Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

Here...

Here we see another fine example of nothing quantified, nothing we can test, nothing that remotely resembles a testable prediction from the guy that fancies himself to be worlds foremost leading expert on the topic of iron line RD images. Sheesh. You're pathetic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

Oh no. I antied up. I put up real numbers, gave you every iron line to play with except 94A. You've got *LOTS* to work with, including the idea that they will all produce roughly the same sphere in roughly the same location with roughly the same patterns. What has your side done to produce anything we can actually test in an SDO image?

 

[Reality Check]

Under? Under what? Surely you mean "centerwards of on the 2D projection"? In that case, I ALREADY GAVE YOU A MODEL. An optically-thin *absorbing* layer in the corona gives you a dark feature just centerwards of the edge of a 2-D projection.

SDO comes to the rescue once again!
SDO Observes Massive Eruption, Scorching Rain

Coronal rain has long been a mystery. It's not surprising that plasma should fall back to the sun. After all, the sun's gravity is powerful. The puzzle of coronal rain is how slowly it seems to fall. "The sun's gravity should be pulling the material down much faster than it actually moves. What's slowing the descent?" he wonders.
For the first time, SDO provides an answer.
"The rain appears to be buoyed by a 'cushion' of hot gas," says Schrijver. "Previous observatories couldn't see it, but it is there."

That 'cushion' of hot gas sounds suspiciously like a optically-thin *absorbing* layer in the corona.

 

[Tubbythin]

Oh no. I antied up. I put up real numbers,

What like those numbers Sol asked for after he'd already done a lot of work for you? Oh wait. We're still waiting.

gave you every iron line to play with except 94A. You've got *LOTS* to work with, including the idea that they will all produce roughly the same sphere in roughly the same location with roughly the same patterns.

Pardon?

What has your side done to produce anything we can actually test in an SDO image?

I'm a physicist. I don't have a side.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

Leaving your obvious reading comprehension problem aside for a moment...

If you feed the values of a pair of pixels to the running difference program/script, I predict the program/script will add a particular value, probably 50% gray in the most common applications of the process, to the value of one pixel and subtract the value of the other pixel from the result. It will then generate a pixel of that resulting value and place it in the location on the output graph that corresponds to the location of the pixels taken from the input pixels as taken from the source images.

There was my quantitative prediction. Another prediction I'll make here is that you won't recognize it as a prediction, although all the other participants in the discussion will, and you'll lie again and say I haven't provided it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Leaving your obvious reading comprehension problem aside for a moment...

If you feed the values of a pair of pixels to the running difference program/script, I predict the program/script will add a particular value, probably 50% gray in the most common applications of the process, to the value of one pixel and subtract the value of the other pixel from the result. It will then generate a pixel of that resulting value and place it in the location on the output graph that corresponds to the location of the pixels taken from the input pixels as taken from the source images.

There was my quantitative prediction. Another prediction I'll make here is that you won't recognize it as a prediction, although all the other participants in the discussion will, and you'll lie again and say I haven't provided it.

Um, you need something that's going to distinguish between us in relationship to the photosphere chromosphere boundary.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What like those numbers Sol asked for after he'd already done a lot of work for you? Oh wait. We're still waiting.

What are you waiting for? I already cited a NY Times article where Birkeland provides his numbers. I can't do 'Better" than that without additional information, so those are the standing "numbers" at the moment unless I can figure out why 94A is unique. If you have some insight, I'm all ears.

Pardon?


I'm a physicist. I don't have a side.

Okey dokey.

 

[Tubbythin]

What are you waiting for? I already cited a NY Times article where Birkeland provides his numbers. I can't do 'Better" than that without additional information, so those are the standing "numbers" at the moment unless I can figure out why 94A is unique. If you have some insight, I'm all ears.

I thought you were giving it the big I am about how you alone could quantify things. That didn't last very long did it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Leaving your obvious reading comprehension problem aside for a moment...

If you feed the values of a pair of pixels to the running difference program/script, I predict the program/script will add a particular value, probably 50% gray in the most common applications of the process, to the value of one pixel and subtract the value of the other pixel from the result. It will then generate a pixel of that resulting value and place it in the location on the output graph that corresponds to the location of the pixels taken from the input pixels as taken from the source images.

There was my quantitative prediction. Another prediction I'll make here is that you won't recognize it as a prediction, although all the other participants in the discussion will, and you'll lie again and say I haven't provided it.

The only thing you have "provided" thus far is an accurate description of the RD process. What you have failed to do (religiously) is to apply that information to solar physics. Care to do that for once?

 

[sol invictus]

What are you waiting for? I already cited a NY Times article where Birkeland provides his numbers. I can't do 'Better" than that without additional information, so those are the standing "numbers" at the moment unless I can figure out why 94A is unique.

Just a second. You're saying that article contains the parameters of the type of plasma you believe the photosphere is composed of? If so, can you just post them?

Again, I need

density
chemical composition (at least roughly)
temperature (or any equivalent, like average ion velocity, average energy, etc.)
voltage/thickness or electric field (if any)

 

[Michael Mozina]

I thought you were giving it the big I am about how you alone could quantify things. That didn't last very long did it.

How did he apply the RD *TECHNIQUE* to solar physics and where we might expect to see things in relationship to the chromosphere?

 

[Tubbythin]

How did he apply the RD *TECHNIQUE* to solar physics and where we might expect to see things in relationship to the chromosphere?

You've lost me.

 

[Reality Check]

What real quantified predictions come from Michael Mozina's Iron Sun fantasy

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 should really read the OP, Michael Mozina.
This is not a thread about the scientific model of solar physics.
This was a thread about brantc's "Iron sun with Aether batteries" idea. He has graciously allowed you to derail it into your "Iron Sun" fantasy*.

The scientific model of solar physics has plenty of real quantified predictions related to all images of the Sun (and other stars), This means that there are predictions about the RD images generated from these images. That is beside the point. Even if it had no predictions that does not make your fantasy correct. Even if it had predictions and they were wrong, that does not make your fantasy correct. This is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

In order for your fantasy to be correct it needs to make real quantified predictions that pass the tests that observations and experiments provide.

Your fantasy has (as far as we know) no real quantified predictions related to RD images. But maybe we missed the many papers you published containing these quantified predictions .

First asked 30 April 2010
Michael Mozina,
What real quantified predictions come from your Iron Sun fantasy?
What observations and experiments have tested these predictions and found them to be correct?


*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.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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

If you use what I think is called the "advanced" response editor, you'll see a list of smilies to the right of the text box. Click on "More", then use the "Choose a Category" drop-down menu to select "Specials". There you will find a selection of irony meters. To get one to explode, however, you'll have to find a powerful source of radiation. Oh, wait...

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]

If you use what I think is called the "advanced" response editor, you'll see a list of smilies to the right of the text box. Click on "More", then use the "Choose a Category" drop-down menu to select "Specials". There you will find a selection of irony meters. To get one to explode, however, you'll have to find a powerful source of radiation. Oh, wait...

Aha!.

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.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You've lost me.

GM always prattles on about the technique, but never makes a "testable prediction" as it relates to solar physics. He might as well be describing the technique as it is applied to a brick wall and parrot it over and over again. It's pointless unless you can "predict" something related to solar physics and an SDO image.

 

[Tubbythin]

GM always prattles on about the technique, but never makes a "testable prediction" as it relates to solar physics. He might as well be describing the technique as it is applied to a brick wall and parrot it over and over again. It's pointless unless you can "predict" something related to solar physics and an SDO image.

I see. We were talking about your repeated failure to quantify your "model".

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you use what I think is called the "advanced" response editor, you'll see a list of smilies to the right of the text box. Click on "More", then use the "Choose a Category" drop-down menu to select "Specials". There you will find a selection of irony meters. To get one to explode, however, you'll have to find a powerful source of radiation. Oh, wait...

Excuse me? I provided you with all the iron lines to work with. I said they would all (except 94A) produce a sphere that sits in the center of the image with 4800Km of material between that opaque limb and the chromosphere\photosphere boundary.

What I'm looking for is something like:

Standard solar theory "predicts' that all these iron ion wavelengths start .....therefore we should expect to see........in relationship to the photosphere/chromosphere boundary. I need something to "test" in terms of solar models.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I see. We were talking about your repeated failure to quantify your "model".

Talk about irony! You pegged it. I just quantified it for your in a bunch of different wavelengths. What have the standard theory folks predicted that is useful to us in deciding which model is right and which is wrong? I picked a very specific distance and margin of error. What did they do?

 

[GeeMack]

The only thing you have "provided" thus far is an accurate description of the RD process. What you have failed to do (religiously) is to apply that information to solar physics. Care to do that for once?

Sure, right after you tell us whose face is in that famous picture of the face on Mars. Or tell us how tall that bunny in the clouds is?

Michael, a running difference image is just a graph. It is only meaningful in the most rudimentary sense when considered in context with the source images. And in the case of the typical source solar images under discussion here, those are filtered images taken for the purpose of, and used to determine thermal characteristics of the solar atmosphere. Virtually all of the running difference graphs you're hollering about were generated using source imagery where the data was acquired thousands of kilometers above that mythical solid iron surface you mistakenly believe exists. They have nothing to do with your crackpot conjecture.

Now here's a suggestion, as politely and sincerely as I can make it: Since you're the only one involved in this discussion who fails to understand running difference graphs, and since it has been explained simply and thoroughly, very many times over a half a decade, and since you still don't get it, if really do want to understand this simple stuff, it is your responsibility to go learn about it. Until you can speak intelligently and knowledgeably on the issue, you'd be better off leaving it alone. As you continue to display your ignorance you're making yourself look very foolish, and you've become quite uncivil in your persistent taunting and badgering people to answer your stupid sounding, meaningless questions about them.