Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[D'rok]

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



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.

(With apologies to Bertrand Russell)

The celestial teapot that I am sure I have observed orbiting the earth has a measurable spout. See! Here it is in this image! When the new telescope with the hi-res camera goes online, I predict that I will measure that spout to be 6 inches. Why can't your standard model predict the length of the spout? Huh? Huh? Victory is mine!

 

[GeeMack]

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?

It's your imagination.

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?

Several serious problems and at least one lie in this. Your statement that some number of pixels represents some number of kilometers is not a quantitative explanation of anything. We have already determined in this thread, as well as several times in several places in the past, that your crackpot conjecture is not Birkeland's solar model. Kristian Birkeland didn't propose a solar model. You have not done an observation test. You stared at a picture and saw exactly what you wished to see. You don't even know where the gross errors are in your pixel counting, so you can't possibly be verifying anything. And Kosovichev's research shows plasma moving at several thousand kilometers per hour directly through the area that you claim is solid.

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?

The "patterns" you're seeing are not in the photosphere. They are an optical illusion created by the processing of thermal data which is gathered from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere.

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.

You can't see a surface or anything traversing the surface. What you're seeing is a graph assembled from data taken from several thousand kilometers above where you claim the solid surface exists.

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?

No radiation is making its way up from 4800 kilometers into the photosphere. It's opaque below approximately 400 kilometers.

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?

You have not even thoroughly analyzed the image you claim supports your crackpot conjecture. Any test you may believe occurred you failed, for a variety of reasons not the least of which is your total and complete misunderstanding about what you're seeing in that SDO image. Your claim has been falsified by legitimate research that spans several branches of science. The solid iron surface you claim exists has been shown to be impossible.

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.

Your qualifications to understand running difference imagery have been challenged and you have been wholly unable to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications. Any argument that you put forth that implies that you do is dishonest. Your web site contains dishonest and fraudulent information. Your crackpot conjecture is not Birkeland's solar model. For you to continue to argue that it is, is dishonest. You have made no predictions in a scientific sense. Your argument to the contrary is dishonest. It's your responsibility to support your claim. Your constant attempts to deflect that burden of proof is dishonest. And you are entirely wrong about the green line in that SDO image. It is dishonest of you to argue that is supports your crackpot conjecture.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The "patterns" you're seeing are not in the photosphere.

Then the "disk" should be *OUTSIDE* of the photosphere, not *under* the chromosphere. Your opaque math bunny has a 4800Km disaster happening inside of it GM.

Ante up with your own number related to the size of the disk outline in relationship to the chromosphere, or go away. You're boring.

 

[Michael Mozina]

(With apologies to Bertrand Russell)

The celestial teapot that I am sure I have observed orbiting the earth has a measurable spout. See! Here it is in this image! When the new telescope with the hi-res camera goes online, I predict that I will measure that spout to be 6 inches. Why can't your standard model predict the length of the spout? Huh? Huh? Victory is mine!

Huh?

All scientific theories are judged on how correctly they can "predict" something useful that we might then compare to "observation" (my court now). If they are correct, then they should be easily able to accept my generous offer of any disk size greater than the white light photosphere, and accept my teenie, weanie, tiny, impossible crackpot sliver prediction as a no brainer and ante up. Not one of them is willing to do so. Are you?

 

[GeeMack]

Then the "disk" should be *OUTSIDE* of the photosphere, not *under* the chromosphere. Your opaque math bunny has a 4800Km disaster happening inside of it GM.

Your unqualified opinion about the SDO image is wrong. You do not know what the green strip means.

Ante up with your own number related to the size of the disk outline, or go away. You're boring.

You have made an error in counting the pixels in what you believe to be the disk outline.

And my number, my quantitative prediction is as I've already stated, zero professional physicists on the entire planet will find your argument convincing. Zero is a number.

 

[Reality Check]

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).

Hoy. A lie.
Your first post about the image was pointing at it and claiming a depth of ~78,000 km. You then retracted this for 4800 km.
Kosovichev's heliosiesmology data proves that your iron crust fantasy* does not exist because it has hot plasma flowing through it.

You arre also ignoring question (number 60 of 64 !)

• Did you cherry pick the SDO image to support your fantasy*? - the answer is yes. MM saw a "green line" in one PR image and ignored its absence in another.

*A fantasy because it violates thermodynamics, e.g see Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.

 

[Reality Check]

It's only megalomania if I'm wrong.

You are wrong so does that make you a megalomanic ?
See Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hoy. A lie.

Since you seem to disagree with my numbers and methods, put your own numbers on the table and ante up your public position. If you won't do that RC, you are not even in the game! Ante up.

 

[Reality Check]

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?

You are called a crackpot and crank because you are one:
Are you aware that you are displaying the symptoms of a crank?

The actual answer to:

• Got numbers, Michael Mozina? or What real quantified predictions come from Michael Mozina's Iron Sun fantasy? Is MM's idea complete useless ?

would be good. Since you have plenty of "quantified" and testable predictions it should be easy.

P.S. One thing that scientists do when they publish the predictions of their theories is show their working in enough detail so that other people can replicate the prediction. Remenber to do this.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are called a crackpot and crank because you are one:
Are you aware that you are displaying the symptoms of a crank?

The actual answer to:

• Got numbers, Michael Mozina? or What real quantified predictions come from Michael Mozina's Iron Sun fantasy? Is MM's idea complete useless ?

would be good. Since you have plenty of "quantified" and testable predictions it should be easy.

P.S. One thing that scientists do when they publish the predictions of their theories is show their working in enough detail so that other people can replicate the prediction. Remenber to do this.

Real men do it with math RC.

 

[Ziggurat]

Real men do it with math RC.

 

[Reality Check]

What went wrong with your counting of pixels in the SDO image

Note that I predicted that 4800Km figure years ago based on the heliosiesmology data. They're struggling like hell now to figure out how to explain those images because they don't jive with their actual "predictions" at all.

You did.
You also threw that 4800Km figure away based on yiour analysis of the green line in one SDO image (not in the other image !) fot 78,000 km. Then you retracted the assertion.

First asked 4 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
What went wrong with your counting of pixels in the SDO image?

 

[GeeMack]

Your unqualified opinion about the SDO image is wrong. You do not know what the green strip means.

Then step up to the plate, put your own numbers on the table and be a man about it. Inside or outside the base of the chromosphere. Man or mouse?

It's such a simple "test", I'm certain you personally could it in your sleep!

You do not understand what the green area in the SDO means. No test you can devise using that as a measurement could possibly be meaningful. This gross misunderstanding on your part demonstrates yet again that your arguments are wholly void of any semblance of legitimate science.

Have you ever figured out how many pixels are involved in your error in counting? I've mentioned it for several days now, ever since you started crowing about how the success of your claim hinges on the location of that green strip in the SDO image, and you've ignored it every time. Doesn't it concern you in the least that you're counting wrong?

Are you really going to admit that your crackpot conjecture has been shown to be false if that green line doesn't really separate the chromosphere from your alleged solid surface? I don't believe you will, and I don't think anyone else here believes it either.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI Ben, I have no idea why you got so flustered. I told you *A LONG* time ago that you were in the game and agreed you had put *YOUR* numbers on the table. At no time did that excuse these two from anything. I'm sorry that I managed to alienate you. That wasn't my intent. In retrospect I have been sloppy with terms like "no one", etc. I rescind all of that as it relates to you personally.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You do not understand what the green area in the SDO means.

Then be a man, put your numbers on the table and let history decide. Your call.

Bluffing time is over. It's time to put your cards on the table and let the numbers speak for themselves.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Mr. Spock...

Can I put you down for pi * the diameter of the base of the chromosphere on the circumference?

 

[GeeMack]

The be a man, put your numbers on the table and let history decide. Your call.

Bluffing time is over. It's time to put your cards on the table and let the numbers speak for themselves.

You ignored the rest...

Have you ever figured out how many pixels are involved in your error in counting? I've mentioned it for several days now, ever since you started crowing about how the success of your claim hinges on the location of that green strip in the SDO image, and you've ignored it every time. Doesn't it concern you in the least that you're counting wrong?

Are you really going to admit that your crackpot conjecture has been shown to be false if that green line doesn't really separate the chromosphere from your alleged solid surface? I don't believe you will, and I don't think anyone else here believes it either.

 

[sol invictus]

FYI Ben, I have no idea why you got so flustered. I told you *A LONG* time ago that you were in the game and agreed you had put *YOUR* numbers on the table. At no time did that excuse these two from anything. I'm sorry that I managed to alienate you. That wasn't my intent. In retrospect I have been sloppy with terms like "no one", etc. I rescind all of that as it relates to you personally.

You alienated him by completely ignoring nearly everything he posted, despite the considerable time and effort he put into those posts.

Fortunately other readers of this thread (including me) learned quite a lot from them, so the effort wasn't wasted.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ya, it is ironic that I am one of only two folks to put any numbers on the table, although i want to hear ben say that the outcome will be decided by the numbers.

It's absolutely amazing to me that I picked such a tiny little sliver of an impossible crackpot number yet everyone seems so squeamish about offering up their public position on the matter. Look folks, if I'm right, you'll come around sooner or later. If I'm wrong, you have a perfect way to falsify my model. What's the hold up? Got numbers Zig on the outline of the disk?

 

[Mister Earl]

I'm coming in a little late on this one. Is he saying that the sun has a solid iron surface, or a mix of stuff that is mostly iron? Is the shape alone of this spherical shell of iron supposed to hold it up against gravitational collapse? I would think that the heat and pressure applied to a spherical, hollow iron shell would immediately rupture and dissolve it, causing the iron to sink into the core.
What mechanism do you propose that would both support a shell like this, and also prevent heat from causing it to lose its rigidity? How think would this shell have to be, and how does that measure up against the known mass of the sun?