Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

That was a joke, Michael (at your expense I'm sorry to say).

I was referring to Ben's speculation on the reason why you have so far failed to reply to any of around 20 posts explaining to you that your assertions about what the SM predicts for the bright rings in VUV band images are incorrect, and requesting that you respond to Ben's post and fill in his ASCII diagram.

Let me also repeat my question from before - are you serious about making a bet? There's a long tradition of wagers in science, as perhaps you are aware. I'm willing to bet with you under the right set of conditions, some of which are:

1) that we find something to bet on (something we disagree on, that is), perhaps an NeV line. The radius of the 171A ring doesn't qualify.

2) that the amount be large enough to be worth my time.

3) that the bet be arranged so that there is no backing out after the fact. That would probably involve an escrow account and an arbiter, which means some legal expense (see #2).

What do you say?

I say I'm tired of the arguing and it's time to ante up with actual solar predictions related to real solar images and real SDO data. I provided you all with a quantified prediction related to the location of the opaque limb in RD iron ion images with respect too the chromosphere. Do you have anything to "predict" that is numerically quantified related to those RD images? I know that's really GM field of "expertise", but if you have something you would care to numerically predict in SDO images, I'm all ears.

 

[GeeMack]

Do you have a quantified prediction to offer us related to RD images? You've been claiming for years to be an "expert" on the topic. I'm not afraid to put my theory to the test with a numerically quantified prediction. For year's you've been bitching at me for not quantifying anything. I just did. Your turn.

Focus, Michael. You're all over the place here and you're making no sense. Have you changed your mind and you're no longer confident enough to bet that you can see 4800 kilometers into the photosphere in the SDO imagery?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So a slice through the image, you say, looks like this:

outer space (band 1)
---------------- (edge 1)
a 4800km wide stripe (band 2)
--------------- (edge 2)
another 4800km wide stripe (band 3)
-------------- (edge 3)
The rest of the Sun's disk (disk 4)

Is that right? Is Band 2 bright or dark? Is band 3 bright or dark?

Boy, I wish I didn't have to guess wildly at this crap. If you drew a 3D diagram, of course, I wouldn't have to. God forbid.

Just quantify something for me ben. Make a real mathematical "prediction" related to an RD image or anything else. I don't care, but I'm not doing anyone's busy work anymore.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You have yet to demonstrate that you can see beneath the photosphere in any image. In fact, it has been conclusively demonstrated that you cannot. This, of course, is why you ran away from Sol's opacity calculations. This is why you won't touch solar geometry with ben.

Your prediction is meaningless unless your method is based on something other than looking at images. Will you be trying to show us this green sphere under the photosphere in an image? Or do you have something else in mind?

I'm waiting for someone, anyone, to comment on what total solar eclipses should - and do - tell us, about opacity; the radial ordering of photosphere, chromosphere, transition region, and corona; etc.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Focus, Michael. You're all over the place here and you're making no sense. Have you changed your mind and you're no longer confident enough to bet that you can see 4800 kilometers into the photosphere in the SDO imagery?

I have confidently quantified my prediction for all the world to see. Meanwhile you're trying sneak away from providing us with any quantified predictions related to an RD image, even though you claim to be the world's foremost leading expert on the topic? Where's your quantified prediction related to SDO?

 

[GeeMack]

I say I'm tired of the arguing and it's time to ante up with actual solar predictions related to real solar images and real SDO data. I provided you all with a quantified prediction related to the location of the opaque limb in RD iron ion images with respect too the chromosphere. Do you have anything to "predict" that is numerically quantified related to those RD images? I know that's really GM field of "expertise", but if you have something you would care to numerically predict in SDO images, I'm all ears.

I predict that if we put your claim about the SDO images before a panel of experts, they will say you are wrong. I predict you aren't willing to take that chance and I suggest that's why you've attempted to avoid the issue by falling back on your dishonest argument by misdirection.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I predict that if we put your claim about the SDO images before a panel of experts, they will say you are wrong. I predict you aren't willing to take that chance and I suggest that's why you've attempted to avoid the issue by falling back on your dishonest argument by misdirection.

I predict you will *NEVER* offer us a real quantified prediction related to an RD image. You're full of hot air.

About all you can do is appeal to authority and rely upon the person put down, but I did what none of you seem to be willing to do. I made a real, testable, quantified 'prediction". Ante up with some numbers.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm waiting for someone, anyone, to comment on what total solar eclipses should - and do - tell us, about opacity; the radial ordering of photosphere, chromosphere, transition region, and corona; etc.

Unfortunately it seems Michael has abandoned his concern for opacity. He crapped on everyone who was trying to help him understand his problem with that. And to think that once upon a time he did declare it was the Achilles heel of standard solar theory and said...

Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Unfortunately it seems Michael has abandoned his concern for opacity. He crapped on everyone who was trying to help him understand his problem with that. And to think that once upon a time he did declare it was the Achilles heel of standard solar theory and said...

Apparently for all his huffing and puffing and wild claims about being an "expert" on RD images, when asked to predict anything related to an iron line RD image, complete with quantification, GM is clueless.

 

[ben m]

Do you have anything to "predict" that is numerically quantified related to those RD images?

I'm entirely serious about my World Series question. If the Earth is a black hole, the Cards will score zero runs in the 2010 World Series. Do you have anything to predict numerically about the World Series? WHY NOT? Is it because you're afraid I'm right about the black hole?

I'm entirely serious, MM. This has the same logic as your demand. I showed you exactly how the corona, all by itself, can (under slightly different conditions) produce lots of different bandlike features in 2D projection. I don't know exactly what conditions hold, so I don't know exactly what features will be produced.

Meanwhile, not to step on Reality Check's toes, you've gotten excited about a completely useless detail of image analysis that doesn't actually test your model at all, no matter what the limb (still) looks like. And you've gotten distracted from more physics-ful questions, like "your idea for the photosphere violates several laws of thermodynamics".

 

[dafydd]

I predict you will *NEVER* offer us a real quantified prediction related to an RD image. You're full of hot air.

About all you can do is appeal to authority and rely upon the person put down, but I did what none of you seem to be willing to do. I made a real, testable, quantified 'prediction". Ante up with some numbers.

You've got a cheek asking for numbers.You can't even do basic maths.

 

[GeeMack]

I predict you will *NEVER* offer us a real quantified prediction related to an RD image. You're full of hot air.

About all you can do is appeal to authority and rely upon the person put down, but I did what none of you seem to be willing to do. I made a real, testable, quantified 'prediction". Ante up with some numbers.

Leaving aside your your uncivil taunting and badgering for a moment...

What the hell are you babbling about? You've said in no uncertain terms that you can see through 80,000 kilometers of plasma by looking at those SDO images. You were so confident of that you were willing to shave your head if it was shown to not be true. But when I asked what expert organization you would choose to be the arbiter of the bet, you waffled. That's where we are now.

And my position on running difference images is clear. A running difference image is a simple graphical representation of a series of mathematical calculations showing the differences in the values of corresponding pixels between a pair of source images.

My quantitative prediction about the potential findings of any running difference graphs that come from the SDO program? Exactly zero professional physicists on the entire planet will agree that you can see 4800 kilometers into the photosphere by staring at them.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You've got a cheek asking for numbers.You can't even do basic maths.

I already provided my numbers. It's their turn. I made a very falsifiable prediction. It's their turn don't you think?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Leaving aside your your uncivil taunting and badgering for a moment...

Talk about pot's and kettles! Wow!

Where are your numbers and testable predictions related to RD images oh great and wise RD guru?

I don't want anything from you but your testable prediction, srecifically your *QUANTIFIED* testable prediction related to an RD image.

 

[ben m]

Just quantify something for me ben. Make a real mathematical "prediction" related to an RD image or anything else. I don't care, but I'm not doing anyone's busy work anymore.

Michael, I'm not toying with you. I literally have no idea what prediction you are making. Your prediction is for the appearance of bands on a 2D image. I quite literally have no idea what you mean. Earlier you seemed to be excited by a BRIGHT band at the edge of the disk; now you seem to be predicting a DARK band---or maybe two bands? at the edge.

What's the point of posting predictions if you don't want people to know what they are? If you want to keep your predictions unintelligible, post them in a Tengwar/!Kung creole of your own invention. If you want predictions that anyone cares about, explain them clearly.

Of course, this isn't a prediction anyone cares about, this is another patented Mozinaism. You're making a statement about your model, and failing to realize that this particular statement doesn't distinguish your model from the standard model---even if the statement were correct, which it isn't. We're not even trying to convince you "your prediction is wrong"---we're trying to convince you "you can't possibly learn anything from this exercise". A minor point, given that you don't learn anything from ANYTHING.

So, yeah, don't do the "busy work", and I'll continue thinking what I was thinking a minute ago:

"Michael Mozina isn't clearheaded enough to realize even one of the thousand ways in which his model is nonsense, and that's the way he likes it."

Apparently you don't want to achieve clearheadedness on this particular point---oh well, no big deal. You'll come back to some other 50-post thread and fail to clear your head on the next point. There's a thousand more.

 

[GeeMack]

Apparently for all his huffing and puffing and wild claims about being an "expert" on RD images, when asked to predict anything related to an iron line RD image, complete with quantification, GM is clueless.

There is no iron line in a running difference graph. It's a simple graphical representation of the difference in values of corresponding pixels in a pair of source images. Now give me the values of two corresponding pixels in a pair of source images and I'll give you the quantitative value of the result after the running difference processing.

If you don't understand that, I'm afraid I can't help you unless you get specific about your communication problem so we can accommodate your deficiency. You are simply not making sense.

 

[Tubbythin]

Talk about pot's and kettles! Wow!

Where are your numbers and testable predictions related to RD images oh great and wise RD guru?

I don't want anything from you but your testable prediction, srecifically your *QUANTIFIED* testable prediction related to an RD image.

How do I get the exploding Iron-E-Meter thing?

 

[GeeMack]

Talk about pot's and kettles! Wow!

Where are your numbers and testable predictions related to RD images oh great and wise RD guru?

I don't want anything from you but your testable prediction, srecifically your *QUANTIFIED* testable prediction related to an RD image.

Here...

There is no iron line in a running difference graph. It's a simple graphical representation of the difference in values of corresponding pixels in a pair of source images. Now give me the values of two corresponding pixels in a pair of source images and I'll give you the quantitative value of the result after the running difference processing.

 

[Michael Mozina]

There is no iron line in a running difference graph. It's a simple graphical representation of the difference in values of corresponding pixels in a pair of source images. Now give me the values of two corresponding pixels in a pair of source images and I'll give you the quantitative value of the result after the running difference processing.

If you don't understand that, I'm afraid I can't help you unless you get specific about your communication problem so we can accommodate your deficiency. You are simply not making sense.

Yada, yada, yada, dodge, dodge, dodge. No quantified prediction. Nothing we can falsify. More pure posturing and more pure dodge. You've got nothing. Ante up. If you really are an "expert", you will quantify your testable prediction.

 

[Tubbythin]

Yada, yada, yada, dodge, dodge, dodge. No quantified prediction. Nothing we can falsify. More pure posturing and more pure dodge. You've got nothing. Ante up. If you really are an "expert", you will quantify your testable prediction.

Michael, every single word of the above we could say to you.