Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[GeeMack]

Absolutely. Look at the limb darkening process and how it starts about 7200KM below the photosphere/chromosphere boundary. That limb darkening we observe is directly related to the "surface of the sun". That is "opaque" (GM style) because it's a solid. Current carrying, highly ionized plasma isn't necessarily opaque and this image demonstrates that too.

And you still claim to be able to see through 100,000 kilometers of plasma. Dam. It's a miracle! That is one of the most ridiculous things you've ever tried to use as an argument, and believe me, you've made some seriously ridiculous arguments in your years of pushing this nonsense.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And you still claim to be able to see through 100,000 kilometers of plasma.

Quote me you liar. You have no honor nor any integrity whatsoever.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Just fill in the blanks, Michael.

I need the voltage across the 2000km layer.

I need the temperature of the plasma (either specified before we switch on the voltage, or after - but in the latter case we'll have to make sure those two are consistent).

Once you give me those I'll post the parameters you've specified and get your confirmation, then we can proceed. That will be your second strike (or home run, as the case may be).

FYI this is getting *really* complicated and frankly the thermal aspects only make it complicated to the point of absurdity IMO because that layer is sandwiched between two more thermally radiating layers of plasma that radiate and different temperatures and densities. If you're going to worry about thermal aspects we're way beyond what I can answer in terms of giving you numbers like that without simply pulling them out of my back pocket. That would be so speculative I could never expect a "hit", let alone a "home run". Don't you think we should start with a "less complex" version and see where things are at?

You wouldn't be dragging your feet for more numbers from me because you already know that I'm in the ballpark would you?

 

[GeeMack]

Quote me you liar. You have no honor nor any integrity whatsoever.

I used simple image analysis and grade school math to come up with that. If you had the ability to do simple image analysis and grade school math you'd know what I'm talking about. Unfortunatley for you, you don't have the qualifications to apply either.

Looks like W.D.Clinger understands. He PMed me about it. We'll have him explain it in a bit, but first, anyone else care to take a stab at why Michael thinks he can see through 100,000 kilometers of plasma? (And no, I don't mean why, as in the delusion. I mean why, as in the quantitative claim he's making.) PM me.

 

[sol invictus]

FYI this is getting *really* complicated and frankly the thermal aspects only make it complicated to the point of absurdity IMO because that layer is sandwiched between two more thermally radiating layers of plasma that radiate and different temperatures and densities.

No problem at all. When we do the lab experiment to test your model, we can of course put the top and bottom of the 2000km (or whatever number you pick) layer of plasma in contact with surfaces of different temperatures. That will create a thermal gradient (similar to the one in the sun).

If you're going to worry about thermal aspects we're way beyond what I can answer in terms of giving you numbers like that without simply pulling them out of my back pocket. That would be so speculative I could never expect a "hit", let alone a "home run". Don't you think we should start with a "less complex" version and see where things are at?

Thermodynamics makes things much less complex. But actually you don't have to tell me the temperature. Instead you could specify the initial ionization populations (your favorite - all +4 and +5 for the Ne - for example), the density, the voltage, and the average initial velocity of the ions. Given those initial conditions I think I can move forward.

(Just as a warning - the first thing I will do with that information is calculate the temperature the Moplazma™ 2.0 will equilibrate to.)

You wouldn't be dragging your feet for more numbers from me because you already know that I'm in the ballpark would you?

No. That's really not it, Michael.

 

[GeeMack]

FYI this is getting *really* complicated and frankly the thermal aspects only make it complicated to the point of absurdity IMO because that layer is sandwiched between two more thermally radiating layers of plasma that radiate and different temperatures and densities. If you're going to worry about thermal aspects we're way beyond what I can answer in terms of giving you numbers like that without simply pulling them out of my back pocket. That would be so speculative I could never expect a "hit", let alone a "home run". Don't you think we should start with a "less complex" version and see where things are at?

When he did your homework for you with a less complex version, he determined that there's no physically possible way you can see through the plasma you described. It's opaque, totally and completely opaque. Then you promptly badmouthed his work as a strawman. In simple terms, my prediction that you would take a dump on him was accurate.

And now you're refusing for some odd reason to cooperate with Sol as he offers again to help you understand your nutty claim. In fact, everyone here is trying to help you understand your nutty claim. The arguments you throw back in response to all this help are insulting and badgering. And for all their work, your appreciation is pretty much as nonexistent as your mythical solid iron surface.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I used simple image analysis and grade school math to come up with that. If you had the ability to do simple image analysis and grade school math you'd know what I'm talking about. Unfortunatley for you, you don't have the qualifications to apply either.

Looks like W.D.Clinger understands. He PMed me about it. We'll have him explain it in a bit, but first, anyone else care to take a stab at why Michael thinks he can see through 100,000 kilometers of plasma? (And no, I don't mean why, as in the delusion. I mean why, as in the quantitative claim he's making.) PM me.

Well at least DRD and Ben know how to do math even if you're completely clueless. You didn't accurately represent Mr. Spocks statements anymore than you accurately represent mine. But what else would I expect from you? FYI both ben and DRD did the math for you in this thread already. You evidently really suck at math and you didn't check your decimal point.

And you think you're a math whiz?

 

[Michael Mozina]

(Just as a warning - the first thing I will do with that information is calculate the temperature the Moplazma™ 2.0 will equilibrate to.)

What does that have to do with "opacity"? You're "complicating this up" simply to make it impossible to get a hit. Me thinks me smells a rat. I don't mind handing you populations of elements and their energy states for purposes of the opacity calculation, but when you start grading it based on a thermodynamic grade point average, something smells fishy. You don't *WANT* to provide those opacity numbers do you?

No. That's really not it, Michael.

Then forget what happens thermodynamically and let's stay on topic (opacity).

 

[Ziggurat]

What does that have to do with "opacity"?

Plenty.

You're "complicating this up" simply to make it impossible to get a hit.

Not at all, Michael. Sol is just asking for the inputs required to perform the calculations.

Me thinks me smells a rat.

No, Michael. The smell is weasel, at it's you trying to get out of providing details of your model.

I don't mind handing you populations of elements and their energy states for purposes of the opacity calculation

Then get to it.

Then forget what happens thermodynamically and let's stay on topic (opacity).

Thermodynamics will determine ionization populations. Those will affect opacity.

 

[GeeMack]

Well at least DRD and Ben know how to do math even if you're completely clueless. You didn't accurately represent Mr. Spocks statements anymore than you accurately represent mine. But what else would I expect from you? FYI both ben and DRD did the math for you in this thread already. You evidently really suck at math and you didn't check your decimal point.

And you think you're a math whiz?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/mazeguyemotions/jaw-dropping.gif[/qimg]

Oh my decimal point is fine and dandy, thank you. I'm pretty sure Ben and DRD both understand the ridiculous claim you're making. And I'm pretty sure they both have the ability to do the grade school math that seems to escape you. Hell, I figured it out using image analysis on that SDO image. It's a shame you aren't qualified to understand or you'd know what the problems are with the image, you'd catch a couple of pretty important things you're missing when you're staring at it, and you'd realize why your interpretation of it is completely incorrect.

But don't forget, I have offered to help you with your deficient qualifications in that area. Oddly enough, even given offers of help by people like myself with relevant expertise, you seem quite content to remain ignorant and to be consistently wrong.

Now if you're done throwing your current tantrum, maybe you can do a tiny bit of the actual work yourself...

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.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Plenty.

Bull. We started out "grading" the model based on opacity. Now were "grading" the opacity issue on thermodynamic characteristics? Where did that slight of hand come from?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh my decimal point is fine and dandy, thank you.

No, you're off by a whole OOM. I never claimed to be able to see through 100,000KM of plasma. That's your own stupid, misleading, dishonorable BS.

 

[Reality Check]

Did you cherry pick the image to support your fantasy

Absolutely. Look at the limb darkening process and how it starts about 7200KM below the photosphere/chromosphere boundary. That limb darkening we observe is directly related to the "surface of the sun". That is "opaque" (GM style) because it's a solid. Current carrying, highly ionized plasma isn't necessarily opaque and this image demonstrates that too.

You are absolutely wrong.
The first image in the press release clearly shows the "limb darkening process" extending to about 72,000 KM below the photosphere/chromosphere boundary.
And since it is the first image in the press release it has to be the correct one !

It is a truism that if Michael Mozina states something then it is probably wrong . So if he calls the "green line" limb darkening as I initially thought that it was then the idea needs a second look.

• If it was limb darkening then it would be consistent around the limb of the Sun. The "green line" is not consistent.
  Thus it is not limb darkening.
• If it was limb darkening then it would be present in the first image to the same extent. It is not there in the first image except as a few "green areas".
  Thus it is not limb darkening.

Conclusion: the "green line" is not limb darkening.

First asked 28 April 2010

Michael Mozina,
Perhaps you can explain why the first image in the SDO images gallery (the second image is the one you selected), does not have any "green line".

Did you cherry pick the image to support your fantasy*?

The first image in the gallary does have a "green area" at the 8 o'clock postion. This is about 10 times bigger than the "green line" that is in most places along the limb in the second image.

Does this place your impossible iron crust at ~70,000 km below the photosphere?
Or are you going to stick with the second image (~7,000 km).
Or are you going to stick with the helioseismology stratification layer in the plasma at ~3000 km where the convection current destroys your iron crust?
Or are you going to pick some other random number?


*A fanatsy because it violates thermodynamics, e.g see Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K ) and predicts absolutley nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 50 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.

 

[sol invictus]

What does that have to do with "opacity"?

Nearly everything.

You're "complicating this up" simply to make it impossible to get a hit. Me thinks me smells a rat. I don't mind handing you populations of elements and their energy states for purposes of the opacity calculation, but when you start grading it based on a thermodynamic grade point average, something smells fishy.

Michael, you told me you wanted me to use the laws of physics, right? Well, part of the laws pf physics are the laws of thermodynamics. And one of the things those laws tell us is that systems come to equilibrium if you leave them alone for a little bit. The only way to prevent that is to keep perturbing them, or to look at them immediately after a perturbation.

Now it's possible that whatever conditions you decide to impose will prevent the plasma from coming to equilibrium. I don't know yet, because you still haven't told me what conditions you want to impose.

You don't *WANT* to provide those opacity numbers do you?

All you have to do is tell me what the initial conditions are and I will calculate the opacity for you. You still haven't done that.

Then forget what happens thermodynamically and let's stay on topic (opacity).

I can't "forget" what happens thermodynamically and still use the laws of physics, Michael.

 

[Ziggurat]

Bull. We started out "grading" the model based on opacity. Now were "grading" the opacity issue on thermodynamic characteristics? Where did that slight of hand come from?

You have it backwards, Michael. Temperature affects opacity. You won't specify a temperature, and you want to specify a thermodynamically impossible ionization population. We therefore cannot help but address the thermodynamics of the problem. That's not a slight of hand, it's an attempt to make your model conform to some of the most basic and well-understood aspects of physics out there. If you want to claim that thermodynamics is wrong, then we won't bother trying to make your model consistent with thermodynamics. If you don't want to make that claim, then conforming is an absolute requirement.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Looks like W.D.Clinger understands. He PMed me about it. We'll have him explain it in a bit, but first, anyone else care to take a stab at why Michael thinks he can see through 100,000 kilometers of plasma? (And no, I don't mean why, as in the delusion. I mean why, as in the quantitative claim he's making.) PM me.

Well at least DRD and Ben know how to do math even if you're completely clueless. You didn't accurately represent Mr. Spocks statements anymore than you accurately represent mine. But what else would I expect from you? FYI both ben and DRD did the math for you in this thread already. You evidently really suck at math and you didn't check your decimal point.

No, GeeMack represented my statements accurately, and his math is correct. Michael Mozina really has claimed to see through 100,000 kilometers of Moplazma™ --- although, to be completely fair, Michael Mozina didn't and still doesn't understand that his claim to see through 100,000 kilometers was implicit within his explicit claim to see solid features underneath 7200 kilometers of Moplazma™ at the sun's limb.

GeeMack was the first to mention the 100,000-kilometer consequence of Michael Mozina's claim. I'm sure many of us have understood the basis for that number from the moment GeeMack first mentioned it, but posting the calculation might assist casual lurkers. Before posting the calculation myself, I sent a private message to GeeMack so he'd have a chance to post the calculation before me or to influence the timing of my post. He suggested we give lurkers some time to come up with the calculation on their own, and I'm fine with that.

Michael Mozina can protest all he wants, but he can't say he wasn't warned.

 

[GeeMack]

No, you're off by a whole OOM. I never claimed to be able to see through 100,000KM of plasma. That's your own stupid, misleading, dishonorable BS.

Nothing dishonorable about applying my image processing expertise and a little grade school math to your silly claims, Michael. The dishonor is yours in claiming to be qualified to understand solar imagery when in fact you are not, and then to badmouth me and call me a liar when I use my expertise to show that your argument is crap and that you are wrong.

Everyone keeps telling you to do it yourself if you think you can do better. Where has that gotten us? More unsubstantiated unqualified opinions? That isn't science, Michael. That's writing fiction. And you're not very good at that either.

W.D.Clinger gets it. Toke gets it. If you actually had the qualifications you claim to have, you'd get it, too.

 

[Ziggurat]

W.D.Clinger gets it. Toke gets it.

... Rocky doesn't get it.

 

[ben m]

Michael, if you don't want to give Sol enough information to calculate the temperature, you're welcome to just tell him the temperature. The electron temperature is the most relevant one, but in the slowly-varying world of the photosphere the ion temperature will equilibrate with it very quickly. You're the one insisting that he get the temperature by starting from your weird half-specified currents and whatnot.

It's almost certainly true that there is some temperature---a very high one---for which a pure-neon plasma is surprisingly transparent. Crank it up high enough and you'll get extremely pure Ne XI---bare nuclei surrounded by electrons. Is that what you're aiming for? It probably is transparent-ish. If so, say so and save Sol the trouble of working out how the temperature gets there, he can just work out the opacity of plasma at that temperature*. (There may be an opacity source in there that I haven't noticed, of course.)

Anyway, if you want to start there, we can discuss how we know the photosphere is 6000K and not some higher temperature.

* I doubt it's possible to calculate the temperature in a self-consistent manner from your vague electric sun statements. For example, saying "there's 10^10 volts across it" doesn't translate straightforwardly into power. The physics says that a current will flow, causing a temperature/ionization increase, reducing the resistance and making the current increase, etc., a process which to all appearances runs away with no upper bound on the temperature. In practice it will presumably "stop" when some other effect kicks in---it exceeds the Eddington luminosity, or the mysterious source "sags" in voltage, or some sort of magnetic instability kicks in. So I expect that a self-consistent statement would be more like "if the Sun had an ideal, constant-voltage source across it, it would be at the Eddington luminosity and would fry the whole solar system" and less like "If the Sun had an ideal voltage source across it it would increase the temperature stably from 6000K to 6500K".

 

[The Man]

... Rocky doesn't get it.

Perhaps Bullwinkle does?