Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math. :)

There's always a first time for everything.

(Sorry. Couldn't resist).
 
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg

I suggest you start by believing your own eyes. There's simply no way that the length of the penumbral filaments supports their "opacity" claims, and that's only the start. That Hinode images (suddenly "forbidden") definitely shows a thread winding it's way down the umbra. There's absolutely no visual support whatsoever that the photosphere is 'opaque" at 500KM. In fact there is plenty of visual evidence to blow that concept out of the water, starting the the Gband images.

Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math. :)


Like you were going to start doing a little math at SFN in 2005, and like you were going to start doing a little math at BAUT in 2006, and...

Not a single piece of objective quantitative support in over a half a decade, nothing but your unqualified, unsubstantiated, and clearly incorrect opinion of what you believe you see in pictures and movies, millions of words in tens of thousands of posts on hundreds of pages on who knows how many forums...

And you think now is a good time to maybe do a little math? :boggled:

Oh, and this is likely to haunt you just like those stacks of unanswered questions from so many years ago and that ever growing list that Reality Check keeps posting, all those things you implicitly admit that don't know, and all those links that keep popping up to all those failed arguments you've presented in the past...

Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math. :)


You can be sure there'll always be someone bringing this up to remind you, you know, in case you forget to do a little math. :p
 
Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math. :)

Don't you need to understand mainstream theories before trying to destroy them.

Or is this just another guessing game?:rolleyes:
 
Magnetic Reconnection Redux XII

My model is different than Michael's. Don't confuse the 2.
Indeed the models are different. However, your own model (a solid, rigid iron surface) is no more physically possible than Mozina's model, and in reality is even worse, because it is even less consistent with observation, particularly helioseismology. A hard surface would block all gas/plasma flow, separating the sun into distinct above & below regions which would stand out like the proverbial sore thumb. The data are very much inconsistent with such a surface, to the extent that we can declare it to be impossible based on seismology alone. But of course the addition of thermodynamic impossibility produces a double-whammy that destroys either your idea, or Mozina's, on the spot.
This is his thread now.
Yes, Mozina does have the habit of taking over the band width of any thread he enters, flooding the pages with typical inane babbling. Maybe you should start yet another thread, only this time ban Mozina in the OP, so you can actually talk about your idea in your own thread.


If you want to continue the discussion in that thread, by all means do so. But your continued insisting that "magnetic reconnection" is really "circuit reconnection" is just plain stupid. I was even able to demonstrate the reality of magnetic reconnection in laboratory plasma experiments (e.g., Comments on Magnetic Reconnection III; Magnetic Reconnection Redux X), but you still reject it.

Magnetic reconnection is a physically real process directly observed in laboratory plasma experiments. Circuit reconnection is stupid and indefensible.
... So they carry current first. When the "reconnection" happens this current stops/switches direction and then reforms the flux tubes along field lines. This is what happens in the lab and at the magnetosphere with FTEs.
No, that's not what happens. It is without doubt the magnetic field that rearranges its topology before the change in currents. The energy lost to the field is transferred to kinetic energy of the plasma. Electric currents by themselves cannot all gain energy, that clearly violates the fundamental conservation of energy principle. Rather, there has to be a mix of currents & magnetic fields, and there has to be a transfer of energy from the field to the current. That transfer of energy cannot come from common induction because the time scale for that is too long (see, e.g., Magnetic Reconnection Redux V). A rearrangement in the topology of the magnetic field, which can release energy on a much shorter time scale consistent with observation, is the only alternative physical process available. And since we can observe it to happen in situ in laboratory plasma experiments, despite Mozina's erroneous claims to the contrary, and since there is copious evidence for magnetic reconnection in observed astrophysical plasma (see, e.g., Magnetic Reconnection Redux XI), it's the obvious way to go.

Call it what you want but an electric current flowing through the flux tubes is driving the whole process.
No, this is exactly the opposite of what really happens. The magnetic field drives the process and the current goes along for the ride. The field changes first and the currents gain energy second, in that specific order. If the currents were actually driving the process, it would work the other way around.
 
Just before I started my pot of coffee my daughter came in the room and asked me what I was looking at. Instead of telling her, I asked her what she though it was. She said she thought it was clouds with a "hole in the clouds, with stuff falling into the hole". Nice. Even she's more attentive to detail than you guys. :)

Your daughter is clearly interpreting this picture as if it's an object illuminated by an external source. If you've got no idea what the image is, that's not an unreasonable assumption, because that describes most of what we look at. But in this case, it's simply not true. The image is completely self-illuminated. There are no shadows. Light and dark are determined by temperature, not surface angle or altitude. Your daughter's intuition is completely wrong. Understandably so, but that doesn't help. The fact that you see wisdom in her response, and cannot recognize the problem with accepting her interpretation, shows the limits of your own understanding. Your daughter had the excuse of not knowing what she was looking at. You have no excuse.
 
Don't you need to understand mainstream theories before trying to destroy them.

Or is this just another guessing game?:rolleyes:

The answer turns out to be "yes"! One the place/idea where I was "naive" relates back to the umbra of a sunspot. I simply "assumed" that the mainstream would simply abandon their claims of opacity in the umbra region due to temperature or whatever. I'd seen those supercomputer simulations, and the "hills and valleys" papers related to the Swedish 1M images, and it never even occurred to me to "assume" the penumbra is a 2D feature. Now that I know they aren't abandoning that claim of opacity, and I've seen how everyone here "assumed" it was a 2D feature, I have a *much* clearer understanding of how to destroy those mainstream opaque math bunnies. :)
 
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Just before I started my pot of coffee my daughter came in the room and asked me what I was looking at. Instead of telling her, I asked her what she though it was. She said she thought it was clouds with a "hole in the clouds, with stuff falling into the hole". Nice. Even she's more attentive to detail than you guys.

That's hysterical! I wonder if Maxwell had his daughter look at his equations to get an intuitive feel for their meaning?
 
That's hysterical! I wonder if Maxwell had his daughter look at his equations to get an intuitive feel for their meaning?

It's very informative too. One can look at the images without a lot of preconceived ideas and easily see the 3D nature of the penumbra. She had no clue what to call anything in the image, and I didn't need to prompt her in the least. She immediately recognized it as a "layer" that had depth and understood that material was flowing into the umbra without me saying anything. The only kind of person that might try to claim it's a 2D feature is someone that *NEEDS* that feature to be flat, or has been *TOLD* that it is flat. Nobody else would make that mistake IMO, not even a child.
 
Mozina Avoids the Central Issue

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg ... There's simply no way that the length of the penumbral filaments supports their "opacity" claims, ...
Hogwash. The penumbral filaments are all visible because they reside near the "surface" of the photosphere, where the opacity is low.

... and that's only the start. That Hinode images (suddenly "forbidden") definitely shows a thread winding it's way down the umbra.
Hogwash again. The HINODE images definitely do not show a thread winding its way down to the umbra. You only think it does because you are an easy mark to fool yourself through personal bias.

There's absolutely no visual support whatsoever that the photosphere is 'opaque" at 500KM.
Yes there is. The limb darkening observations are categorical proof of the concept, and you have absolutely no evidence of any value to offer in contradiction.

In fact there is plenty of visual evidence to blow that concept out of the water, starting the the Gband images.
There is no such evidence in any image you have ever shown.

Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math. :)
You understand nothing about anything. Be my guest and continue to make a fool of yourself for as long as you like. It's actually kind of fun to stomp all over your pathetic notions. Of course, one might think it unfair of me to take advantage of your unfortunate intellectual handicap, like "taking candy from a baby", as they say. But then again, you asked for it.

And lest we forget, like I said before ...
Mozina always avoids the central issue of real physics & real science, always falling back on some childish "science by pretty picture" routine, always falling back to the wiggly stuff or the moving lights, but never touching on any truly meaningful topic, never any real science of any kind. He says he will not "bark math on command", but that is just a tactic to hide behind false pride, to avoid the obvious truth that he has no idea how to integrate math & science together. That's why he always sticks to "science by pretty picture". That's the kind of thing we would not fault if it were coming from a child, and might even applaud, by virtue of being a real effort to understand. But coming from someone who claims to have a sophisticated, adult perspective on a scientific topic, it is just plain silly & naive.

Let me repeat the last sentence from the quote above: If he cannot produce arguments as detailed and scientifically complete as the science presented in this book, which science he claims to refute, then his arguments must be rejected in their entirety. OK, substitute whatever seems appropriate at the moment for "this book", and you get the message.
 
Physics Over Wishful Thinking

Now that I know they aren't abandoning that claim of opacity, and I've seen how everyone here "assumed" it was a 2D feature, ...
Hogwash once again. Nobody ever assumed any such thing. It's the images you have that are strictly 2D, and that is the point. All of your claims about the images are nonsensical garbage because the images are 2D. If you are going to claim depth, you need an image with depth information in it. Otherwise it's all just wishful thinking on your part, and personally I choose physics over your wishful thinking every time.
 
It's very informative too. One can look at the images without a lot of preconceived ideas and easily see the 3D nature of the penumbra. She had no clue what to call anything in the image, and I didn't need to prompt her in the least. She immediately recognized it as a "layer" that had depth and understood that material was flowing into the umbra without me saying anything. The only kind of person that might try to claim it's a 2D feature is someone that *NEEDS* that feature to be flat, or has been *TOLD* that it is flat. Nobody else would make that mistake IMO, not even a child.


And that's why not one single professional physicist on Earth sees it the way you do, not one single person who designs the satellites, operates the equipment, acquires the data, processes the data, and analyzes the data, for a living, with masters degrees and doctorate degrees and probably thousands of years of combined experience. That's why not one single person who actually understands this stuff sees it the way you do. Is that what you're trying to say here? Honestly? You can suggest that with a straight face? :boggled:
 
Hogwash once again. Nobody ever assumed any such thing. It's the images you have that are strictly 2D, and that is the point. All of your claims about the images are nonsensical garbage because the images are 2D.


This bears repeating. Without quantitative supporting data, nothing in any image can be used as evidence of anything quantitative. Period.
 
Your daughter is clearly interpreting this picture as if it's an object illuminated by an external source.

That makes no difference at all.

If you've got no idea what the image is, that's not an unreasonable assumption, because that describes most of what we look at.

It was a perfect assumption in fact, and it certainly does describe what we're looking at. When I asked her why she thought it was a hole in the clouds, she even pointed out to me she could see under layer of the clouds into the hole where the "stuff was falling". She *NAILED* it.

But in this case, it's simply not true. The image is completely self-illuminated.

That's utterly irrelevant or ultimately works against you at the end of the pumbral filaments where they all go dark at the bottom of the "clouds". If they were self illuminated down the whole tube, you might have case. Since the filaments all end abruptly, your claim hurts you, it doesn't help you.

There are no shadows. Light and dark are determined by temperature, not surface angle or altitude.

That's where you're dead wrong as those Hinode filaments demonstrate. Even the computer simulations work against that claim, not to mention a simple Gband image of a sunspot.

Your daughter's intuition is completely wrong. Understandably so, but that doesn't help.

No, her visual skills are far superior to anyone else in this thread, save perhaps D'rok that came up with a *VERY* funny comparison and good numbers when I asked him about thread lengths. You guys *SUCK* at visual details. Hell, you can't even tell whether the filaments flow up or down even *WITH* all your mathematical models! Flying stuff? What flying stuff? White light images? What white light images? Honestly, you folks are absolutely *TERRIBLE* at image interpretation.

The fact that you see wisdom in her response, and cannot recognize the problem with accepting her interpretation, shows the limits of your own understanding. Your daughter had the excuse of not knowing what she was looking at. You have no excuse.

I'm afraid that Hinode image gives you no excuse under the sun to claim that layer is "opaque". It's not. It's simply a *LAYER* just like my daughter figured out at first glance. We can see "down the hole", just like she claimed, and we can see stuff coming off the bottom of the penumbral filaments and flowing down the hole just as she recognized. Honesty, you have no excuse whatsoever to be peddling that "opaque" nonsense and that is exactly what it is, "nonsense".
 
Hogwash once again. Nobody ever assumed any such thing. It's the images you have that are strictly 2D, and that is the point. All of your claims about the images are nonsensical garbage because the images are 2D.

No Tim, that's where you're dead wrong, and where your theory falls apart. It is *CERTAINLY* a 3D structure as any child can see. I can even watch the convection process in the threads as the energy flows up or down the tubes and I can observe that the threads curve *DOWN* into the umbra even in the Gband image. A single gband image of a sunspot *DESTROYS* your whole opacity claim, your 2D "interpretation", and your whole solar theory.
 
Last edited:
It is *CERTAINLY* a 3D structure and any child can see. .

It's a 3-D structure on a 2 dimensional piece of photographic paper or computer screen. No shadows or external lighting means no depth detail can be extracted from the 2 dimensional image.
 
It's a 3-D structure on a 2 dimensional piece of photographic paper or computer screen. No shadows or external lighting means no depth detail can be extracted from the 2 dimensional image.

Not true. I can measure the curvature of the filaments even in the Gband image. The "sides" of the walls give me a depth number as well, I just need to pick an "angle" for the filaments and select a range of them to come up with an average. I need more backgound info on the image, but I can definitely get a sense of depth from the image, and it's definitely greater than 500Km.
 
No Tim, that's where you're dead wrong, and where your theory falls apart. It is *CERTAINLY* a 3D structure as any child can see. I can even watch the convection process in the threads as the energy flows up or down the tubes and I can observe that the threads curve *DOWN* into the umbra even in the Gband image. A single gband image of a sunspot *DESTROYS* your whole opacity claim, your 2D "interpretation", and your whole solar theory.


Yet you haven't even bothered to measure it.

Oh, and how are you coming along on that math?

Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math.
 
Not true. I can measure the curvature of the filaments even in the Gband image. The "sides" of the walls give me a depth number as well, I just need to pick an "angle" for the filaments and select a range of them to come up with an average. I need more backgound info on the image, but I can definitely get a sense of depth from the image, and it's definitely greater than 500Km.


Yet you haven't even bothered to measure it.
 
I need more backgound info on the image, but I can definitely get a sense of depth from the image, and it's definitely greater than 500Km.


Big mistake relying on your "sense" or intuition in these matters Michael. Yet you can unequivically state greater than 500km.:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom