Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

prl 101, 111301 (2008).

It will take me awhile to read it, but I will do so. Your responses make it clear that you understand this topic very well, and I respect your points of view. I'll let you know what I think once I've read it. Do you have a link to the paper by any chance?

 

[Michael Mozina]

What I meant and said was that the solar model had one of its predictions falisfied (the neutrino flux). Thus it was was in trouble (or even falsified) for about 30 years.

Then magically one day it gained all it's credibility back and it was worth considering again? Don't you figure people "worked on it" and continued to "believe in it" even "against all odds"?

But all of the other aspects of the solar model fitted observations.

No, that stratification subsurface doesn't fit with earlier predictions either. That's supposed to be an open convection zone in standard theory. That RD image has *NEVER* been "explained" in terms of cause/effect relationships, not in four plus years of these conversations. Flying plasma? What flying plasma. That's literally the extent of the "scientific analysis" I've seen from your side of the aisle based on gas model theory.

Scientists do not generally throw away a scientific theory beause it fails one prediction.

But you expect me to throw away Birkeland's solar model, and evidently all other variations of a "solid crust" model based upon this very same issue? FYI, I do realize that the core remains beyond my vision at any wavelength that I currently have in my possession, and I have x-ray and gamma vision thanks to the Yohkoh, Hinode, GEOS and Rhessi programs.

If so Newtonian gravity would have been thrown away as soon as problems with Mercury's orbit were detected. They investigate the problem and try to come up with theories to explain it or a replacement for the original theory that explains it.

So, don't you think I should adopt a "wait and see" attitude here while we investigate the "missing neutrino' problem awhile longer? FYI, I even accept that it could in fact be that the core of the sun works exactly as standard theory suggests. There could be a fusion process involved for all I know. I still can't ignore what I observe in satellite images and those persistent features in the Doppler and RD images stick out like a sore thumb in your presumed open convection zone. That circled feature is below the photosphere even by Kosovichev's explanation, and both of us believe that the black and white dots represent moving plasma. It simply demonstrates that the "mass flows" we observe in the original iron ion wavelengths take place under the photosphere, not above it.

The experimental detection of neutrino oscillation in both solar neutrinos and neutrinos generated in laboratories resolves the neutrino problem in the solar model.

Ok, even if we assume all of that is true for the time being, how exactly did you intend to "explain" that circled image in Kosovichev's video without admitting that most of the coronal activity is occurring below the photosphere? What does cause those mass flows under the photosphere?

Now please go right ahead and explain that RD image in terms of cause effect relationships and keeping in mind the images on the DVD?

Learn to read MM: All of them.
They did not "verify" neutrino oscillation - they measured them.

No. You could only "measure them" if you could individual isolate each and every lepton configuration, muon from tau, tau from electron, etc, and measure each of them independently at a number of distances. I'm not aware of any technology we posses that could do that. I did hear TBT and I'll read the paper he suggested before commenting further. I'm guessing we're lumping a "grand total" somewhere and subtracting the total number of electron neutrinos detected and *assuming* the total includes other types of neutrinos. I'll have to think about that one awhile and see how it's being applied to this experiment.

Even if it goes your way for now, why would you expect that one issue to make me abandon a "crust" model, even if I let go of fission core concept?

Then your Iron Sun idea is even worse than I thought.
You do not have the courage to even pick an energy source for the Sun and treat it scientifically.

That's not true, and there is no guarantee there is only a single energy source. You can't *insist* a select one and only one energy source. I can't see beneath the surface in any wavelength with enough precision to say for certain what kind of core it has. All I know is that I can see a "crust" in satellite images, including volcanic activity.

It just consists of the obsession with Birkeland

No, not really. When I first put up the website, it was based entirely on the SERTS and satellite imagery, particularly the RD and Doppler images I keep hounding you about. I had not even read Birkeland's work at first and I was absolutely stunned when I read it for the first time. I could not believe someone had already done so many physical tests in a lab related to these ideas. It literally blew me away. Any ego I might have had, or any illusions I may have been under for coming up with the idea went up in smoke. I simply recognize the value of his work and I see how to apply it to satellite images in space.

You seem to be missing the point from my perspective. Even if we find evidence of oscillation, it changes absolutely nothing as it relates to the Doppler and RD images. They must still be explained one way or another.

 

[Tubbythin]

IMO you are still "assuming" this to be the case. In other words, you're "interpreting" a "missing" electron neutrino count as an "oscillation", rather than say due to some sort of waveform in the neutrino,

I don't really know what you even mean by this. Can you be more precise?

a detection anomaly related to a specific neutrino detector

Well, if we'd only done the observations once that might be sensible. In fact the original assumption was that Ray Davis' result was just plain wrong. It took repeated and improved experiments to show that the observation is real.

, scattering or some other possibility.

Scattering wouldn't explain the day-night asymmetry. Nor, more importantly, would it explain why we observe an excess of neutrinos that aren't of the electron type.

In other words you're ASSUMING oscillation based on a solar theory, not "strictly" based on laboratory evidence IMO.

Based on multiple independent experiments it has become increasingly clear that neutrinos do oscillate. If you can come up with a better interpretation of the data then feel free to do so. Otherwise your assertion that I'm making assumptions is completely baseless.

FYI, as I see it, I don't need to find any such thing. I'm not trying to falsify or validate any specific solar theory based on this information. You're tying to insist one model is falsified by these findings.

Actually, I said the neutrino data falsified your model. You said the neutrino model falsified the SSM. I've explained in detail why you are incorrect. Now, its really up to you to show us how the neutrino data can be consistent with your model.

That depends. Not in 171A images it's not. It's not uniform in it's high energy atmospheric processes. It's fairly uniform in it's total energy release over a period of time, but there are obvious physical changes over an 11 year solar cycle as I'm sure you will agree.

Right... and the calculated neutrino flux output depends largely on what... the total energy output.

"Adjust" them based on what? You can move the detectors around a bit and play with the receiving end of the observation, but you are not controlling the transmitter in any way.

I probably should have said adjust the data collection mechanism as we wish though we can try different detectors of course. I'f already been through a whole load of things we can look at.
Obviously the Sun isn't controlled. But then neither is the decay of a top quark. How it chooses to decay is up to it (apologese for the personification). But the best way to study the decay of the top quark is to study the decay of the top quark. Similarly, the best way to study solar neutrinos is to study solar neutrinos.

It's only "partially" controlled (at the receiver perhaps) and "partially assumed", certainly at the transmission side.

Err. If we completely controlled the experiment it would be a completely pointless experiment.

I'm simply noting that no "experiment" can be "controlled" unless we can demonstrate a cause/effect relationship and without controlling the transmitter, that's not possible.

By this reasoning we can't determine that sunlight comes from the Sun because we can't turn the Sun off.

Well, it has different distance properties between the day and night. There may be more or less matter between the detector and the sun between the day and the night.

Well it should be fairly obvious that there is more matter at night than during the day.

How many other factors might also be varying during this timeline that might have some influence?

Essentially, none.

All oscillations should be seen on Earth.

It depends on the mixing angle(s).

Well, they are "helpful", but that is a long way from being definitive. You might have a problem detecting electron neutrinos in one detection method that are related not to oscillation but to neutrino waveforms and detection various methods.

That sentence doesn't make sense.

I really don't know why detectors detect "less" of something than hoped. Readers of this thread (not you personally) need to keep in mind that we only see a *VERY SMALL FRACTION* of these things to begin with.

This cannot explain why we see more muon/tauon neutrinos than we should. Or why the total numbers add up to agree approximately with the number of electron flavour expected without oscillations.

How do you know one detectors isn't simply more efficient at detection than other at specific distances from the source?

I don't understand the question.

My point is that nowhere does the theoretical energy production side of either solar model predict these neutrinos to exist as we observe them here on Earth. If such findings didn't instantly falsify a SSM, then they don't automatically falsify any solar model today.

The SSM predicts a certain flux of neutrinos from the Sun. That is it. The number actually measured and the flavour is determined by the SM. Multiple independent experiments show that neutrinos change flavour (as do neutral kaons and B-mesons by the way). This has led to a change in the SM. The SSM hasn't changed one bit. There is no experimental evidence supporting a change in the SM that would bring your theory in line with the observed neutrino fluxes.

SSM theory is predicated upon an oscillation from one lepton type to another. That is certainly something that *can* and *should* be demonstrated in a lab, but our technologies are still pretty limited. I'm not knocking the concept in any way, I'm simply noting that a "missing" electron neutrino in one type (design) of detector at some specific distance could be due to many factors including distance alone.

That's why not all neutrino experiments are the same. That's why we aren't relying on one "best" experiment as you would like us to.

Energy tends to travel in wave forms and double slit experiments have show that inference patterns can have an effect on detection.

This is irrelevant.

I can't automatically assume any particular solar theory is instantly falsified by neutrino measurements. You folks didn't instantly toss out your solar theories when they didn't jive with expectation did you? Why would you expect me to do so now?

Because your theory is inconsistent with multiple pieces of experimental data. Because you have no answers to the inconsistencies?

 

[Tubbythin]

It will take me awhile to read it, but I will do so. Your responses make it clear that you understand this topic very well, and I respect your points of view. I'll let you know what I think once I've read it. Do you have a link to the paper by any chance?

Thanks. I'm by no means an expert. And I can't guarantee that every single thing I have said is 100% accurate.

It appears to be available freely on the SNO website:
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/publications.html

 

[Reality Check]

Then magically one day it gained all it's credibility back and it was worth considering again? Don't you figure people "worked on it" and continued to "believe in it" even "against all odds"?

Now you are getting it!
The fact that the solar model fitted the other observations made people work on the problem.
The fact that no other model fitted the other observations and this observation gave them the confidence that the existing model might be correct.
The fact that neutrino oscillations were detected in 2003 and have been confirmed in many experiments since then means that there is no longer any solar neutrino problem.

No, that stratification subsurface doesn't fit with earlier predictions either. That's supposed to be an open convection zone in standard theory. That RD image has *NEVER* been "explained" in terms of cause/effect relationships, not in four plus years of these conversations. Flying plasma? What flying plasma. That's literally the extent of the "scientific analysis" I've seen from your side of the aisle based on gas model theory.

The stratification is expected in the solar model.
Your idea that it is a "subsurface" is your personal delusion.
Your inability to understand the explanation of the TRACE 171A RD animation features is your problem not sciences.
Your inability to understand that TRACE 171A RD animation was created from images of activity in the corona is your problem not sciences.
The fact that you ignore the statements from the people who took the images and state that your interpretation is wrong is a basic attribute of a crackpot.

But you expect me to throw away Birkeland's solar model, and evidently all other variations of a "crust" model based upon this very same issue? FYI, I do realize that the core remains beyond my vision at any wavelength I current have in my possession, and I have x-ray and gamma vision thanks go GEOS and Rhessi programs.

Yes.
Because your Iron Sun "model" does not exist. You have the typical handwaving ideas that any crackpot has.

Do what any competent scientist would do:

• Give us citations to the papers that have images that they say are from under the photosphere (in any wavelength of light).
• Give us the mathematics and the numbers!

...snipped MM's usual delusional rant about RD animations and Doppler images...

 

[Michael Mozina]

Scattering wouldn't explain the day-night asymmetry. Nor, more importantly, would it explain why we observe an excess of neutrinos that aren't of the electron type.

I'm going to try to skip the parts where we agree, and limit my response to a couple of key points so we focus on these points specifically.

Any sort of double slit experiment suggests that "wave" action takes place and interference patterns emerge at various locations in the experiment, even in "massless" particles. What makes you think you aren't putting the electron neutrino detector inside an area that experiences interference in one type of detector and not necessarily in both types of detectors? It seems to me that you're "jumping the gun" here a bit. How do you know that they detect electron neutrinos evenly at every tested distance?

Actually, I said the neutrino data falsified your model.

But it does not falsify my model anymore than three neutrino types falsified standard solar theory when your side didn't know/believe they oscillated. In fact I don't profess to believe there is a "known" or even a "single' energy source to begin with. I simply noted that according to Birkeland the primary energy source could be fission.

Because your theory is inconsistent with multiple pieces of experimental data. Because you have no answers to the inconsistencies?

But that in and of itself does not falsify a solar model even if everything you said is absolutely true and above question.

All we really know for now is that there is an "anomaly" that I can't fully explain based on a fission model *at this moment in time*. It doesn't make one iota of difference as it relates to the satellite images on my website which led me to conclude that the sun has a "crust". Care to explain them in terms of a standard solar theory and cause/effect relationships?

I guess I accept what you're saying for the time being with the first caveat I mentioned. I don't see how your 'certain' that both types of detectors measure electron neutrinos equally at every distance, and that no interference patterns might emerge in either type of detector.

 

[Reality Check]

More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth

First asked 13 July 2009

You state that it is possible to see below the photosphere somehow.

1. In what wavelengths is this possible?
2. In which published papers or textbooks is this stated?
3. Why have solar physicsits not realized this and told everyone about their ability to see 4800 kilometers (or more?) into the Sun?
4. If your iron surface is a "crust" could there be holes in it and so could we see the core of the Sun?

 

[Reality Check]

Formation of the iron surface

MM:
First asked 13 July 2009
Can you tell us how the Iron Sun idea models the formation of the Sun, especially how the iron layer is formed?

I would quite interested in the mass separation equations that you used to calculate the formation of the iron surface and how they match up with your assertion that the depth is 4800 kilometers.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Now you are getting it!
The fact that the solar model fitted the other observations made people work on the problem.
The fact that no other model fitted the other observations and this observation gave them the confidence that the existing model might be correct.

Now you might be getting it too. Likewise, the fact you can't explain these RD and Doppler images in terms of the existing solar model gives me some confidence that Birkeland's solar still "might be" correct. Even if he is incorrect about the core, and the whole model "needs some work" as it relates to the internals, that doesn't negate what I can observe in satellite imagery.

The fact that neutrino oscillations were detected in 2003 and have been confirmed in many experiments since then means that there is no longer any solar neutrino problem.

Well, I'm going to have to reluctantly agree with you that there is no immediate problem, but I would say a lot of work still needs to be done before you can claim to be "certain" of flavor oscillations.

The stratification is expected in the solar model.

PRIOR TO Kosovichev's published paper, which solar model "predicted" the existence of this stratification at around .995R?

Your idea that it is a "subsurface" is your personal delusion.

Um, no, that's the actual word they used. They called it a "stratification subsurface". You did read the paper, right?

Your inability to understand the explanation of the TRACE 171A RD animation features is your problem not sciences.

It's not a "problem" for me because I can actually look at the details in the images and explain them in terms of cause/effect relationships that work in a lab. It's a problem for your side obviously because in all these pages and pages of commentary, the best "explanation" I've heard is "flying plasma? What flying plasma.". Utter failure.

Your inability to understand that TRACE 171A RD animation was created from images of activity in the corona is your problem not sciences.

It cannot be exclusively limited to the corona as any 1600A image of a falre can demonstrate, including all the image on the DVD you haven't seen and refuse to watch. The images of the photosphere however during the flare event demonstrate that it is physically impossible for all of these discharges to occur only above the photosphere. Kosovichev's Doppler image and his heliosiesmology data show that the "mass flows" occur *UNDERNEATH OF* not strictly above the photosphere.

The fact that you ignore the statements from the people who took the images and state that your interpretation is wrong is a basic attribute of a crackpot.

Yawn. The fact that all of you, each and every one of you avoids the details in the images like the plague, you can't explain them in terms of cause/effect relationships, and you continue to swing below the belt at individuals rather than on the science says to me that you're desperate. Care to "explain" the persistent features? The peeling? Anything specific seen in the image in terms of cause/effect relationships? Why are those mass flows all forming rigid patterns under the photosphere in Doppler images if all the coronal loop activity is above the photosphere?

When are you going to watch the DVD and respond to the three flares cited in the visible wavelengths? When are you going to explain the 1600A images and acknowledge that there is no way in hell that the base of the loops originates in the corona?

 

[Reality Check]

How much is "mostly neon" MM?

Ok, so let's try to find some agreement here. I say we go ahead and calculate the "optical depth" of the photosphere based upon a double layer of mostly neon plasma with the density as specified in the standard solar model. Agreed?

First asked 13 July 2009
How much is "mostly neon" for the composition of the photosphere MM?

The abundance of neon is 0.12% according to the measured photosphere spectrum. That is not "mostly neon".

How do you explain this MM?
Remember that according to you, the photosphere is transparent to light down to your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron crust/surface at a depth of 4800 kilometers.

My guess:
Whenever you think that you see a surface in any image in any wavelength then you assume that the photosphere is transparent to light in that wavelength.
Whenever you want to the photosphere to be opaque to light in a certain wavelength then you assume it is.
Any appeal to the laws of physic will not change your mind because you are always right and the laws of physics do not matter.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped RD animation delusions...
Well, I'm going to have to reluctantly agree with you that there is no immediate problem, but I would say a lot of work still needs to be done before you can claim to be "certain" of flavor oscillations.

I do not claim to be certain. The scientific comunity has the concensus that neutrino oscillations exist.
How much is "lot of work"?
Exactly what is missing from the experiments?
Is this just another of your unfounded assertions or a personal opinion based on your ignorance?

ETA:
There is some work to be complete our understanding of neutroni oscillations, e.g. the T2K (Tokai to Kamioka) experiement

The goal of the T2K experiment is to gain a more complete understanding of neutrino oscillation parameters. Previous neutrino experiments have observed the disappearance of muon neutrinos in a beam as they oscillate to tau neutrinos. but oscillation from νμ to νe has not been observed. The reason for this is believed to be that the mixing angle θ13, which controls the probability for this oscillation, is very small. T2K hopes to be the first experiment to measure the appearance of electron neutrinos in a muon neutrino beam. Precise measurements of the other neutrino mixing parameter Δm232 and θ23 are another aim of the experiment. Future upgrades to T2K could yield measurement of the CP violation phase δ by comparing oscillations of neutrinos to those of antineutrinos

...
PRIOR TO Kosovichev's published paper, which solar model "predicted" the existence of this stratification at around .995R?

Um, no, that's the actual word they used. They called it a "stratification subsurface". You did read the paper, right?

Many papers predicted stratification (e.g. the papers that are cited) - Kosovichev's is about using data to put numbers on the stratification.

I read it ("Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle"). Obviously you did not.
They never use the term "stratification subsurface". They use the term "subsurface stratification". Their paper is about the stratification (changes in density) of the subsurface.
You still have to show that the changes in density that their model shows is comparable to the changes in density caused by your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust.

...snipped the usual image rant...

 

[GeeMack]

That RD image has *NEVER* been "explained" in terms of cause/effect relationships, not in four plus years of these conversations.

What else can I say? Liar.

 

[GeeMack]

Ok, so let's try to find some agreement here. I say we go ahead and calculate the "optical depth" of the photosphere based upon a double layer of mostly neon plasma with the density as specified in the standard solar model. Agreed?

How about you show the lab experiment, right here on Earth, no fudge factors, no metaphysical mumbo jumbo, mathematically consistent, physically plausible, objective such that other people can reach the same conclusion you've reached, that shows there is some kind of "double layer of mostly neon plasma" in, on, above, or below the photosphere. Or are you just pulling this stuff out of your ass again?

But it would be great to see you calculate it, because you know as well as everyone here, you don't know how to calculate!

 

[Reality Check]

What else can I say? Liar.

William Blake's poem 'The Liar' springs to mind:
Deceiver, dissembler
Your trousers are alight
From what pole or gallows
Shall they dangle in the night?

When I asked of your career
Why did you have to kick my rear
With that stinking lie of thine
Proclaiming that you owned a mine?

When you asked to borrow my stallion
To visit a nearby moored galleon
How could I ever know that you
Intended to turn him into glue?

What red devil of mendacity
Grips your soul with such tenacity?
Will one you cruelly shower with lies
Put a pistol ball between your eyes?

What infernal serpent
Has lent you his forked tongue?
From what pit of foul deceit
Are all these whoppers sprung?

Deceiver, dissembler
Your trousers are alight
From what pole or gallows
Do they dangle in the night?

 

[Michael Mozina]

What else can I say? Liar.

Flying plasma? What flying plasma? Explanation in terms of cause/effect relationships and specific image events? What explanation? You gave no explanation you Liar.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Thanks. I'm by no means an expert. And I can't guarantee that every single thing I have said is 100% accurate.

It appears to be available freely on the SNO website:
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/publications.html

Thus far my only remaining objection to the controlled experiments is my first one. I'm still not done reading, but oscillation seems to be predicated on the notion that there are no interference patterns in the output of either type of receiver, and no difference in how the two "methods' of detection should work in terms of detecting electron neutrino emissions. For all I know the "total" neutrino detection method is simply less susceptible to interference patterns in electron neutrino output. I still don't see how "missing" detections equate directly to "oscillations" other than by pure "leap of faith" that it has no other possible cause.

FYI, I'm still wading through the material trying to see exactly what's new since the last time I looked through the neutrino experiments...

 

[Reality Check]

Flying plasma? What flying plasma? Explanation in terms of cause/effect relationships and specific image events? What explanation? You gave no explanation you Liar.

This has been expalined to you several times you liar MM.

But here it is again and in smaller steps for smaller minds.
There is no actual flying plasma in the RD animation because it is a computer generated representation of changes of the color of pixels in the original images.
There is "flying stuff" in the RD animation because the pixels being compared can be traced back to the original images.
The cause of the "flying stuff" is the movement and changes in temperature of the CME material (plasma).
The effect of the CME material moving and changing temperature between original images is "flying stuff" in the RD animations.
The cause/effect relationship between the CME material moving and changing temperature between original images and the "flying stuff" in the RD animations is the running difference processing.

 

[Reality Check]

Thus far my only remaining objection to the controlled experiments is my first one. I'm still not done reading, but oscillation seems to be predicated on the notion that there are no interference patterns in the output of either type of receiver, and no difference in how the two "methods' of detection should work in terms of detecting electron neutrino emissions. For all I know the "total" neutrino detection method is simply less susceptible to interference patterns in electron neutrino output. I still don't see how "missing" detections equate directly to "oscillations" other than by pure "leap of faith" that it has no other possible cause.
FYI, I'm still wading through the material trying to see exactly what's new since the last time I looked through the neutrino experiments...

What is your source for these "interference patterns ", e.g. where were they detected in a controlled experiment in a laboratory?

It looks like my previous post was right.
I will give you an analogy for the earlier paper MM with the (vain) hope that you can see why missing neutrinos in laboratory experiments are evidence for neutrino oscillation.

An experiment is set up as follows

• There is a light source that emits red light according to the known laws of physics.
• There is a detector that detects red light.
• The detector is a long distance from the source but there is a tunnel between the source and detector that means that the detector will be able to detect the light.

The light source is turned off. The detector does not detect any red light.
The light source is turned on. The detector does not detect any red light.

Thus there must be something happening between the source and detector the prevents the rel light from getting to the detector. The choices are

• Something is blocking the red light.
• Something is deflecting the red light.
• The red light is changing into another wavelength of light.

The tunnel rules out the first 2 reasons and leaves the case that the red light has changed wavelength and so cannot be detected.


The match to the neutrino oscillation experiments is:

• Neutrino source = red light source
• KamLAND = red light detector
• Weak neutrino interaction with matter and low neutrino mass = tunnel.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I do not claim to be certain. The scientific comunity has the concensus that neutrino oscillations exist.

Ok. My point is still valid. Just because you *think* they oscillate, and even have some real "evidence" they oscillate, even by my standards, you don't know that they oscillate yet.

How much is "lot of work"?

In terms of pure "resolution"? "A lot" I've never seen a real time neutrino image of the sun in resolutions rivaling a SOHO image. When that happens, you let me know. Until then, I'd say "a lot". IMO however it's the one thing you SHOULD BE doing. I couldn't care less about your invisible creation mythos friends, but when real things show up in empirical experiments, I'm happy to fund it.

Exactly what is missing from the experiments?

Well, in an ideal world, we would have at least 4-8 megapixel resolution in real time. Detectors would be efficient, not horribly inefficient. We would be able to detect them individually by flavor and do so in high resolution of all flavors as well as the "sum total" detection methods now available.

FYI, I'm only interested now in how you eliminated the possibility of interference in the one type of electron neutrino detector, but the rest looks, well, "ok" by me, if not "ideal" by anyone's standards.

Many papers predicted stratification (e.g. the papers that are cited) - Kosovichev's is about using data to put numbers on the stratification.

None of them seemed to predict anything like what Kosovichev found in the area in question. The citations seemed to be rather, well, "vague" in terms of "where" we might find such things. FYI, nobody is doubting the legitimacy of Kosovichev's technique. I can see the results for myself in his Doppler images. That "stratification" is visible in that Doppler image and it's "rigid" compared to the material of the photosphere. How? Why? If so, where are those mass flows occurring if not the "stratification subsurface" his papers describe?

"I read it ("Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle"). Obviously you did not.
They never use the term "stratification subsurface". They use the term "subsurface stratification". Their paper is about the stratification (changes in density) of the subsurface.

Ooops, ok, you got me. the order of words is clearly "critically" relevant to your claim that I some how made up the term "subsurface". Come on. Nitpick much?

You still have to show that the changes in density that their model shows is comparable to the changes in density caused by your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust.

I'm trying to figure out where you figure those mass flows Kosovichev's is describing are taking place if not below the photosphere? If we know for a fact that *persistent* mass flow patterns can be seen in 171A images, and they can also be seen in Doppler images underneath of the photosphere, what makes you think that they are not related?

About all I can do here is say "Wow". None of you have seen the DVD yet as far as I can tell. All of you ignored every question I posed to Tim and that I suggested you also respond to. All of you ran like hell from any of the actual "cause effect details" in the images. Nobody commented on why these plasma flows along the bases of the loops block light from the base of the loops, but the whole layer doesn't block visible light. None of you have explained anything much. In fact all I've heard thus far is a lot of accusations related to the individual, and no focus whatsoever on the images themselves or the science behind the cause effect relationships and the details observed in the images. You did in fact note that the CME spewed plasma, but that's about as far as it's gone. No mention on the persistence, no mention of the peeling, not mention of the CME and why the persistence isn't blown away by the CME event itself. No mention of the "small loops"' along the "surface" we see in the original images. There's been no real "analysis" because I can't even get you to even look at all the relevant images.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This has been expalined to you several times you liar MM.

Which specific frame, pixel, or specific visual event did you "explain" in your mind? Did you specifically address the persistence in the image, and do you agree or disagree with GM that the persistence is a function of the imaging technique rather than a persistence in the light source itself? Let's get "specific" here and no more hemming or hawing.

But here it is again and in smaller steps for smaller minds.

Pure personal insult, devoid of scientific value. You rely upon these pitiful behaviors constantly, well not at "constantly' (as in every post) as GM, but you rely upon them heavily. Why? Do you think you're clever? If you were "clever" I'd hear you mention a specific frame, detail and "cause/effect" relationship you actually "explained".

There is no actual flying plasma in the RD animation because it is a computer generated representation of changes of the color of pixels in the original images.

There is flying plasma in a RD image because a RD image contains all the flying plasma observed in the last image, minus where the light was in the previous image. What we are left with is "flying plasma" with a shadow for a directional component related to where that light source was in the previous image. We can see where it moved to, *AND* where it moved from. Anyone who knows anything at all about a LASCO-RD image knows you can see "flying plasma" in the image. You can see planets too, and stars in the background, and comets flying into the sun. Everything you can "see" in the original images is also visible in the lighted areas of the RD image. You may get a shadow from the movement of the plasma, but the allows us to see how FAST it's moving, and it's directional components. As long as you personally remain "blind" to something as simple as "Flying plasma" in a RD image, we really have little to discuss. If you can't pick out stars, planets, comets, flying plasma from a RD image, you aren't even trying.

There is "flying stuff" in the RD animation because the pixels being compared can be traced back to the original images.

The "lighted" pixels are lit in the final image too. The RD image includes shadowing features related to the movements of the plasma. It's not a cartoon animation detached from physical objects.

The cause of the "flying stuff" is the movement and changes in temperature of the CME material (plasma).

Ok, I will grant you that you personally (not GM) have explained *ONE* and *ONLY ONE* specific cause effect relationship to something specific in the image. You really didn't finish the "explanation" because you didn't specific what "caused" the CME. You hemmed and hawed on the specific thing that caused the CME.

The effect of the CME material moving and changing temperature between original images is "flying stuff" in the RD animations.

Ok. Try the "persistence" next for us. You'll find the original images to that specific event on the FlaresDVD by the way. You'll find that the light "structures" are "persistent" even in the original images. We see plasma fly off the CME event, but the persistent overall patterns of light and dark areas are visible even in the original images. Why? Why didn't the CME blow light plasma structures to kingdom come?

The cause/effect relationship between the CME material moving and changing temperature between original images and the "flying stuff" in the RD animations is the running difference processing.

Ok, 1 point for you. Is that all you've got in terms of "cause/effect" explanations? How about the persistence? The peeling? The other features in the image?