Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[D'rok]

The ball is in your court - if your model requires seeing through 1000s of km of Ne plasma with 171A light, you have to provide a scenario in which we can test that in the lab. If not, you're guilty of precisely what you accuse everyone else of - inventing hypothetical entities (in your case, a Ne plasma transparent to 171A light) to save your model.

So I'm still waiting for you to tell me how to create your plasma in a lab, or at least what its rough characteristics are. Once you do, we'll again estimate its opacity and see if your model is possible. Isn't that what science is about - you come up with a hypothesis, and then you check and test it in as many ways as you can think of, until it either fails or you're pretty sure it's correct?

@ Michael:

Stay on target...stay on target.




(In other words, please finish what you started with Sol here).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because MM, Sol I is trying to dry lab a situation similar to the observed photosphere and it has an observed temperature of 6000 F, the goal is to determine the opacity of something similar to the observed photosphere, which I beleive relates to the neon layer in your model.

So that is where the 6000 F comes from.

I understand what sol did, and *IF* those conditions were applicable he'd be correct. Those conditions however are 'strawman' conditions and do not apply to this specific (or any EU oriented) solar model in any way. It also fails to jive with the SERTS spectral data. The neon glows in many ion wavelengths, and less brightly at the lowest end of energy the spectrum. Details matter folks.

 

[sol invictus]

Sure, but it relies upon *many* (actually in your case one related to photoinization) assumption that simply does not apply to the topic or conditions in question.

It applies to a plasma with the characteristics YOU specified, Michael. You already agreed with that:

I accept Ben's (and your) previous statements as true related to ionization process

I understand what sol did, and *IF* those conditions were applicable he'd be correct. Those conditions however are 'strawman' conditions and do not apply to this specific (or any EU oriented) solar model in any way.

If they are a straw man, that's entirely your doing, because you supplied them. If you now want to consider a different set of conditions, tell me what they are.

I'm waiting.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Before we bury the math bunny, you should explain why you think green represents "iron lines".

It represents a "mixture" of colors, primarily blue and yellow and visually demonstrates the distance between the surface of the photosphere and the point where the sun actually becomes "opaque" to the iron ion wavelengths.

 

[Hellbound]

I understand what sol did, and *IF* those conditions were applicable he'd be correct. Those conditions however are 'strawman' conditions and do not apply to this specific (or any EU oriented) solar model in any way. It also fails to jive with the SERTS spectral data. The neon glows in many ion wavelengths, and less brightly at the lowest end of energy the spectrum. Details matter folks.

Obviously you don't understand, or you wouldn't post this.

If sol's conditions were wrong, it's because you gave him the wrong ones. He's asked you all along for your conditions. Even now, he's been asking you for the modifications needed to change the results in your favor (for example, the mechanism that keeps the plasma away from equilibrium) and you can't provide it..which at the least shows your model is incomplete.

If you want it to be correct, then give him the correct conditions and go from there. Because right now, you're following GeeMack's prediciton to the letter.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It applies to a plasma with the characteristics YOU specified, Michael. You already agreed with that:

I'm not complaining about your methods sol, just the fact you called it "Mozina 1.0" or something along those lines. You only included *PART* of the solar model in *YOUR* calculation and that number has nothing to do with an electric sun theory.

I first want to hear you folks explain the SDO image for us and specifically why the iron lines don't originate in the orange region.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Obviously you don't understand, or you wouldn't post this.

If sol's conditions were wrong, it's because you gave him the wrong ones.

FYI, I am *NOT* blaming sol for his numbers, just the "Mozina 1.0" commentary. He has clearly explained his methods along the way and nothing he's done is "bad" from my perspective. I'm still very appreciative of his efforts to "understand" and "make me clearly explain" the model. I am not knocking his efforts, just the dry sarcasm at worst case.

 

[sol invictus]

I'm not complaining about your methods sol, just the fact you called it "Mozina 1.0" or something along those lines.

I called it that because you supplied the parameters, Michael. If you insist, I'll dig up your posts where you did so.

You only included *PART* of the solar model in *YOUR* calculation and that number has nothing to do with an electric sun theory.

I've said over and over and over that I don't want to discuss the sun directly yet. Ultimately, I want to evaluate your claim that it's possible to see deep into the photosphere using 171A light. To approach that, I want you to tell me what kind of plasma you think the photosphere is composed of. Once you do that, we can compute its opacity. You did that once already, and I found that more than a few meters of that plasma are opaque. Now I'm waiting for version 2.0.

I first want to hear you folks explain the SDO image for us and specifically why the iron lines don't originate in the orange region.

At least for my part, I'm not going to discuss anything else with you until we finish what we started.

I'm waiting.

 

[Michael Mozina]

@ Michael:

Stay on target...stay on target.




(In other words, please finish what you started with Sol here).

I'm firing from two points at once. I'm taking a whack at the opacity claim in the SDO images and I'll be happy to finish up with sol. I'm incredibly grateful for sol's efforts and I have no intention of letting him off the hook.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I called them that because you supplied them, Michael. If you insist, I'll dig up your posts.

I understand. It's Monday however I need to get some work done first. It seems your side has some explaining to do as it relates to the limb images from SDO. There's a gap between the surface of the photosphere and the place where the light becomes "opaque" (GM's definition ). What's that thin green band doing in your "opaque" region?

I've said over and over and over that I don't want to discuss the sun directly yet. Ultimately, I want to evaluate your claim that it's possible to see deep into the photosphere using 171A light. To attack that, I want you to tell me what kind of plasma you think the photosphere is composed of. Once you do that, we can compute its opacity. You did that once, and I found that more than a few meters of that plasma are opaque. Now I'm waiting for version 2.0.

Well, 2.0 will need to include a "Birkeland apparatus", where "current flow" traverses the plasmas. You can take your pick in terms of voltages from either Birkeland or Alfven and I'll see about finding you some numbers to work with.

At least for my part, I'm not going to discuss anything else with you until we finish what we started.

I'm waiting.

Fair enough.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Just a point to make to MM:

Observation is science, for certain values of science.

It doesn't seem to get any respect from your side of the aisle. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? White light images? What white light images? Green light in the "opaque" areas? What green light? Honestly, it seems like you folks do not care in the slightest if your mathematical models even jive with the satellite evidence.

Typically, Observation is the first step.

And that was my first step. I observed the satellite images. I realized they didn't jive with your model and I started over. I grabbed the SERTS data and from that data I created a solar model that did correctly explain the images, the mass flow patterns and the spectral output from SERTS.

Fromt hat observation on should them form a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, then put the results out there to be evaluated byt he scientific community. At that point the testing is picked about, problems identified, controls tightened, alternative theories produced, and a new hypothesis which takes this into account is formed. Another experiment is run, and so forth, and eventually we get a robust, powerufl theory that fits the facts and predicts new ones.

By the time this crew gets to that point, I will be dead and buried. So much for real "knowledge" eh? It has to go though all those political channels first?

So far, you've got observation. You've taken the first steps to creating a hypothesis. But you've skipped everything else...

Oh no I didn't. I made a whole string of "impossible" (according to your model) "prediction" related to the location of the ion lines in relationship to the surface of the photosphere. I just made a new "prediction" in this thread related to Ne+3 and Ne+4 emissions and how they will/must differ from standard theory. I've gone far beyond just "observing", I'm well into the "prediction" stage while you folks play politics and tighten your parameters to create some new math bunnies.

and then you have the arrogance to think everyone should accept your poorly-formed hypthesis as if it were a well-tested theory?

Oh please. Birkeland "tested" this theory in the standard empirical method over 100 years ago. Alfven "tested" all kinds of electrical aspects of EU solar theories the way you folks "test" things too. You ignored all of it. What in the heck might I do to convince you if those caliber of "scientists" don't even make a dent in your opinions? Hell, I could waste my whole life waiting around for your political process to catch up with just the current technologies, let alone the new stuff coming down the NASA pipeline.

Sorry, short-cuts don't work in science (see Cold Fusion).

IMO you people took so many "shortcuts" in science it's not funny. You made so many erroneous assumptions before launching TRACE it's not funny. You failed to correct the problems once you saw the images, no doubt primarily due to the problems in the political processes at LMSAL and NASA. God forbid some idiot like GM should be in charge of these programs or have some influence on the politics. You folks would *NEVER* figure it out "collectively" even if some people eventually started to jump ship.

Sorry folks, but I'm not going to wallow around in ignorance my whole life chasing after your math bunnies. Your theories do not jive with reality and the satellite images blow your beliefs out of the water. I can see that thin green line on the horizon even if the rest of you are blind.

 

[D'rok]

Michael, if you have time on your busy Monday to rant, surely you have time to provide Sol with some parameters for him to test?

 

[dafydd]

The latter. You folks are the ones hung up on the math. I'm mostly interested n the physics and the physical processes going on. You're the one that needs new math bunnies, not me. If you NEED them so badly, go for it. The old ones are dead now.

Stundie?

 

[dafydd]

Where did the bunnies come in? We had enough with Bjarne and his cows.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You don't rely on math at all, Michael. You have never, ever, in all these years, formed a quantitative prediction about any parameter of your model. It is entirely hand waving.

I have made a number of very "testable" qualitative "predictions" that just bore fruit in the SDO images Zig.

As I've said before, you being right would be the most pathetic option. It would mean that your inability to actually do any math whatsoever was keeping the truth from being accepted.

It has nothing to do with math, and everything to to with pixel resolution and camera functions. At 1 megapixel it's simply impossible see anything at the limb that might be helpful. At 4 megapixels, I had about 2 pixels to work with at the limb and not enough resolution to be definitive. At 16 megapixels, and various wavelengths in the same camera, that all changes. Even if I don't do the math personally for you, someone at NASA will eventually get around to it for you, don't you fret. There's enough resolution now to be sure one way or the other. Your opacity bunny is visually dead now. You guys can go over there and mathematically kick around the dead opacity bunny to make sure that its pulse has stopped, that its not breathing etc. Meanwhile I can simply see that it's dead, and in fact *VERY* dead in terms of pixel resolution.

What kind of person stumbles upon a revolutionary truth, and then can't convince anyone of it because they can't even do algebra?

What kind of person relies only and exclusively upon algebra for "knowledge" in the first place to absolute and complete exclusion of physics and observation? What kind of person relies upon personal put downs in a debate in the absence of any valid scientific explanation or argument to the point being raised?

 

[ben m]

No, actually I'm looking at features in front, inside of, and behind the photosphere. The limbs tell it all Ben.

I'm looking at the limbs. It looks like an opaque surface with lots of streamers standing above it. I can't see what makes you think otherwise.

ETA: I'm also awaiting your answer to Sol's question---what sort of conditions do you think will generate an "ultrapure" NeV, NeVI, NeVIII plasma?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm looking at the limbs. It looks like an opaque surface with lots of streamers standing above it. I can't see what makes you think otherwise.

Those streamers are passing through the photosphere just as I "predicted".

ETA: I'm also awaiting your answer to Sol's question---what sort of conditions do you think will generate an "ultrapure" NeV, NeVI, NeVIII plasma?

Current flow. Birkeland's sun was a cathode. I'd start there, replicate his work and start over if I were in your shoes.

FYI, when I found Birkeland's work I was actually stunned and humbled to realize that someone (a whole team actually) had beaten me to "my idea" by over 100 years and had already tested all the key components of the model. So much for ego at that point and I simply updated the website to include his material and give him credit where credit is due.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

It represents a "mixture" of colors, primarily blue and yellow and visually demonstrates the distance between the surface of the photosphere and the point where the sun actually becomes "opaque" to the iron ion wavelengths.

So you don't even understand that your derail is based upon an extreme ultraviolet image whose false colors represent temperatures?

 

[Ziggurat]

I have made a number of very "testable" qualitative "predictions"

Of course you did, Michael. Of course you did. Now, want to try for something quantitative? Physics is a quantitative science, after all.

 

[Hellbound]

It doesn't seem to get any respect from your side of the aisle. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? White light images? What white light images? Green light in the "opaque" areas? What green light? Honestly, it seems like you folks do not care in the slightest if your mathematical models even jive with the satellite evidence.

Those are not observations. Those are your interpretations of images. You've not yet been able to show ANY reason why YOUR interpretation is more valid than that of practically EVERY OTHER PROFESSIONAL ASTRONOMER, PHYSICIST, and other scientists in the world.

And that was my first step. I observed the satellite images. I realized they didn't jive with your model and I started over. I grabbed the SERTS data and from that data I created a solar model that did correctly explain the images, the mass flow patterns and the spectral output from SERTS.

No, you assumed based on your personal opinion that they didn't "jive". Another fact you've assumed without evidence. Not to mention that I fail to see how you could conclude they didn't "jive" with current understanding, as you have shown a complete lack of knowledge concerning what the current understanding is.

By the time this crew gets to that point, I will be dead and buried. So much for real "knowledge" eh? It has to go though all those political channels first?

No, not "political" channels, that's the scientific process. New ideas are critiqued by other scientists in the field, observations and experiments are verified. This is because, unlike you, REAL scientists understand that our observations are not always correct, and that our biases and prejudices affect our judgement, and that the mind plays tricks on us. Thus, they put their work out for others to replicate. IF others can't replicate the results, then that indicates a problem with your data. How many scinetists have replicated your results (re: interpreting satellite images, for example)?

Oh no I didn't. I made a whole string of "impossible" (according to your model) "prediction" related to the location of the ion lines in relationship to the surface of the photosphere. I just made a new "prediction" in this thread related to Ne+3 and Ne+4 emissions and how they will/must differ from standard theory. I've gone far beyond just "observing", I'm well into the "prediction" stage while you folks play politics and tighten your parameters to create some new math bunnies.

Show me where you've predicted ANYTHING, Micheal.

You aren't predicting anything. You look at the pretty pictures, then you sort through to find some explanation that you can squeeze onto the data that supports your theory. That's post-diction, and it's not impressive. REAL scientists change the hypothesis when data contradicts. You, however, seem much happier changing the data.

Oh please. Birkeland "tested" this theory in the standard empirical method over 100 years ago. Alfven "tested" all kinds of electrical aspects of EU solar theories the way you folks "test" things too. You ignored all of it. What in the heck might I do to convince you if those caliber of "scientists" don't even make a dent in your opinions? Hell, I could waste my whole life waiting around for your political process to catch up with just the current technologies, let alone the new stuff coming down the NASA pipeline.

So if Birkland tested this theory, then you should be able to use his data to tell sol EXACTLY how to create the plasma you claim must exist, then, right? Your claims may have been inspired by outdated science, but your model has very little to do with what Birkland tested, besides you both claim an electric sun. No one ignored that data, it was examined by scientists and found NOT to fit the available data. It's not about politics...I give a flying ******* whether the sun is electric or not. I do care about some self-inflated baboon making a mockery of science; of some egotistical narcisist who thinks he is the only one that can see the "truth", and that EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD EXCEPT HIM IS WRONG. Can you not realze what a monumental claim that is? You're claiming that somehow every serious, accomplished, and intelligent scientist, all over the world (including Chna, Russia, and Zimbabwe) are all so stupid they can't understand a picture (as you say, it's right there to see, no interpretation needed, right?) and so warped by some identical political motivation (whatever that might be) that they all toe the party line? None of them cares about the Nobel Prize they'd get for proving somethign different? None of them wants to be regarded as the Einstein of solar physics? Somehow, you think you're the only one that has the ability to determine this?

Sorry, not buying it.

There's ulterior motives going on here, but they're yours. You're so invested in your theory you ignore any evidence to the contrary, twist interpretations of data into pretzels to prevent ANY change to your "hypothesis", and Ed knows you can't even do the math required to quantize your model. Heck, you're predicting physically impossible plasmas to support your theory, with NO IDEA WHAT MECHANISMS MIGHT MAKE THEM THAT WAY. The fact that you assumed transparent plasmas without even doing the BASIC research into plasma properties is a perfect example of how your interpretations of pictures is skewed.

IMO you people took so many "shortcuts" in science it's not funny. You made so many erroneous assumptions before launching TRACE it's not funny. You failed to correct the problems once you saw the images, no doubt primarily due to the problems in the political processes at LMSAL and NASA. God forbid some idiot like GM should be in charge of these programs or have some influence on the politics. You folks would *NEVER* figure it out "collectively" even if some people eventually started to jump ship.

Thank you for suporting my above comments. You realize that the "you folks" you put in there includes, well, pretty much everyone besides you who studies the sun?

Sorry folks, but I'm not going to wallow around in ignorance my whole life chasing after your math bunnies. Your theories do not jive with reality and the satellite images blow your beliefs out of the water. I can see that thin green line on the horizon even if the rest of you are blind.

You've done a good job of wallowing in ignorance so far. And...really...math bunnies?

You do realize that pretty much every scientific theory since Newton has had the math to back it up?

So we're moving science back to the days of Aristotle?

Seriously, grow up, get over yourself, and try to LEARN something about the sun before you decide everyone else in the world is wrong.