Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[GeeMack]

The previous question (Where did your "mountain ranges" go in Active Region 9143) also raises this question:

First asked 14 April 2010
Micheal Mozina,
You only cite one RD movie that shows "mountain ranges". We would expect that images of the Sun from any region when made into RD movies will magically reveal your "mountain ranges".
So you will have as a competent scientist tested this .

He only figured out how to make a running difference image this past weekend.

 

[GeeMack]

What is "opaque" in your opinion, and what makes it "opaque" to the 171A and 195A wavelengths?

Opaque means no light at any wavelength can get through. Any wavelength would include 171Å and 195Å. What makes it opaque is the density of the plasma.

What besides heliosiesmology and solar satellite imagery would you suggest I use?

Solar satellite imagery does not, and cannot show a solid surface because it cannot see anything below the photosphere. And helioseismology actually does more damage to your myth. It shows clearly that there is not a solid surface. Looks like you're just out of luck.

 

[Reality Check]

Just how high are your "mountain ranges"

This issue of observing these events at the limb of the Sun has been explained to Michael many times. It's oddly interesting that he simply ignores it, but it makes sense if it's because those particular facts are inconvenient to his faith in the solid surface Sun myth. You see, observing solar activity straight on and the same activity at the limb is how we know that the data used to create those 171Å source images comes from the corona. It's how we know that nothing in a running difference image made from those EIT sources comes from below the photosphere. None of it.

I was fairly sure that this basic bit of science would have been pointed out to Micheal Mozina many times before.

It is amazing what kind of silliness you can get if you look at his web site. Tim Thompson's Active Region 9143 & "Mountains" on the Sun post mentioned it and I had another look. On the first page he has the AR 9143 image with his mountain ranges. But I had never noticed the image below (it may be new). The caption is "This "running Difference" image of the sun's surface was captured by SOHO. This NASA image was taken on May 27th 2005 at 19:13 using the 195A filter that is sensitive to iron ion emissions. These same complex visible surface structures are visible even days and weeks later."
So we have the same ignorance of the fact that the 195A filter is capturing light from the corona.

However the 2 images provide yet another blow to is idea.
Micheal Mozina,
The first RD image shows your illusionary "mountain ranges" in a small region of the Sun's surface. In theory you could work out how high the "mountains" are from the shadows.
The second RD image shows your illusionary "mountain ranges" over all the Sun's surface. In theory you could work out how high the "mountains" are from the shadows.

First asked 14 April 2010
The first problem is that there are no light sources for the second image! It is an image of the entire Sun.
So where do the shadows come from?

First asked 14 April 2010
The major problem is that the shadows in each image are enormously different in size.
Why do your "mountain ranges" seem to be an order of magnitude higher in the second image?

 

[GeeMack]

[...] However the 2 images provide yet another blow to is idea.
Micheal Mozina,
The first RD image shows your illusionary "mountain ranges" in a small region of the Sun's surface. In theory you could work out how high the "mountains" are from the shadows.
The second RD image shows your illusionary "mountain ranges" over all the Sun's surface. In theory you could work out how high the "mountains" are from the shadows.

You absolutely could. You could take those images of what Michael believes are mountains and valleys, reconstruct a similar terrain in any decent 3D modeling program, mess with the location, angle, and intensity of light, and determine with some reasonable accuracy how tall the mountains and how deep the valleys. This very idea has been proposed to Michael on more than one occasion, but as simple as it might be, he ignores it. He'd rather stick to his unsupported assertions and cling to his strategy of badmouthing and belittling those of us who offer legitimate, reasonable, evidenced criticism of his crackpot conjecture. Odd behavior for a Nobel Prize winner wannabe? Well if he's really got the stuff, it certainly is.

 

[sol invictus]

Suppose we kept flashing the surface from above with bright lights, back and forth from different angles over time. Would we not be able to "pick out the persistent surface patterns" in the RD images?

Maybe, although there would be all sorts of artifacts (shadows, bright and dark areas, etc.). It would be an extremely poor way to do it, because you're subtracting away the most obvious and persistent features.

The right way to do it is stack images (which will cancel out lighting variations), or just look at the images themselves. It really makes no sense to take RD images for that purpose, and if the features you see are only present in RD images, they aren't a solid surface.

But of course we already knew that, because based on centuries of accumulated theory and experiment in chemistry, phase transitions, thermodynamics, and materials science - it's completely impossible for the sun to have a solid surface.

 

[brantc]

Finding out what is really going on with solar models and observations took some digging.

But I think I did get to the bottom of it "all".

The transition layer is where SM(standard model) says it is(1 point). 2000Km above the surface of the sun.

Before TRACE the observations consisted of associating flows with areas per time. That was because that was the limit of their resolution. So they had good x-y determination but not good Z(depth).

TRACE can see 1 arc second on the limb, ~759 km.

Here is the TRACE calibration paper from 1999 when they were trying to remove cross channel contamination....

Page 9 or 359 has an image of what they called "the ghost Limb" taken in the UV.
http://wwwsolar.nrl.navy.mil/rockets/vault/pubs/trace.pdf

The ghost limb is 2 arc seconds above the "true" limb. If you read the text you might try to say "Its an artifact" or what ever. But if you go to this paper they refer to the ghost limb in the Handy paper in connection with a flare event and a image of the event in the ghost limb.

"Panel b shows the prominence as loop-shaped emission at 1216 °A, where the bright spot below the northern leg is, most likely, an UV continuum rightening on the ghost limb that appears 2′′ above the true limb (Handy et al. 1999, their Fig. 5)."
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0902/0902.1805v2.pdf

That ghost limb is 2000km above something. and that something shows up in the UV.

I say its the ghost limb is the transition layer. That means the photosphere is 1 arc second(100km) below the the transition layer in the images. This makes sense since it should not show up in a 1200 image.

"Correlating the 1216 and 1600 Å images to one another places the 1600 Å limb squarely on this ghost limb"

Yes, that would place the photosphere on the ghost limb if you thought that it was a ghost limb and not the transition region.

This is exactly why there is the confusion between heliosphere data and photosphere observations. Because they are sticking to the model that has been fitted to the data from day one.

The observations are correct. And they do make sense if you use a different model.

1. The observation is that the photosphere is at some diameter. It is.
2. The heliospheric observation is that the true surface of the sun is below the photosphere. It is.
3. The TRACE observation is that the transition layer is 2 arc seconds(2000Km) above the lower limb as imaged at 1200A. It is.
4. Traces observations that events happen on this ghost limb establishing its existence.
5. Subtracting the diameter of the sun at the photosphere with the TRACE observations and heliospheric observations says we are seeing the surface of the sun in 1200A.

The lower limb is the true surface of the sun. Its below the photosphere. And its visible in UV.

This is the iron surface below the photosphere.

Last thing is to account for where the energy comes from across the spectrum.
I will show that very little heat leakage "backwards" into the photosphere region combined with an acceleration by electric field allows for the existence of an iron sun.

 

[brantc]

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?

The problem is the standard model of the sun. Not the observations.

My photosphere absorption graph is not at odds with physics. You can make your own at TOPS opacity database using numbers from wiki.

My description of the photosphere is strictly based on physics, the plasma physics of the electrical cathode.

My model of what the sun is made out(iron) and how it is powered(electricity) is at odds with the astronomy community.

My model of gravity to allow the iron sun is at odds with the physics community even though they really dont have anything better.

I think that a Le Sage type of gravity is correct.

 

[Reality Check]

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?

The difference is that science does have a model of the Sun which mostly works (the coronal heating problem is one gap to be filled).
brantc and Micheal Mozina do not have a model.
brantc has a vague idea that is easily shown to be false:

1. The photosphere is at ~6000 K, temperature is observed to increase with depth to ~9400 at about 500 km is observed thus his iron shell below the photosphere is at at least 9400 K and a plasma.
2. Observations of the Sun's vibrations give us the location and velocity of convection currents under photosphere and this rules out any solid surface.
3. There is the delusion he seems to share with MM that this surface can be seen in images that can only see light from the corona.
4. etc (see the 30-odd questions for MM and handful of questions for brantc).

 

[Reality Check]

My photosphere absorption graph is not at odds with physics. You can make your own at TOPS opacity database using numbers from wiki.

As I stated before: You have just done half the job.
The opacity calculated does not mean that the photosphere is transparent.
It means that light at that wavelength is effectively absorbed by a certain amount of plasma. Now you have to show that the height of the photosphere above your iron shell is insufficient to do this.

My model of gravity to allow the iron sun is at odds with the physics community even though they really dont have anything better.

You have stated no model of gravity.
The physics community does have something better - General Relativeiy.

I think that a Le Sage type of gravity is correct.

And exactly how does "a Le Sage type of gravity" prevent your iron shell from vaporizing in > 9400 K temperatures or collapsing under its own weight?

 

[Toke]

What is "opaque" in your opinion, and what makes it "opaque" to the 171A and 195A wavelengths?

Opaque as in not letting light though?

What besides heliosiesmology and solar satellite imagery would you suggest I use?

Helioseismology sounds like a good idea to learn about the inside of the sun.
As it does not support your ideas, perhaps you should try dowsing instead?

 

[CaveDave]

...
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.

I presume that Michael, even though ISTR he claims to have some expertise with Electronics or even Engineering, has never been introduced to the well-known and widely used techniques of signal averaging.
It is often a built in software feature in modern digital storage oscilloscopes (DSO), and is common in any stimulus-response type testing where the response is deeply buried in noise, up to and including measuring evoked potential in neurological and neuroscience studies and sonar and radar.

It could be directly applied to two dimensional images by pixel-by-pixel add-then-normalize methods through the sequence. Simple to do on a computer.

And in all your "doing them right" you apparently still can't explain what process is applied to each pixel in each source image to generate the results in the output running difference graph. If you did you'd understand that the things you see in those images are not surface features. But just to make sure you get every possible chance to explain yourself...

Of course not!

As I said before, Mozina is a Pixel-Kiddie. (He stares at images/sequences for hours on end until he can "See the Bunny").

Mozina is a Script-Kiddie. (He spent/wasted DAYS after GM's challenge on acquiring/setting up a new machine and enormous software suite with all the bells and whistles and yet had to follow someone else's script to generate his first RD sequence. He told us all what he had to do.).

That's the first bush league mistake on your part. Brighter has nothing to do with "closer" and "further away" and everything to do with "temperature" and "current flow". The current flow heats the plasma to millions of degrees. It's *hot* and typically hottest in the brightest areas of the image.

I believe that the "closer" and "further away" he mentioned were in the FREQUENCY domain relative to the filter passband, not the spatial domain, as you naively assume. I thought you knew Electronics!
ETA: An emission curve such as blackbody distribution being "closer to" or "further from" "centered" in the filter passband (as a direct consequence of temperature) would effectively show as "brighter" or "dimmer" as a function of the peak's centering on the PB.

Idiot.


Cheers,

Dave

 

[Tubbythin]

Well, sort of, but only in a highly overly simplistic manner. The coronal loops are the light source of the original images and they change over time. They produce the light we observe and that light reflects off of "stuff", including that flying stuff in the atmosphere right after the CME event that moves from the lower right toward the upper left of the image.

As Sol says, even if this did work (I doubt it very strongly) its an incredibly stupid way of doing things and you'd probably be better off doing nothing.
And of course the Sun is far too hot to have a solid iron surface.

 

[dafydd]

As Sol says, even if this did work (I doubt it very strongly) its an incredibly stupid way of doing things and you'd probably be better off doing nothing.
And of course the Sun is far too hot to have a solid iron surface.

It's super nano iron.

 

[GeeMack]

Suppose we kept flashing the surface from above with bright lights, back and forth from different angles over time. Would we not be able to "pick out the persistent surface patterns" in the RD images?

That is a post hoc rationalization in an apparent attempt to cover a serious deficiency in your understanding. There are no bright flashing lights involved in creating a running difference image. There are two source images, neither of which has anything to do with "flashing the surface from above with bright lights, back and forth from different angles over time". Each source image is a measurement of thermal characteristics. Typically 171Å light is showing us where the corona is around a million degrees Kelvin. That's the corona, from several thousand to tens of thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, nowhere near your imaginary iron shell.

The brightness of any one pixel in the 171Å source image is caused by that filter's sensitivity to light in roughly the million degree range. Dimmer pixels are cooler or hotter. All the light comes from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. The source images are gathered much like a regular camera gathers light for a snapshot. They're still images taken with no "flashing the surface from above with bright lights, back and forth from different angles over time". To suggest that would be a gross misrepresentation of how it actually works.

To make a running difference image, a second 171Å source image is used as well as the one described above. It was taken some amount of time after that first one. Another still image, no flashing, no angles, no back and forth. All the pixels in that second image are caused by the same thing as the ones in the first, light at 171Å typically generated in plasma around a million degrees. Hotter plasma won't show in the image. Cooler plasma won't show. (Brighter does not mean hotter. It means closer to the maximum sensitivity of the filter.) And just like the first image, all the light comes from several thousand kilometers up to tens of thousands of kilometers above the photosphere.

So we take these two images, both created by 171Å light, all of which comes from the corona, neither of which is anything like "flashing the surface from above with bright lights, back and forth from different angles over time", and we do a simple mathematical comparison. Each pixel's brightness is represented as a numerical value. (Yes, this stuff is quantitative regardless of Michael's dreaded avoidance of that part of science.) Pixel A1 in Image 1 is compared to pixel A1 in Image 2. The result of that calculation, simply the mathematical difference between the values of the pixels, becomes pixel A1 in the output, the running difference graph. Move on and do exactly the same thing to pixel A2, then A3, then A4... and eventually the output of the process is completed.

What we end up with is a graphical representation of a mathematical comparison of the values of the corresponding pixels in a pair of source images. It's a graph, a chart, a way to visually represent a change in brightness between the pixels in the original images. The running difference image is no longer a picture of anything physical. You can't see stuff in it. You can't see things in it. No surface, no hills, no valleys, nothing. Nothing will appear in the output that didn't appear in one of those source images and change in the other.

There. Every pixel in every running difference graph. Explained. Every single last blessed pixel. Explained. In plain English that checks to about a 9th grade reading level.

Now if I'm wrong -- which, by the way, would make the people at LMSAL wrong, and the people at NASA, all the people involved with the SOHO and STEREO and TRACE solar research projects, among others, who work with these images every single day -- if I'm wrong, and if there's a better way to describe it, quantitatively of course, Michael has yet to attempt it. For some reason he refuses to explain why, for example, the pixel in column 418 row 114 has the value that it has in the first image, why that pixel in the second image has its value, and how those values, after doing a simple mathematical comparison, can suddenly become part of an actual picture of something that would have been impossible to see in either of the source images.

And my prediction is: We will never see his pixel by pixel explanation because Michael does not have the qualifications he claims to have regarding his understanding of satellite imagery in general and running difference graphs in particular. His use of those very first images on his web site as evidence for his crackpot solid surfaced Sun conjecture is fraud. And anyone who doesn't like it can sue me.

 

[sol invictus]

To make a running difference image, a second 171Å source image is used as well as the one described above. It was taken some amount of time after that first one. Another still image, no flashing, no angles, no back and forth. All the pixels in that second image are caused by the same thing as the ones in the first, light at 171Å typically generated in plasma around a million degrees. Hotter plasma won't show in the image. Cooler plasma won't show. (Brighter does not mean hotter. It means closer to the maximum sensitivity of the filter.) And just like the first image, all the light comes from several thousand kilometers up to tens of thousands of kilometers above the photosphere.

So we take these two images, both created by 171Å light, all of which comes from the corona, neither of which is anything like "flashing the surface from above with bright lights, back and forth from different angles over time", and we do a simple mathematical comparison. Each pixel's brightness is represented as a numerical value. (Yes, this stuff is quantitative regardless of Michael's dreaded avoidance of that part of science.) Pixel A1 in Image 1 is compared to pixel A1 in Image 2. The result of that calculation, simply the mathematical difference between the values of the pixels, becomes pixel A1 in the output, the running difference graph. Move on and do exactly the same thing to pixel A2, then A3, then A4... and eventually the output of the process is completed.

Do you know what the time separation of the two images is, and how they are aligned before the difference is taken?

 

[GeeMack]

Do you know what the time separation of the two images is, and how they are aligned before the difference is taken?

In the video I made...

​

... the source images were from the 171Å video posted on April 8, 2010, on the SOHO movies of the day page. The frames that made up that video were mostly at six hour intervals from 01:00UTC on February 2, 2010 until 19:00UTC on April 8, 2010. The frames are obviously aligned with the disc of the Sun overlaid in place. To the best of my knowledge the images were acquired from a stationary location and all the apparent rotation is indeed the rotation of the Sun.

Interesting to note that several frames in the original video are missing due to incomplete data. The result is that there are a few places where the running difference video seems to jump to a much higher contrast then back to its normal, smoother appearance. What's happening there, of course, is the difference comparison is being made between source images which are further apart.

So what is not happening? Well for one thing, those mountains you see in all those running difference images, the ones that look like they're growing by some massive amount then returning to their previous size? Those mountains are not growing and shrinking. (Hint, Michael: They're not mountains.)

Wow. Imagine that. I can actually control the height of the mountains on the Sun by dropping a few frames from an original series of 171Å source images. I can also do it across the entire video by creating a greater offset, comparing original frames that are more than a single frame apart.

I repeat, because this is important... The apparent height of the mountains on the Sun's surface can be manipulated by changing the amount of time between the source images used for the comparison. The optical illusion can be changed that easily. And...

If I were to run the calculation on each frame prior to the base image for each comparison, rather than using the frame after the base image, I can make all those highlights and shadows on all those mountains come from the other direction!

Probably much as you surmised.

Hope this answers your question.

ETA: I added a link to the running difference video made from the 195Å version of essentially the same source. The original data for this one was mostly in intervals of roughly a half hour. It begins March 25, 2010, and goes through April 8. You'll notice there are more obvious jumps to that "higher mountain" illusion because there are more individual missing frames in the original video and/or there are places where more than one frame is missing. This obviously will make the difference greater for the comparison.

Here's the video made from the 195Å sources...

​

 

[sol invictus]

In the video I made...

​

... the source images were from the 171Å video posted on April 8, 2010, on the SOHO movies of the day page. The frames that made up that video were mostly at six hour intervals from 01:00UTC on February 2, 2010 until 19:00UTC on April 8, 2010. The frames are obviously aligned with the disc of the Sun overlaid in place. To the best of my knowledge the images were acquired from a stationary location and all the apparent rotation is indeed the rotation of the Sun.

Interesting to note that several frames in the original video are missing due to incomplete data. The result is that there are a few places where the running difference video seems to jump to a much higher contrast then back to its normal, smoother appearance. What's happening there, of course, is the difference comparison is being made between source images which are further apart.

So what is not happening? Well for one thing, those mountains you see in all those running difference images, the ones that look like they're growing by some massive amount then returning to their previous size? Those mountains are not growing and shrinking. (Hint, Michael: They're not mountains.)

Wow. Imagine that. I can actually control the height of the mountains on the Sun by dropping a few frames from an original series of 171Å source images. I can also do it across the entire video by creating a greater offset, comparing original frames that are more than a single frame apart.

I repeat, because this is important... The apparent height of the mountains on the Sun's surface can be manipulated by changing the amount of time between the source images used for the comparison. The optical illusion can be changed that easily. And...

If I were to run the calculation on each frame prior to the base image for each comparison, rather than using the frame after the base image, I can make all those highlights and shadows on all those mountains come from the other direction!

Probably much as you surmised.

Hope this answers your question.

Yes, thank you.

The sun rotates every 25 days, and the SOHO satellite orbits it once every earth year (so we can more or less neglect SOHO's motion). That means that it takes a point on the edge of the disk in a SOHO image about 12 days to migrate to the corresponding point on the other side. So in 6 hours, it moves about 2% of the way across.

Therefore if there were persistent features on the surface, the running difference images would reveal a kind of rind or edge of them that should gradually drift across the disk, arriving at the opposite edge after at most 50 frames. These features would remain always at exactly the same "latitude", and with exactly fixed distance between them.

For a feature with a circular cross section, in each frame of the RD movie you'd see a double crescent moon shape forming roughly a ring or figure 8 (imagine two disks overlaid, canceling out where they overlap). That ring would drift across the image on a straight latitude line as the RD movie plays, moving 2% of the disk width at that latitude each frame. A skipped frame should make the feature into more of a figure 8 and less of a ring, and larger (possibly much larger if it was a feature with small angular size). If it's fixed, 12 days after it rotates out of view the same feature should emerge again on the visible face of the sun at the same latitude.

So one very, very simple test Michael's "idea" is to make sure all these supposedly solid features always remain at exactly the same latitude. I'm sure people that study sunspots, etc. have looked at that, since it's probably quite interesting to know how long sunspots persist and how they move.

 

[Dancing David]

Suppose we kept flashing the surface from above with bright lights, back and forth from different angles over time. Would we not be able to "pick out the persistent surface patterns" in the RD images?

How thick and opaque is the photosphere?

 

[Dancing David]

The problem is the standard model of the sun. Not the observations.

My photosphere absorption graph is not at odds with physics. You can make your own at TOPS opacity database using numbers from wiki.

My description of the photosphere is strictly based on physics, the plasma physics of the electrical cathode.

My model of what the sun is made out(iron) and how it is powered(electricity) is at odds with the astronomy community.

My model of gravity to allow the iron sun is at odds with the physics community even though they really dont have anything better.

I think that a Le Sage type of gravity is correct.

And the currents for the sun come from where?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Opaque as in not letting light though?

Which light? All light? Every single wavelength regardless of the energy state? That's a nice trick for a "surface" that's thinner than the atmosphere of the Earth at sea level, and supposedly composed primarily of hydrogen and helium. It's not "opaque" to every single wavelength, not equally, and not the iron ion wavelengths as Brantc demonstrated with the TOPS data.

There's not "magic surface" of light plasma that blocks every single wavelength in the first millimeter of the photosphere.

Helioseismology sounds like a good idea to learn about the inside of the sun.

Indeed. It's the one sure way to be able to "see" under the surface. The find a significant subsurface stratification process going on at about .995R where there is supposed to be an open (and flowing) convection zone according to gas model theory.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111

As it does not support your ideas, perhaps you should try dowsing instead?

Actually it does support my idea, so I'll just stick with the theory.

Both the RD and Doppler images show "persistent features" under the photosphere that have lifespans and "rigidity" unlike any kind of ordinary plasma. It's "rigid"" and persistent even in the presence of a huge CME in that RD LMSAL image. It's present in the tsunami video too and is completely unaffected by the wave in the photosphere. The same technology that reveals the wave in the photosphere also reveals rigid features below the photosphere too.