Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
There are Nickel ion Doppler images on my website as well as RD images by the way, including Kosovichev's video.
Click to expand...


Except the "running difference images" you claim to have made yourself are fakes. You ran an image or two through a couple of PhotoShop filters. The fact that you can't (won't) explain how you made them supports my claim that they are frauds.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The only one "retreating" around here are you folks. You won't touch the images. GM thinks he "explained every pixel" of a specific RD image simply by describing the technique. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" That's just pathetic.
Click to expand...


Oh, so you are going to explain every last pixel of a running difference image. So you are going to pick a STEREO or SOHO video that we can both turn into a running difference video so we both know that we both understand the process and the results.

Who am I kidding? No, you aren't.

:dl:​
 
Humanzee said:
I appreciate the response. I am checking the linked site to where that avi came from and how it was made. Is that a RD image?

Thanks - H
Click to expand...

That is indeed a running difference image. GM actually explained the mechanics of how it's created pretty accurately, but that mechanical explanation doesn't explain the events observed in the image itself. Notice that a 'coronal mass ejection' occurs at roughly the center point of that image about half way through the video. You can observe the direction of the plasma flow relative to the solid surface by watching the particles in the atmosphere and how they move after they are ejected during the CME. The basic pattern of plasma movement during the video is from the bottom right toward the upper left. The general movement of the sun is left to right, although the image has been cropped to fit and therefore the movement of the sun is not obvious. That movement between images creates a scenario where the active regions move toward the right, and leave shadows to the left where they had been located in the previous image. Both the movement of the sun, and the movement of the plasma have an effect on the image.

Keep in mind that other wavelengths do not produce the same types of images in RD techniques. That is because plasma is typically very mobile and doesn't generally hold any specific "structure" for more than about 8 minutes or so in the case of the photosphere.

That orange video from Kosovichev is a Doppler image not a running difference image. It shows us the liquid like nature of the photosphere as the wave passes over the photosphere. The items under the photosphere however are "rigid" in comparison to the photosphere.

tsunami1.JPG


Notice the areas I circled in this image and notice how these "structures" stay rigid in comparison to the wave in the photosphere. The wave is a great example of plasma and how it typically behaves. It's very fluid like in nature. The rigid features under the wave however do not change and are persistent throughout the video.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi

The point here is that *TWO* techniques show the same rigid features that should not exist if the sun were made of nothing but plasma.
 
tusenfem said:
I wonder, do you get the same mountains when you look in another spectral line?
Click to expand...

Yes. 171A and 195A produce the same basic features. The 284A images tend to be "similar' but the energy outputs are somewhat different, and it seems to be "blurred" by the photosphere more than the other two iron ion wavelengths.

Can you please show us that the 171 A and the 193 A images show the same mountain ridges?
Click to expand...

Sure. LMSAL has a nice four wavelength image on their website of the same event and area of the sun.

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive11.html
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/Seaton_T010828_00UT_multi.gif

The two images on the left are 195A (top) and 171A(bottom). The top image on the right is 284A, and shows what I would call a "blurrier' image of roughly the same basic features. The last image (bottom right) shows us mostly just the surface of the photosphere. Each of the iron ion wavelengths creates RD images with persistent features, whereas other wavelengths that are mostly due to the photosphere show no such persistent rigidness.
 
Reality Check said:
GM and I have explained every pixel in the RD movie.
Click to expand...

Talk about delusions. You've not explained *ANY* pixel of any specific frame of that video. All GM has done is (relatively correctly) explained the RD technique itself. In no way did either of you explain anything related to the solar events that related to any pixel in any specific frame of that video. You're only deluding yourself RC.
 
Reality Check said:
Baloney.
The corona radiates at millions of degrees. The chromosphere is about 20,000K. The photosphere is closer to 5700K.
Click to expand...

By your logic, that cannot happen. The corona should heat all the layers up to millions of degrees according to your notions of heat flow! You simply *assume* it heats up below the photosphere. Most of the studies of sunspots reveal they have *COOLER* plasma in them. How is that possible if the temperature under the photosphere 'heats up'? Where does that lower temperature plasma come from if not from under the photosphere?
 
GeeMack said:
And once again your qualification to understand running difference images has been challenged. Remember, you were given the opportunity to explain, pixel by pixel, exactly how a running difference image is made. I did it, but you abandoned that opportunity. You were asked to explain the process you used to make your fake running difference images, and because you were caught in a lie, you abandoned that request.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? Those aren't "fake" RD images! Why would I even "fake" an RD image in the first place let alone invest 2500 dollars in IDL software? You don't even make any sense.

FYI, I have no objection to your description of the basics of the technique. It's the fact you refuse to address anything specific in the images that I object to.

You personally rely on personal insults and ad homs more than anyone I've ever met in cyberspace. It's like talking to a parrot that was owed by a sailor. If you keep calling me fraud, you best be prepared to back that up in court.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
Except the "running difference images" you claim to have made yourself are fakes. You ran an image or two through a couple of PhotoShop filters. The fact that you can't (won't) explain how you made them supports my claim that they are frauds.
Click to expand...

This is a complete and absolute lie on your part. Period. FYI it makes no damn difference how they were created or what software package was used to create them. They would not be "fake" or "frauds" unless someone specifically changed the original images or used a different technique on them, and no such thing was done to the images I cited. You're pushing your luck dude. Keep in mind that your public comments on this website are something you can be held liable for, including charges of fraud. You're crossing important legal lines now.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
As the TRACE astronomers state this "flying stuff" is "the ejected material very well, first flying upward at several hundred kilometers per second. Later, some of it is seen to fall back as a dark cloud."
Click to expand...

Why would superheated plasma from the CME "fall back as a dark cloud" if it's not made of heavier materials? What exactly causes "coronal rain" in your opinion?
 
GeeMack said:
That is, of course, a lie. There are no surface features in a running difference image. And Kosovichev's research clearly shows that there is nothing solid about the surface of the Sun.
Click to expand...

Then what are those rigid features under the wave in Kosovichev's video? Stop dodging that direct question.
 
Michael Mozina said:
This is a complete and absolute lie on your part. Period. FYI it makes no damn difference how they were created or what software package was used to create them. They would not be "fake" or "frauds" unless someone specifically changed the original images or used a different technique on them, and no such thing was done to the images I cited. You're pushing your luck dude. Keep in mind that your public comments on this website are something you can be held liable for, including charges of fraud. You're crossing important legal lines now.
Click to expand...


So sue me. You have posted fraudulent material on your web site. You claim they are running difference images. They are not. When asked to explain the process you used to create them, you refused. Yet I was able to explain it easily. You used a couple of PhotoShop filters on some original STEREO images and made some fake ones. They're not even good fakes for god's sake! :D

Now, are you willing to explain exactly what the process was that you used to make them, or aren't you?

Aside: Here's where I predict Michael will throw another tantrum. He'll blame me for his inability do demonstrate hs qualifications. He'll whine and complain because I know this stuff and he doesn't. He'll whine and cry and badmouth me for treating him badly when all I really am doing is challenging his claim.

Here's where he could take advantage of a beautiful opportunity to explain every last pixel in a running difference image, explain how any process can be applied to a couple of images of data gathered thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, and somehow show surface features below the photosphere.

Keep in mind that Michael's crazy notion would be like taking a couple of weather satellite photos of a completely cloud covered city, running them through some sort of computer program, and having the results show the streets of the city. Only his nutty conjecture would be unimaginably more difficult because there is vastly more opaque material to see through and several thousand more kilometers of distance to account for in the running difference graphs made from solar satellite images.​

So here we are again, Michael. You've run your mouth once more and claimed some level of expertise in running difference images. You claim to be qualified to understand and analyze them. And once more, you are balking when put to the challenge.

Pick one of those STEREO videos. You and I will both apply our running difference processing on them. You and I will come back here when we're done and explain how we got our results. Both of us will post our running difference videos here so everyone can see how we did. Do you have the stuff, Michael? Can you do it like you claim you can? Or are you going to let this glorious opportunity go by, and just run away screaming like you have, well, every single time anyone has ever challenged your qualifications?

How about the rest of you? Wouldn't you like to see Michael actually demonstrate that he understands what he's talking about, for the first time ever in all his years on the Internet?
 
Michael Mozina said:
You didn't answer the question and avoided the question as usual. Duh.
Click to expand...


I certainly did answer it. Your reply is another lie. Now, are you going to demonstrate your qualifications regarding running difference images or weasel out for the, what, hundredth time?
 
Michael Mozina said:
If you're so confident I have committed fraud, make it easy (and cheaper) for me to sue you and email your real name and address at:

michael@thesurfaceofthesun.com

I'll make sure my layer has something on your desk within a week.
Click to expand...


Thanks for admitting that you don't have the qualifications to speak with any expertise on running difference images.

And yes, the images you've created are fakes. Really, sue me. I say you are presenting fradulent material on your web site to support your crackpot claim.

But if you're going to get all legal, remember when you "bet the farm" the data returned from the STEREO program would prove your conjecture within a few months... back in 2006? Have that lawyer of yours draw up the papers to transfer your farm to me. You lost that bet. :D
 
GeeMack said:
I certainly did answer it. Your reply is another lie. Now, are you going to demonstrate your qualifications regarding running difference images or weasel out for the, what, hundredth time?
Click to expand...

You did *NOT* explain the rigid outlines under the wave. You simply ignored the data you don't want to deal with as usual. Care to try again?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Talk about delusions. You've not explained *ANY* pixel of any specific frame of that video. All GM has done is (relatively correctly) explained the RD technique itself. In no way did either of you explain anything related to the solar events that related to any pixel in any specific frame of that video. You're only deluding yourself RC.
Click to expand...
Talk about delusions and wilful ignorance.
GM Has explained *EVERY* pixel on the images. They are the result of the RD process.
I have explained every feature of the RD movie that you are obsessed with as related to the solar events that the movie is calculated from.
The TRACE astronomers have explained the "flying stuff" as the consequence of the changing temperatures of the CME.
You're only proving yourself to be deluded for the millionth time MM.
 
MM: How can your iron "crust" not be a plasma at a temperature of at least 9400 K

Michael Mozina:
Rather than derailing brantc's thread, perhaps your would like to continue the discussion of your "Iron Sun" delusion where you brought it up originally in this forum.
First asked 7 April 2010
Start by answering this question: How can your iron "crust" not be a plasma at a temperature of at least 9400 K?

Alternately:
brantc,
Can we take it that you are OK with Michael Mozina hijacking this thread for his version of your idea?
If so I will copy the list of outstanding questions about his idea to here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom