Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[sol invictus]

Over what timescale? Certainly not the timeline we see in that Gold RD image from LMSAL.

Assuming "RD" stands for "running difference", that was made by more or less the exact opposite of the type of image processing I just described - so why do you ask?

Are you going to respond to my post?

Let me ask this - suppose I took a series of photographs of the Himalayas from a vantage point high overhead, on a day with some scattered cloud cover, then made a RD movie out of them. Do you think that would be a good way to see the topography of the mountains?

I'll answer the question for you - absolutely not! What you'd see is the moving clouds only, and none of the fixed features. The RD images reveal changes in the original images (which in my example occur when clouds move), not fixed features of them. Making RD images is exactly the wrong thing to do to look for solid features.

The right thing to do is to add many images together; that's a powerful technique that's sometimes used in astronomy to reveal faint but persistent features that would otherwise be lost in noise. Why don't you try that, Michael?

 

[GeeMack]

You haven't shown us your personally created RD solar images GM nor have you explained exactly how you created it yet. Before we move on, let's see *YOUR* work.

Unless there's some cryptic meaning I'm missing there, that doesn't answer this...

Now, how about you explain the method you've used to take data obtained from the Sun's corona, thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, and somehow process that into something that supposedly shows a solid surface below the photosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hmmm it seems that this discussion is starting to hang on a single piece of evidence.

It will move on now, I've seen to that.

However I'd like to hear the other reasons Brantc and MM feel we should abandon the current laws of physics for their model.

Brantc used the laws of physics to demonstrate that 171A light would not be "blocked" by an "opaque" layer of the photosphere. In fact 171A light (in blue) penetrates all the way to the surface, far below the photosphere, whereas the yellow x-ray light as seen by Yohkoh, is in fact blocked/absorbed by the photosphere.

http://www.solarviews.com/cap/sun/moss8.htm

After all, no new scientific model hangs on a single example or technique.
So, with that in mind

FYI, thanks for being "fair" and "patient" while the rest of the crew here seems to have gone over the edge.

I agree, nothing hangs on a single piece of evidence.

Why does the earth, with far less mass than the sun, not have an internal iron shell, but rather an iron core? How does your new model account for that?

Not really. I simply "accept" that as being true based on A) satellite observation of a "rigid surface" and B) the measured mass of the sun. I "account" for it as I account for that water shell in the video I cited earlier:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Iax3wNqktA

The surface of the sun acts like the surface of the water, holding it in place, and keeping it from collapsing into the core. I'm sure the core is "pressurized" and very hot as well.

Holy cow you have a long list of questions. Let me catch up a bit a work and and work on the rest of your list.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Unless there's some cryptic meaning I'm missing there, that doesn't answer this...

What's with all the backpeddling? Scared now or what? It looks to me like you spent your whole frigging weekend berating me even while I was busy doing your bidding and downloading *GIGABYTES* of SSW and SSWDB files so I could create the images you asked for. What did you use to create your images, and lets see you produce those images you claimed to have personally produced and emailed to someone already?

 

[GeeMack]

What's with all the backpeddling? Scared now or what? It looks to me like you spent your whole frigging weekend berating me even while I was busy doing your bidding and downloading *GIGABYTES* of SSW and SSWDB files so I could create the images you asked for. What did you use to create your images, and lets see you produce those images you claimed to have personally produced and emailed to someone already?

So can we take it that you intend to ignore this issue?...

Now, how about you explain the method you've used to take data obtained from the Sun's corona, thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, and somehow process that into something that supposedly shows a solid surface below the photosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I already told you how I made it. I learned how a long time ago in part from Dr. Neal Hurlburt, you know, the guy responsible for image acquisition, processing, and analysis over there at LMSAL, the place where they operate the TRACE solar research program, the place where you got your "gold" running difference graph?

Here's an example that probably took me about 10 minutes to make....

​

You mean to tell me that you used IDL software to create that image?

 

[GeeMack]

What's with all the backpeddling? Scared now or what? It looks to me like you spent your whole frigging weekend berating me even while I was busy doing your bidding and downloading *GIGABYTES* of SSW and SSWDB files so I could create the images you asked for. What did you use to create your images, and lets see you produce those images you claimed to have personally produced and emailed to someone already?

What a waste of time. You said you'd be using the daily movie from the SOHO site. I did. It was only a few megs. It downloaded while I was refilling my coffee and I processed it into a running difference video before the coffee was cold in the cup.

I went mushroom hunting while you were downloading and making 35 measly frames of video?

​

 

[D'rok]

If y'all can take a break from your pissing match for a minute or two, Tim has a substantial post here that requires Michael's attention:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5818396#post5818396

 

[Michael Mozina]

What a waste of time.

Not for me actually. I have a lot of new tools now that I can use to stuff images down your throat with.

You said you'd be using the daily movie from the SOHO site. I did.

No, you *INSISTED* I do something your way. I'm not your monkey on a string.

It was only a few megs. It downloaded while I was refilling my coffee and I processed it into a running difference video before the coffee was cold in the cup.

And what software did you used to process the image?

 

[GeeMack]

You mean to tell me that you used IDL software to create that image?

I didn't tell you that at all. I told you how I processed it. I could have taken each pixel of each frame and manually done the math and manually created a new image in PhotoShop for all it matters. The method and the results are exactly as was described to me by Dr. Hurlburt from LMSAL.

By the way, who was it that explained to you how running difference videos were created? Oh, yes, that would be me! Maybe you'll say, "Thank you," someday?

Oh, and you still seem to be ignoring this part of the issue...

Now, how about you explain the method you've used to take data obtained from the Sun's corona, thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, and somehow process that into something that supposedly shows a solid surface below the photosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I didn't tell you that at all.

Then what exactly makes your images "real" and my STEREO images "fake" again?

By the way, who was it that explained to you how running difference videos were created? Oh, yes, that would be me!

My aren't you just full of yourself? FYI, Stein Vidar Hagfors Haugan at NASA was the one that "explained" RD images to me.

Maybe you'll say, "Thank you," someday?

Talk about delusional.

Oh, and you still seem to be ignoring this part of the issue...

Oh please! You've not produced one image to support your case. You haven't *explained* even *ONE* pixel of the Gold RD image in terms of solar processes that created it despite the fact you claimed to have "explained" every single pixel of every single frame of that specific image. You're so full of it!

Hell, I even used the very "difference" routine you cited from 2005 to create that image, whereas you probably used a "fake" subtraction routine.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If y'all can take a break from your pissing match for a minute or two, Tim has a substantial post here that requires Michael's attention:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5818396#post5818396

Ya, ya, give me a while to catch up will ya?

 

[D'rok]

Ya, ya, give me a while to catch up will ya?

C'mon man! Randi's million is riding on my prediction.

 

[GeeMack]

Not for me actually. I have a lot of new tools now that I can use to stuff images down your throat with.

I guess if that's what makes you happy. If I had a Nobel Prize waiting for me for some scientific breakthrough that shattered pretty much all of astrophysics as we know it, and all I had to do to get it was to actually come up with a shred of evidence to support my claim, I think I'd be working on that instead of threatening to stuff images down someone's throat.

Of course if you can't explain the graphs then they're pretty useless as "evidence" to support your crackpot claim that the Sun has a solid surface, aren't they?

No, you *INSISTED* I do something your way. I'm not your monkey on a string.

I didn't insist on anything. But your reading comprehension has been brought into question, so I'll let it go at that.

And what software did you used to process the image?

It's irrelevant.

Oh, do you figure to ever address this nagging little concern?...

Now, how about you explain the method you've used to take data obtained from the Sun's corona, thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, and somehow process that into something that supposedly shows a solid surface below the photosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

C'mon man! Randi's million is riding on my prediction.

Ok, but I want at least half.

 

[D'rok]

Ok, but I want at least half.

Done!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Umm.... ok......

Let me ask this - suppose I took a series of photographs of the Himalayas from a vantage point high overhead, on a day with some scattered cloud cover, then made a RD movie out of them. Do you think that would be a good way to see the topography of the mountains?

No, it would be a good way to watch the movement of the clouds and I'll bet they don't remain rigid during a nuclear bomb blowout in the atmosphere, something akin to the CME that is observable in that gold RD LMSAL image.

FYI folks, I have no idea how I'll ever get caught up. I'll resist the urge to respond to GM for awhile, but this is going to take time and I have work to do today.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

It will move on now, I've seen to that.



Brantc used the laws of physics to demonstrate that 171A light would not be "blocked" by an "opaque" layer of the photosphere. In fact 171A light (in blue) penetrates all the way to the surface, far below the photosphere, whereas the yellow x-ray light as seen by Yohkoh, is in fact blocked/absorbed by the photosphere.

Again, out of curiosity, how come brantc's explanation is at odds with those of the rest of the physics community and what are the mathematical difference between the models. Do yours work for other observations? Water stops blue light cold after not that much depth, does that show up in your alternate model?

Not really. I simply "accept" that as being true based on A) satellite observation of a "rigid surface" and B) the measured mass of the sun. I "account" for it as I account for that water shell in the video I cited earlier:

The surface of the sun acts like the surface of the water, holding it in place, and keeping it from collapsing into the core. I'm sure the core is "pressurized" and very hot as well.

Pressurized with what? How? Clearly not by the iron shell, as it is rigid and therefore exerts no significant internal pressure while also accounting for the majority of the mass of the sun, not leaving much room for anything to be inside. In fact, inside would, by current day physics be a near vacuum. Accounting and accepting are all nice and well, but if you wish to convince the rest of the world it would be nice if you have working mathematics and theories that:
A: explain the current behaviour of the sun
B: can also be used to explain the behaviour of other controlled tests

Now I'm not saying you don't have them, but so far you've not shown them, nor in any way posted them on your website

Holy cow you have a long list of questions. Let me catch up a bit a work and and work on the rest of your list.

Fair enough. As I said, my main interest is in how your (and brantc's) new physical laws work when applied to other systems. As mentioned, earth, but I guess any planet in the solar system will do, including the gas giants.
From my physics understanding, limited to what they teach you in the first two years of getting a chemistry masters, the current models explain very well how stars and planets are formed, including what drives them.

 

[GeeMack]

FYI folks, I have no idea how I'll ever get caught up. I'll resist the urge to respond to GM for awhile, but this is going to take time and I have work to do today.

Or really because you must ignore this...

Now, how about you explain the method you've used to take data obtained from the Sun's corona, thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, and somehow process that into something that supposedly shows a solid surface below the photosphere.

... because addressing it forces you to face the uncomfortable fact that your entire argument is worthless.

 

[sol invictus]

No, it would be a good way to watch the movement of the clouds

Good - I'm glad you acknowledge that. Static features cancel out of an RD image. That makes RD images or movies useless for imaging a solid surface - if it did have a solid surface and nothing time-dependent (like clouds) was obscuring it, the image would simply be blank.

If you want to uncover static features, you do the opposite of taking differences: you take sums - averages - of many stacked images. That cancels the random variations and enhances the persistent features.

Which raises the question - why in the world are you interpreting features of a RD image as solid surface elements?

Of course that's in addition to all the other questions that make your idea so totally cranky, but, well, it's another one.