Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
GeeMack said:
Word salad. Care to run that through a translator?
Click to expand...

I guess that's to be expected since your native language is Ferengi.

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/1/17882/360354-136400-ferengi_large.jpg

I want your scalp, literally (well, just hair). If you're bald, I want your eyebrows.

I want to see you commit to the location of the opaque outline in RD SDO image at 171A. You've claimed to be such the "expert" on RD images, so you of all people should be willing to bet your head of hair on the location of the opaque outline in a RD image with respect to the chromosphere/photosphere border. If it's on the inside, I get your scalp. If you're right, I'll shave my head bald and send you my hair. Bet?

Oh ya, you have to post a picture too. :)
 
Last edited:
Hellbound said:
This is correct.

Because the image features you're pointing at are explained by basic optics and geometry/trigonometry...not solar theory.

The images are consistent with current solar theory, though.
Click to expand...

No, they are entirely inconsistent with the images because the opaque outline in the iron ion wavelengths is less than the photosphere/chromosphere ring. There's no possible way that could happen if the emmisions started 1200KM into the atmosphere as LMSAL claims.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, they are entirely inconsistent with the images because the opaque outline in the iron ion wavelengths is less than the photosphere/chromosphere ring. There's no possible way that could happen if the emmisions started 1200KM into the atmosphere as LMSAL claims.
Click to expand...

And right here is where you assume your conclusion. That's a logical error.

You assume the lines are under the photosphere with no proof...and this based on an uncalibrated PR image.
It's much more likely you're seeing emission lines above the photosphere, at an angle.

You can't assume what you're trying to prove. Science doesn't work that way.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I might be able to provide you with decent number if I fully understood why the 94A wavelength is different from the rest. That might give me a real clue on what's "different" about that wavelength and that might help me calculate energy states. Something however is visibly unique about that one iron ion wavelength, and I need to know what it is before I can take a good shot at giving your a real number.

Any other number I might give you seems like pulling a number out of a hat to me right now, and I don't see the point in just "guessing' without some shed of evidence to go on.
Click to expand...

OK.

But you do realize what that means? It means you don't have a model that can be confirmed (or even tested) in a lab or by observations of the sun. You simply have to posit that there exists a type of plasma that has all the characteristics you need, even though you can't find any set of parameters that reproduce those characteristics using known plasma physics.

In other words - at least for the moment - you're inventing a new state of matter, something never observed in a lab or understood theoretically, in order to get your theory to fit the data. Some people might call that a "bunny" or "gnome" or "elf". Unfortunately it makes your model unfalsifiable, because it means that you can always adjust the characteristics of the Moplazma™ to account for any new observations.

So until you can give me some parameters, or tell me what conditions to create in a lab to make some Moplazma™ so I can study it, we - and you - are stuck.

Meanwhile - will you respond to Ben? Your theory may be unfalsifiable, but the standard model certainly isn't. You believe the SDO image falsifies the standard model. If so, Ben's SM explanation of it must be wrong. Can you tell us how?
 
Michael Mozina said:
I want to see you commit to the location of the opaque outline in RD SDO image at 171A. You've claimed to be such the "expert" on RD images, so you of all people should be willing to bet your head of hair on the location of the opaque outline in a RD image with respect to the chromosphere/photosphere border. If it's on the inside, I get your scalp. If you're right, I'll shave my head bald and send you my hair. Bet?
Click to expand...


Which image are you referring to? Post the link again if you would.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Any other number I might give you seems like pulling a number out of a hat to me right now, and I don't see the point in just "guessing' without some shed of evidence to go on.
Click to expand...

Excellent! Until such time as you do have a shred of evidence to go on regarding the opacity and ionization of solar plasma, I take it you are retracting guesses like this crap, eh?

Michael Mozina said:
The reason the optical depth issue does not apply is specifically related to the electrical current flowing from the surface to the heliosphere. It ionizes the atmosphere around the sun, making it possible for that light to move through the highly energized ions.
Click to expand...
 
Michael, you've just had several intelligent, educated people (also me) giving you a personalized lesson in stellar astronomy. Thousands of undergrads across the US have paid hundreds of dollars for a less thorough, less personalized lesson in how limb darkening works---which might consist of one or two lectures in a stellar astronomy course and a half chapter in the textbook. Yet you appear to have ignored the whole thing. Utterly ignored. I know plenty of students who skip (and fail) the classes that they paid thousands of dollars for, but I've never had someone show up at office hours for the sole purpose of tuning out.

I don't see one thing in any post of yours that acknowledges that someone said something about spherical geometry. (Not even to say "Your spherical geometry is wrong" or "I thought about your spherical geometry and I will get back to it later" or "You're right but I think my model still works".) Nothing. Just more posts looking at more photos with the same unintelligible "interpretations". Hello? Anyone home? Hellooooooooo????
 
Last edited:
Look folks, you have to commit to something. We could go on forever and ever and ever if you aren't willing to bet something, if only a public change of opinion on the topic. I'm willing to bet. I'm willing to make some predictions related to the SDO images. I'm willing to bet on the neon issue as well. If you're not prepared to bet something, what's the point of continuing the conversation at all?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Look folks, you have to commit to something. We could go on forever and ever and ever if you aren't willing to bet something, if only a public change of opinion on the topic. I'm willing to bet. I'm willing to make some predictions related to the SDO images. I'm willing to bet on the neon issue as well. If you're not prepared to bet something, what's the point of continuing the conversation at all?
Click to expand...

No one will take you up, because the entire argument for several pages has hinged on your mis-interpretation of the images.

Which means any new images you'll find one to poitn to and say "See, this proves my theory!" and everyone else will point out the errors in your interpretation, and go to great lengths to explain what you are actually seeing and why, including doing the math (as was done with this last image and your iron lines).

Then you'll ignore it, insist that what you think is correct, and then stomp off blaming us for "cheating" you on your bet.

It's a no-win game, because you don't have the capacity to be taught. You don't understand the solar model you claim to be wrong (which is obvious by your posts and many of your non-sensical questions). You don't even understand your own model any more than a colelction of vaguely formed ideas.

No one wants to play that game with you, Michael. And that is exactly what it is, a game. It's not research, it's not science.
 
sol invictus said:
OK.

But you do realize what that means? It means you don't have a model that can be confirmed (or even tested) in a lab or by observations of the sun. You simply have to posit that there exists a type of plasma that has all the characteristics you need, even though you can't find any set of parameters that reproduce those characteristics using known plasma physics.
Click to expand...

Please don't tell me you're complaining about reverse engineering or "postdicting" a fit?

You're going to eventually have to do exactly the same thing sooner or later, even if you intend to stick with a plasma based model. It HAS to have a highly ionized atmosphere sol. There's no other way that the opaque limb in iron ion wavelengths can reside inside of the chromosphere/photosphere boundary!

In other words - at least for the moment - you're inventing a new state of matter, something never observed in a lab or understood theoretically, in order to get your theory to fit the data. Some people might call that a "bunny" or "gnome" or "elf".
Click to expand...

Don't get me started. Electricity is *KNOWN AND DEMONSTRATED* to ionize matter. Your dark energy elves and inflation bunnies are always a no show in the lab.

Unfortunately it makes your model unfalsifiable, because it means that you can always adjust the characteristics of the Moplazma™ to account for any new observations.
Click to expand...

Like you don't do that with you models? Give me a break. I'm simply trying to come up with a logical explanation for what I observe whereas you're simply ignoring the fact that the opaque limb line of the iron is 4800 KM under something you claim is "opaque" at 3.5 meters!

So until you can give me some parameters, or tell me what conditions to create in a lab to make some Moplazma™ so I can study it, we - and you - are stuck.
Click to expand...

If I understand what is unique about 94A, I can probably come up with a good ballpark answer. Without understanding why that wavelength is unique, I could be several OOM off in either direction.

Don't you want numbers based on some sort of shred of scientific evidence, or would you just prefer I picked a number out of a hat? I already said you could use 10^10 from Alfven's work, but honestly I think Birkeland's work is a better resource. Even still I'd be guessing.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Look folks, you have to commit to something. We could go on forever and ever and ever if you aren't willing to bet something, if only a public change of opinion on the topic. I'm willing to bet. I'm willing to make some predictions related to the SDO images. I'm willing to bet on the neon issue as well. If you're not prepared to bet something, what's the point of continuing the conversation at all?
Click to expand...

Seriously, Michael, you can't even put two coherent sentences together about the images you already have. You still don't have a model for the original SDI image (not a model anyone understands---FILL IN THE ASCII ART to change that), much less a model for any scrap of the 12 years' worth of TRACE images, much less a model for the 200 years' worth of stellar optical astronomy. Heck, at the moment you don't have a model for the fact that the Sun emits white light---your model (as far as I can tell) predict that it emits predominantly far-UV lines (from the ultra hot, optically thin neon shell) and a near-IR blackbody (from the cool iron behind it).

But you think the upcoming SDO releases are the most important thing? That's like saying, "My model predicts that gravity makes things fall upwards, not downwards. My model therefore makes a prediction for the Home Run Derby at this year's All-Star game. Anyone want to bet?" Don't be a moron.
 
Michael,
There is a program on BBC K next month called "Bang goes the Theory"
I'm sure you will enjoy it and learn something in the progress:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom