Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[sol invictus]

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?

There are lots of NeIV and V lines, so you'll have to be more specific. The VUV ones will not "show the surface of the photosphere".

 

[sol invictus]

Please respond to this post, Michael.

Under? What's this "under"? It's a 2-D photo. Either you're seeing it closer to the center of the photo, or closer to the edge. Please stick to that terminology---"under" is your intuitive interpretation which you haven't been able to justify at all---in part because your descriptions are maddeningly unclear, mixing bits of observable ("green") with bits of your guesswork ("under", "through") in a totally hashwork way.


Fix it. Here's an ASCII art cartoon of a SIDE VIEW of a simple opaque Sun with a green blob hovering in front of it. I've labeled (with letters) a bunch of lines-of-sight for an observer looking down at and past the limb. You can follow any given line of sight and figure out what the observer sees in that pixel. This is possible both for opaque features and transparent ones---I put in an example "g" to show. Then I gave you an ASCII "stem plot" where you can list what's in line-of-sight a, what's in line-of-sight b, what's in line-of-sight j, etc.

Please edit it to represent what YOU think the 3D structure is, and show how you think that 3D structure projects along the lines-of-sight. Replace the opaque 0s with "f" or "n" to represent iron or neon, for example.

observer is up here

lines of sight,
looking down.
||||||||||
abcdefghij 
                This is a cartoon of a simple opaque sphere.
                The 0s are "opaque photospheric material".
		The "g" for example is a blob of transparent corona. 
0       g        What do we see along the lines of sight a-h?
000    g         a: 0
0000  g          b: 0
00000            c: 0 
000000           d: 0
000000           e: 0      <- when you look at an opaque sphere you  
0000000          f: 0         see the same thing right out to the edge.
0000000          g: 0+g    <- when you're looking through the green blob
0000000          h: 0+g       you see green + whatever's behind it.
00000000         i: b+g     
00000000         j: b      <- past the edge all you see is the background 
00000000                        which is "b" for black.   
00000000
00000000
00000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
000000
000000
00000
0000
000
0

bbbbbbbbbbbb background is black
bbbbbbbbbbbb
bbbbbbbbbbbb

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A00E0DA133BE633A25750C2A9649C946296D6CF

You are the single biggest liar that I have ever met on the internet.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

I won't produce any of them, I'll let NASA or LMSAL or someone else do it, but which one will you commit to?

The reason the optical depth issue does not apply is specifically related to the electrical current flowing from the surface to the heliosphere. It ionizes the atmosphere around the sun, making it possible for that light to move through the highly energized ions. If there were not excited way beyond what the standard model predicts, there would be no way to see those lines under the surface of the photosphere. The only solar model that might explain them is an electric sun model. You can argue about the surface aspects all you want, but that image isn't even possible based on standard model parameters. The iron line opaque limb is clearly visible in the composite image and that light comes up through the atmosphere. The atmosphere *MUST* be highly ionized and the SERTS data confirms that, as does that SDO image.

 

[Hellbound]

I won't produce any of them, I'll let NASA or LMSAL or someone else do it, but which one will you commit to?

The reason the optical depth issue does not apply is specifically related to the electrical current flowing from the surface to the heliosphere. It ionizes the atmosphere around the sun, making it possible for that light to move through the highly energized ions. If there were not excited way beyond what the standard model predicts, there would be no way to see those lines under the surface of the photosphere. The only solar model that might explain them is an electric sun model. You can argue about the surface aspects all you want, but that image isn't even possible based on standard model parameters. The iron line opaque limb is clearly visible in the composite image and that light comes up through the atmosphere. The atmosphere *MUST* be highly ionized and the SERTS data confirms that, as does that SDO image.

So, by assuming the photosphere is transparent you can then prove it's transparent?

Brilliant!

 

[D'rok]

I won't produce any of them, I'll let NASA or LMSAL or someone else do it, but which one will you commit to?

The reason the optical depth issue does not apply is specifically related to the electrical current flowing from the surface to the heliosphere. It ionizes the atmosphere around the sun, making it possible for that light to move through the highly energized ions. If there were not excited way beyond what the standard model predicts, there would be no way to see those lines under the surface of the photosphere. The only solar model that might explain them is an electric sun model. You can argue about the surface aspects all you want, but that image isn't even possible based on standard model parameters. The iron line opaque limb is clearly visible in the composite image and that light comes up through the atmosphere. The atmosphere *MUST* be highly ionized and the SERTS data confirms that, as does that SDO image.

Then show us those features in the centre of the image. They should be easier to see there.

 

[sol invictus]

You can argue about the surface aspects all you want, but that image isn't even possible based on standard model parameters.

The rest of us disagree. Would you please respond to Ben's post? It's designed specifically to help us understand you.

 

[D'rok]

I won't produce any of them, I'll let NASA or LMSAL or someone else do it, but which one will you commit to?

I don't care who produces them. I will accept none of your conclusions if you are the one looking at them.

 

[Skwinty]

Michael,
There is no doubt in my mind that the latest images of the sun will further our knowledge of solar physics, they would not have put the satellites and gear there otherwise.

But: I don't think for 1 femtosecond that your version will replace the standard model.

Sorry

 

[GeeMack]

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.

Sol understands solar imagery, and you, Michael, having been asked dozens of times to demonstrate your qualifications to properly understand such imagery, have failed to do so.

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.

You completely misunderstand what the solar imagery means. Your interpretation is incorrect. Drastically incorrect. And when other people offer to help you understand you ignore it.

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.

The standard parameter photosphere is, by definition, opaque. Nothing you have said has changed that.

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.

You can't see under the photosphere. You've been asked to calculate the opacity. You said you would. Other people have offered to calculate it for you, and you've refused to cooperate.

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.

You aren't qualified to understand solar imagery, so your comment above is an unsupported, unsubstantiated opinion which has been proven many times in this thread to be wrong.

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.

Birkeland never suggested a solar model remotely like what you're claiming. Your comment is a lie.

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.

The SDO image is not in color. It is in false color. And you haven't even studied the individual layers. There are several problems with using that image as evidence for anything, some of which have been addressed directly, and others which you have steadfastly ignored. Your ignorance does not constitute support for your crackpot claim.

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.

If there is no arguing the outcome, why are you arguing 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.

You haven't accepted the outcome and you won't. Nobody is seeing a solid surface in any of that imagery. And anyone that can do math at the level of a competent eighth grade kid can figure out the errors in your interpretation.

Oh, and once again, in case you think repeating your lie will make it true, your claim that you're presenting Birkeland's solar model, like every other time you've said it, is simply a work of fiction that you created.

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.

And you still choose to ignore a few particular flaw in that image that are easily found by anyone with any expertise in graphics processing. You've counted your pixels wrong, Michael.

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.

You don't understand solar imagery well enough to venture a qualified opinion on the issue.

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.

You don't even know what that green light is. Oh, and you know what we say about your misrepresentation of Birkeland's 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 predicted you'd take a crap on Sol's good work in trying to help you determine the opacity issue. And so far it looks like I was correct in my prediction.

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.

And nobody can understand why you see things that aren't there. There are, of course, a couple of commonly known causes for hallucinations. Care to discuss those explanation to, you know, legitimately and scientifically get them off the table? Or can we still accept them as legitimate possibilities?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, by assuming the photosphere is transparent you can then prove it's transparent?

Brilliant!

No, I can demonstrate it's ionized by the SERTS data, and I can PROVE it's ionized based on that composite SDO image. Standard solar theory cannot and will not ever explain the SDO images because the energy state of the photosphere in the standard model is too low. It could never produce those images.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your interpretation is incorrect. Drastically incorrect.

You personally should be willing to commit to the location of the opaque border on RD images, but pick one of the three and commit to it.

 

[GeeMack]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A00E0DA133BE633A25750C2A9649C946296D6CF

You are the single biggest liar that I have ever met on the internet.

There is nothing in that article that indicates Kristian Birkeland believed the Sun has a solid iron surface. And I consider you calling me a liar, unsupported by any evidence that I am lying, to be a wholly uncivil and despicable act. I do, however, believe that if you're willing to set such an example of your own behavior, and throw tantrums rather than address the relevant issues that have been placed before you, that's your business.

Now would you care to have a little help with your problems in that SDO image? You've missed several important flaws in all your pixel counting. I have some expertise in that area and would be glad to lend you some assistance if you'll take the initiative and work on finding those flaws yourself.

 

[sol invictus]

No, I can demonstrate it's ionized by the SERTS data, and I can PROVE it's ionized based on that composite SDO image.

Provide me with the parameters for the plasma and let's calculate the opacity and see.

Standard solar theory cannot and will not ever explain the SDO images because the energy state of the photosphere in the standard model is too low. It could never produce those images.

That's at least the third time you've asserted that. It's not true, or at least it doesn't look that way to anyone else.

Why won't you respond to Ben's very careful post on that, and fill in his diagram? Why do you keep ignoring my comments on this?

 

[GeeMack]

I won't produce any of them, I'll let NASA or LMSAL or someone else do it, but which one will you commit to?

The reason the optical depth issue does not apply is specifically related to the electrical current flowing from the surface to the heliosphere. It ionizes the atmosphere around the sun, making it possible for that light to move through the highly energized ions. If there were not excited way beyond what the standard model predicts, there would be no way to see those lines under the surface of the photosphere. The only solar model that might explain them is an electric sun model. You can argue about the surface aspects all you want, but that image isn't even possible based on standard model parameters. The iron line opaque limb is clearly visible in the composite image and that light comes up through the atmosphere. The atmosphere *MUST* be highly ionized and the SERTS data confirms that, as does that SDO image.

You have yet to calculate the opacity in such a way that indicates you can possibly see through 100,000 80,000 kilometers of plasma.

ETA: I recall that Michael did change his mind, again, about the depth of his mythical surface. His claim is now that he can see through 80,000+ kilometers of plasma.

 

[D'rok]

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.


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).

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.)


I'd be interested in that.

This post needs to be highlighted. (With the caveat that Mozina is back to ~4800km for his magical surface instead of 7200km) Even a scientific illiterate like me can understand this issue and can follow the math.

Without any knowledge of the subject, I'm willing to bet that no amount of ionization, or whatever else Mozina wants to appeal to, can make solar plasma transparent enough to let Mozina see through ~80,000km of it from his line of sight to the "limb" region of the sun at the depths he thinks he can. I'm also willing to bet that Mozina knows this, belatedly, and this is why he won't cooperate with Sol on the calculation of Moplasma opacity.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Total, and annular, solar eclipses - simple ways to test ideas about what lies above what?

Radially outward from the centre of the Sun we have, in the standard solar model (and, in some cases, by definition): photosphere, chromosphere, transition region, corona.

As the Moon covers each part in turn, what do we observe (concentrate on the part at the leading edge of the Moon, in its direction of apparent motion across the Sun)?

In particular, what would you expect to see if the order of these four were not as I listed?

Astronomers have been observing total solar eclipses for many decades, long before space-based facilities, and have deployed high cadence spectrographs to tease out things like the the radial density, temperature, and composition structure of each region (well, not the photosphere!). At the very least, whatever MM is proposing must be consistent with these many thousands of observations.

Now suppose an EUV telescope+spectrograph were to observe a total solar eclipse, from a LEO; what would you expect to see? Is it reasonable to ask MM what he would expect to see, based on his ideas?

Finally, have there been any EUV observations of total solar eclipses?

 

[GeeMack]

You personally should be willing to commit to the location of the opaque border on RD images, but pick one of the three and commit to it.

Word salad. Care to run that through a translator? And that brings back an issue that has been mentioned before. In order for us to help you with your serious misunderstandings it would be handy to know if maybe English is not your first language, or if you have some particular known deficiency in your communication skills that we can accommodate by simplifying this whole thing in some way for you.

 

[GeeMack]

No, I can demonstrate it's ionized by the SERTS data, and I can PROVE it's ionized based on that composite SDO image. Standard solar theory cannot and will not ever explain the SDO images because the energy state of the photosphere in the standard model is too low. It could never produce those images.

Don't you want to look at the color layers of that SDO image separately before you make a final determination? There are some problems you're overlooking. Why the ignorance? Are you concerned that your crackpot notion might not make it through a little legitimate analysis?

Oh, and when you say "PROVE", do you mean like using that image and some data contained in it to calculate an energy state of some sort, or do you mean "PROVE", as in "it looks like a bunny to Michael Mozina therefore it must be a bunny"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Provide me with the parameters for the plasma and let's calculate the opacity and see.

I might be able to provide you with decent number if I fully understood why the 94A wavelength is different from the rest. That might give me a real clue on what's "different" about that wavelength and that might help me calculate energy states. Something however is visibly unique about that one iron ion wavelength, and I need to know what it is before I can take a good shot at giving your a real number.

Any other number I might give you seems like pulling a number out of a hat to me right now, and I don't see the point in just "guessing' without some shed of evidence to go on.