Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Reality Check]

Can you understand the stupidity of defaming Birkeland's good name

First asked 4 May 2010
Michael Mozina,

Birkeland was a more than competent scientist. He certainly knew about the laws of thermodynamics and would understand that a ~6000 K photosphere rules out an iron crust below the photosphere.

• Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible? First asked 8 July 2009. See this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's iron surface.
• Why this iron crust is thermodynamically impossible
• Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible IV

I suspect that he would be appalled at you attributing any part of your fantasy* to him. Especially since you cannot even read his book correctly:

1. Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book? (really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)
2. Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
3. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
4. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
5. Is Saturn the Sun?

Can you understand the stupidity of defaming Birkeland's good name by associating him with such an obvious fantasy*, lying about the contents of his book and implying that Birkeland did not know about basic physics like thermodynamics?


* 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.

 

[Mister Earl]

Wouldn't Helioseismology pretty much rule out an iron crust right off the bat?

 

[Tubbythin]

I've been at this so long now it's not arrogance from my perspective, it's confidence. I've seen this model pass test after test after test that I have personally put it through in my search for internet images. I've poked through the heliosmology data looking for clues. I've been everywhere around the world on the web looking for the images I knew that I "should" find it this model had validity.

As far as I can see your conjecture has failed every test. Like, for example, the first law of thermodynamics.

Now that I've seen the first light of the SDO images, and I see that smooth ridge that works out to 4800Km +-1200, right where I thought I'd find it, I don't have any more doubts. Why do you think I've been after GM's scalp so hot and heavy?

What???
And, are your errors Gaussian? Is that the one sigma limit? How sure are you that the surface lies between 3600km and 6000 km?

 

[Ziggurat]

I see that smooth ridge that works out to 4800Km +-1200

That doesn't sound smooth to me. That sounds incredibly jagged. Far more jagged than a solid surface should be.

 

[Reality Check]

So from your perspective this isn't just a "no brainer', it's a "given". Ready to ante up yet?

That is really stupid MM:
You are asking GeeMack to waste hs time by analysing a processing artifact as stated by the NASA SDO team.

 

[GeeMack]

Wouldn't Helioseismology pretty much rule out an iron crust right off the bat?

Yes. Helioseismology research has determined that there is mass moving up, down, and sideways directly through the area where Michael claims his mythical solid iron surface exists.

 

[D'rok]

I know it's hard to understand but that particular band was *THE* single most important "prediction" of a Birkeland solar model. There isn't a single more important prediction I could offer you. If it failed that test, it was all over. Since it did not fail that test, we can proceed to the RD phase and find out if it's a surface or a image artifact. First I needed to know the numbers and they are good.

It failed the test. Definitively and absolutely. That particular band is a processing artifact, not a feature of the sun.

This is taking denial to a whole new level. Astounding.

 

[GeeMack]

That is really stupid MM:
You are asking GeeMack to waste hs time by analysing a processing artifact as stated by the NASA SDO team.

Really. I'm not getting it.

 

[Mister Earl]

Even assuming that there is a hollow iron sphere with a solid steel crust, what lies above and below it must be gases at fantastic pressures. We know nuclear fusion is happening there, and given the energy output of the sun, combined with the pressure of all that mass and gravity, I cannot fathom how any iron there at all could remain solid. Sure, it's said that there's an iron core, since iron doesn't readily fuse into heavier elements, but still! If you waved a magic wand and removed all the other materials around that iron core, that sucker would blow apart. I would think the only thing holding that iron into a solid-like structure would be pressure and gravity. Even then I don't think it would be all that "solid". Probably more like an incredibly dense, viscous fluid.

Mind you, most, if not all of this, is baseless speculation on my part. I don't have the degrees to back up my claims.

#Edit: Could you call it a ferrofluid?

 

[phunk]

I've been at this for five years now D'rok. I knew *exactly* what I was looking for in the images.

Is that why you refuse to see anything else?

That's the image I needed. If there had been no smooth limb darkening right where I predicted it, I would have yanked down my website in a heartbeat. The fact it matches Kosovichev's numbers perfectly means it can only be Birkeland's surface. One test is all it's going to take and I even clearly explained how to go about it.

What is limb darkening, in your own words?

 

[GeeMack]

I know it's hard to understand but that particular band was *THE* single most important "prediction" of a Birkeland solar model. There isn't a single more important prediction I could offer you. If it failed that test, it was all over. Since it did not fail that test, we can proceed to the RD phase and find out if it's a surface or a image artifact. First I needed to know the numbers and they are good.

I know it's hard to understand, but that single band was applied to that image by the person operating the software. If there isn't a single more important prediction you could offer, then you've shot your wad. Your argument has failed in every conceivable way. And now your arguments are just trolling.

Oh, and that lie about your crackpot conjecture being Birkeland's solar model? It's been done.

Shades of VisionFromFeeling.

 

[Reality Check]

That is just pure denial.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/171surfaceshotsmall.JPG

That is just pure delusion inspired by optical illusions.

 

[GeeMack]

We probably should have this posting up on each page for a while, so it doesn't get lost. As long as Michael tries to dishonestly claim that there's some validity to his arguments about the SDO image, it's reasonable to point out that he's wrong...

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.

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.​

 

[Mister Earl]

This is such a suckers bet at this point, you absolutely, positively cannot lose. Are you ready now to ante up?

He's got about sixty questions you refuse to answer. I'm under the impression that he's still waiting for you to ante up to those.

 

[Ziggurat]

Even assuming that there is a hollow iron sphere with a solid steel crust, what lies above and below it must be gases at fantastic pressures. We know nuclear fusion is happening there

We know that. Michael's a little iffy on the whole thing.

and given the energy output of the sun, combined with the pressure of all that mass and gravity, I cannot fathom how any iron there at all could remain solid.

It can't, but Michael is clueless about basic thermodynamics. Even the simple stuff, like heat flowing from high temperatures to low temperatures.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

It can't, but Michael is clueless about basic thermodynamics. Even the simple stuff, like heat flowing from high temperatures to low temperatures.

Heat might behave differently on his planet.

 

[Reality Check]

Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked

This iron crust within the Sun idea of Micheal Mozina is very easy to disprove (big surprise !): It is thermodynamically impossible since it must be at a temperature of at least 9400 K (as measured within the photosphere) and so be a plasma. This has been pointed out to MM many times over the years. Here are some of the explanations given to him that he continues to not be able to understand:

• Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible? First asked 8 July 2009. See this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.
• Why this iron crust is thermodynamically impossible
• Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible IV

This alone makes his idea into a complete fantasy and his continued belief with it a delusion and so we could stop there but... The continuous issuing of unsupported assertions, displays of ignorance of physics and fantasies about what he imagines in images are illustrated in this list of unanswered questions. The first question was asked on 6th July 2009.

1. What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected?
2. What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona.
3. Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
4. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
5. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
6. Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
7. Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question?
8. More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth
9. Formation of the iron surface
10. How much is "mostly neon" MM?
11. Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?
12. Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina
13. Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina.
14. Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested?
15. Is Saturn the Sun?
16. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
17. What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model?
18. What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K?
19. Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles?
20. Entire photon "spectrum" is composed of all the emissions from all the layers
21. Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves?
22. Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere?
23. Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer?
24. What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers?
25. What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer?
26. Explain the shape of your electrical arcs (coronal loops)
27. What is your physical evidence for the silicon in sunspots?
28. How do MM's "layers" survive the convection currents in the Sun?
29. Where are the controllable empirical experiments showing the Iron Sun mass separation?
30. How can your iron "crust" not be a plasma at a temperature of at least 9400 K?
31. How can your "mountain ranges" be at a temperature of at least 160,000 K?
32. Where is the spike of Fe composition in the remnants of novae and supernovae?
33. Which images did you use as your input for the PM-A.gif image, etc.?
34. Where did your "mountain ranges" go in Active Region 9143 when it got to the limb?
35. Do RD movies of inactive regions show "mountain ranges"?
36. Just how high are your "mountain ranges"?
37. How does your iron crust exist when there are convection currents moving through it?
38. Why does the apparent height of your "mountain ranges" depend on the timing of source images for the RD process when the light sources and mountains in the images are the same?
39. Why does the lighting of your "mountain ranges" move depending on the RD process?
40. Why are the coronal loops in the RD images aligned along your "mountain ranges" rather than between them as expect fro electrical discharges?
41. Why are the sunspot umbra not "mostly" iron plasma (Fe was also detected by SERTS as was C and a dozen more elements)?
42. Can you show how you calculated that "3000-3750 KM" figure for the photosphere depth?
43. How did you determine that the filaments "abruptly end right there"?
44. Citation for the LMSAL claim that coronal loops all originate *ABOVE* the photosphere?
45. Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind
46. How did you measure the curvature of penumbral filaments in the Hinode images?
47. How does your Iron Sun fantasy create the observed magnetic field of the Sun?
48. Calculation for the depth of the SOT_ca_061213flare_cl_lg.mpg filament?
49. Can you understand that the photosphere is defined to be opaque?
50. A comment on MM's ability to interpret images: No little plasma (penumbral) filament!
51. Where has any one in this thread claimed that the umbra is 2D?
52. Is Michael Mozina's claim of measuring the curvature of the filaments true?
53. Do you understand how fluorescent tubes ("neon bulbs") work?
54. Can you explain why limb darkening does not diisprove your model?
55. Why is the SERTS data on the corona applicable to sunspots?
56. Please define a "current carrying plasma" from a textbook.
57. How does the SERTS data show that all of the neon and silcon in the Sun's atmosphere is highly ionized?
58. Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book? (really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)
59. Where does the current from your impossible iron crust come from?
60. 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.
    The SDO image"green line" is a processing artifact as confirmed by the NASA team.
    But anyway
    What went wrong with your counting of pixels in the SDO image?
    Where are your calculations that the SDO artifact has a width of *EXACTLY* 4800 km
61. This post deserves mentioning: Math Bunnies & Image Bunnies
62. Can Micheal Mozina understannd simple geometry?
63. What is wrong with W.D.Clinger's calculation?
    Two recent questions but I fully expect the MM will be able to refute the geometry textbooks !
64. Got numbers, Michael Mozina? or What real quantified predictions come from Michael Mozina's Iron Sun fantasy? Is MM's idea complete useless ?
65. Can you cite the paper where Kosovichev states that "those loops are mass flows" (coronal loops?)?
66. Are galaxies electrical discharges from magnetized iron spheres (Birkelands "nebulae model")?
67. How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?
68. Can you understand that the disk radius in RD images depends on solar activity?
69. Will you yank down your web site as promised after your prediction failed?
70. Can you understand the stupidity of defaming Birkeland's good name?

Not really a question, just a list of the symptoms of a crank or crackpot that MM displays

• Are you aware that you are displaying the symptoms of a crank?

 

[Tim Thompson]

THe Solar EUV Radius III

As I have already explained elsewhere, in detail, this has already been done. See The Solar EUV Radius and The Solar EUV Radius II. Aside from challenging me to join his community bet, here is how Mozina has thus far responded, to Sol Invictus, who was quoting my 2nd post from above ...

What do you say to the post quoted below, Michael? ... Am I right? Does this falsify your iron sun model?

It will if it holds up to SDO style scrutiny. ...

Allow me to make two crucial points.

First, there is no "SDO style scrutiny" in play here. Rather, there is a "Mozina style scrutiny" in play here. Mozina likes to pretend that what he is doing is fundamental and that it has definitively overturned all of standard solar physics. He has said so explicitly many times. But the reality is that what Mozina is doing is actually childish and exceptionally stupid. He is using a press release image, the color scale on an artistic rendition that does not involve any science data. That, by itself, is a fatal indictment of his method. But it gets worse, since several people have pointed out that the three dimensional reality of the sun make Mozina's physical interpretation of the tow dimensional picture a physical impossibility. So the only thing going on here that fundamentally impossible is "Mozina style scrutiny"

Second, "SDO style scrutiny", the real thing, has already been done, is already finished, and the "test" Mozina thinks he is pursuing has in fact already unambiguously falsified his alternative theory. The details and original sources are presented in my two posts linked above, which details Mozina has ignored in their entirety. Why continue the discussion, why even bother to humor Mozina at all? The Mozina test has been done, the result is definitive & final. The Mozina hypothesis has been falsified, even if that falsification is beyond Mozina's ability to understand.

And finally ...

Could you elaborate for me how *I* have dodged anything?

Easy. You have dodged everything. It has been pointed out in excruciating detail that your iron surface idea is ruled out by the laws of thermodynamics (for my own entries of this discussion, which has been joined by many, see for instance ... Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible V and other posts linked therein). You dodged it altogether. You certainly dodged the fact noted above, that your proposed test has already been performed and your hypothesis has been falsified. You have also completely dodged the obvious geometric flaw in your "SDO style scrutiny", which renders it useless & impossible (see, for instance ...Post 1878 (W.D. Clinger), Post 1966 (ben_m) and numerous following posts). You are in in truth, the most artful of dodgers.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I've been at this for five years now D'rok. I knew *exactly* what I was looking for in the images. That's the image I needed. If there had been no smooth limb darkening right where I predicted it, I would have yanked down my website in a heartbeat. The fact it matches Kosovichev's numbers perfectly means it can only be Birkeland's surface. One test is all it's going to take and I even clearly explained how to go about it.

Could you explain the nature of this test? Does it involve comparing or superimposing a RD image over some other image of the sun, as you have said? Since no one here agrees with your interpretation of RD images, how will that accomplish anything? For what purpose and to demonstrate what?

 

[Tim Thompson]

The Solar EUV Radius IV

But the reality is that what Mozina is doing is actually childish and exceptionally stupid. He is using a press release image, the color scale on an artistic rendition that does not involve any science data. That, by itself, is a fatal indictment of his method.

No sooner do I write this, than I see from Gee Mack ...

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. ... The green line is there because of the processing.

So now we see that the "gap", which Mozina claims to be the chromosphere below the photosphere, thus falsifying all standard solar physics, is nothing more than an image processing artifact. That's what I mean when I say ...That, by itself, is a fatal indictment of his method. Mozina's grand solar model killing discovery is just a PR image artifact. It took real brains to think that was actually a physical feature of the physical sun.