Excuse me, but you can't "prove me wrong" by ignoring every single detail in the image. You'd have to actually address the image *DETAILS* and explain them in some fashion or another to 'prove me wrong'. Since the whole lot of you refuses to even address *ANY* of the details of the image, you haven't "proven" anything other than the fact you collectively can't and won't explain the image.
It's been done, so you're a liar.
You guys make up strawman cartoon characteratures of my ideas and attack them, you never actually listen or respond the model I've actually presented. I doubt you could even explain it properly let, let alone honestly critique it.
Interesting comment from a guy who apparently can't explain his own idea in a way that anyone can understand.
I'm willing to do that, but you seem to refuse to even address a single specific detail of the images.
Liar.
What can I do but throw up my hands in discust?
You could actually explain what in the hell you're talking about in a way that sane, intelligent human beings could understand. You haven't done that yet.
Don't you figure there was some reason I came to these conclusions that had something to do with the details we observe in these images?
Could that reason perhaps be mental illness? What other reason do you suppose would account for the fact that
nobody else interprets the details we observe in these images the same way you do? I'm genuinely curious. One of my main reasons for even staying involved in these discussion, aside from the occasional pleasure I get out of seeing you set yourself up to take another lickin', is a serious interest in the mind set of someone who could be so stupid, so totally detached from reality on one issue, as you are, and still be mentally capable of tying his own shoes, feeding himself, and performing other mundane daily tasks.
If you can't and won't explain them, all that tells me is that none of you have any valid method to explain these images in terms of standard solar theory.
When it was explained, you ignored it. You're a liar. By definition, an ignorant liar.
I tried to explain them using standard solar theory myself, but alas it never fit. Birkeland's solar model does jive with these observations of "rigid" (I'll define that for Tim in the next post) features in these images at a depth that is consistent with his experiments.
But since you can't see anything below about 500 kilometers into the photosphere, you're clearly wrong. Also, and probably more importantly, since you've proven that you'll misrepresent Birkeland in order to support your delusion,
your interpretation of any of his work is so subjective as to be scientifically useless.
This coming from the guy that hasn't touched a *SINGLE* specific detail that that specific image... Yawn. More personal attack, no focus on the science. You folks are becoming painfully predictable.
As are your incessant lies.
If you mean "learning about" all sorts of invisible metaphysical friends of yours, no, not really. If you mean learn about this image based on standard solar theory, I am interested in hearing your explanation.
No, you're not. You've proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
So far however, none of you have addressed any of the key observations of the image, so it is not as though any of you have actually "tried" to explain any of the "physics" for us.
Liar. You want actual physics, go take a course.
Since you asked, you could learn to read and write English in a way that allows you to actually communicate effectively with sane, intelligent human beings? You could maybe see a mental health professional and work on getting back in touch with reality? You know, since you asked.
I can't make you address the details of the image, but the fact you won't touch them tells me volumes. None of you really have a valid explanation of what's going on at the level of actual physics.
Start with a couple of sequential 171Å wavelength images of million-ish degree emissions from a CME located in the coronal region of the Sun, some 2000+ kilometers above the photosphere and outward. Run those images through a software program that compares them pixel by pixel and prints a graph or chart showing the difference between each corresponding pixel. Oddly, that output image may appear to show texture, surface features, and terrain. Of course that apparent terrain isn't actually a surface. It is a simple, easily understood optical illusion that has been thoroughly explained by the actual experts who were responsible for designing the research program, and acquiring and processing the data. There's all you need to know about the physics of your running difference image, Michael. You can probably learn about the physics of the CME itself by studying any starting level college textbook that deals with solar physics.
One paragraph. Boy, was that easy. And you've been lying about getting no explanation for how many years now?
If it's not a math formula, and it's about actual physics and physical processes, you guys don't understand diddly squat. You're all bluster, and no science. Not one detail in that image has been touched by any of you.
Details? Touched 'em all, liar.
And, how about this one? Why is there not one single researcher, educator, or other professional in any field related to solar physics who thinks you're right about your fantasy? How is it that you've never piqued anyone's interest in this solid surfaced Sun crap enough to get anyone to work with you, do some math that you obviously can't do, help you with the physics that you are so woefully ignorant of, explain your wacky conjecture in plain English since you are unable to do that yourself? Really, a sane person would look for rational answers to those questions. Only a dyed-in-the-wool lunatic crackpot would ignore them. Where are
you on this, Michael?
