Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Ziggurat]

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"

No, Michael. The cooler stuff is still opaque. In fact, it's still glowing hot. It only shows up as dark on these photos because it's underexposed. You clearly don't understand the standard model if you think cooling the plasma would make it transparent.

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.

Nope. We see different temperatures. Different temperatures are what cause the different brightnesses. There's no way to determine composition from those pictures.

 

[nescafe]

I certainly claim no expertise in solar science, but I do understand the posts of the three posters I mentioned. They are clear, concise, and demonstrate quite conclusively that there is not, nor can there be, a solid surface on the sun.

There might be one eventually, if one counts electron degnerate matter as "solid". If protons never decay, part of Michael's theories might eventually become true in the unimaginably distant future as cold fusion via quantum tunnelling eventually turns the Sun's remains into a single-crystal sphere of iron -- you would have to wait something like 10^10000 years, though.

As far as describing the Sun in its current state, though, Michael's hypothesis is an epic failure.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

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.

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.

It has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of all the intelligent sane participants in this discussion that you cannot see beyond approximately 450 kilometers into the surface of the Sun, no matter what technique you use. Your continued ignorance of that and your continuing to lie about it does not change that fact.

You have no references to support your crackpot claim, and you have no qualification to properly understand what you are misrepresenting as evidence. You have demanded a standard that you aren't willing to and can't possibly meet...

Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that [silly notion] out of your ^ss.

And did you forget this? Using this data which agrees with other sources putting the photosphere at ~400 kilometers thick...

Solar Photosphere as a Function of Depth

Depth (km)|% Light from this Depth|Temperature (K)|Pressure (bars)
0|99.5|4465|6.8 x 10-3
100|97|4780|1.7 x 10-2
200|89|5180|3.9 x 10-2
250|80|5455|5.8 x 10-2
300|64|5840|8.3 x 10-2
350|37|6420|1.2 x 10-1
375|18|6910|1.4 x 10-1
400|4|7610|1.6 x 10-1

Source: Fraknoi, Morrison, and Wolf, Voyages through the Universe​

... and your claim that your mythical solid iron surface begins somewhere between 2100 and 3500 kilometers down, approximately .997R to .995R, we can see from this chart that there is minimally 1500 kilometers, and much as 3000 kilometers of opaque plasma between the bottom of the photosphere and the top of your claimed surface.

​

The left portion of the chart shows the percentage of transparency through about the top 500 kilometers of the photosphere. The chart is reproduced on the right side and scaled to show the depth to 3500 kilometers. The dark red portion at the bottom starts around 2100 kilometers deep, or about .997R. That is the shallow end of where you claim the solid surface begins. The red area goes to the bottom of the chart at 3500 kilometers, or .995R, the depth you usually claim as the location of your mythical iron surface.

No solar imaging technique or any method used to process the images can possibly allow you to see anything at the depth of your claimed solid surface. Seeing any such surface (the existence of which, by the way, has been shown to be impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics, shown to be nonexistent using the science of helioseismology, and shown to be impossible according to general relativity) would require some sort of paranormal ability to see through that 900 to 1800 mile thick layer of opaque plasma.

You are claiming to have magical powers, Michael. That belongs in the General Skepticism and The Paranormal forum.

 

[Ziggurat]

There might be one eventually, if one counts electron degnerate matter as "solid".

One shouldn't. That's definitely a fluid, not a solid.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

You have shown without a doubt that you don't have the qualifications to understand the meaning of the term "photosphere". Therefore your argument above is crap.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You have shown without a doubt that you don't have the qualifications to understand the meaning of the term "photosphere". Therefore your argument above is crap.

Thus spoke Mr. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?". Sheesh.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, Michael. The cooler stuff is still opaque.

Then the fact I can see the end of the penumbral filaments in every wavelength (clearly too) kills your theory instantly.

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

 

[GeeMack]

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.

Actually I've done a pretty good job of pointing out that you've never presented a valid argument for your crackpot claim. Every single professional physicist on Earth pretty much disagrees with your argument. If you're right, you haven't been able to communicate your position in a way that anyone else understands. Somehow your argument hasn't been compelling enough or based closely enough on reality for anyone to take it seriously.

If we say, just for a moment, that you are correct in your wildass guess about that Sun, and hypothetically we say I don't really know what I'm talking about, we would still have to agree that my skills at persuasion are vastly superior to yours. If you think about it, as uncomfortable as it might be, dozens of people in these conversations over the years have understood my simple explanations of running difference images. Dozens of people have accepted that I am correct in my interpretation and understanding. And in all these years apparently only one person has ever accepted your interpretation. So even if you're right and I'm wrong, you are obviously incapable of communicating your ideas in a way that is compelling or convincing to anyone except a high school kid in some junior scientist club. Your argument, Michael, right or wrong, is not working.

So, would you like some help with your communication skills, Michael? Clearly I have what it takes in that area.

 

[phunk]

Then the fact I can see the end of the penumbral filaments in every wavelength (clearly too) kills your theory instantly.

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

How do you determine that the filaments are flowing down into the umbra rather than across the top?

 

[GeeMack]

Then the fact I can see the end of the penumbral filaments in every wavelength (clearly too) kills your theory instantly.

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

Your qualifications to properly interpret or understand solar imagery have been challenged, and you have refused to demonstrate that you do indeed posses such qualifications. What you offer above cannot be accepted as evidence of anything except your subjective, uninformed, unqualified opinion.

You cannot, without magical powers, see deeper into the photosphere than about 400 to 450 kilometers. That has been demonstrated as a fact to the satisfaction of everyone in this discussion. And now your claim of having magical powers is being challenged. Are you prepared to prove you can see through a thousand miles of opaque material as you claim.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How do you determine that the filaments are flowing down into the umbra rather than across the top?

Limb images for starters. They all show a clear, persistent angular "depression" in the surface of the photosphere like the foreground sunspot.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually I've done a pretty good job....

...of character assassination, personal attack, angry personal attack tirades and ironic commentary like "Flying stuff? What flying stuff". You're a riot.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, note the cascading right hand side of the GBand Swedish 1 M image. You can actually see the angular path that the silicon plasma is taking back under the neon photosphere. It creates a cascading depression in the neon layer.

 

[GeeMack]

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15%20April%202001%20WL.gif[/qimg]

Limb images for starters. They all show a clear, persistent angular "depression" in the surface of the photosphere like the foreground sunspot.

Your qualifications to understand solar imagery have been challenged, and you refused to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications. Your interpretation of the image above is incorrect. It is unsupportable as it is clearly based on your unqualified, subjective opinion.

Here's a simple yes/no question. Since your claims have gone far beyond reality and aren't even remotely scientific, and you're implicitly claiming you have supernatural abilities, are you prepared to demonstrate that you possess the magical powers necessary to see through a few thousand kilometers of opaque plasma?

 

[Ziggurat]

Then the fact I can see the end of the penumbral filaments in every wavelength (clearly too) kills your theory instantly.

No it doesn't. You seem to have concluded that those "ends" are at some significant depth, but they aren't, and the image doesn't actually indicate that they are.

Oh, and it's not "in every wavelength". The G-band images are obtained with a broad band-pass filter. It covers the blue end of the visible spectrum, because blackbody radiation in this range is quite sensitive to temperature changes in the vicinity of 6000K (in contrast, IR radiation is not very sensitive to changes in this temp range). The sunspots themselves are still emitting blackbody radiation, just cooler radiation. They are not transparent.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your qualifications to understand solar imagery have been challenged......

......by a guy that goes "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" instead of giving the right answer which by the way is "coronal rain". Duh.

 

[GeeMack]

FYI, note the cascading right hand side of the GBand Swedish 1 M image. You an actually see the angular path that the silicon plasma is taking back under the neon photosphere. It creates a cascading depression in the neon layer.

Of course you're prepared to meet your own standards in supporting that comment. Let's see, how did you say it?...

Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that [crackpot conjecture] out of your ^ss.

 

[GeeMack]

......by a guy that goes "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" instead of giving the right answer which by the way is "coronal rain". Duh.

Does coronal rain support your claim that there is a solid surface on the Sun?

 

[GeeMack]

......by a guy that goes "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" instead of giving the right answer which by the way is "coronal rain". Duh.

Oh, and you missed this part...

If we say, just for a moment, that you are correct in your wildass guess about that Sun, and hypothetically we say I don't really know what I'm talking about, we would still have to agree that my skills at persuasion are vastly superior to yours. If you think about it, as uncomfortable as it might be, dozens of people in these conversations over the years have understood my simple explanations of running difference images. Dozens of people have accepted that I am correct in my interpretation and understanding. And in all these years apparently only one person has ever accepted your interpretation. So even if you're right and I'm wrong, you are obviously incapable of communicating your ideas in a way that is compelling or convincing to anyone except a high school kid in some junior scientist club. Your argument, Michael, right or wrong, is not working.

So, would you like some help with your communication skills, Michael? Clearly I have what it takes in that area.

So, would you like some help with your communication skills so you can actually formulate your crackpot idea into something that at least one or two professional physicists might understand and accept? Or are you content in knowing that not one single professional physicist on the face of this planet agrees with your claim?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No it doesn't. You seem to have concluded that those "ends" are at some significant depth, but they aren't, and the image doesn't actually indicate that they are.

Every image of the photosphere show a clear angular depression in limb images of a sunspot just like the white light images.

Oh, and it's not "in every wavelength". The G-band images are obtained with a broad band-pass filter. It covers the blue end of the visible spectrum, because blackbody radiation in this range is quite sensitive to temperature changes in the vicinity of 6000K (in contrast, IR radiation is not very sensitive to changes in this temp range). The sunspots themselves are still emitting blackbody radiation, just cooler radiation. They are not transparent.

But it shows exactly the same type of depressed surface feature as CA/H Hinode images. You can even see the "bases" of the penumbral filaments light up at the bottom before traversing up the filament in the Hinode images. There's definitely a depth component to every single single sunspot image.