Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

We have already seen convincing evidence that fundamental thermodynamics does not allow for the possibility of an iron crust of any kind.

No, we have not. If that were "convincing evidence", by your same logic the photosphere should radiate at millions of degrees just like the corona or 20K degrees like the chromosphere. The layers under the photosphere are cooler and more dense than the photosphere.

We have also seen no rational counterpoint to this argument from either brantc (who favors a solid, rigid surface), or Mozina (who favors a less solid & rigid crust of some ill-defined sort).

How is "a standard volcanic surface" ill-defined?

It is apparent that the whole "mountain" story is simply an optical illusion, where the brain creates mountains out of pure imagination, given a few hints from suggestive lighting.

It's "optically created" in the sense the lighting changes from moment to moment but the "patterns", and specifically the "persistence" of these "rigid features" is no optical illusion. That persistence is specifically related to the surface features that spawn that light/dark emission pattern in the original and the RD images.

Some here have likened it to "seeing bunny rabbits in the clouds",

That's your way of being extremely offensive. Bunnies in the clouds move over time, particularly if we dropped a huge bomb in the atmosphere at that location. They wouldn't remain "rigid" and "persistent" over time. They'd move around like that "flying stuff" seen in the image right after the CME that GM keeps denying is there.

and I don't doubt that is what Mozina is in fact doing, imagining mountains where none really are.

Then provide a "better" scientific explanation" for the persistence of the features over time, both in the RD and Doppler images.

Since fundamental physics does not seem to sway the bias of the True Believer, perhaps another image to counter Mozina's images? Mozina identifies this as Active Region 9143, his image above dated 28 Aug 2000. The structures he identifies as mountains are in fact simply magnetic field loops.

The magnetic fields are directly related to the coronal loops and the layout and movement of the loops, and yes they can be seen in both the original and RD images.

While Mozina's image looks essentially straight down onto the "mountains", other images show the same active region near the limb of the sun. In this viewing geometry, we should see the "mountains" in relief along the rim of the sun; we should be looking at the faces of the slopes of the mountains. But see 171Å Image dated 25 Aug 2000, which clearly shows the magnetic field loops and no sign of mountains in relief anywhere. Furthermore, see the Quicktime movie of the same view of the same region, showing a flare eruption. You can see that the loops are really loops, changing with time, and not static, as one would expect for mountains misinterpreted as loops.

I can see the original image, but not the Quicktime movie on this particular machine for some reason (Windows 7?), but I would imagine it to show all sorts of movements and absorption patterns, certainly not rigid surface features. From the side, looking into the atmosphere we can observe tornado like activity in the solar atmosphere as well. It's a moving and dynamic environment.

http://trace.lmsal.com/Public/Gallery/Images/movies/T171_991127.mov

I can't see that movie on this machine either, but I'm pretty sure it's the one I'm thinking of. It shows "twister" like activity in the atmosphere. The whole thing is very dynamic and flows with the coronal loop activity.

The only way I'm going to get to this post today is to split it up and probably respond fully after work hours.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Good - I'm glad you acknowledge that. Static features cancel out of an RD image.

Woah. Aren't you assuming that the lighting from the surfaces doesn't change over time?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Or really because you must ignore this...
... because addressing it forces you to face the uncomfortable fact that your entire argument is worthless.

Oh just shut up. I just kicked your butt royally when it comes to making "real" RD images. I used the same Solarsoft tools LMSAL uses and NASA uses. You "tinkered around" with whatever you decided to play around with for a few moments. I invested the time to "do them right", including the RD IDL routines you act like you personally wrote yourself. Kiss my backside.

 

[Tubbythin]

Oh just shut up. I just kicked your butt royally when it comes to making "real" RD images. I used the same Solarsoft tools LMSAL uses and NASA uses. You "tinkered around" with whatever you decided to play around with for a few moments. I invested the time to "do them right", including the RD IDL routines you act like you personally wrote yourself. Kiss my backside.

Shall we take a vote on that?

 

[Tubbythin]

Woah. Aren't you assuming that the lighting from the surfaces doesn't change over time?

Huh?

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you really feel like you all need the emotional support, and really need to bond again now, by all means pat him on the back.

 

[GeeMack]

It's "optically created" in the sense the lighting changes from moment to moment but the "patterns", and specifically the "persistence" of these "rigid features" is no optical illusion. That persistence is specifically related to the surface features that spawn that light/dark emission pattern in the original and the RD images.

No, it is not. Each pixel in the source images was brighter if it was closer to being picked up by the 171Å filter, and dimmer if it was further away. The 171Å filter is used to visualize thermal characteristics. Since all the data that was used to create the source images comes from the corona, there is nothing at all you can do with that data to somehow magically change it into a picture of something thousands of kilometers below and through the opaque photosphere.

Seems that your simple act of following the directions on a package of software and feeding it a script hasn't changed your radical misunderstanding of running difference images one little bit.

That's your way of being extremely offensive. Bunnies in the clouds move over time, particularly if we dropped a huge bomb in the atmosphere at that location. They wouldn't remain "rigid" and "persistent" over time. They'd move around like that "flying stuff" seen in the image right after the CME that GM keeps denying is there.

There is nothing rigid in the corona of the Sun. Nothing. And your bunnies in the clouds are moving over time, a lot, the fact that you refuse to understand Tim's well described explanation notwithstanding.

Oddly enough you're spending all this time whining about being offended when you could be actually supporting your crackpot claim. But how about we try this another time...

Now, how about you explain the method you've used to take data obtained from the Sun's corona, thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, and somehow process that into something that supposedly shows a solid surface below the photosphere.

 

[GeeMack]

Oh just shut up. I just kicked your butt royally when it comes to making "real" RD images. I used the same Solarsoft tools LMSAL uses and NASA uses. You "tinkered around" with whatever you decided to play around with for a few moments. I invested the time to "do them right", including the RD IDL routines you act like you personally wrote yourself. Kiss my backside.

And in all your "doing them right" you apparently still can't explain what process is applied to each pixel in each source image to generate the results in the output running difference graph. If you did you'd understand that the things you see in those images are not surface features. But just to make sure you get every possible chance to explain yourself...

Now, how about you explain the method you've used to take data obtained from the Sun's corona, thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, and somehow process that into something that supposedly shows a solid surface below the photosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Huh?

Suppose we kept flashing the surface from above with bright lights, back and forth from different angles over time. Would we not be able to "pick out the persistent surface patterns" in the RD images?

 

[Tubbythin]

Suppose we kept flashing the surface from above with bright lights, back and forth from different angles over time. Would we not be able to "pick out the persistent surface patterns" in the RD images?

Do you think this is what is happening here?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do you think this is what is happening here?

Well, sort of, but only in a highly overly simplistic manner. The coronal loops are the light source of the original images and they change over time. They produce the light we observe and that light reflects off of "stuff", including that flying stuff in the atmosphere right after the CME event that moves from the lower right toward the upper left of the image.

 

[Reality Check]

Outstanding questions for Micheal Mozina

Hi MM any progress in these?
These are some of the questions that MM has been asked about his Iron Sun idea and seems incapable of answering other than by unsupported assertions.

1. What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected? First asked 6th July 2009
2. A post that seemed to retract his "mountain ranges" on the TRACE 171A RD animation evoked this question:
   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. First asked 6th July 2009
3. From tusenfem:
   Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book? First asked 7th July 2009
4. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source" and in the same post
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). First asked 7th July 2009
6. 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.
7. Coronal loops are electrical discharges? First asked 10 July 2009
   This is an updated question with a couple of "answers" from MM.
8. Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question? First asked 10 July 2009
9. More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth First asked 13 July 2009
10. Formation of the iron surface First asked 13 July 2009
11. How much is "mostly neon" MM? First asked 13 July 2009
12. Just how useless is the Iron Sun model? First asked 13 July 2009
13. Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina First asked 13 July 2009
14. Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina First asked 13 July 2009He does link to his copy of Alfvén and Carlqvist's 1966 paper (Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and A theory of Solar Flares). This does not model what we now know a real solar flare acts like.
15. Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested? First asked 14 July 2009
16. Is Saturn the Sun? First asked 14 July 2009(Birkelands Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings but MM compares it to to the Sun).
17. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina First asked 14 July 2009MM has one reply in which is mistakenly thinks that this question is about coronal loops.
18. What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model? First asked 17 July 2009
19. What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K?
    (MM states that it is not the photosphere) First asked 18 July 2009
20. Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles? First asked 18 July 2009
21. Entire photon "spectrum" is composed of all the emissions from all the layers First asked 3 August 2009
22. Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves? First asked 22 July 2009
    Seems to think that 3 pixel differences (full Sun image) or 10's of pixels (limb image) are not detectable. Astronomers would disagree.
23. Evidence for the existence of "dark" electrons First asked 28 July 2008
24. Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere? First asked 30 July 2009
25. Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer? First asked 30 July 2009
26. What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers? First asked 30 July 2009
27. What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer? First asked 30 July 2009
28. Explain the shape of your electrical arcs (coronal loops) First asked 2 August 2009
29. What is your physical evidence for the silicon in sunspots? First asked 7 August 2009
30. How do MM's "layers" survive the convection currents in the Sun? First asked 26 December 2009
31. Where are the controllable empirical experiments showing the Iron Sun mass separation?
    First asked 5 January 2010
32. How can your iron "crust" not be a plasma at a temperature of at least 9400 K?
    First asked 7 April 2010
33. How can your "mountain ranges" be at a temperature of at least 160,000 K?
    First asked 8 April 2010
34. Where is the spike of Fe composition in the remnants of novae and supernovae?
    First asked 8 April 2010
35. Which images did you use as your input for the PM-A.gif image, etc.?
    First asked 8 April 2010

Actual Answers From Michael Mozina:

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, it is not. Each pixel in the source images was brighter if it was closer to being picked up by the 171Å filter, and dimmer if it was further away.

That's the first bush league mistake on your part. Brighter has nothing to do with "closer" and "further away" and everything to do with "temperature" and "current flow". The current flow heats the plasma to millions of degrees. It's *hot* and typically hottest in the brightest areas of the image.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The 171Å filter is used to visualize thermal characteristics. Since all the data that was used to create the source images comes from the corona, there is nothing at all you can do with that data to somehow magically change it into a picture of something thousands of kilometers below and through the opaque photosphere.

That's your second bush league mistake, although frankly LMSAL's guilty of leading you, me and everyone astray on that one. You just "assumed" where you expect to find the bases of the loops.

Seems that your simple act of following the directions on a package of software and feeding it a script hasn't changed your radical misunderstanding of running difference images one little bit.

So far you've yet to "explain" a single pixel in terms of solar physics. Cat got your tongue or what? You're sure quick to bitch when I don't do your personal bidding and so quick to run away from the persistence in the image or the *CAUSE* of anything as it relates to solar physics.

 

[Reality Check]

Where did your "mountain ranges" go in Active Region 9143

Tim Thompson's Active Region 9143 & "Mountains" on the Sun post needs yet another question for Micheal Mozina.
The RD movie that gives the illusion of "mountain ranges" due to the heating and cooling plasma on either side of the flares was taken looking down on Active Region 9143.
But when the same region is on the limb of the Sun, there are no mountain ranges seen despite the Sun being imaged in the same 171A passband! All we see are coronal loops.

First asked 14 April 2010
Micheal Mozina,
Where did your "mountain ranges" go in Active Region 9143 between the time that they were imaged and the time that the region got to the limb?

 

[Toke]

MM,
Why are you looking at something opaque and using the worst possible method to search for something that cannot be there?
Who are you trying to impress?

 

[GeeMack]

Suppose we kept flashing the surface from above with bright lights, back and forth from different angles over time. Would we not be able to "pick out the persistent surface patterns" in the RD images?

No, we would not. And anyone who is remotely familiar with the specifics of the purpose, data acquisition, construction, and results of processing running difference videos knows better than to believe we would. The photosphere is opaque. You can't see through it. Nothing reflects off of anything below it. That's what opaque means.

Care to answer this?...

Now, how about you explain the method you've used to take data obtained from the Sun's corona, thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, and somehow process that into something that supposedly shows a solid surface below the photosphere.

 

[Reality Check]

Do RD movies of inactive regions show "mountain ranges"

The previous question (Where did your "mountain ranges" go in Active Region 9143) also raises this question:

First asked 14 April 2010
Micheal Mozina,
You only cite one RD movie that shows "mountain ranges". We would expect that images of the Sun from any region when made into RD movies will magically reveal your "mountain ranges".
So you will have as a competent scientist tested this .

Can you show us the RD movies of inactive regions of the Sun that show similiar "mountain ranges" as the RD movie of AR 9143?

(I do have a suspicion that your answer will involve impossible electrical discharges through plasma)

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM,
Why are you looking at something opaque

What is "opaque" in your opinion, and what makes it "opaque" to the 171A and 195A wavelengths?

and using the worst possible method to search for something that cannot be there?

What besides heliosiesmology and solar satellite imagery would you suggest I use?

 

[GeeMack]

Tim Thompson's Active Region 9143 & "Mountains" on the Sun post needs yet another question for Micheal Mozina.
The RD movie that gives the illusion of "mountain ranges" due to the heating and cooling plasma on either side of the flares was taken looking down on Active Region 9143.
But when the same region is on the limb of the Sun, there are no mountain ranges seen despite the Sun being imaged in the same 171A passband! All we see are coronal loops.

First asked 14 April 2010
Micheal Mozina,
Where did your "mountain ranges" go in Active Region 9143 between the time that they were imaged and the time that the region got to the limb?

This issue of observing these events at the limb of the Sun has been explained to Michael many times. It's oddly interesting that he simply ignores it, but it makes sense if it's because those particular facts are inconvenient to his faith in the solid surface Sun myth. You see, observing solar activity straight on and the same activity at the limb is how we know that the data used to create those 171Å source images comes from the corona. It's how we know that nothing in a running difference image made from those EIT sources comes from below the photosphere. None of it.