Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
A discharge through the plasma is going to light up the plasma, .... I just like this image because it's A) white light and B) shows the same effect that observable in various wavelengths.
Click to expand...

There.

I took out the supposition and assumptions you had in there. So what we're left with is:

1. Discharges through plasma cause light.
2. You like that picture.
3. This shows up in wavelengths besides the visual.

Any evidence that it's representative of something bellow the surface, rather than your personal opinion?

(Psst! This is what everyone has been asking for in the past several years. You seem unable to seperate your personal opinion from anything you can show actual evidence of. You're confusing your interpretation of the image for hard evidence when you've shown nothing to support your interpretation over any other interpretation).
 
Last edited:
phunk said:
Since you seem to have forgotten what lead to my answer, I quoted it all. Understand yet? The change at 0.995R is not evidence of a solid surface, it's an expected part of the standard model that has been confirmed by helioseismology.
Click to expand...

You jumped a few steps here somewhere, or at least lost me somewhere. *Prior to Kosovichev's paper*, can you cite one single paper that "predicted" this layer to be there at around .995R and predicts this sort of pattern of behavior? I don't see how you jumped from "upwelling plasma that eventually reaches the surface and cools off, and a "subsurface stratifcation" at .995R that changes with the solar cycle and creates "rigid" patterns under the photosphere.
 
Michael Mozina said:
What kind of a response is that exactly? Pure ignorance on a stick? I asked a simple question about the emission patterns seen in x-ray and how they correspond to the surface of the photosphere, and that's your response? You suck at science. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?"
Click to expand...


If you believe something supports your crazy notion about the Sun, you do the work necessary to support it. Your attempt to pass off the burden of proof as well as the blame for your misunderstanding and ignorance is noted.

That's my response.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You jumped a few steps here somewhere, or at least lost me somewhere. *Prior to Kosovichev's paper*, can you cite one single paper that "predicted" this layer to be there at around .995R and predicts this sort of pattern of behavior? I don't see how you jumped from "upwelling plasma that eventually reaches the surface and cools off, and a "subsurface stratifcation" at .995R that changes with the solar cycle and creates "rigid" patterns under the photosphere.
Click to expand...


Kosovichev's research clearly shows that there is mass moving up, down, and sideways right through the region of the Sun where you mistakenly claim there exists a solid surface. Since mass can't move through a solid, unless you've completely redefined the term "solid", then your claim has been proven by helioseismology to be false.
 
Hellbound said:
(Psst! This is what everyone has been asking for in the past several pages years. You seem unable to seperate your personal opinion from anythign you can show actual evidence of. You're confusion your interpretation fo the image for hard evidence when you've shown nothing to support your interpretation).
Click to expand...


Minor editorial repair.
 
Hellbound said:
There.

I took out the supposition and assumptions you had in there. So what we're left with is:
Click to expand...

You left out a few Hinode images I've posted here over the years. :) Do I need to post images in every post? :)

1. Discharges through plasma cause light.
Click to expand...

Ya, and only a "discharge" is going to produce light over those ranges of wavelengths. The discharges in our atmosphere do that, including gamma rays (I'll find a link if you like). They do that too in the solar atmosphere. The the only "natural" way these things happen.

2. You like that picture.
Click to expand...

Yes, for a variety of reasons in fact. By the way, whats the 'brightest" part of that image, the upper loops, or something lower in the atmosphere?

3. This shows up in wavelengths besides the visual.
Click to expand...

http://solar-b.nao.ac.jp/news_e/20061213_flare_e.shtml

http://solar-b.nao.ac.jp/news/070321Flare/SOT_ca_061213flare_cl_lg_frame_076.bmp

Any evidence that it's representative of something bellow the surface, rather than your personal opinion?
Click to expand...

Plenty. There are tons of pieces of evidence to confirm this, particularly in the Hinode data due to the extreme resolution of that spacecraft and the fact it has so many instruments on board.

For the record I have tried to build my case *strictly* from publicly available images so that people like GM could not accuse me of tampering with evidence or in his cause outright fraud. That's below the belt, but I knew those types of people exist in the world.

I will eventually put forth some Hinode and STEREO images to make my case, but I have a lot of downloading to do, a day job, and even then there will be GM and his stupid way of doing "science" by public crucifixion to deal with and then what?

Take a look at that Hinode video I posted for sol earlier and explain to me why the pattern of coronal loops lines up beautifully with the penumbral filaments of the sunspot.

There is a direct physical connection between the flow of the coronal loops and the penumbral filament pattern in that image. Why?
 
FYI, I really like that still image. It captures a "lit filament" flowing back down into that "opaque layer" these guys keep talking about. :)
 
Michael Mozina said:
I do find it interesting that you're still trying peddle what Alfven called "pseudoscience" his entire life. If that's not a "conspiracy" to kludge his work, I don't know what else to call it.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't know what else to call it. If you honestly believe it's a giant conspiracy, then you should call it a conspiracy.

But what about the conspiracy of textbook writers to portray thermodynamics as being valid? I'm more interested in that conspiracy, because that's the one which is keeping perpetual motion machines out of the hands of the public.
 
So. Nothing but your interpretation of images, again? (You realize that adding additional subjective interpretations does not make your original subjective interpretation magically objective somehow).

Do you have any math to show what size of discharge would create a glow with the observed characteristics in a plasma of your proposed composition (just like flourescent lights, the wavelengths emitted and intensity thereof depend on the specific substances involved and the voltage running through them)?

Any experimentally proven theory that supports your interpretation, which you can show in a quantifiable manner?

Anything at all beyond "This is what they look like to me...", which you've argued since you got here is somehow equal to science?

Call me when you have something beyond supposition.
 
dasmiller said:
So, do you believe the white areas in that image are reflected light from the coronal loop, or is there some other mechanism related to the loop that's making the white areas glow?
Click to expand...

If you look at that image carefully you'll note that the brightest areas are not the loops themselves, but the photosphere. That is because the photosphere is primarily composed of neon and is most sensitive to the electrical current in terms of it's white light output. The loops are primarily heavier elements like iron and also lighter elements like carbon, but it's not as efficient at creating white light. The light on the surface cannot be a reflection from the loops, otherwise the loops would be the brightest thing in the image and the surface reflections would be less bright.
 
Michael Mozina said:
If you look at that image carefully you'll note that the brightest areas are not the loops themselves, but the photosphere. That is because the photosphere is primarily composed of neon and is most sensitive to the electrical current in terms of it's white light output. The loops are primarily heavier elements like iron and also lighter elements like carbon, but it's not as efficient at creating white light. The light on the surface cannot be a reflection from the loops, otherwise the loops would be the brightest thing in the image and the surface reflections would be less bright.
Click to expand...

Oh!

A testible prediction!

So, why doesn't this abundance of neon show up in any spectroscopic data?
 
Hellbound said:
Do you have any math [...]
Click to expand...


You might as well hold up right there, Hellbound. Lest anyone misunderstand the present situation here, let's clear this up right now. Michael has never shown that he has any math. In all the years of his attempting to sell this crackpot conjecture he has never assembled anything into a quantitative description. He hasn't even shown that he has the math skills to balance his own checkbook. To put it simply, he does not have the qualifications necessary to apply any mathematical support to his claims.

Let me help you with the answer to this one, Michael. You say, "No, Hellbound, I don't have any math." :p

Oh. You're welcome. :)
 
Hellbound said:
So, why doesn't this abundance of neon show up in any spectroscopic data?
Click to expand...


Duh. Because just like all the people at NASA and LMSAL, just like everyone who works in any professional capacity in the field of physics anywhere on this planet, the people who invented the science of spectroscopy, those who designed the equipment, and those who analyze the data obtained by that equipment are just plain wrong. Everyone is either involved in a conspiracy to keep the information to themselves lest they lose their precious funding, or they're just follow the leader sheep who believe everything they read in the textbooks even though it's wrong, or they're stupider than Michael, or they didn't stare at the pictures of the data long enough to see what Michael sees.

There, Michael. Saved you the trouble of typing the answer. :D
 
Michael Mozina said:
You jumped a few steps here somewhere, or at least lost me somewhere. *Prior to Kosovichev's paper*, can you cite one single paper that "predicted" this layer to be there at around .995R and predicts this sort of pattern of behavior?
Click to expand...

Not off the top of my head, but a quick googling shows papers going back a long way that discuss the convection zone. First one I found was from 1965.

I don't see how you jumped from "upwelling plasma that eventually reaches the surface and cools off, and a "subsurface stratifcation" at .995R that changes with the solar cycle and creates "rigid" patterns under the photosphere.
Click to expand...

It's a basic feature of convection currents. They flow up, get near the upper surface, then spread and sink again. This creates a layer of horizontal flows the top (starting near 0.995R in this case). If the sun has convection, which can be clearly seen in video of the surface of the sun, then there is a boundary layer at the top where the flows change direction.

The "rigid" patterns are a separate issue, because they appear temporarily in RD images generated from data about light ABOVE the photosphere.
 
Michael Mozina said:
He means except for the published papers of course. I'm sure he wasn't trying to mislead you or anything....

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
Click to expand...

So instead of pointing me to a l;ist of everything you've ever published, leaving me to wade through pages and pages that don't concernt he specific question I asked, can you point me to wher those specific questions get answered? Or at least the specific paper?

You're the one trying to support your theory; if you don't care enough to provide the evidence in an accessible manner, that's your choice.
 
Hellbound said:
Oh!

A testible prediction!

So, why doesn't this abundance of neon show up in any spectroscopic data?
Click to expand...

Actually it does show up in the spectral data. This whole model was built using SERTS spectroscopic data. At first I was highly perplexed by the various neon ions present in the data until I realized that some of these ions were being ionized in/by the coronal loops.

Gas model theory is based on the *ASSUMPTION* that every element in the sun is mixed and stays exactly at the same temperature at the surface of the photosphere.

In reality however plasmas separate, particularly around EM fields and heavier elements like iron tend to sink to the lower and cooler areas, whereas the upper atmosphere (where it's hottest) is primarily composed of hydrogen and helium. The hydrogen corona radiates at the hottest temperatures. The primarily helium chromosphere is also much hotter than the photosphere. They count up photons and "assume" an abundance figure that has no useful purpose since the elements don't stay mixed.

I actually had an epiphany moment when I finally realized that the photosphere was composed of a thin layer of neon, and then and only then did the SERTS data make any sense to me.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Gas model theory is based on the *ASSUMPTION* that every element in the sun is mixed and stays exactly at the same temperature at the surface of the photosphere.
Click to expand...


Obviously that's one of the most ludicrous and ill informed statements you've made since you started this nonsense. But I'm sure if you believe it to be true, you'll be glad to meet your own standards here and bring on the evidence or, well...

Michael Mozina said:
Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that [fantasy] out of your ^ss.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom