Merged: Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

[Reality Check]

It is possible that people reading this thread do not know about Bruce's threoy.
MM usually links to a web site containing Bruce's in-house (non-peer reviewed) paper for the company Bruce worked for:
Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution
From the summary:

Quote:

The object is to show that all cosmic atmospheric phenomena can be explained as deriving from electrical discharges, resulting from the breakdown of electric fields generated by the asymmetrical impacts between dust particles, such as are effective in terrestrial electrical sand and dust storms and in thunderstorms. These electrical discharges form, for example, the solar photosphere at 6,000°K, superposed on an atmospheric background temperature of less than 4,000°K at which solids can and do form. Isolated discharges form the solar prominences and solar flares.

Note that Bruce required the same breakdown as in terrestrial thunderstorms.

Solar prominences and solar flares can happen away from sunspots at locations where his hypothetical dust particles cannot exist because the temperature is ~5700 K.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Then Bruce is an idiot.

Ah, the ol' standby in underhanded debate tactics, the ad hom. Yawn. You guys are *SO* predictable at this point.

Quote:

No, it isn't. Flares aren't anywhere near as fast as lightning, in case you hadn't noticed.

This statement simply demonstrates that you didn't actually even READ Bruce's work for yourself since that is the whole BASIS for his original claim!

Gah the phones are ringing and this conversation is pointless. It's argument from ignorance and argument by ridicule. How pointless can it get?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You are continuing to lie about Peratt's defintion.

Denial isn't going to save you RC. His definition *BEGINS* in a "plasma" and no amount of denial, or name calling is going to change that historical fact. Wake up and smell the coffee.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

No, I'm just noting that even a 12 year old kid without an ax to grind is able to "see the light" in terms of what a sunspot actually is, and the fact that material moves down into that umbra. By the way, it's the same conclusion Herschel came to, and he wasn't 12.

Actually you are just pointing out that a 12 year old kid can be fooled by the same optical illusion that their parent is fooled by.
Any dark area surrounded by a bright area looks like a hole unless you have other clues like shadows. The best example of the illusion is the images of Lunar craters. If you do not know hat you are looking at then they look like holes when the image is up one way. Rotate the image 180 degrees and they look like hills.

Or maybe you are are pointing out that you have the scientific knowledge of a 12 year old kid ?

Or maybe you are pointing out that you are not applying any scientific analysis to the image and trusting your interprepretation of your "father figures" (Birkeland, Bruce, Herschel, etc.)?

By the way, it's the same conclusion Herschel came to, and he was as mad as a hatter in this aspect (life on the Sun ).

By the way: your kid's last remark was probably correct - some material from flares does fall back to the surface. This means that there is bright material over a dark background. The bright material fades as it cools. This gives the illusion that it falls into the sunspot.
The scientific observations are that the material actually falls "into" the sunspot. However "into" is in quotes for a reason (rather than your rather crazy random quoting). It is thought that sunspots are depressions so the "into" would mean "below the level of the surrounding photosphere". But some astronomers think that the depressions are just thinner plasma. In that case "into" is really into the sunspot.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Denial isn't going to save you RC. His definition *BEGINS* in a "plasma" and no amount of denial, or name calling is going to change that historical fact. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Delusion isn't going to save you Michael Mozina.
His title *ENDS* in a "cosmic plasma" and no amount of delusion, or name calling is going to change that physical fact (Do you know the difference between a title and a definition? First asked 11 January 2011)
Wake up and learn the difference between a title and a definition.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Then Bruce is an idiot.

Actually the tense should be was.
MM is talking about C.E.R Bruce, an expert in lightning who died in 1979.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

By the way, it's the same conclusion Herschel came to, and he was as mad as a hatter in this aspect (life on the Sun ).

Ya know,

I've read a number of works by Herschel, but I've yet to come across or read anything from him related to claims about life on the sun. Do you happen to have an actual reference for that claim, or are you just bashing him like you folks like to bash everyone, with or without any real evidence to support your claim?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Ya know,

I've read a number of works by Herschel, but I've yet to come across or read anything from him related to claims about life on the sun. Do you happen to have an actual reference for that claim, or are you just bashing him like you folks like to bash everyone, with or without any real evidence to support your claim?

Try reading what I have already posted (though it is Wikiepedia and so doubtful)

ETA
Another bit of evidence (but way too many ...)
Sun, Life on

Quote:

More remarkably, as late as 1795, the distinguished astronomer William Herschel maintained that the Sun was essentially a large planet with a solid surface, surrounded by two layers of clouds. An opaque lower layer shielded the solar inhabitants from the heat and light of the glowing upper layer which he thought was similar in nature to the Earth's aurora though on a grander scale.
Wrote Herschel:1

The Sun ... appears to be nothing else than a very eminent, large, and lucid planet ... Its similarity to the other globes of the solar system ... leads us to suppose that it is most probably ... inhabited ... by beings whose organs are adapted to the peculiar circumstances of that vast globe.

Herschel, W. Philsosophical Transcations of the Royal Society of London (1795).

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

If you ever actually get around to reading through his work, you'll see that Herschel came to his conclusions about a surface by studying sunspots and specifically the umbra and penumbra parts of the sunspot (mostly the umbra). Much of his "logic" seems to mirror my own beliefs in terms of how the sunspots form, etc. He also proposes the idea that the umbra is not made made of the same material as the photosphere or 'cloud-like-layer". He was also highly interested in why the dark regions appeared all along the edges of the penumbral filaments and why they all seemed to end at roughly the same "depth". We seemed to have arrived at similar conclusions about the nature of sunspots for many of the same reasons. That isn't necessarily the case in terms of the "surface" since he claimed to be actually able to "see" it through the sunspot in white light. My opinions about a surface came from an entirely different set of logic, but in terms of sunspot concepts, our beliefs were developed in very similar ways.

Then congratulations, you agree with somebody who has been dead for 200 years. Unfortunately, those who have bothered to consider the progress we have made in physics over the last 2 centuries think you are both wrong. Now, what is more likely, 200 years of scientific progress from the development of the laws of thermodynamics through to the structure of the atom have correctly lead to the conclusion that Herschel's interpretation was wrong, or 200 years of physics progresses has largely been a false dawn, Herschel was right in the first place and this was remarkably only seen by a computer scientist with seemingly little grasp on fields such as thermodynamics?

Quote:

Well, we can look at the spectrum to determine elements, but you can't just *ASSUME* the whole thing is homogeneous in elemental composition based on an external surface. It would be like looking at a planet covered in water, and then *ASSUMING* the whole thing is necessarily made of water based on the composition of that one surface.

Uh-huh... Did you actually read what I posted?

Quote:

In any solar theory only the lightest elements easily (daily) escape the gravity of the sun, namely highly ionized hydrogen and helium, and He+2 is more abundant than He+1 in terms of solar wind composition. You can't simply "assume" what a star or a planet is made of simply based on the presence of mostly lighter elements in the ISM.

Stellar objects form from gas clouds in the ISM. We know the composition of these gas clouds, they are mostly hydrogen and helium. So we know that when they form from gas clouds, stars are mostly hydrogen and helium. What is so difficult to understand about this?

Quote:

See my comment to your multiple assumptions above.

I didn't make multiple assumptions. The only assumption was that, since the SUn was formed from the ISM, it is likely to have a similar composition to the ISM. Seriously, what is so difficult to understand about this?

Quote:

It's four closest neighboring bodies are not made of hydrogen and helium, so why should I expect the sun to be composed of mostly hydrogen and helium?

Because the Sun formed from the ISM, the ISM is mostly hydrogen and helium. Our neighbouring bodies contain little hydrogen and helium (in elemental form at least) because there typical velocities at the temperatures of the planets exceed the escape velocity of the planets in question. This is not the case with the Sun.

Quote:

You don't find it the least bit unusual that neon is that spectrum and highly ionized neon appears in the SERTS spectral data in great abundance, and yet neon is supposedly only exists in tiny amounts in the solar atmosphere?

Not in the slightest. If the wavelengths in question match well with the strong neon transitions and not with strong lines from more abundant sources then neon is what you're going to see.

Quote:

No, I mean in the lab in the Z-machine and other discharge experiments like the paper from Lei.

Then I expect you to provide us with quantitative justification.

Quote:

Alfven understood Maxwell's equations very well and plasma physics too, and he still called it "pseudoscience' til the day he died.

If he did then he was wrong. Evidence that he referred explicitly to magnetic reconnection (and not say some application of MR) on the day he died please.

Quote:

Ya, I know.

So please desist from quote mining Alfven like he some kind of deity. Thank you.

Quote:

Did Alfven say Maxwell's equations were wrong? Did he call MR theory "pseudoscience"? Strawman much?

If there was a strawman it was of your making. I merely stated that MR was consistent with engineering and particle physics. If you have any quantitative evidence to the contrary then please provide it.

Quote:

So? You seem to want to pick *ONE* and only *ONE* "layer" of the solar atmosphere when looking at the spectrum. The chromosphere doesn't act like a black body a 6000 K either.

I'm still failing to see your problem. The photosphere is, to a good approximation a black body. This tells us about the thermodynamic properties of both the photosphere and the stuff below it. Once you understand these properties we can continue.

Quote:

I don't really care one iota about your "definition" anymore than you care about Alfven's definition of MR theory.

Well then I suggest you give up. There is a standard definition of photosphere. I am using it. If you want to use another definition then ok. But everyone else is happy with the usual definition and I can't imagine anyone wanting to change it just to humour you. Therefore it is highly likely, should you continue to use a definition different to everybody else, nobody will pay you the slightest bit of attention. Since you seem quite keen to have attention for your own pet theories I suggest this is probably a bad idea for you. But you are free to exactly as you wish.

Quote:

The fact you ASSUME it to be "opaque" doesn't necessarily make that particular material "opaque" in every wavelength.

Nobody is assuming it is opaque. It is opaque by definition.

Quote:

It certainly doesn't mean it's opaque in say the distance of 500KM of penumbral filaments that are visible in the umbra of sunspots.

In English please?

Quote:

Or Herschel beat everyone to the right idea by centuries (plural). His ideas certainly aren't hurt any by "scientific progress" and what we observe in satellite imagery today.

Errm. Yes they are.

Quote:

So what?

Namechecking a physicist who only had a tiny fraction of the data we have now to base his conjecture on does not do you any favours.

Quote:

No, I'm just noting that even a 12 year old kid without an ax to grind is able to "see the light" in terms of what a sunspot actually is, and the fact that material moves down into that umbra.

No, they weren't. They were able to see an optical image and interpret in a simple way. That provides no evidence whatsoever that the kid was right.

Quote:

By the way, it's the same conclusion Herschel came to, and he wasn't 12.

No, but he was wrong. All I was trying to get across was the fact that if the views of a 12 year old looking at a picture they don't understand use imaging processes they do not understand are the best supporting evidence you have then you really don't have anything at all.

[Reality Check]

I wonder where Bruce's lightning is in: Seriously jaw-dropping picture of the Sun with its detached prominence.
The reversing of the contrast shows the limb darkening clearly thus showing conclusively that the Sun is hotter inside.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Gah the phones are ringing and this conversation is pointless. It's argument from ignorance and argument by ridicule. How pointless can it get?

Oh, I think it can get a lot more pointless.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

In any solar theory only the lightest elements easily (daily) escape the gravity of the sun, namely highly ionized hydrogen and helium, and He+2 is more abundant than He+1 in terms of solar wind composition. You can't simply "assume" what a star or a planet is made of simply based on the presence of mostly lighter elements in the ISM.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, wonderful, I guess that is that H²⁰⁺ that is so abundant in the solar wind, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

In any solar theory only the lightest elements easily (daily) escape the gravity of the sun, namely highly ionized hydrogen and helium, and He+2 is more abundant than He+1 in terms of solar wind composition. You can't simply "assume" what a star or a planet is made of simply based on the presence of mostly lighter elements in the ISM.

I must admit this is one of MM's more ignorant remarks.
Of course the lighter element escape from stars. So what?

Nebular hypothesis
Stars are made up of the ISM.
Planets are (basically) made up of whatever remains of the ISM after the star lights up and drives of most of the lighter elements.

There is no assumption. There is the application of physics to the ISM. There is the actual measurement of the composition of stars (surface from their spectrum and I would think the novae and supernovae provide deeper compositions).

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Ya know,

I've read a number of works by Herschel, but I've yet to come across or read anything from him related to claims about life on the sun. Do you happen to have an actual reference for that claim, or are you just bashing him like you folks like to bash everyone, with or without any real evidence to support your claim?

From Chapter 2 of The Sun Kings by Stuart Clark, I think it is mentioned.

From an internet biograpy:

Quote:

As a scientist, Herschel could not prove his speculations about life beyond earth–and therefore he did not publish such ideas in scientific journals. His philosophical essays and his personal correspondences (the latter of which only fully came to light in 1912), however show how keenly he believed in extraterrestrial life and civilization and how tirelessly he looked for aliens.

[snip]
Herschel did not believe that the moon was the only other sphere to support life–he believed that life could be found on all heavenly bodies which are spherical from self-gravitation. And Herschel really meant all such bodies: in the Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions in 1795 he speculated about beings living on the sun,

Originally Posted by Hershel

The sun…appears to be nothing else than a very eminent, large, and lucid planet, evidently the first, or in strictness of speaking, the only primary one of our system….Its similarity to the other globes of the solar system …leads us to suppose that it is most probably inhabited …by beings whose organs are adapted to the peculiar circumstances of that vast globe.

I guess the bold one is to be looked for.

ETA: Ah I see RC has the same reference to 1795 (too bad cannot find access to it)

[tusenfem]

Unfortunately, I have found that at gallica.bnf.fr where there are an awful lot of old journals etc. the volume of the Philosophical Transactions for 1795 is not available. They got 1794 and they got 1796, bummer!

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Then congratulations, you agree with somebody who has been dead for 200 years.

So what? I agree with various opinions written by people that have been dead a lot longer than 200 years.

Quote:

Unfortunately, those who have bothered to consider the progress we have made in physics over the last 2 centuries think you are both wrong.

So what? I used that "progress" you mentioned, specifically satellite imagery, to come to my conclusions, something Herschel could not have done and did not do. I also came to my conclusion based on nuclear chemistry research, something Herschel did not understand. Who are "those' people exactly anyway, and why should I care what they think if they won't debate these ideas openly in public?

Quote:

Now, what is more likely, 200 years of scientific progress from the development of the laws of thermodynamics through to the structure of the atom have correctly lead to the conclusion that Herschel's interpretation was wrong,

Your claim about "thermodynamics" is actually false going as far back as Herschel himself. He claimed there were TWO layers, not one, and the inner one was cooler. You are again *ASSUMING* the first 500KM of the photosphere acts like a "black body' and you cannot demonstrate that claim via direct observation of sunspot activity.

Quote:

or 200 years of physics progresses has largely been a false dawn,

The "dark" stuff of mainstream theory is certainly a "false dawn" of understanding. Whatever real understanding follows will make it seem "silly" IMO.

Quote:

Herschel was right in the first place and this was remarkably only seen by a computer scientist with seemingly little grasp on fields such as thermodynamics?

You seem to forget those papers I've published have more than just my name on them. Birkeland came to a similar "model' by the way. I have to stop here for moment, but I'll pick up the rest as I get time today.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Birkeland came to a similar "model' by the way.

By the way: you are lying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hershel
The sun…appears to be nothing else than a very eminent, large, and lucid planet, evidently the first, or in strictness of speaking, the only primary one of our system….Its similarity to the other globes of the solar system …leads us to suppose that it is most probably inhabited …by beings whose organs are adapted to the peculiar circumstances of that vast globe.

Birkeland never said that the Sun was a planet.
He never had any model of the Sun. He made the observation that his terrella ("little Earth") experiments made images that looked like some solar activity and the rings of Saturn. He observed that space would be full of electrons and ions (the solar wind).

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

So what? I agree with various opinions written by people that have been dead a lot longer than 200 years.

But science isn't about opinions. It is about finding the theories that best match the data (quantitatively) available at the time. 200 years is a very very long time in physics. The data we have now has improved by many orders of magnitude. Herschel's opinion on things he was essentially, by today's standards, ignorant of are of no concern to physics.

Quote:

So what? I used that "progress" you mentioned, specifically satellite imagery, to come to my conclusions, something Herschel could not have done and did not do. I also came to my conclusion based on nuclear chemistry research, something Herschel did not understand.

In other words, you have zero evidence that Herschel would have come to the same conclusion as you with the same evidence. You are not just making an argument from false authority, you are making a false argument from false authority.

[quote]
Who are "those' people exactly anyway, and why should I care what they think if they won't debate these ideas openly in public?[quote]
They do debate their work in public all the time. At conferences.

Quote:

Your claim about "thermodynamics" is actually false going as far back as Herschel himself.

That doesn't even make sense. There were no (known) laws of thermodynamics when Herschel died.

Quote:

He claimed there were TWO layers, not one, and the inner one was cooler.

He was categorically wrong. NOt that I'd say there were any discrete layers.

Quote:

You are again *ASSUMING* the first 500KM of the photosphere acts like a "black body' and you cannot demonstrate that claim via direct observation of sunspot activity.

Do you actually know what a black body is?

Quote:

The "dark" stuff of mainstream theory is certainly a "false dawn" of understanding. Whatever real understanding follows will make it seem "silly" IMO.

Hmm. Another bold claim with 0 quantitative evidence to back it up. Do you not think that is just a little bit arrogant? It's effectively "I don't understand this field of research therefore it must be wrong".

Quote:

You seem to forget those papers I've published have more than just my name on them.

Well I wouldn't like to comment on the abilities of other authors without them being around. I still believe you to be very very outnumbered (not that science is a democracy) and believe that you could very few qualified academics not on the paper who agree with your interpretation.

Quote:

Birkeland came to a similar "model' by the way.

No he didn't.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

So what? I agree with various opinions written by people that have been dead a lot longer than 200 years.

Indeed.

Quote:

So what? I used that "progress" you mentioned, specifically satellite imagery, to come to my conclusions, something Herschel could not have done and did not do. I also came to my conclusion based on nuclear chemistry research, something Herschel did not understand. Who are "those' people exactly anyway, and why should I care what they think if they won't debate these ideas openly in public?

There is no evidence to suggest any electric Sun proponent is qualified to understand solar satellite imagery. Consequently any opinion based on that imagery can be rejected as uninformed and unqualified.

Quote:

Your claim about "thermodynamics" is actually false going as far back as Herschel himself. He claimed there were TWO layers, not one, and the inner one was cooler. You are again *ASSUMING* the first 500KM of the photosphere acts like a "black body' and you cannot demonstrate that claim via direct observation of sunspot activity.

Nobody is assuming that the photosphere is the region where the Sun's atmosphere goes from being transparent to being opaque. That is the definition of the word "photosphere", and it follows that the opacity issue is true by definition. As far as the Sun acting like a blackbody, there is no assumption there either. It is demonstrated by simple quantitative, objective observation and the application of relatively straightforward physics.

Quote:

The "dark" stuff of mainstream theory is certainly a "false dawn" of understanding. Whatever real understanding follows will make it seem "silly" IMO.

You seem to forget those papers I've published have more than just my name on them. Birkeland came to a similar "model' by the way. I have to stop here for moment, but I'll pick up the rest as I get time today.

Those papers also bore the name of a crackpot who thinks the Sun is constructed like a giant jawbreaker with hydrogen on the outside, followed by inhomogeneous layers of increasingly heavier elements, and ending with an iron core in the middle. Nowhere does he express any agreement with the notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface, and he apparently doesn't support the claim that solar flares are analagous to lightning here on Earth. Those papers also bore the name of a guy, the extent of whose qualifications appear to be that he's a member of an astronomy club, a club whose sole requirement for membership is paying the $15 a year dues.

And, as has been discussed many, many times, Birkeland never proposed a model of the Sun with lightning dancing around on the surface, certainly not any model that can be honestly claimed to be anything like the convoluted and disconnected pile of ideas the electric Sun adherents are proposing.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

But science isn't about opinions. It is about finding the theories that best match the data (quantitatively) available at the time. 200 years is a very very long time in physics.

In terms of physics in general, I agree with you, 200 years is a very long time. In astronomy however, it's a mere blink of an eye. It took the mainstream more than 65 years to verify Birkeland's theories on aurora. It will probably take them another 100+ years at this rate to figure out his cathode sun theories have scientific merit. 200 years isn't all that long in terms of astronomy "theory". We've advanced a long way in terms of "observation", but "theory" is clearly lagging IMO. The mainstream is still peddling pseudoscience and really hasn't figured out anything about electric universe theory. It still treats PC/EU theory as a second class citizen. In fact it treats PC theory like the plaque. IMO 200 years isn't really all that long in terms of theoretical change. It typically takes them a *DECADE* or two to make any changes at all.

Quote:

The data we have now has improved by many orders of magnitude. Herschel's opinion on things he was essentially, by today's standards, ignorant of are of no concern to physics.

Actually they were far *LESS* ignorant than current solar theories. Those 1600A and 1700A SDO images make it *EXTREMELY* obvious that the coronal loops come UP AND THROUGH the surface of the photosphere in an eruptive state, ripping parts of the surface into space in the process. LMSAL is *WRONG* about the footprints of those loops and they *STILL* haven't admitted it, more than 6 months into the SDO program! The mainstream is *SLOW* to make any changes at all, even obvious ones IMO.

Quote:

In other words, you have zero evidence that Herschel would have come to the same conclusion as you with the same evidence. You are not just making an argument from false authority, you are making a false argument from false authority.

Not at all. Herschel used the best gear he could lay his hands on, and his analysis of sunspots and eruption processes were *WAY* ahead of where LMSAL is today! LMSAL is still claiming that the footprints of coronal loops start something like 1200KM *ABOVE* the surface of the photosphere! From what I've read, even Herschel knew better.

Quote:

They do debate their work in public all the time. At conferences.

Yet in 5 years of me publicly beating this issue to death, not one of them has been willing to debate those RD images, or Kosovichev's Doppler image in public with me. They haven't even figured out where the coronal loops start! Why then should I believe them?

Quote:

That doesn't even make sense. There were no (known) laws of thermodynamics when Herschel died.

His analysis of sunspots makes it clear he believes that the material in the umbra is not the same material in the photosphere. He literally treats it like an eye of a hurricane, a hole in the cloud cover that he can see through. FYI, modern satellite images show that there are in fact gigantic 'twisters" in the solar atmosphere, just as he assumed.

Quote:

He was categorically wrong. NOt that I'd say there were any discrete layers.

Actually he nailed that part IMO.

Quote:

Do you actually know what a black body is?

Do you? Since when did light wispy plasma act like a "black body"?

Quote:

Hmm. Another bold claim with 0 quantitative evidence to back it up. Do you not think that is just a little bit arrogant? It's effectively "I don't understand this field of research therefore it must be wrong".

Oh boloney. I've posted links around here to recent findings that galaxies are twice as bright as 'predicted' and the mainstream *GROSSLY* underestimated the number of small stars in a galaxy. In over three years now, the mainstream has done absolutely *NOTHING* to fix their error! Instead they peddle *EXACTLY* the same number related to exotic brands of matter vs "normal" matter. Do you want me to round up those links again for you?

Quote:

Well I wouldn't like to comment on the abilities of other authors without them being around. I still believe you to be very very outnumbered (not that science is a democracy) and believe that you could very few qualified academics not on the paper who agree with your interpretation.

So what? Science isn't a popularity contest and I am certainly not the first person to question mainstream solar theory.

Quote:

No he didn't.

Yes, he did. You did read the Times article, right? It doesn't REQUIRE a solid surface, nor does it exclude it. His *WORKING MODEL* had a solid metallic surface and a plasma atmosphere around it.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

There is no evidence to suggest any electric Sun proponent is qualified to understand solar satellite imagery.

There is no evidence that any haters have a clue what they are looking at because they refuse to address any of the appropriate materials. What then should I care what they think if they won't read or comment on Alfven's work? "Circuits? What circuits?" Sheesh.

Quote:

Consequently any opinion based on that imagery can be rejected as uninformed and unqualified.

No, only statements like "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" can be rejected as uniformed and unqualified.

Quote:

Nobody is assuming that the photosphere is the region where the Sun's atmosphere goes from being transparent to being opaque. That is the definition of the word "photosphere", and it follows that the opacity issue is true by definition.

Who cares one iota how you "definite" it? I handed you folks a perfectly good "definition" of an electrical discharge in a plasma.

Quote:

As far as the Sun acting like a blackbody, there is no assumption there either. It is demonstrated by simple quantitative, objective observation and the application of relatively straightforward physics.

Boloney! Those x-rays and gamma rays defy your claim that the sun emits like a "black body" at 6K degrees. It does not. It has LAYERS that emit at different temperatures, and Bennett pinches that emits high energy wavelengths at millions of degrees *ABOVE* a 6K degree black body. You've "dumbed it down" to a "black body" in spite of the fact it isn't actually a BB at 6000K.

Quote:

And, as has been discussed many, many times, Birkeland never proposed a model of the Sun with lightning dancing around on the surface, certainly not any model that can be honestly claimed to be anything like the convoluted and disconnected pile of ideas the electric Sun adherents are proposing.

You know, its these kind of statements that really demonstrate a lack of integrity on the part of the haters. He certainly did start with a cathode sun with dancing discharges in the atmosphere! Lies and denial seem to be the name of the haters game. Yawn. It's like arguing with creationists.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

By the way: you are lying.

I'm sick of the attack the messenger kind of BS. The haters haven't a clue what they are talking about. They can't handle the "science" at all, so they simply deny it exists, starting with a simple *DEFINITION* of an "electrical discharge" in a "plasma'.

Instead of just being intellectually honest about these issues, acknowledging Birkeland's cathode sun theories includes solids and plasmas, the haters attack the individual, they lie like a rug about the history behind Birkeland's experiments and Alfven's statements about MR theory, and they attack the individual. This place is predicable and *BORING* beyond belief. Have either of you even read Alfven's book yet?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, wonderful, I guess that is that H²⁰⁺ that is so abundant in the solar wind, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The moon has been bombarded by Hydrogen and Helium for BILLIONS of years but none of it sticks. The sun can't even hang on to the stuff with all it's gravity! What then makes you think any large physical body is space is mostly made of light elements? They fact the lightest elements easily escape gravitational wells and are therefore abundant in space does mean a thing in terms of the composition of the moon, or the Earth, Mars, Venus, Mercury or any of the sun's closest physical neighbors. Why then should I believe the sun is mostly hydrogen? It can't even seem to hang on to the stuff!

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Hmm. Another bold claim with 0 quantitative evidence to back it up. Do you not think that is just a little bit arrogant? It's effectively "I don't understand this field of research therefore it must be wrong".

That does seem to be his strongest argument, and you have to admit its versatility. In Mozina's hands, that blunt instrument becomes a formidable weapon for attacking every field of research.

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.swinburne.edu.au/corporat...releaseid=1111

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0819145846.htm

Three years later, not a single change has occurred in terms of the claim about how much "non bayonic dark matter" there is in any given galaxy. Why? Talk about a slow to acknowledge one's errors! It's been three YEARS since one of those findings was first revealed.

[tusenfem]

round, like a circle in a spiral like a wheel within a wheel
never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel

Can a moderator close this pointless thread, we have arrived at page one again!

[Michael Mozina]

What is it with you and your desire to close active threads anyway? Talk about draconian measures. Don't you think that it would be a lot easier and more rational to just stop posting to this thread if you personally are not interested in the discussion? Why do you need to close things down that you personally don't like?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Do you? Since when did light wispy plasma act like a "black body"?

Since whenever they're thicker than the optical depth in them. We've been over this before. You have learned nothing. You have, in fact, refused to learn.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

There is no evidence that any haters have a clue what they are looking at because they refuse to address any of the appropriate materials. What then should I care what they think if they won't read or comment on Alfven's work? "Circuits? What circuits?" Sheesh.

Nobody has said, "Circuits? What circuits?" It is not true to suggest that anyone has.

Quote:

No, only statements like "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" can be rejected as uniformed and unqualified.

Nobody has said, "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" It is not true to suggest that anyone has.

Quote:

Who cares one iota how you "definite" it? I handed you folks a perfectly good "definition" of an electrical discharge in a plasma.

Everyone with any scientific integrity cares about the definitions of terms when discussing scientific issues. All too often we see those advocating against-the-mainstream positions trying to redefine terms in an apparently dishonest effort to give their unsupportable conjectures some kind of scientific validity. If there was any validity to their claims, they wouldn't need to shun the perfectly understandable contemporary terminology. They also wouldn't need to contort cherry picked words and phrases from scattered, often unrelated sources in order to support the claims.

Real scientists care about clear, concise definitions of terms. Without them it is impossible to discuss real science. That would be real scientists.

Quote:

Boloney! Those x-rays and gamma rays defy your claim that the sun emits like a "black body" at 6K degrees. It does not. It has LAYERS that emit at different temperatures, and Bennett pinches that emits high energy wavelengths at millions of degrees *ABOVE* a 6K degree black body. You've "dumbed it down" to a "black body" in spite of the fact it isn't actually a BB at 6000K.

Interestingly enough, thousands of professionals in the fields of astronomy, physics, and astrophysics seem to feel differently about it. And the corollary, only a tiny handful of people on Earth are electric Sun proponents, and none of them appear to possess the qualifications or credentials to present an authoritative opinion on the matter.

Quote:

You know, its these kind of statements that really demonstrate a lack of integrity on the part of the haters. He certainly did start with a cathode sun with dancing discharges in the atmosphere! Lies and denial seem to be the name of the haters game. Yawn. It's like arguing with creationists.

Any misunderstanding or dishonest misrepresentation of Birkeland's work on the part of any electric Sun proponents does not negate the truth of my comment...

Originally Posted by GeeMack

And, as has been discussed many, many times, Birkeland never proposed a model of the Sun with lightning dancing around on the surface, certainly not any model that can be honestly claimed to be anything like the convoluted and disconnected pile of ideas the electric Sun adherents are proposing.

This claim of Birkeland having a solar model has been repeated over and over and still isn't true. The only support for it has been unsubstantiated assertions. Never has any electric Sun adherent shown that Birkeland had a solar model that was any more than vaguely similar to something that might be sort of like an electric Sun if we dim the lights and squint our eyes. Never. And although unsupported assertions may be the foundation of religious faith, legitimate science requires quantitative and objective support. The lie about Birkeland having an electric Sun solar model should be left in the garbage can where it belongs.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

In terms of physics in general, I agree with you, 200 years is a very long time. In astronomy however, it's a mere blink of an eye.

No it isn't.

Quote:

It took the mainstream more than 65 years to verify Birkeland's theories on aurora.

So? Many theories take many years to be verified.

Quote:

It will probably take them another 100+ years at this rate to figure out his cathode sun theories have scientific merit.

No it won't. Such ideas are ridiculously stupid and will never ever be scientific theories. There is more chance of homeopathy being proved efficacious.

Quote:

200 years isn't all that long in terms of astronomy "theory".

It's an extremely long time.

Quote:

We've advanced a long way in terms of "observation", but "theory" is clearly lagging IMO.

That's the problem though. It is your opinion. You have provided zero quantitative evidence to support it as usual.

Quote:

The mainstream is still peddling pseudoscience

No it isn't.

Quote:

and really hasn't figured out anything about electric universe theory.

It has figured out a lot more than its crackpot proponents. Like how ridiculously unfeasible it is.

Quote:

It still treats PC/EU theory as a second class citizen.

Nope, it ignores them completely because they are clearly false. Much the same way as proponents of the existence of phlogiston are ignored.

Quote:

In fact it treats PC theory like the plaque.

I think you mean plague.

Quote:

IMO 200 years isn't really all that long in terms of theoretical change. It typically takes them a *DECADE* or two to make any changes at all.

No it doesn't.

Quote:

Actually they were far *LESS* ignorant than current solar theories. Those 1600A and 1700A SDO images make it *EXTREMELY* obvious that the coronal loops come UP AND THROUGH the surface of the photosphere in an eruptive state, ripping parts of the surface into space in the process. LMSAL is *WRONG* about the footprints of those loops and they *STILL* haven't admitted it, more than 6 months into the SDO program! The mainstream is *SLOW* to make any changes at all, even obvious ones IMO.

Its extremely obvious and yet you provide 0 quantitative evidence to support it. Have you ever done a single bit of quantitative analysis of anything Michael?

Quote:

Not at all. Herschel used the best gear he could lay his hands on, and his analysis of sunspots and eruption processes were *WAY* ahead of where LMSAL is today!

Quantitative evidence?

Quote:

LMSAL is still claiming that the footprints of coronal loops start something like 1200KM *ABOVE* the surface of the photosphere! From what I've read, even Herschel knew better.

Quantitative evidence?

Quote:

Yet in 5 years of me publicly beating this issue to death, not one of them has been willing to debate those RD images, or Kosovichev's Doppler image in public with me.

Huh? You have a strange idea of how science works. If you have a theory write a paper and submit it to a peer reviewed journal. You sound like you want a presedential debate.

Quote:

They haven't even figured out where the coronal loops start! Why then should I believe them?

No, they apparently disagree with where you believe they start. If your argument consists of "you don't agree with me therefore you are wrong and I am going to provide 0 quantitative evidence to support this" then no wonder nobody cares what you say.

Quote:

His analysis of sunspots makes it clear he believes that the material in the umbra is not the same material in the photosphere. He literally treats it like an eye of a hurricane, a hole in the cloud cover that he can see through.

And you're quantitative evidence showing that he was correct is where?

Quote:

FYI, modern satellite images show that there are in fact gigantic 'twisters" in the solar atmosphere, just as he assumed.

And you have quantified the properties of these twisters?

Quote:

Actually he nailed that part IMO.

And your quantitative evidence to support your opinion is found where?

Quote:

Do you? Since when did light wispy plasma act like a "black body"?

When the depth exceeds the optical depth by a few times.

Quote:

Oh boloney. I've posted links around here to recent findings that galaxies are twice as bright as 'predicted' and the mainstream *GROSSLY* underestimated the number of small stars in a galaxy. In over three years now, the mainstream has done absolutely *NOTHING* to fix their error! Instead they peddle *EXACTLY* the same number related to exotic brands of matter vs "normal" matter. Do you want me to round up those links again for you?

And you have been repeatedly told why these arguments are irrelevant to the concerned discussions.

Quote:

So what? Science isn't a popularity contest and I am certainly not the first person to question mainstream solar theory.

I know, I said similar myself. Unfortunately for you, scientists provide quantitative evidence to support their conclusions.

Quote:

Yes, he did. You did read the Times article, right?

A while ago. That all you got? Nothing... I dunno... quantitative?

Quote:

It doesn't REQUIRE a solid surface, nor does it exclude it. His *WORKING MODEL* had a solid metallic surface and a plasma atmosphere around it.

Then his working model (if that is what he was really modelling) was clearly wrong since a solid surface would violate the laws of thermodynamics.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

It will probably take them another 100+ years at this rate to figure out his cathode sun theories have scientific merit.

That is impossible MM because "his cathode sun theories" are a figment of your imagination.
Birkeland never had a theory of the Sun. He had an experimental anaology to activity on the Sun.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I'm sick of the attack the messenger kind of BS.

If the messenger lies then it is appropriate to call them a liar.

This is what you wrote, refering to Hershel:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Birkeland came to a similar "model' by the way.

This is Hershel's "model":

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hershel
The sun…appears to be nothing else than a very eminent, large, and lucid planet, evidently the first, or in strictness of speaking, the only primary one of our system….Its similarity to the other globes of the solar system …leads us to suppose that it is most probably inhabited …by beings whose organs are adapted to the peculiar circumstances of that vast globe.

Birkeland knew the Sun is a ball of gas.
Birkeland knew that the Sun is hot enough for life to not exist.
Birkeland knew that the Sun is not similar to the "other globes of the solar system" (except in being a globe!).
Thus any "model" he would come up with would be vastly different from Hershel's.

And most importantly: Birkland did not have a model of the Sun !
He had an experimental analogy for activity on the Sun.
He had a prediction that the solar wind would consist of electrons and poitive ions.

You are therefore lying about Birkeland's work.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

http://www.swinburne.edu.au/corporat...releaseid=1111

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0819145846.htm

Three years later, not a single change has occurred in terms of the claim about how much "non bayonic dark matter" there is in any given galaxy. Why? Talk about a slow to acknowledge one's errors! It's been three YEARS since one of those findings was first revealed.

Your ignorance is showing again,Michael Mozina. Neither of those links is about dark matter.
They are about stars and galaxies. Stars are visible. Galaxies are visible.

The papers are nothing to do with this thread.
The results have been addressed in other threads. Basically they do not mean what you imagine they mean. From memory (so do not trust me!), the results might increase the amount of visible matter by 20%. So normal matter goes from 5% of the universe to 6%. But WMAP gives us an independent means of determining the composition of the universe.
WMAP - Content of the Universe

• 4.6% Atoms.
• 23% Cold Dark Matter.
• 72% Dark Energy
• Fast moving neutrinos.

If you have learned anything over the months since you cited the results then continue the conversation in the other threads.

[Perpetual Student]

A phrase I saw on another thread, that is quite succinct and apt, comes to mind here: A "tenuous grasp of reality."

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

No it isn't.

Ya, it is. It took the mainstream *65+* years to figure out Birkeland was right about aurora and they *STILL* haven't figured out he was right about the sun acting as a cathode. At this rate it could be 200 more years before you get *THAT* far. Holy Cow.

For the better part of a year now I have watched plasma being blown off the surface of the photosphere in 1600A and 1700A images now by coronal loop discharges and thereby blowing the doors off of LMSALS claims about the location of the footprints of coronal loops. Even still there hasn't been a single peep out of them, one way or the other! Give me a break. This industry moves at a *SNAILS* pace. At this rate I'll be dead and buried before they accept that "discharges happen" in a plasma.

Quote:

So? Many theories take many years to be verified.

Ya, but it took the mainstream more than half a century to accept Birkeland's auroral theories, so we aren't just talking "years", they *STILL* hate electricity, so we're potentially looking at another century or two before they accept anything signification related to EU/PC theory.

Quote:

No it won't. Such ideas are ridiculously stupid and will never ever be scientific theories. There is more chance of homeopathy being proved efficacious.

If you spent even a half second in my shoes for once, you'd see how this statement of yours precludes there from being any serious change in this industry for a long time to come. If an intelligent person like yourself can really believe such nonsense, even *AFTER* it's been tested in lab, I really can't imagine that astronomy is going to make any great 'leaps in understanding' in my lifetime. You aren't the average "hater" per se, but you have that same irrational chip on your shoulder IMO. I don't know how it got there, but it's clear it's there. It prevents progress IMO.

I have some work ahead of my this evening so I'll stop here for now.

Suffice to say, no amount of aversion to electricity in space is going to make it go away, nor stop those solar discharges from occurring like the x-class flare today. It's not going to stop just because you "lack belief" it's happening. You can drag your feet kicking and screaming if you like, but it's just going to make you look a bit like a 'flat earther' in a round world once the mental shift (to empirical physics) occurs.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Since whenever they're thicker than the optical depth in them. We've been over this before. You have learned nothing. You have, in fact, refused to learn.

It's not that I refuse to learn, I simply refuse to believe you. The only way your theory holds water is if that one 'thin plasma" acts as in a truly miraculous manner and entirely differently than any of the layers above it. I simply don't believe it's dense enough to block all light in say 500KM of distance. Nothing in the satellite images of sunspot activity supports that claim.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

4.6% Atoms.

Are you sure it's 4.6 and not 5.8? Give me a break. Mainstream mythology is 4.6 percent token physics just to give in an air of credibility, and 95.4 metaphysical religion, plus or minus the margin of error of course.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

It's not that I refuse to learn, I simply refuse to believe you. The only way your theory holds water is if that one 'thin plasma" acts as in a truly miraculous manner and entirely differently than any of the layers above it.

Not so. It acts like every other plasma: it has an optical depth. Because it's significantly more dense than the layers above it, the optical depth is considerably shorter. But it's really not all that short, and there really isn't any fundamental difference besides the change in optical depth. And we (meaning people other than you, obviously) understand that difference in optical depth pretty well.

Quote:

I simply don't believe it's dense enough to block all light in say 500KM of distance.

Argument from incredulity. Try quantifying some of your ideas some time. Or hell, just consider other nominally transparent mediums. Air is transparent too, isn't it? And yet, when is the last time you saw through 500 km of atmosphere? You probably never have. Or ordinary glass. You can't see through 500 km of ordinary glass either. So on what basis do you claim to be able to see through 500 km of the sun's photosphere? That you believe you can is insufficient. You need to be able to quantify your work if you want to convince anyone, because the actual solar physics people have quantified their work, and their quantitative work shows that we cannot. But you can't quantify anything. You never have. And you probably never will.

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Boloney! Those x-rays and gamma rays defy your claim that the sun emits like a "black body" at 6K degrees.

I'll raise your "boloney" and hit you with a "phooey"! Nobody ever said that the sun (i.e., all of it) radiates like a black body. It's the photosphere that radiates like a black body. After all these years, can't you get anything straight?

Lest we forget, from 26 June 2009, with emphasis added by me for this occasion ...

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

The huge problem in your idea is that the photosphere is far too thin to be a "black body" in the first place.

That is not true. The "thinness" of the plasma is irrelevant. It's the optical depth which determines whether or not the plasma will radiate as a black body. The solar photosphere plasma has an optical depth of 1.0 where it has a mass density of only 2.78x10^-7 gm/cm³ (but an electron number density 7.7x10¹³/cm³ and a hydrogen atom number density 1.2x10¹⁷/cm³). An optical depth that high guarantees a black body spectral energy distribution.

It is well known that the emission from the solar photosphere is an approximate black body. It is in fact a superposition of multiple black bodies at multiple temperatures, since we can see emission from throughout the depth of the photosphere. The temperature profile shows 6520 Kelvins at optical depth 1, down to a minimum 4400 Kelvins at optical depth 4x10^-4, after which the temperature increases again to 5160 Kelvins at optical depth 5x10^-6. The base of the photosphere, about optical depth 24, has a temperature 9400 Kelvins. The region around optical depth 1 contributes most strongly to the black body shape; lower regions of higher optical depth are more opaque, and higher regions of lower optical depth emit less thermal energy. That's why the best fit single temperature black body for the photosphere is about 6000 Kelvins.

I am using the profile given in Solar Astrophysics by Peter V. Foukal (Wiley-VCH, 2004, 2nd edition), page 153. The inversion technique for building the temperature profile is briefly described in section 5.2.2, but far more detailed descriptions & explanations can be found in any book on atmospheric modeling, where inversions are long standing techniques.

The shape of the photosphere SED is well represented in the diagrams on the Wikipedia page for solar radiation. Foukal's book gives far more detailed information for the curious reader.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Ya, it is. It took the mainstream *65+* years to figure out Birkeland was right about aurora

That is one example.

Quote:

and they *STILL* haven't figured out he was right about the sun acting as a cathode.

That's because, if he ever though that at all. he was wrong. Therefore you can't use that as an example of slowness.

Quote:

At this rate it could be 200 more years before you get *THAT* far. Holy Cow.

It's false. We will never ever ever ever get that far. Is that really so difficult to understand?

Quote:

For the better part of a year now I have watched plasma being blown off the surface of the photosphere in 1600A and 1700A images now by coronal loop discharges and thereby blowing the doors off of LMSALS claims about the location of the footprints of coronal loops. Even still there hasn't been a single peep out of them, one way or the other! Give me a break. This industry moves at a *SNAILS* pace. At this rate I'll be dead and buried before they accept that "discharges happen" in a plasma.

And where is your quantitative analysis to support your claims. If you have no quantitative analysis you aren't doing physics. If you're not doing physics why do you expect physicists to waste their time on you.

Quote:

Ya, but it took the mainstream more than half a century to accept Birkeland's auroral theories, so we aren't just talking "years",

you're repeating yourself.

Quote:

they *STILL* hate electricity,

No they don't

Quote:

so we're potentially looking at another century or two before they accept anything signification related to EU/PC theory.

That's because it is a bunch of crackpot nonsense with 0 quantitative support. If there was ever any quantitative support for it, people would pay attention. Don't blame others for this. The burnden is for the proponent to provide the quantitative support. If there is no quantitative support then it is not a physical theory.

Quote:

If you spent even a half second in my shoes for once, you'd see how this statement of yours precludes there from being any serious change in this industry for a long time to come.

What industry?

Quote:

If an intelligent person like yourself can really believe such nonsense, even *AFTER* it's been tested in lab,

It has not been tested in a lab.

Quote:

I really can't imagine that astronomy is going to make any great 'leaps in understanding' in my lifetime. You aren't the average "hater" per se, but you have that same irrational chip on your shoulder IMO. I don't know how it got there, but it's clear it's there. It prevents progress IMO.

Modern physical science is founded on quantitative evidence. That is what separates it from superstition. And you think it is irrational for me to reject theories as unscientific which have no quantitative support? Please explain your position.

Quote:

I have some work ahead of my this evening so I'll stop here for now.

Suffice to say, no amount of aversion to electricity in space is going to make it go away, nor stop those solar discharges from occurring like the x-class flare today. It's not going to stop just because you "lack belief" it's happening. You can drag your feet kicking and screaming if you like, but it's just going to make you look a bit like a 'flat earther' in a round world once the mental shift (to empirical physics) occurs.

Provide quantitative evidence for your claims and I'll listen. Moan endlessly about being ignored by "the mainstream" or "the industry" without providing any quantitative reason for anyone to pay attention to you and you will continue to be ignored by everybody. The ball is entirely in your court Michael. Stop blaming other people.