Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[GeeMack]

I have speculated as to whats inside but I dont know.

All I have to go on is helioseismology.

... which shows that there is nothing like a solid surface on the Sun. Apparently you don't know what's on the outside either.

 

[GeeMack]

My model seems to have been taken over at this point.

My model is a fully iron shell or solid. Rigid as shown in the difference images.
Those images show the changes in light from frame to frame. You have to start with a full frame to show changes. If its reflecting from a surface and the surface is moving, you will see the changes in light.
If the flare is moving from frame to frame, those are differences that you will see. You will not see changes below a certain arbitrary level of light. They use ionized iron light and show the differences from frame to frame with that light reflected or not.

You are completely wrong about how running difference images are made and what they are showing us. Go back and read my description of running difference images and videos.

 

[brantc]

... which shows that there is nothing like a solid surface on the Sun. Apparently you don't know what's on the outside either.

Oscillation Modes
The three different kinds of waves that helioseismologists measure or look for are: acoustic, gravity, and surface gravity waves. These three waves generate p modes, g modes, and f modes, respectively, as resonant modes of oscillation because the Sun acts as a resonant cavity. There are about 10^7 p and f modes alone. [Harvey, 1995, pp. 33]. Each oscillation mode is sampling different parts of the solar interior. The spectrum of the detected oscillations arises from modes with periods ranging from about 1.5 minutes to about 20 minutes and with horizontal wavelengths of between less then a few thousand kilometers to the length of the solar globe [Gough and Toomre, p. 627, 1991].

Why does the Sun act as a resonant cavity? Acoustic waves become trapped in a region bounded on top by a large density drop near the surface, and bounded on the bottom by an increase in sound speed that refracts a downward propagating wave back toward the surface. A standing wave is created.

How could the sun be a resonant cavity with harmonics unless it was????
Not a decreasing density ball of plasma.
The first models of the sun had no allowance for this discovery.

 

[GeeMack]

The first models of the sun had no allowance for this discovery.

The first models of the Universe had all the visible objects in space swirling in various ways around what was then thought to be the center of that Universe, the Earth. And all the not so visible objects didn't even exist. Times change, brantc. Ask the science teacher there at your high school for a little help with this one. Keep up.

 

[brantc]

The first models of the Universe had all the visible objects in space swirling in various ways around what was then thought to be the center of that Universe, the Earth. And all the not so visible objects didn't even exist. Times change, brantc. Ask the science teacher there at your high school for a little help with this one. Keep up.

My science teacher at The Junior Research Group of the Max Planck Society says that they fit the model to the observation.

Methods of helioseismology can be divided into two classes: global and local. The more traditional technique of global helioseismology consists of measuring the frequencies of the modes of oscillation and searching for a seismic solar model whose oscillation frequencies match the observed ones.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/forschung/seismologie/

That to me is not science that I can hang my hat on.

I'm sure I can make up a model and fine tune it to match observations as is done in science commonly these days. I dont do science like that, or at least try not to.

But since I already know what a cavity resonator is(hollow shell) I just say that my model already fits. I dont have to tune anything(maybe shell thickness). Its pure science.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm sure I can make up a model and fine tune it to match observations as is done in science commonly these days. I dont do science like that, or at least try not to.

Nominated.

 

[Reality Check]

But since I already know what a cavity resonator is(hollow shell) I just say that my model already fits. I dont have to tune anything(maybe shell thickness). Its pure science.

What you cannot do is understand what you read.
Helioseismology

The three different kinds of waves that helioseismologists measure or look for are: acoustic, gravity, and surface gravity waves. These three waves generate p modes, g modes, and f modes, respectively, as resonant modes of oscillation because the Sun acts as a resonant cavity. There are about 10^7 p and f modes alone. [Harvey, 1995, pp. 33]. Each oscillation mode is sampling different parts of the solar interior. The spectrum of the detected oscillations arises from modes with periods ranging from about 1.5 minutes to about 20 minutes and with horizontal wavelengths of between less then a few thousand kilometers to the length of the solar globe [Gough and Toomre, p. 627, 1991].
...
Why does the Sun act as a resonant cavity? Acoustic waves become trapped in a region bounded on top by a large density drop near the surface, and bounded on the bottom by an increase in sound speed that refracts a downward propagating wave back toward the surface. A standing wave is created.

(emphasis added)
The web page is very careful to state that the Sun acts as a resonant cavity. In other words it can be modelled as if is was a a resonant cavity.

This is a symptom that we often see from cranks. Their ignorance leads them to think that a model is the thing itself. So you are just deluding yourself that using a resonant cavity model means that teh Sun is an actual resonant cavity as in electronic devices.

I also see that you are imitating Micheal Mozina's delusion about running difference images being actual picures.
I thought that you were smarter but obviously I was wrong

 

[CaveDave]

...
My model is a fully iron shell or solid. Rigid as shown in the difference images.
...
The surface is as you see it.
It is just like a cathode glow with thermionic emission, as in the lab.
...
It acts like a transformer in that it transforms the background energy of the universe into "electricity" that manifests at the surface as electrical discharges.
...
No liquid involved(I'm pretty sure). Plasma discharges. I have seen the tsunami. I think that is a surface wave phenomena that shows up in the photosphere because it is a layered plasma.

Proving once again that you have absolutely NO understanding of the subject.

Pure fantasy.

Helioseismology
Quote:

The three different kinds of waves that helioseismologists measure or look for are: acoustic, gravity, and surface gravity waves. These three waves generate p modes, g modes, and f modes, respectively, as resonant modes of oscillation because the Sun acts as a resonant cavity. There are about 10^7 p and f modes alone. [Harvey, 1995, pp. 33]. Each oscillation mode is sampling different parts of the solar interior. The spectrum of the detected oscillations arises from modes with periods ranging from about 1.5 minutes to about 20 minutes and with horizontal wavelengths of between less then a few thousand kilometers to the length of the solar globe [Gough and Toomre, p. 627, 1991].
...
Why does the Sun act as a resonant cavity? Acoustic waves become trapped in a region bounded on top by a large density drop near the surface, and bounded on the bottom by an increase in sound speed that refracts a downward propagating wave back toward the surface. A standing wave is created.

How could the sun be a resonant cavity with harmonics unless it was????
Not a decreasing density ball of plasma.
The first models of the sun had no allowance for this discovery.

The term "resonant cavity" in this usage doesn't mean the sun *has* a cavity within it, just the modes of oscillation follow similar principles.
Did you not catch the line:
"Acoustic waves become trapped in a region bounded on top by a large density drop near the surface, and bounded on the bottom by an increase in sound speed that refracts a downward propagating wave back toward the surface." ?
This is similar to the way acoustic waves can become channeled between layers of different acoustic refractive index in the body of the Earth, or between different water (temperature and salinity) layers in the ocean, or how fiber optics keep light waves confined with variable refractive indices of the material.

But since I already know what a cavity resonator is(hollow shell) I just say that my model already fits. I dont have to tune anything(maybe shell thickness). Its pure science.

But see, you DON'T know NEARLY as much as you imagine you do; you need to go back and cover all the basics before you will have any idea how far wrong you are.

I'm sure I can make up a model and fine tune it to match observations as is done in science commonly these days. I dont do science like that, or at least try not to.

Which, sadly for you, only emphasizes how pitifully out of your depth you have wandered.


Cheers,

Dave

 

[dafydd]

I'm sure I can make up a model and fine tune it to match observations as is done in science commonly these days. I dont do science like that, or at least try not to.

What are you doing here then? And thank you for explaining that a cavity resonator is a hollow shell,none of us knew that,lucky you were here.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Iron's quite ductile, isn't it? I was just wondering how large a hollow iron sphere could be before it ceased to be rigid enough and collapsed under its own gravity. Don't really know where to begin, though.

 

[HansMustermann]

My science teacher at The Junior Research Group of the Max Planck Society says that they fit the model to the observation.


That to me is not science that I can hang my hat on.

Right. So you're not into REAL science. Got that.

I'm sure I can make up a model and fine tune it to match observations as is done in science commonly these days. I dont do science like that, or at least try not to.

Right. You don't do REAL science. Got that.

But since I already know what a cavity resonator is(hollow shell) I just say that my model already fits. I dont have to tune anything(maybe shell thickness). Its pure science.

Aye, it's much easier when you can just SAY that your BS idiocy already fits, instead of actually doing the actual work.

 

[sol invictus]

I'm sure I can make up a model and fine tune it to match observations as is done in science commonly these days.

Instead, you've made up a model that utterly fails to match observations. Congratulations.

I dont do science like that, or at least try not to.

You've succeeded in that at least.

 

[X]

Iron's quite ductile, isn't it? I was just wondering how large a hollow iron sphere could be before it ceased to be rigid enough and collapsed under its own gravity. Don't really know where to begin, though.

Interesting question.

As for where to begin, I suggest you figure out the minimum thickness a sphere of iron would have to be, dependant on diameter. At some point, I imagine you'll either wind up with a solid sphere, or a limit, but it's just a guess. I'd have to look into the equations to be certain.

I probably won't get around to it though.

But it shouldn't be hard. If you can find the right equations...

 

[Perpetual Student]

Hang on to your seat, Perpetual Student. This is going to be good. Michael is going to show us all, finally, exactly how a running difference image/video is made. He will start with one of the 171Å or 195Å videos from the STEREO, TRACE, or SOHO program, apply his process, and the result will be very much the same as those created by the professionals who create those graphs for NASA and LMSAL.

Then he will explain how the finished graph shows features on a surface he claims exists below the photosphere even though the data used to create his image/video was gathered from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere.

You see, he claims to be qualified to analyze running difference images. He claims to understand their construction and what they represent. He claims that these images and videos are evidence of his crackpot notion because, as he claims, they show a solid surface. His claim to be qualified has been challenged, not just here but years ago on the BAUT forum and others. He has boldly asserted his claims to be true, but not once in all these years has he demonstrated the truth of his claims.

I'm sure that if he considers himself a legitimate scientist he will now be more than happy to put aside our concerns about his qualifications and actually show us that he is right and we are wrong. Maybe he can go to this page at the STEREO web site and download this video (171profile_zm_best.mov), for example. Then he can process it into a running difference video.

The result of his effort will of course show features thousands of kilometers below any of the data shown in the original video itself. His running difference video will look very much like the ones made by LMSAL and NASA, and not like a piece of crap made by applying the "Difference Clouds", contrast, and brightness filters in PhotoShop like the ones he tried to pass off as running difference images already...




I see you brought some , Perpetual Student. You might want to pull up a comfortable chair. There's a prospective Nobel Prize winning scientist just about to come in here, finally after 5 years of people asking him to, and after 5 years of him badgering and taunting other people to do it, finally he's going to explain this stuff so we can see that he's not just hallucinating when he claims to see surface features in those running difference images on the front page of his web site!

Or not...

​

Well, so far it appears that we have another retreat by MM. Without a doubt, eventually he will appear on another thread to start over again with any one of his "looks like a bunny"* theories. He is the ultimate phoenix of crack-pot physics!

* Nice description, GeeMack!

 

[dafydd]

How old is brantc? 12?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Interesting question.

As for where to begin, I suggest you figure out the minimum thickness a sphere of iron would have to be, dependant on diameter. At some point, I imagine you'll either wind up with a solid sphere, or a limit, but it's just a guess.

Yeah, I can imagine an iron shell which was too big to be stable might crush itself; the iron flowing rather like squashed clay. It seems to me that, as its radius decreased, the thickness of the shell must increase, so the pressure would increase as it shrank. So if it started to fail, it wouldn't stop - the shell would compress down to a solid sphere. (Am I missing something obvious there?)

When it comes to plugging in some numbers, we get a helping hand from brantc back in post #128; He thinks the sun is approximately a 94,000,000 metre thick iron shell, with a radius of 695,000,000 metres and a mass of 7,874 kg m^-3.

 

[Myriad]

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/171surfaceshotsmall.JPG[/qimg]

I have a question about that image. It appears to show a solid surface with ridges and other terrain elevation features. These features can be seen in the image because they have distinct highlights and shadows that make them appear to be strongly and directionally illuminated, from a source located to the upper right of the area (since the highlights face that direction and the shadows are opposite) and from an elevation considerably above the plane of the surface (because the shadows are short).

My question for the iron sun proponents is, what's the source of that directional illumination?

If we're going to interpret the image based on what it looks like, it sure looks like there's a directionally localized light source brighter than the sun's surface shining on the sun's surface. What and where is that light source?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[tusenfem]

I have a question about that image. It appears to show a solid surface with ridges and other terrain elevation features. These features can be seen in the image because they have distinct highlights and shadows that make them appear to be strongly and directionally illuminated, from a source located to the upper right of the area (since the highlights face that direction and the shadows are opposite) and from an elevation considerably above the plane of the surface (because the shadows are short).

My question for the iron sun proponents is, what's the source of that directional illumination?

If we're going to interpret the image based on what it looks like, it sure looks like there's a directionally localized light source brighter than the sun's surface shining on the sun's surface. What and where is that light source?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Well, the light comes from the Sun, ofcourse, shining on its iron mountains below the photosphere.

 

[Myriad]

Well, the light comes from the Sun, ofcourse, shining on its iron mountains below the photosphere.

I figure that's their general answer, but how can light from the photosphere be so strongly directional?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[GeeMack]

Well, the light comes from the Sun, ofcourse, shining on its iron mountains below the photosphere.

I figure that's their general answer, but how can light from the photosphere be so strongly directional?

... and with all the light coming only from the right.

I'm sure we'll have Michael coming in here soon to explain in detail, for the first time in his life, how running difference images are made, what their purpose is, how that light source comes only from the right in all the graphs, and how a running difference image or video can show features on a surface far below the photosphere when all the data in the source images was gathered from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. I'm sure with his declared expertise he can analyze the source and angle of the light and use that to explain to us how high the mountains are and how deep the valleys are. We'll finally get answers to some of those nagging little quantitative details that he has so vigorously avoided addressing for the past several years.

Hell, that image processing technique itself should be worth a Nobel Prize. After all, being very much like a combination of remote viewing and x-ray vision, it defies all physics as we know it and it's all so easily accomplished by twiddling with a few filters in Michael's PhotoShop program. That is unless, you know, Michael doesn't really know what he claims to know about running difference images and his own home brewed versions aren't really, you know, running difference images like the ones made by LMSAL and NASA.