Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[D'rok]

Michael Mozina: Why do you believe you see fixed features in RD images? Please explain!

As Michael is in dodge mode, I will try to summarize the only two answers I have ever seen him give to this question. (Sometimes he muddles and blurs these two answers together).

1. There is an external light source that produces areas of light and shadow on the "mountains" in the gold-coloured RD image. As that light source moves/changes/whatever, the areas of light and shadow on the mountains change, and therefore this change is captured in an RD image. Voila! Mountains!

2. The "mountains" are really just plasma contours of solid features below. As the plasma flows over these features, you can see the outlines of those features captured in an RD image.

Of course, if you've been following this or other threads, I'm sure no explanation is required for why both of those answers are laughably wrong.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you mean me, then that's not what I'm suggesting. I've been working directly with the NASA PR photo*. I think NASA photoshopped the image.

Okay, actually, I'm certain that NASA photoshopped the image. Of course, my speculations about exactly what photoshopping they did are just speculations.

*yes, there's something faintly absurd about the idea of working directly with a PR photo.

I predict it won't matter what software was used to create the image. The color under the chromosphere will always and completely depend on the RGB color scheme of the iron ion wavelengths and their respective outputs. I predict you can play with the RGB settings of the iron ion wavelengths and see a change in the color scheme that follows your RGB selection.

 

[Skwinty]

I predict you can play with the RGB settings of the iron ion wavelengths and see a change in the color scheme that follows your RGB selection.

I predict that you can achieve the same effect with a picture of your grand mothers 100th birthday tea party

 

[D'rok]

No test, just your basic, run of the mill, childrens astronomy book grade structural cutaway of the sun with indications of what's where, and how it works together. Pretty simple request considering you apparently have a reasonable, scientific theory on the nature and structure of the sun. (Which disagrees with the entire compendium of human knowledge of astronomy, physics, spectroscopy and scientific principles in general.)

It may of course tie you down to attempting to actually elucidate some of your "woo" I think the term on these forums are, so I doubt you'll actually follow through, but I can only live in hope I suppose.

There is a structural cutaway image that Michael posted some pages back. I'm too lazy to look for it, but if you find it, it is...interesting.

 

[nvidiot]

I predict it won't matter what software was used to create the image. The color under the chromosphere will always and completely depend on the RGB color scheme of the iron ion wavelengths and their respective outputs. I predict you can play with the RGB settings of the iron ion wavelengths and see a change in the color scheme that follows your RGB selection.

WTF does that even mean?

 

[Nonpareil]

It's only megalomania if I'm wrong.

No, it's megalomania if you're right as well.

If it doesn't show what I think it shows then my theory is falsified!

Then it's falsified, and this thread should die.

 

[nvidiot]

@ D'rok.

Oh god. Oh christ. I saw the cutaway on the webpage.

The stupid! IT BURRRRRNNNNS! ARRRRRGGGGGH!

*skull caves in after self ignition of internal iron crust*

 

[Michael Mozina]

As Michael is in dodge mode,

Could you elaborate for me how *I* have dodged anything? I provided you with images, numbers, a full explanation of how to verify my claims, everything. I made another "crazy" prediction about that "disk" in the RD image that GM can't see. I've been willing to stick out my neck at every turn and put this theory to the "test" in the SDO images too. Was it my fault I was right about the fact that the opaque math bunny claim was false? Is it my imagination there are green edges under that chromosphere?

I have provided a full quantitative and qualitative explanation of the key elements of my "predictions". Nobody seems to care one iota that Birkeland's model passed the observation test and the SSM went down in green iron flames. Did I create that SDO image too? Did I doctor it in any way? Did I count pixels to verify the Kosovichev's Doppler numbers?

I will try to summarize the only two answers I have ever seen him give to this question. (Sometimes he muddles and blurs these two answers together).

1. There is an external light source that produces areas of light and shadow on the "mountains" in the gold-coloured RD image. As that light source moves/changes/whatever, the areas of light and shadow on the mountains change, and therefore this change is captured in an RD image. Voila! Mountains!

No, just "Viola", "patterns". How come those "patterns" are so persistent if the structures in the photosphere come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals? How come they all rotate uniformly in the north and south poles?

2. The "mountains" are really just plasma contours of solid features below. As the plasma flows over these features, you can see the outlines of those features captured in an RD image.

Actually, that's all true, it's just happening underneath that dead opaque math bunny. The contours of the mass flows follow the contours of the iron surface. You can't really see the surface, you just see the flow lines of all the small loops that traverse the surface.

Of course, if you've been following this or other threads, I'm sure no explanation is required for why both of those answers are laughably wrong.

What exactly more can I tell you besides the fact that I agree that they related to light from the discharge filaments not the actual surface, they take place 4800km under that dead opaque math bunny, and the RD image at 171A in a long cadence will show you exactly where it is in relationship to the chromosphere along the limbs?

Holy cow! I can't make it any simpler to lop off my head again! I just barely survived that last "test" by the the green hairs of only 4800Km. I'm already sticking my neck out again making a new prediction related to the RD images that nobody seems to willing to even "put to the test"? What can I do to convince you if offering up my next "crazy" prediction will not suffice?

The fact I passed the green light exam on SDO should have made you do an about face instantly. Instead you want more. I gave you more. What more can I do? Are you going to try to falsify my claim, yes or no?

 

[GeeMack]

I predict it won't matter what software was used to create the image. The color under the chromosphere will always and completely depend on the RGB color scheme of the iron ion wavelengths and their respective outputs. I predict you can play with the RGB settings of the iron ion wavelengths and see a change in the color scheme that follows your RGB selection.

WTF does that even mean?

Maybe this will help...

[...]

Consequently [Michael's] qualifications to communicate in a sane, intelligent, rational way on the issue of solar physics are now being directly challenged. So far you have been unable to demonstrate that you are remotely qualified to do so. Your arguments are strings of senseless, incoherent sciency sounding words which, given the way you assemble them, lack any connection to reality. The ones which do form complete thoughts are mostly arguments from ignorance and incredulity, and in many cases as demonstrated by evidence, they are intentional distortions of legitimate science, strawmen, and bald faced lies.

 

[nvidiot]

It's almost.... beautiful....

I've read you've claimed that you "predicted" something about the "green" in recent images. Care to point to your "prediction"? Oh that's right, others have asked that already.

*twiddles thumbs*

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, it's megalomania if you're right as well.

How? Did I call it a "Mozina" solar model? I'm simply trying to get the word out to the public.

Then it's falsified, and this thread should die.

It will be falsified or verified when we all see a long cadence 171A and/or FeXX RD image placed inside that red/orange chromosphere. If it doesn't fit nicely inside that red/orange chromosphere with 4800Km to spare, *THEN* (and only then) has this theory been falsified. Take your best shot.

 

[D'rok]

Could you elaborate for me how *I* have dodged anything? I provided you with images, numbers, a full explanation of how to verify my claims, everything. I made another "crazy" prediction about that "disk" in the RD image that GM can't see. I've been willing to stick out my neck at every turn and put this theory to the "test" in the SDO images too. Was it my fault I was right about the fact that the opaque math bunny claim was false? Is it my imagination there are green edges under that chromosphere?

I have provided a full quantitative and qualitative explanation of the key elements of my "predictions". Nobody seems to care one iota that Birkeland's model passed the observation test and the SSM went down in green iron flames. Did I create that SDO image too? Did I doctor it in any way? Did I count pixels to verify the Kosovichev's Doppler numbers?



No, just "Viola", "patterns". How come those "patterns" are so persistent if the structures in the photosphere come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals? How come they all rotate uniformly in the north and south poles?



Actually, that's all true, it's just happening underneath that dead opaque math bunny. The contours of the mass flows follow the contours of the iron surface. You can't really see the surface, you just see the flow lines of all the small loops that traverse the surface.



What exactly more can I tell you besides the fact that I agree that they related to light from the discharge filaments not the actual surface, they take place 4800km under that dead opaque math bunny, and the RD image at 171A in a long cadence will show you exactly where it is in relationship to the chromosphere along the limbs?

Holy cow! I can't make it any simpler to lop off my head again! I just barely survived that last "test" by the the green hairs of only 4800Km. I'm already sticking my neck out again making a new prediction related to the RD images that nobody seems to willing to even "put to the test"? What can I do to convince you if offering up my next "crazy" prediction will not suffice?

The fact I passed the green light exam on SDO should have made you do an about face instantly. Instead you want more. I gave you more. What more can I do? Are you going to try to falsify my claim, yes or no?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'd say that's pretty true. I did however offer you all a logical way to falsify this solar model (again) as if the green light under the chromosphere wasn't enough.

The ball is in your court to either falsify or verify the model. I can only offer you logical ways to falsify the model. I can't make you do so.

 

[D'rok]

I'd say that's pretty true. I did however offer you all a logical way to falsify this solar model (again) as if the green light under the chromosphere wasn't enough.

The ball is in your court to either falsify or verify the model. I can only offer you logical ways to falsify the model. I can't make you do so.

Burden of proof fail. Again.

Your claim. Your burden. All of the ways that the iron sun violates the laws of physics means you have a lot of work to do. Proceed. Elsewhere. Internet pissing matches are not science.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI D'rok...

Until SDO I had not even seen an FeXX image of the sun. I will still "predict" that wavelength will show exactly the same disk in exactly the same location as the 171A RD image at 4800km under the chromosphere. I gave you two wavelengths to work with, one of which I had never even seen until SDO. How much more specific can I get?

 

[Myriad]

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050527-1913.JPG[/qimg]

Michael, does your theory explain why Ethel Merman is a permanent feature of the sun?

Look carefully.

Note the characteristic hair style, dress style, bust line, and arms-outstretched singing stance.

Since you claim this image has inspired you and you have studied it closely, you could not possibly have missed a 200,000 kilometer tall Ethel Merman, and your theory must be able to explain her presence there. If it cannot, then it is useless. Don't you agree?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Michael Mozina]

Burden of proof fail. Again.

Your claim. Your burden. All of the ways that the iron sun violates the laws of physics means you have a lot of work to do. Proceed. Elsewhere. Internet pissing matches are not science.

The proof is in the RD images. I will never again be accused of fraud for producing a solar image. I'm done producing images. I'm into the "prediction" stage of the Birkeland solar model now. Other folks can try to verify or falsify those predictions at their leisure. I've done everything I can think of predicting here in this thread, starting with that *IMPOSSIBLE* and 'crackpot' claim of predicting those green light coming from under a dead opaque math bunny. That was by far the single most important prediction of this model and I have absolutely no more doubts about this solar model. It passed it's most important visual test in the first light images of SDO. The SSM necessarily went down in green flames. It had to be either/or and I even predicted the depth to a "sliver" in terms of quantification. Nailed it.

 

[Nonpareil]

How? Did I call it a "Mozina" solar model? I'm simply trying to get the word out to the public.

It's called "snark". You should try it sometime.

It will be falsified or verified when we all see a long cadence 171A and/or FeXX RD image placed inside that red/orange chromosphere. If it doesn't fit nicely inside that red/orange chromosphere with 4800Km to spare, *THEN* (and only then) has this theory been falsified. Take your best shot.

No, it has been falsified, by the simple fact that you misunderstand what it is that RD images show. It is not possible to get a picture of a "stable surface" in the kind of pictures that you have presented. They do not take pictures of stable surfaces. They show only that which changes.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's called "snark". You should try it sometime.



No, it has been falsified, by the simple fact that you misunderstand what it is that RD images show.

If I misunderstand them, then the RD image that I suggested we try to create will show us that won't it?

It is not possible to get a picture of a "stable surface" in the kind of pictures that you have presented. They do not take pictures of stable surfaces. They show only that which changes.

So let's try my technique and see what happens? I can't be right can I? This should be a very simple way to falsify this theory once and for all. Of course those green lines should not have been there either, and their absence would have falsified this theory too, but alas it passed that test. I offered you a new way to falsify the model a week or so later. What can I do? I can only lead the horse to the water. I can't make him drink. I've given you a new way to falsify this model (again). It's up to you to decide if you want to check it out.

Nobody here seems to be the least bit willing to even try it out.

 

[Nonpareil]

If I misunderstand them, then the RD image that I suggested we try to create will show us that won't it?

Yes, and that's exactly what it does. Its very nature contradicts what you say it does. You have, essentially, taken a photo of your backyard and said "I can tell that it was ninety-four-point-two degrees out when I took this photo by looking at the color of the leaves on the trees". It doesn't work. That's not what the picture does.