Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Dancing David]

I too am educated by these threads.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

And Michael's reply was...

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 nand 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.

It's not 4800 kilometers. Now you're claiming to be able to see through roughly 22,000 kilometers of plasma. (Oh, yes, that is your claim. And it's done with simple math and image analysis again. Damn us people who are actually qualified to do that sort of thing. Fun wreckers! ) How you can see through that much opaque plasma is going to be nearly as difficult to explain as how you claim to see through 99,000 kilometers. But go ahead and try. This is bound to be interesting.

Or maybe your argument doesn't hold up when you double check it using simple image analysis and a little grade school math?

 

[GeeMack]

...and very pretty pictures they are. The latests SDO videos are amazing.

I'm just a lurker. Should this thread be dying - and that seems the direction its headed - I'd like to thank everyone for some very informative posts. Thanks Gee M, RC, Ben, Sol I, et al. Your posts got me thinking about image processing and the mechanisms of solar opacity. For all its Sound and Fury this was a good read.

You're welcome, Humanzee. And yes, this thread is probably in its death throes. The list of Reality Check's questions has gotten far too long, and he hasn't been distracted by Michael's continuous argument by misdirection. And Michael has made some way overly confident claims and arguments about this opacity issue and the SDO image, stuff he wrongfully considers evidence and that is being shown to directly contradict, well, reality.

His arguments have been torn to shreds and people keep pointing out more of his mistakes all the time. He's refusing to even address glaring problems with his "evidence" and trying to blame other people for his own inability to flesh out his crackpot conjecture. From a historical perspective, with five years of examples to work from, it seems he will soon abandon this thread and probably this forum.

 

[sol invictus]

I'm hoping Michael will at least provide me with the plasma parameters and answer ben's question before he leaves, if that's where he's headed.

The thing is, Michael, suppose you're right and the sun has a solid iron surface, and that's what we're seeing in those VUV images. All the stuff we've been discussing - opacity, the trigonometry and temperature variations that lead to limb brightening/darkening - all that stuff is absolutely essential to extracting correct predictions from the iron sun model for what the SDO images should look like. You can't ignore those things in the standard model, and you can't ignore them in yours either.

That's a good thing - because suppose you could predict something for SDO that the standard model doesn't, and it actually gets observed. That would be pretty exciting, right? And you may well be able to do that, because for example the opacity of the photosphere in your model is apparently completely different than in the standard model, and that means you will get very different predictions for things like limb brightening in the various bands. But you have to do the predictions consistently and correctly based on your model, and that means taking into account all these effects we're discussing with you.

So don't run away - take this opportunity to learn something. After all, right now you have a whole bunch of experts right here in this thread helping you. That's a rare opportunity, and you can take advantage of it. Don't be scared - no one ever got anywhere by being afraid.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Re limb darkening and brightening (this post is for lurkers)

As you might expect, the observed limb darkening of the Sun - in the 'optical' or 'visual' wavebands - was noticed a very long time ago, and has been studied, scientifically, for many centuries.

It is, of course, quite relevant to solar models, and provides important constraints on them, and did so especially before the time of space-based observations, helioseismology, etc. Unless and until it changes, Wikipedia provides a good, if brief, summary.

What most people - even many amateur astronomers - probably don't know is that limb darkening has been studied on stars other than the Sun, and for many decades before direct images of such stars were made (e.g. with the Hubble, of Betelgeuse).

The oldest technique is careful analysis of the light curves of eclipsing binaries - the exact shapes of the two eclipses encodes information on the limb darkening of each star, and detailed modelling can reveal the limb darkening.

Other techniques used include speckle interferometry (the image distortions produced by the Earth's atmosphere can, to some extent, be deconvolved to produce diffraction-limited data on stars, especially binaries), lunar occultations (making use of diffraction effects), various interferometers (the intensity interferometry of Hanbury-Brown is particularly interesting; today it's probably best known from the ESO's VLTs, and with the CHARA facility at Palomar), and gravitational microlensing.

Today, we are blessed with lots of free stuff, which incorporates the work of decades of PhD or MSc level effort; for example astronomycenter.org's Eclipsing Binaries ("This website provides both basic and advanced information on: simple models for computing light curves, a power point presentation on binary stars, student exercises, modeling close binary stars, and the shape of a rotating star. It also contains a free download of StarLight Pro which is software that produces animated views of eclipsing binary stars and calculates synthetic lightcurves. The effects of limb darkening, temperature, inclination, stellar size, mass ratio, and star shape are included.")

Needless to say, mainstream models of main sequence stars do not include photospheres which are essentially transparent over lengths of tens of thousands of km, in the EUV, VUV, UV, optical, or NIR wavebands. Why? Well, see if you can work out the answer for yourself!

 

[Perpetual Student]

Re limb darkening and brightening (this post is for lurkers)

As you might expect, the observed limb darkening of the Sun - in the 'optical' or 'visual' wavebands - was noticed a very long time ago, and has been studied, scientifically, for many centuries.

It is, of course, quite relevant to solar models, and provides important constraints on them, and did so especially before the time of space-based observations, helioseismology, etc. Unless and until it changes, Wikipedia provides a good, if brief, summary.

What most people - even many amateur astronomers - probably don't know is that limb darkening has been studied on stars other than the Sun, and for many decades before direct images of such stars were made (e.g. with the Hubble, of Betelgeuse).

The oldest technique is careful analysis of the light curves of eclipsing binaries - the exact shapes of the two eclipses encodes information on the limb darkening of each star, and detailed modelling can reveal the limb darkening.

Other techniques used include speckle interferometry (the image distortions produced by the Earth's atmosphere can, to some extent, be deconvolved to produce diffraction-limited data on stars, especially binaries), lunar occultations (making use of diffraction effects), various interferometers (the intensity interferometry of Hanbury-Brown is particularly interesting; today it's probably best known from the ESO's VLTs, and with the CHARA facility at Palomar), and gravitational microlensing.

Today, we are blessed with lots of free stuff, which incorporates the work of decades of PhD or MSc level effort; for example astronomycenter.org's Eclipsing Binaries ("This website provides both basic and advanced information on: simple models for computing light curves, a power point presentation on binary stars, student exercises, modeling close binary stars, and the shape of a rotating star. It also contains a free download of StarLight Pro which is software that produces animated views of eclipsing binary stars and calculates synthetic lightcurves. The effects of limb darkening, temperature, inclination, stellar size, mass ratio, and star shape are included.")

Needless to say, mainstream models of main sequence stars do not include photospheres which are essentially transparent over lengths of tens of thousands of km, in the EUV, VUV, UV, optical, or NIR wavebands. Why? Well, see if you can work out the answer for yourself!

Thank you. If nothing else of value, MM's wacky theories and provocative style does elicit comments like this which are both informative and interesting for us laymen.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm hoping Michael will at least provide me with the plasma parameters and answer ben's question before he leaves, if that's where he's headed.

The thing is, Michael, suppose you're right and the sun has a solid iron surface, and that's what we're seeing in those VUV images. All the stuff we've been discussing - opacity, the trigonometry and temperature variations that lead to limb brightening/darkening - all that stuff is absolutely essential to extracting correct predictions from the iron sun model for what the SDO images should look like. You can't ignore those things in the standard model, and you can't ignore them in yours either.

That's a good thing - because suppose you could predict something for SDO that the standard model doesn't, and it actually gets observed. That would be pretty exciting, right?

I don't even know what to say to that statement sol. I respect your math and physics skills to the n'th degree, but I can't for the life of me understand how you can ignore the significance of that first light composite image from SDO.

Birkeland's model is the *ONLY* solar model I'm aware of that "predicted" that the iron lines start under the surface of the photosphere at about 4800KM. That's a completely "crazy/nuts/crackpot/stupid" 'prediction' according to you folks and based on standard model parameters. Nobody in their right mind would "predict" something like that based on the standard model. The energy state of the photosphere in the standard model is such that *NO* iron lines should extend even a *SINGLE* pixel into that composite image. We might see some artifacts and limb issues *NEAR THE PHOTOSPHERE*, but we would never expect to see them 4800-6000KM under the photosphere.

I have been called every name in the book over the last five years over that claim sol. I've been kicked around like a soccer ball for years now because that claim was so "out there" based on a standard parameter photosphere.

Only an electric solar model could or would "predict" such a thing. Nothing else would even allow us to see under the photosphere at these energy states.

The origin of the iron lines was *the* single most *CRITICAL* prediction of this model. I can't even think of anything else I could predict that is even remotely close to the importance of passing that first "test". If it didn't pass that test, nothing else matters.

Birkeland's solar model is the *ONLY* model that passes the visual test in SDO images sol. I know you may not see it yet because not of us have seen a RD image in relationship to that photosphere/chromosphere boundary yet, but I assure you that the "opaque" part of that RD image will reside inside that boundary.

There isn't anything more critical than passing that first prediction "test". It passed sol. It passed in living high resolution color. You may not want to 'see' it yet, but I clear see that it does.

Before I even spent any time at all looking at the images, I went through that link I posted earlier on SDO to get a feel for how it works. I was thoroughly impressed with the engineering that went into that instrument. It's design is flawless IMO. I could not hope for a better piece of equipment to help me falsify or verify that first prediction. it's perfect. It's aligned out of the box. Everything is built and aligned in a way that makes it impossible to be "wrong". Whatever the outcome was going to be, there was no arguing with the outcome.

I realized even before I started through the images that whatever the outcome, it's indisputable IMO. Once I realized the equipment was ideal, I started through the images. I started through them with both excitement, and a small bit of dread too. I knew full well if those iron lines fired up brightly in the chromosphere along the limbs as LMSAL claimed, Birkeland's model was toast. I fully accepted that SDO was my most important falsification mechanism, and I prepared myself emotionally for the (remote) possibility I might be wrong. I accepted the outcome either way.

When I found that composite image sol, I was *ecstatic". Birkeland's model passed with *FLYING* and brilliant colors. I could not have hoped for more.

After going through that image with my daughter, and finding out that it works out to exactly the same number that Kosovichev's data suggested, there is no longer any doubt in my mind at all of the validity of Birkeland's solar model. It works in the lab, and it works in terms of "predicting" the correct outcome.

That opaque iron line limb is clearly and completely inside the boundary of the photosphere. There is no way on Earth to explain that without a heavily ionized atmosphere.

There's no in between here sol. One solar model is right, the other is forever wrong. That green light we observe in that 6:00 image not only validates the most important prediction of Birkeland's theory, it forever falsifies standard theory.

FYI, I've not only "predicted" something that nobody else predicted in terms of the location of the iron lines relative to the photosphere surface, I also predicted something based on our conversations, namely that a wavelength from NE+3 or +4 should reveal the surface of the photosphere and should not be limited to coronal loop activity. That's another "important" prediction of this model.

I cannot for the life of me understand how you cannot see the important implications of finding the opaque limb of the iron lines to be located *INSIDE* the boundaries of the photosphere/chromosphere. It's *HUGE*. It's GIGANTIC. It's going to change everything we think we know about astronomy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I've learned a lot too,unlike Michael,poor bugger.

Oh, don't feel sorry for me. I learned too. I even came up with another key prediction based on my conversations with sol.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI sol, it looks to me from the SDO images that something in the photosphere interferes with FE 18. That one particular iron ion wavelength seems to be "blurrier" than the rest of the iron ion wavelengths to my eye. Any hint on what that might relate to in terms of elements? It looks to be related to an elemental valence shell configuration of something in the atmosphere rather than the energy state of neon.

 

[sol invictus]

The energy state of the photosphere in the standard model is such that *NO* iron lines should extend even a *SINGLE* pixel into that composite image.

Michael, that's simply not true. Ben just explained to you exactly why.

Could you please answer his question and fill in his diagram?

 

[phunk]

Michael, that image is not a cross-section of the sun. You aren't seeing below the surface when you look at the limb, you're seeing the surface at a steep angle. It's HARDER to see deep by looking at the limb than by looking at the center, not easier.

 

[Hellbound]

Correction, Michael.

You predicted something that has not yet been shown to be there. You've yet to provide any real evidence for your iron lines under the photosphere, besides "Looks that way to me". You show an amazing inability to understand that a 2D photograph is not a 3D representation, and an utter lack of comprehension of basic trigonometry and geometry. You also seem to fail to comprehend the variables that are required in order for your "theory" to be worthy of the name (so far, it's just an idea).

 

[ben m]

FYI sol, it looks to me from the SDO images that something in the photosphere interferes with FE 18. That one particular iron ion wavelength seems to be "blurrier" than the rest of the iron ion wavelengths to my eye. Any hint on what that might relate to in terms of elements? It looks to be related to an elemental valence shell configuration of something in the atmosphere rather than the energy state of neon.

0) The telescope hasn't been calibrated yet.

a) Link to a specific image, please. I presume you mean "images taken with the AIA 94A filter". It's called Fe XVIII, not "FE 18"

b) With the exception of Rayleigh scattering, "interference" does not cause "blurriness".

c) You're assuming that you "know" there's a sharp source, and that any spatial spread in the emissions is "interference". How do you know the source isn't spread out? Guesswork? The ghost of Birkeland told you?

d) Your last sentence sounds like the sort of thing a screenwriter who doesn't know physics would put in the mouth of Matthew Broderick as his character explains why lasers can't kill Godzilla. Complete word salad.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Key predictions:

1) When we finally see a RD image in 171A from SDO in relationship to the photosphere/chromosphere boundary, the opaque borders of that image will all fall inside the photosphere boundary, top, bottom, right and left in the image.
2) We will observe mass movements all along that opaque iron line "surface", much of which remains inside the photopshere/chromosphere boundary.
3) An image of the sun in a wavelength related to Ne+3 or Ne+4 will show the surface of the photosphere, not just the coronal loop activity as predicted by the standard model.

FYI, all of these items also falsify the standard model. Take your pick, but put your butt on the line and tell me which one or which ones you will "bet" will be wrong when we get the data?

 

[D'rok]

Re limb darkening and brightening (this post is for lurkers)

As you might expect, the observed limb darkening of the Sun - in the 'optical' or 'visual' wavebands - was noticed a very long time ago, and has been studied, scientifically, for many centuries.

It is, of course, quite relevant to solar models, and provides important constraints on them, and did so especially before the time of space-based observations, helioseismology, etc. Unless and until it changes, Wikipedia provides a good, if brief, summary.

And the second paragraph is quite relevant to Michael's delusion:

When we look near the edge of a star, we cannot "see" to the same depth as when we look at the center because the line of sight must travel at an oblique angle through the stellar gas when looking near the limb.

Optical depth is a very easy concept to grasp and to visualize, given that the image is a 2D representation of a 3D sphere. It doesn't even require any math skills.

 

[Michael Mozina]

0) The telescope hasn't been calibrated yet.

Nobody on the ground calibrated it before launch?

a) Link to a specific image, please. I presume you mean "images taken with the AIA 94A filter". It's called Fe XVIII, not "FE 18"

Ok, I was lazy. I hate roman numerals. I'll stick with wavelengths from now on.

b) With the exception of Rayleigh scattering, "interference" does not cause "blurriness".

Well, whatever it is, something is definitely different about that one wavelength, and more so than any other iron line I've seen so far.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And the second paragraph is quite relevant to Michael's delusion:

Pick one of the three predictions on my list and tell me which one would change your mind if I'm right?

 

[GeeMack]

Birkeland's model is the *ONLY* solar model I'm aware of that "predicted" that the iron lines start under the surface of the photosphere at about 4800KM.

Birkeland's model absolutely did no such thing. You have been asked dozens of times to substantiate that lie and you have been unable to do it. Take responsibility for your own crackpot conjecture and stop blaming the dead guy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, that image is not a cross-section of the sun. You aren't seeing below the surface when you look at the limb, you're seeing the surface at a steep angle. It's HARDER to see deep by looking at the limb than by looking at the center, not easier.

Oh, I understand that. That's exactly why I'm having a hard time pinning down the location of the surface based on limb images alone. I still think Kosovichev's data is the "best" way to tell the depth after looking at those limb images, but they both come out to right around the same range. That simply cannot be a coincidence.

 

[D'rok]

Pick one of the three predictions on my list and tell me which one would change your mind if I'm right?

If they are based on image analysis by you?

None.

Now, you tell me how optical depth doesn't apply to you when you look at limb darkened regions of an image.