Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[D'rok]

The problem is that they are feeding you a "math bunny". It looks pretty. It sounds nice. It just doesn't jive with the satellite evidence. The first movie shows the correlation between the movement of the coronal loops and the penumbral filament outline in the sunspot above the discharge zone. The second image shows at least 4-5 such discharges through the penumbral filaments. There's no possible way that LMSAL's positioning of coronal loops *ABOVE* the photosphere can possibly be correct because the influence of the loops is clearly visible on the photosphere in virtually every wavelength under the sun.

http://solarb.msfc.nasa.gov/movies/xrt_pfi_gband_20061113.mpg
http://solar-b.nao.ac.jp/QLmovies/movie_sirius/2010/03/14/FG_CAM20100314150429_174906.mpg

It's not a math bunny. It's the current technical limitation of solar imaging technology. Showing more pictures taken using such technology does not change this. Neither does any fantastical qualitative interpretation of those images.

You have a bizarre monomania that is utterly immune to reality. It makes me strangely sad.

 

[Michael Mozina]

A sunspot is a hole 2000-3750 km deep?

Is that what you mean to say?

No, I mean it's *LAYERED* at that depth and the material under that location is not made of the same material. If it was, we'd see the sides of the filaments extend down the convection tube it's supposed to be associated with. Instead it just "wiggles around in darkness" until the loop "light it up" at the bottom of the filament and traverses the photosphere.

That recent Hinode image blows away your theories. At no time is the bottom of the filament "dark", and it becomes the *LIGHTEST* thing in the image the moment the loop hits it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not a math bunny.

It is most certainly an inapplicable "math bunny" because there is no way in the universe that iron plasma and hydrogen plasmas will stay "mixed" in these conditions. It's physically impossible for that to happen as "coronal rain" demonstrates.

It's the current technical limitation of solar imaging technology. Showing more pictures taken using such technology does not change this. Neither does any fantastical qualitative interpretation of those images.

The images show the *REAL* processes, not the imagined ones. The only way one can compared the quantified models to reality is to compare them to actual satellite images. When we do, they fail miserably, including the fact they *FAILED* to "predict" a LAYER that has a distinct depth, wheres a plasma layered atmosphere *DOES* predict these images.

You have a bizarre monomania that is utterly immune to reality. It makes me strangely sad.

It also makes me strangely sad that you folks are not considering the visual evidence that trashes your mathematical models. If the photosphere was truly "opaque", we would not see the patterns of the loops coming right up the sides of the penumbral filaments in that first image I showed you, and we would not see the bottom of those filaments light up like a Christmas tree the moment the loops pass through it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://solar-b.nao.ac.jp/QLmovies/movie_sirius/2010/03/14/FG_CAM20100314150429_174906.mpg

Sorry to burst your bubble DD, but this image of the loops lighting up at the bottom of the penumbral filaments blows your math bunnies away. The bases of those filaments light up big time as the loops discharge through the photosphere. We can even watch the path of the discharges follow the penumbral filaments at the base, right up to the surface of the photosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Firstly they do not line up "perfectly".

Where do you see something out of alignment between the loops and the angular sides of the penumbral filaments?

There are points at which the penumbral filaments point at different angles from the coronal loops.

Be specific in terms of the clock position. In which clock position do you see major alignment problems? Do you see correlations between the angular sides of the filaments and the angular directions of the loops in *general*? Why?

But this is just my opinion from looking the movie.

You're entitled to it, but there has to be an "explanation" that's A) logical in terms of mass flow and physics, B) congruent with what we observe in the images.

I may be as deluded as you . But look 5 seconds into the movie - there is a distinct angle between penumbral filaments on the right hand side point and the loops.

You aren't deluded at all, you're right on the money. The loops come up and through the filament and 'light it up" a least three times on the right and once on the bottom at about the 8:00 position. That one was a *DOOSIE* too in terms of it's effect on a large area of the photosphere.

The only way any of this makes sense is for that mass flow we observe in the higher energy wavelengths comes *up and through* the surface of the photosphere.

Secondly I would expect that there would be a correlation between the structure of the penumbral filaments and coronal loops. They are in similar magnetic fields. There should be a trend to be oriented the same way.

Sure, but that angular nature wouldn't necessarily need to align itself with the angles of the penumbral filaments unless it's following a path through the filaments themselves. That concept is verified by the "light" we see in that last image which lights up the base of the filaments, but is not bright until it reaches the filament.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Five years ago I knew that the "light source" for a running difference image was the glowing phosphorous inside your computer monitor.

And that was my first clue that you didn't know what you were talking about. You didn't specify any solar process at all.

You also incorrectly told me that the RD *process* created the "persistence" in the image. That was my second clue that you were clueless. For five years I can't get you to utter the term "coronal rain". That's my third clue that you're clueless. About all I can say GM is the only "expertise" you have demonstrated to me is an expertise at personal attack and character assassination. That seems to be your only interest and the only thing you're any good at. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?". That was really a classic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, you seem like a decent guy. I feel for you, honest. But I can't for the life of me understand how you can still claim to see 3750 km into the solar atmosphere after what's been posted in this (and other) threads.

I know you're a decent guy too, and I know you're exactly the type of individual that I need to be reaching, so if you don't mind I'd like to spend a little time here with you on these images. FYI, IMO you're better off ignoring GM, math bunnies, me, and only trust what you can see with your own eyes for a moment.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg

If you look at the very top (left) of the image for the "least" distance from the top of the surface of the photosphere to the bottom of the penumbral filament, how far is that based on the grid in the image? Take the longest filament now (top right, or any longer filament on the right), and tell me how long it is based on the grid you see. In the long filaments, do you sometimes observe the 'tips" at the base (umbra side) of the filaments 'light up' and become brighter sometimes?

 

[Dancing David]

It would mean that the umbra of that Hinode video cannot possibly be made of the material you claim. It would also mean very little unless you can demonstrate that iron and hydrogen stay "mixed" and your experiment applies to the issue in question.

I don't understand? How does the Hinode image show that the optical opacity is incorrect?

 

[Dancing David]

http://solar-b.nao.ac.jp/QLmovies/movie_sirius/2010/03/14/FG_CAM20100314150429_174906.mpg

Sorry to burst your bubble DD, but this image of the loops lighting up at the bottom of the penumbral filaments blows your math bunnies away. The bases of those filaments light up big time as the loops discharge through the photosphere. We can even watch the path of the discharges follow the penumbral filaments at the base, right up to the surface of the photosphere.

Okay, I see the flashes of light material, I assume that is what you are talking about. How would you establish the depth of those flashes (or however you refer to them) they appear to be on the surface?

I am trying to understand MM, how do you know those are at what depth compared to the photosphere?

 

[Dancing David]

http://solar-b.nao.ac.jp/QLmovies/movie_sirius/2010/03/14/FG_CAM20100314150429_174906.mpg

Sorry to burst your bubble DD, but this image of the loops lighting up at the bottom of the penumbral filaments blows your math bunnies away. The bases of those filaments light up big time as the loops discharge through the photosphere. We can even watch the path of the discharges follow the penumbral filaments at the base, right up to the surface of the photosphere.

Um, the math bunny I offered was not about the sunspot, I asked you how you could see the iron surface of the sun? Are you referencing that?

If it is believed that the optical depth of the photosphere is such that at 450 km it is opaque?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't understand? How does the Hinode image show that the optical opacity is incorrect?

Both the G-band and CA/H Hinode images show a "depth' and "layering effect" to the plasma. Both images show a clear end to the penumbral filaments, and show a clear sign of following a discharge path through the photosphere, starting at the bases of the filaments. Those filaments only light up in areas that are already "lit up" before the discharge process occurs too, meaning there is no way that the material under the filament is the same material as the filament itself.

Even that white light image demonstrates that the photosphere itself is the brightest thing in the image, and it follows the outline of the penumbral filaments making it very unlikely that the photosphere is made of the same material as the material in the umbra, or the material in the loops.

 

[phunk]

It is being heated by the discharge process in the lower atmosphere and typically by volcanic activity from the surface. That extra heat is transferred to the silicon plasma and causes it to become less dense and rise up into the upper atmosphere. If there is enough heat (typically volcanic activity is required) then the plasma becomes hotter (than the ambient temp of say 3-4 thousand Kelvin, and thins out and rises up quickly in the atmosphere. The density gradient between the hot silicon and neon isn't great enough to stop the upwelling of the hot silicon plasma. Once it reaches the lighter helium chromosphere however, it has no where to go but to "fan out" which is why we see angular indentations in the sunspot, where the silicon plasma has displaced the neon.

Not actually. It simply has to have "momentum".

Let me see if I understand your model right. Buoyancy causes the silicon plasma it to rise within its own layer, shooting out the top with enough momentum to keep carrying it through the neon layer where it is no longer buoyant. Then for some reason, it stops right at the top of the neon layer because it no where to go?

If momentum was carrying it upwards, running into a less dense medium would not stop it, if anything it would allow it to go farther.

 

[D'rok]

I know you're a decent guy too, and I know you're exactly the type of individual that I need to be reaching, so if you don't mind I'd like to spend a little time here with you on these images. FYI, IMO you're better off ignoring GM, math bunnies, me, and only trust what you can see with your own eyes for a moment.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg

If you look at the very top (left) of the image for the "least" distance from the top of the surface of the photosphere to the bottom of the penumbral filament, how far is that based on the grid in the image? Take the longest filament now (top right, or any longer filament on the right), and tell me how long it is based on the grid you see. In the long filaments, do you sometimes observe the 'tips" at the base (umbra side) of the filaments 'light up' and become brighter sometimes?

I'm sorry, I'm going out for the afternoon. (International Law exam. Wish me luck). I'll take a look at this later today.

ETA: Also, I'm really not the type of individual you need to be reaching. I'm just Joe Public. This isn't politics; it's science. You need to make your case to the scientific community.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let me see if I understand your model right. Buoyancy causes the silicon plasma it to rise within its own layer, shooting out the top with enough momentum to keep carrying it through the neon layer where it is no longer buoyant.

Hmm, not exactly. The mass flow in the loops, combined with the heat transferred from the loops to the silicon, causes the heated silicon to rise to the top of the silicon layer. It's momentum and it's decreased density from the temperature increase, combined with the mass flows from from the coronal loops allows the heated silicon plasma to rise up and through the neon photosphere, pushing the neon aside in the process and leaving those angular indentations in the sunspot.

Once the heated silicon plasma hits the lighter helium chromopshere, gravity takes over and the silicon simply "fans out" to produce those indentations we see in sunspot images.

Then for some reason, it stops right at the top of the neon layer because it no where to go?

It's called a gravity and density change.

If momentum was carrying it upwards, running into a less dense medium would not stop it, if anything it would allow it to go farther.

The loops certainly pass up and through the photosphere and go merrily on their way, but the silicon plasma isn't part of the coronal loop. The density shift at the chromosphere/photosphere barrier is too great even for the heated silicon plasma. The jump from neon to silicon is about 8 protons/neutrons. The jump from neon to helium is about 16 protons/neutrons, not to mention the temperature change. The heat and momentum in the silicon can overcome the jump through neon, but not into the lighter, hotter helium layer.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm sorry, I'm going out for the afternoon. (International Law exam. Wish me luck). I'll take a look at this later today.

Good luck on your exams.

 

[Michael Mozina]

ETA: Also, I'm really not the type of individual you need to be reaching. I'm just Joe Public. This isn't politics; it's science. You need to make your case to the scientific community.

Actually, IMO you have fewer "preconceived ideas" to overcome than most "professionals". They've been taught their whole careers in most cases that the photosphere is "opaque" and that elements stay "mixed together". They've been taught that Iron stays mixed with wispy light Hydrogen, Nickel and Lead stay with Helium. It's been drilled into their heads since college, they've used it in formulas galore during their careers.

More importantly, unlike you, they *NEED* the opacity and homogeneous mixture concepts to work that way in fact or all their other mathematical models start to unwind and they become "useless, unrelated math bunnies". In most cases they were taught this stuff *before* we even had really high resolution images of the sun, let alone satellite images galore.

You don't have the same kinds of fears or prejudices or misinformation to overcome. IMO I should be reaching folks like you first and them eventually.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.solarphysics.kva.se/firstlight37AO/

http://www.solarphysics.kva.se/firstlight37AO/cah_25Apr2003_n.jpg

I really like this page because it demonstrates in black and white exactly what's wrong with mainstream theory. The images to the left are what we actually observe in solar images. The images to the right are "reversed" (negatives) and demonstrate what we "should see" if mainstream theory were actually correct.

It the atmosphere under the photosphere were really "hotter than" the surface of the photosphere as the mainstream claims, and such a material was "opaque" except for the part that's "cooler", then we should see the brighter areas from below the sunspot where the heat is being "trapped" and the sides of the sunspot should protrude to that location. Instead we observe a LAYER of plasma that is obviously composed of a different type of plasma than the photosphere based on what we observe in high resolution Hinode images. The bases of the filaments "light up" from the loops passing through them, but the material under the filaments does not light up at the same rate, nor does the light get "dimmer" as we proceed into the filament as the mainstream requires in the claims about "opacity". Not one part of their model holds up to even high resolution Gband scrutiny, let alone hold up to the Hinode data. In no way does the mainstream model work correctly or work as "predicted" as it relates to sunspots and the energy flow around sunspots.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hmm, not exactly. The mass flow in the loops, combined with the heat transferred from the loops to the silicon, causes the heated silicon to rise to the top of the silicon layer. It's momentum and it's decreased density from the temperature increase, combined with the mass flows from from the coronal loops allows the heated silicon plasma to rise up and through the neon photosphere, pushing the neon aside in the process and leaving those angular indentations in the sunspot.

Once the heated silicon plasma hits the lighter helium chromopshere, gravity takes over and the silicon simply "fans out" to produce those indentations we see in sunspot images.

Numbers, Michael. I'm still waiting for numbers. I'll even help you with the calculations if you need it. You've got yourself a model, now quantify it.

 

[GeeMack]

It would mean that the umbra of that Hinode video cannot possibly be made of the material you claim. It would also mean very little unless you can demonstrate that iron and hydrogen stay "mixed" and your experiment applies to the issue in question.

You are not qualified to make a valid assessment. Given the opportunity to demonstrate that you have the qualifications to speak with any expertise on the matter, you have flat out refused. Also, your interpretation of the images and videos you have presented so far has been shown to be incorrect.

 

[GeeMack]

No, I mean it's *LAYERED* at that depth and the material under that location is not made of the same material. If it was, we'd see the sides of the filaments extend down the convection tube it's supposed to be associated with. Instead it just "wiggles around in darkness" until the loop "light it up" at the bottom of the filament and traverses the photosphere.

That recent Hinode image blows away your theories. At no time is the bottom of the filament "dark", and it becomes the *LIGHTEST* thing in the image the moment the loop hits it.

This is another invalid assessment of imagery. You are not qualified to properly understand what you're presenting here. This is your subjective opinion, shown many times and in many ways to be wrong. It is not evidence to support your crackpot claim.