Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

Does coronal rain support your claim that there is a solid surface on the Sun?

Note the effect on the persistent surface features where it falls. I know, I know, "what surface, what persistence, what effect"?

 

[GeeMack]

Every image of the photosphere show a clear angular depression in limb images of a sunspot just like the white light images.

No image of the photosphere shows anything further in than about 400 to 450 kilometers deep. And your claim is that you can somehow see a solid surface that supposedly exists some 2000 to 3500 kilometers down. Your claim to have the magical powers required to see through thousands of kilometers of opaque plasma has been challenged.

But it shows exactly the same type of depressed surface feature as CA/H Hinode images. You can even see the "bases" of the penumbral filaments light up at the bottom before traversing up the filament in the Hinode images. There's definitely a depth component to every single single sunspot image.

It has been demonstrated that you do not have the qualifications necessary to make a legitimate, scientific analysis of any solar imagery.

 

[Ziggurat]

So, would you like some help with your communication skills so you can actually formulate your crackpot idea into something that at least one or two professional physicists might understand and accept? Or are you content in knowing that not one single professional physicist on the face of this planet agrees with your claim?

I think maybe Michael LIKES imagining himself as a Cassandra figure. He has been blessed with insight into the nature of the sun that no one else has, and cursed with the inability to do any math so he can't convince anyone of the truth. It's so poignantly tragic, you see. And nothing gives meaning to a life like being the central figure of a tragedy.

But one day we'll all see, and we'll all regret treating Michael the way we did. And our sorrow will make Michael's suffering worthwhile.

 

[GeeMack]

Note the effect on the persistent surface features where it falls. I know, I know, "what surface, what persistence, what effect"?

I asked a simple question. Let me make myself a little more clear in case English isn't your first language. Yes or no, does the existence of coronal rain support your claim that there is a solid surface on the Sun?

 

[Ziggurat]

There's definitely a depth component to every single single sunspot image.

No, there isn't.

Let me repeat that more slowly for you.

Nnnnnnoooooooooo,,,,,,,,, ttthhheeerrreee iiiissssnnnn'''''ttttt.......

You're "seeing" things that just aren't there. Which is why you can't actually quantify anything.

 

[phunk]

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15%20April%202001%20WL.gif[/qimg]

Limb images for starters. They all show a clear, persistent angular "depression" in the surface of the photosphere like the foreground sunspot.

No, they don't . Your brain is interpreting shading as hints to 3d structure in a situation where it's inappropriate. These aren't pictures of your backyard we're looking at, it's an environment completely alien to what your brain can interpret, and you're making incorrect assumptions based on shadows that aren't actually shadows.

 

[GeeMack]

You're "seeing" things that just aren't there. Which is why you can't actually quantify anything.

Correct...

No, they don't . You're brain is interpreting shading as hints to 3d structure in a situation where it's inappropriate. These aren't pictures of your backyard we're looking at, it's an environment completely alien to what your brain can interpret, and you're making incorrect assumptions based on shadows that aren't actually shadows.

... and correct.

 

[Reality Check]

Where do you see something out of alignment between the loops and the angular sides of the penumbral filaments?

As I stated: "I may be as deluded as you . But look 5 seconds into the movie - there is a distinct angle between penumbral filaments on the right hand side point and the loops." This is the 3 clock position.
Thus there is no "perfect alignment" as you fantasize.

Sure, but that angular nature wouldn't necessarily need to align itself with the angles of the penumbral filaments unless it's following a path through the filaments themselves. That concept is verified by the "light" we see in that last image which lights up the base of the filaments, but is not bright until it reaches the filament.

Sure - as usual you did not understand what I said.
Same magentic field = similar alignments of plasma features like penumbral filaments amd loops. The penumbral filaments that are moving on the surface of the photosphere arre subject to the same magnetic fields as the loops.

 

[Reality Check]

What way are the penumbral filaments pointing (up or down)

Both the G-band and CA/H Hinode images show a "depth' and "layering effect" to the plasma.....

First asked 20 April 2010
Michael Mozina,
How did you claculate that this "depth" and "layering effect" optical effect does not mean that the filaments are pointing out of the photosphere?

This will make them extend ~3000 (2000 -34000) km out of the photosphere in the opposite direction that your assert.

P.S.

• Why are the sunspot umbra not "mostly" iron plasma (Fe was also detected by SERTS)?
• Can you show how you calculated that "3000-3750 KM" figure for the photosphere depth?
• How did you determine that the filaments "abruptly end right there"?
• Citation for the LMSAL claim that coronal loops all originate *ABOVE* the photosphere?
• Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind?

 

[Dancing David]

Good luck on your exams.

Ditto, DROK.

 

[Dancing David]

Both the G-band and CA/H Hinode images show a "depth' and "layering effect" to the plasma.

I think I asked, how can you tell how deep that those flashes are or where they generate.

How do you get that from the data?

And how deep are they compared to the rest of say the top of the granules.

Both images show a clear end to the penumbral filaments, and show a clear sign of following a discharge path through the photosphere, starting at the bases of the filaments. Those filaments only light up in areas that are already "lit up" before the discharge process occurs too, meaning there is no way that the material under the filament is the same material as the filament itself.

And it seems to mee that is all on the surface.

Even that white light image demonstrates that the photosphere itself is the brightest thing in the image, and it follows the outline of the penumbral filaments making it very unlikely that the photosphere is made of the same material as the material in the umbra, or the material in the loops.

Then where is the spectroscopy to support the difference between the umbra and the other parts of the photosphere?

 

[Marcus]

Probably because you wouldn't like either possible answer I could give you?

Shall we base this overly-simplistic "very quick one number" you're looking for on *mainstream* plasma abundance figures and plasma layering schemes, or the layered plasma model on my website? That one isn't "very quick" nor very likely to please you anyway. The first one isn't even of interest to me personally.

Pardon the interruption, I just wanted to say that, after a lot of lurking, I have finally discovered the real reason why Michael Mozina never produces any numbers. He is simply afraid of displeasing any of the posters here. Who knew.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I think maybe Michael LIKES imagining himself as a Cassandra figure. He has been blessed with insight into the nature of the sun that no one else has, and cursed with the inability to do any math so he can't convince anyone of the truth. It's so poignantly tragic, you see. And nothing gives meaning to a life like being the central figure of a tragedy.

But one day we'll all see, and we'll all regret treating Michael the way we did. And our sorrow will make Michael's suffering worthwhile.

 

[D'rok]

Good luck on your exams.

Thanks!

Ditto, DROK.

And thanks!

Back to serious business now...guilt free Interweb procrastination.

 

[D'rok]

I know you're a decent guy too, and I know you're exactly the type of individual that I need to be reaching, so if you don't mind I'd like to spend a little time here with you on these images. FYI, IMO you're better off ignoring GM, math bunnies, me, and only trust what you can see with your own eyes for a moment.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg

If you look at the very top (left) of the image for the "least" distance from the top of the surface of the photosphere to the bottom of the penumbral filament, how far is that based on the grid in the image?

Are you suggesting that's a measurement of depth?

Take the longest filament now (top right, or any longer filament on the right), and tell me how long it is based on the grid you see.

The longest filaments appear to be approx. 10000 km.

In the long filaments, do you sometimes observe the 'tips" at the base (umbra side) of the filaments 'light up' and become brighter sometimes?

I guess. But it just looks like more of the same roiling, bubbling chaos to me as the rest of the image. I have no frame of reference to determine if something noteworthy is happening there. I see "lighting up" all over the place. Aren't these just temperature gradients?

 

[D'rok]

No, they don't . Your brain is interpreting shading as hints to 3d structure in a situation where it's inappropriate. These aren't pictures of your backyard we're looking at, it's an environment completely alien to what your brain can interpret, and you're making incorrect assumptions based on shadows that aren't actually shadows.

This makes sense to me. I can't imagine that I can use anything like my normal frame of reference for visual phenomena to analyze these images.

 

[GeeMack]

I think I asked, how can you tell how deep that those flashes are or where they generate.

Since it has been demonstrated well and often that Michael is not qualified to properly understand solar imagery, and since he can offer no quantitative support of any kind, and since he has no references, according to his own standards, he made it up.

How do you get that from the data?

See above.

And how deep are they compared to the rest of say the top of the granules.

The science of determining the depth of sunspots is not new. The first such measurements were made before the United States was, well, the United States. With improvements in technology we can make more accurate measurements all the time of course. It's almost surprising that Micahel doesn't know about this stuff. Oh, wait, no it's not. It's total rank amateur grade school beginner solar science.

The deepest areas within sunspots are typically 300 to 600 kilometers below the surrounding photosphere. Even at that, 1500 miles of opaque plasma sits between the middle of a sunspot and Michael's solid surface. For anyone to see Michael's mythical surface from the bottom of a sunspot, it would be like seeing Las Vegas from Chicago, if it was raining everywhere in between.

And it seems to mee that is all on the surface.

Well nothing there, if you can see it at all, is below 450 kilometers down or deeper than the umbra, the deepest area of a sunspot. That's for damned sure.

Then where is the spectroscopy to support the difference between the umbra and the other parts of the photosphere?

Let me field this one for you, Michael. Uh, it simply doesn't exist?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Sunspots and photospheric physics III

http://www.solarphysics.kva.se/firstlight37AO/
http://www.solarphysics.kva.se/firstlight37AO/cah_25Apr2003_n.jpg
I really like this page because it demonstrates in black and white exactly what's wrong with mainstream theory. The images to the left are what we actually observe in solar images. The images to the right are "reversed" (negatives) and demonstrate what we "should see" if mainstream theory were actually correct.

Pathetic. This is "science" the way a child would do it, but certainly not a methodology worthy of an adult. It is also factually false; the negative images are not what we should see if mainstream theory were actually correct. Mainstream theory is completely consistent with the actual observed images. Only a monumental ignorance of all things solar can excuse such a claim as made here, that the negative images represent what we "should see".

If the atmosphere under the photosphere were really "hotter than" the surface of the photosphere as the mainstream claims, and such a material was "opaque" except for the part that's "cooler", then we should see the brighter areas from below the sunspot where the heat is being "trapped" and the sides of the sunspot should protrude to that location.

Entirely wrong. Given the mainstream model of a sunspot, we should expect to see no such thing as you describe. What we should see is what we do see. The umbra of the sunspot is relatively cool because of its surrounding magnetic field, as I have already explained elsewhere (Sunspots and Photospheric Physics II). So it should look relatively dark, because it is relatively cool. Consistent with mainstream theory.

Warmer material from below should convect around the magnetically protected area, and that is exactly what we see. Once again, I point out the paper The velocity field of sunspot penumbrae. I. A global view, and figure 5 of that paper. The penumbra immediately outside the umbra is dominated by blueshifted, upwelling material; it rises to the surface, cools, and then sinks back down again, where the outside of the penumbra is dominated by redshifted, downwelling material. Consistent with mainstream theory.

Furthermore, we can reconstruct the 3D structure of sunspots from optical data (e.g., Westendorp, et al., 1997; Westendorp, et al., 1998; Westendorp, et al., 2001a; Westendorp, et al., 2001b; Mathew, et al., 2003; Beck, 2008) and from helioseismology (Zhao, et al., 2001; Kosovichev, Duvall & Zhao, 2002; Zhao, 2006; Cameron, Gizon & Duvall, 2008; Gizon, et al., 2009). In all cases, the 3D structure is consistent with mainstream theory.

My primary point is that Mozina is dead wrong when he claims that there is any inconsistency between observation and mainstream theory, such that mainstream theory is called fundamentally into question. We all know that no theory can explain everything, and one of the major motivations for making observations in the first place is to either verify some important aspect of a given theory, or to uncover weaknesses and inconsistencies that lead to improvements in the theory. In every case I have given above, mainstream theory and observations are mutually consistent, to the extent that mainstream theory is not fundamentally questioned. Indeed, at no time and under no circumstances has Mozina ever exhibited any image that reveals any major inconsistency with mainstream theory. His claims to have done so are all based on arbitrary misinterpretations of mainstream theory and equally arbitrary misinterpretations of the images he presents.

Instead we observe a LAYER of plasma that is obviously composed of a different type of plasma than the photosphere based on what we observe in high resolution Hinode images.

Factually false statement. No, we do not see a "layer" of anything in any image. No, the plasma is not obviously, or otherwise, remarkably different inside the sunspot than it is outside the sunspot, save for the systematically lower temperature. As a result of the low temperature of a sunspot umbra, numerous molecules are observable (including water) which could not survive the higher temperature photosphere that surrounds the sunspot (e.g., Nicholson, 1938 (which shows we have known this for a long time); Penn, et al., 2003; Arnaud, et al., 2006a; Arnaud, et al., 2006b).

The bases of the filaments "light up" from the loops passing through them, but the material under the filaments does not light up at the same rate, nor does the light get "dimmer" as we proceed into the filament as the mainstream requires in the claims about "opacity".

Another factually false statement. No, the mainstream theory does not require or even suggest that the filament should get "dimmer", that's an invention of your own that you assign to the mainstream without justification.

Not one part of their model holds up to even high resolution G-band scrutiny, let alone hold up to the Hinode data. In no way does the mainstream model work correctly or work as "predicted" as it relates to sunspots and the energy flow around sunspots.

On the contrary. The entire mainstream model stands up nicely in front of any genuine image you can show us, including all G-band imagery, all HINODE imagery & data, and all data and imagery from any and all other spacecraft or ground based data. You have not, and indeed cannot present any image not readily consistent with mainstream theory.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
I know you're a decent guy too, and I know you're exactly the type of individual that I need to be reaching, so if you don't mind I'd like to spend a little time here with you on these images.

Does that really make any sense? You have a theory of solar physics that is profoundly contrary to the mainstream perspective of experts. How peculiar that you strive to convert a non-specialist to your opinions the way a religious zealot might try to convert a naive non-believer. I would think if one had a potential Nobel prize winning theory, he would write scholarly papers for specialists to review, or write a book intended for experts.
I noticed the same attempt to convert laymen to your crackpot theories on other threads. It is really pathetic!

 

[GeeMack]

Does that really make any sense? You have a theory of solar physics that is profoundly contrary to the mainstream perspective of experts. How peculiar that you strive to convert a non-specialist to your opinions the way a religious zealot might try to convert a naive non-believer. I would think if one had a potential Nobel prize winning theory, he would write scholarly papers for specialists to review, or write a book intended for experts.

In this case there are at least a couple of major drawbacks to that idea. One, it would require a scholarly understanding of the material. And two, it would require some expertise.

It's also amusing in a way to think that anyone could convert a non-specialist to believing in the myth of a solid surfaced Sun. I've personally witnessed dozens of people cross these thresholds over the years, and the arguments presented have been so feeble, so completely lacking in any credible substance, that not one single person has been persuaded.

A couple of already-believers and another crackpot or two have stepped in, but they never stick around. One of those crackpots was even a fellow who had the poor judgment to ask Michael to add his name to a, well, a pretend scholarly paper. The fellow quickly determined that continuing to participate was only causing him embarrassment. It seems he's made a concerted effort to keep his distance for the past few years.

Too bad, too. That Nobel Prize was within reach. Dammit.