Electric universe theories here.

[Reality Check]

Which *SPECIFIC* detail of this *SPECIFIC* RD or Doppler image did you or anyone else address?

*EVERY* detail of this *SPECIFIC* RD or Doppler image was addressed not only by people in this forum but also by people in other forums as in the links in GeeMack's list:

Oh, man. You asked for it. This has been going on for years, since 2002 at least. Here's a compendium, a virtual cornucopia of Michael's "Surface of the Sun" antics. Of particular interest are the discussions about running difference images in the material on the Skeptic Friends Network (bottom of the list of links below). That is just one of several places where the concept of running difference images was explained in great depth. You'll also see where Michael completely folded as he demanded that everyone else explain the images, which I did in detail, yet he was wholly incapable of explaining them himself. It's tedious, but humorous, too, in a pathetic sort of way.

On this page at SFN, (and the pages that follow, and at several other places in that ridiculously long conversation) I offered Michael the opportunity to help us understand the meaning of the image, how we could determine the height of the mountains and depth of the valleys. His world class evasion technique shone through in style. Yes, he weaseled. He didn't have the stuff. Shortly after, he abandoned his participation there, slinked away utterly defeated.

Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum...

8 pages, 30 posts per page...

Michael Mozina's 'Sun has a solid surface' idea
​

13 pages, 30 posts per page...

ATM site claims Sun's surface is solid
​

14 pages, 30 posts per page...

Sun Is Mostly Iron, Not Hydrogen
​

12 pages, 30 posts per page...

Does Lockheed Martin Understand Black Body Radiation?
​

Sockpuppet: ManInTheMirror - 4 pages, 30 posts per page...

ManInTheMirror's claims concerning a BAUT conspiracy
​

Sockpuppet: ManInTheMirror - 36 pages, 30 posts per page...

Current theory is no scientifically "better than" plasma cosmology.
​

Einstein@Home forum at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee...

How the sun shines
​

Over 3,000 postings over at the Skeptic Friends Network...

Surface of the Sun
​

 

[Michael Mozina]

You need to make sure that you alway qualify "surface" so that pepole do not think that this is the standard usage of the term in solar astronomy, i.e. the visible surface of the Sun (the photosphere).

From my website:

The sun's photosphere is often mistakenly referred to as the surface of the sun. In reality however, the sun's photosphere is only a "liquid-like" plasma layer made of neon that covers the actual surface of the sun. That visible layer we see with our eyes is composed of penumbral filaments that are several hundred kilometers deep. This visible neon plasma layer that we call the photosphere, and a thicker, more dense atmospheric layer composed of silicon plasma, entirely covers the actual rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer of the sun. The visible photosphere covers the actual surface of the sun, much as the earth's oceans cover most of the surface of the earth. In this case the sun's photosphere is very bright and we cannot see the darker, more rigid surface features below the photosphere without the aid of satellite technology.

That's pretty specific.

I am not "fixating" on the temperature of the photosphere - that is the visible surface of the Sun.

It's just *a* layer of the sun that happens to emit visible light. So what? It's just a thin layer of plasma that is utterly incapable of acting like a "black body" because it's far too thin to do so.

The photosphere is not a top of your hypothetical, mythical, "neon layer" assertion.

You guys can't even seem to comprehend mythical from hypothetical. Neon exists in nature. You might accuse me of using a hypothetical, but there is nothing "mythical" about it. Dark energy, dark matter and invisible dead inflation faeries are mythical entities that never show up in a lab. Neon shows up in a lab. It also emits white light.

 

[Michael Mozina]

*EVERY* detail of this *SPECIFIC* RD

********. Name one *SPECIFIC* observation from the image that you or anyone else actually addressed?

Edited for Beach of Rule 10

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, I know. It also shows what is *NOT* changing as well, including all those angular structures none of you want to talk about or deal with.

The stupidity is amazing.
If you subtract an image from another image then by definition you only have what has changed between the 2 images.
Therefore there are no persistent structures in the RD image.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I explained every pixel of your precious running difference image. Every single pixel.

Liar. You handwaved some general ideas and intentionally avoided every specific detail in the image. Name a single actual observed event in that image you actually "explained"?

 

[Reality Check]

So, let's see you put some of your new found knowledge to use and explain some of the *ACTUAL DETAILS* of *THIS SPECIFIC* image. What's the flying stuff, and the peeling we observe along the right during the image? Why are their angular patterns in the image and why don't they change radically over the timeline of the video, particularly during and after the CME event?

He does not have to since we have already explained "EVERY DETAIL" of *THIS SPECIFIC* image.

But let us humor the crackpot since he is unable to read the TRACE website

• flying stuff = the CME passing across the image during ejection and fally back toward the photosphere (changes in position).
• angular patterns = the C3.3 flare changing previous to and during the CME event. The solar flare is probably climbing and changing intensity. The images do change a bit on the fringes (unlike your mythical "mountain ranges"). That is the flare expanding a bit on the edges.

N.B. The C3.3. flare is associated with the CME, which happen in both active and quiet solar regions. That means that they just happen in the same area. They do not cause each other and a CME need not affect the flare.
TRACE

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

 

[Reality Check]

You guys can't even seem to comprehend mythical from hypothetical. Neon exists in nature. You might accuse me of using a hypothetical, but there is nothing "mythical" about it. Dark energy, dark matter and invisible dead inflation faeries are mythical entities that never show up in a lab. Neon shows up in a lab. It also emits white light.

It is mythical because a crackpot is presenting the idea.
It is hypothetical because the crackpot cannot give any evidence for it.

 

[Reality Check]

Almost forgot this !
Michael Mozina:
First asked on 23rd June. 2009.
No real response yet (27th June 2009 and counting).

How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?

• galaxy rotation curves (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
• the motion of galxies in galactic clusters (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
• the actual measurement of the mass density of galactic clusters showing that about 2% is in the galaxies and IGM (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, indirect measurement)
• the two actual measurements of the separation of dark matter from normal matter:
  • NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (Bullet Cluster)
  • another observation (MACS J0025.4-1222)
    (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, direct measurements of the separation of dark and normal matter)
• A bit of supporting evidence is that the Millennium Run used the Lambda-CDM model to replicate the large-scale structure of the universe. CDM = Cold Dark Matter.

N.B. The above evidence is based on empirical data (as defined in MM's web site, e.g. the solar data and images which are from uncontrolled experiments).
Newtonian dynamics have been confirmed in controlled experiments.
Maxwell's equations have been confirmed in controlled experiments.
General Relativity has been confirmed in controlled experiments.


So far we have seen

• Michael Mozina's usual inability to understand what empirical means with his "empirical measurments of an *CONTROLLED* experiment" nonsense.
• His personal opinion that somehow astronomers have underestimated the visible mass of galaxies. That would have to by a factor of 50 or more.

The last point demands more questions:
First asked 25 June 2009:

No real response yet (27th June 2009 and counting).
Would you like to explain how the astronomers got the mass so wrong, e.g.

• What visible matter are they not accounting for?
• How is the mass of the visible matter they are accounting for measured incorrectly?
• Is the Sun two times heavier than orbital mechanics say that it is? 10 times? 50 times? 100 times? Or greater?

Perhaps this just your personal opinion unsupported by any empirical evidence just because you cannot understand the evidence for dark matter?

 

[Ziggurat]

It's just *a* layer of the sun that happens to emit visible light.

And that light just happens to be a blackbody spectrum.

So what? It's just a thin layer of plasma that is utterly incapable of acting like a "black body" because it's far too thin to do so.

If it emits like a blackbody (and it does), then it must absorb like a blackbody.

Neon shows up in a lab. It also emits white light.

Under what conditions does it emit white light?

 

[tusenfem]

Yes, he was quite unlike you folks that don't even comprehend what an actual "control mechanism" looks like or the reason that a control mechanism is required in a real "experiment".

As you have no idea what kind of things I have done in my scientific life, this is a bold comment, but anywhooooo

He knew 100 years ago that the sun spewed electrons and ions of every flavor. Your beloved mainstream ridiculed him for 60 or so years until Chapman's elegant but pointless math was put to rest based on in situ satellite measurements of currents in space. Somehow after 100 years, you and the mainstream still remain blind to every other part of his work.

I cannot be held responsible for tha actions of peeps before I was born, dear MM, so I don't frakking care. I am of the opinion that Chapman was totally wrong and out of order with respect to his shutting Birkie out of the (mainly UK) scientific community. So, if you have an axe to grind, take it up with Chapman.

If you had actually read Birkeland's work like a real scientist should do, you would know that he already understood that particles of the sphere were being deposited as "soot" on the sides of his chamber, requiring him clean it periodically. That is why my sig line is not limited to electrons. Then again, you and every other skeptic (save perhaps Tim) wouldn't have a clue because you've never read his work.

How would you know what I have read or not? So now the soot are the ions of the solar wind? RIIIIIIGHT That was just happening because of chemical reaction inside his glass box, and indeed he needed (to let his assistants creap into that box) to clean it.

But ***AGAIN***, a cathode ***CANNOT*** accelerate ***BOTH*** electrons and ions, so the idea that the sun is a cathode and the heliosphere is the anode is totally rediculous to explain the solar wind.

Paranoid perhaps?

Not half as much as Birkeland was, when in Egypt. I am just considering that MM and Sol88 are the same persons.

What "real" stuff? Unlike Birkeland you folks have *NEVER* created a working model, you don't have a clue why solar wind accelerates, you don't have any evidence that "magnetic reconnection" is fundamentally (at the level of actual physics) any different from "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection" mixed in with a wee bit of induction. All you can do is blind yourself to the obvious reason why a solar atmosphere act like any other atmosphere and releases x-rays and gamma-rays, namely due to electrical discharges. Instead you're hopelessly confused by your own math formulas, you don't have a clue what a 'control mechanism' looks like or what purpose it serves.

Real stuff as in like ***YOU*** calculating something, instead of showing nice pics (another thing you have in common with Sol88, the "look at the pretty pic, I do not understand it, but it definitely shows that I am right" kind of "physics").

Interestig you start talking about reconnection, because, inadvertently, I found this process near Venus, and lo-and-behold, the data from VEX showed almost exactly what a numerical model (that I did not know beforehand) said should happen. Your ever and ever complaint about reconection, wanting it to be called "circuit reconnection" (which is not so terrible) or "particle reconnection" (which is outright ludicrious) is fine, but you never ***EVER*** explain how the topology of the magnetic field as observed in simulations, experiments and space happens in your preferred model (but that is a whole other thread that we need not put into this one here, it already exists)

By the way MM, have YOU ever worked in a plasma laboratory? (I have)

It means that the core of the sun releases free electrons and protons. The electrons discharge themselves toward the heliosphere (case in Birkeland's experiments) and they drag the protons and other ions along for the ride. Birkeland already knew all of this by the way. He explains this in his book, but alas one has to actually read it.

Could you please show how these puny electrons with a mass of 1/1836 of a proton can do such a thing? That they would be able to pull along a few protons, I could believe, but ***THE SOLAR WIND IS ELECTRICALLY NEUTRAL***, so I really would like you to show us how this is being done, equal amounts of electrons and protons, with also all the other known parameters of the solar wind like temperatures, velocities etc. etc.
(well that ain't never gonna happen, getting MM to really calculate something and show that it can be done, he'd rather handwave, with very very big waves)

Huh? What does that have to do with Birkeland's solar theory.

Ah, you see, this thread is NOT about Birkeland. He is interesting, but this whole thread is about the Electric Universe. ***YOU*** turned it into a Birkie thread, because of your narrow view of "space physics." These were general questions for the EU proponents (of which ***YOU*** apparently are one).

If you'd read Birkeland's book, you'd know that no external currents may be required save perhaps some positively charged interstellar wind. He proposed an internal fission type process and mentioned uranium by name. Not bad for 100 years ago.

HELLOOOOOOOOO, somebody pick up the clue phone, we ARE NOT discussing Birkie. According to the EU stars are created from big intragalactic currents that create a z-pinch and then there is a star, which is an arc, or something silly like that. So the question to the EU peeps is what creates these huge intragalactic currents and what is the strength needed to create a z-pinch and a star.

MM this has NOTHING to do with fission of uranium in the sun, the EU could not care less about Birkies ideas on that kind of stuff, stars are z-pinches in intragalactic current channels. Get updated dude!

I can certainly explain these images qualitatively right down to small detail. In four years I've yet to see any of you hotshots put your money on the table and explain the actual details of this actual image even qualitatively. I don't even want to see your math until I hear your physical explanation of this process.

Well, looking at your pc screen for 4 years, will certainly damage your eye sight, so that is probably why you come up with all this nonsense, and then of course the fact that you do not understand how bandpass filters work and how images of bandpass filtered pics have to be interpreted (e.g. black does not mean that there is nothing there, it means there is nothing there that emits in that wavelength band)

There you go trying to stifle the conversation by closing the thread. You guys can't handle an open and honest debate. If you could, you would simply explain the various details of these two images and that would be that.

This is no debate, sorry, it is merely turning into a schoolyard brawl, and until you show that indeed you understand physics, bandpass images, the real greateness of Birkie, and lost more, there is nothing to discuss about anymore, your errors have been shown again and again and again here and on BAUT. The fact that you are "steadfast" in your "defence" of Birkie is good, but it should not blind you to any mistakes that you may have made.

 

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
It means that the core of the sun releases free electrons and protons. The electrons discharge themselves toward the heliosphere (case in Birkeland's experiments) and they drag the protons and other ions along for the ride. Birkeland already knew all of this by the way. He explains this in his book, but alas one has to actually read it.

And MM you failed to explain how this works when I asked you, granted you had a lot on your plate at the time.

So you have electrons being either repulsed from teh charge of teh surface or being attracted to a lay of opposite charge, correct?

Then you have the positively charged ions being towed by the electrons, correct?

As I asked before: this raises some questions
(Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do.)

-given the lower mass of the electrons
--what velocity must the electron have to tow the positive ions with them?
--or is there a higher proportion of electrons to compensate for the much higher mass of the positive ions?
--what ration between velocity/momentum of the electrons and the proportion of the electrons do you suggest?

Then there is the issue of the opposite charges:

In the case of repulsion from the surface the positive ions are going to be attracted to the surface.
-what velocity/momentum and proportion of the electrons is needed to compensate for that?

In the case of the attraction to the outer layer the positive ions are going to be repulsed by the charge of the outer layer.
-what velocity/momentum and proportion of the electrons is needed to compensate for that?


So then we get down to possible observations that would support your theory:
-is the proportion of electrons to positive ions appropriate to your model, from observations?
-what charge would be needed on the heliosphere to account for the needed acceleration of the electrons and positive ions? What is the observed value?

 

[D'rok]

So, let's see you put some of your new found knowledge to use and explain some of the *ACTUAL DETAILS* of *THIS SPECIFIC* image. What's the flying stuff, and the peeling we observe along the right during the image? Why are their angular patterns in the image and why don't they change radically over the timeline of the video, particularly during and after the CME event?

Can't say it better than this:

In running difference images and videos, where there seem to be areas of light and shadow and often the appearance of some sort of surface, this effect is actually an optical illusion resulting from the process of creating a "running difference" image. (GeeMack)

If you don't grasp how that negates your entire premise and makes micro-analyzing "surface" details nonsensical, there probably is no hope for you.

 

[Vermonter]

The surface of the sun is less than 2000 Kelvin. Just as the photosphere is cooler than the chromosphere and the chromosphere is cooler than the corona, so too the layers under the photosphere (silicon and calcium layers) are cooler and more dense than the photosphere. The surface itself is rather cool compared to the photosphere and it would need to be cool enough for solids to form given the gravity conditions that exist at the surface.

You're taking conclusions and then bashing the evidence over the head to fit! Don't you understand that it gets hotter as you decrease radius? Even Jupiter is like that, and we actually sent a probe into the planet. You insist that the surface is cool enough because you NEED it to be cool enough or your theory falls apart! You have no evidence. You have no proof. You have a picture that you don't even understand, and you're waving it around like the Golden Tablets.

I don't think any of you have ever acknowledged that I have always insisted that the double layers under the photosphere are cooler than the photosphere which is why we often find cooler (and hotter) material rising through the photosphere during sunspot events. When the silicon layer is hot enough, it squirts through the neon plasma of the photosphere and we get sunspots. Never have I suggested that iron is stable at 6K degrees. I wonder if you folks will *EVER* acknowledge that point? How many years has it been now?

Sunspots are areas of relatively cooler gas. Sunspots are still 4000 K. The photosphere and its sunspots are the coolest regions on the sun, and yet you ignore satellite data to prop up your iron ball theory. It's no wonder scientsist laugh at you and don't bother giving you a definite answer. You're not even wrong.

 

[Vermonter]

First off, your side is hurling 10 times the insults my way. Secondly, it's your side that has it in their head that this image *must* in some way be associated with gas model solar theory. I'm more than happy to listen to your responses, but they MUST be attentive to details within the actual image if you expect me to take you seriously.

No, you're just a crackpot who refuses to admit that he's wrong. You get so hyped on on an image, and you don't have a clue about it. You're working backwards from a conclusion.

I am not talking about the surface of the photosphere, I'm talking about the crust underneath the photosphere.

Which doesn't exist. Evidence? No pictures. Show us, without using pictures, that such a thing can exist on the sun. Remember to provide calculations about density and the composition of the material, and how mass is distributed while maintaining the same radius and gravitational pull. Oh, you can't? Sorry, my bad.

No, I did not. I embraced a decade worth of SOHO and Trace and Yohkoh images. That Doppler image shows a rigid feature in the photosphere. I didn't expect to find it, it's just there. Those persistent features of the RD image are just there too. I didn't make them up and you haven't explained their cause.

You embraced something without knowing what it is. That's like embracing a cactus, though less amusing. The Doppler image shows a rigid feature only to you. Do you understand that? You're the only one seeing the pink elephant. There are persistent features on Jupiter as well, and that's not solid. Unless you're claiming that Jupiter is a ball of iron as well. Good luck with that one. Nevermind the fact that Jupiter and the Sun have similar composition. How can that be unless they are both gaseous bodies?

It's not just *ONE* image that convinced me, it *EVERY* one of the 17 Gigabytes of RD image, Doppler images, composite images, etc that convinced me. Note that at the time I was blissfully unaware of Birkeland's model, I assumed the gas model solar theory was accurate and I was simply trying to 'explain' these images.

Then you are easily fooled. Birkeland may have had some good ideas that even stuck around, but I think you need to get caught up with 21st century physics and astronomy and put the 19th century astronomy aside.

Your the one insisting standard solar theory offers us an explanation, so let's hear it? Let's see you explain the details of these images for us?

I can't because I'm not qualified. If I were to take a stab at it, I'd say that's a Doppler image of the sun. Did it never occur to you that things can have form? I see that stuff all the time when I look at clouds. I see areas of turbulence from interactions with gas on the photosphere.

And to think you folks accuse me of insults. Get real. You folks belittle and attack individuals, not ideas. You also rely *HEAVILY* upon personal insult.

You're not innocent of this, so don't get started. I'm calling you out as a scientist. Your methods are nonexistant and you haven't done any actual work aside from shout and scream and point at the picture. To say you lack the basic understanding is not an insult or an attack. It's the truth. You have no idea how go about proving something.

Yawn. None of you have touched a single specific detail in the that RD image, the Doppler image or any image I've provided. Take a few course and let me know when you've got an explanation that is attentive to detail.

The others have gone into good detail about those images, you've chosen to ignore them so you can continue to claim empty victories. You're a troll. An entertaining troll, but a troll.

 

[GeeMack]

So, let's see you put some of your new found knowledge to use and explain some of the *ACTUAL DETAILS* of *THIS SPECIFIC* image. What's the flying stuff, and the peeling we observe along the right during the image? Why are their angular patterns in the image and why don't they change radically over the timeline of the video, particularly during and after the CME event?

You are a liar and a con artist. You have intentionally and specifically and *carefully* avoided dealing with any of the specific observations of that RD image. You've given broad handwave type answers rather than focus on any real details related to any specific events in these images. Name a single specific detail or event in the image that you or anyone else has actually dealt with or explained?

D'rok can't tell you why there is peeling. There isn't peeling. He can't tell you about the flying stuff. There isn't any flying stuff. He understands that a running difference image is a graphical representation of the change between two or more images in a series. His understanding is in exact agreement with Dr. Neal Hurlburt, the man who is in charge of acquiring and analyzing the data from the TRACE satellite.

Reality Check's assessment also agrees with Dr. Hurlburt's. Again you're asking him to explain why there's a bunny in the clouds, but you will never get a satisfactory answer to that question. There is not a reason for there being a bunny in the clouds because there is not a bunny in the clouds. You're asking a question that can't be answered rationally. Your question itself is simply not rational.

You're not asking these people to answer your questions. You're demanding that they agree with you. And they aren't going to agree with you for the simple reason that you are wrong. You're a crackpot, a lunatic, and throwing temper tantrums while insisting on maintaining your ignorance is making you look scary, like someone who's dangerously mentally ill.

Yes, I know. It also shows what is *NOT* changing as well, including all those angular structures none of you want to talk about or deal with.

No, it does not show anything that hasn't changed from one source image to the next. It can't. That's not how running difference images work. That's what the people say who obtained the data, analyzed the data, and prepared the image. Michael, they are right and you are wrong, unless you're calling Neal Hurlburt a liar, too. Remember Dr. Hurlburt? He's the one whose multi-million dollar TRACE project at LMSAL has made this image available to you.

Liar. You handwaved some general ideas and intentionally avoided every specific detail in the image. Name a single actual observed event in that image you actually "explained"?

There is not a single actual observed event in that image. The "event" was a computer program comparing pixel X3,Y7 in Photo A to X3,Y7 in Photo B, then printing another pixel, one representing the difference between those two pixels, into space X3,Y7 in the output. Then the program moves on to pixel X4,Y7 then X5,Y7 then X6,Y7 and so on, until it has compared every pixel between the source images. Dr. Hurlburt from LMSAL agrees.

A running difference video is a sequence of these, a graphical representation of the change in the intensity of each pixel from one image to the next through a series of source images. There are no details of any output image that are any more specific than each pixel. You'd be an idiot, Michael, if you were to ask someone to explain, well, what you're asking them to explain. You can call me a liar for not addressing something that isn't even there, but it's irrational to do so. And it just lends more credibility to the notion that you might be a sick man in desperate need of professional help.

But, I am ever willing to give you another chance. I'll give you the (absurdly remote to the point of being beyond reasonable) possibility that there is something legitimate behind your lunacy, and maybe you are just wholly incompetent at communicating it. Why don't you explain the running difference image. After all, you haven't, yet. Or are you going to be a hypocrite as well as a liar? So far, in literally years of babbling this nonsense, all you've been able to say is, "It looks like a surface to me." And I hope you'd agree, that ain't science.

Here's my comment from a previous posting. You might start explaining specifics, in detail, by answering some of these concerns...

But Michael, you have a lot of gall. Christ, you can't even explain the image yourself. You can't say which points in the picture represent altitudes how high or depressions how low. You've balked at describing which areas might be artifacts of the running difference image creation process and which might be actual terrain. You have never explained how anyone with any equipment can see anything several thousand kilometers below the photosphere. Certainly no professional astrophysicist on Earth is aware of a way to do it. When asked to provide an objective method to analyze the picture, you know, so other people could come to the same conclusion you have, you have been totally unable to do that. That's when you turn and run, change the subject, totally pussy out, because there is no objective method that can be applied to reach the conclusion you've reached. None.

Thanks, Vermonter, for making it this simple...

You're not even wrong.

 

[Michael Mozina]

D'rok can't tell you why there is peeling. There isn't peeling. He can't tell you about the flying stuff. There isn't any flying stuff.

This is why you have zero credibility GeeMack. Of course there is flying stuff. It's a CME event for crying out loud! "Flying stuff" is a given during CME activity and flying stuff from the CME can be observed in the images, both the original 171A images, as well as the RD images. These are exactly the kind of statements you make that demonstrate to me that you have absolutely no clue about the physical processes we are observing in these multimillion dollar satellite images. You put no effort at all into actually analyzing the images, or the physical processes we observe in these images. You won't see because you refuse to see and you berate anyone who can see.

 

[Dancing David]

So how do you get the positive ions in the solar wind?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So how do you get the positive ions in the solar wind?

They are attracted to the outbound electrons and follow them. In larger CME events, the plasma in the solar wind acts as a conductor for electrons and they are ionized in the electron stream in the case of coronal loops.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Can't say it better than this:

In running difference images and videos, where there seem to be areas of light and shadow and often the appearance of some sort of surface, this effect is actually an optical illusion resulting from the process of creating a "running difference" image. (GeeMack)

That answers does not address the angular persistent patterns in the image. We observe "flying stuff" flowing from the bottom right toward the upper left right after the CME event. Moving and changing elements are revealed in these images, as well as *NON MOVING* elements. What are those angular persistent patterns in the image? What is the "cause" of their stationary appearance? Why doesn't the CME blow them away like it blows "stuff" into the atmosphere?

If you don't grasp how that negates your entire premise and makes micro-analyzing "surface" details nonsensical, there probably is no hope for you.

If that is the best that all of you can cumulatively come up with in terms of satellite imagery analysis, perhaps there is no hope for you folks. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? Peeling? What peeling? Such statements are nothing but a sad, sad, sad denial song and dance routine.

Anybody actually watching the image with an open mind and open eyes is going to notice the flying stuff entering the atmosphere right after the CME event and they'll notice the peeling effect along the right bottom corner that occurs shortly thereafter. They'll also notice all those persistent angular structures in the image too and I'm sure they'll wonder why they appear to be "rigid" in the image. Aren't you folks even the least be curious about the details we observe in the images?

 

[GeeMack]

This is why you have zero credibility GeeMack. Of course there is flying stuff. It's a CME event for crying out loud! "Flying stuff" is a given during CME activity and flying stuff from the CME can be observed in the images, both the original 171A images, as well as the RD images. These are exactly the kind of statements you make that demonstrate to me that you have absolutely no clue about the physical processes we are observing in these multimillion dollar satellite images. You put no effort at all into actually analyzing the images, or the physical processes we observe in these images. You won't see because you refuse to see and you berate anyone who can see.

Dr. Hurlburt says you're wrong. Liar.