Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[D'rok]

*sigh*

Michael:

I'm going to try this one more time. Please pay attention. And do try to keep up.

A Running Difference Image or video only records changes between frames.

Thus, anything that shows up as a "feature" in an RD image or video is, by definition, somethign that is changing.

Therefore, by definition and by what the process does, there CANNOT be rigid features in an RD image. It is not possible for RD to record rigid (i.e.-unchanging) features.

Those persistent areas you see in the RD image are not rigid features, they are AREAS THAT ARE UNDERGOING CHANGE BETWEEN EVERY SET OF FRAMES. THey are not rigid, they are CONSTANTLY CHANGING.

Until you can grasp this simple point, there's no sense in continueing conversation. You have a base failure of understanding at the initial premise of your conjectures. It's like looking at an infrared image of a person and claiming you can tell his color (he's red, see!). The image you are looking at DOES NOT RECORD THAT INFORMATION.

This was pointed out to Michael on, I think, the first or second page of the very first thread that he participated in after his "big discovery". It was on a different forum and was nearly 5 years ago. It has been pointed out to him countless times since.

He is just as immune to that inconvenient fact now as he was then. Probably more so as he has entrenched himself in his position.

His denial is epic. I am in awe, honestly.

 

[Hellbound]

Yeah, I understand he keeps ignoring the comment.

But really, that's the difficulty in his demand for "numbers".

The RD image does NOT show what he apprently thinks it shows, and until he can adequately address this issue in some fashion there's no sense in continuing.

We disagree that RD can show any type fo rigid feature. Unless he can somehow show evidence that it does, we cannot agree to give him numbers because any such numbers would be meaningless. The RD images do NOT show what he thinks they show.

To Michael:

Until we can agree on the data, there's no way we can use that data to test anything. You jump from one topic to the next with none ever being settled. My thought: Let's focus on this issue of what an RD image actually shows, until we can come to some agreement. If we can't reach an agreement on that, then RD data needs to be discarded from any further anaylsis here, because you and the rest of us will never agree on what it shows. If we can reach an agreement, then we can go on with it.

Assuming we manage to get that hashed out, then we can go on to the next. Until we can agree on valid interpretations of the data, we'll never get any further.

My request to you is to stop trhowing in any and everything you can think of that you believe disproves the standard model, because all that does is generates confusion and scatters the conversation all over without ever closing any line of argument. Let's focus, first, on the data and what it could possibly show...because until we get that clear we'll never be able to do anything else.

 

[Skwinty]

If MM will not show what he means by filling in Ben's ascii diagram, then who will ever know what he means.

Greenline what flying greenline! Sheesh!!!

Any way, I will bet that Michael loves every minute and all the publicity, even it it is really bad publicity.

 

[dasmiller]

I disagree. First, in the case of optically thin features, it is literally impossible to tell what is in front of what in 3D. There's no point even trying.

In the case of an absorption feature, in some cases you can tell (provisionally, anyway) what's in front of what---but only if you have really independent images from the different cameras. As soon as the PR department touches any color-balancing knob in Photoshop, the separate colors get mixed a little and "the red and green features overlap a bit" can turn into "the red-green overlap region contains a little less green" which looks like absorption.

Fair enough. I maintain that the appearance of the overlap between the green disk and the big loop is consistent with my theory that the green disk was created in Photoshop, but I'll concede that that appeance is merely suggestive (well, it suggested the photoshop explanation to me) at best and isn't real evidence. And it's probably a poor use of time to do much extrapolation from such.

I wouldn't trust ANY armchair image analysis of this sort---not Mozina's, not yours, not mine.

No disagreement there.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Yeah, I understand he keeps ignoring the comment.

But really, that's the difficulty in his demand for "numbers".

The RD image does NOT show what he apprently thinks it shows, and until he can adequately address this issue in some fashion there's no sense in continuing.

We disagree that RD can show any type fo rigid feature. Unless he can somehow show evidence that it does, we cannot agree to give him numbers because any such numbers would be meaningless. The RD images do NOT show what he thinks they show.

To Michael:

Until we can agree on the data, there's no way we can use that data to test anything. You jump from one topic to the next with none ever being settled. My thought: Let's focus on this issue of what an RD image actually shows, until we can come to some agreement. If we can't reach an agreement on that, then RD data needs to be discarded from any further anaylsis here, because you and the rest of us will never agree on what it shows. If we can reach an agreement, then we can go on with it.

Assuming we manage to get that hashed out, then we can go on to the next. Until we can agree on valid interpretations of the data, we'll never get any further.

My request to you is to stop trhowing in any and everything you can think of that you believe disproves the standard model, because all that does is generates confusion and scatters the conversation all over without ever closing any line of argument. Let's focus, first, on the data and what it could possibly show...because until we get that clear we'll never be able to do anything else.

(bold added)

That sort of request was made, several times, in this thread.

It's also been made in other JREF threads MM has participated (if that's the right word) in.

And GM (and others) have said much the same about threads in other fora, going back several years now.

If your request results in a change in behaviour, you'll have to share the secret of that success with others.

Now it's my turn to make a bet: no one is holding their breath.

 

[ben m]

His denial is epic. I am in awe, honestly.

Yep. I see no hope that he won't still be shouting about this image for the next five years. He could sit down and have Albert Einstein, Christian Birkeland, and Bill Nye the Science Guy explain limb darkening, trigonometry, JPEGs, and difference imaging to him personally---and he'd plug his ears and say "They talked about all kinds of bunnies but none of them predicted the size of the disk! I win!"

I'm amazed I managed to fool myself into thinking that one more explanation would get through to him. Nope, not one, not 1000. "Find a way to phrase the question so he can't ignore it."---nope, forget it. It's pointless. Mozina is determined not to learn solar physics from anyone but himself; he's not here to learn, he's here to feel like he's winning an argument with someone.

I humbly suggest that you bail out and we let the thread die.

 

[D'rok]

Yep. I see no hope that he won't still be shouting about this image for the next five years. He could sit down and have Albert Einstein, Christian Birkeland, and Bill Nye the Science Guy explain limb darkening, trigonometry, JPEGs, and difference imaging to him personally---and he'd plug his ears and say "They talked about all kinds of bunnies but none of them predicted the size of the disk! I win!"

I'm amazed I managed to fool myself into thinking that one more explanation would get through to him. Nope, not one, not 1000. "Find a way to phrase the question so he can't ignore it."---nope, forget it. It's pointless. Mozina is determined not to learn solar physics from anyone but himself; he's not here to learn, he's here to feel like he's winning an argument with someone.

I humbly suggest that you bail out and we let the thread die.

But that would mean I would have to get some work done IRL.

 

[Hellbound]

(bold added)

That sort of request was made, several times, in this thread.

It's also been made in other JREF threads MM has participated (if that's the right word) in.

And GM (and others) have said much the same about threads in other fora, going back several years now.

If your request results in a change in behaviour, you'll have to share the secret of that success with others.

Now it's my turn to make a bet: no one is holding their breath.

Yeah, I agree with you.

But, I figure that if I do nothing but repeat that, then eventually he'll either capitulate or get bored and wander off (I'm guessing option 2).

 

[Michael Mozina]

But that would mean I would have to get some work done IRL.

Hoy.

Well, anyone who goes back and reads this thread will find that I am the only human being alive (other than published team members) that "predicted" that green glow under the chromoshere. I even predicted a distance too based on Kosovichev's heliosiesmology data which I have also been debating now since the dawn of time (well, 4-5 years now).

I couldn't have nailed that prediction any better if I tried, and I can't even adjust them based on the limited SDO images I have seen.

I must say I'm a bit disappointed you didn't notice a key "prediction" when you see one. That photoization issue was a "biggie" in terms of "problems" for any non electric solar model. There's no way to explain it in fact without electricity, even if they want to stick with an iron plasma model for awhile.

My confidence comes from a multi-year process and a series of "prediction-verification" processes which I have been through, that green light being the most important one.

I first 'came up' with the idea of seeing the surface of the sun after wading through about 17 gigabytes of SOHO RD image. I got the idea early on, but I downloaded everything I could find to be sure that I wasn't imagining what I was seeing and because I wanted to carefully study them.

I realized then that if there was any validity at all to the concept, I should be able to find a lot more visual and other types of evidence to support the idea. If I could not find them, I figured there probably wasn't much merit to the concept.

The first thing I tried to figure out is how I could "see" under a supposedly "opaque" surface. There was simply no way light of this wavelength could get through the surface in the SSM due to photoionization issues. We're talking light absorption measured in meters. That seemed at first like an insurmountable hurdle.

I knew if there was a surface, then the material in that supposedly opaque photosphere could not be composed of the standard elements proposed by the standard model, and it would *necessarily* require some kind of electricity to ionize that material. It had to be at a very high energy state.

I needed a spectral analysis. I went and looked up the SERTS data again. I'd seen it years before, but I needed to understand what that material was made of, and I believed I might get some idea from that data. Low and behold I found both highly ionized neon and highly ionized silicon in quantities that really were not consistent with standard theory. Why is that neon so heavily ionized? Bingo! I found some "evidence" to give me a hint of what that region might be made of.

I also recalled seeing a heliosiesmology video a few years before that struck my eye then because I couldn't explain it then. I went hunting for it, and found it again and that is the tsunami page of my website. Again, I found more evidence in that data to support my theory. I wanted to verify that I "might" be able to see through the photosphere in some kind of Yohkoh/Hinode overlay because to my eyeball it looked like the 171A went further into the atmosphere than the x-rays. After some serious scrounging around the internet I found that Trace/overlay composite image that shows the 171A extending deep below the chromosphere. I realized at some point along the way that if SOHO could see the surface in RD images, the Trace should provide me with a very good closeup images too. I also found that at the LMSAL site.

I wondered if anyone had ever "tested" anything about this model and lo and behold I found Birkeland's work.

Everything I have "predicted" in this model has proven true for the past 5 years. After seeing the SDO first light images, I now have complete confidence in this solar model, right down to the error bars.

I realize that probably none of this makes any sense to you, but that green light under the chromosphere is the destroyer of the SSM. We could tinker with the RGB settings of various iron lines and always come up with the appropriate color in that region and always the same depth. That's another "prediction" by the way.

When they eventually do run long cadence RD images in SDO and look, they'll find a 4800Km gap in their theory.

About all I can do now is let the world catch up a bit.

 

[D'rok]

Hoy.

Well, anyone who goes back and reads this thread will find that I am the only human being alive that "predicted" that green glow under the chromoshere.

Can you point out where you predicted a green glow under the chromoshphere? (Ignoring for a moment all of the line of sight and other problems that defeat your "this is under that" eyeballing). I only recall you pointing to the green bit in the picture and saying "I predicted that!". In other words, you postdicted it.

Also, you ignore all of the similar images that don't have the green bit in them. Funny, that.

 

[dafydd]

Hoy.

Well, anyone who goes back and reads this thread will find that I am the only human being alive (other than published team members) that "predicted" that green glow under the chromoshere. I even predicted a distance too based on Kosovichev's heliosiesmology data which I have also been debating now since the dawn of time (well, 4-5 years now).

I couldn't have nailed that prediction any better if I tried, and I can't even adjust them based on the limited SDO images I have seen.

I must say I'm a bit disappointed you didn't notice a key "prediction" when you see one. That photoization issue was a "biggie" in terms of "problems" for any non electric solar model. There's no way to explain it in fact without electricity, even if they want to stick with an iron plasma model for awhile.

My confidence comes from a multi-year process and a series of "prediction-verification" processes which I have been through, that green light being the most important one.

I first 'came up' with the idea of seeing the surface of the sun after wading through about 17 gigabytes of SOHO RD image. I got the idea early on, but I downloaded everything I could find to be sure that I wasn't imagining what I was seeing and because I wanted to carefully study them.

I realized then that if there was any validity at all to the concept, I should be able to find a lot more visual and other types of evidence to support the idea. If I could not find them, I figured there probably wasn't much merit to the concept.

The first thing I tried to figure out is how I could "see" under a supposedly "opaque" surface. There was simply no way light of this wavelength could get through the surface in the SSM due to photoionization issues. We're talking light absorption measured in meters. That seemed at first like an insurmountable hurdle.

I knew if there was a surface, then the material in that supposedly opaque photosphere could not be composed of the standard elements proposed by the standard model, and it would *necessarily* require some kind of electricity to ionize that material. It had to be at a very high energy state.

I needed a spectral analysis. I went and looked up the SERTS data again. I'd seen it years before, but I needed to understand what that material was made of, and I believed I might get some idea from that data. Low and behold I found both highly ionized neon and highly ionized silicon in quantities that really were not consistent with standard theory. Why is that neon so heavily ionized? Bingo! I found some "evidence" to give me a hint of what that region might be made of.

I also recalled seeing a heliosiesmology video a few years before that struck my eye then because I couldn't explain it then. I went hunting for it, and found it again and that is the tsunami page of my website. Again, I found more evidence in that data to support my theory. I wanted to verify that I "might" be able to see through the photosphere in some kind of Yohkoh/Hinode overlay because to my eyeball it looked like the 171A went further into the atmosphere than the x-rays. After some serious scrounging around the internet I found that Trace/overlay composite image that shows the 171A extending deep below the chromosphere. I realized at some point along the way that if SOHO could see the surface in RD images, the Trace should provide me with a very good closeup images too. I also found that at the LMSAL site.

I wondered if anyone had ever "tested" anything about this model and lo and behold I found Birkeland's work.

Everything I have "predicted" in this model has proven true for the past 5 years. After seeing the SDO first light images, I now have complete confidence in this solar model, right down to the error bars.

I realize that probably none of this makes any sense to you, but that green light under the chromosphere is the destroyer of the SSM. We could tinker with the RGB settings of various iron lines and always come up with the appropriate color in that region and always the same depth. That's another "prediction" by the way.

When they eventually do run long cadence RD images in SDO and look, they'll find a 4800Km gap in their theory.

About all I can do now is let the world catch up a bit.

If you don't know what egregious means,do you you know what megalomania means?

 

[Michael Mozina]

If MM will not show what he means by filling in Ben's ascii diagram, then who will ever know what he means.

Greenline what flying greenline! Sheesh!!!

Any way, I will bet that Michael loves every minute and all the publicity, even it it is really bad publicity.

Actually, not really. In fact I have let my work slide now for too long I have things I have to do now to feed my family. Feeding my family is a lot more important to me than talking with a guy that claims to be the world's leading expert on RD images but can't make a single numerical prediction about the "disk" it creates?

Sorry boys, but I've done my best to educate you to the best of my ability and nobody seems to want to listen. I guess we'll just have to wait to see what comes out of the SDO program and I guess I need to get back to work.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you don't know what egregious means,do you you know what megalomania means?

It's only megalomania if I'm wrong.

 

[Skwinty]

I guess I need to get back to work.

So I guess that your guess about the sun is as good as your guess that you are going back to work to feed your family

 

[Michael Mozina]

Can you point out where you predicted a green glow under the chromoshphere? (Ignoring for a moment all of the line of sight and other problems that defeat your "this is under that" eyeballing). I only recall you pointing to the green bit in the picture and saying "I predicted that!". In other words, you postdicted it.

Also, you ignore all of the similar images that don't have the green bit in them. Funny, that.

The only way for me to see iron ion light from under the chromosphere is if that light originates in coronal loops that traverse the region. It's a necessary prediction of this solar model and that has been what the whole photoionization debate is about D'rok. That region should be pretty much pitch black and smooth in their model. Their "opaque math bunny" is toast. That region is clearly and visually "transparent" to anyone who cares to notice. The limb darkening occurs 4800KM under that chromosphere, not the first pixel under the red line as their theory "predicts".

 

[D'rok]

Actually, not really. In fact I have let my work slide now for too long I have things I have to do now to feed my family. Feeding my family is a lot more important to me than talking with a guy that claims to be the world's leading expert on RD images but can't make a single numerical prediction about the "disk" it creates?

Of course he has never made that claim.

Sorry boys, but I've done my best to educate you to the best of my ability and nobody seems to want to listen. I guess we'll just have to wait to see what comes out of the SDO program and I guess I need to get back to work.

You may not have educated us (Tim, Sol, Ben et al have that well in hand), but you have entertained us.

Ciao.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yeah, I understand he keeps ignoring the comment.

But really, that's the difficulty in his demand for "numbers".

The RD image does NOT show what he apprently thinks it shows, and until he can adequately address this issue in some fashion there's no sense in continuing.

If it doesn't show what I think it shows then my theory is falsified! What more do you want? I can only stick my neck out so many times in hope that you might actually lop it off and get it over with. Unfortunately for you there is a green 4800km problem in your theory in just the first round of first light SDO images. The SSM will not survive SDO.

 

[D'rok]

The only way for me to see iron ion light from under the chromosphere is if that light originates in coronal loops that traverse the region. It's a necessary prediction of this solar model and that has been what the whole photoionization debate is about D'rok. That region should be pretty much pitch black and smooth in their model. Their "opaque math bunny" is toast. That region is clearly and visually "transparent" to anyone who cares to notice. The limb darkening occurs 4800KM under that chromosphere, not the first pixel under the red line as their theory "predicts".

You know, I have absorbed just enough elementary knowledge about the sun to be able to confidently say this:

Word salad.

ETA: I thought the photo-ionization "debate" was about opacity? Which is why you ran back to misinterpreting pretty pictures when you realized that Sol's calculations were going to be fatal to your delusion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You know, I have absorbed just enough elementary knowledge about the sun to be able to confidently say this:

Word salad.

Sounds to me like you picked up "lingo" from the boys.

There's nothing "word salad" about it. I already see claims that somehow I photoshoped the image. That's absurd. The iron wavelengths determine the color along with their brightness. In no way have I ever doctored any image on my website.

I'm sick and tired now of being called a crackpot, and crank, yada, yada, yada. I've provided plenty of "quantified" and testable predictions now for anyone and everyone to checkout for themselves. That's really the best I can do at the moment. What do you want, blood?

Nobody in the world claimed that region was transparent except me D'rok. I've been saying that now for 5 years. Finally SDO demonstrates that it glows in brilliant color. Look with your eyes, not with your "lingo".

According to GM that green stuff is "impossible", "crazy", etc, but there is it in living color, 4800km of it just as I predicted years and years ago.

 

[D'rok]

Sounds to me like you picked up "lingo" from the boys.

There's nothing "word salad" about it. I already see claims that somehow I photoshoped the image. That's absurd. The iron wavelengths determine the color along with their brightness. In no way have I ever doctored any image on my website.

I'm sick and tired now of being called a crackpot, and crank, yada, yada, yada. I've provided plenty of "quantified" and testable predictions now for anyone and everyone to checkout for themselves. That's really the best I can do at the moment. What do you want, blood?

Nobody in the world claimed that region was transparent except me D'rok. I've been saying that now for 5 years. Finally SDO demonstrates that it glows in brilliant color. Look with your eyes, not with your "lingo".

According to GM that green stuff is "impossible", "crazy", etc, but there is it in living color, 4800km of it just as I predicted years and years ago.

Yet you ignore every single comprehensive and utterly devastating explanation for why you aren't seeing what you think you're seeing.

The rest of us read those explanations.