Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

You're one in a million Michael. You really are.

Well, ok.

I'm still not sure why you're under the impression that this is an "illusion" of any sort. The flying hot plasma is caused by a real process (the CME) and it's visible as "flying stuff" in both the RD and original images.

It's one thing to note that the RD imaging technique is a "processed image", but it's not correct to claim there is no "flying stuff" in the image. It is also false to say that any persistence in these RD images is in any way related to the RD imaging technique itself. It can't be. It *MUST BE* associated with some *PROCESS* related to the sun itself. The RD technique cannot create any sort of persistence by itself.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I explained the reason for the varying lightness or darkness of every single pixel.

No, you did not. You only explained that "technique", not anything specific about that particular image or what's going on in that image. The few things you tried to "explain" were patently false. There is flying stuff to be observed in both image (original and RD) and there are many things you never bothered to even try to explain like the peeling effects, the reason stuff is "flying" in the first place (cause of CME), etc. The only thing you have said has been wrong. RC at least seems to know where the original light comes from in the original images (coronal loops), whereas you've made several false statements about the notion that persistence is related to the technique itself, which is clearly a bunch of baloney.

 

[Reality Check]

The part you highlighted was perhaps overly simplistic and confusing. My bad. What I was trying to point out is that the magnetic field that we measure in this light plasma is *CAUSED BY* the flow of electrical current through the loop. A coronal loop is not a "frozen" magnetic line, but rather it is a moving column of flowing plasma full of kinetic energy, much like any discharge in the Earth's atmosphere. The magnetic fields are not there all by themselves doing all the work by themselves, and they are not driving the parade. The magnetic fields exist *BECAUSE OF* the current flow inside the loop and they are generated by the current flow inside that loop that is heating the plasma inside the loop. The field that forms does in fact "store energy", but only while the current flow remains. Once that current flow stops flowing through the loop, the field dissipates and it fades away just like when you turn off an ordinary plasma ball.

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion from MM (what a surprise !).

Give a citation to the published paper or textbook that states this.

Your understanding of the scientific explanation of coronal loops (the one that actually works) is simplistic and wrong. There is not "a "frozen" magnetic line". There is a dynamic magnetic flux (involving an infinite number of magnetic lines).

As for coronal loops being "like any discharge in the Earth's atmosphere", I am sure that the concept of coronal loops being electrical disharges has been debunked many times in the years that you have been touting your crackpot idea.

 

[GeeMack]

If anybody actually does believe you, you're only leading them ridiculously astray with pure BS.

Perhaps. But clearly I'm vastly more persuasive with my BS than you are with your truth, since not a single soul understands you and everyone seems to accept what I'm saying. Hell, Michael, they can even repeat it back and make it understandable to other people. Damn am I good!

Now why is it that not a single solitary person on Earth who is engaged in the business of actually knowing about solar physics thinks your crackpot fantasy has any merit?

No, you did not. You only explained that "technique", not anything specific about that particular image or what's going on in that image. The few things you tried to "explain" were patently false. There is flying stuff to be observed in both image (original and RD) and there are many things you never bothered to even try to explain like the peeling effects, the reason stuff is "flying" in the first place (cause of CME), etc. The only thing you have said has been wrong. RC at least seems to know where the original light comes from in the original images (coronal loops), whereas you've made several false statements about the notion that persistence is related to the technique itself, which is clearly a bunch of baloney.

You've been proven ignorant and you've been proven a liar, and you lie again and demonstrate your ignorance again. Amazing. I must say I am intrigued by how anyone could be so wrong and make such a public fool of himself for several years, and not even for a moment have a sense of the humiliation or embarrassment that a normal sane person would have. Kind of like those paranoid 9/11 conspiracy nuts and those unintelligent intelligent design proponents I'd guess.

And in case you missed this question above, why is it that not a single solitary person on Earth who is engaged in the business of actually knowing about solar physics thinks your crackpot fantasy has any merit?

 

[Michael Mozina]

RC's added bits of red.....

Nobody is denying that coronal loops *enter* the corona. It's where they originate (location of footprints) that we are debating.

FYI, the very name of the TRACE instrument is related to what these folks *ASSUMED* before they even launched the instrument. They simply *ASSUMED* that there was a "transition region" where plasma rises in temperature from thousands up to millions of degrees that sits somewhere above the photosphere and lower chromosphere. The existence and location of a "transitional region" high up in the atmosphere was already *ASSUMED* even before launch. Birkeland's solar model doesn't work that way, and his model "predicts" these specific sorts of observations and it predicts them to begin *UNDER* the photosphere as well as potentially above the photosphere as well.

Here is an image of a flare in a HINODE image having a direct influence on the intensity of light in the photosphere, meaning the flare started *UNDER* the photosphere, not above it. Below is another composite image which shows all sorts of 171A activity underneath of the photosphere.

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive1.html

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion from MM (what a surprise !).

Give a citation to the published paper or textbook that states this.

If you'd actually read Birkeland's book you wouldn't even bother asking me this question.

Your understanding of the scientific explanation of coronal loops (the one that actually works) is simplistic and wrong. There is not "a "frozen" magnetic line". There is a dynamic magnetic flux (involving an infinite number of magnetic lines).

How exactly (in physical terms) are you defining the "flux" of a magnetic field inside of a light plasma?

 

[GeeMack]

FYI, the very name of the TRACE instrument is related to what these folks *ASSUMED* before they even launched the instrument. They simply *ASSUMED* that there was a "transition region" where plasma rises in temperature from thousands up to millions of degrees that sits somewhere above the photosphere and lower chromosphere. The existence and location of a "transitional region" high up in the atmosphere was already *ASSUMED* even before launch. Birkeland's solar model doesn't work that way, and his model "predicts" these specific sorts of observations and it predicts them to begin *UNDER* the photosphere as well as potentially above the photosphere as well.

Last time you brought in a piece from Birkeland's work to support a point, you were so woefully shot down it made me laugh out loud. Let's see if you can grab a piece of unrelated crap out of the Birkeland material again and, uh, you know, demonstrate that he actually made any prediction of the sort. If you're as incompetent this time as you were last time this ought to be pretty darned funny.

Oh, and Michael, why do you suppose not a single human being on Earth with a professional position or educational credentials in any field related to astrophysics is willing to agree with your crazy notion about the Sun?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Perhaps.

I'm beginning to wonder if that isn't your whole intent actually.

But clearly I'm vastly more persuasive with my BS than you are with your truth,

As if that is some barometer of accuracy? I'm sure the pope convinced lots of folks that Galileo was full of it too.

since not a single soul understands you

This is a false statement. Just because you do not understand me, or agree with me, does not mean that nobody understands me. You're confusing "agreement" with undestanding.

and everyone seems to accept what I'm saying.

Well DUH! It's also the majority opinion. What else did you expect?

Hell, Michael, they can even repeat it back and make it understandable to other people. Damn am I good!

You aren't "good", just wrong and capable of articulating your position. So what?

You've been proven ignorant

Oh Please! Coming from the guy who said "flying stuff? what flyng stuff", and who thinks that persistence is related to the technique rather than the solar processes, that statement sounds ridiculous.

and you've been proven a liar, and you lie again and demonstrate your ignorance again.

You're the only liar here when you said that you "explained" every pixel of every frame!

Your debate technique is not like Tim's technique or DD's approach where they actually focus on science and the specific scientific point of debate. Instead you've become a bully and a thug, incapable of focusing on the issues. You aren't a scientist. You only know how to engage in below the belt debate tactics which have nothing to do with the images or the science. You are the least ethical personal I've ever met in cyberspace, and that is saying something. I've seen a lot in my time, but your personal approach is ugly, nasty, personal and sleazy.

The fact that none of you are actually focused on the specific details in the images (like the peeling or the process that caused these events) and you continue to fixate on the individual, not on the science only demonstrates to me that you're incapable of dealing with the processes we observe in the images. These images are the things that convinced me of the validity of Birkeland's solar model. If you won't and can't deal with them, then all that tells me is that you have no legitimate scientific answers.

All you've got are pitiful little insults to put into every single post.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Last time you brought in a piece from Birkeland's work to support a point, you were so woefully shot down it made me laugh
out loud.

You mean where you refused to read or comprehend the term "metallic globe"?

 

[Reality Check]

..snip...
RC at least seems to know where the original light comes from in the original images (coronal loops), whereas you've made several false statements about the notion that persistence is related to the technique itself, which is clearly a bunch of baloney.

Wrong and yet another lie.

The light for the original images comes mostly from the corona which is a fairly constant overall glow. There is also contribution from the coronal loops and the CME.
The light from the coronal loops is would be normal to the loops.
The light from the CME would be from the upper right.
The running difference animation has no light sources - it is a computer generated representation of the changes in the original images.

If you were to mistaking apply the running differences to the light sources (or even more idiotically allow the original light sources to illuminate the RD animation) then it is obvious that the "shadows" (actually areas of dimming corona) point in the wrong direction.

• The corona illumination would be removed by the RD processing.
• The coronal loop illumination would light up the sides of the "mountain ranges" equally. There would be no shadows. If it did not change then it would be removed by the RD processing.
• That leaves the CME illumination from the upper right.
  That means that in your delusional interpretation of the RD animation all of the "shadows" must be to the lower left.

For the blind among us (Hi MM ) note the following:
The "shadows" in the RD animation point on most directions. For example

• There are "shadows" on the upper "slopes" to the left of the animation center.
• There are "shadows" on the lower "slopes" to the right of the animation center.
• There are "shadows" on the left hand "slopes" in the animation center.

There is of course the little fact that there are no shadows in the RD animation. The TRACE scientists themselves state "where the image turns bright, the solar corona has become brighter after 16UT, and where it turns black it has dimmed".

These are temperature changes associated with the coronal loops. The coronal loops do not change position much during the time that the original images were taken. Thus the RD animations shows these temperature changes as hapenning in roughly the same location in each frame.

If this was the first time that MM had seen the images and he was ignorant of the process that created them then it would be excusable for him to think that there were "mountain ranges". But

• A moment's thought would have him discard that notion since the "shadows" are pointed in different directions.
• He has known about the running difference process for many years.
• There have been many attempts to explain what is going on to him (dozens in this thread alone).

He has held onto this notion for years despite the obvious flaws that a child can see.
The conclusion must be that Michael Mozina is a delusional crackpot.

Hopefully he will continue to post here and we will continue to expose him as what he is so that other people are not fooled by his rhetoric.

 

[Reality Check]

You mean where you refused to read or comprehend the term "metallic globe"?

You mean where you refused to read or comprehend the term "analogy"?

 

[Reality Check]

RC's added bits of red.....

Nobody is denying that coronal loops *enter* the corona. It's where they originate (location of footprints) that we are debating.

No one is debating this. Coronal loops originate under the photosphere. They are loops of magnetic flux that extend from many kilometers below the visible surface of the Sun to many kilometers into the corona.

What we know (and are not debating) is that the TRACE 171A pass band cannot see the coronal loops as they enter the photosphere. All of the images in this band display activity in the corona. All of the images in this band have a "base" for the loop that is above the photosphere.

Pretty picture time!

MM: Explain tha gap in this image between the "base" in the TRACE 171A pass band image and the photosphere.
Moss at the Limb:

 

[GeeMack]

You mean where you refused to read or comprehend the term "metallic globe"?

I mean where every single other person in the conversation who had any comment about it said you clearly had not supported your wacky claim. That's the one.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You mean where you refused to read or comprehend the term "analogy"?

He built *PHYSICAL EXPERIMENTS* and showed *HOW IT WORKS* with a real *METALLIC GLOBE*. You evidently can't tell an "analogy" from a "working model".

 

[Michael Mozina]

I mean where every single other person in the conversation who had any comment about it said you clearly had not supported your wacky claim. That's the one.

OMG. Get real. Every single physical experiment that he performed with his cathode metallic sphere was a physical demonstration of his (actually a team of friends) solar model. He even went so far as to postulate an energy source of a sun build of heavy elements, specifically uranium. Not a single one of them would have failed to recognize the significance of their own physical experiments and the solar satellite imagery of the 21st century. They built a "working model", complete with "coronal loops", "jets", "solar wind" etc, and all of it, every single bit of it was dependent upon and *REQUIRED* a metallic sphere to make it work right.

Now if you have some other "working model" you'd like to show me, I'm all eyes and ears. If not, I'll rely upon *EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTATION*, not your "wacky" ideas.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No one is debating this. Coronal loops originate under the photosphere. They are loops of magnetic flux that extend from many kilometers below the visible surface of the Sun to many kilometers into the corona.

So any light they emit, particularly at their base where they emit the most light, will be likely to be visible far below the photosphere. What density are you claiming relates to the surface of the photosphere? How do you know how far below the photosphere we might observe this "flux" you're talking about?

What heats a single coronal loop in your opinion?

What we know (and are not debating) is that the TRACE 171A pass band cannot see the coronal loops as they enter the photosphere. All of the images in this band display activity in the corona.

How do you know that they all originate in the "corona", as opposed to the chromosphere, or below the chrmosphere?

All of the images in this band have a "base" for the loop that is above the photosphere.

You'll have to explain how you can be sure of that because once it actually leaves the photosphere, what prevents it from being observed?

Pretty picture time!

MM: Explain tha gap in this image between the "base" in the TRACE 171A pass band image and the photosphere.

I explain the "gap" as an unintentional but systematic "bias" they used when placing one image over the other. They named this spacecraft TRACE, to observe events in a predetermined "transitional region", which they *ASSUMED* to be located above the photosphere.

They laid the images on each other based upon that bias, not upon their actual physical location.

 

[GeeMack]

Your debate technique is not like Tim's technique or DD's approach where they actually focus on science and the specific scientific point of debate. Instead you've become a bully and a thug, incapable of focusing on the issues. You aren't a scientist. You only know how to engage in below the belt debate tactics which have nothing to do with the images or the science. You are the least ethical personal I've ever met in cyberspace, and that is saying something. I've seen a lot in my time, but your personal approach is ugly, nasty, personal and sleazy.

Well you open your web site with an image that you seriously misunderstand. I've been on that image from the beginning. Once you understand how wrong you are about that, I might move on. But for the time being, my focus is your misinterpretation of that image and running difference images in general. In over three years you haven't been able to explain that first image on your site, and some of us are still waiting to see if you ever will. Of course we're doubting it.

And since the images have been explained by many people over many years time, it's easy to call you a liar when you lie about them not being explained. If you've got a problem with me calling a liar a liar, perhaps you should stop lying. Your credibility, if you ever had any, deteriorates every time you plainly and openly lie.

The fact that none of you are actually focused on the specific details in the images (like the peeling or the process that caused these events) and you continue to fixate on the individual, not on the science only demonstrates to me that you're incapable of dealing with the processes we observe in the images. These images are the things that convinced me of the validity of Birkeland's solar model. If you won't and can't deal with them, then all that tells me is that you have no legitimate scientific answers.

I guess until you can bring in your expert in solar image acquisition and analysis, mine will have to do. And he says you're wrong. And everyone accepts his judgement on the issue. Too bad you can't just accept that, remove your ridiculously incorrect commentary about running difference images from your web site, stop lying about them here and in other forums, and move along to other areas of your claim (in which, I might add, you've been equally unable to make even the remotest headway).

All you've got are pitiful little insults to put into every single post.

Stop lying and people won't call you a liar. Stop writing such stupid things and people won't suspect that you're stupid. Stop flying in the face of stone cold reality and people will stop calling you deluded. Start to actually understand what is being said and making your own points in a clear and understandable way and people won't accuse you of having a communication problem. Show that you know a little bit about the mathematics of the physics and people won't assume you're completely incapable of doing math. Demonstrate that you grasp the method of science and you won't be accused of being a crackpot. You're incorrectly perceiving these things as insults when they're actually just truths being written by people who are frustrated with your incompetence in virtually every area of this discussion.

 

[GeeMack]

I explain the "gap" as an unintentional but systematic "bias" they used when placing one image over the other. They named this spacecraft TRACE, to observe events in a predetermined "transitional region", which they *ASSUMED* to be located above the photosphere.

They laid the images on each other based upon that bias, not upon their actual physical location.

Because they don't understand simple high school geometry and you do? That's all it takes to align the images correctly. You ought to get a job in the astrophysics industry you math wizard, you!

Michael, why is it that not one single person professionally involved in the science of solar physics anywhere on this planet believes your fruitcake fantasy has enough merit to work with you to flesh it out? Bias on their part? Stupidity on their part? On yours? You're a crappy communicator? Seriously. Why do you suppose nobody is stepping up to say they agree with you and to help you get this crazy notion moved into the mainstream?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wrong and yet another lie.

Hoy. You folks and the personal attacks. It's really unprofessional, especially since you refuse to discuss important details like the peeling, the persistent angular features, etc.

The light for the original images comes mostly from the corona which is a fairly constant overall glow.

Where's that "glow" in the TRACE/Yohkoh composite, and since Thompson scattering will occur in the solar atmosphere, so what? One thing we can be sure of, the loops are the "hot zone" and emit the most light.

There is also contribution from the coronal loops and the CME.

What part can you be sure of is not related to some form of a coronal loop, large or small? Not all discharges or "loops" have to be more than 350 kilometers in size.

The light from the coronal loops is would be normal to the loops.

What generates that light by heating the plasma to millions of degrees for hours on end? What makes a single loop "shine", footprint to footprint if not electrical current?

The light from the CME would be from the upper right.

What's generating that light? In other words the photosphere and even the chromosphere are quite cool in comparison the minimum 160,000 degrees (likely around 1 million degrees) required to be seen as a bright area in a 171A image? Let's get into "cause/effect" relationships here and talk about what causes a CME. Alfven of course attributed this to a "explosive double layer" event.

The running difference animation has no light sources

This statement is false actually. It has *TWO* light sources, or one light source (same loop), and two image sources. One image is simply subtracted from the other and we're left with intensity changes from one image to the next on a pixel by pixel basis.

- it is a computer generated representation of the changes in the original images.

That part is true, but it is is not true that there NO light sources. The light source of a RD image is still the same light source of the original images. In other words, whatever lights up the the bright points of each image is the original light source and when we subtract one image from another, we get a 'change in lighting" between images.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well you open your web site with an image that you seriously misunderstand.

Considering your "flying stuff?, What flying stuff?" commentary, I have no faith in your understanding of a running difference image.

I've been on that image from the beginning.

You've been wrong from the very start too.

Once you understand how wrong you are about that, I might move on.

Once you explain some of the details of the imagery that could or might happen, but as long as you remain a coward and hide from every detail, and make false statements, that's never going to happen.

But for the time being, my focus is your misinterpretation of that image and running difference images in general. In over three years you haven't been able to explain that first image on your site, and some of us are still waiting to see if you ever will. Of course we're doubting it.

I think what I'll do when I finally do "explain" it this time is create a website page and post a link. That way I won't have to keep repeating myself.

And since the images have been explained by many people over many years time,

Baloney. The only "explanations" that have been done have been A) in your case simply wrong or B) not focused on many if any of the specific observations in the RD image. "Peeling? What peeling? Flying plasma? What flying plasma?"

it's easy to call you a liar when you lie about them not being explained.

When you explain them, tell me which specific observation and quadrant of the frame, and observation in that quadrant you are choosing to explain and then explain the cause/effect relationships you are attempting to use to explain this observation. Until I see such a thing, stop claiming you "explained" anything at all you coward.