Skwinty
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 5,593
Michael, are you a solar physicist with a university physics degree?
Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...
- Thread starter brantc
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fusion solar power
- Status
Michael, are you a solar physicist with a university physics degree?
I guess Michael isn't competent to make a 3D model of his Sun. I have decided to do it for him based on my own best understanding of the situation.
Code:
observer is up here
lines of sight,
looking down.
||||||||||
abcdefghij
H What do we see along the lines of sight a-h?
0H.
00 . <----- sneaky hydrogen shell to hide this from every telescope
00 . other than SDO
00 . //
ff . // <-- giant dentist's mirror for side view
fff . //
ffff .
ffff . <--- unobtanium window giving clear line of sight
ffff . <----- iron core
fffff .
fffff000 <---- nice clear cross section visible here
fffff000
fffff000
ffff0000 <---- invisible neon plasma, except when requested
ffff000
fff0000 ,(__). <---alien spacecraft holding helpful sign
ff00000 <=||||=>
000000 _________|____ >-|o <---pythagoras spinning
000000 | this is | in his grave
00000 | under this, |
0000 | i have clear|
000 |view_trust_me|
0
bbbbbbbbbbbb background is Neapolitan
bbbbbbbbbbbb
bbbbbbbbbbbbMichael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Well, I can understand why you feel that way at the moment, but after spending an evening counting pixels with my daughter, I can tell you with great confidence that those specific equations are meaningless math bunnies, and I know this for a fact. You do not, and I understand that, but I've been studying solar physics now for 20 years via satellite imagery, and I have already verified Birkeland's theory.
Ya, but all those planetary epicycle math bunnies bit the dust the moment we realized that our sun was not the center of the universe. Newton's equations have stood the test of time. All the math bunnies related to
epicycles did not.
Some math is critical. Some math is misleading. Their math is misleading and they will soon "discover" this. They will eventually tell you all about it. Until then I have to bide my time and wait for the politics to play itself out, but SDO has already verified Birkeland's theory and it has already falsified the standard model. I've seen it with my own eyes.
This crew is not "into" observation. They don't "look at" or "study" images in terms of mass flows or ionization states or anything. They seem to miss every single important detail of every image I show them. It's sad how they ignore million dollar images because their math bunnies have led them down the primrose path.
I feel sorry for them PS. I really do.
FYI, those numbers are not actually a "prediction" anymore. I used Kosovichev's heliosiesmology data to "predict" a distance before the SDO images came online. I have actually verified that number via the SDO images. Since both of the numbers came out to exactly the same number, error bars and everything, I have visually confirmed Birkeland's model in SDO images. Now it's just a waiting process for me.
The value of any solar theory is how well it can "predict" the outcome of the observations. Birkeland's solar model "predicted" every single thing I see in SDO. I can explain to you what's going on in all the images. I "understand" them from the standpoint of physics. I couldn't possibly do that if Birkeland's model was wrong. It's not wrong.
Keep in mind that I have provided you with real, mathematically quantified, "predictions" related to a host of iron ion wavelengths and their relationship to the chromoshere.
If their theory were correct, and these lines relate strictly to temperature, what we should expect to observe in RD images are concentric spheres, one sphere packed into another, and all of them on the *OUTSIDE* of the photosphere. At best case they should all start together OUTSIDE of the photosphere.
In a Birkeland model they all *MUST* originate from the same surface, and the sphere has to show up inside the chromosphere.
Their theory is based on math bunnies PS, and some of the folks involved in SDO must already know this by now.
There is however a whole "political process" that has to happen now. Somebody has to take some initiative within the "establishment" to let the world know what's up. Just as we discovered that the sun wasn't the center of the universe, SDO demonstrates that the sun is electric and it has a far more "opaque" (GM style) surface below the chromosphere/photosphere boundary.
I already know all of this PS, but fortunately I'm not the one who has to figure out how to tell the world and make all the "scientists" happy. I feel fortunate to be outside of that "establishment" right now. It can't be very comfortable.
If the standard theory has value, lets see GM "predict" something about the RD images and "quantify" them for you as I have done.
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
How would you know? Up until this point you have not displayed any knowledge of maths.Can you provide us with some to back up your theory.
Well, my cat has a very unusual tail; I think my cat's tail will rewrite all of vertebrate anatomy. Why won't someone tell me---how long does mainstream vertebrate anatomy tell me my cat's tail should be? Seriously, I want to measure it and compare it to a prediction. None of you so-called biology jocks can put forward a single quantifiable prediction for the length of my cat's tail! How utterly useless vertebrate anatomy is.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I *ABSOLUTELY* refuse to be called a "fraud" by anyone ever again over solar images. I gave you the predictions. Check them out for yourself!
Which math is misleading, Michael? You have never found an error in anyone's math here.
Did I count to three wrong when I counted dimensions? Is the Sun not actually a 3-D sphere? I await the glorious revolution that will come when the Pythagorean Theorem is shown to be "misleading".
Michael deciding "I refuse to be called a fraud" is kind of like all of the neon atoms in the Sun deciding "I refuse to be neutral". Your refusal doesn't mean much if you're not running the show.
schrodingasdawg
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 327
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Running difference images made from the color separated pairs of images above wouldn't show much contrast because the source images are only 10 frames apart. But with a 100 frame offset the running difference images would be what you see in any single frame from the videos below.
This first video was made by removing the green and blue from the source video leaving just the red. Then all the red was converted to grayscale. Then two frames are taken from the video 100 frames apart starting with frames 1 and 100. Then 50% gray is added to each pixel in the first image, and the second image is subtracted pixel by pixel from the first. The result becomes frame 1 in the output. Then move to frame 2 and frame 102 and repeat with all frame X and frame X+100... (These pixel values are numerical values of gray from 0 = black to 255 = white.)
Then of course these videos are sized down to 640x320 and letterboxed to 640x480 to make them fit YouTube and common video viewers. And I trimmed them down to just the first 20 seconds to make more reasonable download sizes.
The second video, above, is the same only I took out the red and the blue, leaving only the green from the original video. And the third, below, is the running difference video made from just the blue. I believe these red, green, and blue colors represent 211Å, 193Å, and 171Å source data respectively.
I use a proprietary script I wrote myself to do this processing, so I won't be more specific. Anyone with a little math background, a modicum of expertise in computer video and graphics, and some reasonable programming skills could certainly do this.
This is a very important point for this discussion. Although the running difference material we find at NASA and LMSAL probably is made pretty much exactly the way I've done it, they can look quite different by adjusting only a couple of things.
First, if you subtract frame x+1 from frame x+100 you get the videos we see above. If you instead subtract frame x+100 from frame x+1 you end up with something that looks like a negative of that video. Either the lighting comes from the other side of the mountain or your mountain turns into a valley. Take your pick.
Second, the contrast between images will obviously be affected by the offset, or how many frames apart you use for the compared images. And you need to remember that is based on the time difference between the original frames, too. A running difference video made with an offset of 10 frames might show so little change that it would look almost like a smooth gray throughout. Compare images 100 frames apart and you can see the changes between source images more clearly. You can shrink and grow your mountains by comparing frames closer or further apart in the sequence.
Many of the running difference images available from NASA and LMSAL have quite different sizes of mountains, some so huge that it's amazing we don't see them with the naked eye when there's a solar eclipse!
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
But he's been counting pixels! For a whole evening! That proves. . .
something. . .
kinda. . .
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Your belief that the "photosphere" is "opaque" for starters.
No, my daughter and I used that one to falsify your other math bunnies. That mathematical equation works fine. Don't through out good math with the math bunnies!
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
But he's been counting pixels! For a whole evening! That proves. . .
something. . .
kinda. . .
It proves that Kosovichev's heliosiesmology data directly relates to that opaque (GM style) limb at 4800Km +- 1200Km under your opaque photosphere math bunny.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
OMG. You're like a parrot. You can only parrot the process and you have no idea how to apply it to solar physics. You might as well be talking about applying the process to a brick wall! You claim to be the worlds foremost leading "expert" on solar RD image, and so much more mathematically wise than ignorant, stupid old me. Where are you numbers GM? Holy cow!
Give me some number related to RD images in relationship to the base of the chromospohere. Give me anything to work with to separate your math bunny theory from my predictions.
Last edited:
Show me. Sol did the calculation correctly. Did he use the wrong cross-section? Does Avogadro's Number not apply in the Sun?
No, he did the math right. He did the correct calculation of the vertical opacity through 3000km of neon at 6000K. If you would tell him what the photosphere is really made of, he COULD do the correct calculation of the opacity in your model. But you decided you didn't want to, or something.
See, Michael, this is why everyone laughs when you criticize "math". That wasn't a math error at all, it was your model failing to contain enough physics to apply the laws of physics to. What, did you just grab the "too much math is bad" boilerplate off of some anti-string theory blog? Save it for when we're actually doing too much math.
"I don't can't figure out the density of Unobtanium" is not a failure of math, or of density, or of chemistry. It's a failure of the guy who asked for the density of unobtanium.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Nice images GM. I'm still waiting for you to "predict" the location of the surface of the RD sphere in relationship to the chromosphere using the standard model.
schrodingasdawg
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 327
This is an interesting post, thanks for sharing it. It did pique my curiosity though.
Mostly I'm wondering, what are the RD images used for? Are they used to quantify/analyze anything? To look for patterns? Or primarily as a visualization tool?
I apologize if any of the questions are stupid, or have been answered; I haven't really been following the whole 57 posts of the thread.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
What you're proposing isn't remotely like Birkeland's notion about the Sun. It is dishonest for you to claim it is.
Again, you have been asked dozens of times to substantiate your claim that you're presenting Birkeland's theory. You have been unable to do that. It is dishonest of you to continue repeating that lie.
Interesting how some of us have actually taken your approach and counted pixels, and we found errors in your count and we found flaws in your arguments. So even the pixel counters, if they're doing it thoroughly, accurately, and objectively can come up with things that you apparently can't.
Kosovichev's helioseismology research shows clearly that there is mass moving at 3000 miles per hour directly through your fictional solid iron surface. Even Kosovichev himself says there isn't anything solid in there.
You can repeat that forever and it will never become true. Birkeland's solar model has nothing to do with your crackpot conjecture.
Take a look at the running difference videos I made. Looks like that particular prediction of yours has crashed and burned.
The lie about Birkeland's theory followed by another insulting jab at people who actually do have the qualifications to understand the math and physics under discussion followed by the powers-that-be suppression of the truth paranoid conspiracy theory claim. Wow.
I already quantified my prediction. Remember? I said exactly zero professional physicists on this planet would come to believe you can see through thousands of kilometers of opaque plasma. If you suggest again that I haven't made a quantitative prediction about running difference images as it relates to the SDO material and your crackpot claim, you are a liar.
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Thanks GeeMack, those videos were very cool. It is awesome how each video highlights different aspects of the whole
Yes, and in one of them, I could actually see the face of Jesus!
- Status