Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
Oh no. Birkeland's solar model predicts that the whole surface is *highly* electrically active. It should be *BRIGHT*, not dark all along the limb. It only goes "dark" right at the "surface" at the limb. The electrical activity along the surface is the light source that makes is "bright" along the surface. Pass!
Click to expand...

So the 3D model is (from the outside in)

coronal loops
--------------
bright and electrically-active layer
------------
"transparent neon-based substance TBD"
ETA "transparent silicon substance TBD"
------------
ultrahot iron vapor emitting 171A
----
solid iron at 2000K

Do I have that right? This is the first time you've mentioned light from the electrical activity so forgive me if my mind-reading skills have put it in the wrong place. Which layer is responsible for the "green" emissions which end up in the famous 20-pixel-wide stripe on the 2D image provided by the SDO PR department? I've asked eight times, explain already.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
The surface is electrically active. Little coronal loops traverse all the surfaces in smaller distances. Occasionally bigger loops form, but they are by far minority in terms of the numbers. Small loops light up the surface brilliantly. That's why you see limb lightening in the first place. The limb darkening occurs at the actual surface where it becomes "opaque" (GM style).
Click to expand...

Word salad. "The limb darkening occurs at the actual surface"? That's a sentence that would get big red X and a question mark in a Freshman astro problem set. It makes me think---yet again---that you STILL haven't put eight seconds of thought into how spherical objects get projected into 2D. But perhaps I'm just misreading you. You know what would clear it up? A DIAGRAM. Diagram. Can you just type the word for me? "diagram". Start with the "d". That would reassure me that your computer doesn't have a virus which autoreplaces the word "diagram" into "haxxored by 8irkel@nd".
 
Michael Mozina said:
Nope. History will decide that. Forget who decides and when it gets decided. Just put up your numbers and your predictions complete with margins of error. Once we have numbers we'll get into the issue of "who decides". Just put some numbers on the table.
Click to expand...


Word salad.

I've asked plenty of times before, but what the hell, electronic digits are for all practical purposes free...

Is English your second language? Do you have some known explainable deficiency with your communication skills? Is there some way we can accommodate you by making our communication simpler for you to understand? Is there some clue we might apply to your communication that would help us when the things you write sound like gibberish?
 
Perpetual Student said:
Question:

Are there any radar techniques that could determine if the sun has a solid surface? As I ask this question, it seems to be unlikely because a radar beam would have to penetrate electrically active layers to get to any solid surface. But I really don't know...
Click to expand...

It if is that heavily ionized, maybe, but since the iron ion wavelengths are giant light sources, all you have to do to see the surface is crank up the light. It's actually unnecessary based on the design specs of SDO. SDO will (does) verify this stuff with plenty of resolution to spare. Whoever built that piece of equipment, I can assure you it is the single most high tech, well engineered piece of equipment humanity has ever assembled. The right instrument was built to do the job. It will simply take time to digest the data and figure out what to do about it. They just turned on the lights a few weeks ago. :) Give them some time. They'll figure out the politics. Trust me however when I tell you that SDO is the right piece of equipment to verify all of this. It's an amazing piece of engineering excellence.
 
ben m said:
So the 3D model is (from the outside in)
Click to expand...

Yes. According to the standard model, that is where your coronal loops should start to light up. Don't you think we should use that as the starting point?

According to this model, the solid surface is located at about 4800 KM under the base of the chomosphere.
 
Last edited:
GM...

I'm bored of you.

I want numbers on those RD images at various wavelengths with margins of error out of you. If you can't come up with any numbers, your theory and your math skills are pathetically useless. I want numbers. Got numbers?
 
Michael Mozina said:
It if is that heavily ionized, maybe, but since the iron ion wavelengths are giant light sources, all you have to do to see the surface is crank up the light.
Click to expand...


At least two huge problems with that. One, "iron ion wavelengths are giant light sources" is just a completely ludicrous way to describe what's actually going on with iron emissions in the solar atmosphere. And the other, you're assuming you can see through several thousand kilometers of plasma that when calculated using real math and known, verifiable laws of physics, is found to be opaque.

It's actually unnecessary based on the design specs of SDO. SDO will (does) verify this stuff with plenty of resolution to spare. Whoever built that piece of equipment, I can assure you it is the single most high tech, well engineered piece of equipment humanity has ever assembled. The right instrument was built to do the job. It will simply take time to digest the data and figure out what to do about it. They just turned on the lights a few weeks ago. :) Give them some time. They'll figure out the politics. Trust me however when I tell you that SDO is the right piece of equipment to verify all of this. It's an amazing piece of engineering excellence.
Click to expand...


That's what you said about the STEREO program. Too bad those bozos didn't know what they were doing, eh?
 
Michael Mozina said:
GM...

I'm bored of you.

I want numbers on those RD images at various wavelengths with margins of error out of you. If you can't come up with any numbers, your theory and your math skills are pathetically useless. I want numbers. Got numbers?
Click to expand...

ROLFLMAO! Talk about a lack of self knowledge.You are a fascinating case.
 
Michael Mozina said:
According to this model, the solid surface is located at about 4800 KM under the base of the chomosphere.
Click to expand...

In order to see to that depth at the limb in this image, you must be able to see through ~80,000km of solar plasma. Do you deny that this is true?
 
Michael Mozina said:
According to this model, the solid surface is located at about 4800 KM under the base of the chomosphere.
Click to expand...

What's in between the "base of the chromosphere" and the solid surface, Michael?

And what emits visible sunlight? You know, that stuff that makes it light out during the day?
 
sol invictus said:
What's in between the "base of the chromosphere" and the solid surface, Michael?
Click to expand...

Highly ionized silicon and neon plasma.

And what emits visible sunlight?
Click to expand...

The neon layer and oxygen and other ionized elements inside that neon. If I could figure out what absorbs 94A, I might figure out what "cools off" and then is re excited, and that might allow me go give you a temperature range of something. Without that bit of info however, I'm clueless how to give you surface temperatures at the surface of the photosphere so I'll stick with the standard model for the time being.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Highly ionized silicon and neon plasma.
Click to expand...

OK.

The neon layer and oxygen and other ionized elements inside that neon. If I could figure out what absorbs 94A, I might figure out what "cools off" and then is re excited, and that might allow me go give you a temperature range of something. Without that bit of info however, I'm clueless how to give you surface temperatures at the surface of the photosphere so I'll stick with the standard model for the time being.
Click to expand...

You're aware of the fact that sunlight has spectrum that's very close to 5800K blackbody, right? And now you know - thanks to me, evidently - that Ne/S plasma at 5800K and the standard density is opaque to VUV at 3.5m depths and larger.

We're not talking about a small problem here, Michael. We're talking about a 6 order of magnitude change in the opacity between anything known to physics or ever observed in the lab and what your model requires.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
That's what you said about the STEREO program. Too bad those bozos didn't know what they were doing, eh?
Click to expand...

Man you are clueless. It's all about resolution and pixels. You wouldn't know that however because you have no respect at all for simple human observation.
 
D'rok said:
In order to see to that depth at the limb in this image, you must be able to see through ~80,000km of solar plasma. Do you deny that this is true?
Click to expand...

A thought occurs to me (it happens occasionally - usually I try to suppress it before I hurt myself). If Michael's solid surface is at 4800km, and he is claiming to see this surface by counting pixels at the limb, would the necessary oblique line-of-sight angle through the sun to the limb pass below 4800km at some point? In other words, to see 4800km deep at the limb in a 2d image, would he have to see through his iron surface on the way through?

Somebody not named Mozina please set me straight.
 
Michael Mozina said:
GM...

I'm bored of you.

I want numbers on those RD images at various wavelengths with margins of error out of you. If you can't come up with any numbers, your theory and your math skills are pathetically useless. I want numbers. Got numbers?
Click to expand...


I really don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Seriously. I've told you everything you could possibly need to know to understand running difference imagery. Everything. And here you are still badgering me and badmouthing me.

A running difference image is a graphical representation of a series of simple calculations. The only numbers involved are the location and values of the input pixels and the values of the output pixels. I told you I'd work up some output numbers for you but I need the input numbers you want me to use. I've been asking you for those numbers and for some reason you aren't willing to provide them.​

You've made bets with me then you backed out, only to try tossing the blame back on me. You've threatened to sue me for catching you posting fraudulent material on your web site. You've said you'd stuff images down my throat. You've called me pathetic, a jerk, and a liar. You've refused to answer the simplest yes/no questions and instead resorted to smarmy misdirection and outright ignorance. There's nothing remotely civil, honest, or scientific about any of that behavior.

I don't have a theory to defend here, Michael. You do. And it's not even a theory, scientifically speaking. It's a guess. A poorly considered guess based on a serious lack of qualification to understand most of anything you're talking about. You're the one making a claim. You've got no call to be making any kind of demands on anyone. You should be accepting our expert criticism of the shortcomings of your imaginary solid iron surface and thanking us for our time and trouble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom