Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

I am particularly amazed at the tall, thin volcano silhouetted against the limb, about a third of the way up from the bottom edge. You can see it being eroded by the iron/silicon/neon clouds and winds, and getting ready to blow its top.

Then there's the destruction of the two Hometrees, by the alien spacecraft that is hovering, motionless, above and to the right of them (you can only see this as a thin outline of its top; the bulk of the spaceship is rendered invisible by a particularly ingenious application of unobtainium nanoparticles) ...

Inside or outside DRD? Ante up.

 

[GeeMack]

You can't handle the truth. You're wussing out.

I have asked you several times now, and I'll ask again: Regarding your bet that you can see 4800 kilometers into the photosphere in an SDO image, which organization of professional astrophysicists shall we hold responsible for judging the success of your prediction?

 

[ben m]

I am specifically trying to remove any "camera yada yada yada" from the conversation by using a RD image. If as the mainstream suggests, all the emissions begin above the surface of the photosphere, then the shell created by the RD image has to have larger diameter than the photosphere. If however the light starts under the surface of the photosphere, the shell that will be outlined will be smaller in diameter than the photosphere. We should be able to resolve all that "camera yada yada" based on the diameter of the RD shell.

I have no idea what you are talking about. There's no data in an difference image that isn't already in the separate images. Any pixel that something interesting happens in a difference image---well, that's a pixel where there is some light in the original images. We already said (Remember? Anyone home? Helloooooo?) that anywhere you look in a 2D image of the Sun, coronal material is there. Inwards of the 2D edge, at the 2D edge, outwards of the 2D edge, everywhere. It's there in the static images; if it changes over time (it does) it's there in the difference images.

Hello? Anyone listening?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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.

There are also cases of limb brightening in astronomy.

For example, this x-ray image of SN1006 (basically just a hollow shell), and optical image of planetary nebula Abell 39 (ditto).

 

[ben m]

There are certain brain diseases where you just lose the left half of your "attention". It's not merely that you don't see anything to your left (as though half-blind)---it's that you forget that there's a "left" there to begin with. The entire concept of "left" is impossible to focus any attention on. If something passes in front of you from right to left, you spend a while watching it and then it's gone, but it doesn't register as having "disappeared" or "gone out of view", you just lost track of it.

I wonder if Michael has some form of trauma under which physics concepts that don't immediately confirm his model are just --- beyond attention. He doesn't disagree with them, he doesn't read them and fail to understand them. They're just off to the left. "Hmm? What 50-page thread? I didn't see one, I was busy having a brilliant idea about running-difference images, which confirms my model. Oh look, now they're insulting me, why is that? Huh. What a curious board this is. Hey, I have a brilliant idea about neon emission lines which confirms my model."

 

[Michael Mozina]

Everyone has to ante up now and make some "predictions" about the SDO data. Don't leave it all up to me. Ante up.

 

[Reality Check]

Can Micheal Mozina understannd simple geometry

First asked 29 April 2010
Micheal Mozina,
ben m asked you to demonstrate your knowledge of simple geometry:

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

How can you tell where the green blob is by just looking at the lines of sight?
Is the green blob:

• In front of the photosphere?
• Along the surface of the photosphere?
• Inside the photosphere and shining through it?

No answer so far !

 

[GeeMack]

There are certain brain diseases where you just lose the left half of your "attention". It's not merely that you don't see anything to your left (as though half-blind)---it's that you forget that there's a "left" there to begin with. The entire concept of "left" is impossible to focus any attention on. If something passes in front of you from right to left, you spend a while watching it and then it's gone, but it doesn't register as having "disappeared" or "gone out of view", you just lost track of it.

I wonder if Michael has some form of trauma under which physics concepts that don't immediately confirm his model are just --- beyond attention. He doesn't disagree with them, he doesn't read them and fail to understand them. They're just off to the left. "Hmm? What 50-page thread? I didn't see one, I was busy having a brilliant idea about running-difference images, which confirms my model. Oh look, now they're insulting me, why is that? Huh. What a curious board this is. Hey, I have a brilliant idea about neon emission lines which confirms my model."

Really.

 

[Reality Check]

What is wrong with W.D.Clinger's calculation

First asked 30 April 2010
Michael Mozina,
What is wrong with W.D.Clinger's calculation?
Why can he not apply it to your reversion to 4800 km?

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.

 

[Michael Mozina]

There are certain brain diseases where you just lose the left half of your "attention". It's not merely that you don't see anything to your left (as though half-blind)---it's that you forget that there's a "left" there to begin with. The entire concept of "left" is impossible to focus any attention on. If something passes in front of you from right to left, you spend a while watching it and then it's gone, but it doesn't register as having "disappeared" or "gone out of view", you just lost track of it.

I wonder if Michael has some form of trauma under which physics concepts that don't immediately confirm his model are just --- beyond attention. He doesn't disagree with them, he doesn't read them and fail to understand them. They're just off to the left. "Hmm? What 50-page thread? I didn't see one, I was busy having a brilliant idea about running-difference images, which confirms my model. Oh look, now they're insulting me, why is that? Huh. What a curious board this is. Hey, I have a brilliant idea about neon emission lines which confirms my model."

Ben, it's time then for you and GM and all the other proponents of standard theory to make some logical, rational "prediction" about what you expect to see in an RD image or other SDO image that might or could definitively decide the issue. I've offered some suggestions, three of them in fact. If you have a "better" way to decide based strictly on the SDO imagery, put it on the table.

 

[GeeMack]

Everyone has to ante up now and make some "predictions" about the SDO data. Don't leave it all up to me. Ante up.

Michael, is there any particular reason you're ignoring this?...

Regarding your bet that you can see 4800 kilometers into the photosphere in an SDO image, which organization of professional astrophysicists shall we hold responsible for judging the success of your prediction?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, is there any particular reason you're ignoring this?...

Regarding your bet that you can see 4800 kilometers into the photosphere in an SDO image, which organization of professional astrophysicists shall we hold responsible for judging the success of your prediction?

Inside or outside? You're going to come up 13 pixels short around the whole edge and you're going to be bald.

 

[ben m]

Everyone has to ante up now and make some "predictions" about the SDO data. Don't leave it all up to me. Ante up.

I did, didn't you read it? I predict that the SDO images will show various features both centerwards and outwards on a 2-dimensional disk. Just like you expect from a 2D projection of a 3D corona outside the surface of an opaque 3D sphere. The details---centerwards, outwards, at the edge, which wavebands---depend on the detailed structure of the corona, whose structure (as you know) is nontrivial and which contains various structures of varying opacities. The actual appearance can be 1/sin(theta), or e^-(a/sin(theta))/sin(theta), or 1 - e^-(a/sin(theta)) depending on the particular corona structures involved.

Hellooooooo? Michael? Knock knock? Am I off to the left again?

 

[GeeMack]

Inside or outside? You're going to come up 13 pixels short around the whole edge and you're going to be bald.

Uh, apparently you're betting that you can see 4800 kilometers into the photosphere in an SDO image. I'm asking a simple question that for some reason you continue to ignore. So once again...

Which organization of professional astrophysicists shall we hold responsible for judging the success of this claim?

ETA...

Hellooooooo? Michael? Knock knock? Am I off to the left again?

Damn! No kidding.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I did, didn't you read it? I predict that the SDO images will show various features both centerwards and outwards on a 2-dimensional disk. Just like you expect from a 2D projection of a 3D corona outside the surface of an opaque 3D sphere. The details---centerwards, outwards, at the edge, which wavebands---depend on the detailed structure of the corona.

Hellooooooo? Michael? Knock knock? Am I off to the left again?

Hmmm. How is that definitive? If we intend to take this 3D you'll have to pick something on the limb, or you'll have to be more specific. I expect to see all the iron lines create roughly the same general outline at about the same 4800KM figure +- 1200Km. Are you saying Fe XX should come out differently than say Fe IX in a RD image in terms of diameter?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Uh, apparently you're betting that you can see 4800 kilometers into the photosphere in an SDO image. I'm asking a simple question that for some reason you continue to ignore. So once again...

Which organization of professional astrophysicists shall we hold responsible for judging the success of this claim?

Any kid can see the difference between inside and outside and 13 missing pixels, not to mention your missing hair.

 

[GeeMack]

Any kid can see the difference between inside and outside and 13 missing pixels, not to mention your missing hair.

So as for the success or failure of your bet that you can see 4800 kilometers into the photosphere in an SDO image, you'll accept the judgment of Dr. Pesnell, senior project scientist with the SDO program? After all, he's not even just any kid. He's an expert in the science of the SDO.

 

[ben m]

Hmmm. How is that definitive? If we intend to take this 3D you'll have to pick something on the limb, or you'll have to be more specific.

I did all of those calculations in 3D and did the correct projection into 2D. You, on the other hand, appear to be daydreaming that you're looking at the cross-section directly.

I expect to see all the iron lines create roughly the same general outline at about the same 4800KM figure +- 1200Km. Are you saying Fe XX should come out differently than say Fe IX in a RD image in terms of diameter?

I'm saying that the maximum radius where a particular coronal layer appears, in 2D projection, depends on its opacity. Tell me whether the Fe XX emitter in the corona is optically thinner than the Fe IX emitter in the corona (and whether there's another absorbing system for either in the corona) and I'll tell you where their "edge" appears in a 2D projection of the corona.

There's a nice ASCII art diagram off to the left somewhere---if you had filled it in you would understand all this by now.

ETA: the lesson of this is NOT "I can predict EXACTLY where the Fe XX lines come from". The lesson of this is "Corona emissions can and do put rings into 2D image projections, so only a fool would treat a ring in a 2D projection as a simple smoking-gun signature for new physics." (Even IF you're evaluating the new physics scenario correctly in making the "ring" prediction at all---which MM is not). It's like saying "My theory is that the Earth is actually a black hole. If my theory is true, the Cardinals cannot possibly win the World Series this year. What does your mainstream theory predict about the Cardinals? Huh? Pony up, what are you, scared of science?"

ETA2: "The Cards did not win the world series" is NOT a good test for the theory "the Earth is a black hole", because it is perfectly reasonable---indeed likely---for the Cards to win or lose the world series for many other reasons having nothing to do with black holes. This is obvious even though noone can actually predict the world series outcome. Likewise, "The FeXX images from SDO have smaller-than-the-Sun rings in 2D projection" is NOT a good test for the theory "the photosphere is transparent", because it is perfectly reasonable---indeed likely---for the FeXX images to have smaller-than-the-Sun rings in 2D projection, for many reasons having nothing to do with the photosphere's transparency or lack thereof.

ETA3: Pony up that ASCII art any time, MM. Unless it is your explicit intention that no one know what 3D model you think you're talking about, which is the case now.

 

[GeeMack]

Hmmm. How is that definitive? If we intend to take this 3D you'll have to pick something on the limb, or you'll have to be more specific. I expect to see all the iron lines create roughly the same general outline at about the same 4800KM figure +- 1200Km. Are you saying Fe XX should come out differently than say Fe IX in a RD image in terms of diameter?

Does anyone else understand how this is supposed to make sense? It looks like a jumble of words put together from a misunderstanding of simple geometry, a misunderstanding of the purpose and results of filtered solar imagery, a misunderstanding of running difference processing, a misunderstanding of simple solar limb observation, and a misunderstanding of 2D vs 3D when observing a 2D image.

 

[GeeMack]

There's a nice ASCII art diagram off to the left somewhere---

You might be onto something there, Ben.