Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/sdo/sd01.jpg[/qimg]

Limb "darkening" in this image is the really "opaque" (GM definition region where it becomes really dark under the chromosphere about 4800KM.
Click to expand...

That's an image of limb brightening. The green band is brighter than the black area centerwards of it. Like you expect for an optically-thin corona layer. What do you think is "limb darkening" in this image?

ETA: Stretching my imagination, I have a few guesses. Maybe Michael really thinks that this is a cross-section photo, like a photo of a slice of an orange. He thinks the iron is "black" and the neon is "green" for some reason. Maybe he thinks that the black area represents stuff that's emitting 171A---as though it was a photo negative? Astronomers do that sometimes, but this isn't such a negative. Maybe he thinks that the Fe dissolves in the Ne and so all the 171A light comes from the Ne bulk volume? Maybe he's picturing it as though it's back-lit, and the backlight shines through the Ne but is blocked by the Fe? Either way, he's utterly up the wrong tree.
 
Last edited:
Skwinty said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limb_darkening
Click to expand...

FYI Squinty if you go back to the original SDO images, you'll find that same limb darkening feature the whole way around the sun. If you take measurements of it around the limbs, bit works out to 4800Km+-1200 Km, exactly in the range of Kosovichev's data and my original estimates from his data. That simply cannot possibly be a coincidence. The RD images will tell the story. If the edges of the RD images are also inside the chromosphere than all the light also comes from under the chrmososphere.

In mainstream theory the limbs of the RD images should be on the ouside of the photosphere, half way up that orange region. It's never going to happen.
 
Michael Mozina said:
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050527-1913.JPG[/qimg]

This is a SOHO RD image with a HUGE gap between images. There is an overall size and shape to the edges of the image where it become "opaque" (GM definition) and has a relatively sharp outline. Keep in mind that this image was taken a 1 megapixel resolution, whereas the SDO images are 16 megapixel resolution. You get *WAY* more surface detail in 16 megapixel, most of which just looks like short moving coronal loops in the air. When you run the RD feature, you end with the mass movement and surface contours.
Click to expand...


For one thing, the entire Sun is opaque. You can't see through any of it. And for another, this is a running difference image which is just a graph of the difference in pixel values between a pair of source images. There is nothing in this graph which has anything to do with limb darkening. There are no surface features. No contours. There is no movement. It's static. It's 2D. You don't "run the RD feature".

Remember, your qualifications to properly understand solar imagery have been challenged, and you have been wholly unable or unwilling to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications. Your unqualified, unsubstantiated opinion is not valid evidence for anything

Oh, and my use of the term opaque is no different than that of NASA or a typical dictionary. Opaque simply means no light gets through it or out of it. If you have a definition for opaque that is unlike that used by pretty much everyone who understands solar physics, as you seem to have for "photosphere", "chromosphere", and "transition region", you should make your definition clear.
 
ben m said:
That's an image of limb brightening.
Click to expand...

No. That is "limb darkening" at the "surface" and "limb lightening in your presumably "opaque" region. There's 4800Km of "limb lightening" going on in a region you claim is opaque. Notice where the orange ends?
 
Michael Mozina said:
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/NewModel.JPG[/qimg]

There is a 4800km gap between the surface of the neon layer (what you keep calling a photosphere) and the solid surface. The opaque (GM style) edges of the 171A RD images are about 4800kim *inside* the chromosphere.
Click to expand...

That diagram looks remarkably like the diagram associated with a red supergiant... with something unidentified in the middle.:confused:
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI Squinty if you go back to the original SDO images, you'll find that same limb darkening feature the whole way around the sun. If you take measurements of it around the limbs, bit works out to 4800Km+-1200 Km, exactly in the range of Kosovichev's data and my original estimates from his data. That simply cannot possibly be a coincidence. The RD images will tell the story. If the edges of the RD images are also inside the chromosphere than all the light also comes from under the chrmososphere.

In mainstream theory the limbs of the RD images should be on the ouside of the photosphere, half way up that orange region. It's never going to happen.
Click to expand...


Now you're misrepresenting what limb darkening actually is. Your qualifications to understand anything about contemporary standard solar theory have been challenged. You have so far been unable to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications.

Those who do understand legitimate astrophysics, mainstream solar theory, and solar imagery, including running difference imagery, wouldn't make any such claims about limbs and limb darkening and what might be "half way up that orange region". People who actually understand this subject use measurements, in numbers, quantitative values. They would consider this explanation a dishonest strawman and utter nonsense.

Agree with Sol here...

sol invictus said:
This obsession with running difference images is really bizarre, Michael.
Click to expand...


This persistent misrepresentation of what a running difference image is and what sort of information we might expect to get from it is indeed bizarre.
 
GeeMack said:
Now you're misrepresenting what limb darkening actually is. Your qualifications to understand anything about contemporary standard solar theory have been challenged.
Click to expand...

The only way you can actually 'challenge' me now are with real numbers because I have provide them, and you have not. Got numbers? Yes or no?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
No. That is "limb darkening" at the "surface" and "limb lightening in your presumably "opaque" region. There's 4800Km of "limb lightening" going on in a region you claim is opaque. Notice where the orange ends?
Click to expand...

The orange? If you ovelaid a visible-light image of the Sun on this, those "orange" areas are above the surface. That's the corona. At the place it meets the green edge, there's about ONE PIXEL worth---a few hundred km in projection---of either lightening of the orange or darkening of the green or both---which is entirely buried in the JPEG artifacts. Is that what you think is "limb darkening", Michael? That one sometimes-darker row of pixels? Good heavens.

If that one row of pixels were to mean something (for example, if it's still there in a FITs image, and if it's wider than the telescope PSF), it's a perfectly normal standard model meaning. That's what you expect if there's a layer ~400km thick, above the green emitter and below the orange emitter, which emits neither green nor orange. Or alternatively it's what you expect if there's an extremely optically-thin layer (O = 0.001 or so) above the green emitter which is able to absorb the green light when it's in extreme projection.

Is that one row of pixels the exciting one, Michael?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
No. That is "limb darkening" at the "surface" and "limb lightening in your presumably "opaque" region. There's 4800Km of "limb lightening" going on in a region you claim is opaque. Notice where the orange ends?
Click to expand...


Please provide a somewhat detailed definition of your understanding of "limb darkening". In solar physics it already has a reasonably well defined meaning, and you are clearly using it in a way that is at odds with the conventional, well understood definition.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No. That is "limb darkening" at the "surface" and "limb lightening in your presumably "opaque" region. There's 4800Km of "limb lightening" going on in a region you claim is opaque. Notice where the orange ends?
Click to expand...

Anyone else notice that when Michael gets flustered, he puts more and more quotes around random words?

As for what you said here Michael, I honestly have no idea what you mean. Or to be more accurate I have some guesses, but no confidence in any of them.

You need to slow down, take a deep breath, and explain carefully what you're talking about. It would hep a lot if you didn't refer to "Km" while you're describing a 2D image on our computer screens.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for those plasma numbers.
 
OMG....

I'm talking to all these math devotees that claim the standard theory is "useful" at making 'predictions', and yet I can't get a single one of you to come up with a calculation about the edge of the RD images and the chromosphere? The problem can't be related to your math skills, so I can only assume you have 4800KM problem with your theory, because surely by now one of you would have come up with such a relatively simple "ballpark" calculation by now.
 
sol invictus said:
Anyone else notice that when Michael gets flustered, he puts more and more quotes around random words?
Click to expand...

Yes. I've commented on this before. It makes things surprisingly difficult to read. You try to put emphasis on these words when you're reading them. But there's only so many words you can emphasize in one sentence without getting lost.
 
Michael Mozina said:
OMG....

I'm talking to all these math devotees that claim the standard theory is "useful" at making 'predictions', and yet I can't get a single one of you to come up with a calculation about the edge of the RD images and the chromosphere? The problem can't be related to your math skills, so I can only assume you have 4800KM problem with your theory, because surely by now one of you would have come up with such a relatively simple "ballpark" calculation by now.
Click to expand...


One problem, as far as I can tell, is you are using terms differently than everyone else in the discussion. Also you seem to be asking a question that is so poorly phrased that nobody understands what you're trying to say. There is no such thing as "coming up with a calculation about the edge of the RD images and the chromosphere". It's a meaningless string of words. It's just gibberish, Michael. It simply doesn't make any sense at all.

And again, I'm not just saying that to make you look foolish. Since you're the one with the problem getting other people to understand you, after all most of the rest of us understand each other pretty damned good here, I'd suggest that you go study up on the terminology of solar science and that you completely discard that wholly incorrect idea you have about running difference imagery. You will simply not make any headway in this conversation as long as you insist on talking in what can only be considered a foreign language.
 
Once again, Michael. Stick to the facts. If you insist (perversely, IMO) that the only way to learn about the Sun is to look at this limb picture in this wavelength (as opposed to, e.g. the well-known optical spectrum) then stop getting mad and talk about the data.

The data has some orange structure, which is separated from a green structure by a sharp edge and the green structure fades into black ~20 pixels centerwards of the edge. At 440km/pixel in this projection, that does NOT appear to be a reasonable 2D projection of your hypothetical green-emitting sphere surrounded by a 4800-km-thick ultratransparent shell. How did you conclude that your model should actually project down to this data? Or were you just guessing?
 
Last edited:
Dear Mr. Spock,

Since you were so kind to give GM a hand on his last project about how far GM thinks I can see into the atmosphere, and you obviously have the angle stuff down pat, could you please be so kind as to help him again with his RD image project? He seems to be the resident expert on things related to RD images so the two of you should be able to work out something.

I'm not looking for anything fancy, just a simple "ballpark" will do. I'm specifically interested in 171A, and I'll be happy with 1200KM either direction. Anything close will do, so long as we have some way to distinguish between the two theories. I just want to know what you think the circumference of the RD sphere will be.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
surely by now one of you would have come up with such a relatively simple "ballpark" calculation by now.
Click to expand...

Didn't I say the San Diego Cardinals would lose the division series? And your cat's tail was 15.5cm long? If you're seriously looking for predictions that have absolutely no bearing on the standard model photosphere, I've got dozens of them.
 
Come on. I'm not looking for the anything other than a ballpark figure on the circumference of the RD sphere at 171A?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom