Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
GeeMack said:
Yet you haven't even bothered to measure it.
Click to expand...

Sure I did and gave you those numbers. They range anywhere from about 2000KM to about 3750KM with most of the filaments flowing down the hole about 3000KM.

The lower boundary number comes from upper portion of the image where I'm looking directly at the "wall" of the filament, and the right hand side of the image where the curvature of the filament can be measured. The upper number is more of average from looking at all the threads. D'rok was actually correct about the longest thread, although I had to hunt for it because I missed it at first. I found the upper number that he came up with in the upper right side of that image by the way. Those particular sets of filaments however are highly angular so they do not descent directly into the umbra.
 
Skwinty said:
Big mistake relying on your "sense" or intuition in these matters Michael. Yet you can unequivically state greater than 500km.:eek:
Click to expand...

There no "intuition" involved. Look on the right side of the image and notice the curvature of the filaments. They curve DOWN a measurable distance, as do all the filaments.

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

That curvature is a valid measure of distance, as is the "wall" of the top (left) of the umbra. I can even watch the convection process going up and down the filaments!
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Sure I did and gave you those numbers. They range anywhere from about 2000KM to about 3750KM with most of the filaments flowing down the hole about 3000KM.

The lower boundary number comes from upper portion of the image where I'm looking directly at the "wall" of the filament, and the right hand side of the image where the curvature of the filament can be measured. The upper number is more of average from looking at all the threads. D'rok was actually correct about the longest thread, although I had to hunt for it because I missed it at first. I found the upper number that he came up with in the upper right side of that image by the way. Those particular sets of filaments however are highly angular so they do not descent directly into the umbra.
Click to expand...

D'rok doesn't think that he measured depth at all. That's a top-down 2d image of a landscape for which I have no visual frame of reference. However, I am quite certain that the scale on the side of the image does not represent depth.
 
Michael Mozina said:
That makes no difference at all.
Click to expand...

It makes all the difference in the world.

It was a perfect assumption in fact, and it certainly does describe what we're looking at.
Click to expand...

No, Michael, it does not. Not at all. There is no external illumination in that image, Michael.

When I asked her why she thought it was a hole in the clouds, she even pointed out to me she could see under layer of the clouds into the hole where the "stuff was falling". She *NAILED* it.
Click to expand...

No, Michael, she did not. Rather, her interpretation based on complete ignorance of the image happens to coincide with your interpretation. That does not mean her interpretation is correct. In this case, it means that your interpretation is likewise ignorant. A correct interpretation must include the rather crucial fact that it is not externally illuminated.

White light images? What white light images? Honestly, you folks are absolutely *TERRIBLE* at image interpretation.
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to sort out exactly how confused you are about white light. You mentioned a white light filter earlier. Care to clarify what you meant? What is a white light filter, Michael?
 
D'rok said:
D'rok doesn't think that he measured depth at all. That's a top-down 2d image of a landscape for which I have no visual frame of reference. However, I am quite certain that the scale on the side of the image does not represent depth.
Click to expand...

I only asked you to tell me the length of the penumbral filaments and you came up with "great" numbers actually. I wasn't trying to put any words in your mouth about depth. Sorry if there was any confusion.
 
Perpetual Student said:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/im...wholeFOV-2.mpg

That is quite a remarkable video. Without expert guidance, however, I would have no idea how to interpret it. I believe it is only your hubris that allows you do do so!
Click to expand...

Ya, "hubris" and 20 years of studying solar satellite images. Why in the world would it be "hubris" to "interpret" a visual image that even falls into the visible spectrum? I do it every day. Don't you?

Somehow you think the sun is "magic" and can't be "understood" by mere mortals? Come on.
 
It seems to me that Michael's method is like looking at a satellite image of some region of the earth obscured by clouds, and trying to draw conclusions about the unseen terrain below based on the shape of the clouds and the movement of weather systems.
 
Maybe he has been drinking too much iron brew and has developed an iron crust around his cerebral cortex:p
 
Michael Mozina said:
Sure I did and gave you those numbers. They range anywhere from about 2000KM to about 3750KM with most of the filaments flowing down the hole about 3000KM.

The lower boundary number comes from upper portion of the image where I'm looking directly at the "wall" of the filament, and the right hand side of the image where the curvature of the filament can be measured. The upper number is more of average from looking at all the threads. D'rok was actually correct about the longest thread, although I had to hunt for it because I missed it at first. I found the upper number that he came up with in the upper right side of that image by the way. Those particular sets of filaments however are highly angular so they do not descent directly into the umbra.
Click to expand...


You guessed. You haven't measured it. Guessing is not measuring.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ya, "hubris" and 20 years of studying solar satellite images. Why in the world would it be "hubris" to "interpret" a visual image that even falls into the visible spectrum? I do it every day. Don't you?

Somehow you think the sun is "magic" and can't be "understood" by mere mortals? Come on.
Click to expand...

Therein lies your problem. The sun is some 90 million miles away; we are looking at it through lenses and filters; the processes going on are totally foreign to the purpose for which our eyes and mind have evolved to interpret. That why experts with their models based on current understanding of the nature of matter and energy and mathematics are needed to understand what we are seeing.

Simply looking and deciding what you are seeing is absurd!
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Ya, "hubris" and 20 years of studying solar satellite images. Why in the world would it be "hubris" to "interpret" a visual image that even falls into the visible spectrum? I do it every day. Don't you?
Click to expand...


It's interesting that after 20 years, when your qualifications to properly understand solar imagery are challenged, you're unable to demonstrate that you have the qualifications. Wow. :eek:
 
Michael, here is a definition of a white light filter.
Quite close to 100% opacity.

Thousand Oaks full spectrum (white light) solar filters are made of high quality hand-selected glass, coated with Thousand Oaks’ exclusive Solar II Plus multicoatings. These metallic coatings are the most durable on the market. They consist of thin layers of vacuum-deposited nickel, chrome, and stainless steel on the inside surface of the glass substrate, where they are protected against damage during use. The coatings reject 99.999% of the Sun’s entire spectrum of energy
 
D'rok said:
It seems to me that Michael's method is like looking at a satellite image of some region of the earth obscured by clouds, and trying to draw conclusions about the unseen terrain below based on the shape of the clouds and the movement of weather systems.
Click to expand...


Only on Earth the clouds typically start less than a couple of kilometers above the terrain and might be up to around 20 kilometers thick. Whereas in Michael's magical claim, there is somewhere between one and three thousand kilometers of opaque "cloud" covering what he believes he's seeing.
 
Perpetual Student said:
Therein lies your problem. The sun is some 90 million miles away; we are looking at it through lenses and filters; the processes going on are totally foreign to the purpose for which our eyes and mind have evolved to interpret.
Click to expand...

What in the world makes you think that the processes are "foreign" when the light I'm talking about is found in the visible spectrum? Our eyes *evolved* because of that bright shiny layer and they were designed from the start to "understand it".

That why experts with their models based on current understanding of the nature of matter and energy and mathematics are needed to understand what we are seeing.

Simply looking and deciding what you are seeing is absurd!
Click to expand...

Boloney. I can watch a lightening discharge in the atmosphere of Earth, understand nothing about the math, but still have a pretty good idea of how it works, where it happened and I can know it's "dangerous". Not all forms of knowledge are mathematical in nature!

The problem with mainstream is that they crippled and blinded by their own *INCORRECT* mathematical theories, and their math doesn't jive with the images, not even the visible spectrum.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Our eyes *evolved* because of that bright shiny layer and they were designed from the start to "understand it"..
Click to expand...


The eyes do not understand anything, they merely record and transmit photon signals to the brain. The brain does all the "understanding".

The brain is routinely wrong about "understanding" these signals.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The problem with mainstream is that they crippled and blinded by their own *INCORRECT* mathematical theories, and their math doesn't jive with the images, not even the visible spectrum.
Click to expand...


Well it looks like you're about to step up to the plate and prove them wrong on their own terms, aren't you?

Michael Mozina said:
Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math.
Click to expand...


Any estimate as to when we can expect to see the results of this effort?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom