Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[GeeMack]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/blog.htm
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/sdo/sd01.jpg[/qimg]

Good. You introduced a few more artifacts. And the link spamming is always a nice touch.

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.

First, this point must be made again. Michael is not presenting Birkeland's solar model. He makes this argument when he paints himself into a corner. It is a lie. Maybe Birkeland is an easy target because he's dead and can't defend his own position. I don't know. Obviously it's a despicable way to treat the memory of a dead guy, and unfortunately that sort of dishonesty runs rampant through Michael's arguments.

Second, what we have above aside from the lie about Kristian Birkeland, is an attack on a couple of valuable participants. Nobody is trying to misrepresent any theory. Nobody is ignoring the quantitative concerns. In fact, Michael's argument above is simply another tantrum directed at the people who have done the quantitative analysis and found Michael's claim wholly without scientific merit.

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.

All of yesterday's foot dragging was done by Michael himself. Everyone else was ready and willing to move forward, but some actual numbers were required to do so. Instead of invoking yet another of Michael's tantrums by working real physics with real known numbers, those trying to help Michael understand his problems asked him to provide his own numbers, even if he had to make them up out of thin air. And the results of that effort? He refused to take a quantitative position and then he blamed everyone else for his own failure... again.

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.

If you were counting pixels you should have discovered those glaring errors I mentioned before. There's at least one particular problem with that image, Michael, one which any amateur would realize seriously damages its usefulness as evidence. If you were remotely qualified to understand solar imagery you would have recognized the problem(s) and you would have pointed them out to your daughter.

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.

She also didn't see what you've failed to notice, that being the particular problems that are easily seen by anyone with a little expertise in solar image processing. Bummer. You blew an opportunity to teach her a valuable lesson in critical thinking.

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.

After a more careful and methodical analysis of the images you apparently still failed to notice a couple of big problems. Have you checked each color layer independently? Did you really count pixels as thoroughly and methodically as you claim? Because if you were really qualified to analyze images you could have spotted those problems with just some basic pixel counting and some grade school math.

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.

If you were qualified to understand image processing you might have been able to do the cropping yourself.

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.

Again I'll point out that you are not presenting Birkeland's solar model, and when you make that claim, your argument is a lie.

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.

Kosovichev's helioseismological research shows that there is mass moving at a few thousand miles per hour directly through that area where you mistakenly believe your fantasy solid surface exists. Interesting characteristic for a solid, don't you think? It allows for the completely unhindered passage of moving plasma.

And now you're claiming to be able to see through 83,000 kilometers of plasma. It's still a miracle, Michael.

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.

You haven't quantified it. Your argument that you have is another lie. You don't know from day to day where that silly surface is. You don't know anything about its thermal characteristics. You don't know how thick it is, how dense it is, or what it's made of, certainly not in any quantitative terms. You have never taken a quantitative position on your crackpot claim, and for you to suggest you have is another despicable and dishonest argument.

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, you don't have the qualifications to understand what limb darkening is and how it applies to solar image analysis. Have you checked the individual layers of color in that image? Have you found the problems that actually damage it as evidence? I keep offering to help you, you know, given my expertise in image processing. There really are a few things you're missing.

 

[DSo]

I am interested in is the opacity number I've been trying to drag out of you for a week now.

Unbelievable. IMHO Sol has bent over backwards for you. S/he has given you clear and concise instructions for the info you are to provide. I get the sense you believe you won't like the results of this exercise so you are dodging, weaving and trying to move the goal posts.

Not helpful for your cause ...

 

[ben m]

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.

Can you clarify this using my Ascii picture? Why don't you add another number showing where *you* think the inner green edge emissions are coming from.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

And you can't even count pixels right! If you could you'd spot the issues I've been mentioning and discovered why your argument from yesterday was so stupid. Oh, and need I mention it was easily busted by pretty much everyone here?

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.

There's a word that describes seeing things that aren't really there. It's "hallucination". There are several very commonly known causes for hallucinations including drugs, poisons, physical illness, and mental illness.

And your "visual scrutiny" has you seeing through 83,000 kilometers of plasma without the slightest understanding of the physics involved that make your claim impossible.

There's a word for holding an erroneous belief in the face of evidence to the contrary. It's "delusion". Interestingly, one of the common mundane explanations for hallucinations I mentioned above is also one of the commonly known explanations for delusions.

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".

Yes. Those observations where you claim you are seeing through 83,000 kilomters of plasma?

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.

If standard theory was true, or even if it was pulled out of the same wild imagination where your crackpot conjecture came from, your analysis of that image is severely flawed. And in no small part because you're overlooking some important errors because you are not qualified to understand solar imagery.

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".

Again, if standard theory was true, or even if it was pulled out of the same wild imagination where your crackpot conjecture came from, your analysis of that image is wrong. You are seeing something that isn't really there.

Careful observation will kill the math bunnies, and it will involve a lot of pixel counting.

If you were any good at pixel counting you would have explained the problems with that image because, you know, that's what grown up scientists do when they present something as evidence.

 

[nescafe]

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?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_11924bd864a2b9c8e.jpg

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.

My careful image analysis shows that the image in question has been very heavily compressed -- all the fine details seem to be JPEG artifacts. No real scientific value by itself, and doesn't even make a good desktop background.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

I've often suggested that Michael's qualifications to do math might be so deficient that it would be difficult for him to balance his own checkbook. Given the comment above, I think that pretty much shows why it's reasonable to challenge his qualifications and to conclude that he simply doesn't understand the mathematical issues under discussion.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

A math bunny

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

Not really. If you could run the math, you'd realize that the math bunny I described is worth more than the time it takes to confirm my calculation.

A typical mathematician or physical scientist earns about $50/hour, more or less, possibly including fringe benefits. It takes him or her about 12 minutes to confirm my calculation; most of that time is spent finding a calculator or computer and looking up the radius of the sun. So the calculation is worth about $10.

Try going into a bar and ordering a fresh vodka-infused melon. In most bars, the bartender will look at you as though you were talking about an iron sun with aether batteries. In the few bars where you can actually purchase the math bunny I described, it will cost you more than $10.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Oh, so that means we can't discuss opacity and teh apparent temperature of teh surface of the sun? Okay?

That si too bad, it was going well, somewhat reminiscent of when Zeuzzz stopped talking about the 'semi-rigid structure of EM forces in the galaxy'.

And it is too bad MM, if you can't discuss opacity and temperature, then it is hard to discuss your model, explain those things and I am more likely to feel your model is a theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not really. If you could run the math, you'd realize that the math bunny I described is worth more than the time it takes to confirm my calculation.

A typical mathematician or physical scientist earns about $50/hour, more or less, possibly including fringe benefits. It takes him or her about 12 minutes to confirm my calculation; most of that time is spent finding a calculator or computer and looking up the radius of the sun. So the calculation is worth about $10.

Try going into a bar and ordering a fresh vodka-infused melon. In most bars, the bartender will look at you as though you were talking about an iron sun with aether batteries. In the few bars where you can actually purchase the math bunny I described, it will cost you more than $10.

I'm afraid your calculation wasn't worth $10 or even ten cents. You never asked me squat about the lighting conditions or anything else before you *ASSUMED* everything. What did you expect except a pointless and worthless math bunny?

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Wow MM, Sol I has been very polite to you and this is how you repay his patience.

back to PLONK with you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, so that means we can't discuss opacity and teh apparent temperature of teh surface of the sun? Okay?

That si too bad, it was going well, somewhat reminiscent of when Zeuzzz stopped talking about the 'semi-rigid structure of EM forces in the galaxy'.

And it is too bad MM, if you can't discuss opacity and temperature, then it is hard to discuss your model, explain those things and I am more likely to feel your model is a theory.

I hear you DD, I really do. The pointless personal attacks however are simply absurd and childish and make this whole conversation something less than it should be, and something trivial. It's not a trivial finding. Its huge.

Solar theory and astronomy as a whole are about to change. I may not personally live to see it, but when that change happens, this time period in astronomical history will definitely be called the "dark ages" of astronomy. The willful ignorance around here is so thick that you'd need a chainsaw to even make a dent.

I believe that I owe sol those final parameters that he asked for, so I will eventually give them to him, but I will definitely also start wrapping up my time here for awhile.

I realize also based on these conversations that there are two more useful 'predictions' related to energy states in this model that are significantly different than standard theory, and this conversation was very helpful to me in more clearly defining the parameters of the model in terms of energy states of ions and such. In that sense at least it has not been a waste of time for me personally, but the personal attack stuff is just absurd at this point, particularly in light of the SDO images. It's one thing to ridicule ideas, it's another thing entirely to ridicule individuals. I'm bored here now.

 

[Hellbound]

I'm afraid your calculation wasn't worth $10 or even ten cents. You never asked me squat about the lighting conditions or anything else before you *ASSUMED* everything. What did you expect except a pointless and worthless math bunny?

Unbelieveable.

Surely you understand that, for the specific calculation he did, those things make no difference?

All the data he needs are:

1. The radius of the sun as a sphere
2. The actual depth (in a line perpendicular to the sun's surface pointed directly to the center) you calimed the layer was at
3. The radial position (distance from the center of the disc in the image to the particular item in question)
4. The viewing angle (in this case, close enough to straight on to make no difference. If you want to argue that point, it will only make it worse for the calculation, as any distance closer than infinity will make a steeper angle, meaning a higher number for his result)

Seriously, did you ever study geometry?

Not to mention the blatant hypocrispy you've just displayed. First, you blast sol for asking you for information you claim is "unnecessary":

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.

Then you blast W.D. Clinger because he didn't ask for that information:

You never asked me squat about the lighting conditions or anything else before you *ASSUMED* everything. What did you expect except a pointless and worthless math bunny?

Not to mention that the fact that you believe these things matter at all shows that you really don't have a clue what the calculation meant, or what it was, or even the difference between a photo of the sun and the actual, 3-dimensional sun.

You do understand, I hope, that the SDO image is not a cross-section through the middle of the sun? Because that's pretty much the ONLY thing that would imvalidate Clinger's calculation.

 

[Reality Check]

Did you cherry pick the image to support your fantasy

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/blog.htm
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/sdo/sd01.jpg

..."?

Thank you Michael Mozina for the image but all it does is confirm what everyone has been saying:
In order to see the inner edge of your "green line", the light from that edge has to pass through ~98,820 kilometers of plasma.
All that you need to confirm this is high school geometry.

I take it that you are admitting that you cherry picked this image just to support your fantasy* and are purposely ignoring the first image in the public relations image gallery which has no "green line"?

• Did you cherry pick the image to support your fantasy?
  So far the answer is yes !

*A fantasy 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 absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 50 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.

 

[sol invictus]

I believe that I owe sol those final parameters that he asked for, so I will eventually give them to him, but I will definitely also start wrapping up my time here for awhile.

OK, I'll be expecting them.

Meanwhile I broke my own rule and had a look at some images of the sun. If you look here, choose 2010/04/11 for date and one of the SOHO EIT bands (say the 171A one), you see an image that's roughly similar to the one you posted. Now try changing the band. In all the bands except 304 there's a rim around at least part of the disk of the type you're so excited about, but in 304 there isn't.

One of the things you claim is that the mainstream solar model cannot explain these rims. It might be fun to see whether that's really the case. I think we may now have the tools at hand - standard physics, the geometry GeeMack and W.D. Clinger have explained, and some opacity estimates - to explain why the rim is there for 171 and 195, and why it's not there at 304.

I don't think any "mainstream" explanation we come up with here is going to be at all definitive, but I think it might well rise to the level of highly plausible. If we do that, would it have any effect on your views, Michael? Would you retract your claim that these images are the death-knell of the standard theory?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wow MM, Sol I has been very polite to you and this is how you repay his patience.

back to PLONK with you.

Actually DD, you're cool too.

What I'm realizing now David is the ionization state of the elements is really the only thing that matters in terms of the opacity calculation. Everything else is really not that important of a factor. As sol notes, it has to "work out" in terms of thermodynamics, but there are so many thermodynamic variables involved in a layered plasma solar model that it becomes outrageously complex very quickly.

I realized when I explained to sol that the energy states of the materials should fall in the same energy range as the neon plasma, that all the ions in that energy range that were in the solar wind data were transparent at that energy state and therefore it would in fact be relatively transparent. I knew before hand that the neon wouldn't be a problem because of it's energy state but I was concerned about the other elements in the layer and what effect they might have. Once I realized they would all be in the same energy range, the outcome of the calculation is pretty much certain. It's not opaque because the ions are already ionized by the current flow. These conversations have helped me to better understand what I'm seeing, and I'm grateful for that. The also better help me to understand just how devastating that first SDO image is to standard theory, and that is even more helpful. The opacity number now isn't that important to me because I finally comprehend why the oxygen in the neon isn't a problem and that was the only element I was really sweating. The energy state of the neon plasma is what keeps the oxygen from being opaque and now that image makes complete sense to me. I "get it" now.

 

[sol invictus]

Once I realized they would all be in the same energy range, the outcome of the calculation is pretty much certain. It's not opaque because the ions are already ionized by the current flow.

Very well then! All you have to do is supply those numbers, and I'll calculate the opacity and check that.

If the outcome really is "pretty much certain" this will just be a formality, but I think you owe it to me - and yourself - to go through it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK, I'll be expecting them.

Meanwhile I broke my own rule and had a look at some images of the sun. If you look here, choose 2010/04/11 for date and one of the SOHO EIT bands (say the 171A one), you see an image that's roughly similar to the one you posted. Now try changing the band. In all the bands except 304 there's a rim around at least part of the disk of the type you're so excited about, but in 304 there isn't.

One of the things you claim is that the mainstream solar model cannot explain these rims. It might be fun to see whether that's really the case. I think we may now have the tools at hand - standard physics, the geometry GeeMack and W.D. Clinger have explained, and some opacity estimates - to explain why the rim is there for 171 and 195, and why it's not there at 304.

I don't think any "mainstream" explanation we come up with here is going to be at all definitive, but I think it might well rise to the level of highly plausible. If we do that, would it have any effect on your views, Michael? Would you retract your claim that these images are the death-knell of the standard theory?

Well, I would definitely enjoy seeing you start with LMSAL's claim that the iron lines start at about 1200KM over the photosphere and use that number to explain the SDO image. That would be entertaining and it puts me into the role of skeptic. I don't think you can stand the heat, but please, by all means go for it. Sooner or later you're going to need to do that anyway, so you might as well start now.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, start a new thread on the SDO image and please explain exactly how standard theory "predicts" that image.

 

[sol invictus]

Well, I would definitely enjoy seeing you start with LMSAL's claim that the iron lines start at about 1200KM over the photosphere and use that number to explain the SDO image. That would be entertaining and it puts me into the role of skeptic. I don't think you can stand the heat, but please, by all means go for it. Sooner or later you're going to need to do that anyway, so you might as well start now.

If we do that, I don't think we should start with anyone's claim. We should just take standard solar model parameters, estimate the relevant optical depths etc., and see where it leads us. We'll be limited by the quality of the accessible data and the fact that we dont have supercomputers to simulate the physics on, but I think we could probably get somewhere.

But before embarking on that we need to finish our conversation about your model, which after all is the topic of this thread.

 

[sol invictus]

FYI, start a new thread on the SDO image and please explain exactly how standard theory "predicts" that image.

Having thought about it for approximately 5 minutes, an extremely simple explanation occurs to me. It seems to be at least roughly consistent with both the SDO image (modulo some guesses at what the colors represent) and the SOHO images I linked to just above, but of course one would have to check the numbers.

But I'm not going to create a new thread or lead a discussion on that until we finish our conversation.