Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

I think this is my favourite post. (SSM = standard solar model)

I know you don't believe this at the moment, but IMO, that single composite SDO image is the most important solar image ever taken of the sun. It tells us more than you can ever imagine. Like I said, the next logical test here is run a long cadence RD image and see if the outline of the disk aligns itself with those limb darkened regions and fits inside the chromosphere.

Mr. Spock was so kind as to help us to set boundaries for both solar models, and the inside red edge of the chromosphere is that point. It comes down to whether the RD disk shows up on the "inside" of that red line, or goes into or "outside" that line. It's gotta be inside or outside and the outcome seals the fate of both solar models. This is great "test", and critical test for both solar models IMO.

 

[GeeMack]

Wow, I drop out of a thread for a few days and I miss all the excitement. GeeMack, congratulations on your coup de telephone.

Thank you, sir.

But this coup hasn't killed the thread---why not? Is Mozina is going on and on as though he hadn't explicitly bet his entire model on interpreting that green band as real? Of course he is. (Or so I gather from the replies to his posts, which I'm not reading.) This is Michael Mozina we're talking about---the world's #1 expert in failing to process contradictory information.

The word "delusion" is defined as "a false belief that is resistant to confrontation with actual facts".

If you've already ignored thermodynamics, electromagnetism, and materials science, and denounced the Pythagorean Theorem as a "math bunny"---well, ignoring the difference between "the Sun's limb" and "a circle drawn around the Sun in photoshop" is small potatoes. Kid stuff. Mozina could ignore that in his sleep.

And he will.

 

[D'rok]

I know you don't believe this at the moment, but IMO, that single composite SDO image is the most important solar image ever taken of the sun. It tells us more than you can ever imagine. Like I said, the next logical test here is run a long cadence RD image and see if the outline of the disk aligns itself with those limb darkened regions and fits inside the chromosphere.

Mr. Spock was so kind as to help us to set boundaries for both solar models, and the inside red edge of the chromosphere is that point. It comes down to whether the RD disk shows up on the "inside" of that red line, or goes into or "outside" that line. It's gotta be inside or outside and the outcome seals the fate of both solar models. This is great "test", and critical test for both solar models IMO.

I have an idea. Since you are demonstrably incompetent at identifying solar features in this SDO image, let's not use your analysis of future RD images as the basis for any conclusions about solar features. Make sense?

 

[D'rok]

Thanks. But 'the surface' exists across the entire disk, not just at the horizon/limb. Light (or whatever e-m we want to discuss) will also be generated at the centre of the disk, as viewed. So why is the centre of the disk so dark? How can the transition from dark to bright be so abrupt? It makes no sense even in terms of your own beliefs. Simple geometry.

Stop asking such sensible questions!

 

[GeeMack]

Thanks. But 'the surface' exists across the entire disk, not just at the horizon/limb. Light (or whatever e-m we want to discuss) will also be generated at the centre of the disk, as viewed. So why is the centre of the disk so dark? How can the transition from dark to bright be so abrupt? It makes no sense even in terms of your own beliefs. Simple geometry.

Michael's qualifications to understand math have been challenged. He hasn't demonstrated that he is qualified to understand the math necessary to balance his own checkbook much less to understand the simple geometry mistakes in his argument.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Thanks. But 'the surface' exists across the entire disk, not just at the horizon/limb. Light (or whatever e-m we want to discuss) will also be generated at the centre of the disk, as viewed. So why is the centre of the disk so dark? How can the transition from dark to bright be so abrupt? It makes no sense even in terms of your own beliefs. Simple geometry.

Unfortunately the physics isn't that simple I'm afraid. Go checkout the SDO movies, particularly the one that shows the FeXX channel and tell me that it is "dark".

The 171A light tends to come mostly from the discharge loops that are *above* the surface, but below the chromosphere. The iron and other elements in the low atmosphere tend to eventually absorb most of the light which originates right at the surface. What we tend to see are the larger loops that extend into the atmosphere many kilometers and rise above the 'dust" in the lower atmosphere. It's a highly complicated environment due to the movement of plasma and the flying material near the surface.

 

[GeeMack]

As an interesting diversion from reading the ridiculous arguments from incredulity and ignorance, and the lies that Michael continues to put forth as arguments, maybe it would be educational and help us understand the claim and the failed arguments a bit better if we look into just how quantitative these arguments are.

Unfortunately the physics isn't that simple I'm afraid. Go checkout the SDO movies, particularly the one that shows the FeXX channel and tell me that it is "dark".

The 171A light tends to come mostly from the discharge loops that are *above* the surface, but below the chromosphere. The iron and other elements in the low atmosphere tend to eventually absorb most of the light which originates right at the surface. What we tend to see are the larger loops that extend into the atmosphere many kilometers and rise above the 'dust" in the lower atmosphere. It's a highly complicated environment due to the movement of plasma and the flying material near the surface.

The bolded words are the basis of Michael's quantitative argument. Anyone else care to try one?

 

[GlennB]

The 171A light tends to come mostly from the discharge loops that are *above* the surface, but below the chromosphere.

'The surface' extends across the entire hemisphere that we can see, no? So it all has 'discharge loops', no?

 

[Mister Earl]

As an interesting diversion from reading the ridiculous arguments from incredulity and ignorance, and the lies that Michael continues to put forth as arguments, maybe it would be educational and help us understand the claim and the failed arguments a bit better if we look into just how quantitative these arguments are.




The bolded words are the basis of Michael's quantitative argument. Anyone else care to try one?

Seems to me he's leaving himself lots of wriggle room later on if he needs it. It's a smart move to proactively construct multiple escape routes.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The bolded words are the basis of Michael's quantitative argument. Anyone else care to try one?

You seem to forget that 4800Km +- 1200Km I posted. You seem to forget that quantified "prediction" I made about the RD 171A image. Let me highlight your quantitative predictions on the RD images:

 

[D'rok]

Then all of that incompetence on my part could not possibly lead to a correct prediction on the RD images, now could it?

Spot on.

One test.....

That you devise based on your observations?

C'mon.

 

[GeeMack]

You seem to forget that 4800Km +- 1200Km I posted. You seem to forget that quantified "prediction" I made about the RD 171A image. Let me highlight your quantitative predictions on the RD images:

My quantitative prediction was that exactly zero professional astrophysicists will agree with your assessment. So your suggestion that I haven't made any quantitative predictions is another lie.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Spot on. That you devise based on your observations?

C'mon.

If all of my assessments on everything else are "wrong" then there is no possibility that the test I have suggested will work in my favor. In fact the only way it could work in my favor is if I correctly assessed what I have seen. It's not a complicated test to run, and it's outcome will determine who bet "interpreted" the images. Surely someone at NASA/LMSAL knows how to run a long cadence RD image in 171A and can overlay that chromosphere onto the image. That one test will tell us who correctly interpreted the images and who did not.

That RD outline *MUST* be inside the chromosphere borders in a Birkeland model. If that prediction fails, noting else about my interpretations matter. It's one simple test....

 

[Mister Earl]

Then all of that incompetence on my part could not possibly lead to a correct prediction on the RD images, now could it? One test.....

We have a saying where I'm from.

"Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then."

There's over sixty questions you refuse to answer. The crowning piece of your argument turned out to be a filter added on to a photo to highlight something else. As a new guy to this thread, do you know what I see? I see you ignoring these questions, which appear to be quite relevant as far as proving your hypothesis goes, and you ignore them. I can't help but think that if you were legitimately trying to prove this hypothesis, then you'd at least take the time to address these points and alter your hypothesis so that it better models reality.

I'm not seeing you do that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

We have a saying where I'm from.

"Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then."

At 4800Km +- 1200Km, right where he predicted he would find it? That's a pretty cool squirrel if you ask me.

There are probably 1000's of questions I cannot answer. I can only tell you what I *can* answer and what I *can* predict with this solar model. So far (except for ben's rough numbers) nobody else besides me seems comfortable predicting anything about the location or the RD disk.

 

[Mister Earl]

At 4800Km +- 1200Km, right where he predicted he would find it? That's a pretty cool squirrel if you ask me.

There are probably 1000's of questions I cannot answer. I can only tell you what I *can* answer and what I *can* predict with this solar model. So far (except for ben's rough numbers) nobody else besides me seems comfortable predicting anything about the location or the RD disk.

Are you referring to that green ring that was part of an addition to the photograph? The one that's been verified to be an artificial addition?

 

[Mister Earl]

Verified by GM? Please! One test is all the verification and or falsification I need, but I will *NEVER* trust the word of GM. Never!

Have you contacted the people who took the photograph yourself to verify his claim that it was an added filter? Have you contacted them at all for any kind of additional information? How about for any other photograph or data set?

 

[sol invictus]

'The surface' extends across the entire hemisphere that we can see, no? So it all has 'discharge loops', no?

If Michael behaves according to form he will ignore this question or one of its soon-to-be-asked followups, because it has no consistent answer. I think whenever the discussion gets to a point that he feels slightly worried, a powerful cognitive dissonance sets in that prevents him from being able to think about or comprehend the question, or perhaps even be able to read it.

That's what happened after a while in my opacity discussion with him, with Zig's discussions with him over what stabilizes the iron surface, Zig's discussions with him over thermodynamics and the fact that the iron would vaporize, Ben's discussions with him over limb brightening and the relation between 2D and 3D, GeeMack's discussions with him over the meaning of RD images, and countless more examples I'm sure.

But please continue .

 

[Myriad]

A number of posts exhibiting bickering, incivility, and personalizing of the argument have been moved to AAH. Because this follows a previous mod warning for Rule 12, further mod action may follow.

For now, I urge everyone to heed the adage regarding ceasing to dig after finding oneself in in a hole. Keep it civil.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Myriad

 

[Michael Mozina]

Bingo! That's exactly the problem, Michael. You're terrified you might be wrong, because if you are wrong about this (and you are), it would mean you have wasted a significant part of at least the last five years of your life on a fool's errand.

But sol, that has *always* been a possibility I have been prepared for. Believe me when I tell you I took a deep breath before looking at the SDO images.

What that means is that any time the discussion starts to get close to one of the myriad inconsistencies in your "model", your brain shuts down. It gets paralyzed by fear and the need to avoid the painful consequences of being wrong, to the point that your effective IQ drops so precipitously that you are unable to comprehend what people are saying to you.

It's an extreme case of a classic psychological phenomenon.

Thank you Sigmond Fraud for your analysis of my mental states. I am not paralyzed by fear. I provided you with a logical and simple "test' to determine who's right and who's wrong. I'll abide by the outcome. Will you?