Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

Actually I do not know that, and neither do you.

Yes you do. You and I both know darn well that highly energetic 171a photons will penetrate *SOME* distance through a light plasma atmosphere. We can argue about "how far", but you can't claim it won't go *ANY* distance. The location of the base of the arcs is *ABSOLUTELY* critical to this discussion.

No it is not anything like that at all. The real problem is this:

No, neither I nor anyone else assumes any such thing. Rather, we observe it.

No you don't. Take a *REALLY* good look at Kosovichev's Doppler image again. Watch the wave pass over the "brightly lit stuff". We'll argue about what that white stuff means later, just tell me whether it's under or above the photosphere based on the location of the wave relative to the light.

Yes, and if there were anything at that temperature, whether it be caused by a discharge, or anything else, it would be extremely obvious and extremely observable and extremely observed, especially in solar limb observations. But no such thing is seen, despite regular programs of observing with far more sensitivity than needed to do the job. Therefore we can say with confidence, based on observation and not any assumption, that there are no regions of such high temperature anywhere in the photosphere.

Which specific limb measurements are you referring to?

I only know of one likely physical cause for such a thing, a bath of Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) photons. The standard model of the sun accounts for such things quite nicely.

Er, how is that a "likely cause", as in "more likely" than say an "electrical discharge"? Where did those flying EUV photons come from, above or below the photosphere? Where is the base of the loop heated, and what is the heating mechanism? Are the EUV photons part of this "magnetic flux" in "magnetic line"? What powers *ONE* loop and why would it form a loop if it's simply heated by "flying photons"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

(bold added)

What's particularly objectionable about MM's claim is that, AFAIK, there is only one person who makes it!

For example, you won't find a word about MM's 'iron surface' ideas in any of Scott's material, or Thornhill's, or Alfvén's, or Bruce's, or Lerner's, or Peratt's, or ... Even Sol88 has not (AFAIK) ever made a claim that MM's 'iron surface' ideas are part and parcel of any electric universe ones.

Baloney.
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
You seem to forget I've written several papers with a number of authors and we've had these discussions already. I know where they stand on these issues. I'm not the only one that thinks this way today, and Birkeland and his whole team beat me to the idea by 100 years or so. Yes, they did propose an iron sun, in fact Birkeland made a number of calculations about the amount of mass in "flying ions", and it was all based on iron atoms. Evidently he figured the sphere had a lot of iron it in. He *OVER*estimated your "dark matter" missing mass, by quite a bit in fact. He would certainly have believed that some of your missing mass is located in iron ions flying from a metallic cathode crust.

 

[Michael Mozina]

When can we finally stop this discussion about MM's misunderstanding of pictures of the sun and go back to the electrical universe (not that that is any better). MM has been shown to be wrong in numerous threads, let's stop it here, please!!!

Oh please. You haven't shown me to be wrong about anything and GM has been shown to be wrong on about *EVERYTHING* he's said on this RD imaging technique. Not one of you can address any cause/effect relationships in the image because none of you can even see "flying plasma". Let's hear you put up some "cause/effect" really detailed explanations to these RD and Doppler images. Are those little white areas in the Doppler image above or below the wave in the photosphere? What are those angular shapes in the RD and Doppler images?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I am not calling you a crackpot from the single fact of your statements about mountain ranges, etc. actually being in the RD animations.

You have no business calling me anything. You have no business playing devils advocate since you've never studied these images. You couldn't even pick out a star in the background of a Lasco RD image! You couldn't even *FIND* them in fact because you'd never seen them and you didn't even have the curiosity to go look at them or locate them, or do any research whatsoever.

That is *REALLY* irrational behavior since my idea and solar beliefs are directly related to these solar satellite images. I've been studying them for over 15 years starting with Yohkoh satellite images. What do you even know about satellite images other than what you picked up in a couple of paragraphs on a website somewhere? Have you been to any meetings at LMSAL? Have you studied satellite imagery at all? Is astronomy even something you're interested in? Solar physics?

After all, English may be your second language and so you are ignorant of the fact that you should be refering to "mountain ranges" etc. as the features just look like them and are not actually mountain ranges.

Yes, they are the outlines of mountains and valleys and all things you find in any ordinary crust on any ordinary planet, volcanoes and everything. Those are actually mountain ranges, but you'll have to stop putting a physical disconnect between a RD image and what physically *CAUSES* the image. That star in the original Lasco image is still visible in the RD image. Real things really show up in RD images. Real comets show up in RD iimages. Real planets show up in RD images. Real things show up in RD image, including real mountains and real terrain features.

I am calling you a crackpot beause you have the attributes of a crackpot.

Only a crackpot would claim to be such the expert in these specific images that they can call me a crackpot without ever even bothering to look at the original images, any number of other RD images, or any RD images of any kind. Have you ever even created a RD image on your own from original FITS files? Nah. You'll find four STEREO RD images on my blog page that I personally created from the FITS files. I'm not a crackpot because I've done my homework. You're a crackpot for never studying your subject and for then putting you foot in your mouth big time. We've only taken the first "baby steps" in being able to talk about cause effect relationships and how they effect events in this image and already it's clear that you don't know what you're looking at because you've never seen these kinds of images before now. Whereas I've studied solar satellite images for 15+ years, you've done nothing of the sort. I'm sure I have over 20 gig's of RD images on the machine I'm sitting on right now and more on another machine I use from time to time. I didnt' just "make this up" one day after reading a paragraph or two on LMSAL's website one day during an online debate.

I am sorry that you wasted so much of your life investigating such a simple thing as the definition of RD animations.

I did nothing of the sort. I've learned a lot through the process and I'm very happy for the time I've spent learning about them. I know them well, much better than you do which is why when someone claims to be an expert and can't pick out "flying stuff", it's pretty damn clear there is a big problem with the so called "expert". You and GM are not RD experts, in fact D'rok knows more than both of you now, including how the shading shows us directional components. You're still thinking of an RD images as a pie chart or a bar graph. It's not. It's a running difference image and yes, they can be tricky to understand, but anyone who *TRIES* can actually understand them and can learn to explain them in terms of events in the image and cause/effect relationships. You and GM may never get there because you seem to think it's a 'cartoon animation" of some kind, but it's not.

GM was not one of my professors or even in any of my classes.
I even disagree with him.

"Oh no" (Mr. Bill voice) Did you hear that GM?

There is "flying stuff" in the RD annimation (note the quotes). This "flying stuff" is a record of the changing temperature and position of the CME - the flying stuff in the original images.

If by "changing temperature and position" you mean the flying superheated plasma from the coronal loops is flying away from the CME and cooling off over time, I agree. You've now learned to "explain" A single cause effect relationship in the image. Care to take a crack at the angular patterns next, or would you rather try the peeling effect on the right?

 

[Reality Check]

You have no business calling me anything. You have no business playing devils advocate since you've never studied these images. You couldn't even pick out a star in the background of a Lasco RD image! You couldn't even *FIND* them in fact because you'd never seen them and you didn't even have the curiosity to go look at them or locate them, or do any research whatsoever.

You really cannot read can you MM?
Should I now label you an illiterate crackpot ?

I have studied the images. After you ignored my requests for links to the omages, I even located them for myself.
I did *FIND* stars in the LASCO images.
I did *FIND* "stars" in the LASCO RD animations.

That is *REALLY* irrational behavior since my idea and solar beliefs are directly related to these solar satellite images. I've been studying them for over 15 years starting with Yohkoh satellite images. What do you even know about satellite images other than what you picked up in a couple of paragraphs on a website somewhere? Have you been to any meetings at LMSAL? Have you studied satellite imagery at all? Is astronomy even something you're interested in? Solar physics?

Wow - you wasted 15 years of your life studying solar images and still do not know that all of the TRACE 171A filter images are of activity in the corona?
Why did you not spend those 15 years learning basic physics like the second law of thermodynamics?

I am interested in astronomy and solar physics. Otherwise you would be on ignore. I do not because more knowledgeable people than me offer nuggets of real science in reply to your non-science
(What is is the temperature profile of the Sun derived from the Iron Sun "model"? How about the X-ray spectrum of the coronal loops as electric discharges?).

Yes, they are the outlines of mountains and valleys and all things you find in any ordinary crust on any ordinary planet, volcanoes and everything. Those are actually mountain ranges, but you'll have to stop putting a physical disconnect between a RD image and what physically *CAUSES* the image. That star in the original Lasco image is still visible in the RD image. Real things really show up in RD images. Real comets show up in RD iimages. Real planets show up in RD images. Real things show up in RD image, including real mountains and real terrain features.

Real moving stars appear in the LASCO images. The changes of the positions of these stars are recorded in the LASCO RD animations.

No real unchanging things show up in any RD animations by definition. RD animations are records of changes (running differences) between images.

So are we are back to your delusion that the TRACE 171A filter can detect a hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface that has "mountains and valleys and all things you find in any ordinary crust on any ordinary planet"?

...snipped usual garbage...
If by "changing temperature and position" you mean the flying superheated plasma from the coronal loops is flying away from the CME and cooling off over time, I agree. You've now learned to "explain" A single cause effect relationship in the image. Care to take a crack at the angular patterns next, or would you rather try the peeling effect on the right?

No I do not and so we do not agree.

The "flying stuff" is a record of the changing temperature of the CME material as stated in the caption for the RD animation.
The superheated plasma from the coronal loops is the bright area in the RD animation - the ones you think as highlighted by light sources.
There also seems to be cooled plasma from the coronal loops which are the dark areas in the RD animation - the ones you think are "shadows".

The "peeling effect" is an optical illusion in the RD animation caused by areas of increasing temperature moving toward the right (in the opposite direction to the major CME "flying stuff"). I would say that it is more CME material.

I do not see any "angular patterns" unless you mean the other bits of the flare or the "mountain ranges" - all of which are areas of heating and cooling plasma that happen to be next to each other for some reason. They are associated with the coronal loops in the original images and appear to be separated by the loops.

I am not an astronomer and so cannot tell you why a coronal loop would have cooling plasma on one side of it and heating plasma on the other. I can make a guess:
Plasma is passing through the loop, being heated and rising. This is causing plasma in the other side of the loop to fall and this cools as it encounters the colder corona closer to the photosphere.

 

[GeeMack]

Baloney.
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
You seem to forget I've written several papers with a number of authors and we've had these discussions already. I know where they stand on these issues. I'm not the only one that thinks this way today, and Birkeland and his whole team beat me to the idea by 100 years or so. Yes, they did propose an iron sun, in fact Birkeland made a number of calculations about the amount of mass in "flying ions", and it was all based on iron atoms. Evidently he figured the sphere had a lot of iron it in. He *OVER*estimated your "dark matter" missing mass, by quite a bit in fact. He would certainly have believed that some of your missing mass is located in iron ions flying from a metallic cathode crust.

Baloney yourself, liar. Oliver Manuel's crackpot notion that the Sun has an iron core is a diametrically opposite contradiction to your crackpot notion that the Sun has an iron shell. You're both nuts, but you're not in agreement at all on that very fundamental level. And you still haven't shown where Birkeland actually proposed the notion that the Sun had an iron shell, or core, or anything. And once more you're putting words in a dead guy's mouth to save yourself from having to take responsibility for the pure, raw stupidity of that fantasy of yours. You have no shame.

Oh please. You haven't shown me to be wrong about anything and GM has been shown to be wrong on about *EVERYTHING* he's said on this RD imaging technique. Not one of you can address any cause/effect relationships in the image because none of you can even see "flying plasma". Let's hear you put up some "cause/effect" really detailed explanations to these RD and Doppler images. Are those little white areas in the Doppler image above or below the wave in the photosphere? What are those angular shapes in the RD and Doppler images?

The cause and effect relationship between anything in a running difference image? Running the source images through the software caused a comparison to be made between two corresponding pixels in the source images, and the effect, it printed a third corresponding pixel symbolizing the mathematical difference in the output image. Duh. We all see the results of the software measuring movement of temperature in the corona between frames in the source images. And we all understand that it looks like a bunny to you, even that "flying stuff" bunny that hops around when the sequential frames are combined into an animation. What you see as flying stuff indicates, to sane people, changes in location of certain levels of 171Å emissions. Michael, no matter how loud and how long you cry about it, there ain't no bunny in those clouds.

Understand this, if you can with your 4th grade reading skills, when I say there's no flying stuff in the LMSAL running difference video, I'm being pedantic, in the same way as when I say there is no rain in this image...

Nope, none. It's a graphical representation of measurements acquired using radar equipment. It's not really rain, Michael. It's just little colored pixels on your monitor. The source of light is the glowing phosphorous inside the tube. And no gasoline in this image...

That's right, it's a photograph. And it's not even a photograph of gas. It's a photo of a gas gauge, a graphical representation of a measurement of volume, acquired by a sensor measuring the pressure in a fluid system, or maybe by measuring the level of a float. And no hilly terrain in this image...

What you see is a graphical representation of the tone and harmonics in the sound made by a trumpet. Microphones and audio processing equipment gathered the data. A computer program processed it into the visual output you see. And of course there's no surface or flying stuff in this image...

It's a comparison between two source images that were acquired by using equipment designed to measure thermal characteristics in the solar atmosphere. The data was gathered starting some thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, not because anyone made some uninformed assumption about where the data would be found, but because that's where the 171Å emissions are. The original data could have just as easily been printed in shades of green and pink instead of light and dark. The running difference output could have just as easily been created with levels of red showing where parts of the CME increased in temperature from frame to frame, and blues where it decreased.

Only a complete moron would think any of those images is any more than a simple graphical method of displaying some data. And you Michael, which side of that moron line are you on?

But let's go a step further. If you disagree with my assessment of the construction of a running difference image, why don't you give it a shot. Funny that you haven't yet. Well, not really funny. Pathetic actually. What's been stopping you, no time left after whining about the meanies, too stupid, don't have the courage to actually take a firm position, you just don't really know, maybe you get too much pleasure out of the continued lying about other people so you have a motive to drag on without explaining it? Let's have your description of why each pixel is the tone that it is. You know, one as good, thorough, consistent, well accepted, and understandable as the one I've given.

And then how about you explain how your glorious flying stuff has anything to do with a solid surface. I learned in grade school science that the surface of the Sun was a lively, active place. The movement of plasma, sometimes violent and extreme, is such a common phenomenon in the Sun's atmosphere it's considered relatively mundane. So what's so special about "flying stuff" that its mere existence in the corona supports your crackpot solid surface delusion anyway? Fill us in. And if you can stay focused and avoid throwing a tantrum while you're at it, that would be cool... but highly unexpected.

And when you get done with that, maybe this will slip through your wall of ignorance this time. Show us the lab experiment right here on Earth, with no metaphysics, no fudge factors, quantitative, mathematically consistent, physically plausible, that shows how you can see thousands of kilometers below an opaque plasma using an image that was created entirely from data gathered thousands of kilometers above that opaque plasma. After all, all your ideas meet that standard, didn't you say? And that method will be objective of course, so when other people apply it they can come to the same conclusion you do.

 

[tusenfem]

Oh please. You haven't shown me to be wrong about anything and GM has been shown to be wrong on about *EVERYTHING* he's said on this RD imaging technique. Not one of you can address any cause/effect relationships in the image because none of you can even see "flying plasma". Let's hear you put up some "cause/effect" really detailed explanations to these RD and Doppler images. Are those little white areas in the Doppler image above or below the wave in the photosphere? What are those angular shapes in the RD and Doppler images?

Why don't you read the post again where the running difference is explained. You see variations in brightness from one frame to another. Now, this may mean that there is motion (one hot plasma blob moving) or it may mean that there is heating and cooling.

The whole idea of mountains on the iron surface of the sun is preposterous, if only out of thermodynamical problems maintaining an iron shell at high temperature stable for billions of years.

You have to show, also, that those loops you see, are discharges, how and what is discharging? As it has been explained to you already that discharges are a characteristic of a breakdown of the dielectric insulator (e.g. the cracking path that a lightning bolt takes through the insular atmosphere). Now, you will (hopefully) not deny that the sun is made of plasma, and thus there is no insulator which can break down, which means that currents can always flow freely and major charge separations cannot be build up over large distances (even Alfvén knew that).

Secondly, you still have not explained to us how these discharges create the magnetic semi-loops (I will try to refrain to call them loops, in order to not give you the impression that I think these structures are perfect closed circles), and specifically how they create the field that the are flowing along, as I think that you (hopefully) know that currents can only create magnetic fields that are perpendicular to the current flow.

Then you tell DeiRenDopa:

You seem to forget I've written several papers with a number of authors and we've had these discussions already. I know where they stand on these issues.

But, you have published some of these papers in journals that probably know nothing about the sun, why not publish it in Solar Physics, AA, ApJ? O. Manuel seems to make a sport of that, publishing in irrelevant journals. For example his paper Why the Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is Obsolete (clearly about the Sun) is published in Meteoritics & Planetary Science, vol. 37, Supplement, p.A92. (but to be fair, it was an abstract for the 65th meeting of the meteoritical society.

Checking in ISI Web of Knowledge, I find three of your papers on the Sun. Two in Journal of Fusion Energy (on the CNO cycle) and one in Physics of Atomic Nuclei. Now, these might be important papers (though there were lots of problems if I remember correctly with the CNO cycle in coronal loops, from a discussion long ago) but in 3 years, according to ISI, none of these papers have been cited.

in fact Birkeland made a number of calculations about the amount of mass in "flying ions", and it was all based on iron atoms.

Can you tell us where Birkeland does that? I went through the math you mentioned after page 664 (see my message on page 12 which you nicely ignored until now). Where does B describe the solar wind, the electrons being accelerated by an electric field, the ions being dragged along with the electrons (even though they would feel an opposite force because of the electric field), show us the money, man!

And I cannot help but notice the following comment from your CNO paper:

(caption figure 1)
The most intense heating (white regions) occurs at the base of the magnetic loops, where the fields emerge from and return to the solar surface

Now, why do you call them loops? Why do you use this misnomer? Why did you complain when I used the word loop? And I don't know how many times you use the term loop in that paper. Just to show how insincere you are, a quote from post 443

(first from post 429)

So they are essentially a "current carrying" thread?

Yes, what else would they be, what is the last time you read a mainstream paper on coronal loops?

How do they "go in" exactly, and where do they "go in" again? I only observe them as partial loops just as in Birkeland's experiments. You folks seem to think we can't even see them until they reach the corona.

(and the from post 430)

then the bend over, creating a loop and then the field lines go into the surface of the Sun again. You are so good at looking at pictures and you never noticed that there are loops and arcades of loops on the Sun?

They are not full circles and they have a definite footprint. If they start under the photosphere, why wouldn't we see them *AT* the photosphere?

(and then from post 443)

Then why not just call them what they are, "current threads" or "discharges"? Why give the process a name that is self conflicted? Magnetic lines lack physical substance and form a full and *COMPLETE* continuum, without beginning and without end. They can't "reconnect". Circuits can and do "reconnect". Why call it "magnetic reconnection" then at all?

Ohhhh playing word games again, MM. Just because you see only half of a loop, we should not call it loop. I think that any person looking at a picture of a coronal loop would call it a loop even if it is only half-a-one. This is just childish.

So you can call them loops and discharge loops and whatever other terms you put in front of them (but never partial loops) and we in mainstream are not allowed to do that and misleading you then? Gimme a break!

 

[Reality Check]

Michael Mozina's comprehension of running difference animations

Michael Mozina - since you are the self proclaimed expert on running difference (RD) animations with 15 years experience of studying solar images (including RD animations), perhaps you can answer a couple of simple questions for me.

Below is a sketch of a 1 by 5 pixel RD animation where '_' is a blank pixel and '*' is a filled pixel.

• Does the RD animation show flying stuff?
• Is there flying stuff in the original images?

Frame 1: *____
Frame 2: _*___
Frame 3: __*__
Frame 4: ___*_
Frame 5: ____*

 

[Michael Mozina]

Tim

I don't really see much hope for most of these vocal yokels around here, but IMO there is hope for you and D'rok, DD and a few others. I need you to do me (and yourself) a big favor. I need you to download a 3.5GB DVD file from LMSAL. The specific DVD file I would like you to download is the one that is marked "FlaresDVD.img". It's a huge file and it took all night to download as I recall even on a modestly high speed connection. It is free however and worth the time to download while you're sleeping.

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/bigmovies/DVDs/

This DVD of movies is a compilation of flares taken at various wavelengths, including white light, 171A, etc.

In the white light images of flares, there are several discharge events that can be observed in white light. One flare in particular occurs while the sunspot is facing the lens and another important one occurs at the limb as the sunspot passes over the horizon. Watch what happens to the photosphere and penumbral filaments during the flare discharge process. It literally "lights up" the photosphere in white light.

Pay *VERY* close attention to the "green' images which show the discharge process and it's affect on the sunspots and particularly the penumbral filaments.

While watching the iron ion wavelengths, ask yourself how all these "magnetic lines" (obviously filled with moving plasma) are achieving all these odd angles, and persistent locations at this specific point in the "atmosphere" if you want to call it that. How come the flare doesn't blow this light plasma all to heck and blow the moving filaments apart? What holds them to a single point and weird angles from a single point? How do they stay "rigidly rooted" at odd angles from each other in thin plasma even during a powerful flare event?

By the way, the original flare that this RD image comes from is shown in that DVD.

Once you've watched these images, then lets talk about where the discharge/flare originates, above or below the photosphere. I think you will have a completely different attitude after you have reviewed these images.

FYI, I'm likely to be rather busy today. I *PROMISE* you that this download is worth your time. The images themselves are absolutely stunning, and the ability to watch the effect of the flares at many wavelengths in large size images is invaluable. Please take the time to watch them. It will make this conversation a lot easier.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Baloney yourself, liar. Oliver Manuel's crackpot notion that the Sun has an iron core is a diametrically opposite contradiction to your crackpot notion that the Sun has an iron shell.

Ok, just out of morbid curiosity, how *EXACTLY* do you rationalize in that twisted head of yours the fact that he contacted me after seeing my website with this image on the first page, and he insisted we include these RD images and publish papers together with these images in the papers?

As it relates to these RD images, you still clearly don't get it. They are not a data graph. They are not a pie chart. They are not *PHYSICALLY DISCONNECTED* from any of the light sources in either image. You seem to have it in your head that this is some sort of disconnected data set that has nothing whatsoever to do with real *stuff* (real plasma), but rather it's a cartoon like display of some sort that has no physical meaning. That's baloney.

Go watch some RD LASCO images for awhile and tell me when you can pick out a star, a planet, a comet, and "flying plasma". Then come back here and we will have a rational discussion. There is no visual disconnect between these original light sources in the original image and the light and dark points of the RD image. You've somehow convinced yourself there is some physical disconnect between the *THINGS* we see in the original images and the THINGS we see in the RD images. That is simply absurd.

 

[Reality Check]

Another bit of bad science derived from MM's "mountain ranges" (on his solid iron surface) in the TRACE 171A RD animation as stated on his web page.

The 171A pass band filter can only detect activity in the top of the chromosphere, transition zone and corona.

MM's hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible sold iron surface is 4800 km below the photosphere. Above that is the temperature minimum (500 km) and then the chromosphere (2500 km).

Conclusion: MM's mountains are at least 7,800 kilometers high!
They manage not only to poke through all of the layers that he wants to have in the Sun but they also manage to magically survive the ~6000 K of the photosphere!

There are hints in previous posts that he has changed his mind from what he states on his web site, i.e. there are no mountain ranges and the iron surface is actually not detected. But that somehow the features seen in the TRACE 171A RD animation are still evidence for a solid iron surface.

MM:
What is your position on the features in the TRACE 171A RD animation?
Are the "mountain range" features actual mountains on your iron surface?
If not then what are they?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina - since you are the self proclaimed expert on running difference (RD) animations with 15 years experience of studying solar images (including RD animations),

I'm not an expert on "animation". I'm an "expert" (in comparison to you and GM at least) in solar RD images, specifically SOHO, STEREO and Trace RD images because I have studied them, and even created them personally whereas you have not. That is why you and GM still have it in your head that these are 'animations'. They are not pie chart "animations", they are "running difference images" of the sun and other objects in space. There is no "graph" in this image, only light and dark points from where light emitting things have moved to, and have moved from. There is a directional component observable in the RD images that is not in the original images as a result of the processing technique. In other words, we can see the direction that the stars have MOVED in the RD based on the orientation of the shadow, and we can observe the amount of movement based upon the shadow and it's distance from the star, or the planet, or the comet or the flying plasma, etc. All of these real and tangible "things" are still visible in the RD image. They simply have a visual record of the 'movement' that occurred between the two original images. These are not "animations" like pie charts or bar graphs. You can't equate these images to a bar graph or a pie chart. They are nothing of the sort. They are RD solar images from SOHO and Trace, and yes, compared to the two of you I'm quite an "expert" in *THESE SPECIFIC* images. Why? Because I've actually watched gigabytes worth of RD images and you've probably never even created a solar RD image before. Yes or no, have you ever personally created a SOHO, TRACE or STEREO RD image from the original FITS files?

 

[Reality Check]

I'm not an expert on "animation". I'm an "expert" (in comparison to you and GM at least) in solar RD images
...sniped usual ranting...

That is what I said - you are an experit in solar RD images (linked to together to frrm animations or movies or AVIs or ...). So it should be easy for you to answer the questions which you seem to have missed:


Below is a sketch of a 1 by 5 pixel RD animation where '_' is a blank pixel and '*' is a filled pixel.

• Does the RD animation show flying stuff?
• Is there flying stuff in the original images?

Frame 1: *____
Frame 2: _*___
Frame 3: __*__
Frame 4: ___*_
Frame 5: ____*

 

[Michael Mozina]

Another bit of bad science derived from MM's "mountain ranges" (on his solid iron surface) in the TRACE 171A RD animation as stated on his web page.

The 171A pass band filter can only detect activity in the top of the chromosphere, transition zone and corona.

MM's hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible sold iron surface is 4800 km below the photosphere. Above that is the temperature minimum (500 km) and then the chromosphere (2500 km).

Conclusion: MM's mountains are at least 7,800 kilometers high!
They manage not only to poke through all of the layers that he wants to have in the Sun but they also manage to magically survive the ~6000 K of the photosphere!

OMG. You and GM have quite a knack for intentionally ignoring and misrepresenting everything I tell you. I'd ask you to download that DVD too, but frankly I don't care if you personally wallow in ignorance for all time. If be any chance you are actually curious enough to do a bit of research and watch the DVD, pay attention to what happens to the photosphere and sunspots during flares. If you don't watch the DVD, well, it won't surprise me one bit.

FYI, this specific flare that the RD image shows us is also shown in the that particular DVD, but then I don't want to you do anything to educate yourself. By all means though, don't bother to do anything related to research. But please, just sit here on the chat board, ignore the persistence in the images, distort what a RD image really is, misrepresent what I say to you, just so that you can have fun at my expense.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes or no, have you ever personally created a SOHO, TRACE or STEREO RD image from the original FITS files?

 

[Reality Check]

Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

Coronal loops are electrical discharges? (first asked 10 July 2009).

Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible? (first asked 8 July 2009). Also see this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.

Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source" and in the same post
Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun). (first asked 7th July 2009).

A post that seemed to retract his "mountain ranges" on the TRACE 171A RD animation evoked this question:
What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona. (first asked 6th July 2009).

What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected? (first asked 6th July 2009).

The perpetual dark matter question:
How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect? (first asked 23rd June 2009).

From tusenfem:
Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkelands book?

In addition:
Is your "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass" paper correct when it states that the Trace satellite using a 171 Å filter can see below the photosphere?

Fig. 1 shows the images he observed. The top section is a "running difference" image of the Sun's iron-rich, sub-surface revealed by the Trace satellite using a 171 Å filter. This filter is sensitive to emissions from Fe (IX) and Fe (X). Lockheed Martin made this movie of the C3.3 flare and a mass ejection in AR 9143 from this region on 28 August 2000. http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Publi...171_000828.avi

 

[Reality Check]

Yes or no, have you ever personally created a SOHO, TRACE or STEREO RD image from the original FITS files?

No.

 

[Reality Check]

OMG. You and GM have quite a knack for intentionally ignoring and misrepresenting everything I tell you. I'd ask you to download that DVD too, but frankly I don't care if you personally wallow in ignorance for all time. If be any chance you are actually curious enough to do a bit of research and watch the DVD, pay attention to what happens to the photosphere and sunspots during flares. If you don't watch the DVD, well, it won't surprise me one bit.

FYI, this specific flare that the RD image shows us is also shown in the that particular DVD, but then I don't want to you do anything to educate yourself. By all means though, don't bother to do anything related to research. But please, just sit here on the chat board, ignore the persistence in the images, distort what a RD image really is, misrepresent what I say to you, just so that you can have fun at my expense.

Yes we are having fun at your expense.
When you say so many obviously wrong things it is so easy.
Please continue to be present an easy target.

 

[GeeMack]

Ok, just out of morbid curiosity, how *EXACTLY* do you rationalize in that twisted head of yours the fact that he contacted me after seeing my website with this image on the first page, and he insisted we include these RD images and publish papers together with these images in the papers?

Uh, you really want the explanation? Oliver Manuel is another crackpot like you who doesn't have the slightest clue about running difference images. That would explain it, now wouldn't it? (I think in the several years since then, he's figured it out. Maybe that's why when you two have been in the same discussions on the same forums he wouldn't touch your solid surface craziness with a ten foot pole.) You think the Sun has a solid iron surface. Manuel thinks the Sun has an iron core. Fundamentally opposite concepts. His wacky fantasy doesn't support yours, and yours doesn't support his. There is no avoiding that fact. You're both nuts, but you're not in agreement on that point regardless if the two of you were playing scientist together.

As it relates to these RD images, you still clearly don't get it. They are not a data graph. They are not a pie chart. They are not *PHYSICALLY DISCONNECTED* from any of the light sources in either image. You seem to have it in your head that this is some sort of disconnected data set that has nothing whatsoever to do with real *stuff* (real plasma), but rather it's a cartoon like display of some sort that has no physical meaning. That's baloney.

Michael, knock off the temper tantrums already. You keep screaming that, but you haven't been able to show it in all these years. Shouting something doesn't make it true. So get off your lazy ass and do the work you keep demanding of other people already. You explain it for once...

If you disagree with my assessment of the construction of a running difference image, why don't you give it a shot. Funny that you haven't yet. Well, not really funny. Pathetic actually. What's been stopping you, no time left after whining about the meanies, too stupid, don't have the courage to actually take a firm position, you just don't really know, maybe you get too much pleasure out of the continued lying about other people so you have a motive to drag on without explaining it? Let's have your description of why each pixel is the tone that it is. You know, one as good, thorough, consistent, well accepted, and understandable as the one I've given.

Maybe you don't have an explanation, or maybe yo don't have the guts to offer it. But even if you don't understand why each pixel is the shade that it is, if you were a real scientist you would admit to not knowing. All you seem to be able to do is cry.

Go watch some RD LASCO images for awhile and tell me when you can pick out a star, a planet, a comet, and "flying plasma". Then come back here and we will have a rational discussion. There is no visual disconnect between these original light sources in the original image and the light and dark points of the RD image. You've somehow convinced yourself there is some physical disconnect between the *THINGS* we see in the original images and the THINGS we see in the RD images. That is simply absurd.

No, you go learn about those light sources, Michael. There are ways to model the "light sources" if you wanted to. Methods were suggested several years ago, but in your usual style, you ignored them. Get off your lazy ass and do the work a real scientist would do, you know, not just spending all your time looking at the pretty pictures, not just spending all your time throwing tantrums on forums, not just spending all your time hollering louder and louder hoping that eventually you'll holler loud enough that your fantasy becomes true.

You show that the shadows and intensities and angles are consistent with your claim... and with reality. You show how there is light enough from one direction to make your mountain shine, and that a remotely reasonable process prevents that from lighting up the other side of the mountain. You show how that can happen when the "light source" is coming from several thousand kilometers directly above your silly mountain. Clue: When it's noon in Nepal, there isn't a bigass dark shadow covering one side of Mount Everest.

And your intentional distraction (or ignorance, whichever, who cares?) doesn't answer this question...

And then how about you explain how your glorious flying stuff has anything to do with a solid surface. I learned in grade school science that the surface of the Sun was a lively, active place. The movement of plasma, sometimes violent and extreme, is such a common phenomenon in the Sun's atmosphere it's considered relatively mundane. So what's so special about "flying stuff" that its mere existence in the corona supports your crackpot solid surface delusion anyway? Fill us in. And if you can stay focused and avoid throwing a tantrum while you're at it, that would be cool... but highly unexpected.

Flying stuff in the highly active corona of the Sun? Big damned deal. Unless you can show how it specifically relates to your insane solid surface delusion, all the noise you keep making about it is just wasted computer digits. Again, get up off your lazy ass and actually venture to explain the connection between flying stuff thousands of kilometers above the photosphere and a solid surface thousands of kilometers below.

And then how about addressing this one you keep ignoring. A reasonable, scientific explanation would go a long way towards taking you out of the crackpot league you're in now and put you well on your way to earning that Nobel prize...

And when you get done with that, maybe this will slip through your wall of ignorance this time. Show us the lab experiment right here on Earth, with no metaphysics, no fudge factors, quantitative, mathematically consistent, physically plausible, that shows how you can see thousands of kilometers below an opaque plasma using an image that was created entirely from data gathered thousands of kilometers above that opaque plasma. After all, all your ideas meet that standard, didn't you say? And that method will be objective of course, so when other people apply it they can come to the same conclusion you do.

Also, I must have missed your answer to this: Why is it that not a single, solitary professional scientist on the face of this planet, out of billions of people, probably hundreds of thousands of professional scientists and educators, physicists and astronomers and researchers, not one of them actually accepts your lunatic conjecture? Are they all missing something you're not? Is every one of those people stupid? They just don't get your explanation because they're all incompetent communicators? You're an incompetent communicator? You're wrong? Why, Michael, does not a single soul think you're right?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Re: Tim

I don... I need you to download a 3.5GB DVD file from LMSAL. The specific DVD file I would like you to download is the one that is marked "FlaresDVD.img".

I will look into it. I had a DVD that I got from Alan Title a few years ago, but I think it's out on loan somewhere.