Micheal's solar model

[RealityCheck01]

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

A lie by quote mining since my post was on your ignorant "iron mountain ranges" delusion.

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.

Plasma thousands of kilometers above the surface is not iron on or below the surface !

 

[RealityCheck01]

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

A fantasy about Birkeland's model (remember that I have his book and the newspaper account of his lecture)!
16 February 2017 Michael: Cite Birkeland stating that the Sun has layers or acknowledge that Birkeland's model has no layers.

 

[Michael]

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!

What? Do you ever tell the truth? Why do you feel the need to bear false witness against everyone in the EU community?

I am *not* obligated to *agree* with the *standard* solar model 'predictions' or claims. I am *only* required to present a *Birkeland* explanation of events, including explanations for *cooler* up welling plasma inside of sunspots than exist on the surface of the photosphere.

I don't *care* if you think magnetic lines somehow 'cool' the plasma. You're already claiming they *heat* the plasma during 'magnetic reconnection' (which you don't even understand properly). I have no logical reason to believe that magnetic lines somehow *cool* plasma below the surface of the photosphere in *your* model, let alone a *Birkeland* solar model.

For others:
The cooling of sunspots is via magnetic fields inhibiting convection.

You mean that walking speed convection that you claimed was jet speed convection? Cute trick that magnetic lines somehow create a *round hole* that's cooler than other plasma that's as large as the Earth.

Of course the "opacity' of all that stuff is supposed to distribute heat evenly anyway, but hey, your model was toasted by the convection speed observations of SDO anyway, so who cares about your dead solar model.

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.

Magic magnetic fields. Ask RC where they actually demonstrated this process in a lab, or was it just a "theory"?

Normal mixing would raise the sunspot up to the average temperature. Smaller mixing raises the sunspot up to a smaller temperature.

What about your "opacity" nonsense? Somehow that doesn't apply to your claim? You claimed I couldn't have a cooler surface because the heat would flow back to the surface. The *working model* demonstrates that isn't true in the first place!

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).

I can see for myself in *working* models that *electrical fields* and *kinetic energy* from the cathode are responsible for heating up the corona, and the Earth's aurora.

I have no need at all for your "magnetic reconnection" models, even if you actually knew what that term meant!

 

[Michael]

​

A lie by quote mining since my post was on your ignorant "iron mountain ranges" delusion.

You've never demonstrated that anything I've said was a "delusion", and you guys don't even understand his model. Bridgman got his particle flow diagram wrong, and your hero can't get the neutrino count predictions right! I see no evidence that you even understand the model you keep trying to bash because you keep messing up *simple* stuff!

Nobody can cure invincible ignorance but you.

Plasma thousands of kilometers above the surface is not iron on or below the surface !

It is a lie to suggest that I ever made that claim in the first place. Do you ever tell the truth? Do you have any personal integrity at all?

 

[Michael]

A fantasy about Birkeland's model (remember that I have his book and the newspaper account of his lecture)!

You guys don't understand the first thing about it however. You don't have the particle flow diagram correct in Birkeland's model, or the neutrino counts right in *any* EU/PC solar model!

16 February 2017 Michael: Cite Birkeland stating that the Sun has layers or acknowledge that Birkeland's model has no layers.

I'll answer that question, right after you answer mine:

The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos. The EU model clearly fails this test, because neutrinos are produced by the Sun.

Demonstrate the value of that degree of yours, and your superior understanding of EU theory, and your superior integrity, and tell us if that is a true statement or a "lie"?

 

[RealityCheck01]

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: 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?

 

[RealityCheck01]

...I'll answer that question, right after you answer mine:

Insults and then an irrelevant question. Read the thread title and OP - this thread is about your solar model !
There is no scientifically valid "EU solar model". 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).

The closest we have to a credible "EU solar model" is Scott's book and some papers. But Scott is ignorant about first year astronomy. For a stable star there has to be temperature and so pressure increasing with depth. That needs a heat source at the core of the star. The known laws of physics state that this source is fusion. The observed neutrino flux matches what we predict from fusion enough to power the Sun. The Sun cannot be powered by fusion at its surface because it would collapse to be a white dwarf star.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Back to the topic of this thread: Michael's solar model of the Sun having a rigid iron crust, etc.
This is obviously wrong because (as Michael has known for many years), the temperature of the photosphere is ~5700 K and the melting point of iron is 1811 K. So no iron surface can exist in the photosphere, rigid or not.

First year astronomy students learn that the temperature of the body of stars has to increase with depth otherwise they collapse. This is confirmed by helioseismology which is the study of how waves propagate through the Sun - they travel as if they are passing through plasma with increasing temperature and density with depth, not "rigid" anything. Thus no rigid iron surface under the photosphere!

The OP mentioned that we cannot see far into the photosphere - generally about 100 km however 900 km has been proposed in 1 paper for certain wavelengths. Any claims of seeing an imaginary iron crust within or below the photosphere are doubly false (below 100 km it cannot be seen and it melts).

Michael's next 11 year old and debunked years ago claim is that he thinks the TRACE spacecraft took images of "iron mountain ranges" on the surface of the Sun - see the first image and its caption on his web site. What really happened was that the Transition Region and Coronal Explorer took images of a solar flare on August 28, 2000.

• Solar flares are all above the surface of the Sun !
• Solar flares consist of mostly H and He plasma with a tiny percentage of other elements including Fe.
• The 173 (or 171Å) pass band used only let through light from plasma at temperatures between 160,000 K and 2 million K.
• The above means that the light from the images came from the transition region - thousands of kilometers above the surface of the Sun.

The images were then processed into a running difference movie where each frame is the difference between an image and the previous image. This emphasizes changes in the solar flare images.
A C3.3 flare and mass ejection in AR 9143 in 171Å on 28 Aug. 2000 (difference movie)

This is a snapshot of Active Region 9143 observed with TRACE in the 171Å passband, showing bright material around 1 million degrees. This image, taken at 17:07UT on August 28, 2000, shows the corona during a C3.3 flare, associated with a mass ejection (towards the upper left of the image). The associated 3.3MB shows the flare and mass ejection as a difference movie: where the image turns bright, the solar corona has become brighter after 16UT, and where it turns black it has dimmed. This shows the ejected material very well, first flying upward at several hundred kilometers per second. Later, some of it is seen to fall back as a dark cloud.

The movie does give the illusion of "ridges" because the flare magnetic field provides a structure around which plasma moves.

 

[Michael]

16 February 2017 Michael: Thinks magnetic fields cooling sunspots has to do with the proposed mechanisms to heat the corona!

Do you have any ethics whatsoever? You do realize that bearing false witness against another individual is usually considered bad style right? I simply don't believe that magnetic fields in the sun do magic cooling tricks in supposedly "opaque" plasma for breakfast, and do super-heating magic tricks for dinner too. Alfven called the reconnection theory "pseudoscience" and his double layer paper makes the whole concept irrelevant and obsolete.

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

The "process" known as "magnetic reconnection" is in fact "impossible" without plasma, which is why you and Clinger haven't come up with that math formula to express a non-zero rate of "Reconnection" in that vacuum contraption of yours after *five* years and counting.

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

Previously you guys were claiming that "jet speed" convection was the source of those powerful magnetic fields. Now you're trying to pull a magic "Alfven wave pseudoscience" thing out your hat. When are you going to accept that *circuit* theory is also a valid mathematical way of expressing the behaviors and energy exchanges in *current carrying* plasma?

14 February 2017 Michael: Is the temperature of the temperature minimum greater than the photosphere?

The temperature of sunspots is typically *less than* the surface of the photosphere as would be predicted in a mass separated Birkeland cathode solar model. The temperature of all the suns layers *decreases* as we move from the corona toward the cathode.

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

News flash RC: Disagreeing with you belief system doesn't make me a "liar", and your debate tactics focus on *people*, not the topic. That's as low as it gets when it comes to a lack of ethics in scientific debate.

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.

I've addressed those questions so many times I've lost count, as well as on my website. If you can't understand it, or more likely *refuse* to understand it, your willful ignorance isn't my personal fault.

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

Those "measured convection currents" didn't "measure" the speeds you *predicted* them to, now did they? Does that falsify your model?

You may refuse to acknowledge the mass separated Birkeland model, but it doesn't work like the standard model, and it doesn't *have* to work based on standard model *theory*. You *blew* those convection predictions by *two whole orders of magnitude* and I've yet to hear an explanation for your error.

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

Are you *ever* going to acknowledge that our papers describe a *rigid* layer that doesn't *necessarily* have to be solid? Yes or no? Many papers describe plasma temperature in sunspots that thousands of degress less than the surface of the photosphere. Birkeland's model has more plasma layers than the standard model RC, and they all get progressively cooler as we move toward the cathode.

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

Because there is always current (and mass flow) that is flowing through all the plasma double layers. The only model that is utterly "destroyed" by the convection speed data is the *standard* solar model. It was off by two whole orders of magnitude RC. Your beloved solar model bit the dust.

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

Yes. All EU/PC solar models produce the required number, but they are not limited to fusion in the core.

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?

No it's not, and our published papers are not limited to a *solid* cathode model RC. When are you going to acknowledge that point, and when are you going to stop trying to use *standard* model theories to try to 'debunk" another solar model entirely?

The neon double layer is simply not "opaque" in the model on my website, even if you *think* that is must be.

That's why all the outside layers can be hotter than the inside layers *even in your model*!

 

[Michael]

Insults and then an irrelevant question.

RC, you personally insult everyone in the EU/PC community. Who are you to complain about insults even *if* I were to do so? How many times have you called me a liar simply for not agreeing with *your solar model*?

Read the thread title and OP - this thread is about your solar model !

It's about integrity in science too. If you can't answer basic questions *correctly* about various EU/PC solar models, then you have no business discussing them at all. Who *ever* actually predicted that no neutrinos come from *any* EU/PC solar model RC? Quote them or answer the questions *honestly*.

There is no scientifically valid "EU solar model".

Pure boloney. They all work in the lab.

That's way more than you'll ever do.

The EU authors Talbott and Thornhill are ignorant and deluded about astronomy.

More personal ad hom insults and pure nonsense too. The only one who seems "deluded" and the haters that keep misrepresenting their beliefs. Does their (Juergen's) solar model predict "no" neutrinos?

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!

So? You folks have the *delusion* that exotic matter exists too, but every one of your mathematical predictions in the lab got blown away. When are you folks going to give up that delusion?

They have a fantasy about the Sun not being fusion powered at the core according to Findlay in his book.

That's not a book, and it's not what he said. You won't even quote him where he's discussing the *EU* model and neutrinos because he doesn't mention the term neutrino. Thornill does. Scott does. What do they say RC?

That means that the Sun is a white dwarf star, not the star that we observe (see below).

No, and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about

The closest we have to a credible "EU solar model" is Scott's book and some papers.

Alfven's solar model was just as credible, and Birkeland's cathode model *works in the lab*! Who cares what you think about "credibility" when your convection predictions were *useless*?

But Scott is ignorant about first year astronomy.

You're back to bashing the entire EU/PC community because you apparently don't even understand their model properly. Does it predict neutrinos that vary with sunspot activity, or does it predict "no neutrinos"?

For a stable star there has to be temperature and so pressure increasing with depth.

That's not necessarily a requirement of either a cathode or an anode solar model, though it is the model Alfven used. Even if the temperature of the Earth gets hotter as we move to the core, it still has a solid surface.

That needs a heat source at the core of the star.

You at least accept the fact that it doesn't have work the very same way as the standard model, right?

FYI, I don't know of any Eu/PC solar model that does *not* predict fusion in the sun.

The known laws of physics state that this source is fusion.

So do all of the three main EU/PC solar models. So what?

The observed neutrino flux matches what we predict from fusion enough to power the Sun. The Sun cannot be powered by fusion at its surface because it would collapse to be a white dwarf star.

That's pure bunk.

Surface tension allows for *lighter* elements to exist in the core than exist in the outer shell in space RC. It's been *documented* to work that way in the real world.

You have yet to *honestly* represent *any* EU/PC solar model that I'm aware of, so what makes you an "expert" on this topic in the first place?

 

[Michael]

Back to the topic of this thread: Michael's solar model of the Sun having a rigid iron crust, etc.
This is obviously wrong because (as Michael has known for many years), the temperature of the photosphere is ~5700 K and the melting point of iron is 1811 K. So no iron surface can exist in the photosphere, rigid or not.

First of all, do you understand that the term "rigid' doesn't automatically mean "solid"? Yes or no? Do you accept the fact that the neon double layer in my model isn't *opaque*? Yes or no? There's no point in going anywhere else unless you can correctly answer both of those questions.

First year astronomy students learn that the temperature of the body of stars has to increase with depth otherwise they collapse.

Too bad they didn't see that water/air bubble video and have some understanding of the role of surface tension and "pressure".

This is confirmed by helioseismology which is the study of how waves propagate through the Sun - they travel as if they are passing through plasma with increasing temperature and density with depth, not "rigid" anything. Thus no rigid iron surface under the photosphere!

That's not true. Something quite unique happens to the sound waves at around 4800KM under the surface of the photosphere with respect to the speed of propagation where it hits the "rigid" cathode surface. That's also where the mass flow patterns flatten out.

The OP mentioned that we cannot see far into the photosphere - generally about 100 km however 900 km has been proposed in 1 paper for certain wavelengths.

That only applies to your *falsified* solar model, not mine. Your model *failed* the convection observations so it's *falsified* anyway, so who cares how you model "worked"?

Any claims of seeing an imaginary iron crust within or below the photosphere are doubly false (below 100 km it cannot be seen and it melts).

The outer layers of the sun are progressively hotter, while the inner layers are progressively cooler. The Birkeland model has more layers before we reach the cathode, so the cathode doesn't have to be 5700K, anymore than the photosphere has to be 20,000K like the chromosphere.

Michael's next 11 year old and debunked years ago claim is that he thinks the TRACE spacecraft took images of "iron mountain ranges" on the surface of the Sun - see the first image and its caption on his web site. What really happened was that the Transition Region and Coronal Explorer took images of a solar flare on August 28, 2000.

Yes, it did in fact take images of a solar flare *and* it took images of the "rigid" surface features that we observe in that video *throughout* the flare.

Solar flares are all above the surface of the Sun !

Birkelands model isn't limited to how it might work in *your* theory. Do you get that? Discharges occur both above and below the surface of the neon double layer in Birkeland's model. The neon double layer isn't "opaque" either in his model.

Solar flares consist of mostly H and He plasma with a tiny percentage of other elements including Fe.

Ya, so? We see plenty of iron in those coronal loops and emissions from highly ionized iron too.

The 173 (or 171Å) pass band used only let through light from plasma at temperatures between 160,000 K and 2 million K.

Yep. The hot coronal loops are the original light source alright.

• The above means that the light from the images came from the transition region - thousands of kilometers above the surface of the Sun.

No. Discharges can actually and do actually strike the surface of the Earth. They "can" occur above the surface too, but they can start at the surface. What you're calling a "surface" however is nothing more than another double layer in the solar atmosphere in Birkeland's model, it's not the cathode surface. The light comes from both above and below the surface of the photosphere in Birkeland's model and no plasma layer is fully "opaque" in his model.

The images were then processed into a running difference movie where each frame is the difference between an image and the previous image. This emphasizes changes in the solar flare images.

It also shows all the areas that *don't change*, specifically all the surface features where the discharges begin.

A C3.3 flare and mass ejection in AR 9143 in 171Å on 28 Aug. 2000 (difference movie)

The movie does give the illusion of "ridges" because the flare magnetic field provides a structure around which plasma moves.

The rigid surface provided the rigid features where the discharges are localized. Some things do move during the flare too, specifically the "dust" blown off the surface.

 

[RealityCheck01]

First of all, do you understand that the term "rigid' doesn't automatically mean "solid"? ...

I understand that you have claimed since maybe 2005 that there are iron mountain ranges on the surface of the Sun. That is ~5700 K where iron not even a liquid! What is worse you use images of plasma at temperatures > 160,000K to support the fantasy. Thus solid or rigid is a dumb question when the Sun's photosphere is a mostly H and He plasma with 0.16% Fe.

I will ignore ignorant and irrelevant fantasies about a "falsified" solar model which does not leave much.

The persistent "image of the surface" fantasy about the Transition Region and Coronal Explorer which took images of a solar flare on August 28, 2000. The images are of a flare starting at many kilometers above the photosphere. This has been explained many times before. The filter that took those images only allows light thru from plasma > 160,000 K. That happens above the photosphere.

Irrelevant discharges fantasies when solar flares are all observed to happen above the surface of the Sun (solar flare) !

No expectation of an answer given ~9 years of parroting his fantasies but just in case:
1 March 2018 Michael: Cite the scientific literature that states that solar flares happen below or on the surface of the sun.

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: 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?
But to cater for a fantasy of a "rigid" iron surface in a mostly H and He plasma:
8 July 2009 Michael: Can you show that the solid rigid iron surface in your idea is thermodynamically possible?

 

[RealityCheck01]

That's pure bunk.

Pure surface tension idiocy when I wrote

The observed neutrino flux matches what we predict from fusion enough to power the Sun. The Sun cannot be powered by fusion at its surface because it would collapse to be a white dwarf star.

Baic astronomy: Stars are stable because there is a balance between gravity compressing their plasma and thermal pressure pushing outward. This is called hydrostatic equilibrium. There is also electron degeneracy pressure which is important to stop white dwarfs collapsing further.
Common sense alone tells anyone with a basic knowledge of physics that pressure and temperature has to increase with depth to support the increasing weight from gravity. Astronomy students apply the physics and math and work out that the conditions at the center of stars means that fusion has to be happening. We observe the predicted neutrino flux from the Sun !
Interior Structure of Stars (lecture notes).

Basic astronomy: When the Sun stops fusion at the end of its lifetime, it will collapse to a white dwarf after a red giant phase.
Sun: After core hydrogen exhaustion

Remove fusion now and there is nothing to support the plasma. The Sun collapses to a white dwarf now. The Sun is not currently a white dwarf !

 

[Michael]

I understand that you have claimed since maybe 2005 that there are iron mountain ranges on the surface of the Sun.

False. That's a great example your highly unethical habit of sticking false words in my mouth, just like you stick false words in Scott's mouth and Thornhill's mouth about their neutrino predictions. I have in fact used the term 'mountain ranges' on my website but I have never used the term "iron mountain ranges". Do you ever tell the truth?

That is ~5700 K where iron not even a liquid!

That's another great example of you misrepresenting my statements and the model on my website. Did you bother to notice that the blue corona in that video is hotter than the cathode surface? The layers of the sun get progressively cooler as we move inward from the outer million degree corona, to the inner chromosphere, to the cooler photosphere and eventually to the electrode in *any* EU/PC model, including Birkeland's cathode model. There are additional double layers in the cathode model on my website and the lowest layer is closer to 1200K, not 5800K. You've *never* accurately quoted me, or listened to anything I've said. Your behaviors and statements are unethical misrepresentations of my statements, just like you misrepresented Thornhill's neutrino predictions in his solar model. Do you ever tell the truth?

What is worse you use images of plasma at temperatures > 160,000K to support the fantasy.

The fantasy is your false claim about those 160,000+ degree coronal loops being indicative of the surface temperature of any double layer in a cathode solar model. It's a fantasy of yours that the blue regions of that corona in that video are the same temperature as the cathode.

Thus solid or rigid is a dumb question when the Sun's photosphere is a mostly H and He plasma with 0.16% Fe.

Since your convection predictions were shown to be off by two whole orders of magnitude you have no evidence that iron and nickel stay mixed together with hydrogen and helium. The double layers are mass separated in the model on my website yet you continuously try to use *falsified* (by SDO) mainstream claims to apply to my model. More unethical nonsense on your part.

I will ignore ignorant and irrelevant fantasies about a "falsified" solar model which does not leave much.

Speaking of falsified solar models, when were you intending to fix your fantasy about fast convection and fix your broken solar model?

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

The persistent "image of the surface" fantasy about the Transition Region and Coronal Explorer which took images of a solar flare on August 28, 2000. The images are of a flare starting at many kilometers above the photosphere.

The flare itself is indeed occurring above the surface of the photosphere in that video, but magnetic ropes start *under* the surface of the photosphere, and not all magnetic ropes are large enough to rise out of the photosphere.

This has been explained many times before.

I've also explained my model to you many times before, but that hasn't stopped you from misrepresenting it anymore than your nonsense about any EU/PC solar model predicting "no neutrinos". You constantly and consistently misrepresent EU/PC solar models *plural*. Your lack of ethics is legendary and appalling.

The filter that took those images only allows light thru from plasma > 160,000 K. That happens above the photosphere.

So what? I've never disputed that the light sources themselves are in some case *millions* of degrees, not just 160,000. You keep misrepresenting that issue as well. I don't think you even know how to tell the truth.

Irrelevant discharges fantasies when solar flares are all observed to happen above the surface of the Sun (solar flare) !

No, *all* magnetic ropes are not observed to occur only above the surface of the photosphere. Not all magnetic ropes even result in solar flares in the first place!

No expectation of an answer given ~9 years of parroting his fantasies but just in case:

I've answered all of your questions *dozens* of times before on many forums including this one, and you simply ignore my answers, unethically make up your own answers, and then repeat the same questions over and over again. It's your unethical gish-gallop routine running amuck.

I'll repeat again that sunspot umbras are *routinely* measured to be *thousands* of degrees cooler than the surface of the photosphere, just like the surface of the photosphere is *thousands* of degrees cooler than the chromosphere, and the chromosphere is thousands of degrees cooler than the corona. There are simply additional non-opaque layers in my model which are cooler than the photosphere. When are you going to acknowledge that difference between the model on my website and the standard (and now falsified) solar model?

1 March 2018 Michael: Cite the scientific literature that states that
solar flares happen below or on the surface of the sun.

For the *millionth* time, I didn't say that in the first place! Quit unethically putting false words in my mouth. I have only stated that *magnetic ropes* (not solar flares) happen below the surface of the photosphere. Get it right this time or I'll simply point out your continuous stream of lies.

In fact pretty much every following comment that you made is a blatant misrepresentation of my statements, but that's the whole point of your gish gallop nonsense. You misrepresent my statement and my model over and over and over again.

It's simply amazing that you show up here every year or two and dig up the same threads and repeat the same lies over and over and over again and put the same false words in my mouth. Do you have any ethics at all?

 

[Michael]

Pure surface tension idiocy when I wrote.....

The "idiocy" started when you *assumed* now *falsified* solar *theory* as fact.

Basic astronomy:

No, that's basic standard model solar *theory* and your standard model has been *falsified* by SDO.

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

When are you going to fix your falsified and broken solar model? What's up with your ridiculous convection numbers?

Stars are stable because there is a balance between gravity compressing their plasma and thermal pressure pushing outward.

In the standard model, and even in Birkeland's cathode solar model, sure, but not in Juergen's/Thornhill's model.

This is called hydrostatic equilibrium. There is also electron degeneracy pressure which is important to stop white dwarfs collapsing further.

Ya, and all of that "theory" tends to be dependent upon the belief that fast convection keeps all the elements mixed together, but that part of your model got blown away.

Common sense alone tells anyone with a basic knowledge of physics that pressure and temperature has to increase with depth to support the increasing weight from gravity.

But the sun's layers don't follow your "common sense" claims because the chromosphere is *hotter* than the photosphere and the corona is hotter than both of those layers. Gravity alone doesn't dictate the temperature.

Astronomy students apply the physics and math and work out that the conditions at the center of stars means that fusion has to be happening.

That's fine for the standard model and it's probably even fine for Birkeland's cathode solar model, but it doesn't apply to Juergen's solar model because his model is mass separated all the way to it's heavy element core.

We observe the predicted neutrino flux from the Sun !

So what? Thornhilll's updated anode solar model predicts neutrino flux in all flavors too. Birkeland's model is based on core fusion so it would necessarily have to produce the same neutrinos and flavors as well.

Interior Structure of Stars (lecture notes).

It's really unethical that you *assume* that the standard solar model is "fact", when in *fact* the standard solar models has been falsified with respect to it's convection predictions by SDO measurements and it's never been fixed.

Basic astronomy: When the Sun stops fusion at the end of its lifetime, it will collapse to a white dwarf after a red giant phase.

Again, you can't seem to separate *fact* from "theory". Juergen's model/Thornhill's model doesn't work the same way as your precious falsified standard solar model. No EU/PC solar model predicts "no neutrinos".

Remove fusion now and there is nothing to support the plasma.

That's not true in Juergen's mass separated model. Again, you keep treating the now falsified standard solar model as "gospel", when it fact it's been falsified by SDO measurements.

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

When are you going to fix your broken solar model? It's been DOA for six years and counting and it's starting to stink to high heaven.

 

[RealityCheck01]

False. ...

Lots of ranting about his and other fantasies, irrelevant videos, etc.
At ISF: 18th May 2010 Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked

For others:
Michael has had a very deluded "model" since maybe 2005.

The surface of the Sun is the photosphere. Above the photosphere, is the solar atmosphere. Below the photosphere is the solar interior with its increasing temperature. On average we can see light from a few optical depths into the interior which is roughly 100 kilometers (depends on the wavelength).

His model has "iron mountain ranges" on the surface of Sun. The surface of the Sun has a temperature of ~5700 K. Iron boils at 3134 K .

His web site has the insanity of "iron mountain ranges" from images of light emitted from mostly H and He plasma in solar flares at temperatures of 160,000 K and greater, many hundreds of kilometers above the photosphere .
The facts are basic - the transition zone in the solar atmosphere is where plasma is heated from the temperature minimum to the million and more degrees in the corona. The Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (TRACE) spacecraft was an observer of this transition.

His model has the ignorant fantasy of H/He/Fe/Si/Ne etc. "layers" in the Sun. The outer third of the Sun is the convective zone. Here the heat from the core of the Sun is transferred by convection currents which mix up the outer third of the Sun. We see these convection currents as the tops of convection cells at the surface of the Sun (granules and supergranules). We measured these convection currents back in 2012.
His link is to the ignorant climate change denial web site wattsupwiththat but this is just a reposting of a press release. The paper is
Anomalously Weak Solar Convection
Weaker than predicted in computer models but the convection currents exist and can destroy layers which he ignores with an repeated, irrelevant fantasy that it falsifies a solar model !
This weak solar convention suggested that the computer models were possibly wrong.

Sunspots also mix up the outer part of the Sun, e.g. Investigation of Mass Flows beneath a Sunspot by Time-Distance Helioseismology by Junwei Zhao, Alexander G. Kosovichev and Thomas L. Duvall, Jr.
This is at least one sunspot basically acting as a giant eggbeater and mixing up the surface of the Sun to a depth of 16,000 km.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The "idiocy" started when you *assumed* now *falsified* solar *theory* as fact.

An irrelevant "now *falsified* solar *theory*" delusion when he has presented nothing falsifying any solar model. Even if we were to throw away actual science, that would not make ignorant fantasies about the Sun correct.
At ISF: 18th May 2010 Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked

Idiocy of citing the convection currents that destroy his layers in the Sun fantasy again !
The paper is Anomalously Weak Solar Convection
Weaker than predicted in computer models but the convection currents exist and can destroy layers which he ignores with an repeated, irrelevant fantasy that it falsifies a solar model!
This weak solar convention suggested that the computer models were possibly wrong in 2012.

For others:
A nice description at Convection in the Sun is Slower than We Thought
A 2016 review including one of the authors of the above paper: Seismic Sounding of Convection in the Sun

Thermal convection is the dominant mechanism of energy transport in the outer envelope of the Sun (one-third by radius). It drives global fluid circulations and magnetic fields observed on the solar surface. Vigorous surface convection excites a broadband spectrum of acoustic waves that propagate within the interior and set up modal resonances. These acoustic waves, also called seismic waves in this context, are observed at the surface of the Sun by space- and ground-based telescopes. Seismic sounding, the study of these seismic waves to infer the internal properties of the Sun, constitutes helioseismology. Here we review our knowledge of solar convection, especially that obtained through seismic inference. Several characteristics of solar convection, such as differential rotation, anisotropic Reynolds stresses, the influence of rotation on convection, and supergranulation, are considered. On larger scales, several inferences suggest that convective velocities are substantially smaller than those predicted by theory and simulations. This discrepancy challenges the models of internal differential rotation that rely on convective stresses as a driving mechanism and provide an important benchmark for numerical simulations.

 

[Michael]

Lots of ranting about his and other fantasies, irrelevant videos, etc.
At ISF: 18th May 2010 Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked

For others:
Michael has had a very deluded "model" since maybe 2005.

You supposedly "debunked" Birkeland's solar model the same way you supposedly "debunked" Juergen's solar model, specifically by flat out *lying* about what the models actually "predict" and by flat out lying about what I said just like you lied about what Thornhill said. No about of "explaining" the EU/PC solar models (plural) matters to you one iota, because you don't care. You're not interested in truth or science, you're just bound and determined to misrepresent all EU/PC theories.

The surface of the Sun is the photosphere.

Correction: The "surface" of *your* solar model is the photosphere. The surface of any EU/PC solar model however is the *electrode*, which is absolutely *not* the surface of the photosphere. You keep repeating your own theory as "fact" when in "fact" it's simply *one possible model*.

Above the photosphere, is the solar atmosphere.

Ya, and it's hotter than the surface of the photosphere and you model cannot explain it properly, and you *certainly* can't simulate the heating process in a lab and sustain it at high temperatures indefinitely as any EU/PC solar model can do.

Below the photosphere is the solar interior with its increasing temperature.

Again however, that's only true in *your* (now falsified) solar model, and it's already been falsified by SDO measurements. Sunspots routinely show that lower temperatures can exist below the surface of the photosphere, even *thousands* of degrees lower.

On average we can see light from a few optical depths into the interior which is roughly 100 kilometers (depends on the wavelength).

On average, *your* model predicts that, but not every model does so.

His model has "iron mountain ranges" on the surface of Sun. The surface of the Sun has a temperature of ~5700 K. Iron boils at 3134 K .

This is a perfect example of you flat out misrepresenting the *model* I've proposed. The surface of the electrode in all EU/PC *working experiments* is *much lower* than the plasma double layers above the electrode. The surface temperature of the electrode is approximately 1200K in my model, regardless of how many times you intentionally *misrepresent* the model. You misrepresented the neutrino predictions of *all* EU/PC solar models too.

His web site has the insanity of "iron mountain ranges" from images of light emitted from mostly H and He plasma in solar flares at temperatures of 160,000 K and greater, many hundreds of kilometers above the photosphere .

The insanity of is all your own. You have the insane idea that if you continue to misrepresent the models (plural), somehow they are 'debunked'. Talk about insane irrational behavior..

The facts are basic - the transition zone in the solar atmosphere is where plasma is heated from the temperature minimum to the million and more degrees in the corona.

Only in *your* model, but not in any EU/PC solar model. Your model has also been *falsified*, and it's never been fixed.

The Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (TRACE) spacecraft was an observer of this transition.

But that's not how it works in an EU/PC solar model. The coronal loops start *under* the surface of the photosphere and they emit light *under* the surface of the photosphere. This can even be demonstrated in various satellite images, including all SDO 1600A, 1700A and magnetogram images where the effect of the hot plasma and current flowing inside the coronal loops can be seen as bright spots and magnetic field signatures on the surface of the photosphere.

His model has the ignorant fantasy of H/He/Fe/Si/Ne etc. "layers" in the Sun.

Your model includes the ignorant fantasy that light elements like hydrogen stay "mixed together" with heavy elements like iron and nickel, even though your convection predictions were *falsified* by SDO, and shown to be two full orders of magnitude *slower* than your model predicted. You don't have enough convection speed to pull off your ignorant fantasy.

The outer third of the Sun is the convective zone.

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

Your model *failed* to correctly predict the speed of convection!

Here the heat from the core of the Sun is transferred by convection currents which mix up the outer third of the Sun. We see these convection currents as the tops of convection cells at the surface of the Sun (granules and supergranules). We measured these convection currents back in 2012.

We also measured convection in 2012 and your model was falsified and you never fixed it.

His link is to the ignorant climate change denial web site wattsupwiththat but this is just a reposting of a press release. The paper is
Anomalously Weak Solar Convection
Weaker than predicted in computer models but the convection currents exist and can destroy layers which he ignores with an repeated, irrelevant fantasy that it falsifies a solar model !

No because that mass movement observed by SDO isn't related to "convection" in EU/PC solar models, it's related to *current flows* which are moving mass out into space.

This weak solar convention suggested that the computer models were possibly wrong.

It demonstrates that your precious solar model is *broken* and that it's never been fixed.

 

[Michael]

An irrelevant "now *falsified* solar *theory*" delusion when he has presented nothing falsifying any solar model.

Your delusions that you now falsified solar model is "fact' is just sad and pathetic. Your model was *falsified* by the data and you've never fixed it.

Even if we were to throw away actual science, that would not make ignorant fantasies about the Sun correct.

Birkeland's solar model works in the lab. We have to throw away science and SDO data to get your model just to work on paper, and it's *still* physically incapable of simulating a hot corona in a lab.

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

Your lies are not "debunking". They are just your lies.

Idiocy of citing the convection currents that destroy his layers in the Sun fantasy again !

Those slow speed mass movements aren't "convection" in EU/PC solar models, they are *current flows* that move mass.

The paper is Anomalously Weak Solar Convection
Weaker than predicted in computer models but the convection currents exist and can destroy layers which he ignores with an repeated, irrelevant fantasy that it falsifies a solar model!

The only thing those measurements "destroy" are your now falsified solar model.

This weak solar convention suggested that the computer models were possibly wrong in 2012.

Correction: They *are* wrong. Your model is a failure both in the lab, and on paper. When are you going to fix it?

For others:
A nice description at Convection in the Sun is Slower than We Thought
A 2016 review including one of the authors of the above paper: Seismic Sounding of Convection in the Sun

For others:

They've never fixed their model so it's not a valid model anymore.

 

[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.

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.

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).

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

Coronal mass ejection
This is a snapshot of Active Region 9143 observed with TRACE in the 171Å passband, showing bright material around 1 million degrees. This image, taken at 17:07UT on August 28, 2000, shows the corona during a C3.3 flare, associated with a mass ejection (towards the upper left of the image). The associated 3.3MB
AVI movie (Cinepak compressed)
shows the flare and mass ejection as a difference movie: where the image turns bright, the solar corona has become brighter after 16UT, and where it turns black it has dimmed. This shows the ejected material very well, first flying upward at several hundred kilometers per second. Later, some of it is seen to fall back as a dark cloud.

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 !

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!

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.
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".

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.