Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

Oh ya, and someone will actually have to "count pixels".

 

[ben m]

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.

I've done this five times already. Hellooooo? I don't think I'm on ignore.

Oh wait, I didn't give him the answer he wanted, that means I'm in the left hemi-inattention zone.

 

[ben m]

Michael, please answer a few simple questions.

a) Did I or did I not explain where an optically-thin corona layer will show up in 2D projection? Was there something wrong with that explanation?

b) Did I or did I not explain where a self-semi-opaque corona layer will show up in 2D projection? Was there something wrong with that explanation?

c) Did I or did I not explain where a externally-absorbed corona layer will show up in 2D projection? Was there something wrong with that explanation?

 

[Michael Mozina]

But your claim, that crackpot conjecture you've been trying for years to pass off as legitimate science,.

So show us how it's supposed to be done GM.

Surely with your wise and flawless understanding of RD images, you and your chorus line of math bunny aficionados can come up with one or a few quantitative predictions (with margin of error) related to a RD image that will clearly be different than the predictions I have outlined?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I've done this five times already. Hellooooo? I don't think I'm on ignore.

Oh wait, I didn't give him the answer he wanted, that means I'm in the left hemi-inattention zone.

Chill dude, you're in the game "sort of". I'm waiting for GM to anti up.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, please answer a few simple questions.

a) Did I or did I not explain where an optically-thin corona layer will show up in 2D projection? Was there something wrong with that explanation?

b) Did I or did I not explain where a self-semi-opaque corona layer will show up in 2D projection? Was there something wrong with that explanation?

c) Did I or did I not explain where a externally-absorbed corona layer will show up in 2D projection? Was there something wrong with that explanation?

I'm not interested in what you folks think is wrong with a Birkeland solar model. I want to hear you folks use that fabulously perfect standard model theory, all your sage like math skills and come up with a few useful and testable predictions related to RD images, and/or other SDO image that might be different than the results I have predicted. Surely you folks can do that, right?

 

[tusenfem]

Bring on the SDO images, Michael! Process them any way you like! If a dark band appears proximal to a light band, I'll say "That's consistent with the mainstream corona model; I have no idea what it means in your model because you refused to tell me." If a light band appears proximal to a dark band, I'll say "That's consistent with the mainstream corona model; I have no idea what it means in your model because you refused to tell me."

Of course, the problem is that those "rings" the limb brightening and limb darkening will be rather constant, and thus taking Mikey's favourite RD scheme, we will end up mainly with subtracting intensity I in pic 2 from intensity I in pic 1 and thus the important difference between optically thick and optically thin regions will disappear into one number which will be basically 0. Which would be good for Mikey, because then he can just forget about optical depth and opacity and other real stuff, and concentrate on iron lines shooting out of his crust.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Of course, the problem is that those "rings" the limb brightening and limb darkening will be rather constant, and thus taking Mikey's favourite RD scheme, we will end up mainly with subtracting intensity I in pic 2 from intensity I in pic 1 and thus the important difference between optically thick and optically thin regions will disappear into one number which will be basically 0. Which would be good for Mikey, because then he can just forget about optical depth and opacity and other real stuff, and concentrate on iron lines shooting out of his crust.

Snipe, snipe, whine, whine. Ante up with something quantitative based on standard solar theory that is different than I have predicted. If you can't or won't do that, or bet your public position on one the three items on my previous prediction list, you aren't in the game. Let's see your numbers.

 

[ben m]

I'm not interested in what you folks think is wrong with a Birkeland solar model. I want to hear you folks use that fabulously perfect standard model theory, all your sage like math skills and come up with a few useful and testable predictions related to RD images, and/or other SDO image that might be different than the results I have predicted. Surely you folks can do that, right?

What? Who said anything about Birkeland? You asked what the mainstream solar model says that coronal emissions can look like near the limb. I told you---the 3D model is that the corona is a complicated mix of hot stuff above the 6000K blackbody photosphere. In 2D projection, this model has a wide range of limb behaviors, which vary from limb-brightened to limb-darkened to depending on details of the "complicated mix". The Sun is limb-darkened in the optical AND limb-brightened in the x-rays right now, Michael.

 

[Tubbythin]

Every scientific theory is judged based upon it's ability to accurately "predict' things.

No it isn't. Every scientific theory is judged first and foremost on how it matches with the experimental data. The ability to predict things makes it a practical tool, but only if the theory is consistent with the data that already exists. If it isn't - if, for example, it contradicts the laws of thermodynamics - then the predictive power of the theory is useless. The theory is wrong, so who cares what it predicts?

So far your mainstream theory seems about as useful as tit's on a bull" in terms of useful predictive capability.

Don't be ridiculous. A you seriously saying that the standard model has never made any successful predictions?

I've put forth a host of quantitative predictions related to the RD image and you ran away from them like dog with your tail between you legs.

What utter crap.
Oh, and what hypocrisy from the man who ran away when asked for some simple numbers that are rather fundamental to your own model. Could it be that you don't have anything coherent in your model? Just some vague ideas based on assumptions you made from a few PR images? Assumptions you didn't even bother to check were consistent with the known laws of physics?

 

[dafydd]

FYI, we will also be able to observe the mass movement along opaque limbs. The limbs will becomes consistently opaque at 4800KM under the photosphere. Every single one of these predictions will end up revealing that surface to be about 4800Km +- 1200 below the bottom of the chromosophere. I know because I've already counted the pixels that you evidently can't see.

Your theory is based on counting pixels? You may as well count pixies.

 

[Reality Check]

Got numbers, Michael Mozina

You want civil conversation but you use the term "crackpot' in virtually each end every post? You're not only the biggest liar on the internet, you're also the biggest hypocrite as well.

Do you think calling someone "biggest liar on the internet, you're also the biggest hypocrite as well" is civil?

GeeMack does want civil conversation. He uses the word "crackpot" in many posts because that is what you are. If you had an idea with any scientific basis that was wildly different from the orthodox theory then you would be described as unorthodox. You do not and so you are described as a crank. There are several symptoms that show this

• No actual scientific model so you have no way of making any quantitative predictions.
  The scientific theory has a model, makes predictions and these are found to be correct.
• Your fantasy* has not changed significantly in the 4 or more years that you have been touting it. All you have been doing is bolting on more stuff withough addressing the fundemental flaw - your iron crust cannot exist.
• Ignoring the lack of evidence for your fantasy.
• No scientific analysis of any observational data about the Sun. All you do is take the images constructed from the data and imagine that you see things in them (the "I see bunnies in pretty pictures" anaysis!).
• A rather astounding lack of knowledge of physics, especially in relation to the Sun, e.g. you were ignorant of optical depth.
• A nasty dependence on argument by authority, incuding attributing your fantasy to Birkeland.
  It is almost as if the only physics books that you have ever read are by Birkeland and Alfven. Even then you get a lot wrong about Birkeland 's book.
• An inability to answer questions (over 60 now in my list!).

* 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 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.

Every scientific theory is judged based upon it's ability to accurately "predict' things. So far your mainstream theory seems about as useful as tit's on a bull" in terms of useful predictive capability. I've put forth a host of quantitative predictions related to the RD image and you ran away from them like dog with your tail between you legs.

Every scientific theory is judged firstly on its ability to reproduce the existing observational data. Your fantasy has no mathematics and can never reproduce the existing observational data.
Then the correctness of scientific theories is tested from the quantitative predictions that it makes. Your fantasy has not made any quantitative predictions. It is as useful as tits on a dead bull buried under a mountain of horse manure.

The mainstream theory has many predictions. Try reading one of the books on solar physics that you have been ignoring for these many years.

If you cannot come up with some useful prediction related to solar physics, I really don't have time for you. Ante up some quantitative numbers or you aren't even in the game. Got numbers?

Keeping to the topic rather than catering to your other crank symbptom

• The sad delusion that making random unfounded assertions about the standard model somehow makes your fantasy correct.

If you cannot come up with some useful prediction related to solar physics, I really don't have time for you. Ante up some quantitative numbers or you aren't even in the game. Got numbers, Michael Mozina?

What real quantified predictions come from Michael Mozina's 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.

Even if the mainstream model is totally wrong, this does not make your fantasy correct.
So stop the dumb strawman derailing of asking about the mainstream theory. All it does is display your ignorance.

 

[GeeMack]

You want civil conversation but you use the term "crackpot' in virtually each end every post? You're not only the biggest liar on the internet, you're also the biggest hypocrite as well.

Every scientific theory is judged based upon it's ability to accurately "predict' things. So far your mainstream theory seems about as useful as tit's on a bull" in terms of useful predictive capability. I've put forth a host of quantitative predictions related to the RD image and you ran away from them like dog with your tail between you legs.

If you cannot come up with some useful prediction related to solar physics, I really don't have time for you. Ante up some quantitative numbers or you aren't even in the game. Got numbers?

Leaving aside the uncivil personal attack for a moment, two things need to be mentioned here. First, nobody has to support any alternative to your crackpot conjecture here. You're the one making a claim. The burden of proof is on you to support it. So far you have failed in every way to do so.

And second, the numbers that should be important to you are the mistakes you've made in counting pixels in the SDO image you're flaunting. I've brought that to your attention several times and so far you've chosen to ignore it as if it wasn't even mentioned.

 

[GeeMack]

Oh ya, and someone will actually have to "count pixels".

I've counted pixels in the SDO composite image and I've found a couple of serious errors in your analysis. Have you found those errors yet? Have you done a color layer separation and examined each one by itself?

 

[Dancing David]

I agree. The conclusion, since the atmosphere is bloody obviously not highly ionized (the photosphere's spectrum is that of a 6000K, weakly-ionized plasma) is that the atmosphere is NOT transparent. Therefore the iron ion emissions you're seeing are NOT coming from behind the atmosphere. Like we've been saying.

You still don't even have a GUESS about what the geometry of this emission is, do you? Your idea that "it's behind the photosphere" is based on some bizarre form of inference that works in the Mozina Visual Cortex and nowhere else.



Electricity is NOT known to ionize matter without heating it up.

Electricity is not known to magically pick out ionization states one at a time; it is known to heat up matter, and a higher-temperature Saha equation includes a broader (and higher) range of ionization states.

Thanks for all your efforts Ben M. and Sol and others.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Apologies if someone posted this already, but holy crap!

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2010/04/27/AIA_20100419_1200_2100_304_211_171_hihres.mov

I have a question for those who understand (better than I do) how these things are created.

I appreciate that we're not dealing with calibrated, science images, and that in converting uncalibrated pixel intensity values to what is displayed involves considerable lossy compression.

So we have a square (?) array of RGB values (integers? reals?) - a frame. And we have another frame, taken some time later (1 second? 1 minute? something else??). Assume that the frames are correctly registered - pixel (x, y) in one frame is in the same direction (relative to the centre of the Sun) as every frame's (x, y) pixel - and there are no time-dependent geometric distortions.

What would two consecutive RGB frames look like? As in three pairs of images: R(t=1), R(t=2); G(t=1), G(t=2); B(t=1), B(t=2). How difficult would it be to make those images from the .mov file? How could anyone - other than those who produced the .mov file - make these images themselves (in principle)?

 

[GeeMack]

So show us how it's supposed to be done GM.

Surely with your wise and flawless understanding of RD images, you and your chorus line of math bunny aficionados can come up with one or a few quantitative predictions (with margin of error) related to a RD image that will clearly be different than the predictions I have outlined?

From yesterday...

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.

You have not yet demonstrated that you are even remotely qualified to understand any solar imagery, running difference images/videos in particular. But it may interest you to know that I've already made some running difference images and videos from the SDO data that is currently available. There is nothing in the results that shows how you could possibly see through 80,000+ kilometers of opaque plasma.

Also, you seem to have forgotten my quantitative prediction about running difference imagery as it relates to your claim...

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

[...]

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.

Zero is a number, Michael.

 

[dafydd]

I've counted pixels in the SDO composite image and I've found a couple of serious errors in your analysis. Have you found those errors yet? Have you done a color layer separation and examined each one by itself?

I'm retired now,but I worked as a reprograph.I could make a colour layer separation,and I'd be willing to bet that Michael wouldn't know where to start.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I'm not interested in what you folks think is wrong with a Birkeland solar model. I want to hear you folks use that fabulously perfect standard model theory, all your sage like math skills and come up with a few useful and testable predictions related to RD images, and/or other SDO image that might be different than the results I have predicted. Surely you folks can do that, right?

What? Who said anything about Birkeland? You asked what the mainstream solar model says that coronal emissions can look like near the limb. I told you---the 3D model is that the corona is a complicated mix of hot stuff above the 6000K blackbody photosphere. In 2D projection, this model has a wide range of limb behaviors, which vary from limb-brightened to limb-darkened to depending on details of the "complicated mix". The Sun is limb-darkened in the optical AND limb-brightened in the x-rays right now, Michael.

(emphasis added)

Can someone please remind me what MM's predicted results are?

Specifically, are they quantitative? Independently verifiable?

By this last I mean can anyone take the axioms, methods, derivations, inputs, etc that MM has published, crunch the numbers, and produce the same - quantitative - predicted results? I do not know, but suspect it's so, that the predicted result is oracular.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Well, welcome to this week DRD, last week we all focused on the opacity issue, because it would be useful to demonstrate that the RD images can show something under 3,000 km. of plasma.

But once MM found out that neon could be transparent if it was at a high temperature only and that the 171A light would only travel 3.5 meters. So now he will uimagine this neon is 3,000 km.m highly ionized but not 6,000 F

Well, he wisely changed the subject, unlike the Casmir effect and cartoon pages, which he carried on for at least two weeks.

MM knowns enough to know his boat is sunk.

So we have two issues he can't explain and will avoid.

1. The composition of the solar wind being mixed ions and neutral material.
2. The opacity of the plasma is such that you can't see 3,000 km. through it.