Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[DSo]

I get the sense that what MM is really trying to say is ...

Sol, you are good at math. Please calculate a transparent photosphere by whatever means necessary. Once you're done, that's the sun!

 

[Tim Thompson]

Math Bunnies & Image Bunnies

All you ever do is play around that math bunnies and ignore the physics entirely. "My pretty math bunny say Nickel and iron stay magically mixed together with hydrogen and make the surface "opaque", so that must be true".

Math Bunnies
We notice throughout this, and all other conversations that Mozina takes part in, a sincerely derisive tone, and curt dismissal, whenever the word "math", or anything synonymous with it, appears in the conversation. This attitude is simply stupid. The reality is that physics & math are synonymous in any meaningful application, and most certainly they are synonymous in the context of this discussion. One cannot do meaningful physics without math; no math, no physics, end of story. Mozina constantly claims to fully understand the true workings of the sun, but it is in fact Mozina who, without any question, always ignores the physics entirely. Everyone reading this must clearly understand that while Mozina claims to understand the physics of the sun, he in fact ignores the physics entirely, and does so always, in all cases. You can see this clearly just by following what he says and how he says it. Just ask yourself, "Where's the physics?" Understanding the sun, or any other star, requires a significant level of understanding of physics, and anyone who does not understand physics does not understand the sun, vociferous claims to the contrary not withstanding. Mozina in fact does not understand physics, math, or the sun.

Tim, that green region between the limb and the chromosphere isn't my "imagination".

Image Bunnies
Since bunnies seems to be a popular metaphor, I'll keep the title. Of course we can all see the same image, and indeed the green places and the red places & etc. are there for everyone to see. However, interpreting the physical significance of what you see is quite another thing. In this case, the interpretation Mozina give is nothing but imagination, with nary a shred of physics, or any other science in sight. I have been involved in the analysis and interpretation of astronomical imagery for many years. The group I worked with at JPL devised a new algorithm for enhancing the resolution of astronomical images by compressing the point spread function using fast Fourier transforms. The method has the advantage of being very fast by comparison with other methods, but you do have to watch out for artifacts. Still, all things considered, it has been something of a success so far (see Velusamy, et al., 2008; Backus, et al., 2005; Stapelfeldt, et al., 2004). I know something about scientific image analysis, and I dare say I know far more about the topic than does Mozina.

There are basically two kinds of images that scientists in general, and astronomers in particular, deal with: science images and publicity images, the latter commonly called PR images, short for "public relations". A science image is a picture often does not look like much, but is a visual image made directly from science data, usually the intensity at a given wavelength, or in a given wavelength band, as recorded by the observing instrument, but by no means limited to that. Scientists do look at the images, and can learn quite a bit by doing that, but image analysis is never done by looking at a picture. It is done by examining in great detail (using mathematics I might add) the digital information used to create the picture. That digital data is the image. That's an important distinction to make: The picture you look at with your eye is never the science image, but rather the digital data from which that picture is made is always the science image (this is the case in my discipline of digital astronomical image analysis). On the other hand, a PR image, while based on science image data, is created by artists for the specific purpose of looking good and attracting attention. The PR image is divorced from the underlying science data, except for whatever the caption might tell you. Usually a color vs wavelength guide is given, but the intensity scale is unknown, and the color scheme & stretch are designed to please the eye, not relay information. A PR image is, in short, a propaganda instrument for the program that published it, and must be clearly understood as nothing more than that.

Now pay close attention to what Mozina does: He looks at the pictures. That's all he ever does. Look at his posted messages. Where does he ever do anything except look at the propaganda pictures, the PR images, with his own eyeballs? He does not even deal with science images, but only with PR images, better known as "pretty pictures". That's all he ever does. All of his allegedly "scientific" arguments stem from his looking at a "pretty picture", and interpreting what he sees strictly in terms of what he assumes in advance must be there. Real scientists study the images carefully and let the image tell them what's there. Mozina looks at the picture ans tells it what it must be. You don't need me to tell you this, you can watch him do it right here in front of you.

All of Mozina's "iron sun" ideas are the product of his imagination, and his imagination only. There is not one shred of valid science to be found anywhere in all of Mozina's posts. Nothing but "it must be so because I say it must be so". You don't need me to tell you that either, just read his posts and see for yourself. For instance ...

Sorry Tim but SDO is not your friend. The delineation between the photosphere and chromosphere in this image is thin, clean (not distorted) and smooth. Under that chromosphere in orange is a light green region, and then finally a number of pixels down we see limb darkening. Your solar theory just died but you don't want to "see" it so you simply ignore the observational evidence that blows your theory away. These multimillion dollar images absolutely go to waste on you folks because you absolutely refuse to compare your mathematical models to the observations that falsify those mathematical models. What's the saying? There are none so blind.....

How does one look at this image (SDO Full Disk Image) and know that what he is seeing is "the delineation between the photosphere and chromosphere"? The answer is that one does not know any such thing, and neither does Mozina. He assumes that's what it is, because that's what he wants it to be. There is no other reason, none at all. Look at the pictures yourself. How would you know? What makes him think he knows?

So ask yourself, is this the intelligent way to study the sun? Is this the intelligent way to determine the temperature structure of the solar atmosphere? Remember, that's exactly what Mozina is doing. He is looking at the PR picture and deciding that the transition region is below the photosphere, and that extreme ultraviolet emission comes from below the photosphere. He is ignoring the direct observations of the temperature structure that are available, from instruments designed specifically for that purpose, and instead substituting his own subjective interpretation of the colors in a PR image in their place. Science data would appear to be neither of interest or of use to Mozina, since he ignores it relentlessly.

You, the reader, can decide for yourself who and/or what you think. But I will tell you for myself that the Mozina "iron sun" hypothesis has no scientific value at all, How he can waste so much of his life on such a relentlessly stupid idea is far beyond my comprehension. I may be a mad scientist, but I am not that insane (yet).

 

[Tim Thompson]

Scientific Show Stoppers

In this case I actually prefer a bit of "scientific tension" and skepticism so that I can be certain that I didn't forget or overlook any critical "issue" that might be a real show stopper.

This comes from the guy who thinks that the laws of physics are devoutly to be ignored at all costs. There are in fact so many scientific show stoppers already on then table ... the laws of thermodynamics ... the principle of conservation of energy ... How many "scientific show stoppers" does one man need, to understand that the show was stopped a long time ago?

 

[dasmiller]

He suggested we give lurkers some time to come up with the calculation on their own, and I'm fine with that.

I'm getting 99,817 km based on a 1,391,000 km sun diameter and MM's 7200 km depth. What do I win?

 

[Tim Thompson]

10^10 Volts

* 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.

10¹⁰ Volts is commonly cited by electric sun "theorists" as the electrostatic potential of the sun relative to "infinity", or what I would call the "ground potential" of the interstellar medium. I am not sure what the role of the heliopause & etc. are supposed to play in all this. Given 10¹⁰ Volts between, say the sun & Pluto (5.90638 x 10¹² meters), that's only about 1.7 millivolts per meter (linear interpolation in the absence of any reason not to), hardly the kind of electric field likely to excite much attention in the solar photosphere.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Sleight of Hand

Now were "grading" the opacity issue on thermodynamic characteristics? Where did that slight of hand come from?

Since when is it "sleight of hand" to require that the laws of physics be properly accounted for in any computational model?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Math Bunnies
We notice throughout this, and all other conversations that Mozina takes part in, a sincerely derisive tone, and curt dismissal, whenever the word "math", or anything synonymous with it, appears in the conversation. This attitude is simply stupid. The reality is that physics & math are synonymous in any meaningful application, and most certainly they are synonymous in the context of this discussion. One cannot do meaningful physics without math; no math, no physics, end of story. Mozina constantly claims to fully understand the true workings of the sun, but it is in fact Mozina who, without any question, always ignores the physics entirely. Everyone reading this must clearly understand that while Mozina claims to understand the physics of the sun, he in fact ignores the physics entirely, and does so always, in all cases. You can see this clearly just by following what he says and how he says it. Just ask yourself, "Where's the physics?" Understanding the sun, or any other star, requires a significant level of understanding of physics, and anyone who does not understand physics does not understand the sun, vociferous claims to the contrary not withstanding. Mozina in fact does not understand physics, math, or the sun.



Image Bunnies
Since bunnies seems to be a popular metaphor, I'll keep the title. Of course we can all see the same image, and indeed the green places and the red places & etc. are there for everyone to see. However, interpreting the physical significance of what you see is quite another thing. In this case, the interpretation Mozina give is nothing but imagination, with nary a shred of physics, or any other science in sight. I have been involved in the analysis and interpretation of astronomical imagery for many years. The group I worked with at JPL devised a new algorithm for enhancing the resolution of astronomical images by compressing the point spread function using fast Fourier transforms. The method has the advantage of being very fast by comparison with other methods, but you do have to watch out for artifacts. Still, all things considered, it has been something of a success so far (see Velusamy, et al., 2008; Backus, et al., 2005; Stapelfeldt, et al., 2004). I know something about scientific image analysis, and I dare say I know far more about the topic than does Mozina.

There are basically two kinds of images that scientists in general, and astronomers in particular, deal with: science images and publicity images, the latter commonly called PR images, short for "public relations". A science image is a picture often does not look like much, but is a visual image made directly from science data, usually the intensity at a given wavelength, or in a given wavelength band, as recorded by the observing instrument, but by no means limited to that. Scientists do look at the images, and can learn quite a bit by doing that, but image analysis is never done by looking at a picture. It is done by examining in great detail (using mathematics I might add) the digital information used to create the picture. That digital data is the image. That's an important distinction to make: The picture you look at with your eye is never the science image, but rather the digital data from which that picture is made is always the science image (this is the case in my discipline of digital astronomical image analysis). On the other hand, a PR image, while based on science image data, is created by artists for the specific purpose of looking good and attracting attention. The PR image is divorced from the underlying science data, except for whatever the caption might tell you. Usually a color vs wavelength guide is given, but the intensity scale is unknown, and the color scheme & stretch are designed to please the eye, not relay information. A PR image is, in short, a propaganda instrument for the program that published it, and must be clearly understood as nothing more than that.

Now pay close attention to what Mozina does: He looks at the pictures. That's all he ever does. Look at his posted messages. Where does he ever do anything except look at the propaganda pictures, the PR images, with his own eyeballs? He does not even deal with science images, but only with PR images, better known as "pretty pictures". That's all he ever does. All of his allegedly "scientific" arguments stem from his looking at a "pretty picture", and interpreting what he sees strictly in terms of what he assumes in advance must be there. Real scientists study the images carefully and let the image tell them what's there. Mozina looks at the picture ans tells it what it must be. You don't need me to tell you this, you can watch him do it right here in front of you.

All of Mozina's "iron sun" ideas are the product of his imagination, and his imagination only. There is not one shred of valid science to be found anywhere in all of Mozina's posts. Nothing but "it must be so because I say it must be so". You don't need me to tell you that either, just read his posts and see for yourself. For instance ...

How does one look at this image (SDO Full Disk Image) and know that what he is seeing is "the delineation between the photosphere and chromosphere"? The answer is that one does not know any such thing, and neither does Mozina. He assumes that's what it is, because that's what he wants it to be. There is no other reason, none at all. Look at the pictures yourself. How would you know? What makes him think he knows?

So ask yourself, is this the intelligent way to study the sun? Is this the intelligent way to determine the temperature structure of the solar atmosphere? Remember, that's exactly what Mozina is doing. He is looking at the PR picture and deciding that the transition region is below the photosphere, and that extreme ultraviolet emission comes from below the photosphere. He is ignoring the direct observations of the temperature structure that are available, from instruments designed specifically for that purpose, and instead substituting his own subjective interpretation of the colors in a PR image in their place. Science data would appear to be neither of interest or of use to Mozina, since he ignores it relentlessly.

You, the reader, can decide for yourself who and/or what you think. But I will tell you for myself that the Mozina "iron sun" hypothesis has no scientific value at all, How he can waste so much of his life on such a relentlessly stupid idea is far beyond my comprehension. I may be a mad scientist, but I am not that insane (yet).

Thank you for the above comments. I have been following this tread on a daily basis, as an interested layman with a fair mathematical background, but with only a scanty education in physics (an undergraduate minor 45 years ago). Be assured that all that you say is quite apparent even to someone like me. MM never has anything to say of a quantifiable nature. Mathematical models have been the essence of physics since Newton. But, MM’s physics is in essence Aristotelian: consisting of observations, interpretations, guesses, and introspective mumblings. He knows just enough physics jargon and concepts to talk about currents, ions, EM fields, etc. in order to keep the game going -- a game which must provide an enormous boost to his ego needs.
I frankly wonder if he really does believe in this “iron sun” stuff or merely enjoys keeping all the participants here participating in his playpen. In either case, his ignorance of real physics is very obvious. Is it remotely possible that this has been an elaborate spoof designed to provide his entertainment?

 

[dafydd]

Math Bunnies
We notice throughout this, and all other conversations that Mozina takes part in, a sincerely derisive tone, and curt dismissal, whenever the word "math", or anything synonymous with it, appears in the conversation. This attitude is simply stupid. The reality is that physics & math are synonymous in any meaningful application, and most certainly they are synonymous in the context of this discussion. One cannot do meaningful physics without math; no math, no physics, end of story. Mozina constantly claims to fully understand the true workings of the sun, but it is in fact Mozina who, without any question, always ignores the physics entirely. Everyone reading this must clearly understand that while Mozina claims to understand the physics of the sun, he in fact ignores the physics entirely, and does so always, in all cases. You can see this clearly just by following what he says and how he says it. Just ask yourself, "Where's the physics?" Understanding the sun, or any other star, requires a significant level of understanding of physics, and anyone who does not understand physics does not understand the sun, vociferous claims to the contrary not withstanding. Mozina in fact does not understand physics, math, or the sun.



Image Bunnies
Since bunnies seems to be a popular metaphor, I'll keep the title. Of course we can all see the same image, and indeed the green places and the red places & etc. are there for everyone to see. However, interpreting the physical significance of what you see is quite another thing. In this case, the interpretation Mozina give is nothing but imagination, with nary a shred of physics, or any other science in sight. I have been involved in the analysis and interpretation of astronomical imagery for many years. The group I worked with at JPL devised a new algorithm for enhancing the resolution of astronomical images by compressing the point spread function using fast Fourier transforms. The method has the advantage of being very fast by comparison with other methods, but you do have to watch out for artifacts. Still, all things considered, it has been something of a success so far (see Velusamy, et al., 2008; Backus, et al., 2005; Stapelfeldt, et al., 2004). I know something about scientific image analysis, and I dare say I know far more about the topic than does Mozina.

There are basically two kinds of images that scientists in general, and astronomers in particular, deal with: science images and publicity images, the latter commonly called PR images, short for "public relations". A science image is a picture often does not look like much, but is a visual image made directly from science data, usually the intensity at a given wavelength, or in a given wavelength band, as recorded by the observing instrument, but by no means limited to that. Scientists do look at the images, and can learn quite a bit by doing that, but image analysis is never done by looking at a picture. It is done by examining in great detail (using mathematics I might add) the digital information used to create the picture. That digital data is the image. That's an important distinction to make: The picture you look at with your eye is never the science image, but rather the digital data from which that picture is made is always the science image (this is the case in my discipline of digital astronomical image analysis). On the other hand, a PR image, while based on science image data, is created by artists for the specific purpose of looking good and attracting attention. The PR image is divorced from the underlying science data, except for whatever the caption might tell you. Usually a color vs wavelength guide is given, but the intensity scale is unknown, and the color scheme & stretch are designed to please the eye, not relay information. A PR image is, in short, a propaganda instrument for the program that published it, and must be clearly understood as nothing more than that.

Now pay close attention to what Mozina does: He looks at the pictures. That's all he ever does. Look at his posted messages. Where does he ever do anything except look at the propaganda pictures, the PR images, with his own eyeballs? He does not even deal with science images, but only with PR images, better known as "pretty pictures". That's all he ever does. All of his allegedly "scientific" arguments stem from his looking at a "pretty picture", and interpreting what he sees strictly in terms of what he assumes in advance must be there. Real scientists study the images carefully and let the image tell them what's there. Mozina looks at the picture ans tells it what it must be. You don't need me to tell you this, you can watch him do it right here in front of you.

All of Mozina's "iron sun" ideas are the product of his imagination, and his imagination only. There is not one shred of valid science to be found anywhere in all of Mozina's posts. Nothing but "it must be so because I say it must be so". You don't need me to tell you that either, just read his posts and see for yourself. For instance ...

How does one look at this image (SDO Full Disk Image) and know that what he is seeing is "the delineation between the photosphere and chromosphere"? The answer is that one does not know any such thing, and neither does Mozina. He assumes that's what it is, because that's what he wants it to be. There is no other reason, none at all. Look at the pictures yourself. How would you know? What makes him think he knows?

So ask yourself, is this the intelligent way to study the sun? Is this the intelligent way to determine the temperature structure of the solar atmosphere? Remember, that's exactly what Mozina is doing. He is looking at the PR picture and deciding that the transition region is below the photosphere, and that extreme ultraviolet emission comes from below the photosphere. He is ignoring the direct observations of the temperature structure that are available, from instruments designed specifically for that purpose, and instead substituting his own subjective interpretation of the colors in a PR image in their place. Science data would appear to be neither of interest or of use to Mozina, since he ignores it relentlessly.

You, the reader, can decide for yourself who and/or what you think. But I will tell you for myself that the Mozina "iron sun" hypothesis has no scientific value at all, How he can waste so much of his life on such a relentlessly stupid idea is far beyond my comprehension. I may be a mad scientist, but I am not that insane (yet).

Thank you for that.Michael is the very antithesis of a scientist.

 

[Skwinty]

Is it remotely possible that this has been an elaborate spoof designed to provide his entertainment?

I often think exactly this.
On the other hand, if it were not for crackpots posting this kind of nonsense, what would become of this forum?

Maybe he is on the JREF pay roll to keep the forum alive and kicking.

It would be pretty boring if every one agreed on every topic.
I certainly have learnt a lot from all MM's nonsense being debunked.

 

[Dancing David]

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?



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

You know, Sol had been really nice to you and has explained exactly what he is doing, (in fact one might say he is transparent and not opaque. You are really looking as though you are setting yourself up to make it his fault that your model has some problems.

At what point has he not said what he needs and why he needs it MM?

Looks worse on you.

 

[dafydd]

I often think exactly this.
On the other hand, if it were not for crackpots posting this kind of nonsense, what would become of this forum?

Maybe he is on the JREF pay roll to keep the forum alive and kicking.

It would be pretty boring if every one agreed on every topic.
I certainly have learnt a lot from all MM's nonsense being debunked.

That's why I stick around here,I learn a lot.And the delusionauts are very entertaining.

 

[Dancing David]

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?

The temperature, which would have a gradient, and not a sharp boundary (at least without some more specific conditions) is part of the calculation.


The grade IE grading and gradient means that you account for the variation in temperature from one side of the layer to the center or from one edge to the center to the other edge. From the latin gradus IE step, and similar to the landscaping usage, denoting a preferably smooth slope from one heigth to another. gradation 'A series of gradual, successive stages; a systematic progression'.

If temperature is part of determining the opacity, then it is part of the calulation. If you remember the original scenario, temperature is one of the input parameters.

 

[Dancing David]

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

I think that is not likely.

 

[GeeMack]

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

I'm getting 99,817 km based on a 1,391,000 km sun diameter and MM's 7200 km depth. What do I win?

So dasmiller gets it, and Tim gets it, too. Actually it looks like everyone gets it.

Here's what you win, dasmiller: When Michael admits that he was wrong about his interpretation of that image, he'll thank us all by name. He'll apologize for being so petulant, and he'll acknowledge that he has a wholly unscientific and incorrect approach to interpreting satellite imagery.

Perhaps now would be a good time for W.D.Clinger to post the formula so any lurkers and newbies can see how it's done.

Maybe I'll even describe my method, which ironically enough utilizes only grade school math and the most rudimentary image analysis techniques. It's almost amazing that Michael didn't figure it out for himself. On the other hand, his inability to understand that image while so vigorously defending his glaring error is a testament to his lack of qualification to do either math or image analysis with any competence.

In case you're still following along, Michael, there are a couple of other very serious issues with that SDO image when it comes to using it as evidence, well even aside from Tim's commentary above about how stupid it is to use a PR image like that to do real science. They're errors that any legitimate scientist would recognize almost immediately, and anyone with even basic qualifications to understand solar (or any scientific) imagery would catch within a few minutes.

I could help you out a bit here if you're not catching on, you know, having some expertise in graphics processing myself. You get started on your own and I'll let you know how well you're doing, okay? And although it's not where I found the most severe errors, I did look at the red, blue, and green color layers separately as part of my analysis. You might try that approach.

 

[Skwinty]

Here's what you win, dasmiller: When Michael admits that he was wrong about his interpretation of that image, he'll thank us all by name. He'll apologize for being so petulant, and he'll acknowledge that he has a wholly unscientific and incorrect approach to interpreting satellite imagery...

Yeah, when the sun freezes over

Perhaps now would be a good time for W.D.Clinger to post the formula so any lurkers and newbies can see how it's done..

Yes please post for us lurkers

 

[GeeMack]

I get the sense that what MM is really trying to say is ...

Sol, you are good at math. Please calculate a transparent photosphere by whatever means necessary. Once you're done, that's the sun!

Yes, exactly. I once (many times actually) asked Michael who he considered a highly enough qualified expert in astrophysics that if he/she told Michael he was wrong, Michael would accept their position. His response was, in essence, that whoever agreed that Michael was right was the person with the expertise he would accept.

 

[Myriad]

So dasmiller gets it, and Tim gets it, too. Actually it looks like everyone gets it.

I confirm 99,820 km (using the correct number of significant digits) but point out that that's without taking refraction into account. Given the density gradient the path might have to be quite a bit longer.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I'm getting 99,817 km based on a 1,391,000 km sun diameter and MM's 7200 km depth. What do I win?

A math bunny; see below.

More seriously, you win the scientific world's gratitude for independent replication of a result. That makes it a little harder for the non-scientific world to pretend we just made it up.

Perhaps now would be a good time for W.D.Clinger to post the formula so any lurkers and newbies can see how it's done.

Michael Mozina claimed he could see a solid feature underneath 7200 kilometers of what he believes to be transparent plasma lying "below the photosphere/chromosphere boundary". Because that alleged solid feature was at the limb of the sun, he wasn't looking at it straight down through 7200 kilometers of alleged plasma; he was looking at it from the side, through all the alleged plasma that lies between the intersection of the sun's surface with his line of sight and the alleged solid feature at the limb. We want to calculate how much alleged plasma lies along his line of sight.

If we assume the camera lies along the z-axis, so far away that it doesn't melt, and choose a coordinate system that positions his alleged solid feature at 3 o'clock, then his line of sight is well approximated by the line determined by x=(r - 7200km) and y=0km, where r is the radius of the sun. The distance we're looking for is the difference between the z-coordinate of the alleged solid feature and the z-coordinate of the intersection of the sun's surface with that line.

The z-coordinate of the alleged solid feature is 0km, because Michael Mozina thinks he's viewing it in profile. Recall that the z-coordinate at which the sphere's surface intersects with any line parallel to the z-axis is given by equation (1) below. The distance we want is therefore given by equation (2).

[latex]
\begin{eqnarray}
z(x,y) = \sqrt{r^2 - x^2 - y^2} \\
z(r - 7200\hbox{ km},0) \doteq 99820\hbox{ km}
\end{eqnarray}
[/latex]

This calculation can be duplicated in the laboratory using a sufficiently precise scale model. Its principle can be demonstrated in the kitchen using a spherical melon and a metal straw. (By injecting vodka or similar reagents, the investigator can imbibe his/her own math bunny.)

Maybe I'll even describe my method, which ironically enough utilizes only grade school math and the most rudimentary image analysis techniques.

I'd be interested in that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Thank you for the above comments. I have been following this tread on a daily basis, as an interested layman with a fair mathematical background, but with only a scanty education in physics (an undergraduate minor 45 years ago). Be assured that all that you say is quite apparent even to someone like me. MM never has anything to say of a quantifiable nature.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/blog.htm

You know PS, you and Spock both disappoint me. Instead of really trying to understand the Birkeland solar model, you have all (Spock included evidently) done your best to misrepresent this theory, to outright ignore the quantification and qualification process entirely, and you evidently learned nothing whatsoever.

Yesterday's foot dragging on the opacity numbers and Spock's flawed analysis (The sun is the light source Mr. Spock, not something *behind* the sun), I decided to spend my evening more productively.

Last night I got my 17 year old daughter Lisa to help me count pixels. I got to explain to her why Birkeland's model would either be falsified or verified by the SDO images and I explained what type of image would have falsified Birkeland's model. I also explain what kind of things in the image would falsify standard solar theory too. She got it. I now know that she knows more about solar physics, than all of you put together.

She isn't blind. She understands the value and importance of observation. She had no trouble at all counting the pixels PS. We spent some time counting pixels around the whole sphere and coming up with an average. We argued about individual pixels. We laughed. We had fun. We even used a little math. At no time did she have any trouble seeing what evidently none of you are willing or able to see.

After a much more careful and methodical analysis of the images, we came up with a number of between 4800km-6000Km, right where things started *before* SDO images were even available. Evidently my 7200KM eyeball was a bit optimistic.

Before we finished up, I had her crop me out some images from the SDO image and I updated the blog of my website to include the SDO information.

I may never live to see the day that Birkeland's solar model replaces standard theory due to the irrational prejudices that you all seem to have toward empirical physics. Last night however I lived to see the day that my daughter would *NEVER* believe the mainstream lies, never believe that observation didn't matter, and I lived to watch a 17 year old kid falsify standard theory with my own eyes.

After careful analysis of the image I rescind the 7200km number and I return to my 4800km to 6000km figure that I started with based on the heliosiesmology data from Kosovichev.

I have quantified this model from day one PS. I have made many "predictions" too about the location of those loop. It turns out that I don't need to even change my quantified numbers based on SDO images, in fact SDO validated the original numbers so closely, that I simply don't even need to change them. I don't know how I could have done any better at quantifying that distance without the SDO images. Even based on the SDO images, I can't really quantify it any better than I have.

Quantification should not be based on math bunnies, but upon *REAL OBSERVATION*. You people do not even value observation. "Limb darkening? What limb darkening"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

A math bunny

Yep, and that's about all it's worth too.