Time to throw another two cents in.

Mr. Mozina, I'm glad to see you haven't given up yet. I disagree with you, but I am forced to respect you for trying, still, to intelligently argue your position despite the beating you've taken. Two cents to follow:

1) You often argue against the gas model when asked to argue for the iron-sun model. That is, when presented with an "inconsistency" in your theory, you often respond by bringing up the gas model theory and asking people to explain the inconsistency in terms of it. The point you may be trying to make is that a person should not condemn your theory just because you can't explain a certain nuance of it if they can't explain the same nuance themselves about their own theory. But the people you're talking to are not trying to establish a new theory - they are "riding on the shoulders of giants" and are allowed to do so. You're trying to be your own giant, so it *is* your responsibility to either explain those issues in terms of your model or simply declare, "I cannot explain it (yet?)" (which you have done at times). Such an admission would not condemn your theory, but it is an indication of areas you most surely need to address at some point. If the question is being asked, it is being asked about *your* theory, and the answer should be in terms of your theory as well.

2) There is a near constant request for numerical/testable data from your model, and you apparently feel you have addressed those requests, but I can see how most of the people here would feel you have not. Many times, you respond "intuitively" when a mathematical response is required, or appear not to have answered the question at all:

MM: I have studied plasma physics which is why I know these magnetic flux "ropes" are scales of magnitude too large to explain with hydrogen helium plasma, particularly in the absense of huge flows of current.

VR: Then please show us the specific evidence and calculations.

MM: Ummm, show me one calculation that doesn't involve the flow of current. Then show me one paper that conclusively demonstrates...

He's asking *you* to show *your* calculations that *do* involve flow of current, a mathematical model which can be examined scientifically. It is not his responsibility to provide you with material when he is asking you about fundamental mathematical concepts in your theory. If you do have the answer he is requesting, you are responsible to provide it, and if you do not, you are responsible to admit so. No, you haven't signed a contract to that nature, but this forum does seem to operate on such terms.

I do honestly wish you the best, and I'm hoping the "mainstreamers" here will try to cooperate a little better as well.

Sincerely,
Derrick Baumer

P.S. No, I'm not a moderator, and I'm not trying to be one. I do see potential in this debate, though, and would love to see it argued more properly. If I'm out of line, please inform me and I'll keep my other cents to myself.

__________________
If I'm wrong, you probably asked me the wrong question.

Most of the visible light we see IMO comes from the neon penumbra. The heat from these emissions sort of do show up during peak sunspot activity where the actual intensity of the penumbra picks up even with the sunspot activity. The increase in electrical activity pumps more heat into the system, and the neon moves move heat through the penumbra into the outer plasmas. The additional heat from the increased electrical activity shows up as visible light in the penumbral filaments IMO. The overall heat emissions we "see" in the penumbral filaments is related to the body of heat within the silicon (umbra) layer. It has an "average" temperature and even during less active phases the sun always has smaller electrical discharges all along the surface.

Ultimately all of it relates back to the energy from the fission core and probably some magneto effects as well.

Well, that probably was my intent a time or two.

Woah. Let's go back to the flat earth days. I'll play Galileo, and you try that again. First of all, I have the shoulders of giants to ride on as well. I just choose different Giants and different shoulders. I choose the shoulders of the likes of Dr. Birkeland, and Dr. Bruce and Dr. Manuel. I don't have to do anything here by myself or all alone. If you can cite the work of others, then surely that is my perogative as well. We cannot assume your flat earth Giants are bigger and better than mine.

I do hear what you are trying to say here, and I am trying to answer as many questions as I can and note the places where I cannot. What I find overwhelming however is the unreasonable expectation that I as a single individual should be able to explain every nuance of every handwave of an arguement or somehow admit the gas model is in some way "better" than the model I have proposed. There has been a great deal of theoretical work done on the gas model over the years but there is no automatic guarantee that any of it actually applies unless you (and I mean everyone) can show how and where it applies to actual observation.

Because my model is based on direct observation, I'm pretty much able to show how my model ties back to the observation. If folks here expect me to change my mind, they will need to show me how all these nice theories and math formulas actually relate to any or preferably all of the observations from these satellite images. I feel pretty comfortable that I can explain pretty much every image thrown at me as long as I know where it comes from and a few of the specifics about it. I won't need pixel resolutions either.

Instead of showing me where any of these theories and formulas apply to satellite images, everyone has instead tried to get me to do the math of several thousand lifetimes of dedicated scientists. That isn't going to happen. If anyone actually expects me to change my mind, they will need to step up to the plate as Van did and at least attempt to explain these images another way.

I've found it is MUCH, MUCH easier to criticize than it is to explain these images. Why is that? Shouldn't the gas model, with all its benefit of all it's giants be able to whip up a few alternative explanations to a few images on my website? All I'm asking of this group is for the same consideration they ask of me.

As it relates to the density issue, while a mathematical answer would be nice, as I explained it would be a number I pulled out of thin air and it would be a number devoid of scientific data to support it. It would only serve the purpose to show I can do math, and I assure you, and my kids can assure you, I can do math. I just think there is a time and a place for math, and much of the math has already been done IMO. Dr. Manuel and Dr. Bruce did a lot on that front IMO. Dr. Birkland did a lot of the lab work as well. It seems I'm pretty much relegated to backseat theorist with great explanations to real world observations. What can I say? That is the way I see things.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you understand my sentence and Van focused on the trivia IMO.

You will see that the first time you (anyone) tries to define the "flux" in a magnetic "flux" tube made of iron plasma. That "flux" is based on the flow of electricity through iron. I can show the iron to you in SERTS data. I can show you the electrical discharge phenomenon that Dr. Bruce documented as well. It's all about the flow of current. I said I know that these aren't going to happen without current flow. Van asked for math formulas to prove something. If he believes it can happen in the absense of current flow, then he need to show ME how that is possible, since everything I've read about them involves FLUX and current flow.

I actually appreciate the feedback Derrick. I really do. I'm trying to adjust my style and my answers to be more effective. I do hear you about the math requests, but I'm frankly starting to think the need for math formulas has become a crutch of sorts for not even attempting to address the images on my website using gas model theories. Everyone seem so sure about those giants and these theories, but why aren't these giants stepping up with these giant theories and offering them for scrutiny as I have been willing to do?
Keep in mind that I'm not even asking for a lot of math, just a general theoretical model and a general idea (that is reasonably attentive to detail) of how gas model theories apply to these specific images. Surely giants can do that much?

Then you should be able to show this using evidence, the principles of well understood physics and calculation. Please do so.

Edited to add:

I should be reading more carefully. You changed your wording, Michael! Here is what I would like to see explained:

Quote:

I have studied plasma physics which is why I know these magnetic flux "ropes" are scales of magnitude too large to explain with hydrogen helium plasma, particularly in the absense of huge flows of current.

End of addition.

I'd prefer to see the information on the source images from the source, but that's okay. I shouldn't have interpreted the image without understanding the vital contextual information.

Nope. The photosphere is opaque. This material is above the photosphere.


So you should have no problem in responding to the following question:
For the sake of argument, let's assume there could be solid material in some areas in sunspots for a short period of time. Isn't it your argument that the entire surface of the sun is solid, not small temporary islands of solidity?

In any event, please show how there could be solid material at observed solar temperatures. There is no need to guess, the data is easily available.
Well, then, your model has failed.

This data is well established, and it needs to be accounted for. If you don't account for it, there really is no reason to take this much further.

Please do so. And show how it is possible for it to match the observed neutrino output (hint: it won't, google on "fission antineutrino").

At this point, your model looks like a complete failure. Unless, of course, you care to answer the questions ... with evidence and supporting calculations?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

It'll slow down, but it won't recombine into that same cloud again. By the time it does slow down, it is captured by another body.

It does become embedded, and that embedded cloud can form into stars. But there's still no observational or mathematical evidence showing that this can happen with neutron stars.

And that's fine, I'll argue along your lines. There may be interplay between supernovae, and other neutron stars. But all standard models of neutron stars show that matter accretes around a neutron star like a disk with a possible bulge in the center. I'm assuming the neutron star is stationary relative to a molecular cloud. If, let's say, we had a neutron star moving through a molecular cloud, it would leave a swath of excited particles in its wake, with a stream of particles behind it.

Again, what materials are involved with the fission process? Fusion works with gravity too, and "nothing special" as you put it. You need to have fissionable material in order for your fission star to work.

Small enough so that gas within the cloud isn't disturbed much. If you look at images of molecular clouds, you'll see a bit of gas drifting away from it. But inside the cloud, the gravity of all the particles holds it together. You have to remember that Pioneer is dealing with the effects of solar wind, and cosmic wind. A molecular cloud only deals with cosmic wind. You can figure, at a certain distance from the sun, the velocity of stellar wind has slowed down.

No, that's not only it. The Moon isn't nearly massive enough to capture it, and it's too hot to retain it. I keep repeating this point, and you ignore it. Stellar wind is still moving at a fast velocity once you get to the Moon, and that plays a part in it. But you have to remember that hydrogen moves around pretty fast when its warm, and the temperature around the Moon is hot enough to get hydrogen moving around. Titan's even smaller, but it's colder out there, so it can hold onto a gaseous atmosphere.

You don't have to "buy" it at all. Hydrogen clouds don't have to contain any iron. What about clouds that are removed from supernova? They wouldn't contain any iron. Iron plays a small part in any molecular cloud. How much iron are you proposing?

You ever look at the CMB? The average temp is ~2.73 K. Definately NOT hot plasma. And what am I saying that's moving too fast? The cloud, or the cosmic wind? I haven't seen any evidence for plasma to be filling space. If I said the cosmic wind is too fast, that would be a mistake, but I'm pretty sure I didn't say that. If you want to show me the quote, go ahead. According to Wolfram (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astr...larCloud.html), molecular clouds are 90% H2 molecules, and ~10% He-4 molecules, and the temperature is between 10-20 K. That's a pretty low temperature.

What? I'm not walking both sides of the arguement. I'm addressing two seperate things. The force behind a supernova explosion is incredible, and its going to blow matter out into space, out past the point where the neutron star won't gather it again. And I'm not saying there's no cosmic wind, because there is. I'm saying that its not going to do much against a gravitationally bound molecular cloud.

What elements are you including, and in what proportions to hydrogen? Fission only goes so far before you have stable daughter products.

So you're saying that two bits of a supernova cloud can merge together? I'll accept that. They'll still be moving until they run into something else, though.

No, that's what you assume. That "flimsy" little hydrogen ball will stick together through gravity. It's not like a house of cards.

By "whispy" you mean dense? Wolfram (same link) says it's 10-10^6 molecules cm-3. It's far more dense than space is. The iron particles would enter into a cloud, and ultimately become embedded within it. I'm not playing both sides, because I'm saying that neutron stars don't form in the middle of molecular clouds. Like I said, if you had a neutron star barrelling through the cloud, it would indeed attract matter, and disrupt a good portion of the cloud. I would like you to clarify where the neutron star originated from, if it gathered matter from a hydrogen cloud. As per the "quiet time" read up a bit. The cosmic wind isn't going to disturb the interior of a molecular cloud very much.

It's all part of the same arguement. I'm not having my cake and eating it too. I'm sorry I'm causing you such a headache on this, but I seem to have a knack for doing that.

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

Nope. Not till you explain the FLUX in magnetic flux tubes in the absense of current flow. Then we'll talk. Let me be clear with you Van. There are some folks that do have me working on some mathematical models, but you are not one of them. Why? Because you aren't interested in the math. You are interested in spewing first and asking questions later IMO. I will eventually take a stab at the density calculation RANGES, but I'm not getting lost in trivia with you. If you think there is a way to do WITHOUT current, show me.

That wasn't really even the part the bothered me Van. We are all human. We all make mistakes. I do too. What bothers me is how much you have dogged me over the past month, questioned my credentials, questioned my mathematical skills, questioned my ability to research and make good value judgments. You have been personal and in my face since day one. Everyone else has been "nice" or came around after a while but you continue to make this personal. Let me clue you in here Van, it's not personal. Quit making it personal.

I give you GREAT credit for having the courage to "take a stab at it", and to offer an alternative explanation. That was the first and ONLY helpful thing you did IMO. Being wrong was no discrace in my book Van, being mean about it, and personalizing the process was the problem. You lose no point in my book for risking and being wrong, but your attitude needs improvement if you expect any work from me on your personal account.

Really? Why doesn't it block the light? What keeps those structures in those shapes for days on end? Why don't we see those structures while looking at the photosphere? Where is all that iron coming from in these arcs?

First of all, my contention is that the layer is below the photosphere, not above it. The light we see is mostly originating below the photosphere, though the larger arcs do rise to increadible heights.

Actually, the data is NOT so easily available once we get below the penumbral filaments. We occasionally see an upwelling of heated silicon plasma that is seen around the 3800K range. That silicon however is heated from the arcs which is causing it to rise. Typically it's cooler than this temperature without the additional heat from the arcs.

No, it did not. You failed yourself. You failed because you tried to make it fail. You failed because you don't want to see this suceed and you seem intent on making it fail at all costs. You failed because you never showed a lick of curiousity to see if it really could work another way. You showed no curiousity of any sort. That is not scientific at all. I was blunt and honest about the fact I can't SEE these things you are so concerned about so I cant see where they are coming from to tell you how they form or where they come from. You of course ASSUME they can only form one way, namely YOUR way. Sorry Van, I'm not buying it. When I see where they come from like I can see where the iron arcs come from, then I can make predictions about it. Without this data however, it's pure theory and thats what got the gas model in trouble in the first place IMO.

The only "failure" here is your "failure" to show any real scientific curiosity of any sort. Who do you think you are kidding Van?

If the sun had a positive core.. then the electron cloud that would collect around it could be the source of the current.
-MT

Michael Mozina, the confrontational attidude in your above post is neither warranted nor acceptable within the Civility & Decorum guidelines of this forum.

Van Rijn has offered criticisms of your model and methodology. He's taken the time to pose reasoned questions, not "spew" nor deliver ad-hominem attacks. You have incorrectly viewed these as personal affronts and have provided vitriolic replies, for which you have been previously warned.

You are also attempting to shift the burden of proof. It is not the responsibility of other participants to continually prove your ideas wrong.

In accordance with the forum rules, you are expected to provide substantive evidence and politely defend your arguments, including answering direct questions. Nereid delivered a prior warning to you about this. Your attempts to shift the goal posts are entirely unreasonable. The onus rests upon your shoulders to defend your model, not others to disprove it nor jump through tangental hoops along the way. The Alternative Concepts section of the FAQ is explicitly clear in this regard.

Due to the violations listed above, your account has been suspended for 24 hours. Subsequent violations will be met with further disciplinary action, including the possible termination of your posting privileges. You are strongly advised to proceed cautiously and within this forum's guidelines.

This was posted in the original Solid sun surface thread.
Nothing changed; still going in circles...

MOZINA: For how long? Sooner or later it's [the expanding SNR] going to slow down. After a hundred million years or so, what then?

Basic Newtonian physics says it won't slow down unless acted on by another force. If it left the neutron star left behind by the supernova, it is already well beyond that object's escape velocity. Once it is gone, it is not going to have an appreciable change in velocity unless it passes close enough for some other object's gravity to begin to act upon it.

A century later, when it has expanded several light-years in size, whatever is left will be very thin because of the inverse square law. The leftover heavy elements ejected so long ago will join the ISM, which is largely hydrogen, and become trace elements in a new star someday.

__________________
My son is my universe.

Thank you for catching that, I wasn't thinking enough to mention that.

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

OK. So I asked ...
And Michael replies ...
And I replied ...
And Michael replies ...
I still don't see a recognizable answer to the original question. So let me rephrase: What fact(s) of observation lead directly to the conclusion that the loops are dominated by iron? Since we have established that it is not the relative number of iron spectral lines, then what is it?

Now a couple of other points raised here. First, we don't need to have all this discussion just to conclude that the model affects the abundance determination, that is certainly true. So I presume that you dispute the model: Is it your position that we cannot determine photospheric abundaces via spectroscopy, because we have a false model of the photosphere?

In anticipation of what ever answer crops up, I draw the various readers attention to the relevant literature. For instance, on my shelf is the book Stellar Atmospheres by Dimitri Mihalas, W.H. Freeman and co., 1978 (2nd ed). A tad old perhaps, I used it in my student days, but the basics have not changed. It presents a thorough introduction into how stellar atmospheres (including the solar atmosphere) are modeled. More recently, and perhaps more to the current point, a couple of relevant papers: Chemical abundances from inversions of stellar spectra: Analysis of solar-type stars with homogeneous and static model atmospheres, Carlos Prieto, et al., Astrophysical Journal 558: 830-851, 2001; Line formation in solar granulation II. The photospheric Fe abundance, M. Asplund, et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics 359: 743-754, 2000.

The former paper describes how abundances are determined by inverting the absorption spectra. The point of using this technique is that the spectra involve multiple elements simultaneously, so the method amounts to solving many simulataneous equations. There are many elements, and different abundances, but they are all in the same atmosphere, so the simultaneous solution will recover that atmosphere. This makes it sound simpler than it really is. The inversion is not unique, meaning there is more than one mathematical atmosphere that will satisfy the equations. We can select out the physical atmosphere by constraining the solutions through physics, the radiative transfer equation being one element.

The latter paper is quite specific to iron, studies how iron lines get their shape, and derives a photospheric abundance, which happens to be very close to the meteoric abundance. Was that just an accident? (The log of the derived abundace is 7.44 +/- 0.05 for FeI and 7.45 +/- 0.10 for FeII, compared to 7.46 +/- 0.01 for meteorites; these are relative to a hydrogen abundance with a log of 12.0).

The point of this, the book & papers (and there is a lot more where they came from) is that there is a strong body of physics involved in modeling stellar atmospheres, constrained by an equally strong body of detailed observations. Since I have studied stellar atmospheres in some detail myself, it is not enough for me to simply be told it's all wrong, or that we don't know something, without some more specific hints. What exactly is wrong with the standard way of deriving abundances?