Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

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

They don't show you just "temperatures", they show you that the iron lines all begin *underneath* of the photosphere like I've been telling you in this thread and on my website for years now.

Those lines do not ONLY represent "temperatures", they represent "mass flows" in coronal loops (that thing you folks ignore completely) that are directly related to "discharge processes" through the photosphere.

LMSAL has been claiming that these lines only become visible somewhere in the "transition region" which they have been claiming is somewhere in the chromosphere/corona (orange region). The SDO images clearly demonstrate that they all (every iron ion wavelength) originate *UNDER* the surface of the photosphere (where the orange light begins), in a region you claim to be "opaque" and GM claims we can't see any light through at all.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

Every other professional astronomer in the world expected those iron lines to only become visible in the orange area.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Strictly on pure fantasy,in my opinion.

That thin green line on the horizon is no 'fantasy'. It's the end of your "the photosphere is opaque so you can't see through it" claim.

 

[Hellbound]

Question:

Did you do ANY research into what could be causing these various things you're seeing in the photos, besides the interpretation that fits your pre-concieved notions?

Did you look into photographic artifacts, or do any research into the specific filters and such used to make the images?

Did you look for any alternative explanations, and find valid reasons to rule them out?

So far, your entire argument for your interpretation comes from your personal belief. And it's obvious, due to many erroneous statements you've made in this thread, that you did little to no research into the details of the images.

So why is your interpretation more valid?

What you seem unable to comprehend, is that science is NOT about proving your theory correct. You can't do it. EVERY theory in science can be overturned with new evidence. But it needs actual evidence, not opinion or belief. It's YOUR job, as a scientists, not to poke hoels in the current theory or search for any data which supports your theory and cherry-pick it out of the mass. It's your job to take your theory, toss it into a deep hole, and throw rocks at it repeatedly. Then, to invite other scientists to do the same. Theories are tested by trying every possible method to make the theory fail...not by finding every possible method to make it suceed. ONLY if a theory stands up to this treatment is it considered valid.

Consdier what you're actually claiming here:

ALL the conventional solar models are wrong.
ALL conventional theories covering fusion processes are incorrect.
ALL the conventional explanations of gravity are incorrect.
Cosmology is completely wrong, and the ratios of elements when matter first condensed are incorrect, which in addition throws out most of the Standard Model.
ALL of our theories that cover spectography are incorrect (which also tossses out bits fo the stnadard model and QED).
ALL conventional understanding of plasmas is incorrect.
Thermodynamics has glaring holes and inconsistencies.

And that's just off the top of my head. You aren't just telling us our model of the sun is wrong, you're telling us that the vast majority of the most extensively and successfulyl tested theories science has ever come up with are not just incomplete, but glaringly wrong (I refer to the STandard Model and General Relativiey).

And the fact that you don't seem to realize this just shows how little you understand about what you're claiming to have disproven.

So, if you want your theory accepted, let's start with baby steps. Answer these questions:

1. What experiment or test could one do to disprove your theory? IN other words, is there a measurement or a data set we can look at that, if it gives a certain answer, would show your theory wrong?

If you can't give an answer to that question...in fact, if you don't have an answer ready immediately, then what you're doing isn't science.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

They don't show you just "temperatures", they show you that the iron lines all begin *underneath* of the photosphere like I've been telling you in this thread and on my website for years now.

Uh, no, that is not a reasonable inference from the false color image. See below.

The SDO images clearly demonstrate that they all (every iron ion wavelength) originate *UNDER* the surface of the photosphere (where the orange light begins), in a region you claim to be "opaque" and GM claims we can't see any light through at all.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to deal with a few math bunnies before you can begin to understand what you're seeing in that image.

At the limb, your line of sight is nearly tangent to the sun's surface. Among other things, that means each pixel on or near the limb represents a much larger area of the sun's surface than pixels nearer the center of the image. That implies a loss of detail, and it also implies an averaging of temperature over a wider area, which may account for the relatively smooth appearance of the limb. (It may also account for the lighter shade of green, but I haven't yet read enough of the technical story behind this image to form an opinion on that.) You seem to be interpreting the loss of detail and lighter color at the limb as transparency. That is not the only possible explanation; it is not even the most likely.

As for the lines you think you are seeing at 6 o'clock, I would call your attention to this excerpt from the Wikipedia article on JPEG^WP compression:

As JPEG is a lossy compression method, which removes information from the image, it must not be used in astronomical or medical imaging or other purposes where the exact reproduction of the data is required.

In particular, the 6 o'clock region looks different on the two computer systems I have used to view it. Before drawing any revolutionary conclusions from this image, a conscientious scientist would want to examine the uncompressed data.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, not "political" channels, that's the scientific process.

Oh no. It's a "political" process. It's not just this solar theory that makes this an uphill battle, it's your industry's blind obsession with vilianizing all things "EU/PC" oriented that makes this a "political process". Holy cow! One thing I have certainly learned over the last few years is that you have irrational phobias, weird mathematical claims, strange "faith" in the physically impossible, like your belief that iron and hydrogen plasma stay magically "mixed together".

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,

I have sat here openly in this thread letting sol take his best shots at falsifying this solar model, knowing full well it could in fact "fail" due to something I've overlooked, and knowing full well that my public reputation rides on the outcome of the result because even I respect sol. What exactly do you want or expect me to do exactly? Pull math bunnies out of thin air which I have no confidence in? FYI, I already "quantified" this model in this thread by the way. I already said for the record that I could see through at least 2000KM and probably at least 3000KM of neon, and my model has a *THICKER* silicon plasma layer under that if you read through my website! That's a real "quantified" parameter, as in >3000KM and probably greater than 4000KM. I am confident of that number (minimum range). I'm not nearly as comfortable at just picking numbers randomly without good reason.

and that our biases and prejudices affect our judgement, and that the mind plays tricks on us.

But that could never be true of YOUR interpretation?

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)?

Well, there are four of us that have publicly stated and published work together. We all agree that the iron lines originate under the photosphere without exception. How many do I need?

Show me where you've predicted ANYTHING, Micheal.

Read this thread! I have publicly stated that I could see through *AT LEAST* 2000KM and probably closer to 3000KM of neon photosphere and we haven't even discussed the silicon layer yet. That is a real quantified minimum parameter isn't it (>3000KM)?

You aren't predicting anything.

Oh boloney! I "predicted" we would see the iron lines *INSIDE* of your "opaque" layer to an "impossible depth" according to your theory. How is that not a "prediction" exactly? I "predicted" that a channel tuned specifically to NE+3 or +4 would show us the whole "photosphere" brightly lit up, not just lines around the loops like iron line or x-ray images.

You look at the pretty pictures,

Yes, as opposed to pretty math bunnies that don't hold up to visual scrutiny.

then you sort through to find some explanation that you can squeeze onto the data that supports your theory.

Who wouldn't do that?

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 give it a rest. Who besides the four of us ever published a paper claiming that the "transition region" where iron line originate is located *UNDER* the photosphere? Who besides me do you know that claims to see *AT LEAST* 2000KM into you "opaque" region? You're not accurately even representing my comments in this thread, let alone my website or our published papers.

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?

I can and I will. Any and all of you could also spend your own time finding his numbers can't you? I have already said you are welcome to use either Birkeland's numbers or Alfven's numbers and those have already been published.

Your claims may have been inspired by outdated science,

Empirical physics is never "outdated science". In the sense it was based on (now) outdated technologies like Yohkoh and Trace and Soho and SERTS, well, ok, but who cares? They provided me with all the information I needed to "predict" things that you folks failed to "predict". In fact your "predictions" are *WRONG*. My theory passed. Your theory failed.

but your model has very little to do with what Birkland tested, besides you both claim an electric sun.

What are you talking about? Birkeland started with a hollow metallic sphere, turned it into a cathode, added a plasma atmosphere, added lots of control mechanisms and evaluated wavelengths to try to understand what he was seeing. If I tried to claim this was "my model" you'd be persecuting me in the opposite direction. You'd be blaming me for trying to take credit for something that wasn't mine in the first place.

I do care about some self-inflated baboon making a mockery of science;

No, just a mockery of "pseudoscience", not science. I used good old fashion empirical physics to "predict" stuff you guys claimed was "crazy".

of some egotistical narcisist who thinks he is the only one that can see the "truth",

Well, that can't be me because I never tried to take credit for Birkeland's solar model, nor exclude my co-authors from credit as some seem to *INSIST* that I do.

and that EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD

Like nobody ever published with me eh? You guys are *AMAZING* at the lengths you will go to in an attempt to ignore history. Pick up a book. Scientists throughout history have "agree with me", starting with Birkeland. It took you 70 years to figure out his auroral models were correct. It could take you another 70 years to figure out his solar model is correct too. He was dead by the time you figure out the first "baby step". How long do you expect me to wait around exactly while you try to reverse the aversion to EU/PC theory now?

EXCEPT HIM IS WRONG. Can you not realze what a monumental claim that is?

Yep. Sure glad I never made it. You folks still ridicule Alfven and he agreed in electric sun theory. Did you forget him? Did you forget Donald Scott? Did you forget Dr. Charles Bruce? Did you forget Anthony Perrat? How many "scientists" are you willing to ignore to make up such silly statements?

You're claiming that somehow every serious, accomplished, and intelligent scientist, all over the world (including Chna, Russia, and Zimbabwe) are all so stupid

More strawman nonsense. Yawn. Are going to explain that light green band under the chromosphere or just keep burning strawmen all day?

Show me you're right and base it on the SDO image. Explain it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Question:

Did you do ANY research into what could be causing these various things you're seeing in the photos, besides the interpretation that fits your pre-concieved notions?

Ya, lots of it. 20 years worth of it in at least in terms of solar satellite image analysis. That's why I didn't miss so many important details that you folks overlook like all those Hinode images I posted last week that show the discharges coming up, through and down back into the photosphere. Did you miss all that too? Dr. Manuel's nuclear chemistry? Kosovichev's images and published papers? Did you miss the sunspot simulation math? Did I not provide you with enough stuff yet? When will it be "enough"? Will I have to be dead like Birkeland?

 

[D'rok]

C'mon Michael. Focus. Sol. Opacity. Plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Uh, no, that is not a reasonable inference from the false color image. See below.


I'm sorry, but you're going to have to deal with a few math bunnies before you can begin to understand what you're seeing in that image.

Ok Mr Spock, give us a number per pixel. How many pixels are there (on average) between the limb darkened region and the bottom of the orange helium emissions. The math simply isn't going to work in your "opaque math bunny" favor.

At the limb, your line of sight is nearly tangent to the sun's surface. Among other things, that means each pixel on or near the limb represents a much larger area of the sun's surface than pixels nearer the center of the image. That implies a loss of detail, and it also implies an averaging of temperature over a wider area, which may account for the relatively smooth appearance of the limb. (It may also account for the lighter shade of green, but I haven't yet read enough of the technical story behind this image to form an opinion on that.) You seem to be interpreting the loss of detail and lighter color at the limb as transparency. That is not the only possible explanation; it is not even the most likely.

Oh come on. If all of those iron lines were originating about half way up the orange layer you guys would be jumping up and down going "See! See! See!". Now that we can see that the iron lines begin *UNDER* the orange layer entirely, you want to claim "oh, the image must be blurry, or something wrong with it somehow." Baloney. The image is *PERFECT* and shows exactly what I "predicted" right here in this thread.

As for the lines you think you are seeing at 6 o'clock, I would call your attention to this excerpt from the Wikipedia article on JPEG^WP compression:

Oh, so now we can't trust the image because it "might be" a wee bit distorted. Ok, go ahead and do the math and tell me how many pixels would have to be distorted to create that whole green "layer" between the "opaque" limb and the orange emissions.

In particular, the 6 o'clock region looks different on the two computer systems I have used to view it. Before drawing any revolutionary conclusions from this image, a conscientious scientist would want to examine the uncompressed data.

It won't make any difference in terms of the compression, but you go right ahead. I already know the outcome from 20+ years of efforts and I can see with my own eyes that your theory does not hold water and my claims in this thread are significantly bolstered by that SDO image.

 

[ben m]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant by the way. That works for me. You'll eventually need the metals and other elements to explain the "white light', but I doubt they'd have much effect on the opacity in any relevant way, whatever simplified scenario works for you is fine by me. FYI, I appreciate what you're doing actually, and I'm looking forward to your results.

Now we know why MM was looking forward to the results of exactly the plasma he said the photosphere was made of. It was "heads I win, tails I change the rules".

 

[GeeMack]

Observation *is* science D'rok. We cannot even compare their mathematical models to anything without images, and their mathematical models of "opacity' do not jive with the satellite image.

But your observation and making unsubstantiated guesses about something when it has been demonstrated without any doubt that you are not qualified to understand solar imagery is not science. It's guessing.

Let's turn things around now. Have them show us how 'science' is done. Have them explain to you that thin light green line along the horizon that appears just under the helium emissions and just above the "opaque" dark jagged dark regions where solar surface actually becomes "opaque" to the iron lines.

How science is done? You asked sol to do your work for you to determine whether you could really see through the photosphere. He did science the way science is done, mathematically. And he determined that you can't see through the photosphere. It's opaque. Your arguments from looks-like-a-bunny and arguments from ignorance notwithstanding.

 

[phunk]

Please define "iron line".

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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.

This is worth repeating ...

As is an earlier, slightly different prediction (actually it was a description, but it's easily turned into a prediction): lather, wash, rinse, repeat.

(I think it was ben_m's description, but maybe I'm mis-remembering)

 

[GeeMack]

Likewise, the fact you see math bunnies on the sun doesn't make them real. In fact your "opaque math bunny" just died a horrible and terrible death.

Argument from tantrum.

Did you forget about Sumeet, Hilton and Oliver? We!

Somehow I doubt the coauthors of our papers would agree with you.
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1

Somehow those coauthors have the iron in the middle of the Sun, not in some solid surface. I've seen Oliver Manuel participating in a couple of threads in at least one forum and he denied taking that solid surface Sun position. Flat out denied it. You've been asked to quote him anywhere supporting your crackpot conjecture, and just like pretty much anytime anyone asks you to actually support anything you say, you failed to produce.

Unfortunately for you, SDO just crapped all over your opaque math bunny and killed it with that thin green line between the helium emissions and the "opaque" jagged edge of the sun. Say bye-bye to your opacity math bunny because it's visibly dead and you're gong to need a whole bunch of new math bunnies very soon.

I'm kind of waiting on you to come up with a little math. Seems you forgot all about that and fell back on your argument from looks-like-a-bunny again. Just as a reminder...

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.

 

[GeeMack]

You mean the fact I don't rely *STRICTLY* on math like you folks?

You don't rely on math at all. Your qualifications to understand math have been challenged, and you have wholly and completely failed to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, if you want your theory accepted, let's start with baby steps. Answer these questions:

1. What experiment or test could one do to disprove your theory?

That SDO image "could have" falsified" my theory once and for all. Had the iron lines all originated about half way (or some way) up the orange regions, you folks would crush my theory like a bug with that very same image. Pity it didn't work out in your favor.

I'll stand my my earlier "prediction" that a channel tuned to Ne+3 or +4 will show the surface of the photosphere too. According to you guys those emissions should be limited to activity in the corona where you thought all those iron lines originated.

IN other words, is there a measurement or a data set we can look at that, if it gives a certain answer, would show your theory wrong?

I have been waiting with baited breath to see the SDO images because I knew for a fact that they would make or break my solar theory. There was no "in between" related to the location of the "transition region". Either the iron lines began in the chromosphere as LMSAL said, or I was right. I was right. Now what? Shall we all wait around for years on end before we take a fresh look at Birkeland's solar theories?

If you can't give an answer to that question...in fact, if you don't have an answer ready immediately, then what you're doing isn't science.

Since the day my website went up, and my blog began, I have stuck my neck out with respect to the location of the origin of the iron lines. According to your theory that layer is 'opaque' at 500KM and we could *NEVER* see the iron lines under the "opaque" photosphere for all the very logical and scientific reasons that Ben and sol noted. Care to address *THAT* prediction in light of this new SDO evidence, are are you going to try to hide behind that opaque math bunny claim?

Honestly folks, that SDO image was "make it or break it" time for both theories. My theory passed with flying colors, green to be exact. You however has some explaining to do about why those iron lines do not originate in the upper chromosphere as you 'predicted'.

 

[GeeMack]

Observation is not a "fantasy". Somewhere along the line you folks simply forgot the value of observation and you no longer even care about observation. All that matters to you are your cute cuddly math bunnies, even if they don't even come *CLOSE* to explaining the observations. Got a "better" scientific explanation to explain why your opaque photosphere isn't even close to being opaque?

Uh, the better explanation, consistent with the laws of physics, demonstrated quantitatively and objectively in a way that others can apply the method and come up with the same results, is that the photosphere is opaque.

But since the opacity of the photosphere is apparently the Achilles heel of mainstream solar theory, and since you in your infinite wisdom have decided that doing a little math will destroy that theory, let 'er rip, Michael. A little math, please.

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.

 

[D'rok]

C'mon Michael. Focus. Sol. Opacity. Plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You don't rely on math at all. Your qualifications to understand math have been challenged, and you have wholly and completely failed to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications.

Actually in light of the SDO image, my qualifications turn out to be impeccable and we all know that you are nothing but a belligerent troll.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Uh, the better explanation, consistent with the laws of physics, demonstrated quantitatively and objectively in a way that others can apply the method and come up with the same results, is that the photosphere is opaque.

But since the opacity of the photosphere is apparently the Achilles heel of mainstream solar theory, and since you in your infinite wisdom have decided that doing a little math will destroy that theory, let 'er rip, Michael. A little math, please.

Actually, that SDO image does a much more effective job than I could ever hope to do with a simple Earth based gBand image. What's the point of wasting my time now on that project when we can all see through your "opaque" layer all along the rim? Dude, your personal definition of "opacity theory" just bit the dust. New technology just killed it!