Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Show us your work sheets,maths included.

Math is just scribbles on paper designed to fool the mathless.

Real science is done by looking at pictures and drawing inferences* in your head.:covereyes


*wild speculations and fantasies.
 
Math is just scribbles on paper designed to fool the mathless.

Real science is done by looking at pictures and drawing inferences* in your head.:covereyes


*wild speculations and fantasies.

Don't forget counting pixies err I mean pixels:p
 
This is really pathetic behaviour, Michael. Pixel counting is not empirical physics, nor is it observation in any scientific sense of the term. It is plainly obvious to anyone reading your threads that you are utterly clueless regarding physics and the discipline of science, generally. You are damaging your daughter's intellectual development in the same way a creationist, evolution-denier does when filling his childrens' heads with intelligent design drivel. You have retreated from genuine testing of your ideas when threatened, when the impending conclusion is so obviously fatal to your fancies, and sought the comfy, happy refuge of your delusion.

As a lurker cheering for you, I hoped for better. I am now firmly in the GeeMack camp. You are not merely confused and earnest, you are willfully dishonest and in utter denial.

I think that wraps it up for me. This is tragedy, not comedy.
 
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).

That's a JREF post!

:thanks:
 
This is really pathetic behaviour, Michael. Pixel counting is not empirical physics, nor is it observation in any scientific sense of the term.

Actually D'rok, you're 100% wrong on that statement and pretty much all your comments. Observation is what allows us to "test" our theories. Counting "pixels" is the only way to quantify the numbers. There's no other way to go about it that is any more scientifically valid than just sitting down and counting pixels.

I really feel sorry for you D'rok, and people like you that really don't know what to believe, and really try to "do the right thing" and believe what they were taught. I understand why you believe as you do, and you simply do not have enough information to make a "better" scientific decision. People in your shoes will simply have to wait for NASA and LMSAL to openly admit they have problem. That could take years for all I know. In the mean time you will continue to believe what you were taught, and continue to believe in "opacity" claims that simply do not hold up to visual scrutiny.

I know you think you're right D'rok, but you're not. I know you think the standard solar model is valid. It's not. It's outright and completely falsified by the SDO observations, and *NOTHING* can save it except possible "electricity".

D'rok, if standard theory were true, I should not even have been able to count a single pixel between the inside of the orange chromosphere/photosphere boundary. There should be *NO* iron lines visible even a single pixel below that point due to the photoionization issues that we've been discussing here for the last week or so.

According to standard theory, that green glowing region should start about half way up that orange area, and no light whatsoever should originate under it. Houston has a problem. They will eventually explain it to you. You will then (and only then) understand that you, me and everyone have been "led astray" by "math bunnies".

Careful observation will kill the math bunnies, and it will involve a lot of pixel counting. :)
 
Last edited:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/blog.htm
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/sdo/sd01.jpg[/qimg]

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"?

I heard that same sermon from a tent preacher many years ago.
 
Yesterday's foot dragging on the opacity numbers

That was your foot dragging, Michael. You refused to specify the conditions.

After a much more careful and methodical analysis of the images

Tell me, Michael: in all your careful image analysis, did you ever figure out what this bit I circled in blue was?



Why, it's the same stuff that you claim is coming from below the photosphere. Except it's deeper. Which means it's below your iron surface. Maybe your iron surface is transparent, or maybe there's a hole in your shell.

Or maybe your analysis is founded upon unsupported assumptions.
 
OMG.

After reading some of the commentary from last night, I'm really glad I spent the night with my daughter. This place is a waste of time.

D'rok, you were absolutely right about one thing. I am wasting my time here and I have more important things to do now.
 
Don't forget counting pixies err I mean pixels:p

Which leads to the question:

How many pixies could dance on the surface of the Iron Sun.

I'm sure it's a very, very large number*.

*depending on the size of the pixies.
 
OMG.

After reading some of the commentary from last night, I'm really glad I spent the night with my daughter. This place is a waste of time.

D'rok, you were absolutely right about one thing. I am wasting my time here and I have more important things to do now.

Unsupervised wet paint would be more important.
 
That was your foot dragging, Michael. You refused to specify the conditions.



Tell me, Michael: in all your careful image analysis, did you ever figure out what this bit I circled in blue was?

Um, they are obviously "discharges" on a different area of the surface that is in no way related to the limb.

Go ahead now and explain to D'rok why we see any green light at all between the red photophsere/chromosphere boundary and the place where it becomes 'opaque' at the limb.
 
Um, they are obviously "discharges" on a different area of the surface that is in no way related to the limb.

How do you know any of it is related to the "limb"? And do you even know what the "limb" is? Do you have any idea how analysis of the "limb" is actually done? Hint: it isn't done by counting pixels, Michael.

Go ahead now and explain to D'rok why we see any green light at all between the red photophsere/chromosphere boundary and the place where it becomes 'opaque' at the limb.

Easy: it's on the surface of the photosphere. As the blue circled bit clearly demonstrates, we don't need to view it edge-on to see it, we can see it even when at an angle. Which is also why you get significant variation in the "depth". Even were we to posit that your shell model is correct, those variations are far too large to be the result of mountains and valleys, so there's simply no way that it's the result of the profile of a solid surface under the photosphere.
 
Give me a bit more time on the voltage aspect. I'll try to get you a number by the end of the day. I may need ta couple of tries to get that one "right" and you'll probably have to help me out with that one.

Am I to understand that you have abandoned our discussion, Michael?
 

Let me make sure I understand. There's a red feature, a distinct edge (maybe lighter on the bottom and darker on the top, but all below the known 2-pixel resolution of the instrument). Then it's green for about 10 pixels, going back to black.

You're talking about the green feature, correct? Your assertion is that the "bottommost" green pixels in this stripe are at the true surface of the Sun, seen edge-on and exactly 149 598 000 km (1 AU) away from the observer. Your assertion is that the "bottommost" green pixels are from an emission vertically below the topmost pixels; you're asserting that this emission is also 149 598 000 km away from the observer, no farther and no closer. Do I have that right?

It's like this, in other words:
HTML:
[TT]
                  observer
                  is up here              

               








            ,dOOOOOOOOb,
          ,dOOOOOOOOOOOO3,   
         dOOOOOOOOOOOOOO3Ob
        dOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO3OOb 
        OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO3OOO
        OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO1OO2   <- edge
        OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
        YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP
         YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP
         `YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP'
            `OOOOOOOOOP'
[/TT]


You think that the bottom-edge green emission is coming from the point I labeled "2", and the "top" green emission is coming from the point I labeled 1, both directly below the edge.

The line of sight between the observer and point 1 includes everything that I labeled 3. You're saying that the light is emitted at 1 and goes right through ALL OF THE 3s to be observed. And that you measure the depth by showing that 1 and 2 are "four characters apart" in my ASCII art's units.

Do I have that right? I want to understand what you're saying before I go any further.
 
Last edited:
Am I to understand that you have abandoned our discussion, Michael?

The only two individuals I am even interested in talking to at the moment is you and ben and the only topic I am interested in is the opacity number I've been trying to drag out of you for a week now.

I will not however continue that discussion based on the judgment criteria you have outlined. IMO that is simply an irrational way to attempt to calculate opacity.

I actually need two numbers (silicon and neon) but I guess I'll have to eventually calculate them myself since you seem to be looking for any excuse now to not produce them.

The only way I know to judge the opacity is based upon the actual opacity, not the thermodynamic "issues" you take exception to.

Your call.
 
Last edited:
Why, it's the same stuff that you claim is coming from below the photosphere. Except it's deeper.

It's not deeper. Its facing you and on a different area of the "surface". You're seeing down about 4800 km there too, it's just at a different point of the sphere and a different angle.
 
The only two individuals I am even interesting in talking to at the moment is you and ben and the only topic I am interested in is the opacity number I've been trying to drag out of you for a week now.

I will not however continue that discussion based on the judgment criteria you have outlined. IMO that is simply an irrational way to attempt to calculate opacity.

I actually need two numbers (silicon and neon) but I guess I'll have to eventually calculate them myself since you seem to be looking for any excuse now to not produce them.

The only way I know to judge the opacity is based upon the actual opacity, not the thermodynamic "issues" you take exception to.

Your call.

I don't take exception to anything except that fact that you still haven't told me what the characteristics of your plasma are. I need:

1) density
2) chemical composition
3) electric field or voltage/distance, if any
4) temperature, average velocity per atom, velocity distribution at t=0, or anything else equivalent
5) if it's in some non-thermal ionization state to begin with, I need that too

The opacity depends on all five of those, but you've only provided 1,2, and 5 - so I can't calculate it. Do you understand that?

By the way Michael, if you actually want to make a testable prediction, you could calculate the opacity for the various wavelengths SDO is observing. If your plasma is transparent in some bands and opaque (or opaque-ish) in others, you'll be able to make s quantitative prediction for how your green rim should look when SDO releases images in the different bands.
 
Last edited:
The only way I know to judge the opacity is based upon the actual opacity, not the thermodynamic "issues" you take exception to.

That doesn't make any sense at all. You are saying "I know the photosphere is transparent. The only thing that affects the transparency is whether or not it is transparent. Therefore it is transparent. Sol, let's skip the physics part and get right to the part where you tell me that it's transparent."

Michael, if you say that "the photosphere is 3,000m of neon at 6000K" and you also say "the photosphere is transparent" then you are contradicting yourself. Remember? That was Mozplasma 1.0, for which you eventually agreed with Sol's calculation. The two statements can't both be true, so you decided to modify statement 1.

It was like saying "this paperweight is made of glass at standard temperature and pressure" and also "this paperweight has a density of 200 g/cm^3"---those two statements are incompatible with actual physics.

Here's what Sol wants you to do. Sol wants you to try to make two consistent statements. He wants you to say "The photosphere is made of X at temperature T" and "the photosphere is transparent", for some value of X and T such that these two statements aren't in contradiction. There's no way to do that skipping the details of X and T---finding the details of X and T is the entire point of the exercise. It doesn't make any sense.

(In the analogy, imagine that after realizing the contradiction you decided to modify the paperweight. "My paperweight is made of X at STP" and "My paperweight has a density of 200 g/cm^3"---and then said "Sol, tell me what X is." Sol would not be able to find an appropriate X, because no material whatsoever has that property. The statements would always contradict, unless major laws of physics were violated. The conclusion would have to be "there is no way the paperweight actually has 200g/cm^3 density---you were mistaken". Ditto for the photosphere, if we get there---if there's no non-contradictory material, then it must be the transparency claim which was wrong.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom