Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, and when are you going to explain how images created using data from the corona

You have not and cannot demonstrate that these wavelengths originate *ABOVE* the photosphere as you claim. You *assume* their point of origin just like LMSAL did before they launched Trace and before they took a single image.

Your wispy thin plasma isn't dense enough to be "opaque". You're also basing your assumption of the abundance of various elements on your faith in a non mass separated model that can't possibly work, where iron supposedly stays mixed with hydrogen and helium stays mixed with lead and nickel.

If you don't listen to my answers, what's the point of asking me questions anyway? Are you just grandstanding or what? This isn't a "conversation" because you aren't listening to, nor responding to my actual answers.

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg

Have we seen this before? Yes we have!
Is Saturn the Sun?
First asked 14 July 2009
(Birkelands Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings but MM compares it to to the Sun).

​

 

[Reality Check]

How does your iron crust exist when there are convection currents moving through it

First asked 15 April 2010
Micheal Mozina,
GeeMack stated:

Helioseismology shows mass moving at over 1200 meters per second up, down, and sideways directly through that place where you fantasize the iron surface.

(a citation to the source would be nice GeeMack though I suspect that it is in one of the many physics textbooks that Micheal Mozina has never read)

How can an iron crust exist when a greater than 9400 K plasma is moving through it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Days would be sufficient.

And thank you for the clarification regarding where the high-energy photons in question are emitted.

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive1.html
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_1600_WL_000606_1500.gif

FYI, IMO the image above is a nice image of the coronal loops and their relationship to the photosphere. You can see the loops coming up and through the photosphere and also "dots" all along the surface that represent point sources of 171A light under the photosphere.

Proof (or at least strong support) of your hypotheses is then easily obtained. By tracking the most prominent surface features over time,

FYI, that was my first crude attempt with this RD movie and sequences of NASA RD images.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/running.htm

show that the centuries-old observation that the rotation rate of the sun's conventionally visible surface varies with latitude is not in fact the case for the solid surface that can be imaged underneath. Show a constant angular rate of rotation consistent with a rigid solid sphere.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Well, the intent of downloading the Solarsoft libraries was to start that process in a more professional manner. We'll see how it goes, but I like the results I see thus far, particularly in less active phases of the sun's cycle.

 

[Michael Mozina]

(a citation to the source would be nice GeeMack

Got one?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I understand why you focus on that bit Geemack, but like I said, Michael seems to claim quite a lot based on a few pictures that mainstream physicists do not interpret as mountains or permanent features on the sun.
So hence the questions. After all, I'd like to know how his version of physics explains all the things I mentioned. And how he goes from "I see a permanent feature" to "Therefore its an iron shell". After all there are more elements in nature, so why not a carbon shell, or a silicate shell?

I missed this one earlier too. Actually its not an "iron shell", that claim is actually their strawman. FYI, GM and RC spend an inordinate amount of time *MISREPRESENTING* my model. IMO it's composed of an an ordinary volcanic surface "crust", complete with silicates and carbon, etc.

 

[Reality Check]

You have not and cannot demonstrate that these wavelengths originate *ABOVE* the photosphere as you claim. You *assume* their point of origin just like LMSAL did before they launched Trace and before they took a single image.

You have not and cannot demonstrate that these wavelengths originate *BELOW* the photosphere as you claim. You *assume* their point of origin because you have a fantasy of a thermodynamically impossible iron crust.

Why is this crust thermodynamically impossible?
This has been explained to you many times over the years but here goes again:

• Consider a sphere made of any material or combination of materials.
• Place any energy source at the center of the sphere.
• Wait a while.

What is the resulting temperature distribution within the sphere?
The center of the sphere is hot. The temperature decreases as you approach the surface of the sphere. The surface of the sphere has the lowest temperature.
Thus if you measure the temperature of the surface then everything inside must be at a higher temperature.

Science has confirmed this with the Sun:

• The photosphere is at a temperature of ~6000 K
• The temperature is measured to increase with depth to ~9400 K at 500 km.

Why is the corona hotter than the photosphere?
The actual mechanism is unknown (coronal heating problem).
There is no thermodynamic problem with this because of one simple fact: the corona is physically different from the photosphere.
Photosphere

The photosphere of an astronomical object is the region from which externally received light originates. The term itself is derived from Ancient Greek roots, φῶς, φωτός/phos, photos meaning "light" and σφαῖρα/sphaira meaning "ball," in reference to the fact that it is a ball-shaped surface perceived to emit light. It extends into a star's surface until the gas becomes opaque, equivalent to an optical depth of approximately 2/3[1]. In other words, a photosphere is the deepest region of a luminous object, usually a star, that is transparent to photons of certain wavelengths

• Within the photosphere you have both conductive and radiative transfer of heat. Above the photosphere the radiative transfer of heat dominates.
• The photosphere has a density much greater then the chromosphere or corona.

NASA - Sun

• "The average density of the photosphere is less than one-millionth of a gram per cubic centimeter. This may seem to be an extremely low density, but there are tens of trillions to hundreds of trillions of individual particles in each cubic centimeter."
• "The density of the chromosphere is about 10 billion to 100 billion particles per cubic centimeter."
• "In the part of the corona nearest the solar surface, the temperature is about 1 million to 6 million K, and the density is about 100 million to 1 billion particles per cubic centimeter."

 

[GeeMack]

First asked 15 April 2010
Micheal Mozina,
GeeMack stated:

Helioseismology shows mass moving at over 1200 meters per second up, down, and sideways directly through that place where you fantasize the iron surface.

(a citation to the source would be nice GeeMack though I suspect that it is in one of the many physics textbooks that Micheal Mozina has never read)

The source was a paper by Alexander Kosovichev, one of Michael's own references. He posted the link in the SFN/Mozina discussion about 5 years ago (which incidentally he walked away from when the list of questions got too long, and when I demonstrated my expertise with graphics and he was unable to demonstrate that he had any). Kosovichev, a solar researcher at Stanford known for his work with helioseismology, developed cutaway graphs that were discussed at some length in that thread. The graphs showed how convection currents flow below the photosphere, particularly in the region of sunspot as I recall. The scales on those graphs clearly indicated that mass was moving at a few thousand kilometers per hour up, down, and laterally through Michael's mythical solid surface.

(And no, Michael, there aren't really any little arrows slithering around, up, down, and sideways through that iron surface of yours. The graphs were, like running difference graphs, just graphical representations of the helioseismological data.)

As for the link to the specific material in that 2700 post thread, it might be a chore to locate. But we're in luck, because Michael used that exact material to support his crackpot claim. His position was that the change in direction of the movement of mass somehow indicated a solid surface (while all the while relying on his typical ignorance of actual data and neglecting the specific details that showed he was completely wrong in his interpretation). So Michael, being the good little junior scientist that he fancies himself to be, will no doubt have that reference material available.

 

[Reality Check]

I missed this one earlier too. Actually its not an "iron shell", that claim is actually their strawman. FYI, GM and RC spend an inordinate amount of time *MISREPRESENTING* my model. IMO it's composed of an an ordinary volcanic surface "crust", complete with silicates and carbon, etc.

Lukraak_Sisser,
FYI, GM and I spend an inordinate amount of time *REPRESENTING* Michael Mozina model. We know that he clains that it is an "ordinary volcanic surface "crust", complete with silicates and carbon, etc.".

Of course he ignores the simple physical fact that this crust is at a temperature of > 9400 K. Thus it cannot be "ordinary". It must be made of unknown elements that look eactly like iron, silicates and carbon, etc. but have much greater boiling points.

Then there is his delusion that the illusionary "mountain ranges" of RD movies constructed from images taken in the 171A passband are real and of his "crust".

• The illusion is easily seen to be caused by the fact that there are regions of heating and cooling plasma on either side of flares in the original images.
• The 171A passband only detects light from material at a temperature of at least 160,000 K. This cannot be his thermodynamically impossible "crust". The ony parts of the Sun that we know are at this temperature are above the photosphere.

 

[GeeMack]

You have not and cannot demonstrate that these wavelengths originate *ABOVE* the photosphere as you claim. You *assume* their point of origin just like LMSAL did before they launched Trace and before they took a single image.

I make no such assumption. The method used to determine the location of the origin of the 171Å images has been explained several times. If you didn't understand it, as simple as it was, it seems likely you're just not capable of understanding.

Your wispy thin plasma isn't dense enough to be "opaque". You're also basing your assumption of the abundance of various elements on your faith in a non mass separated model that can't possibly work, where iron supposedly stays mixed with hydrogen and helium stays mixed with lead and nickel.

Yet you don't know how dense, how thick, and/or how opaque that plasma is, do you? (And if you say yes, you'll surely have answers in numbers, quantitative, like real scientists would have.)

If you don't listen to my answers, what's the point of asking me questions anyway? Are you just grandstanding or what? This isn't a "conversation" because you aren't listening to, nor responding to my actual answers.

People are asking you for quantitative replies. You haven't given any. If this isn't a conversation it's only because your crackpot notion is built on nothing more than your looks-like-a-bunny fantasy. You're the one making a claim here. The burden of proof is on you. Don't blame anyone else if you don't have the stuff.

 

[Reality Check]

Why does the height of your "mountain ranges" depend on the original images used

First asked 15 April 2010
Michael Mozina,
Since you are an expert on the running difference process, perhaps you can answer the question implicit in GeeMack's post

In the video I made...

​

...
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.

Why does the apparent height of your "mountain ranges" depend on the selection of source images for the RD process?

 

[Michael Mozina]

As for the link to the specific material in that 2700 post thread, it might be a chore to locate.

Let us know when you find it. Until then quit pulling numbers out of thin air.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why does the apparent height of your "mountain ranges" depend on the selection of source images for the RD process?

It doesn't because I have never claimed you could measure the height of mountain ranges in RD images. That's another of your personal *MISREPRESENTATIONS* of my theory.

The reason these structures "blur" so badly in GM's RD images is due to the relative movement of the surface over that lengthy timeframe (6 hours?). The images still retain a lot of "structure" but it's "blurred" by the significant movement of the surface during that time. The RD images are not "blurred" like that as long as the two images used are less than about 30 minutes apart.

 

[sol invictus]

Are you going to answer this extremely simple and basic question, Michael?

What is the optical depth to the iron surface at the wavelengths where you claim it is visible?

I want to know what you think it is. Depending on the answer, we can then move on.

 

[Reality Check]

Why does the lighting of your "mountain ranges" move depending on the RD process

First asked 15 April 2010
Michael Mozina,
Since you are an expert on the running difference process, perhaps you can answer the question implicit in GeeMack's post

In the video I made...

​

...
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!

Why does the lighting of your "mountain ranges" move depending on whether the RD process uses the next or prior images?

You state that there are actual sources for for light that creates the shadows extending from the"mountain ranges". So whatever is done in the RD process will not change the position of these light sources.
Of course these light sources are really strange - there seems to be a unique one for each feature in the RD movie!

 

[GeeMack]

It doesn't because I have never claimed you could measure the height of mountain ranges in RD images. That's another of your personal *MISREPRESENTATIONS* of my theory.

The reason these structures "blur" so badly in GM's RD images is due to the relative movement of the surface over that lengthy timeframe (6 hours?). The images still retain a lot of "structure" but it's "blurred" by the significant movement of the surface during that time. The RD images are not "blurred" like that as long as the two images used are less than about 30 minutes apart.

Actually given the nature of light and shadow as it pertains to the location of the light, the angle of the light, the length of the shadow, the height of the shadow making thing, etc., the height of the mountains can be adjusted by using varying offsets in the sequence. You know, if they really are terrain features.

But we've agreed that you don't have the qualifications to speak with any expertise on the issue of running difference imagery, so your opinion on this point is worthless.

 

[Reality Check]

Why does the height of your "mountain ranges" depend on the original images used

First asked 15 April 2010
Michael Mozina,
Since you are an expert on the running difference process, perhaps you can answer the question implicit in GeeMack's post

In the video I made...

​

...
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.

Why does the apparent height of your "mountain ranges" depend on the selection of source images for the RD process?

First answer:

It doesn't because I have never claimed you could measure the height of mountain ranges in RD images.

And the obvious rebuttal:

This has nothing to do with actually measurig the heights.
This is the fact that by changing the amount of time between the source images, the apparent height of the mountains changes.
In other words

• Your light sources remain the same regardless of how the images are processed. They may move. They may brighten or darken.
• Your "mountains" remain the same regardless of how the images are processed. They may be made of some magical material that moves along your crust or changes height during the.
• Create 2 RD movies. The apparent heights change.

But your light sources have not changed between the movies. Your "mountains" not changed between the movies. Thus their apparent height should not change between the movies.

So here is the question a bit clearer:

First asked 15 April 2010
Michael Mozina,
Since you are an expert on the running difference process:

Why does the apparent height of your "mountain ranges" depend on the timing of source images for the RD process when the light sources and mountains in the images are the same?
​

 

[GeeMack]

First asked 15 April 2010
Micheal Mozina,
GeeMack stated:

Helioseismology shows mass moving at over 1200 meters per second up, down, and sideways directly through that place where you fantasize the iron surface.

(a citation to the source would be nice GeeMack though I suspect that it is in one of the many physics textbooks that Micheal Mozina has never read)

Here's a short article that might be useful as a starting point.

What we found is that sunspots aren't static but consist of very strong, downward flows of plasma traveling toward the interior of the sun at speeds of about 3,000 miles per hour.

I guess my recollection was off by a bit. 3,000 miles per hour is over 1300 meters per second. And how interesting, one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of solar research was right there at their fingertips and not one word in the article about how that plasma can move at those speeds right through that mythical solid surface.

So far not one single thing Michael has dangled around as "evidence" is panning out. Not solar imagery. Major fail. Not helioseismology. Major fail. Not thermodynamics. Major fail. Not general relativity. Major fail. Not Birkeland's research. Major fail. It isn't looking good.

 

[brantc]

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:
[*]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.

From TRACE you can see the surface at 1200. But the actual temperature is an average of the surface conditions; look at this HINODE map. This shows the expansion of the iron plasma. It cools and then is accelerated(heats).
http://hinode.nao.ac.jp/news_e/20100309_press_e/

Click on the bottom picture.
See how the footprints expand outward as the magnetic field climbs. That is the reason for the appearance of the elevated temperature at the limb. Because you are looking at a combination of hot footprints(molten to FeIV) and cold surface.

[*]Observations of the Sun's vibrations give us the location and velocity of convection currents under photosphere and this rules out any solid surface.

Iron has the very interesting property of what is termed "Magnetostriction."
When current is passed through iron it acts like a piezoelectric electric crystal in that it contracts and expands. See Terfenol-D.

So when the huge current that runs through the shell to power the flares and CME's oscillates from the latest flare. It shows up as a clear signal in the iron as it expands and contracts in response to the current flow.

[*]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.

The surface can be seen with the light from the surface. Its actually light from the footprints, solar moss and other activity. It just happens to show at the same wavelength as the transition layer. So when you are looking at the lower transition layer you are also looking at the surface(using 1200A) etc..

 

[BenBurch]

One more thing.

If the Sun were Iron, its Mass would be much larger.

Therefore the Gravity would be much higher.

Therefore, to orbit the Sun in 365.25 days, the Earth would have to be much farther out than it is.

Q.E.D. the sun cannot be solid iron.