Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[GeeMack]

Indeed. It's the one sure way to be able to "see" under the surface. The find a significant subsurface stratification process going on at about .995R where there is supposed to be an open (and flowing) convection zone according to gas model theory.

Helioseismology shows mass moving at over 1200 meters per second up, down, and sideways directly through that place where you fantasize the iron surface.

Both the RD and Doppler images show "persistent features" under the photosphere that have lifespans and "rigidity" unlike any kind of ordinary plasma. It's "rigid"" and persistent even in the presence of a huge CME in that RD LMSAL image. It's present in the tsunami video too and is completely unaffected by the wave in the photosphere. The same technology that reveals the wave in the photosphere also reveals rigid features below the photosphere too.

It has been demonstrated beyond the doubt of anyone in this conversation, 'cept you and brantc, that you don't have the qualifications to speak with any expertise on the issue of running difference imagery. And oddly enough, neither you nor brantc have been willing to get down to explaining, pixel by pixel, how that magic thing happens where you take data from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere and transform that into a picture of something solid below the photosphere.

So for the time being, it's reasonable to just go with the notion that you're flat out wrong, okay?

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

Well, yes and no. The original images demonstrate movement of mass along the coronal loops, everywhere around the 'surface'. They are composed of both large and small loops, but they are composed of mostly small loops located close to the surface.

I was able to review the movie. You should (if you haven't already) download that flares DVD I suggested earlier in relationship to the white light photosphere image. On that CD are the high resolution images in 171A that your smaller version comes from. You're right, there is movement all along the plasma loops, both close to the surface (single pixel variety) and the "big daddies" that pierce the surface of the photosphere. Most of them never get to the photosphere, but occur far under the photosphere.

The overall "lighting changes" we observe in the original images are simply "smoothed out" in the RD images and we observe the overall pattern of persistent surface features that give rise to all those big and little coronal loops and hold their bases in place over an extended period of time. The loops themselves however move and change during the CME event whereas the rigid underlying pattern of surface features remain static overall in the LMSAL image.

IMO your thermodynamic argument simply doesn't hold water (or heat in this case) because the photosphere isn't 20K or a millions degrees as your claim insists. Instead it's a relatively "cool" 6K degrees against a million degree background of discharge loops that radiate at over a million degrees. Most of the "heat" released in the loops occurs far below the surface of the photosphere and "convects" to the surface of the photosphere and away from the sun's actual surface.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Helioseismology shows mass moving at over 1200 meters per second up, down, and sideways directly through that place where you fantasize the iron surface.

Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that number out of your ^ss.

 

[sol invictus]

It's not "opaque" to every single wavelength, not equally, and not the iron ion wavelengths as Brantc demonstrated with the TOPS data.

Link/quote please.

What's the optical depth of the photosphere at those wavelengths?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, that would place the photosphere on the ghost limb if you thought that it was a ghost limb and not the transition region.

This is exactly why there is the confusion between heliosphere data and photosphere observations. Because they are sticking to the model that has been fitted to the data from day one.

The observations are correct. And they do make sense if you use a different model.

1. The observation is that the photosphere is at some diameter. It is.
2. The heliospheric observation is that the true surface of the sun is below the photosphere. It is.
3. The TRACE observation is that the transition layer is 2 arc seconds(2000Km) above the lower limb as imaged at 1200A. It is.
4. Traces observations that events happen on this ghost limb establishing its existence.
5. Subtracting the diameter of the sun at the photosphere with the TRACE observations and heliospheric observations says we are seeing the surface of the sun in 1200A.

The lower limb is the true surface of the sun. Its below the photosphere. And its visible in UV.

This is the iron surface below the photosphere.

Last thing is to account for where the energy comes from across the spectrum.
I will show that very little heat leakage "backwards" into the photosphere region combined with an acceleration by electric field allows for the existence of an iron sun.

FYI, that exact same problem also applies to Hinode limb images. I've seen a least one of them that shows a significant density change at the "transition region" too, but since they arbitrarily put it up above the photosphere to keep it "consistent" with their "day one theory", it just looks "goofy" IMO. It's darn clear that heavy, dense material is coming up and through the photosphere and flows down back into the dense photosphere at a point they "assume" is far above the photosphere!

 

[phunk]

With planets and every other solid body in space, the larger they get the flatter their surfaces are. Increasing gravity decreases the height of surface features. The sun has 28x the surface gravity of the earth, if you were to put any of earth's mountain ranges on the sun they would collapse. How do you account for the fact that the so-called mountains in your images are thousands of times larger than the ones on earth, thousands of degrees hotter, and somehow maintaining their shape?

Also, how do you account for the difference in rotation rates at different latitudes with a solid sun?

 

[Ziggurat]

With planets and every other solid body in space, the larger they get the flatter their surfaces are. Increasing gravity decreases the height of surface features. The sun has 28x the surface gravity of the earth, if you were to put any of earth's mountain ranges on the sun they would collapse. How do you account for the fact that the so-called mountains in your images are thousands of times larger than the ones on earth, thousands of degrees hotter, and somehow maintaining their shape?

He doesn't, of course. Honestly, why should he? The entire shell is itself impossible for so many reasons (including the fact that gravity would crush the whole thing), what's an impossible mountain or two on top of it?

 

[Ziggurat]

Last thing is to account for where the energy comes from across the spectrum.
I will show that very little heat leakage "backwards" into the photosphere region combined with an acceleration by electric field allows for the existence of an iron sun.

Good luck with your cathode refrigeration model. Too bad it's already been debunked.

But go ahead, come up with your own numbers to show us your model is even slightly plausible.

 

[sol invictus]

FYI, that exact same problem also applies to Hinode limb images. I've seen a least one of them that shows a significant density change at the "transition region" too, but since they arbitrarily put it up above the photosphere to keep it "consistent" with their "day one theory", it just looks "goofy" IMO. It's darn clear that heavy, dense material is coming up and through the photosphere and flows down back into the dense photosphere at a point they "assume" is far above the photosphere!

Was this and the brantc post you quoted a response to my question? I'm asking because it doesn't contain anything even related to what I asked.

Again, what's the optical depth of the photosphere at your favorite wavelengths? Better yet - so we don't quibble about what "photosphere" means exactly - what's the optical depth of everything from the outer edges of the sun's atmosphere down to this putative "solid surface" (at whatever wavelengths you claim show the surface)?

That's an incredibly basic question; it must have been the very first thing you asked yourself. So you must have the answer at your fingertips. What is it?

 

[GeeMack]

Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that number out of your ^ss.

It's from your own source.

But really, are you willing to go with the notion that anything you can't support with references is just something you made up? Really?

 

[Michael Mozina]

With planets and every other solid body in space, the larger they get the flatter their surfaces are. Increasing gravity decreases the height of surface features. The sun has 28x the surface gravity of the earth, if you were to put any of earth's mountain ranges on the sun they would collapse. How do you account for the fact that the so-called mountains in your images are thousands of times larger than the ones on earth, thousands of degrees hotter, and somehow maintaining their shape?

There's no way for me to say how "high" the ranges might be based on RD images. All I can do is isolate "surface contours", not overall height.

Also, how do you account for the difference in rotation rates at different latitudes with a solid sun?

It depends on what we're measuring. The surface of the photosphere is definitely a "plasma" and it experiences differential rotation just like a planet's atmosphere rotates. The surface itself is another matter as the RD images demonstrate. We can see "stuff" flying around the atmosphere after the CME, but it eventually "settles back down to the rigid surface" after awhile, leaving it's mark as it does so. Watch what happens in the LMSAL image right after the CME. "Stuff" comes flying up and into the atmosphere and moves from the bottom right toward the upper left of the image. It "drifts" for awhile and settles back to the surface. Note the surface changes where the material falls.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's from your own source.

Not my references. I know of no data source that supports your claim. Let's see the paper. I think you simply "made up" the numbers your using out of thin air.

 

[GeeMack]

Was this and the brantc post you quoted a response to my question? I'm asking because it doesn't contain anything even related to what I asked.

Again, what's the optical depth of the photosphere at your favorite wavelengths? Better yet - so we don't quibble about what "photosphere" means exactly - what's the optical depth of everything from the outer edges of the sun's atmosphere down to this putative "solid surface" (at whatever wavelengths you claim show the surface)?

That's an incredibly basic question; it must have been the very first thing you asked yourself. So you must have the answer at your fingertips. What is it?

In numbers please, Michael. Not your typical "galore" and "very" and "all over the place" type descriptors. In all the years you've been spouting this nonsense all over the Internet you've never quantified anything about your crackpot notion. This question of sol's is a good one. It goes right to the core of one of your primary articles of faith. I think we're all interested in your answer. In numbers.

Oh, and how about you give this one a shot, you know, just for laughs...

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]

Not my references. I know of no data source that supports your claim. Let's see the paper. I think you simply "made up" the numbers your using out of thin air.

So soon you forget.

And I think you're stalling on answering 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.

 

[GeeMack]

There's no way for me to say how "high" the ranges might be based on RD images. All I can do is isolate "surface contours", not overall height.

So you're acknowledging that these "surface contours" could have no height at all. Interesting.

It depends on what we're measuring. The surface of the photosphere is definitely a "plasma" and it experiences differential rotation just like a planet's atmosphere rotates. The surface itself is another matter as the RD images demonstrate. We can see "stuff" flying around the atmosphere after the CME, but it eventually "settles back down to the rigid surface" after awhile, leaving it's mark as it does so. Watch what happens in the LMSAL image right after the CME. "Stuff" comes flying up and into the atmosphere and moves from the bottom right toward the upper left of the image. It "drifts" for awhile and settles back to the surface. Note the surface changes where the material falls.

Note that not once have you ever lifted a finger to explain why each pixel in the original sources is the shade that it is, how those pixels are compared to each other to create a running difference image, and how it is that the data used to create the sources comes from the corona yet according to your claim, which you haven't backed up with research papers so you know what that means, you can see something thousands of kilometers away from where the data was gathered.

Also note that you talk about measurements as if they're meaningful, yet not once have you quantified anything you've said.

You've had a method available for years to determine the height of the "mountains". Are you afraid if you give it a try you'll find out what all of the world's professional physicists already know, that you're wrong?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So soon you forget.

Do you just make up everything you spew or what? You don't seem to give a damn about science. References for your made up numbers? What references? Flying stuff in the RD image? What flying stuff? Sheesh.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Note that not once have you ever lifted a finger to explain why each pixel in the original sources is the shade that it is,

Yep, evidently you just make up your nonsense as you go. You're the one that claimed to have "explained every single pixel of every frame" of the image and never once associated anything with any sort of 'solar physical process". Project much?

Hell, when I originally asked you to originally identify the light sources of the images in question, you did an "epic fail" routine and couldn't even isolate the loops as the light source of the original images. You're just making stuff up as you go and hoping nobody notices what a jerk you are.

 

[GeeMack]

Yep, evidently you just make up your nonsense as you go. You're the one that claimed to have "explained every single pixel of every frame" of the image and never once associated anything with any sort of 'solar physical process". Project much?

Hell, when I originally asked you to originally identify the light sources of the images in question, you did an "epic fail" routine and couldn't even isolate the loops as the light source of the original images. You're just making stuff up as you go and hoping nobody notices what a jerk you are.

Interesting that you somehow believe your time is more productively spent calling people jerks and threatening to shove, well, something down people's throats than it would be to actually answer the legitimate questions we're asking.

Your qualifications to speak with any expertise on the issue of running difference imagery have been challenged. So far you've claimed to be qualified, yet you're making a concerted effort to avoid demonstrating any such qualifications. But I have another idea to move us forward and maybe get us past that problem of yours. Unfortunately for you it doesn't come with an instruction sheet for a piece of software. It's not a step by step script-kiddie project. It requires you actually get your hands into it.

Post a pair of the original source images we can work with to create a running difference image. Pick a pixel in one of the images, column and row. Start by telling us why that pixel is the shade that it is. Once you get that far we can move to the next step. This will be fun, Michael. It's like science with pictures. Right up your alley.

I'm somewhat of an expert on this stuff as I'm sure you know by now. I'll help you along through the steps that you don't understand. Oh, and part of what we're going for here will ultimately require your quantitative reply to sol's question...

Was this and the brantc post you quoted a response to my question? I'm asking because it doesn't contain anything even related to what I asked.

Again, what's the optical depth of the photosphere at your favorite wavelengths? Better yet - so we don't quibble about what "photosphere" means exactly - what's the optical depth of everything from the outer edges of the sun's atmosphere down to this putative "solid surface" (at whatever wavelengths you claim show the surface)?

That's an incredibly basic question; it must have been the very first thing you asked yourself. So you must have the answer at your fingertips. What is it?

You see, Michael, we can help you prove that cockamamie claim of yours if you'd just cooperate a little and give us the critical information we need to work out the details.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Interesting that you somehow believe your time is more productively spent calling people jerks and threatening to shove, well, something down people's throats than it would be to actually answer the legitimate questions we're asking.

You don't care about the answers! You don't care about squat except being a first class internet stalker and personal attack troll.

Your qualifications to speak with any expertise on the issue of running difference imagery have been challenged. So far you've claimed to be qualified, yet you're making a concerted effort to avoid demonstrating any such qualifications.

Case in point. I just produced "running difference" images using the exact same tools that the "pros" use, built from original FITS files, not prereleased video like you did, and did you even notice? Hell no. Did you even care? Hell no!

But I have another idea to move us forward

Ya right, another dog and pony show for Michael to do your bidding no doubt...... Up yours. I just toasted your butt in the RD imaging dept, including using the very RD process you cited in 2005 and the IDL language it's based on. I did so from original FITS files too, not some prereleased video.

and maybe get us past that problem of yours.

The only problem I have is you, and my lawyer will be contacting you shortly. I had to choose how I spend last week carefully in terms of time, but I haven't forgotten your promise to give my layer your info.

Unfortunately for you it doesn't come with an instruction sheet for a piece of software. It's not a step by step script-kiddie project. It requires you actually get your hands into it.

Kiss my you-know-what. I already "got my hands dirty". I spent *HOURS* (actually days) downloading files to "get down and dirty" with FITS files, and create original images from them. You never did anything of the sort.

Lets see you explain *ANYTHING* in the RD image in terms of solar physical processes now. You're no "expert" on anything as far as I can tell, not even an expert on working with the software you cite, or an expert at creating RD images from original FITS files *IN ANY SOFTWARE PROGRAM*.

 

[Toke]

The only problem I have is you, and my lawyer will be contacting you shortly. I had to choose how I spend last week carefully in terms of time, but I haven't forgotten your promise to give my layer your info.

"Somebody on the internet disagree with me, and say so clearly"
What do you expect a lawyer to do with that?