Solar blog...


This recent paper on solar flares provides an electric current orientation to solar flare events, and solar flare forecasting.   In their concluding comments the authors write:

"In view of numerous studies on solar flare prediction, it has now become apparent that no single flare predictor suffices to categorically forecast solar flares and that active regions are complex dynamical systems where more than one parameters are involved in flare triggering. Investigating the evolution and absolute magnitudes of non-neutralized electric currents is more attractive and tractable in the era of systematically and regularly available vector magnetogram. It is thus tempting to explore the possibility of producing, in the future, several predictors that involve such currents. For the moment, we are planning to include I(NN,tot) in the set of predictors that will feed machine learning algorithms (Florios et al. 2017, in prep.), in the framework of the FLARECAST project, at the same time investigating their physical significance via the project’s explorative research component."

Slowly but surely the mainstream is reluctantly forced to accept that electric fields and electric current play a much larger role in space plasma than they had originally predicted.  It's encouraging to finally see some inclusion of current in solar flare activity.  It's about time. :)


This two minute video provides on overview of Kristian Birkeland's cathode solar model.  It's a simplified working demonstration of the cathode solar model which was first proposed by Kristian Birkeland in the early 1900's.  It demonstrates the kinetic energy heat source of the solar corona, as well as the Earth's aurora.  These features are caused by cathode rays/electron beams which continuously stream away from the surface of the sun.  The high speed electrons (called strahl) slam into various ions in the solar atmosphere, heat up the corona and generate the solar wind.

As we approach the upcomming solar eclipse, it's worth taking a look at the various sucessful prections of Birkeland's cathode solar model which have since been confirmed by satellites in space.  Birkeland was the first individual to successfully predict the existence of cathode rays or electron beams streaming away from the solar surface.  These high speed electrons, which travel away from the sun at high velocity are typically referred to as 'strahl'.  These high speed electrons tend to follow the magnetic field lines of the sun, and light up the solar atmosphere in their wake.  You may even see them during the eclipse.  

Birkeland was also the first individual to successfully predict the existence of the polar "jets" which you can see in this image by introducing an electromagnetic field inside of his solar sphere.  He also noticed that particles from the sphere were being ionized and ejected into the glass walls of his experiments which led to his correct prediction that both types of charged particles (electrons and positively charged ions) were flowing from the sun and producing solar wind. 

By cranking up electromagnetic field inside of his terella Birkeland was able to concentrate the electrical discharges into two distinct bands in the northern and sourthern hemisphere as occurs over the solar cycle, and he was able to generate solar coronal loops.  The black and white image above is from Birkeland's lab experiments.  To the right is an orange x-ray image from the Yohkoh satellite.  These are just some of the important successful predictions of Birkeland's cathode solar model that you might think about as you watch the next eclipse.



Tom Bridgman's Ignorant EU/PC Rants

It’s unclear to me why Mr. Bridgman seems so intent in including me personally in his ignorant blog rants about EU/PC theory.   His lack of inclusion of any of Hannes Alfven’s “electric sun” theories in his most recent public rant remains a complete mystery to me.  Furthermore his overly simplistic diagram of Birkeland’s cathode sun theories requires me to at least attempt to educate Mr. Bridgman a bit and try to point him in the right direction as it relates to EU/PC theory.

I should start by noting that Mr. Bridgman left out a *highly* important "electric sun” model in his presentation of the various electric sun theories in EU/PC *cosmology* theory.   Specifically Mr. Bridgman left out Hannes Alfven’s definition of an "electric sun” as defined and described in his book “Cosmic Plasma".  This oversight seems rather outrageous considering  the fact that Cosmic Plasma is considered to be a key milestone publication in EU/PC theory.  That seems like more than a “small" oversight IMO.  I can only assume based upon his various questions that Mr. Bridgman is completely ignorant of Alfven’s “electric sun" theories.  I strongly urge Mr. Bridgman to include Alfven’s electric sun model in any future rants about EU/PC theory, otherwise he comes off as irrationally biased, and completely ignorant of the most basic and important EU/PC solar models.

I also feel compelled to set the record straight as it relates to Birkeland’s cathode sun model, and Mr. Bridgman's overly simplistic diagram of current flow in a cathode model.  During Birkeland’s experiments, he noticed a grey ‘soot’ that built up on the glass walls of his experiments over time.  As he began investigating it’s origin, this soot turned out to be metallic parts of the cathode sphere that had been ripped from the cathode surface and distributed on the sides of the glass during the discharge process.  Birkeland realized over the course of a number of experiments that the cathode was emitting both positively and negatively charged particles from its surface.  He even makes separate calculations about the trajectories of the various charged particles as they leave the surface, due to the variations in the charges of the particles.  Based upon his experiments, Birkeland famously predicts in his book:

 "It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in "empty" space”.

Birkeland was one of the first scientists to successfully predict that the bulk of the matter of the universe is composed of high speed charged particles emitted from various suns.   He envisioned/predicted that the solar wind would contain *both* types of charged particles *coming from the cathode*.  Today we would use the term ‘sputtering’ to describe that process.

Unfortunately Mr. Bridgman needs to spend more time studying Birkeland’s solar model, and learn a bit about double layers before whipping up overly simplistic diagrams related to particle flow and current flows from a cathode sun.  In terms of the flow of various charged particles from a high energy cathode sun, it’s just not quite as simple Mr. Bridgman imagines. 

There is also an *induction* process that takes place which Alfven writes about in Cosmic Plasma, as the sun, with it’s large magnetic field, rotates inside of relatively stable plasma cloud.   Its rotating magnetic field induce particle movement in the surrounding plasma, and this creates a flow of current that is consistent with the observed Parker Spiral. 

I suppose I should clue Mr. Bridgman in to the answers that he’s supposedly looking for, that he claims were never answered in EU theory, but were answered in EU/PC theory by Alfven (and others) many decades ago.

First question:  "Where is the return circuit?FYI, this question was long since addressed by Alfven in both published papers and of course his book Cosmic Plasma.  We must therefore  assume that Mr. Bridgman has never bothered to read Cosmic Plasma before fancying himself and apparently appointing himself as the universes greatest “debunker” of EU/PC theory.  L

Dear Mr. Bridgman, might I suggest you start by taking a gander through some of the papers you will find on this website:

I strongly suggest you start by reading the following papers:

Mr. Bridgman’s second, supposedly unanswered question:

“What powers the EMF - the battery or generator needed to provide the voltages claimed? For all intents and purposes, Electric Universe supporters assume these electric fields are created by magic or perhaps some electrical diety?

Birkeland personally predicted that the sun was powered internally by a "transmutation of elements” (what we today call fusion).   Alfven predicted the very same thing, and included some rotational and induction aspects in his current generation theories.   Evidently Mr. Bridgman is calling fusion ‘magic”.   I guess the mainstream solar model is powered by a magical fusion deity as well.

In terms of Mr. Bridgman's claim about “living up to the standard model”, that’s almost a completely laughable comment after the discovery that convection is less than 1 percent of the predicted value in standard theory.

In fact if you follow that link above, you’ll see that I discussed this very ‘problem' in mainstream theory with Mr. Bridgeman over a year ago which he has yet to address in any blog entry.  Why is that Mr. Bridgman?  How does Mr. Bridgman explain strong magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere without fast convection?   More than a year has gone by and Mr. Bridgman has yet to address it.  Maybe Mr. Bridgman should do that instead of displaying his blatant ignorance of basic solar theories related to EU/PC theory?


Tom Bridgman's Personal Attacks Continue (Part IIII)

Apparently Bridgman just makes stuff up.

Apparently Mr. Bridgman isn't above simply inventing his own facts in his most recent post about me.  From his most recent blog entry:

"An electric universe supporter claimed that high current is needed to make exposure to charged particles fatal and that high voltages cannot be fatal. "

Bridgman then goes on to identify this individual as me (Michael Mozina).  Unless  Mr. Bridgman can quote me where I *actually* said to him that high voltages *cannot* be fatal, I'll have to assume that he simply made that highlighed part up.  Talk about a complete lack of ethics.  That's just pathetically sad debate ethics Mr. Bridgman.

He's also attempting to *ignore* the fact that Birkeland's solar model is *internally* powered, and therefore the current requirements are *not* the same as an externally powered Juergen's solar model. He's also intent on ignoring that the solar wind has a terminal velocity, it contains both types of charged particles, and that plasmas do not carry current evenly. About all I can say for that last "hater post" by Bridgman is that he literally "made up" the part that I highlighted. The rest is irrelevant since Birkeland's model predicts that the sun will release *both* types of charged particles, not just one, and the end result is a moving "quasi-neutral* solar wind plasma in the vicinity of Earth that *separates* again into actual *current* as it runs into the magnetic fields of the Earth. Furthermore, electrons will always seek the path of least resistance, and inside the nearly perfect conductor of the plasmas in the the solar system, that won't be through the human body. 

As long as Brigman continues to blatantly misrepresent the statements of the EU/PC community like that, he only dishonors himself and shows just how low he will go in a concerted effort to outrageously misrepresent the facts.


Tom Bridgman's Personal Attacks Continue (Part III)

Nero keeps fiddling away as Rome burns to the ground.

Apparently Mr. Bridgman has no time in his busy schedule to fix or address, or even *acknowledge* the serious problems in his own broken and now falsified solar theory, or to debate me publicly.  Evidently however he has plenty of free time on his hands to continue to misrepresent my motives and the motives of others while hiding like a coward behind his personal "hater" blog.   On three separate occasions since February 17th 2013, Mr. Bridgman has tried to take personal credit for something that he actually learned from a conversation at Christianforums on February 15th of this year.  That whole time Mr. Bridgman has avoided any public discussion of this topic.  Mr. Bridgman has used and abused that information on ChristianForums to engage in a series (three) of cheap personal attacks on his hater blog while intentionally avoiding any public debate on this topic.  Anytime that Mr. Bridgman would like to step up to the plate and be "scientific" enough to engage me in a public debate on solar physics and this topic, he has the links to the appropriate thread where he pilfered the idea from in the first place!   Apparently Mr. Bridgman is intent on avoiding all the more recent materials that I have sent to him and that I have posted to that thread.   I won't hold my breath waiting for an honest scientific debate with Mr. Bridgman.   Each of Mr. Bridgman's blog posts have amounted to nothing more than cheap personal attacks from someone who is apparently incapable of holding his own in a public debate.   From the very first sentence of Mr. Bridgman's most recent tirade of outrageous personal attacks, he erroneously, intentionally, and in typical "hater" fashion misrepresents my motives:

It appears Mr. Mozina has already begun revising part of his site in an attempt to obscure his blatant errors documented in earlier posts in this series (The Surface Of The Sun (TSOTS): The Strange Solar Claims of Michael Mozina. I., The Surface Of The Sun (TSOTS): The Strange Solar Claims of Michael Mozina. II.).  It seems that the broader implications of the total collapse of the claimed 'proofs' of his 'model' of solar structure has not deterred him one bit, but that is no surprise.

Mr. Bridgman starts off by demonstrating that he's a terrible psychic.  In fact he simply starts off by telling a blatant lie about my motives in a cheap attempt at personal character assassination.  If I actually wanted to obscure my minor blog error, I would not have mentioned the error in the next two succeeding blog entries (three now), nor would I have provided my readers with links to the error on my website, and links to an ongoing debate on these topics.   Contrary to Mr. Bridgman's erroneous and *unethical* portrayal of my motives, once my error was pointed out to me, by a member of Christianforums not Mr. Bridgman,  I did the "right thing" and I immediately fixed my relatively minor error.   That's more than Mr. Bridgman has done or will ever do.   Contrary to Mr. Bridgman's claim, I completely and absolutely addressed the "broader implications" of that minor blog error in terms of face on images of sunspots and and limb images, whereas Bridgman has not.   The only solar model in 'total collapse' based on recent SDO findings is the mainstream solar model, not a Birkeland cathode model.   The "total collapse" of Bridgman's case about where flux ropes first become visible in the solar atmosphere has been addressed by all sorts of mathematical modeling studies that are a *decade newer* than the single paper that Mr. Bridgman cited from 1999.  More importantly, all the SDO images show clear correlations between the flux ropes and the magnetic fields and the hot spots on the surface of the photosphere, and they follow the contours of the penumbral filaments down into the sunspot as predicted by the mathematical models.   Mr. Bridgman does not want to address these points that I have cited, so he avoids a public debate on this topic, and he hurls irrational personal insults at me from the safety of his own personal blog like any good "creationist".

False Dichotomy
As in many cases of poor or pseudo-science, the advocate relies on a false dichotomy, or false dilemma (wikipedia), thinking that any scientific result that creates a problem for the standard model is automatically evidence in favor of their model...

Mr. Bridgman engages in that very same fallacy himself.  He erroneously acts as though a single trivial error on a single blog entry is somehow in Mr. Bridgman's mind an automatic falsification of the entire Birkeland cathode solar theory!  His entire argument is based upon a "false dichotomy" fallacy.    Notice also that Bridgman took absolutely no steps whatsoever to address the failures of his own model.  His whole mentality seems to be based upon the belief that if he can find a single error on my blog, the standard model is somehow supported by that finding, and a Birkeland model is automatically falsified by that same error.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

As for Mr. Mozina's new whine posted at his site:
This site is my project developed on my schedule. While I am a member and occasional participant in a few forums, I limit my activity since forums have proven to consume a lot of time and often don't have the kinds of capabilities I need to present a complete response.  My site is built to be a reference for others so they don't need to mine the results from the high-noise environment of a forum.

Translation:  Mr. Bridgman is deathly afraid of a public debate on the topic of solar physics.   Instead of debating me publicly, Mr. Bridgman will continue to hide behind his own hater blog and he will undoubtedly continue to misrepresent my motives and the motives and many others on a regular basis. 

  If Mr. Mozina expects immediate feedback, then it suggests he is more interested in receiving attention rather than the science.

Irony overload!  It's highly amusing that Mr. Bridgman has avoided all public discussion of this topic.  Only after three full weeks of what amounts to repeated attempts at pure character assassination has Mr. Bridgman *finally* even opened up his blog for public commentary.   Mr. Bridgman began his public tirade by unethically trying to take personal credit for finding an error on my website which he actually learned about from a conversation at ChristianForums.   Upon discovering the error on February 15th, Mr. Bridgman immediately tried to take credit for finding the error so that he could get instant attention to his website.   Unlike my blog which simply has no feedback capabilities to start with, Mr. Bridgman's blog includes features to allow for public feedback if he so chooses.   I also invited him to join our discussion at ChristianForums if he was so inclined.   Instead, Mr. Bridgman has unethically blocked all feedback to his posts related to my website and he has continuously avoided all discussion of the topic!   Rather than acknowledge that I corrected my mistake, Mr. Bridgman continued to block all feedback, and he unethically continued his personal attack nonsense for almost two full weeks *after* my website had already been corrected!   Why?   Since engaging in his public attention campaign three weeks ago, Mr. Bridgman has avoided any public or open debate of the topic!   It is Mr. Bridgman who is clearly more interested in receiving attention to his bogus website than talking about "science" or discussing "truth"!   

The stories linked above describe a relatively new helioseismological technique which tries to use the motions of the solar surface to determine not just the density profile of the Sun (more on that below), but plasma flow speeds below the photosphere, in the solar convection zone.  The result was surprising since the technique yielded convective speeds far lower than predicted by the simpler solar convection models. 

Mr. Bridgman has demonstrated that he is in fact a hypocrite and a "creationist".  Notice how Mr. Bridgman never even acknowledged or discussed the *serious* problems that this recent SDO observation creates for standard theory?  Notice what happened when the shoe was on the other foot, and an error in the standard model was pointed out to Mr. Bridgman?  Did Mr. Bridgman, "do the right thing" like I did, and take steps to admit and acknowledge this serious error in mainstream solar theory?   More importantly, did he take any steps at all to actually "fix" anything or change anything?  Of course not.   In true creationist fashion, Mr. Bridgman neither acknowledges the problems this creates for standard theory nor takes any steps to fix them.   Mr. Bridgman ignored the implication of that 2012 finding entirely.  The hypocrisy that Mr. Bridgman engages in is utterly appalling.   Mr. Bridgman *demands* that others acknowledge and fix their errors (never make them actually), even something as trivial as an erroneous blog entry.  Meanwhile Mr. Bridgman simply ignores his own *massive* errors like a complete and total hypocrite!  Hypocrisy isn't much of a scientific argument Mr. Bridgman.  You should look at yourself in the mirror before you point anymore fingers at other people's mistakes.  At least my mistake was relatively minor in terms of it's net impact on a Birkeland cathode solar model, whereas that slow convection observation is a death sentence to standard solar theory!

Helioseismology is sufficiently accurate that we can use it to obtain 'images' the far side of the Sun, helping us see where active regions are forming before they rotate to the Earth-facing side of the Sun.  This is an important technique for space weather forecasting since it takes only two weeks for an active sunspot to cross from the farside to facing the Earth and risk launching flares and CMEs at the Earth.  See Magnetic maps of theWHOLE Sun as well as NSO/GONG Farside Images.

In recent years, the STEREO mission currently has two spacecraft viewing the far side of the Sun. These satellites are being used to check and improve the helioseismology models used to do this map construction (
Comparison with GONG and HMI farside maps).

If the solar interior were as different as Mr. Mozina claims, these techniques would not work!

That statement is absolutely and completely false.  Previous helioseismology studies from SOHO have found evidence of a "stratification subsurface" where various soundwaves are dramatically impacted by the density changes expected in a Birkeland cathode solar model.   Again, Mr. Bridgman won't debate these issues publicly, so apparently he feels free and comfortable saying any erroneous thing that he wants to say, while he continues to run away like a frightened child from any public debate of the facts.

There are electric fields in the solar environment, known since the early 1900s, many of which I have documented (see 365 Days of Astronomy: The Electric Universe) and which Electric Universe supporters ignore, or try to mine and claim as their own.  Modern kinetic solar wind models give the Sun a net positive charge giving a potential difference of about 1000 volts relative to the Earth.

Mr. Bridgman is not telling the whole story, and he gives only one *opinion* of the voltages proposed by various solar physics authors over the past 100 years.  Birkeland predicted that the sun operated at approximately 600 million volts, whereas Alfven's model was closer to 1 billion volts.    Mr. Bridgman's voltages are off by *many* orders of magnitude.   Again, Mr. Bridgman can say anything he wants, but only as long as he avoids a public debate.    

But calling solar flares 'discharges' has annoying problems with the definition of 'discharge'.  In the context of human experiences with processes like arc furnaces to lightning, a discharge corresponds to a dielectric breakdown in a neutral gas under an applied electric field.  The solar atmosphere is completely ionized and therefore almost immediately shorts any strong electric field.  Such a 'discharge'  cannot occur.

Mr. Bridgman apparently hasn't read much of the work by James Dungey.  As far back as the term "reconnection" has been used to describe solar flare events, those very same processes have been associated with "electrical discharge" events!   Mr. Bridgman is now taking it upon himself to impose a breakdown of a dielectric requirement, where none is required or discussed in solar physics!   What kind of unethical behavior is that?!?!?   Apparently Mr. Bridgman just makes up such bogus requirements on a personal whim, which explains why he is deathly afraid of a public debate on the topic of solar physics.   Instead of debating me openly, scientifically and publicly, Mr. Bridgman will continue to hide behind his own hater blog and he will undoubtedly continue to mistrepresent my motives and the motives and many others on a regular basis. 

Cafeteria Science

With Mr. Mozina's main 'proofs' totally discredited, he will be forced to rely even more on cobbling together bits-n-pieces from mainstream solar theory and mangling it into some form he can try to claim is evidence for his model.  He's already started this with the revision of his site.  Yet, the more of the standard model Mr. Mozina tries to integrate into his, the less relevant his 'model' becomes.  Why?

Mr. Bridgman told another blatant lie.  Mr. Bridgman refuses to even publicly discuss the "main proofs" that I have discussed on my website since 2005, or the recent mathematical models I sent him, or the SDO Helioviewer images that show that the loops originate and are visible under the surface of the photosphere.   What Bridgman erroneously tries to characterize as a "main proof" was simply a minor blog entry created five years *after* putting up my website.  In five full years of material, that is apparently the one and only error that he's managed to find, and he didn't even find that error himself.  He simply *stole* the idea from a member of Christianforums!  It's frankly a trivial issue in terms of it's overall impact to a Birkeland cathode solar model.   I haven't started a revision of my website, I finished the revision two full weeks ago.   I also added a bunch more content to my blog that Mr. Bridgman cannot and will not deal with.   Meanwhile he still tries to "cobble together" a broken mainstream solar model that failed it's key prediction on convection.    Worse yet, he refuses to even acknowledge his own errors in his own model.

Scientific Misconduct

If Mr. Mozina wants to be treated like a professional, he should act like a professional.  Again, his responses suggest he is more interested in receiving attention than the science.

Mr. Mozina evades the fact that he has treated the scientific community poorly for many years now.

Talk about blatant hypocrisy.  Mr. Brigdman's scientific misconduct began on February 17th, 2013 when Mr. Bridgman unethically tried to take credit for finding an error on my website, when in fact the error was found by a member of ChristianForums two days earlier.  Mr. Bridgman's scientific misconduct continued for two full weeks *after* the website error in question had already been cited and corrected.  Mr. Bridgman has continued his scientific misconduct by engaging in personal attacks and mind reading rather than ever even acknowledging that the error had already been corrected.   Mr. Bridgman's scientific misconduct continues to this very day as he avoids any direct debate on the topic.   Mr. Bridgman is a walking, talking, living, breathing personal embodiment of scientific misconduct in motion.  He has absolutely no right to judge me or anyone else while he engages in such unethical scientific misconduct. 

Mr. Bridgman never mentioned any of the mathematical models that I sent to him or talked about on this blog and at ChristianForums.  Mr. Bridgman has never acknowledeged his *own* errors in his own solar theories.    Mr. Bridgman of all people should be the very last person on Earth to accuse someone else of "scientific misconduct".   Mr. Bridgman didn't fix any of his solar theory errors, nor even acknowledge their importance.  Again, whatever scientific misconduct is going on, it has nothing to do with me.   Unlike Mr. Bridgman I've already fixed my trivial error, and I'm willing to debate these ideas openly and publicly.  It's Mr. Bridgman that can only debate his erroneous claims on a personal blog page where he controls all the content.



The Tom Bridgman Affair

Nero fiddles while Rome burns....

Rather than accept the fact that the standard solar theory has been falsified and it needs to be replaced with a new solar model, apparently Mr. Bridgman believes that he can simply ignore all the problems of mainstream solar theory by starting a public flame war between us on his blog.  Even more disconcerting and frankly rather cowardly IMO, evidently Mr. Bridgman has no interest in a direct dialog.  I have already invited him to join the ongoing discussion at ChristianForums where he apparently learned from a forum member about a mistake that I made on a 2010 blog entry on my website around February 15th of this year.  After sitting on a number of my unpublished responses on his blog for almost 5 months, Mr. Bridgman then took it upon himself to write a rather scathing public blog entry on his website two days later on February 17th based on what he learned from Christianforums.   Instead of accepting my invitation to join our ongoing discussion, Mr. Bridgman steadfastly refuses to discuss the topic openly and fairly and publicly.  Even worse, he utterly refuses to address any of the problems in mainstream theory based on the newer SDO Helioseismology data.  He will not even allow for a public response on his blog, even though his blog includes response features.  Mr. Brigman apparently ignores the fact, that unlike the mainstream, and unlike Mr. Bridgman, I have already publicly admitted my *one blog* error and I have already fixed that relatively minor error as soon as it was pointed out to me.  On the other hand, Mr. Bridgman has never once addressed the *major* convection problems in mainstream theory that were discovered by SDO.  Instead he has opted to continue his irrational, misplaced tirade in spite of my best efforts to fix my mistake.  Even after the offending entry was removed from my blog, and even after I publicly admited to my error, Mr. Brigman's personal attacks continue:

But the cranks not only try to push their flawed claims into publication, but accuse others of conspiracy/incompentence/persecution/etc. when their errors are pointed out. 

Apparently Mr. Bridgman doesn't understand the difference between a personal webpage blog entry that was already updated even before he made that ridiculous comment, and a real "publication".   Unlike all those falisified mainstream claims about fast convection, never once did anyone try to submit that blog entry for publication, nor did I blame anyone for my error.  Unlike Mr. Bridgman and his serious convection problems, I fixed and took care of my minor error as soon as it was pointed out to me.   Apparently Mr. Bridgman intends to continue to blame me personally for pointing out to him that HMI helioseismology data falsified mainstream solar theory last year, and he intends to do absolutely nothing about it even though all those now falsified convection claims were "rushed into publication", and even through they have now been shown to be false.   I think Mr. Bridgman's "crank" comments are highly ironic in the final analysis.  At least I took responsibility for my error and I immediately did something about it when it was pointed out to me.   Mr. Bridgman on the other hand has done absolutely nothing to fix his *massively* broken solar model with all it's published claims that were shown to be false, while he lashes out irrationally at other solar models over one minor unpublished blog error.   Wow.  Talk about hypocritical and highly ironic comments!

“[Note: With the release of the first article in this series, I received an accusatory email from Mr. Mozina.  Apparently someone in one of the forums where he has not (yet?) been banned has been pointing out many of the same flaws which I address in the first post of this series (thread at ChristianForums).  Mr. Mozina seems to think this other individual is me.  Nope.  In addition, Mr. Mozina claims he is 'updating' the content on his site, so some of the links presented in this series may break at some point in the future.  We'll see what happens.]”

What Mr. Bridgman actually got from me was an email invitation to “join” the conversation at Christianfroums where he apparently learned about my blog error from a member at ChristianForums on February 15th of this year, and then wrote about it on his blog on February 17th.   Instead of joining the live conversation from which he pilfered his blog material, and instead of giving me any credit for the fact that I did take immediate steps to correct my error once it was brought to my attention on Christianforums, Mr. Bridgman has decided to continue his flame war while intentionally avoiding any actual discussion of the topic.  Worse yet, he fails to address *any* of the failures of mainstream theory.

Note that I took immediate steps to correct my error when it was pointed out to me, whereas six full months have gone by while Mr. Bridgman and the rest of the mainstream have never even fully acknowledged the fact that mainstream solar theory was falsified by HMI data in 2012.  The speed of convection is measured by SDO to be two full orders of magnitude slower than mainstream predictions!  I already pointed out the *massive* problems this creates for standard theory in a previous blog entry and I pointed it out to Mr. Brigman over six months ago.  Six months have gone by now, yet Mr. Bridgman has not “fixed” the problems in standard solar theory.  The same false claims about convection still sit on WIKI, while Mr. Bridgman and the mainstream continue to teach the same falsified solar model to gullible and unsuspecting students to this very day knowing full well that it's errors have never been addressed or fixed.

I have already removed the *single* offending blog entry from the blog page so as not to confuse future readers, but I have left an active link to the offending blog entry.  The links to the bad blog entry in question did not “break”, they were intentionally updated/removed once I realized the mistake.   Apparently in Mr. Brigman’s mind, I’m damned if I do acknowledge and fix my error, and I'm damned if I don’t.   Meanwhile he does absolutely nothing at all to fix any of the serious problem in mainstream theory nore does he even acknowledge them.  Since the error that Mr. Bridgman is ranting about has been noted, and the offending blog entry has already been removed, there is really no point in responding to most of Mr. Brigman's nonsense, however I will respond to these points:

 “1) The point of the first post is Mr. Mozina's claim that the solar surface in visible light (the photosphere) is actually above the solar surface visible in EUV light.”

Mr. Bridgman is still making the very same mistake that I made in my blog error in 2010!  I erroneously “assumed” as Mr. Bridgman is still assuming, that the chromosphere was “transparent” to iron ion (EUV) wavelengths.  I therefore assumed that I could observe a relatively flat “surface” along the limb where the iron ion light began.   A careful analysis of SDO limb images in iron ion wavelengths demonstrates however that the chromosphere is in fact *opaque* to the iron ion light along the limb.  Along the limb light might have to traverse more than a hundred thousand kilometers of plasma to reach SDO.   Mr. Bridgman is absolutely wrong about there being some kind of flat, thin “solar surface visible in EUV light”.   He’s wrong  for the very same reason that I was wrong!  We do not actually observe a thin flat “surface” in the iron ion wavelengths along the limb.  We do not observe the surface of the photosphere in iron ion limb images, and not a “surface” of EUV light either.  We actually observe a *three dimensional atmosphere* in iron ion light because the light sources in these wavelengths are the flux ropes and the flux ropes are three dimensional structures  in the solar atmosphere.   

Along the limb in iron ion wavelengths we observe a bright horizon above an opaque limb.  There is no flat or thin “surface” visible in iron ion EUV images since the ropes (and light sources) are not flat.  That’s Mr. Bridgman’s *biggest* mistake, though certainly not his only mistake.   On the limb, all we observe in iron ion wavelengths is the region of the solar atmosphere where the chromosphere transforms from transparent to “opaque” in iron ion wavelengths due to all the dust in the lower chromosphere. That is not an actual “EUV surface” along the limb in 171A anymore than it is the solid surface that I thought it might be when I saw the first light SDO image.  It’s simply an opaque area in the chromosphere that tells us *absolutely nothing* about where the flux ropes originate or where the iron ion light from those flux ropes actual originates in relationship to the surface of the photosphere.  It's rather ironic that Mr. Bridgman continues to blame me for an error that I have already admitted to making, while continuing to make that very same error himself!

According to Schrivjer et al, 1999, the EUV loops originate at the boundary between the sunspot umbra & penumbra, not the filaments themselves.

In 2009, ten years more current than the Schrivjer paper, UCAR did a supercomputer modeling study of sunspots.  I’ve pointed this out to Mr. Bridgman at ChristianForums thread that I suggested to him, and he simply ignored it just as he continues to ignore the failures of mainstream solar theory.   The UCAR study shows a 3D model of the magnetic fields in and around a sunspot. It shows that the strongest part of the magnetic field is found at the *base* of the sunspot, far *underneath of the surface of the photosphere*, and the magnetic fields follow the “sides” of the sunspot down into the sunspot:

In the blog entry from earlier today, I already cited all the evidence that demonstrates that the flux ropes originate *under* the surface of the photosphere, and they are already radiating at millions of degrees before they ever exit that surface.   Alfven also wrote a number of papers on these topics which treat all flux ropes as full “circuits”.   

2) Plasma moving along collections of intertwined magnetic field lines (i.e. flux ropes), have been a part of standard solar theory for decades.

Sure, but the mainstream and Mr. Bridgman utterly ignore the current that creates and sustains the flux rope!   I find it quite amusing that Mr. Bridgman linked to the very same NASA animations of flux ropes that I use on my website, yet he completely ignores the implication of that information.  If the flux ropes originate under the surface of the photosphere as shown in the NASA animation, then it’s entirely possible that some of the light that we observe from the flux ropes is coming from underneath of the surface of the photosphere!  You can’t have your cake and eat it too Mr. Bridgman.  Mr. Bridgman never explained why his magic flux ropes are apparently “invisible” and then suddenly become visible only once they reach some magic spot in the atmosphere.   Unless Bridgman can explain why the ropes are not *always* visible even *under* the surface of the photosphere in face on images of sunspots, he shot his own arguments in the foot using *standard theory*!

3) Mr. Mozina claims that SDO can 'image' below the photosphere, yet provides no evidence of that.

Actually I claimed that I could see below the *surface* of the photosphere in 171A and other iron ion wavelengths in face on images of sunspots (not limb images).   There is no actual “photosphere” in a Birkeland solar model, just a series of non opaque plasma double layers.  Even in standard theory it is possible to see below the surface of the photosphere.  Mr. Bridgman is dodging the key point.  I provided him with plenty of evidence from helioviewer images and from solar sunpot and spicule modeling studies which Mr. Brigman simply ignored.

 It should be noted that the photosphere is about 500 km thick, which corresponds to a little more than one pixel at AIA and HMI resolution.  By defintion, the photosphere, corresponds to an optical depth of 2/3 (Wikipedia) which means only half the photons make it through the boundary without scattering. 3) Mr. Mozina claims that SDO can 'image' below the photosphere, yet provides no evidence of that.  It should be noted that the photosphere is about 500 km thick, which corresponds to a little more than one pixel at AIA and HMI resolution.  By defintion, the photosphere, corresponds to an optical depth of 2/3 (Wikipedia) which means only half the photons make it through the boundary without scattering.  Optical depth increases dramatically below that.

All of these claims about the photosphere come from a NOW FALSIFIED solar theory by the way.  Mr. Bridgman never points that fact out, but that is the case now.  His beloved mainstream solar model has been falsified by SDO.  Mr. Bridgman doesn’t want to talk about that, and he blatantly refuses to address that observation.  Instead, he simply ignored that fact and he keeps citing from his falsified “holy Wiki pages” anyway.  Mr. Bridgman is avoiding the key issue.  There is no evidence at all that light from flux ropes cannot be observed *under* the surface of the photosphere. 

We also can easily see that the photosphere in the 1700A band is still below the 171A photosphere so we are still not seeing the coronal loops below the photosphere.

Mr. Bridgman is still making that same limb error I made and corrected.  There is no way to discern where the 171A light *originates* along the limb in relationship to other wavelengths.  All we can observe at the limb is the area of the atmosphere where the chromosphere turns from transparent to opaque in iron ion wavelengths.  We cannot use limb measurements to decide where the light from the flux ropes originate, nor where the flux ropes themselves originate.  All we can tell along the limb is *where the flux ropes become visible at limb*.   That observation tells us absolutely nothing about face on images of the sun, and where the flux ropes can be observed in face on images.

4) The closest thing to 'imaging' below the photosphere is helioseismology analysis which can 'see' below the photosphere but at very poor resolution.  It is a leading edge technique where it's capabilities, and limitations, are still being explored.  I'll go into Mr. Mozina's delusions on that topic in the next post of this series.

There are in fact helioseismology studies that support my ideas including the observation of a “stratification subsurface” sitting underneath of the photosphere at a relatively shallow depth.

5) After promoting claims that involve radical differences with the standard solar model, to rescue himself, Mr. Mozina tries to cram some aspect of the standard model (solar coronal flux rope models) into his.

What a bunch of horse manure!  Even in the standard model, the ropes originate *underneath* of the surface of the photosphere.  There just so happen to be *some* areas of agreement between a Birkeland cathode model and a standard solar model in terms of where the flux ropes originate.  Mr. Bridgman simply doesn’t like the possibility that the loops are “lit up” in iron ion wavelengths long before they exit the photosphere.   Mr. Bridgman apparently never read my website since I've talked about flux ropes/coronal loops since 2005.

He does this with no regard to the fact that the radical change in solar composition he advocates (replacing a plasma that is predominantly hydrogen & helium with much heavier elements) would largely make those components inapplicable to his model without radical changes.

It’s not that radically different at the surface of the photosphere.   It’s still a plasma surface with waves on it.  The model doesn’t really change all that dramatically until we reach that “stratification subsurface” that Kosovichev discusses.  The whole field of helioseismology is based upon the sun “ringing like a bell” in the first place.  I simply provide the ringing bell with some actual “structure”.

6) The most disturbing aspect of Mr. Mozina's post is he has falsely attributed a claim to me which he expects me to retract as an act of reciprocity.  Mr. Mozina seems to treat the facts of Nature and Science as if they are something that can be negotiated or traded around like debate points.  Nature does not plea bargain.

Um,  no.  That post Mr. Bridgman cites on his website was directed at a member of ChristianForums.  I expected a member of Christianforums to retract a false claim that he made about the origin of high temperature flux ropes and his blatant misconception about the term "opaque" as it relates to standard theory.  I simply sent Mr. Bridgman a link to the discussion, and pointed out to him that the shoe is now on the other foot this week.  I sent Mr. Bridgman a link to that conversation because Mr. Bridgman's argument is essentially the same argument as the one I addressed at Christianforums.  Both individuals keep “assuming/asserting” that there is some sort of flat, thin “EUV surface” visible in iron ion wavelengths when it fact there is no such thing.  The light sources of iron ion images are the flux ropes which are three dimensional structures that begin *under* the surface of the photosphere and rise high into the corona and dive back into the photosphere.  There is no “EUV surface”.   Mr. Bridgman is essentially publicly blaming me for making the exact same mistake that he is *still making* to this very day. There is no “flat surface” seen in iron ion EUV images.  It’s a 3D atmosphere created by 3D flux ropes that traverse large areas of the solar atmosphere.

If Mr. Bridgman would like to discuss these images and these ideas, he’s welcome to join us at Christianforums and discuss them openly and fairly, but apparently he’s not interested in an “honest” scientific debate.


Sunspots And Flux Ropes

Let's put all the visual and mathematical pieces of the flux ropes together in 3D, and look at their effect in face-on images of the photosphere and sunspots during flare events. Flux ropes are high speed, high temperature, current carrying threads of plasma that rise up and through the photosphere and that can be observed in virtually every wavelength during flare events.  This Nasa animation shows that the ropes originate under the surface of the photosphere and it shows what happens when the currents inside these flux ropes "reconnect".

I've put together some Helioviewer movies from a flare event over a sunspot on 06/15/2012 to see the effect on the solar atmosphere in several wavelengths.

The first movie of the flare is shown in 1600A. It shows the net effect in the upper photosphere and the chromosphere during the flare event in that particular wavelength. Notice that the surface of this image contains all sorts of brighter looking "hot spots" on the surface of this image, near and around the various sunspots. Those hot spots are directly "caused by" the flow of high temperature plasma and current inside the flux ropes as they rises up and through that surface, or falls back into that surface. The bright ropes in the flare event are pretty noticeable in this wavelength.

The following image is an image of the same flare event in 1700A. The flare event flux ropes are still somewhat visible in the image, but far less visible than in 1600A. The surface seen in 1700A also shows all the hot spots on the photosphere near and around the sunspots. They are of course are aligned with the hot spots in 1600A because they are both caused by the same high temp plasma flux ropes.

Those hot spots we see in 1700A and 1600A are also perfectly aligned with the strong field alignments observed in magnetogram images. The 'grey' bumpy areas in the following movie are areas where the white part of the 1700A image combines with the black area in the magnetogram image. It ends up looking grey in the image. The whitest areas of the image are areas where the hot 1700A bright areas are aligned with the white areas of the magnetogram image. The N/S alignments of the magnetogram image are directly related to the flow of current inside the flux ropes as they traverse the surface of the photosphere. The magnetic fields are aligned with the hot areas of the 1700A images because the flux ropes are the "cause' of both the hot spots on the surface of the photosphere, and the magnetic fields on the surface of the photosphere. There is a direct cause/effect relationship between the flux ropes and the surface anomalies on the surface of the photosphere.

Before we look at the last movie, let's talk about the math:

Kosovichev seems to be in pretty general agreement with Alfven that the high speed spicules that supposedly heat the corona start *inside* the photosphere. In fact he seems to be in pretty much general agreement with Alfven in terms of clockwise and counterclockwise vortexes forming in the photosphere, presumably driven by convection.

Now let's look at some computer modeling of sunspots:

According to the computer models, the strongest magnetic fields exist around the outside edges of the sunspot with the highest concentration located at the base of the sunspot. The strong magnetic fields follow the contours of the penumbral filaments and are strongest along the side of the 3D sunspot.

Now lets look at combined image that puts the 1700A and an iron ion image of flux ropes together and see what we observe:

The flux ropes follow the contours of the penumbral filaments. They flow down and into the surface of the photosphere, and down and into the sunspot just like the computer models, and just as Kosovichev's modeling would suggest. The million degree flux ropes are not heated up *above* the surface of the photosphere, they *heat up the photosphere* as they pass through. They heat up the chromosphere too. They are a heat source for the chromosphere and corona.

Every SDO AIA image, and the HMI magnetogram images, along with the bulk of the mathematical modeling on sunspots *insists* that the flux ropes can be observed flowing up through the photosphere, and down into the photosphere. It's only a question of "how far" into the photosphere can we observe in 171A, not *if* we can observe into the photosphere in 171A.



SDO Falsifies Standard Theory (And A Confession)

I apologize that it has been quite some time between updates to this blog.  It's certainly been far longer than intended.  For anyone following along, it's been a wild and woolly last few years for solar physics research thanks to SDO.  SDO HMI helioseismology equipment dealt a serious blow to standard solar theory in 2012.   Contrary to standard solar theory, the speed of convection is measured by SDO to occur at a much slower speed than predicted in standard theory, in fact just 1 percent of predicted value.  These new results have staggering and far reaching implications for the standard model:

  “Our current theoretical understanding of magnetic field generation in the Sun relies on these motions being of a certain magnitude,” explained Shravan Hanasoge, an associate research scholar in geosciences at Princeton University and a visiting scholar at NYU’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences. “These convective motions are currently believed to prop up large-scale circulations in the outer third of the Sun that generate magnetic fields.”

“However, our results suggest that convective motions in the Sun are nearly 100 times smaller than these current theoretical expectations,” continued Hanasoge, also a postdoctoral fellow at the Max Plank Institute in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany. “If these motions are indeed that slow in the Sun, then the most widely accepted theory concerning the generation of solar magnetic field is broken, leaving us with no compelling theory to explain its generation of magnetic fields and the need to overhaul our understanding of the physics of the Sun’s interior.”

Not only does this present huge theoretical problems for magnetic field generation theory in standard model, it also has significant implications as it relates to the concept of mass separation.  The standard explanation the mainstream uses to explain why heavy elements like Iron and Nickel presumably stay 'mixed together' in the photosphere is related to the speed of convection.  In the standard solar model, convection was supposed to occur at jet speeds, thus preventing heavier elements from "sinking" below the light elements like Hydrogen and Helium.  Instead, convection speeds are two full orders of magnitude slower than mainstream predictions, something more like walking speed.  This observation calls into question just about every core mainstream solar physics concept.  Not only did the mainstream solar model lose it's power supply to explain (current) "reconnection" events, the mainstream model has no logical way to explain why Iron and Nickel would stay mixed together with Hydrogen and Helium at the surface of the photosphere.  This observation is the ultimate "problem child" for mainstream solar theory.  It will be interesting to see what they ultimately do to "fix" their broken model, but for the time being at least, they seem to have simply ignored that small "problem" with their theory. :)

One of the significant new visualization tools created by NASA and available online to study solar satellite images can be found here at  The beauty of this new online tool is that it allows for various solar wavelengths and instruments to be overlayed on top of one another in real time, giving even novice users a view of the sun that past generations could only dream about.  The downloadable version is also well worth downloading and installing.  The downloadable version provides many of the same tools as the online version, and allows for greater resolution viewing.

One of the important new features of Helioviewer is the ability to overlay any number of wavelengths and instruments together to see how they work in real time.  SDO's 16 megapixel resolution, combined with fast image cadence was a giant leap forward in technology over SOHO and Trace. SDO shows the effect the loops have of the surface of the photosphere as they rise up and through, and flow back into that surface. The patterns of magnetism on the surface of the photosphere that are caused by the current in the loops, also match up perfectly with the "bright points" seen in 1600A and 1700A, demonstrating a cause/effect link between the flux ropes and the bright areas on that surface.

The first image shows the magnetic field alignments on the surface of the photosphere using the HMI gear on SDO, overlaid with two iron ion wavelengths, 171A and 193A. What you'll observe is that the surface of the photosphere is black and white only in the areas where the largest loops are located, and those N/S alignments occur right along the trajectory of the loops, exactly as predicted by a subsurface origin of the loops. The second example demonstrates that this alignment occurs in other iron on wavelengths as predicted as well.

The third image is an SDO HMI continuum (white light) image overlaid with a 171A wavelength. You'll notice that the loops tend to flow right down along the penumbral filaments in this image, at exactly the right angles *if* (and only if) the loops are actually descending down into the photosphere. The orientation of 171 loops with the penumbral filaments is certainly no coincidence, it's directly related the orientation of the penumbral filaments. Again, this image is completely consistent with a subsurface stratification layer being located far underneath of the photosphere. The alignment of the flux ropes with the penumbral filament angles would be random and meaningless if the base of the loops were actually located a further 1200KM above the photosphere as LMSAL claims.

I also need to make a public confession related to a past blog entry dated 4.27.2010 which has since been removed, but can still be read here if you're interested.  It seems that I was a bit "overly optimistic" about the SDO first light images back in 2010 in a previous blog entry.   I "assumed" that the SDO first light image was properly calibrated and aligned and adjusted by wavelength.  Further study of the SDO images via Helioviewer, and a few enlightening conversations at Christianforums have made it clear that the first light SDO image was not aligned properly.  The first light SDO image therefore doesn't directly falsify standard solar theory, nor does it exclusively support a Birkeland solar model as I had originally hoped.  Even more embarrasing, some still unexplaned Helioviewer misalignments between HMI continuum images and AIA 4500A helioviewer images caused me to miss my error for some time.   So as not to confuse future readers, that particular blog entry was simply removed.

I will be posting quite a few new Helioviewer movies of limb images of magnetic flux ropes in various wavelengths over the next few weeks and months.  These images demonstrate rather convincingly that mass inside of flux ropes flows up and through the surface of the photosphere during certain types of flare activity, which is entirely consistent with a Birkeland cathode solar model.   While it would have been extermely nice if the photosphere had turned out to be as "transparent" as I had hoped from the SDO first light image, all the Helioviewer/SDO images are entirely consistent with a Birkeland cathode solar model in terms of mass movements through and back into the surface of the photosphere.  While the opacity of the photosphere may preclude AIA images alone from building a full picture of the sun's interior, the HMI gear on SDO is already having an emormous impact on solar physics, and helioseismology data from SDO will ultimately rewrite solar physics.



Ring Out The Old - Ring In The New!

This white light image from LMSAL's FlaresDVD video shows coronal loops traversing the surface of the photosphere and thereby falsifying LMSAL claims about the location of solar moss and the bases of coronal loops.

As we approach 2010, a number of discoveries over the past year deserve mention because they directly confirm the theories of Kristian Birkeland, Dr. Charles Bruce and Dr. Hannes Alfven as it relates to solar flare activity and their relationship to electrical discharges.   A wonderful new paper written this year by Hakan Onel and Gottfried J. Mann demonstrates via RHESSI observations, the existence of large scale electric fields in solar flare "circuits".   Another excellent paper written by a larger team of Russian Scientists from Nobeyama Radio Observatory and the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics came out this year which uses Trace, SOHO and RHESSI observations to demonstrate that current carrying "magnetic ropes" are directly involved in flare activity.  As you may recall from revious blog entries, "magnetic ropes" are simply current carrying filaments of plasma, large scale cousins of the current carrying filaments in an ordinary plasma ball.  Both of these papers confirm the findings of an earlier paper by Marina Battaglia and Arnold Benz from 2008 that show the existence of return currents in solar flare loops. All three of these papers confirm an even earlier paper by David Tsiklauri that indeed electrical currents are responsible for solar flare activity.   It has indeed been a very good year for EU theory.

The white light image above demonstrates that NASA is correct about the placement of the bases of coronal loops, and it simultaneously falsifies LMSAL's claims about solar moss activities and their placement of the footprints of coronal loop activity.  This movie animation from the NASA archives shows NASA's placement of the bases of the coronal loops is beneath the surface of the photosphere with the loops eventually rising up and through the photosphere to "reconnect" (electrically, not magnetically) in the solar atmosphere.   NASA's position about the footprints of the loops being located under the photosphere is correct, as that white light flare image demonstrates.  We can observe the effect of the loops on the photosphere as the loops light up the photosphere along the path of the coronal loops.  This image is also congruent with other images further down this blog page that show the bases of the loops, and the "footprints" of the loops begin far *below* the photosphere, not 1200km above the photosphere as LMSAL has repeatedly claimed.  If LMSAL was correct then the white light image would not show the photosphere being lit up like a Christmas tree along the sides of the loops. 

As if on cue today, as I began rounding up the links for this blog entry, the sun decided to put on quite a show for the STEREO-Ahead satellite by belting out a CME in a nearly horizontal direction that essentially defies gas model theory.   While most CME's have a directional component, they usually point away from the surface.  In this particular instance however, the "blow out" of much of the material from the flare/CME is ejected in a nearly horizontal direction and it generates an atmospheric disturbance accross surface, but only in a *SINGLE* direction!  While this type of lateral energy discharge is consistent with a Mt. Saint Helen's type of lateral volcanic blowout, it really doesn't fit very well into contemporary gas model theory.  If as gas model theory insists that this flare activity is mainly an atmospheric event taking place inside a very light plasma atmosphere, how come there is such a strong horizontal component to the discharge, and only in *one* direction?  The lack of an "equal and opposite reaction" in the shock wave distribution pattern isn't particularly congruent with conttemporary gas model theory, but it is highly consistent with volcanic activity where the blowout of material can be highly directional, and the shock wave can be shielded in some directions by solid matter.


Merry Christmas to Plasma Cosmology Theory 2007!

The few weeks building up to Christmas 2007 have been pretty remarkable in terms of the presents that were given to Plasma cosmology theory from NASA and other institutions recently.  To understand the significance of this recent announcement from Themis team, we need to begin with an explanation/definition of a "magnetic rope" from Hannes Alfven, the father of MHD theory, from his book Cosmic Plasma: 

 "However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."

A Bennett pinch is a distinctly electrically oriented phenomenon, and it requires the flow of current through the rope to generate and create the magnetic constriction effect in the rope.  This brings us to NASA's announcement this week from the Themis program.  It seems that they observed in-situ. the presence of large scale current flows between the Sun and the Earth.

"NASA's Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) mission observed the dynamics of a rapidly developing substorm, confirmed the existence of giant magnetic ropes and witnessed small explosions in the outskirts of Earth's magnetic field. The findings will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco in December."...

"Angelopoulos was quite impressed with the substorm's power and he estimated the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion Joules. That's equivalent to the energy of one magnitude 5.5 earthquake . Where does all that energy come from? THEMIS may have found the answer.

"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," said David Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."

So now we have direct in-situ evidence that current carrying threads of plasma carry huge amount of current between the Sun and the Earth.  From an plasma cosmology/EU theory perspective, that is certainly welcome news.  Merry Christmas to EU theory from NASA via the Themis Program.

Now of course there is evidence that this pinching process that creates "tornado-like" filaments in plasma is involved in the stellar formation process.

"The surprise turned out to be a shock-wave created by a jet of material flowing through a vast cloud of interstellar gas and dust. The jet slammed into neighboring dust clouds at more than 100 miles per second, heating the dust and causing it to glow."

That really isn't surprising if we note that this is also the telltale sign of a Bennett pinch, or a "magnetic rope" caused by the flow of current through plasma.  We can watch similar filaments form inside an ordinary plasma ball.


Now this information comes on the heels of another very important finding released last month that was related to the electrical atmosphere of Venus.   It turns out that Wal Thornhill was proven right about the dynamic electrical  nature of the atmosphere of Venus and  the skeptics of Electric Universe theory have been shown to be wrong (yet again).  This lengthy (but worth it) Qucktime movie shows the solar wind's effect on Venus.  This movie is absolutely spectacular.  Thanks ESA for making this a very happy holiday for those of us in the EU/Plasma Cosmology movement. :)


*MAJOR* Hinode Breakthrough:  Evidence That Cathode Rays Power The Sun!

Here are two images of cathode ray activity, one black and white image from the lab of Kristian Birkeland from 1908, and a second image just release by the Hinode spacecraft mission team.  Just as in Birkeland's model, we observe cathode ray activity from our own sun.  This confirms the predictive usefulness of Birkeland's solar model, and it demonstrates the electrical nature of our universe.

The Hinode satellite program just announced a major scientific discovery, one that is going to have very profound implications for solar theory, and electric universe theory.  Evidently the Hinode instrument has been observing cathode ray activity in the northern polar regions of the sun since at least January of 2007.  The cathode rays they have observed are directionally vectored, they spew x-rays from the plasma jets, and they seem to strike the surface from several predefined directions (more than 7 in the video with 7 highlighted "events").  This observations of rays of energy, and high speed plasma jets in the solar atmosphere is a huge step forward in our understanding of solar activity.  It explains the huge outburst of energy we observe at intermittent intervals.  As cathode rays strike the lower solar atmosphere they trigger a massive electrical discharge process in the atmosphere and they accelerate the solar wind particles that are predominantly composed of protons and positively charged helium ions.   Not only does the discover of cathode rays in the solar atmosphere support Birkeland's solar theories, it shows the predictive usefulness of this theories and how they can be used to predict solar behaviors.  Birkeland was a man ahead of his time.  He was already simulating solar activity in his lab over 100 years ago!


Carbon Stars And The Mass Separation Of Elements

It seems that a brand new type of star has been discovered, and it directly supports our mass separated solar model.  It would seem that the atmospheres of stars are not limited to hydrogen and helium, but rather some stars can develop a *carbon* atmosphere.   Now of course that discovery of a carbon solar atmosphere isn't much of a surprise when you assume that all stars have a mass separated set of layers in their atmosphere as our model presumes, but that is quite a revelation for standard solar theory.  The quote for the article on how to explain this phenomenon was also quite interesting: 

If they are descendants of a star like H1504+65 (Teff ~ 200, 000 K), why don’t we see carbon/oxygen-rich white dwarfs at intermediate temperature? We believe that the simplest way to explain this is that a star like H1504+65, however it was formed, most probably still contains a tiny amount of helium which will eventually diffuse upward to form a thin layer ( 1015M is enough to form a full atmosphere!) above the C-enriched and O-depleted mantle.

In other words, they are suggesting that the easiest and simplest way to explain this solar behavior is to assume that the elements will tend to mass separate in the solar atmosphere.  :) 


The Gaping Hole In The Big Bang Theory.

Every so often, some new information comes along to demonstrate our basic ignorance of the universe around us.  The gaping hole that was recently discovered in the universe is one such example.  "Not only has no one ever found a void this big, but we never even expected to find one this size," said researcher Lawrence Rudnick of the University of Minnesota.   "What we've found is not normal, based on either observational studies or on computer simulations of the large-scale evolution of the universe," said Liliya R. Williams, also of the University of Minnesota.

Of course we must recognize that the hole they found is in fact "perfectly normal" for our universe, it simply defies our computer modeling entirely.  While EU theory predicts a threaded and non uniform universe, Big Bang theory has consistently predicted a smooth, nearly homogenous universe that is practically devoid of these sorts of "gaping holes" in the universe.  In fact, a nearly homogenous universe is one of the "key predictions" of inflation theory that the mainstream has touted as an important example of importance and usefulness of Big Bang theory.  It now turns out that this "key prediction" of Big Bang theory is critically flawed.  The real life observations of our "perfectly normal" universe refutes the homogenous predictions of the inflation period of Big Bang theory.  As usual, the mainstream will not embrace this new information as a key failure of Big Bang theory and therefore abandon that particular theory.  Instead they will do what they always do.  They will quickly revise their Gumby-Lambda thingamabob Big Bang theories  to "postdict" a new "key prediction" of a non-homogenous background and then they will claim that their new "prediction" is a key validation of "new and improved" Big Bang theory.  The consistent and numerous failures of the key predictions of Big Bang theory cannot ever be used to refute or falsify the Big Bang theory.  That is because Big Bang theory has become a type of quasi-religious dogma within the mainstream astronomy community.  Any observation that refutes the dogma must be incorporated into the new and improved Big Bang dogma.  Despite the fact that Big Bang theory relies upon no less than three different metaphysical entities, and it has never produced an accurate "prediction" in it's history, the dogma of Big Bang theory lives on in some revised form.  Of course the primary reason that the theory cannot ever be falsified is the fact it is based on three different metaphysical forces of nature.  If they can't explain the hole in the universe with inflation, then they can always chalk it up to one of the "dark" forces of nature that their Gumby-Lambda models rely upon.  Lambda theory has become the ultimate Gumby theory.  It can be bent and twisted like a pretzel simply by tweaking one of it's metaphysical variables.  Since these metaphysical variables cannot ever be falsified here on earth, there is no limit to the number of different outputs that can be "predicted" with the Gumby-Lambda thingamabob theory!  If one prediction is falsified, they can just tweak a metaphysical variable and make a new prediction that posticts the observation in question!  What a racket!  It's certainly no mystery why an ever growing list of scientists have called on astronomers  to fund other types of competing theories.  Plasma physics and EU theory do not require any type of "gap fillers" to bridge the gap between theory and observation. 

FYI, over the summer, I've been posting my theories on the Thunderbolts forum.  The Thunderbolts forum is devoted to the study of the science of plasma physics, and to exploring all non-metaphysical theories about the universe around us, without the bias of all the quasi-religious dogma that is currently being peddled by the mainstream institutions.  I'm finding the Thunderbolts forum to be a friendly place for real physical "science" (as opposed to metaphysical pseudo-science) to be explored in an open, honest and non threatening manner.  What a breath of fresh air that has been.  I started this thread that is specifically devoted to iron sun theories.  There are several other current threads that are related to this topic that I am also actively involved in, including the thread entitled "In EU, why does the sun have a black body spectrum?" and "The Electric Sun".


New Images From Hinode reveal solar atmospheric plasma behaviors that are 'impossible' to explain according to standard theory.

The Standard Solar Theorist's Slogan:  "Anything But Electricity!"

A Hinode Ca-H image of coronal loops traversing the solar atmosphere

According to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, new images from the Hinode satellite program are already revealing solar atmospheric plasma behaviors that are "impossible" to explain using the current solar model.   Evidently the mainstream community is still having a hard time accepting the role of electrical currents in solar activity.  They are also having a very difficult time accepting the fact that Hannes Alfv'en actually did know what he was talking about when he described the electromagnetic interactions that take place in *light* (non dense) plasmas.   Hannes Alfv'en was the Nobel Prize winning author of magneto hydrodynamic theory.  He explained in his book "Cosmic Plasma":

"Again, it should be mentioned that there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of 'magnetic merging' or of 'magnetic field-line reconnection', or any other mechanism which implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration. In the region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field)."

Handing Hannes Alfv'en the Nobel Prize for MDH theory didn't stop the mainstream community from ignoring his work.  According to Alfv'en, the energy release of these atmospheric solar events comes from the flow of electrical current, not from "magnetic reconnection" as  LMSAL and NASA have been trying to suggest.   Standard theorists try to claim that magnetic fields drive these high energy solar events, but according to the author of the principles of MHD theory, that is simply impossible.  If you read the article, Leon Golub from Cambridge explains one of these presumably "impossible" observations:

Crashing loops: Another surprise sighting is that of giant magnetic field loops crashing down onto the Sun's surface as if they were collapsing from exhaustion, a finding that Golub describes as "impossible". Previously, scientists thought they should emerge from the Sun and continue blowing out into space.

Golub may believe that this sort of plasma behavior is "impossible" to explain, but Hannes Alfv'en explained this behavior 25 years ago. The atmosphere of the sun is electrically active and it interacts with the electromagnetic fields of space.   Currents ebb and flow, particularly in the corona.  As soon as the electric currents that are flowing through a coronal loops stop flowing, say for instance the electric current seeks a shorter path of lesser resistance through the plasma, the suspended loop will deteriorate rapidly, and it will come crashing back to the surface.  As long as we accept Alfven's view that the coronal loops are electrically active and electrically driven, it's not such a mystery.  The same electrical current that is running through these massive loops, and heating them to millions of degrees, can instantly terminate.   In that scenario. these kinds of "crashing loop" observations become quite easy to explain using the principles of plasma cosmology theory and MHD theory.   It seems that even though the the astrophysical community presented Hannes Alfven with the Nobel Prize in the early 1970's for inventing MHD theory, they only heard and understood part of his plasma physics theories.  They immediately turned right around after giving him the Nobel Prize for MHD theory, and they completely ignored the other half of Alfven's statements related to MHD theory related to *light* plasma.  The mainstream community only "latched on" to the very early part of Alfven's work that was related to the flow of magnetic fields in very *dense* plasma.  They quite literally ignored all the rest of Alfv'en's life's work on light plasma.  Now that problem has come back to haunt the mainstream community in the Hinode images in a big way.

As Alfven explained from his work in plasma physics, certain types of plasma behaviors simply cannot be be properly modeled or properly understood without considering the electrical flow patterns that are traveling through the plasma.  Alfv'en warned the mainstream community during his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize about trying to mathematically oversimplify every plasma behavior, and trying to model every plasma transaction as a purely "magnetic" event.  Some plasma events, like atmospheric discharges, are in fact electrically driven events, and in such scenarios, the electrical current in the plasma must also be considered.  While lightening strikes on earth generate magnetic fields as a result of the current flowing through the plasma of the bolt, the electrical discharge is not "caused" by changes to the magnetic fields.  The discharges in atmosphere are due to charge differences in the atmosphere, and charge equalization laws, not by magnetic fields.   In other words, the magnetic fields are the effect of the electrical discharge event, they are not the cause of the discharge event.  In this case, as Alfven warned, the mainstream community has the cart before the horse.  They find these observations to be "impossible", because they are not magnetic events, they are electrical events.  Clearly the observations are not impossible, it is the standard theory of magnetic reconnection that is "impossible".  Alfven already explained that to them more than 2 decades ago.  They just refused to listen.  Maybe they listen to Alfv'en again now that their current theories have failed to explain the solar atmospheric activity.


X-ray Images From Hinode

I think the motto of the mainstream solar community must be "Anything but electricity" since they seem to be looking for any possible way to avoid accepting the obvious solution to the coronal heating problem, and the high temperature coronal loops.  As electrical solar theory suggests the sun's corona is heated by the electrical current running through it.   These current flows create electrical discharge events in the suns atmosphere, just like they do here on earth. In fact the RHESSI satellite program has already provided strong evidence of electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere.  When RHESSI was pointed at the earth, they made a rather surprising discovery. They observed gamma ray discharges coming from the earth atmosphere.  Such gamma ray bursts are related to electrical discharges that occur regularly in the earth atmosphere.  Not surprisingly the RHESSI satellite also observes gamma ray bursts in the solar atmosphere as well.  These gamma ray bursts are also related to electrical discharges, this time to electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere.   Such gamma ray bursts occur in and around the footprints of the coronal loops, or the areas of electrical energy concentration.    This is tangible evidence that electrical discharges play a significant role in atmospheric activity, just as Alfven suggested over 25 years ago.    The image below is another image from the Hinode satellite using the G-Band filter using the Solar Optical Telescope (SOT) instrument.   The .2 arcsecond resolution of these SOT images is very impressive.

G-Band SOT image of the photosphere by Hinode

The European Space Agency has provided more movies and images from Hinode that can be found here.  For anyone interested in a very good video introduction to plasma cosmology theory, and Electric Universe theory, I highly recommend The Thunderbolt Of The God's Video. that is now viewable on Google.  I also highly recommend the Book "The Electric Sky" by Donald E. Scott.  If you're looking for a more in depth (mathematical) presentation of Alfv'en's material and plasma cosmology theory, I highly suggest the book "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfv'en.


The First STEREO Running Difference Images

As the STEREO images are beginning to come online, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the improvement in resolution that is provided by the next generation of satellite technologies is going to revolutionize solar astronomy.  It is clear from the very first images from each satellite program that the Hinode (Solar-B) and STEREO satellite systems will forever change solar astronomy as we understand it.  With four times the resolution of the SOHO images, the new full surface solar images from STEREO are already revealing far greater detail in the sun's surface activity than were ever before possible using previous satellite technology.  The four running difference images above were all created by images that were taken on December 27th, 2006 using the 171A filters on the STEREO-A and STEREO-B satellites.   The top two images were created by STEREO-A and STEREO-B images respectively by subtracting two images that were taken on 02:01 and 02:31.  The two bottom images represent the sun's surface features 21 hours later using images from 23:01 and 23:31.  The level of detail that is revealed in these high resolution STEREO running difference images is remarkable, and the surface features that are seen in the top two images are clearly visible 21 hours later.  The active features on the surface have rotated uniformly during that timeline.  You may click on each of the JPG images above to get a full resolution Running Difference GIF file of the same image.   Just as in the SOHO RD images, there are very distinct, long duration surface features that can be observed in the RD images which rotate uniformly from pole to equator and do not exhibit differential rotation patterns like the plasma in the solar atmosphere.  The multi-hour longevity of these surface structures are quite unlike the structures in the photosphere that are created and destroyed in approximately 8 minute intervals.  These persistent structures seen in running difference EUVI images last for hours and days, and rotate uniformly across the surface.


Mass Separation Of Plasma Discovered In Cassiopeia A's "Onion Skin" Atmosphere

This artist's concept illustrates an onion skin of mass separated plasmas encircled Cassiopeia A.

I definitely want to start this month's blog entry by congratulating the members of the Hinode (formerly Solar-B) and STEREO teams.  Both of these new and highly important solar satellite systems were launched successfully over the past month and a half. 

Hinode (aka Solar-B) and STEREO are successfully launched

Hinode includes a number of unique abilities and an assortment of new instruments to help us to add to, and improve our understanding of solar activity.  Hinode should finally be able to shed some light on the amount of electrical current that flows inside of the coronal loops.  The discovery of very powerful electrical currents flowing inside of the coronal loops should be quite a revelation to astronomers who tend to downplay the importance of electricity and the role of electricity in solar activity.  The astronomy industry in general tends to myopically focus only on the sun's magnetic fields.  The powerful magnetic fields that form at the solar surface however are actually caused by powerful electrical discharges that occur in the solar atmosphere.  Hinode (Solar-B) should help verify the importance of the role of electricity as it relates to coronal mass ejections, coronal loops and solar activity in general.

As I've discussed in previous blog entries, STEREO should finally take a lot of the guess work out of solar image analysis and allow us to tell where solar moss activity occurs in relationship to the chromosphere and photosphere.   STEREO will also allow us to map the trajectory of CMEs with far greater precision.  By comparing the the location of solar moss activity seen in the Secchi 171A 3D images with the location of the chromosphere seen in Secchi's 304A images, we should finally be able to determine the location of solar moss activity in relationship to the surface of the chromosphere.  By triangulation methods, we should also be able to determine the X,Y,Z components of coronal loops in relationship to the core of the sun.  Both of these things will allow us to finally place the "transition region" in mathematically precise ways, without requiring any sort of human interpretation.   That is a giant step forward in solar image analysis.

Several times a year some new and important information comes out that calls contemporary gas model solar theory into question, and lends strong credence and powerful support to a Birkeland solar model.  These past few months were no exception, but the information that was published earlier this month was simply "over the top" in terms of scope and importance.  Scientists have been carefully studying the remnants of Cassiopeia A and have gained remarkable insight as to the construction of that star before it exploded.   It seems that the plasma ejected from Cassiopeia A, shows that this star was composed of concentric "layers" of mass separated plasmas, with the lighter layers on top, and heavier layers underneath.  The verbiage and the onion skin analogy that was used in the article was particularly ironic from my perspective, particularly since the onion skin analogy was the very same analogy that Dr. Manuel used to describe the solar atmosphere when we first began discussing his work in nuclear chemistry.  According to nuclear chemical analysis, the sun's plasma are arrange by weight, and form in layers, much like an "onion skin" around the solar core.  I had also reached the very same conclusion about mass separated plasmas based on what I had seen in the satellite images.   The solar model I originally proposed is in the image right below this entry.   As you can see from the model below, Dr. Manuel and I (and Hilton Ratcliffe) have suggested that the solar atmosphere is mass separated by weight based on two different kinds of analysis.  The onion skin that formed around Cassiopeia is not unique. That is what all stars do.  They form "layers" of plasma around them that are mass separated by atomic weight.   This is perfectly congruent with experiments here on earth.   Plasmas tend to mass separate right down to the individual isotope in the presence of strong magnetic and gravitational fields, both of which exist in great abundant at the solar surface.  It should not be surprising that *all* solar bodies cause mass separation of plasmas.  That is the nature of stars.  They contain a huge gravity well, and powerful magnetic fields.  These forces, along with a steady flow of hydrogen from the surface, separate the plasma in the solar atmosphere, with the hydrogen and helium layers forming the outside layers of all stars.



The Melting Point Of Iron And More Interesting Tidbits Of Supporting Data

I wanted to begin this month's blog entry with an answer to a common email question I receive.  I also wanted to address some common misconceptions about the Birkeland solar model, and add some new satellite data from other satellite programs to the growing body of evidence that continues to provide support for a Birkeland solar model.

I am often asked how a the mostly iron surface can remain solid at roughly 5700 degrees Kelvin.  The simple answer is that the solid surface of the sun isn't anywhere near 5700 degrees Kelvin, but rather it is somewhere between 1500 and 2000 degrees Kelvin.  The surface is covered by a progression of mass separated plasma layers that are thickest and coolest near the surface, and  become progressively hotter as they become thinner in the upper atmosphere.

The melting point of iron is actually variable depending on the specific conditions.  According to Livermore scientists, iron is capable of remaining solid here on (in) earth to temperatures up to 5100 degrees Kelvin.   The surface of the sun however is nowhere near that temperature.  The surface of the sun is covered by a variety of mass separated plasma layers that are cooler and more dense near the surface, and become progressively hotter as they become less dense in the upper atmosphere.   The 5700 degree neon photosphere is relatively thick, dense material and therefore it is relatively cool compared to the sun's lighter helium chromosphere, where temperatures can range up to 20,000 degrees Kelvin.  Likewise the helium chromosphere is considerably more dense and cooler than the sun's light, whispy hydrogen corona.  That same arrangement of cooler, more dense plasmas, covered by thinner, hotter plasmas is repeated below the photosphere as well.   According to heliosiesmology estimates there is a 4800 kilometer distance between the top of the photosphere and the actual surface of the sun.   The neon photosphere is only about 400 to 500 kilometers in depth.   The silicon plasma layer is located under the photosphere.  It is by far the thickest of the sun's plasma layers and is approximately 3000 KM in depth.  It ranges in temperature from about 2500 degrees at the bottom to about 4500 degrees Kelvin where it meets up with the photosphere.  These dramatically lower plasma temperatures have been evidenced in upwelling plasma in the umbra region of a sunspot during sunspot activity.   Underneath the thick silicon layer, sits a very dense plasma layer of calcium.  The calcium plasma layer is cooler and significantly more dense than the silicon plasma layer.   The actual surface of the sun is covered by a calcium plasma layer that is approximately 1500 to 2500 degrees Kelvin from bottom to top, meaning the surface is roughly 1500 degrees Kelvin, not 5700 degrees Kelvin.

I also found a couple more satellite programs that offer us some tantalizing observations to support a Birkeland solar model, including a satellite created by students at Colorado University.  Data from the Student Nitric Oxide Explorer (SNOE) satellite have verified that our Sun emits far more x-ray energy than once thought.  In addition, SNOE has demonstrated that this x-ray activity increases by a factor of 5 during the sun's active phases and decreases again during it's quiet phases.  This drastic change in x-ray output during the solar cycle is highly consistent with the premise that the coronal loops emit much of the x-rays released from the sun.  This correlation between coronal loop activity and x-ray emissions has been graphically demonstrated in this movie based on data from the SORCE and SOHO programs.   This graph of the sun's x-ray output from the SORCE program combined with the visual SOHO EIT image of the sun, demonstrate that when surface activity peaks in 171A as seen by SOHO, so too the sun's x-ray emissions spike significantly.  This behavior of x-ray output being directly related to coronal loop activity is completely consistent with the prediction of a Birkeland solar model.  It was a phenomenon that Birkeland even produced in his lab.  Any significant change of coronal loop activity directly relates to a change in x-ray output.  As the sun enters it's active phase and the sun becomes more electrically active, and the x-ray output of the sun increases up to five fold.  As the sun enters it's quiet phase again, the coronal loop activity drops and the the x-ray output decreases significantly.   This same effect can actually be demonstrated with a standard plasma ball here on earth.  With sufficient voltage, even a simple plasma ball can create filaments that emit x-rays.

Another interesting link I found describes the temperatures that were created in z-pinch forces in in the Z machine at Sandia National Laboratories.  It seems that when you combine metals, electricity and plasma, it's possible to create temperatures in plasma that reach nearly 2 billion (US) degrees Kelvin while emitting x-rays galore.  This is more than enough energy to release free neutrons and initiate hydrogen fusion and CNO fusion reactions in the solar atmosphere.  These are the kinds of experiments that demonstrate quite conclusively that current flow plays a very large role in coronal loop activity and x-ray output from the sun.


Blackbody Concepts, Sunspot Activity And Sea Surface Temperatures

According to standard solar theory, blackbody principles apply to sunspot activity.  When explaining sunspots,  gas model solar theory suggests that the reason that the umbra of a sunspot is darker than the photosphere is because this region is roughly 2000 degrees "cooler" than the surrounding photosphere.  If that was the case, and this whole region were cooler than the surrounding photosphere, we would expect to see an increase in sunspot activity would result in a noticeable decrease of ocean temperatures.  This however is the exact opposite of what we actually observe here on earth.   While it may be true that *some* areas of a sunspot are actually cooler than the photosphere, in a Birkeland solar model the umbra represents an area of upwelling silicon plasma that is being heated and pushed upward by the increased electrical activity at the surface.   In a Birkeland model we would expect to see an "average" temperature in a sunspot that is in fact *higher* than the surrounding areas of the photosphere.  This increase in temperature during sunspot activity would tend to correlate to an increase in ocean temperatures here on earth, while a decrease in sunspot activity would result in a cooler ocean temperatures.   Indeed, when we look at the graph above, we see that an increase in sunspot activity is directly associated with an increase in sea temperatures.  Likewise, when sunspot activity is low, the ocean temperatures tend to drop.   While this confirms the predictions of a Birkeland solar model quite convincingly, this temperature trend directly refutes the standard explanation for the cause of  sunspot activity.  If these sunspots were actually cooler on average than the surrounding material, then we would expect to see a *decrease* in sea temperatures with an increase in sunspot activity, and an increase in ocean temperature during quiet phases of the  solar cycle.  This is just the opposite of what we actually observe.  This is just another perfect example of the ever increasing amount of data that directly falsifies current solar theory, while simultaneously confirming the Birkeland solar model.


Where's the Moss?

If you're old enough to remember the Wendy's commercial, "Where's the Beef?", and you are results oriented, you will probably appreciate this next "prediction" related to the STEREO satellite program.  One of the most significant differences between a Birkeland solar model interpretation of these satellite images and current gas model interpretation, relates to the placement of the solar moss events in relationship to the surface of the photosphere.   The 'Trace' spacecraft is an abbreviation for "Transition Region And Coronal Explorer".  Even before the TRACE spacecraft was launched, there was an "assumption" made inside of Lockheed Martin about where we should expect to find these million degree plasmas.  Specifically the expectation was that we should expect to see such activity begin somewhere above the photosphere.  Since that time, LMSAL has consistently "interpreted" this solar moss activity as originating approximately 1000-1500 kilometers above the surface of the photosphere.  The problem with satellite image interpretation is that all TRACE, Yohkoh and SOHO images are only two dimensional images.  The depth aspect has thus far required human "interpretation", but all of that is about to change in a radical way thanks to the hard work and efforts by the folks involved in the STEREO satellite program. 

STEREO will finally allow us to study the solar atmosphere in all three dimensions for the very first time.  Three dimensional solar moss images will give us an extremely reliable way to determine if Lockheed's placement was a valid "assessment" on their part, or if their original assumptions and expectations regarding the location of the transition region have done more harm than good as it relates to satellite image interpretation.  According to a Birkeland solar model, these emissions should begin at the solar surface.  Based on data from the field of heliosiesmology the surface of the sun is located at about 4800km below the white light surface of the photosphere.  Lockheed Martin however contends that these solar moss events occur far above the photosphere, and they label this region the "transition region".  Determining the precise location of this solar moss activity in three dimensions then becomes a very useful way to determine the validity of LMSAL's early assumptions and expectations about the location of this region in relationship to the photosphere.  It will also allow us to test their (and my) skills at satellite image "interpretation".  Determining the precise location of these solar moss events in relationship to the surface of the photosphere will allow us to test the accuracy of both "interpretations".  If Lockheed Martin's interpretation is correct, then this solar moss activity should take place between 1000 and 1500 kilometers above the visible photosphere.  If a Birkeland interpretation of the satellite images is correct, then STEREO should "discover" that these solar moss events are in fact originating underneath of the surface of the photosphere, not above it.  Only one of these two "interpretations" can be accurate and there is a 6000km difference in distance, and a 4000+ degree difference in temperature between these two "interpretations".  The real question then to determining which interpretation is accurate is: "Where's the Moss"?  STEREO should be able to answer that question for us, once and for all.  Hopefully we should see some results from STEREO in a few months.  Stay tuned!


Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

I thought I'd use this year's summer solstice to stick my neck out a bit and make a couple of important predictions about the upcoming STEREO program, and the data it is likely to return.  Since STEREO will be able to observe the sun's atmosphere in three dimensions for the first time in human history, STEREO will afford us the opportunity to verify or falsify some important predictions of both a Birkeland solar model and current gas model theories.   There are two important differences between current gas model theory and a Birkeland solar model that STEREO should be able to resolve once and for all.

The first key prediction of a Birkeland solar model is the position of the base of the coronal loops in relationship to the surface of the photosphere.  In a Birkeland solar model, the base of the coronal loops begin at the solar surface.  According to the heliosiesmology data from Stanford, the solar surface is located roughly 4800KM *below* the surface of the photosphere.  On the other hand, according to Lockheed Martin and current gas model theory, the base of the coronal loops originate in the lower corona or the "transitional region", far *above* the surface of the photosphere.   This is a key difference between the two solar models and only one of these "interpretations" can be accurate.  

The next important prediction of a Birkeland solar model which STEREO should be able to confirm or falsify is the location of the calcium plasma emissions in relationship to the chromosphere.  According to contemporary gas model theory, the calcium emissions we see coming from the sun, originate in the sun's chromosphere.  In a Birkeland solar model however, all the plasmas in the solar atmosphere are arranged by atomic weight.  This would suggest that the calcium plasma is much heavier than helium rich chromosphere.  Therefore the calcium ion emissions should originate from underneath of the neon photosphere, and from underneath of the helium chromosphere, not from the chromosphere as current gas model theory predicts.  STEREO should be able to confirm or falsify this positioning, and again, only one of these predictions can be accurate.   STEREO should be able to demonstrate that the solar plasmas are arranged by atomic weight.  Since these theories are mutually exclusive, the location of the calcium ion emissions in relationship to the chromosphere is another very significant and testable difference between the Birkeland solar model, and contemporary gas model theory.


In an effort to begin to understand the movement and the flow patterns of the sun's coronal loops, I have been spending most of my free time studying the work of Dr. Hannes AlfvénDr. Alfvén was the creator of the field of science of plasma flow now called magnetohydrodynamics, and was awarded the Nobel prize for his work in 1970.  Throughout his published career, Alfvén wrote many papers commenting on the practical use of MHD theory in astronomy, as well as it's inappropriate misuse by many in the astronomical community during his tenure and even to this day.  Alfvén demonstrated that when the density of plasma is decreased, the importance of electrical current flow, the kinetic energy, and the resistance of the plasma is often more relevant and meaningful than the orientation of the magnetic fields.  That is never more true than inside coronal loops where the flow of electricity and the kinetic energy within the moving plasma filament is far more relevant than the magnetic fields.  The current flow and kinetic energy of the coronal loop sustains the loop. These loops are not “frozen” magnetic fields in solid plasma, rather these loops are moving columns of flowing plasma that are driven by DC currents that are running through the coronal loop filaments.   The coronal loops discharge current from a negatively charged area of the surface discharge toward a positively charged surface area.  The coronal loops are simply large scale plasma filaments driven by electrical currents, much like we find in a common plasma ball.  The plasmas in the filaments are moving and flowing through the solar plasma atmosphere in tight filamentary structures in much the same way as we see filaments forming in any electrified plasma environment.


In today's news, the Spitzer telescope program provided additional information about solar system formation processes and additional confirmation of Dr. Manuel's neutron core theories.   Spitzer has now confirmed that when a sun goes supernova and "blows up", it tends to blow its iron content and heavy elements into a disk that eventually forms into a new solar system.  The heavy elements ejected into the disk provide the materials that eventually coalesce into planets.   Spitzer has now demonstrated that this proto-solar condition, complete with heavy planetary materials in the disk, and a neutron core in the center holding it together, is exactly as Dr. Oliver Manuel predicted it would look prior to solar system reconstruction.   A naked neutron core will tend to attract an iron or metallic sphere around itself due to its exceptionally strong magnetic field.  Once that outer shell reforms, a solar atmosphere can reform around the iron shell and a new, albeit somewhat smaller star begins to form from what was once considered a "dead" star.  If there is enough neon in the remaining material, the star will form a neon photosphere and produce photons in the visual spectrum.   This new information from Spitzer suggests that solar system formation is likely to be highly cyclical in nature.   A large star forms and eventually explodes leaving a neutron core in the center while it spreads its heavy metals into a solar disk.  The remaining neutron core eventually reforms a new iron shell and plasma atmosphere, while the materials in the disk form into new planets, and the cycle begins anew.  Eventually the new star goes supernova again, and process repeats itself until the neutron core eventually becomes too small to form a stable shell and eventually explodes.  This minimum stable configuration "M(min)" has been calculated to occur at around .189M (solar masses) including the shell.


A couple of articles caught my attention this week.  One article was entitled: "Why Is The Suns Corona Hotter Than The Sun Itself."  This question is actually pretty easy to explain with a Birkeland solar model.  The coronal loops are composed of rising columns of superheated metallic plasma as shown in this NASA animation.  These electrified columns of metallic plasma are made of surface materials that have been ionized in the arc as it rises from the surface.  Because these arcs are electrically energized, they operate at a much higher temperature than the plasma in the solar atmosphere.  As these columns of rising superheated material pass through the atmosphere, they pass their heat into the surrounding solar atmosphere.  Each outer plasma layer of the sun gets progressively lighter and hotter.  The neon photosphere is relatively dense and relatively cool compared to the lighter helium chromosphere above it.  In turn the chromosphere is more dense and considerably cooler than the hydrogen corona.  The corona being the least dense, is also the highest temperature plasma.  That is due to the fact that there are fewer and atoms for the heat to disperse through as the loop travels through the various layers.  As the coronal loops pass through lighter and lighter plasma layers, from the photosphere, to the chromosphere to the corona, each layer is heated by the loops.  As the loops reach into the corona, they glow in the soft x-ray spectrum.  As the loops reach the corona, the corona is simply too light and is too sparsely populated to to re-absorb these soft x-ray emissions. The following image and this animation of the same event by NASA gives us a Trace/Yohkoh overlay view of solar moss activity.  It also shows a set of coronal loops rising through the solar atmosphere.

The blue regions are the view from the Trace satellite system using it's 171A filter.  The yellow areas represent Yohkoh's view in the soft x-ray spectrum using it's SXT filter.  As the coronal loops reach the corona, the glow from the soft x-ray spectrum comes into Yohkoh's view as shown in yellow.   While the arcs emit x-rays all along the coronal loop, these emissions are mostly reabsorbed by the photosphere and chromosphere.   It is only as the arcs/loops reach the corona that Yohkoh can begin to clearly observe the emissions from the coronal loops.

The other article that caught my attention was this article about changes in the earth's magnetotail on August 5th, 2004.  I went back to the SOHO running difference images for that day to get some idea of what was going on at the solar surface on that day. 

Throughout that day there were two very electrically active areas on both sides of the equator facing directly toward the earth.  These regions were interacting with one another all day.  It is probable that the flow of current between these two surface points and the electrical activity occurring in these areas had a lot to do with the event the satellites witnessed in the magnetotail.  Electromagnetic currents flow between the sun and the earth and the current flow patterns on the solar surface can directly affect the earth and the earths electromagnetic field.   The fact that witness and experience powerful magnetic reconnection events has been verified by the ESA Cluster spacecraft and the NASA Wind and ACE satellites.  Esa's cluster mission has also revealed a three dimensional model of the magnetic turbulence in the magnetosheath during these electromagnetic exchanges between the sun and the earth.


More fun with solar flares.  I've run across some rather interesting flares and related solar phenomenon on Lockheed's website that I wanted to keep handy during debates.   I'll mention some of them here and remind myself of the location of each of the links.  All the images come from this page and are provided by Lockheed Martin.  In this event (movie 59) we see a "tadpole" event where material from above the event is being "sucked in" by the magnetic fields of the electrical discharges.  In this video (61) we see a fractured piece of the surface rise up into the atmosphere where it is promptly obliterated by the electrical blowout that ensues.  This movie (67) shows a current loop being "pinched off" and replaced by a shorter, more direct, more energetic current flow much closer to the surface.  Here (47) we see a material being ejected as in a jet rising up from the surface in a straight line and then the same material is sucked back down again to the surface.  In this movie (48) we find four distinct "hot spots" all interacting with one another.  Here (29) we find what Lockheed describes as a filament draining into the umbra as material spirals around and into a point.  Here we see more tornado like structures forming in the solar atmosphere.  Here (96) is another massive surface discharge


I thought I'd share a few of my current cyberspace "hangouts", where I actually debate these ideas so others can join in the debate and comment in real time if they are so inclined.  I'm currently participating in two active forums, the Astronomy forum on Uplink on the forums, and also at "Skeptic Friends Network".   You are welcome to join one of these two active conversations if you are so inclined.   I have participated on the Skeptic Friends Network for several months now and I have come to like Dave and Dr. Mabuse a great deal, even if we remain far from agreement at the moment.  :)  They both however are very good "skeptics", even if Dave is sometimes a bit gruff at times.   Saiph at the Uplink forums looks to be an excellent and educated astronomer as well, and I actually prefer his "debate style".  I'm just getting started at Uplink on, but the conversations there are very interesting, and the forum seem to be well moderated.  In fact my hat is off to the moderators at both sites.  The debates have been lively, fair and very interesting. 

I've learned a great deal over the past month.  One of the primary issues that keeps cropping up in these conversations, and a very critical issue that must be addressed is the heat source of coronal loops.  These sometimes massive loops are heated by the electrical current that is running through them like we see during this Bastille Day flare.   In fact, we can see that these electrical arcs are the focus of the energy emissions from all three iron ion filters on the Trace spacecraft.  "Electricity" is the great "mystery" that seems to elude gas model theorists as it comes to explaining the heat source of the coronal loops.  The temperature does not drop off with height because the loop is constantly being heated by the electrical current that is running through the arc.  That constant flow of electricity is what sustains these coronal loops over one spot for a period of hours and even days.  In some cases we can actually see loop oscillations far out in the corona that are caused by the electromagnetic disturbance of the flare near the surface.  Here we can see outbound jets that are directed by the electromagnetic fields in the corona and we see similar sorts of inbound jets in this image.  These loops do not only "not sag", they actually grow in size and continue to flow even over the span of many hours such as this six hour time sequence of loop evolution and coronal rain activity.

The other issue that is key to this debate is the notion of mass separation.  Dr. Oliver Manuel (my good friend) has spent three decades documenting that the solar atmosphere is mass separated via careful isotope analysis of lunar soil samples and comets.  Satellite imagery has recently confirmed that the solar atmosphere is mass separated in several ways, most visually in the form of a rigid surface, and many images of "coronal rain".  We also see evidence of mass separation in the presence of at least three agreed upon plasma layers of the sun, the photosphere, the chromosphere and the corona.  Each of these regions is associated with it's own temperature and density range.  The photosphere is more densely packed and is cooler than the lighter layers above.  The chromosphere is considerably lighter and hotter than the photosphere and the corona is lighter and hotter still.   These three distinct plasma layers, with three unique densities and temperature ranges have already been documented and agreed upon.   The images of coronal rain falling through the corona demonstrates that these regions are composed of materials with radically different densities.   There is also additional evidence of mass separation in sunspot activity where we see a very clear visual delineation at the base of the penumbral filaments which all end at a very specific depth.  This clear visual delineation between light and dark areas at the end of the filaments is where the neon filaments meet up with and end at the silicon layer below.   In fact, it is the upwelling of a rising column of heated silicon plasma that creates the holes in the neon photosphere, and exposes the sides of the neon penumbral filaments during sunspot activity.   We can actually see, cool dense material being hurled into space in the electrical eruptions from the surface.  In this movie we can see a dense and dark "cloud" in the lower right corner is being hurled into the coronal loops at the top of the image, causing the coronal loops to sway in the breeze.  Here we can see a top down view of a similar surface flare episode.  This time. the dark and dense cloud of heavier materials is flowing in an arched path with the center loop just before the flare.  When the flare occurs, that dense cooler cloud of material is hurled from the center arc, upward and towards the top of the image.  In this movie, we can see this material ejected changing course in the constantly changing magnetic fields and is pulled right back down toward the surface.


New Zealand Rocks!   As of today, the website traffic from New Zealand has made up about 8% of the total website traffic for this month.  For such a modest sized country, that is simply unbelievable.   That is greater than the combined monthly traffic of the next three largest countries of the UK, Canada and Australia combined.  That is really awesome.   The website also reached a numerical milestone this month.  This website has now been visited by over a quarter of a million individuals from more than one hundred and forty countries since May of 2005.  You gotta love the power of Google. :)

Since I get a lot of emails and questions about my opinions regarding the topic of plasma cosmology, I thought I'd give this topic a bit of column space this week.   It is my opinion that a gravity oriented, big bang, gas model approach to astronomy will eventually give way to an Electric Universe, plasma cosmology oriented approach that includes and acknowledges the very large scale Birkeland currents that flow through our universe.   Once this enlightenment process begins to pick up steam, current gravity oriented gas model ideas will seem about as credible as believing the earth is flat or that the earth is the center of the universe, or that gravity alone is the driving force of solar system formation.  In fact we already have substantial evidence to suggest that gravity is *not*  the only force that drives  solar system formation.   Most likely Birkeland currents are involved in this process and in every process within our very electric universe.  There are quite a few really excellent websites devoted to the topic of plasma cosmology, including and Thunderbolts.   The electric universe model is certainly going to replace the current gravity-centric notions of astronomy in the next few decades.  

Several articles have come out recently that further demonstrate the presence and the effects of Birkeland currents both inside and outside of our solar system.   It seems there is now evidence to suggest that Mars also experiences aurorae.   The ionosphere of Mars is also affected by x-ray flares from the sun, much as the earth is affected by these same events.  These two phenomenon demonstrate that Birkeland currents play a major role in daily solar system activity.  This is because the sun and the earth as well as other planets are predominantly made of iron.  Preliminary data from the Stardust satellite confirm yet again that iron comes from meteorites, which are themselves iron rich because they are ultimately composed of supernova remnants.  There has also been recent confirmation of massive sized Birkeland currents in space.    It seems that Birkeland was more than 100 years ahead of his time, but many of his electrical current theories have been verified time and time again, not to mention satellite confirmation of his solar model. :)


The Spitzer Telescope is starting to reveal more clues about solar collision events and solar formation processes.  These events reveal the presence of a significant amount of crystal silicates.   This "discovery" helps us to confirm that other suns also have a silicon plasma layer that covers their surface, just as our own sun has a silicon plasma layer that covers it's surface.  Another interesting "discovery" this week involves Saturn.  Saturn is currently experiencing a very large electrical storm event in it's atmosphere.  It seems that lightning bolts on Saturn are up to 1000 times more powerful than lightning that we experience here on earth.  This information suggests that the largest bodies in our solar system (including the sun) are considerably more electrically active than smaller bodies.    I also ran across a very interesting new paper from Alexander Kosovichev that demonstrates the presence of waves in the photosphere on dates and times that are directly associated with surface fractures that can be seen in 195A SOHO images.  His new work includes the January 15th, 2005 event that is listed on the sunquake page of this website.   On all three dates listed, there are noticeable surface fractures that can be seen in the raw SOHO images.    These surface fractures are what create the tsunami like waves in the photosphere.


Over the last couple of weeks I've been studying the heliosiesmology work of Dr. Alexander Kosovichev from Stanford University in greater depth.  While his most recent paper confirms the presence of stratification layer at .995, extending to about .985R, some of Kosovichev's earlier work demonstrates that this stratification layer can and does block the flow of plasma.   In figure 2A, we see the mass flow patterns in the plasma above the stratification layer.  The movement of mass in the area above the stratification layer is generally oriented downward, as plasma moves toward the downward spiraling column of plasma.  This is very consistent with the tornado like features we often see in the solar atmosphere.   Figure 2B represents the material flow in the area beneath the stratification layer.  In this region however the material flows generally upward and away from the rising column of material.  This flow behavior is consistent with a rising heated column reaching the underside of a dense crust and spreading itself out along the underside of the crust.   Figure 3 represents the flow patterns seen over a very great depth.  We see that the downward oriented plasma flows ends, and flattens out at the same place the stratification layer begins.

Figures 2(a) and 2(b) - Click on the images for a larger view

Figure 3

I also came across some interesting information from the Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy.    This website talks about Ulysses observations of sector boundaries at aphelion.  It visually animates the flow patterns of Birkeland currents through the iron sun at the sun rotates slowly over time.  This movie demonstrates the spiral pattern that is created in the current flow around the sun as the predominantly iron sun slowly rotates on its spin axis.


I find sunspot activity to be quite fascinating.  The tornado like structures that emerge in the solar atmosphere carry the heat from the arcs down below up into the upper atmosphere into massive hurricane sized events.  These events disperse vast amounts of mass and heat and energy that extend far out into the solar system.  Some of that material is drawn back by gravity and falls again as coronal rain.


After receiving over 4000 hits from a single blog in the month of January, I am now sold on the power of the blog.  I also seem to be learning something interesting and new (to me at least) about the sun every week, sometimes every day, so I thought I'd start a web log to make notes about the data I collect as I discover new facts about the sun.  I eventually intend to turn this page into a real blog that will allow others to comment.  For the time being however, I'll use this page to make current notes that strike me as interesting and I will update this page regularly, treating it as more or less a "current news" page.


LMSAL: For Goodness Sake, Fix Your Website!

The first subject I would like to tackle on the blog relates back to an online conversation I was having before being rudely burned at the virtual stake for my heretical beliefs.  Since I didn't quite get a sense of completion on that topic, I'll lay out the materials that I have been collecting to support my analysis of these images, including some new materials that I never had the opportunity to post.  This information relates to a conversation I was engaged in concerning the topic of black body radiation and how that relates to a series of images that Lockheed Martin misidentified on their website.

The images above are the images in question.  The blue/green images are processed images that attempt to show heat signatures within the solar atmosphere, whereas the orange image is a raw (but colorized) image from the Trace spacecraft taken at 171A.   According to Lockheed's website, the base of the coronal loops shown in red are cooler than the surrounding materials.  This is false and misleading according to NASA.  According to NASA, the bulk of the heating takes place at the base of the coronal loops:

"The TRACE observations show that instead, most of the heating must occur at the bases of the coronal loops, near where they emerge from and return to the solar surface."

If the heating occurs at the base of the loop, then the heat itself and the heat mechanism is also concentrated at that point.  The heating and cooling at the base of the arc is directly related to the flow of current at that moment in time.  The source of energy to heat the base of the arcs is electricity, specifically electrons flowing from the surface features and ionizing surface solids into plasma into the coronal loops.  NASA's assessment of heating at the base of the arc is also confirmed by Rhessi/Trace images which show that the base of the coronal loops/arcs is the point of positron/electron annihilation.  The neutron capture wavelengths are circled in red, while the positron/electron annihilation areas are circled in the blue regions at the base of the electrical arcs.  The blue, high energy emissions are located along the surface at the base of the arc. This recent paper from Lockheed Martin also explains the wide range of high temperature sensitivity of the 171A and 195A filters onboard the Trace spacecraft.  While the 171A images are typically considered to be sensitive to only to FE IX/X ion photons in the 1 million degree range, this same filter is also quite capable of seeing calcium emissions in the 4 million Kelvin range and even FE XX ion photons in the 10-20 million Kelvin range.   In addition, the University of Maryland has also demonstrated that the coronal loops generate photon emissions that are consistent with plasma temperatures of over 1000 million (1 US Billion) degrees Kelvin.

The soft x-ray Yohkoh image on the left was taken at the dawn of new Millennium as the sun reached the peak of it's active solar cycle.  Yohkoh allowed us for the first time to observe the highest energy emissions from the sun.  Yohkoh showed us that the highest energy photons, and the areas of greatest heat concentration are located in and around the coronal loops, just as Dr. Kristian Birkeland's model predicts.   The dark areas of the solar surface represent the chromosphere and photosphere that are measured in the thousands of degrees Kelvin, whereas the loops/arcs coming from the surface carry heated plasma that is in excess of 1 million degrees Kelvin.  Rhessi and Yohkoh have both demonstrated that the highest energy emissions come from the arcs and from the  base of the arcs where the arcs touch the solar surface.  The arcs will sometimes rise up through the plasma of the photosphere and chromosphere and into the corona where they can be seen emitting in the x-ray spectrum against a dark photosphere-chromosphere background.   Yohkoh, Geos and Rhessi have all demonstrated this phenomenon. All three satellites consistently show that the highest energy photons and the hottest areas of the sun are directly related to the electrical flow within the arc.   Just as Lockheed Martin's Analysis of the Bastille Day flare demonstrates, 171A images are fully capable of picking up not only the Fe IX/X photons, but also Calcium photons in the 4 Million degree range and Fe XX ion photons in the 10-20 million degree range as well.  Any interpretation of photon emissions from the surface must take this very large, very wide heat range of the 171A and 195A filters into account.   Because of this high temperature sensitivity, it is physically impossible for the dark regions of the surface which emit no light in the original two images to be "hotter" or more energetic than the brightest areas of the original images.  These same filters are ultimately sensitive to a range of temperatures that far exceeds anything remotely related to the surface of the photosphere and chromosphere.   Lockheed Martin's analysis of the 171A and 195A images is flawed.  The base of the coronal loops is brighter and hotter than anything else on the surface in both images.  Black body concepts certainly DO apply here in a very standard way.  The 171A an 195A emissions are concentrated in and around the arc, because electricity is flowing through that arc and heating the iron plasma to million plus degree temperatures against a backdrop of thousand degree plasma layers.





The Surface Of The Sun
©Site Design