Catching up again, I see that:
a) You're still busily looking at limb images without having thought about the geometry. You still don't know the difference between looking at a cross-section-slice and looking along a limb. I gave you the world's easiest-to-use diagram and you ignored it entirely. Amazing.
I did not ignore it Ben.
b) You're still busily interpreting limb images as though "3000 km (actually 80,000km) of transparent Si/Ne plasma" was a sensible option---and you dropped any pretense of being interested in whether this is physically possible. Unbelievable.
I don't even understand how you get these ideas. I am certainly still interested, and I explained *WHY* it was more transparent than you realize, specifically the ionization states involved. Once you decided to judge the opacity based on thermodynamic aspects I could not yet answer, there wasn't much more to say. You certainly did help me clarify exact ionization states, if only for my own benefit. That 94A issue isn't dead yet, and I'm still trying to figure out a way to use that information to help me come up with something more useful to work with, but I'm "guessing" at this point, and IMO Birkeland's a better "guesser" when it comes to the electrical parameters of his own cathode solar model.
c) You've still devoted exactly zero attention, in 30 pages, to the most basic known-for-400-years facts about the Sun: that its visible light spectrum is that of a 6000K blackbody with atomic and molecular absorption lines. Bizarre.
Again, I didn't ever deny that the sun has BB characteristics with absorption lines and emission lines (like we see in SERTS). You simply expect me to buy the idea you can oversimplify a physics problem by making up some concept about how all the elements will stay mixed to some light convecting surface. That's simply not tenable IMO. Sure the sun has *LOTS* of lines ben, but not all of them of consistent with a 6000K single surface. Those iron line emissions for instance have nothing at all to do with your 6000K photosphere. You've just grossly oversimplified the physics of the sun to make it easier to work with mathematically. I understand that need to quantify, but you can't do that at the expense of physics! Elements will tend to mass separate in these conditions and a little convection in "lighter than air" plasma isn't going to stop that separation process.
d) You went from "I've won, the SDO green stripe proves it" to "the data is confusing because I don't know how to scale and overlay wavelengths" to "forget about the raw data,
No, actually I looked at all the raw data I could personaly find too, but there aren't any FITS files to play with at the moment.
the only thing that matters is difference images"
The only thing that matters to "ME" at this point are the RD images. That is pretty much the next step in my own solar falsification process, and that is something which could falsify at least major parts the solar model on my website, although it wouldn't falsify a cathode solar model entirely, nor even a solid surface model. It would however tell me a lot about what I'm looking at in terms of whether I have personally and accurately interpreted that data correctly. I need to know.
---and you did so without a hint of awareness or contrition. Would it kill you to say "sorry I was so abusive to everyone who disputed my initial SDO interpretation, I learned something and I want to do it better next time"? Shameless.
Um ben, who exactly would you say I was 'abusive" to other than GM? I admit I've lost my patience with him, but I honestly don't think I've been 'abusive" to anyone else in particular. If anything I may have come across abusive to the SSM, but it's certainly not personal IMO.
I have not tried to hide from the fact that my interpretations are open to scrutiny and are based upon assumptions I cannot yet support. I don't know of any scientific theory that doesn't rely upon some assumptions, including your assumption that elements stay mixed.
About all I can say ben is I hear you, I simply do not agree with you. I've followed too many mass flow patterns up and through the surface of the photosphere. I've seen too much evidence suggesting that your "photosphere" is not actually "opaque".
What I need to know next is whether the iron lines are visible under or only above the surface of the photosphere. The SSM disallows any iron lines to exist under about 3.5 meters. You don't have even a single pixel to work with under the surface of the photosphere in these wavelengths. If I can pull off even a couple of pixels under that point, your whole opacity claim is falsified, but I need an RD image to find out if that will work to falsify your theory, and to find out which parts of my theory hold up to scrutiny. It's a next logical step, but it's not the only logical one.
