Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[nescafe]

This is actually very simple stuff. According to Birkeland's theory, the limb darkening and the RD image will be directly related. Wherever the discharges begin, they have to all begin from the same place, they have to rise up through the chromosphere, and they have to light the regions between the surface and the chromosphere. These are "givens" in a Birkeland model.

To quote wikipedia: <citation needed>. You consistently fail to do that,or to explain why a model that was created before we knew about nuclear fusion is more accurate than the models we have created that take into account what we know today about how the Universe functions.

The limb darkening in the original SDO iron line images, will directly relate to the origin of the light. There should be a 4800KM gap in the disk and the chromosophere in the RD image that will directly correspond to that limb darkening at 4800KM. They are physically connected processes in probably any electric sun model.

Even given that, what is the power source of the electric sun? If the sun is generating the stupid amounts of electricity it would need to be as bright as it is, how is it doing that? If the sun is not, where does the electricity come from, and how would we go about detecting that?

The only way to be sure is to run a longer cadence RD process on the sphere and see how it relates to the outline of the chromosphere. In a Birkeland model it should fit nicely inside that line. In a standard model, it should fit pretty much right along that line, maybe way above it, but never below it.

No, that only works if you already believe it will. Science does not work that way.

 

[nescafe]

I don't believe him. I see that same opaque limb darkening in every iron ion wavelength in every movie and image from SDO. He's wrong.

Then do what he did, and ask NASA about what encancements they made to the image for public release.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, your error... Is it Gaussian? If so, am I to assume the error given is +- one sigma? How sure are you the true value lies in the range 3600 km to 6000 km?
If it isn't Gaussian, what does the error represent?

It represents my very best "ballpark" estimate based on A) Kosovichev's original heliosiesmology data and B) everything I've seen (and I'm sure you haven't seen) in SDO. That 4800 figure keeps coming up. The 1200 figure represents my best estimate on how far off I might be based on the techniques I've been using and the limits of the technology, and well, just how it "feels" to me.

Whatever you want to call that number, that's the best I can do at the moment. With more images to work with I'm sure I could trim down the error bars a bit, but with only the data I have access to right now, that's the best I can do.

 

[GlennB]

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 .

Deep down in my heart, I'm sure you're right. It just seemed so fundamental that it should be impossible to ignore. It's usually the same story with wooists in general. We shall see, though I fear MM might be overloaded right now

 

[Tubbythin]

It represents my very best "ballpark" estimate based on A) Kosovichev's original heliosiesmology data and B) everything I've seen (and I'm sure you haven't seen) in SDO. That 4800 figure keeps coming up. The 1200 figure represents my best estimate on how far off I might be based on the techniques I've been using and the limits of the technology, and well, just how it "feels" to me.

How off to what confidence level? 68% central confidence interval? 90%? 95%? 97.3%? 99.99%?

Whatever you want to call that number, that's the best I can do at the moment. With more images to work with I'm sure I could trim down the error bars a bit, but with only the data I have access to right now, that's the best I can do.

I don't know what to call it because you won't tell me what it is.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Further, as Tim Thompson has pointed out* (several times!) direct measurements of the radius (range) of the various parts of the Sun (photosphere, chromosphere, transition region, corona) have been made, and published. They are clearly, and unambiguously, inconsistent with MM's claims (per posts in this thread).

Then they should also be unambiguously inconsistent with the method and results I just outlined in SDO too. I frankly have tried for five years to somehow pull that number from available images, but the resolution was simply too low. I'd be arguing with you over two pixels instead of 13+ pixels.

SDO *finally* provides me some opportunity to "test" all aspects of this theory and thus far it's doing *VERY* well. That limb darkening at the transition region doesn't look anywhere *close* to being above the chromosphere boundary in SDO. It's 13 pixels short at the limb darkening zone and that limb darkening can be seen in *EVERY* Trace limb image ever published. Folks, iron and hydrogen simply don't stay mixed. They separate. That dark opaque (GM definition) limb appears in *EVERY* solar image in the iron ion wavelenths along the limb. If it's under the chromosphere in the original image, then it's under the chromosphere in all of them.

FYI, I've already mentioned I've found that same mass movement along the limbs in SDO as I see in TRACE. I've also found MDI images to also support this model. When I update the blog, I'll let you know. The notion however that the limb darkening is some unusual effect specific to this one image is simply and absolutely absurd. I don't think you could even come with a 171A limb image from TRACE that didn't show that same limb darkening effect and "stuff" in the atmosphere. If it occurs under the chromosphere, then the RD technique I mentioned should show that with about 13 pixels to spare. We should see "loops" rising off a clearly defined "disk". Both the curvature of the disk and the loop points can help us isolate the sides of the disk. The loops will rise up and through the chromosophere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How off to what confidence level? 68% central confidence interval? 90%? 95%? 97.3%? 99.99%?

90+?

 

[Tubbythin]

90+?

I take it from the question mark that you don't actually know and its just a number you made up.

 

[Toke]

If I get MM right I should be able to see the pith on a picture of an orange just by looking really hard at the edge and counting the pixels.

 

[GlennB]

People, people, people......

Wherever the discharges begin, they have to all begin from the same place, they have to rise up through the chromosphere, and they have to light the regions between the surface and the chromosphere.

But only at the edge, as viewed? Not smack in the middle of the disk? Why would that be?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I take it from the question mark that you don't actually know and its just a number you made up.

Hoy. I even explained there was an element of "feel", since I don't have access to the FITS files yet.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But only at the edge, as viewed? Not smack in the middle of the disk? Why would that be?

Actually it happens all along the surface of the sphere and you can easily pick out the "structures" on that "surface" in RD images. They rotate uniformly.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/The Surface Of The Sun_0001.wmv

The long cadence between shots provides significant contrast at the limbs. That contrast makes it easier to see the sides of the sphere. They won't be 100% smooth due to the fact the original limbs show jagged features along the limbs. Even still there should be plenty enough resolution to make my case in SDO. I just need the right images.

 

[Tubbythin]

Hoy. I even explained there was an element of "feel", since I don't have access to the FITS files yet.

Ok Michael. In physics, and science in general, error bars are not just number somebody makes up because they "feel" right. So whatever that number you attached to your value is, it isn't an error bar. Please stop telling everybody that it is.

 

[ben m]

If I get MM right I should be able to see the pith on a picture of an orange just by looking really hard at the edge and counting the pixels.

If that doesn't work, he would take TWO pictures of an orange and subtract them. Then he could see the pith for sure.

 

[Toke]

If that doesn't work, he would take TWO pictures of an orange and subtract them. Then he could see the pith for sure.

Yes that sounds like a great idea, by subtraction the pictures of the shells from each other there is only the pith and fruit left visible.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ok Michael. In physics, and science in general, error bars are not just number somebody makes up because they "feel" right. So whatever that number you attached to your value is, it isn't an error bar. Please stop telling everybody that it is.

I could care less whether you approve or disapprove of my methods or not and I'm not budging now from that number or those error bars until I see something to change my mind. I'm extremely confident in the number but you know, I should allow a wee bit of wiggle room since some of that error range relates to a JPG image. Sorry, you'll just have to accept that number for now, question mark and all. Ask me again once I've been through the FITS files and some additional images and maybe I can do better than I've done, but for now that's the number and those are the error bars related to the SDO jpg image. That part is a wee "iffy" from my point of view since it's a JPG image after all, but it wouldn't be a pixel more (360KM) one way or the other even if I did have access to the FITS files.

 

[dasmiller]

Ask me again once I've been through the FITS files and some additional images and maybe I can do better than I've done, but for now that's the number and those are the error bars related to the SDO jpg image. That part is a wee "iffy" from my point of view since it's a JPG image after all, but it wouldn't be a pixel more (360KM) one way or the other even if I did have access to the FITS files.

But in the SDO composite image (I assume that's what you're referring to), the thin green band goes to zero thickness along the right side. I think you're measuring from the edge of a photoshop artifact (and said so even before GM's revelation), but since you're assuming the green circle represents real data: 4800 +/-1200 won't get you to 0; maybe you want 4800 +/- 4800?

 

[Marcus]

You still have two strikes left with Sol. Give him the composition of the Moplasma, allow him to calculate the opacity. It's your model, no one else can provide the information. If you have no information, you have no model.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Further, as Tim Thompson has pointed out* (several times!) direct measurements of the radius (range) of the various parts of the Sun (photosphere, chromosphere, transition region, corona) have been made, and published. They are clearly, and unambiguously, inconsistent with MM's claims (per posts in this thread).

So, one (of the many) strange things about MM's "a long cadence RD image in 171A" claim is why anyone should consider it likely certain to yield a more accurate, more precise, more certain result than the dozens (?) of previous, direct, independent analyses (based, in part, on images taken at 17.1 nm)?

Does anyone reading this know of any post, by MM, where he addresses this question?

Well, in this post I asked "Does this falsify your iron sun model?" (referring to the literature Tim cited).

Michael's response was

It will if it holds up to SDO style scrutiny.

In other words, he acknowledged that those analyses do indeed falsify his "model", but he ignores them.

Wow! Thanks for that (somehow I missed it).

I think - correct me if I'm wrong anyone - even those who have only a passing acquaintance with the actual doing of science will recognise that a radical claim (such as the one MM is making, re the radial ordering of the Sun's outer layers: photosphere, chromosphere, transition region, corona) must, at the very least, make reference to (with proper references) prior work on the topic.

Given that SDO RD images are derived from data taken in the same (or similar) passbands, with comparable resolution, by other (space-based) solar observatories (SDO is different principally in its cadence, at least wrt 17.1 nm images), and given that those other datasets were used to produce robust, quantified estimates of the locations of the boundaries between the four outer layers, a critical part of any case MM should make - assuming he wants it to have any scientific credibility - is at least an attempt to explain why (quantitatively) any result he gets from SDO RD images differs so radically from all the previous results.

And that's not even considering any questions about the physical (NOT!) nature of his claims.

I may have missed it, but MM has not even alluded to all these other datasets (and analyses), much less outlined why he thinks they are (to him) so obviously, egregiously, wrong.

 

[GeeMack]

People, people, people......

This is actually very simple stuff. According to Birkeland's theory, the limb darkening and the RD image will be directly related.

I don't believe you can possibly show where Birkeland ever said anything about limb darkening and running difference images. In fact, I know you can't. This comment is a lie.