corona thousands of kilometers above the surface of the Sun are "of the sun's surface".
• A delusion that Birkeland knew about observsions of the aurora that probably happened after his death (spectra from atoms excited by collisions with protons rather than the exclusively electrons in his model).
• The persistent lie that a demonstration of the aurora is an experiment on Birkeland's solar model.
• Confirmed that he is lying about Birkeland having fusion in hi solar model !
• More lies about Birkeland.
  Birkeland's book has electrons being emitted from the Sun in encils" and hitting the Earth to product aurora. He is explicit about in his lecture - the Sun is a cathode.
  A different prediction was that space would be full of atoms, ions and electrons.

 

[RealityCheck01]

No you didn't....

9 March 2018 Michael: A "I've yet to hear you explain those rigid features we observe in all iron ion RD images of the sun" lie.
Getting to 8 years of this lie since this was explained at ISF: 18th May 2010 Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked.
There is the delusional nature of Michael Mozina's fantasy* shown by the TRACE RD 171A movie (15th May 2010)

Did not address
9 March 2018 Michael: A "rigid features we observe in all iron ion RD images" (he has 1 example) lie.
so it unfortunately remains a lie. He has to list all of the "iron ion RD images" and show that they all have "rigid features". Even a sample would be adequate.

 

[Michael]

9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that a list of "cathode" fantasies addressed the solar model list.

It's a lie that a cathode model is a 'fantasy". Unlike your falsified model, Birkeland's model works in the lab. You have continuously lied in this thread from the moment you started this thread by claiming that Birkeland's cathode model is *my* model when I have never once tried to take credit for his model to start with.

The "surface discharges" in that video are much "hotter" than the surface and the blue corona is also much hotter than the surface. You've never told the truth about a cathode solar model, even when you can see for yourself that it does actually work as advertised and your model can't even reproduce a working corona.

For example, he needs to show that images of plasma at a million degrees in the solar atmosphere can become "iron mountain ridges" on the ~5700 K surface of the Sun just by taking the difference between the images.

That plasma inside the coronal loops isn't the mountain range. The plasma is simply the *light source* which ultimate reveals those rigid surface features in the RD iron ion wavelengths.

I will ignore any incoherent fantasies until he posts coherent physics or even a bit of math. Unfortunately that means ignoring entire posts!

I've posted a working physical model for you more times than I can count and Birkeland provided you with tons of math that you refuse to read or respond to. So did Alfven as it relates to coronal loops and solar voltages. You've never responded to any of it.

The growing Michael's solar "model" list
Mostly covered 8 years ago in 18th May 2010 Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked but there may be new ignorance, delusions or even lies popping up.

The only solar model that's been "totally debunked" is your own precious standard solar model. Your convection math is all messed up and you've never fixed it.

Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected

What's up with that falsified nonsense?

 

[Michael]

9 March 2018 Michael: A "I've yet to hear you explain those rigid features we observe in all iron ion RD images of the sun" lie.
Getting to 8 years of this lie since this was explained at ISF:

Nope, I just read it again. You offered no explanation for the rigid features in any RD image.

He has to list all of the "iron ion RD images" and show that they all have "rigid features". Even a sample would be adequate.

Oh boloney. There are many RD images on my website and everyone can create them to their hearts content using Helioviewer these days. Pick any timeframe you like, use a 171A or a 131A image image and a 15-20 minute timing between the images for best results, and show me one movie that doesn't produce rigid surface features.

Helioviewer.org

You can't and you won't.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Had you read Birkeland's work as I suggested ...

9 March 2018 Michael: A "fusion" lie about Birkeland's solar model as described in Birkeland's book
The only "transmutation of elements" known before 1919 (book published in 1913) was fission. This is the transmutation of elements such as uranium to daughter elements.
Birkeland explicitly suggests radium, etc. as THE SOURCE OF THE SUN'S HEAT as I stated.
Birkeland had a primitive solar model in his book that scientists know today was understandably wrong and thus ignore.

Radium and other "radio-elements" as a source of energy from "disintegration" first appears on page 314 in the "THE SOURCE OF THE SUN'S HEAT" chapter.

Radium pops up later, e.g. (from memory) he regrets not being able to coat his metal sphere in a radium compound.

I wrote "The next issue with Michael's solar "model" is the vital question: How is the Sun powered in the model?" and the reply is ignorantly about other peoples ideas !

I wrote about working mainstream science: Contrast this to the scientific model of the Sun where there is a power source backed up by theory and evidence.

Just-So Story has an astrophysicist explaining that thermalized neutrinos are emitted from the core of the Sun. That is part of the evidence for the scientific solar model and against ignorant EU fantasies, not Michael's solar "model".

Common Core has an astrophysicist explaining the detection the p-p chain reaction neutrinos is support for fusion at the core of the Sun. That is part of the evidence for the scientific solar model and against ignorant EU fantasies, not Michael's solar "model".

 

[Michael]

9 March 2018 Michael: A "fusion" lie about Birkeland's solar model as described in Birkeland's book

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Birkeland/NYT Birkeland.pdf

Even the NYTimes writer discusses the transmutation of elements being the power source of his cathode model.

The only "transmutation of elements" known before 1919 (book published in 1913) was fission.

Which simply demonstrates that Birkeland *successfully predicted* it just like he successfully predicted both types of high speed charged particles in solar wind, electron beams/cathode rays, polar jets, coronal loops, etc.

This is the transmutation of elements such as uranium to daughter elements.

So what? Fission is just one type of a "transmutation" of elements and fusion is another. Birkeland was just way ahead of his time, and way ahead of you to this very day.

Birkeland explicitly suggests radium, etc. as THE SOURCE OF THE SUN'S HEAT as I stated.

It's the only example he had to work with back then. So what? I'm sure he'd have embraced fusion too had he or anyone known about it back then. Unfortunately the terms fission and fusion didn't even exist in the scientific vocabulary back then so he used the only appropriate term at that time, the "transmutation of elements'.

Birkeland had a primitive solar model in his book that scientists know today was understandably wrong and thus ignore.

You don't even understand his model properly to begin with, and you don't speak for all scientists. We also know today that your own falsified solar model has serious convection problems which have never been addressed or fixed.

Radium pops up later, e.g. (from memory) he regrets not being able to coat his metal sphere in a radium compound.

So what? The fact that he didn't have access to a 21st century understanding of fusion doesn't mean he didn't correctly predict that the sun was powered by a "transmutation of elements". He was 100 percent right and used the best information of the time that he had to work with.

I wrote "The next issue with Michael's solar "model" is the vital question: How is the Sun powered in the model?" and the reply is ignorantly about other peoples ideas !

The transmutation of elements was *his* idea RC, not mine and he got it right before the mainstream.

I wrote about working mainstream science: Contrast this to the scientific model of the Sun where there is a power source backed up by theory and evidence.

Your power source and your so called evidence supports his model as much as it supports your own solar model because he was the first one to predict that the sun was internally powered by a transmutation of elements.

Besides, your convection model has already been debunked.

Just-So Story has an astrophysicist explaining that thermalized neutrinos are emitted from the core of the Sun. That is part of the evidence for the scientific solar model

Every bit of the evidence that supports the power source of the mainstream model also support Birkeland's "transmutation of elements" model RC. That particular page doesn't even discuss or describe Birkeland's solar model. It doesn't even accurately describe *any* EU/PC solar model in fact. If that's an example of the mainstream's misunderstandings of the EU/PC models (plural), it just demonstrates how little any of you understand the EU/PC models (plural). No EU/PC proponent ever predicted an excess of gamma rays in *any* EU/PC model and certainly not based on Birkeland's model or Alfven's model since they're both *internally* powered models!

and against ignorant EU fantasies, not Michael's solar "model".

That's a flat out lie because it doesn't even mention Birkeland or his cathode solar model, or his power source being related to a transmutation of elements. You're flat out lying again.

Common Core has an astrophysicist explaining the detection the p-p chain reaction neutrinos is support for fusion at the core of the Sun. That is part of the evidence for the scientific solar model

Every single piece of inner fusion evidence you cite is only more evidence to support Birkeland's transmutation of elements model.

and against ignorant EU fantasies, not Michael's solar "model".

False again. Your author doesn't even mention Birkeland's model and Birkeland's model is not restricted to fusion occurring only in the corona. You're just lying again.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You'll notice that the paper in question is *published*, something you never do. ...

That is an extremely minor aspect of that insanely invalid paper: Published Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, No. 11, pages 1847-1856 (2006)
A paper about the Sun published in a Russian journal about the physics of atomic nuclei. Try to guess how many astronomers are likely to have peer reviewed the paper. Obviously none because astronomers know about neutron stars. There is a hint of no peer review since nuclear scientists should know about neutron stars.

If you want to go into trivial aspects then consider the fact this paper has no refereed citations!

No addressing of
What makes the paper insanely invalid though is something that Michael does not seem to support as a power source - a neutron star at the core of the Sun !

But then we seem to have support for a neutron star as a power source.
9 March 2018 Michael: Are you supporting the insanely bad idea of a neutron star inside the Sun.

Neutron material and stars can decay over time and they can presumably be anywhere in size from about .1 solar masses up to almost 2 solar masses.

A new delusion or is there support for this assertion?
9 March 2018 Michael: Please give your sources for neutron stars decaying to between ~.1 to ~2 solar masses.
The numbers say you have an calculation hopefully in a scientific paper.
Some textbook astrophysics: neutron stars need a mass of ~1.4 solar masses to be neutron stars. Otherwise electrons are not "squeezed" into protons and we get normal matter.

That positively charged core generates charge repulsion that prevents collapse into the core.

A new delusion or is there support for this assertion?
9 March 2018 Michael: Please give your sources that a "positively charged core" with a surface gravity of about 200 billion times that of the Earth can hold up the plasma of the Sun.

actually the crust of a neutron star is positively charged and made of iron and nickel that have been stripped of all their electrons

A new delusion or is there support for this assertion?
9 March 2018 Michael: Please give your sources for neutron stars having a positively charged iron and nickel crust (stripped of all electrons).
Some textbook astrophysics: the crust of neutron stars is made of normal, neutral matter possibly just iron, possibly just hydrogen and helium, with lots of electrons.