Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

No, not really. In Gband, it's like looking at the clouds and only seeing the clouds except for that one hole in the center of a hurricane. Based on the hole in the cloud layer, I presume that there's something underneath that layer. The iron ion wavelengths and doppler images allow me to see below the cloud layer to the surface below.
 
Last edited:
Skwinty said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's also routinely (usually) right. That's hardly an argument IMO.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg

I suggest you start by believing your own eyes. There's simply no way that the length of the penumbral filaments supports their "opacity" claims, and that's only the start. ....
Click to expand...
I suggest that you start by telling us what the length of the penumbral filaments tells you.
To anyone with a brain, it says that they are visible in the wavelength of light being imaged. That means that that they are like every other feature of the photosphere - visible because they are emitting light that is not blocked by the opacity of the photosphere.
Can you understand that the photosphere is defined to be opaque?

Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
At least I can pick out coronal rain in an RD image.
Click to expand...


There is nothing in a running difference graph except a bunch of pixels, the values of which were derived from a series of mathematical computations. It's math, Michael. You wouldn't understand. A running difference graph is a chart showing the difference in the values of thermal data between a pair of source images. You won't find any professional solar physicist who disagrees with that. It is simple, common knowledge among everyone with the proper qualifications to analyze and understand this type of imagery.

So although you may believe you can pick out something solid from a running difference graph, you can't. Your argument is easily explained by any of several mundane possibilities. Optical illusion is the most likely. Hallucinations and delusions are a couple of other common explanations for seeing things that aren't really there.
 
Where has any one in this thread claimed that the umbra is 2D

Michael Mozina said:
It's very informative too. One can look at the images without a lot of preconceived ideas and easily see the 3D nature of the penumbra. She had no clue what to call anything in the image, and I didn't need to prompt her in the least. She immediately recognized it as a "layer" that had depth and understood that material was flowing into the umbra without me saying anything. . The only kind of person that might try to claim it's a 2D feature is someone that *NEEDS* that feature to be flat, or has been *TOLD* that it is flat. Nobody else would make that mistake IMO, not even a child.
Click to expand...
First asked 23 April 2010
Michael Mozina,
Where has any one in this thread claimed that the umbra or any other feature of the Sun is 2D?

What people have been pointing out to you is the obvious fact that self-illuminated images of the Sun, especially when looking down on a feature, do not show depth information. Even externally illuminated images are hard to interpret unless you now where the light sources are, e.g. it is easy to confuse a crater for a hill and vice versa.

I and others have pointed out to you many times that sunspots are depressions in the photosphere whith a maximum estimated depth of 1000 kilometers. That is definitely 3D.

Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
 
Last edited:
Wow, this is a long thread. Too much talk about the Sun! Let's talk about Jupiter.

Jupiter has mountains! You can see them corotating with the planet underneath the cloud tops. Look at all of that solid structure. If it weren't solid it would not persist from frame to frame. Due to the whitish color I infer that it's a shell of solid platinum, or maybe lithium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:790106-0203_Voyager_58M_to_31M_reduced.gif

Moreover, Jupiter's flares obviously go 4011.23+/- 18.75 km beneath the cloud tops, so the clouds are obviously not opaque. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jupiter.Aurora.HST.UV.jpg

Finally, when comet Shoemaker-Levy punched a hole in the cloud tops it OBVIOUSLY made the dark surface visible underneath! Look! You can see the dark surface and some features on it. It's a black lake, or maybe a lava flow, with a somewhat browner rocky (limestone?) shoreline and perhaps a parking lot or boat launch to the left. Mainstream astronomers have been ignoring this evidence for over a decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hs-2009-23-crop.jpg
 
Is Michael Mozina's claim of measuring the curvature of the filaments true

Michael Mozina said:
Not true. I can measure the curvature of the filaments even in the Gband image. The "sides" of the walls give me a depth number as well, I just need to pick an "angle" for the filaments and select a range of them to come up with an average. I need more backgound info on the image, but I can definitely get a sense of depth from the image, and it's definitely greater than 500Km.
Click to expand...
First asked 23 April 2010
Michael Mozina.
Oh good then you have a answer to:
Or is this post not true?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Not true. I can measure the curvature of the filaments even in the Gband image. The "sides" of the walls give me a depth number as well, I just need to pick an "angle" for the filaments and select a range of them to come up with an average. I need more backgound info on the image, but I can definitely get a sense of depth from the image, and it's definitely greater than 500Km.
Click to expand...

If you use two images taken at different angles of the same feature, then you can gauge depth using trigonometry.

Until then it can be an optical illusion, appearances can be deceiving.

But for many reasons it would be an error to gauge depth from appearnce.
 
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...


Where were the depth figures derived?
 
Dancing David said:
Except for when it isn't!
Click to expand...

http://adrianmott.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/hurricane9.jpg

Oh look, another 3D feature in an 'atmosphere' of a body in this solar system that looks very similar to the sunspot images. Is that a 2D feature or a 3D feature? Is that cloud layer "opaque" too because it reflects(earth)/emits(solar) visible light?

Oh, and don't try to tell me that the sun's atmosphere doesn't experience tornadoes.

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_991127.mov
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
http://adrianmott.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/hurricane9.jpg

Oh look, another 3D feature in an 'atmosphere' of a body in this solar system that looks very similar to the sunspot images.
Click to expand...

Except for all the massive differences. Starting with the fact that the hurricane is externally illuminated, whereas the sunspot images are not. That external illumination is what creates shadows, which we can interpret to give the image the appearance of depth.

But there are no shadows in the sunspot image, Michael. Because it's not externally illuminated.
 
Last edited:
Yes, all those things you are asking about are opaque. Can you see through them?
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://adrianmott.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/hurricane9.jpg

Oh look, another 3D feature in an 'atmosphere' of a body in this solar system that looks very similar to the sunspot images. Is that a 2D feature or a 3D feature? Is that cloud layer "opaque" too because it reflects(earth)/emits(solar) visible light?
Click to expand...


How deep is it? In numbers. Quantitative, no guessing. And how do you measure it from looking at that picture?

Oh, and speaking of opaque, what city is that underneath the hurricane?

Oh, and don't try to tell me that the sun's atmosphere doesn't experience tornadoes.
Click to expand...


You're looking at a picture of a hurricane and talking about tornadoes. So your lack of qualification to understand and properly interpret an image isn't just limited to solar images.

How are you coming along destroying mainstream solar theory with that math you've been recently motivated to do?

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...
 
Michael Mozina said:
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".
Click to expand...

No, our eyes did not evolve to see detail in the surface of the sun. They evolved in a world where everything we saw was illuminated externally. Before we came along, how many objects on earth emitted bright light from their entire surface?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Both of those issues are entirely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No, Michael, they are absolutely central.

Oh look, *ANOTHER* such structure around *ANOTHER* body in the solar system. Is that 2D or 3D? Is that surface "opaque" too?
Click to expand...

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMDGJC4VUE_index_1.html
Check out the last image montage, Michael. The image you linked to does not in fact indicate depth. The depth of various structures is inferred from the difference in images taken at various wavelengths, since the optical depth varies with wavelength. Perhaps this will confuse you, since I don't think you understand optical depth, but those images are in fact VERY different from your hurricane on earth image, and interpreting them as such is a major mistake. Note in particular the white spot in the lower left corner of the top left frame. Note what happens to it as you move across the top three images. It goes from lighter than its surroundings to darker than its surroundings. Oops. Doesn't fit your hurricane example, does it?
 
phunk said:
No, our eyes did not evolve to see detail in the surface of the sun. They evolved in a world where everything we saw was illuminated externally.
Click to expand...

:) Ya, "illuminated" by that bright shiny layer of the sun! :)

By design, our human eyes evolved *BECAUSE OF* the light from that surface. There isn't any structure in nature more turned, and more designed to observe that bright surface than our eyes and our brains. The wavelength in question falls into the visible spectrum of our human eyes. That surface is the "external light source" that eyes evolved to be able to observe from the moment eyes began to evolve in the very first creatures on Earth.

Before we came along, how many objects on earth emitted bright light from their entire surface?
Click to expand...

Our eyes didn't evolve based on a light source on Earth, but from the very surface we're looking at in the visible spectrum in gband images.

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

Our human eyes, and our human brains have "evolved" *because of" that surface. There are no better tools in this solar system with which to study that layer than our human eyes and our human brains.
 
Last edited:
phunk said:
Yes, all those things you are asking about are opaque. Can you see through them?
Click to expand...

Yes. I see through them in every iron ion wavelength, including all the SDO images I looked at yesterday. It's actually a pity IMO that SDO doesn't have a silicon turned channel. That would be cool. I can live without it.

I just want to see real time overlays (raw unprocessed images) of the iron ion wavelengths and either one of the two photosphere channels. That should be very revealing. The iron ion wavelengths *MUST* come up through the surface of the photosphere or my theory falls apart. That's a valid and important "prediction" of this model by the way. FYI, I will accept that a failure of that specific prediction is a valid method of falsification of this theory too.

If however I am correct, then the "transition region" is not located above the photosphere as LMSAL *ASSUMED* before launch, but *under* the surface of the photosphere.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom