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.
Mr. Mozina is upset that I cached his comments to my blog for later release. This is my standard policy as noted on the comment link page (note that Mr. Mozina does not allow comments on his blog). If I want to do research to generate a response, that might take some time to assemble the needed components depending on other projects on my plate. If Mr. Mozina expects immediate feedback, then it suggests he is more interested in receiving attention rather than the science.
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 as in this claim from the comments:
FYI, I'm looking forward to your critique of my website, particularly in light of recent SDO findings of walking speed convection rates, and an overall shape that is much more congruent with a solid surface: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.
The technique uses 'dopplergrams' which are created from the SDO/HMI instrument and measure the velocity of the solar photosphere (Sounding the Sun: Helioseismology). Heliosesimology has provided enough information to determine the density profile of the Sun and use it to constrain various solar models. These results also exclude solar models with a high fraction of heavy elements such as those advocated by Mozina and others.
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!
If a press release stated "Seismology result places theory of Round Earth in Doubt", most people would regard it as nonsense. Yet that is essentially what Mr. Mozina's is claiming with his 'interpretation' of this result. There are three unpleasant facts which Mr. Mozina chooses to ignore.
- The technique used in no way invalidates earlier helioseismology results using different techniques. The solar density profile is the same as it was before. This technique just tries to extract velocity information from the same data. If Mr. Mozina wants to use this result as evidence of his model, then he is also stuck with the fact that helioseismology proves his claimed solar composition profile is false. Note that Mr. Mozina's claim about the onion-skin structure of different elements has been a standard component of stellar models for evolved high-mass stars for several decades now (Wikipedia). This happens for higher mass stars near the time they go supernova. The Sun does not have enough mass to reach this stage and helioseismology results described above prove it does not have this structure. There are even publicly available stellar evolution codes so you can see this process on your own computer.
- Even the anomalously slow convection paper described at least two options, in work done by earlier researchers, which would create flows that would be undetectable by the techniques used, all consistent with refinements of the standard model and not a radical change in composition which Mr. Mozina advocates.
- There are a number of physical issues where the interpretation of the results may be questioned. The analysis described in the press release included the thin layer near the solar surface where the density change is significantly larger than the bulk volume of the Sun (see
Structure and Evolution of Giant Cells in Global Models of Solar Convection, Seismic Constraints on Interior Solar Convection). The finite spatial resolution of the technique cannot detect smaller-scale flows or distinguish 'cross-talk' between meridional and radial flows (see Inversions for Average Supergranular Flows Using Finite-frequency Kernels), which may mean the technique used has other difficulties not yet identified which might impact the interpretation of the results.
The Challenges of Leading-Edge Techniques
Early use of new techniques invariably reveals some unexpected limitations on the technique and/or the interpretation of the results. Often, these limitations are more precisely quantified or fixed over time. There is a very good example of this from the history of helioseismology.
First helioseismology studies in the 1970s from ground-based telescopes generated some surprising results. Most notably, these first analyses detected a solar oscillation with a period of 160 minutes that suggested the structure of the Sun had to be very different from what the standard models predicted at that time. Many papers were written suggesting novel solutions and the idea was picked up by various cranks and pseudo-scientists promoting their own more bizarre models. It was soon recognized that the oscillation could be a harmonic created by the fact that the solar data was only collectable during the daytime and this regular gap in the data was responsible. This is a common problem with Fourier analysis techniques - a gap in the data is still treated as data. Since the advent of space-based doppler imaging where solar coverage is 24/7, as well as a network of observatories around the world which can collect a more continuous run of data, the 160 minute oscillation vanished (wikipedia).
In spite of this fact, the 160 minute solar observation survives today in a number of crank science circles.
Will more observations require us to make adjustments to our models of the Sun? Certainly. But those revisions will be on the level of a percent here or there on the composition of some element, or the density at some region.
If solar structure was a different from the standard model as Mr. Mozina wants to imply, then it falls to HIM to demonstrate that such a different solar structure can generate the same, or better results, than the current model.
Seismology Results Jeopardize Theory of Solid Earth!
More from Mr. Mozina's comments:
The problem Tom is that the mainstream's "magnetic reconnection" theories are entirely dependent upon jet speed convection. Without fast convection, standard solar theory is falsified. You seem to not have addressed that SDO heliosceismology data with respect to the failures of your mathematical models. If math is king, how come you're not concerned about the falsified quantification aspects of your own theory? Whereas Birkeland's cathode sun was in no way dependent upon convection as a source of energy to explain the 'electrical discharges' in the solar atmosphere, that revelation of slow convection speeds is *devastating* to mainstream mathematical models.Considering the number of great successes Mr. Mozina has claimed for his model based on total misreading of images (The Surface Of The Sun (TSOTS): The Strange Solar Claims of Michael Mozina. I.) and even bad selection of data (The Surface Of The Sun (TSOTS): The Strange Solar Claims of Michael Mozina. II.), it is clear that Mr. Mozina's model has reached the point of total failure.
Unlike Birkeland, the mainstream does *not* recognize the presence of charge separation between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere. That is in fact a *fundamental* difference between standard theory and Birkeland's cathode sun. Birkeland's model "predicts" the presence of "electrical discharges" in the solar atmosphere that are powered by a charge separation that exists between the sun and space, not simply internally changing magnetic fields. We do at least have to acknowledge some fundamental differences between mainstream solar theory and Birkeland's cathode solar model. When you say that you "know" about the electrical fields in space, do you also agree with Birkeland that the sun acts as a cathode with respect to (interstellar) space?Birkeland's ideas about the aurora are now well established (see The Exploration of the Earth's Magnetosphere).
The transient reconnections of magnetic field lines between the Sun and the Earth, which allow solar wind to reach directly to the ionosphere, have been observed by missions like Cluster (NASA, ESA) and THEMIS (NASA).
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.
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.
One of the few methods which can generate an electric field and current in a predominantly neutral plasma is a null-point in a magnetic field - AKA, an X-point or "magnetic reconnection" (Wikipedia, from Plasma Physics Lectures at UT, Scholarpedia)
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?
- Because Mr. Mozina wants to accept helioseismology results where he thinks it is convenient for his model, but denies the same science where it is inconvenient.
- Because Mr. Mozina appropriates many graphics generated from simulations of mainstream solar models, not informing the reader that these models are generated using a very different solar structure than advocated by Mozina. Changing the composition of the solar plasma changes the particle masses and ionization levels which can dramatically alter the results of these simulations and make them inapplicable.
Scientific results, especially things as well established as solar and stellar physics, is not something where you can pick-and-choose your science as if from a menu.
Mr. Mozina has never presented a rigorous demonstration that any of the results he has lifted from standard solar theory would even apply in his model.
Some quotes from:
TB>>1) Astronomers do know about electric fields in space. I have written much on this topic.and (link)
(Electric Universe: Whither the Electric Currents?). EUers avoid acknowledging these facts probably because it would make their rally cry that astronomers ignore electric fields a clear lie.
I'd rather we at least *try* to keep the conversation a little friendly and devoid of all the "loaded language* (lie, fraud, yada, yada yada). Clearly we have a lot of things to discuss on this topic, and clearly we have disagreements of opinions, but I'm not suggesting that you're a 'liar' due to those honest differences of opinion.
FYI, it might behoove us to at least "try" to make this a friendly conversation. It might be easier to "hear" one another if we at least attempt to keep things civil between us. I'd certainly rather we focus on the science and keep the emotional trash talking to a minimum. I'll try to at least attempt to understand your ideas clearly before brushing them off, and I would appreciate it if you would afford me that same courtesy.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.
Mr. Mozina's entire site is constructed around the idea that solar researchers, satellite engineers, plasma physicists and loads of others who actually work with space data (myself included) and do real experiments are incompetent, based on nothing more than his 'looking at' and his 'reinterpretation' of other peoples work.
Relevant Quote: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Wikipedia: Golden Rule)Many of Mr. Mozina's many errors have been pointed out to him in forums such as Universe Today (now CosmoQuest) and the JREF. Attempts to get Mr. Mozina to demonstrate he has any competence in electromagnetism or radiation physics to discuss these topics, or provide any objectively testable evidence for his claims have been met with evasions and excuses and he has been banned from these forums for this behavior. Mr. Mozina's behavior has been going on for YEARS, as summarized in this post by Phil Plait from 2006 banning Mr. Mozina from that forum.
Mr. Mozina did not bother to learn anything about HOW we know these things. It's not from just 'looking at *years* of images and movies'. It seems he has done nothing to actually learn about these things.
Relevant Quote: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." QuotationsPageHow the Sun and other stars work is not the result of 'opinion' or 'worldview' any more than how we use Newton's laws and gravity enables us to travel between planets is a matter of 'opinion' or 'worldview'.
If a professional scientist were to use the tactics of evasion and avoidance of the problems with their claims as Mr. Mozina has done, they would quickly find themselves ignored. A number of (former) professionals have chosen this route and the mere mention of their names invites groans and eye-rolls.
I followed a number of Mr. Mozina's posts at Universe Today and JREF over the years. There is no evidence that Mr. Mozina has learned anything over this time so any dialog with him is pointless.
This concludes this series for now. Comments for the full series are now open.