Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
GeeMack said:
You do recall that we've shown you don't have the qualifications to analyze images.
Click to expand...

I recall that almost everything you've said to me has been a lie since the moment I met you. That's what I recall about you, along with your persist ignorant belligerence and personal attack "style". I've never met anyone even remotely like you on the internet. You're "one of a kind".
 
Michael Mozina said:
Yep. Keep in mind that the umbra however is composed of upwelling silicon plasma from the layer below the photosphere, and that's why it doesn't "glow" in white light. That's also why the bright areas follow the contours of the penumbra, not the just the loops.
Click to expand...


Well...

Michael Mozina said:
Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that [silly idea] out of your ^ss.
Click to expand...


Then...

It's exactly what I'm trying to argue. The neon material and the elements in that material tend to emit white light, whereas the material in the coronal loop is hotter, but emits less visible white light.
Click to expand...


And again...

Michael Mozina said:
Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that [nutty claim] out of your ^ss.
Click to expand...


Thanks for letting us know what your standards are, Michael.
 
MM, this is a fascinating mix of making stuff up as you go and
Lookee the pretty pictures. Ooooh, bunnies!
Click to expand...

I recall several other posters here who have elsewhere been able to give a very clear explanation at whatever level required, including equations/calculations.

I believe the two main differences to you lies in their:
Understanding of the subject.
Desire to make their point clear. (knowing it is valid)*


*E.g. Ziggurat have no fear that explaining clearly the theory of conservation of momentum would expose it to the world as his pet quackery.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I recall that almost everything you've said to me has been a lie since the moment I met you. That's what I recall about you, along with your persist ignorant belligerence and personal attack "style". I've never met anyone even remotely like you on the internet. You're "one of a kind".
Click to expand...


Oh, no, you're wrong again. But that's nothing new. I attack your crackpot conjecture because it's one of the silliest, least thought out, least supported pieces of fantasy I've ever seen anyone over about 10 years old claim with a straight face.

And again, here you are throwing a tantrum instead of answering the dozens of legitimate scientifically significant questions you've been asked. What's the matter? Don't you want to win that Nobel Prize for discovering the Sun has a physically impossible solid iron surface?
 
GeeMack said:
Oh, no, you're wrong again. But that's nothing new. I attack your crackpot conjecture
Click to expand...

No, you don't limit your attacks to ideas, you go after individuals. You went after those RD images with a vengeance and you had your head up your...... the whole time.

because it's one of the silliest, least thought out, least supported pieces of fantasy I've ever seen anyone over about 10 years old claim with a straight face.
Click to expand...

You need to get out more then because I've seen some real doozies in my day. Inflation, negative pressure vacuums, dark energy, etc, etc, etc. :)
 
Toke said:
I recall several other posters here who have elsewhere been able to give a very clear explanation at whatever level required, including equations/calculations.
Click to expand...

Yes, I admire sol's math and physics skills actually. I saw him give an answer to Zig (maybe it was RC) that I thought was very clever and quite imaginative. Most folks however "specialize" in something and solar theory covers way more topics than anyone individual could actually handle all by themselves. (sol might be the exception).

I believe the two main differences to you lies in their:
Understanding of the subject.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but when someone goes "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?", I tend to disagree. I don't think there are that many "experts" on solar image analysis to begin with, but it's clear he isn't one of them.

Desire to make their point clear. (knowing it is valid)*


*E.g. Ziggurat have no fear that explaining clearly the theory of conservation of momentum would expose it to the world as his pet quackery.
Click to expand...

The problem however is that there are logical reasons and images that led to these beliefs. Those are the things I would like to discuss. Instead I am constantly bombarded with what I would call "busy work", where I am supposed to bark math personally on command for no particular reason. Sol's question is different however and it warrants an answer, but not to the complete exclusion of all the other data.
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
Ok, good good. Now, what about it being white light makes you think it must be neon that is involved?
Click to expand...

It doesn't "necessarily" have to be neon, but the photosphere and loops can't be the same material, and the material in the umbra cannot be the same material as the photosphere.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It depends on what elements we mix into the neon
Click to expand...

If you need something other than just neon to produce the white light, then it's not the neon that's producing that white light. So how can you tell that those "other elements" aren't mixed into something other than neon? You can't, Michael. You have no way of determining composition based on the fact that the light looks white. White light only tells you two things: that the source is hot, and that it's opaque. It tells you nothing about composition.
 
Ziggurat said:
If you need something other than just neon to produce the white light, then it's not the neon that's producing that white light.
Click to expand...

The whole sun produces wavelengths that fall into the visible spectrum. That layer provides most of it.

So how can you tell that those "other elements" aren't mixed into something other than neon? You can't, Michael. You have no way of determining composition based on the fact that the light looks white. White light only tells you two things: that the source is hot, and that it's opaque. It tells you nothing about composition.
Click to expand...

So based on your logic, if I look at the neon light in my office, and look at a spectral output of that light, I would have to determine that it was roughly six thousand degrees Kelvin, it's "opaque" and I could not make *ANY* assumption about it's composition?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
The problem however is that there are logical reasons and images that led to these beliefs. Those are the things I would like to discuss. Instead I am constantly bombarded with what I would call "busy work"
Click to expand...

Michael, you are being given "busy work" because you clearly don't understand basic physics. If you don't understand basic physics (and in fact, misunderstand it), then your "logic" won't produce correct results. Garbage in, garbage out. The "busy work", if you ever did it, would show you that your "logic" is wrong. Spectacularly and obviously wrong.

where I am supposed to bark math personally on command for no particular reason.
Click to expand...

The questions regarding calculations I have asked you are all for very particular reasons. I ask them because the answers would reveal the flaws in your thinking. You won't answer them. Perhaps it's because you can't (in which case, why do you think you're remotely qualified to come up with ANY explanation for scientific data?), or perhaps it's because you don't want to be shown wrong.

But it isn't even that you won't give numbers for anything I ask you about, it's also the fact that you won't calculate ANY parameters of your model. You've got this radical model which, if correct, would revolutionize astronomy and cosmology. And what do you do with it? Do you try to make quantitative predictions with your model, to test it against observations and possibly refine it if needed? Do you try to prove it's robust so that you might be able to convince scientists (besides one guy in Rolla, Missouri) that you're on to something?

No. You sit around playing with pictures, posting on a random internet forum, and convincing nobody but brantc. That's just sad. It's sad if you're wrong, but the kicker is, if you're right, it's even sadder. It would be Godel starving himself to death out of paranoia sad.
 
Michael Mozina said:
So based on your logic, if I look at the neon light in my office, and look at a spectral output of that light, I would have to determine that it was roughly six thousand degrees Kelvin and I could not make *ANY* assumption about it's composition?
Click to expand...

First off, the "neon" lights in your office quite likely don't contain neon. Secondly, it's not the noble gas which emits most of the primary light, it's mercury vapor. Noble gases (it doesn't need to be neon) are chosen because they're non-reactive, not because there's something special about the light they give off. Third, the light you see is not the light given off by the gas, but by the phosphors coating the tube. And fourth, it's not white light. It's a spectrum which looks white to our eyes because we can only pick up three colors, but it isn't white. Not even close.

So... yet one more in an endless string of epic fails.
 
Hellbound said:
So, why doesn't this abundance of neon show up in any spectroscopic data?
Click to expand...

Do you really expect MM to be able to answer this? He has not been able to answer:
An amusing story:
His original support for a mostly neon layer emitting white light was that the fluorescent lamps (like the lights in his office) emit white light!
Michael Mozina said:
Well, I don't even have to leave my office to see that effect of a mostly neon plasma emitting white light. Both the bulb and the photosphere have metals and impurities of course, but the white light we observe from the photosphere is related to the elemental composition, not the temperature.
Click to expand...
Of course his office is lit by mercury vapor emitting light that is then converted by fluorescence to light we perceive as white.

I see by the latest posts that Michael Mozina is still ignorant of the nature of the neon light in his office.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom