Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Myriad said:
The sun is a sphere. It is not a disc and does not incorporate any disk.
Click to expand...

I can't win for loosing around here with terminology. First I started with sphere, then we agreed on disk. Now I'm being reamed again? :) Damned if I do, damned if I don't. :) The terminology around here is like quicksand. We have glow in the dark "photospheres" around here to worry about. :)
 
W.D.Clinger said:
I defer to sol invictus and ben_m, who are the only physical scientists in that trio.

Before they can give you their numbers, you'll have to give sol invictus the numbers he needs to complete his calculation of the opacity, and you'll have to fill in ben_m's diagram. Focus!
:vulcan:
Click to expand...

FYI I would *MUCH* rather that Ben use his own diagram to come up with numbers. The three of you are the only ones clever enough to even be in the hunt IMO. The three of you might give me a run for my money and I *really* want a fair comparison of solar models.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I can't win for loosing around here with terminology. First I started with sphere, then we agreed on disk. Now I'm being reamed again? :) Damned if I do, damned if I don't. :) The terminology around here is like quicksand. We have glow in the dark "photospheres" around here to worry about. :)
Click to expand...

The sun is a sphere. The photosphere is a sphere (you can tell by the name). The image is a disk. Can you comprehend the difference? It's really not hard.
ceci-n-est-pas-une-pipe.jpg
 
Ziggurat said:
The sun is a sphere. The photosphere is a sphere (you can tell by the name). The image is a disk. Can you comprehend the difference? It's really not hard.
[qimg]http://www.library.yale.edu/librarynews/ceci-n-est-pas-une-pipe.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Ya, and in my little allegory I used the term "disk" if you noticed. When we get along the limbs we get 3D information.
 
Ziggurat said:
The sun is a sphere. The photosphere is a sphere (you can tell by the name). The image is a disk. Can you comprehend the difference? It's really not hard.
[qimg]http://www.library.yale.edu/librarynews/ceci-n-est-pas-une-pipe.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Actually your "photosphere" turns out to be a glow in the dark green ring. :) I'm telling you, the terminology around here is killing me.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ya, and in my little allegory I used the term "disk" if you noticed.
Click to expand...

Yes, I noticed it. You said, "IF however there is a 4800Km gap between the edge of the disk and the bottom of the chromosphere..." Clearly you are referring to the actual physical objects, not the image, in that sentence. In which case, "disk" is not appropriate, sphere is.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Actually your "photosphere" turns out to be a glow in the dark green ring. :) I'm telling you, the terminology around here is killing me.
Click to expand...

Because you are an illogical thinker, and cannot understand the logical criteria for the distinctions. I doubt you understand the reason I posted that picture, either.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I can't win for loosing around here with terminology. First I started with sphere, then we agreed on disk. Now I'm being reamed again? :) Damned if I do, damned if I don't. :) The terminology around here is like quicksand. We have glow in the dark "photospheres" around here to worry about. :)
Click to expand...


If you're talking about an image of the sun, "disk" is a perfectly good term to use, while "sphere" is completely wrong.

The sun is not a disk; 2D images of the sun are not spheres.

If you "can't win for losing" on that point, it's because you continue to confuse characteristics of images of the sun with characteristics of the sun. For example, the sun is always hot, while images of the sun are usually not. I trust that you understand that distinction. Similarly, images of the sun can have patterns that look a heck of a lot like Ethel Merman, but the sun itself does not have Ethel Merman on it. I'm not sure whether you understand that distinction or not, which is why I asked about it earlier. Similarly, images of the sun show a disk, but the edge of the disk is not the edge of the sun. I'm pretty sure you do not understand that distinction, though I'm baffled as to why not. (Believe it or not, the surface of the sun continues on past where the edge of the disk appears in pictures, and even goes around to the far side!)

Anyhow, your problem with this is why your question about the distance between the edge of the disk (a characteristic of pictures of the sun) and the bottom of the chromosphere (a layer that exists on the sun itself) makes no sense. Again, it's like asking how far the horizon is from Mexico. The problem isn't just terminology, it's the thinking behind the terminology, which fails -- doesn't even seem to try, actually -- to make any distinction between characteristics of images and characteristics of the thing that's been imaged.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI I would *MUCH* rather that Ben use his own diagram to come up with numbers. The three of you are the only ones clever enough to even be in the hunt IMO. The three of you might give me a run for my money and I *really* want a fair comparison of solar models.
Click to expand...
FYI, Ben's diagram is nothing to do with coming up with numbers.
It is a demonstration of the 3D geometry that you are ignorant of and how it is impossible to extract depth information from a 2D image exclusively.
You can get depth information from a 2D image, e.g. by knowing wher ethe light sourses are. But the Sun is the light source in 2D images of the Sun so there are no shadows to help.

This thread is not about a comparison of solar models. It is about your iron crust fantasy*.

Scientific models stand on their own merits. The match to observations and predictions (successful or not) from one scientific model only affect that model. They are compared when it comes to choosing the most valid model. The current solar model has decades of observational support.
Your fantasy* is an epic failure
  • It is not a scientific model. It has no quantitative predictions.
  • It is a fantasy that has been completely debunked as shown below.
*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 :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.[/quote]
 
Reality Check said:
FYI, Ben's diagram is nothing to do with coming up with numbers.
Click to expand...

Of course it does RC and FYI you're definitely going to need to include that diagram in coming up with your numbers, or you won't even be in the hunt IMO. :) Ben is certainly on the right track, but I still need numbers and margins of error and I can't be the one doing that calculation.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Oh the irony. :) Wake up and smell the coffee. The only way you can "challenge me" at this point is with "numbers". You know, those thingies you play with all day? I'd suggest you join sol and/or Spock in some consensus, but frankly I think you'd do more harm than good, and I want a fair fight on the numbers. I'd just prefer you put up or shut up at this point and do it by yourself so you have nobody to blame but yourself.
Click to expand...


I have contacted the SDO science team at NASA and have received word back on the image that occupied pretty much all of Michael's attention for the past week. Since he first started crowing about his discovery, over a thousand posts have gone by. During that time Michael has been insulting, belligerent, ignorant of relevant questions, badgering, uncivil, and treated pretty much everyone in this discussion like crap.

Here's the word straight from NASA. When they map the color values, the behavior of the pixels outside the limb is treated differently than the portion of the image over the disk. A gradient filter is applied to the image so the off-disk area will be enhanced to bring out details. That filter causes a discontinuity at the apparent limb because of a slight inequality of the radius of the filter and the solar image.

sdoapodcolorcomp.jpg

The green line is there because of the processing. In this image, which I sent along with my communication in order to get a definitive reply, you see arrow "A" pointing to the edge of the filter applied in the image processing software. The arrow "B" is pointing to what amounts to the actual limb of the Sun. The apparent roughness of that "B" edge is due to the emissions picked up by the three filters used to make the composite, all of which are coming from above the photosphere.

A week of Michael's uncivil tantrums, bullying, whining, taunting, and complaining. Over a thousand posts exchanged. And the SDO science program at NASA says Michael is wrong.
 
Michael Mozina said:
So now that you've had all that professional help, are you ready to bet that pretty hair of yours yet?
Click to expand...

Can you at least agree that if GM's information from NASA is correct, then the green strip in the SDO image does not represent a 4800 km band of transparent neon?

I'm not asking you to say that your model is wrong, I'm just asking you to acknowledge that if GM is correct, then the SDO image does not provide definitive proof of that one claim.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Of course it does RC and FYI....
Click to expand...
Still wrong MM: There is no way to "extract numbers" from ben m's ASCII diagram relevant to the SDO image.
The diagram is a demonstration of the 3D geometry that you are ignorant of and how it is impossible to extract depth information from a 2D image exclusively.
You can get depth information from a 2D image, e.g. by knowing wher ethe light sourses are. But the Sun is the light source in 2D images of the Sun so there are no shadows to help.

And of course GeeMack has done the thing that you did not do - checked with the actual NASA SDO team - and your green line is a processing artifact.
I suspect that the NASA SDO team had a good laugh at the thought of someone trying to extract scientific information from a pretty picture created for PR purposes.
 
Last edited:
dasmiller said:
Can you at least agree that if GM's information from NASA is correct, then the green strip in the SDO image does not represent a 4800 km band of transparent neon?

I'm not asking you to say that your model is wrong, I'm just asking you to acknowledge that if GM is correct, then the SDO image does not provide definitive proof of that one claim.
Click to expand...

Oh, I already admit the one image is not definitive proof of either position at the moment. That was my whole point of predicting the outcome of the RD images at different iron ion wavelengths and predicting the color schemes, etc. We'll need more than one image to get a definitive answer. I just claimed Birkeland's solar model passed the first test and offered a 2nd more definitive test that might help us decide.
 
Great Job, GeeMack!
Isn't it amazing that anyone could think he could make new scientific discoveries by looking at pictures and not having any idea of the processing involved? When such "scientific discoveries" contradict mainstream science, it is even more astonishing that anyone would be so foolish!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom