Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tubbythin said:
They've predicted a model that obeys the laws of thermodynamics. Unlike you.


The proponents of the standard theory have, been very patient and tried to help you understand where and why you are so very wrong and you have responded by insulting them and making incredibly arrogant statements from a position of ignorance.
By the way Michael, have you ever encountered a partition function or the Saha equation?
Click to expand...

Could you explain the partition bit for those of us following along?

just the vague outline will do. Thanks :)
 
Dancing David said:
DeiRenDopa said:
I'm waiting for someone, anyone, to comment on what total solar eclipses should - and do - tell us, about opacity; the radial ordering of photosphere, chromosphere, transition region, and corona; etc.
Click to expand...
Well, welcome to this week DRD, last week we all focused on the opacity issue, because it would be useful to demonstrate that the RD images can show something under 3,000 km. of plasma.

But once MM found out that neon could be transparent if it was at a high temperature only and that the 171A light would only travel 3.5 meters. So now he will uimagine this neon is 3,000 km.m highly ionized but not 6,000 F

Well, he wisely changed the subject, unlike the Casmir effect and cartoon pages, which he carried on for at least two weeks.

MM knowns enough to know his boat is sunk.

So we have two issues he can't explain and will avoid.

1. The composition of the solar wind being mixed ions and neutral material.
2. The opacity of the plasma is such that you can't see 3,000 km. through it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I got the opacity part.

However, my question also asks about the relative ordering of four parts of the Sun: photosphere, chromosphere, transition region, and corona.

Irrespective of opacity, surely total solar eclipse observations should be able to tell us something about which is above (i.e. further from the centre of the Sun, radially) what. As I understand it, MM's claim is that the radial ordering is something like this: chromosphere, transition region, photosphere, corona (or perhaps transition region, chromosphere, photosphere, corona).
 
Tubbythin said:
Michael Mozina said:
Every scientific theory is judged based upon it's ability to accurately "predict' things.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. Every scientific theory is judged first and foremost on how it matches with the experimental data. The ability to predict things makes it a practical tool, but only if the theory is consistent with the data that already exists. If it isn't - if, for example, it contradicts the laws of thermodynamics - then the predictive power of the theory is useless. The theory is wrong, so who cares what it predicts?

[...]
Click to expand...
Prediction is interesting, but far from sufficient.

An essential feature of a scientific theory/hypothesis/prediction/etc is its objective, independently verifiable nature; can anyone examine the theory/hypothesis/prediction/etc, work through the details, and confirm that the conclusions are logically valid, consistent, etc?

In the case of a prediction, can anyone take the underlying theory/hypothesis/etc, starting values/inputs/etc, then crunch the numbers (apply the logic, methods, etc), to produce the same prediction? And can this anyone write this out, so that anyone else can check it, independently?

If not, then it's useless, as science (oracles are not scientists).

One thing I've noticed about MM's ideas is that they seem to be irreproducable; no one seems to be able to use the same starting point - Birkeland's published work, say, or an image of the Sun - do the same analyses MM did, and produce the same result.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Snipe, snipe, whine, whine. Ante up with something quantitative based on standard solar theory that is different than I have predicted. If you can't or won't do that, or bet your public position on one the three items on my previous prediction list, you aren't in the game. Let's see your numbers.
Click to expand...

At least I gave a full explanation of Birkelands terrella experiments and how they (did not) describe the sun. Anything remotely similar from you is ... oh there is nothing.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
D'rok said:
Apologies if someone posted this already, but holy crap!

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2010/04/27/AIA_20100419_1200_2100_304_211_171_hihres.mov
Click to expand...

I have a question for those who understand (better than I do) how these things are created.

I appreciate that we're not dealing with calibrated, science images, and that in converting uncalibrated pixel intensity values to what is displayed involves considerable lossy compression.

So we have a square (?) array of RGB values (integers? reals?) - a frame. And we have another frame, taken some time later (1 second? 1 minute? something else??). Assume that the frames are correctly registered - pixel (x, y) in one frame is in the same direction (relative to the centre of the Sun) as every frame's (x, y) pixel - and there are no time-dependent geometric distortions.

What would two consecutive RGB frames look like? As in three pairs of images: R(t=1), R(t=2); G(t=1), G(t=2); B(t=1), B(t=2). How difficult would it be to make those images from the .mov file? How could anyone - other than those who produced the .mov file - make these images themselves (in principle)?
Click to expand...


The SDO instruments are acquiring a frame every ten seconds. I don't know what frequency they used to make that video, but even if it's showing each frame, it's running at 30 frames per second, so that's at least 300 times real speed. I also don't know which combination of filters were used to make that video, but for the sake of example, let's say it's a composite of videos acquired from three filters, 171Å, 193Å, and 211Å. NASA colors the original data images blue, green, and red respectively.

The first thing you'd need is some video processing software which will save the movie, or a select group of frames, to a series of still frames. Most high-end video software probably does this in a batch, but even the cheap ones will probably let you save any particular frame. (Saving many frames one at a time wouldn't be fun.) Also, there are many common video formats to convert from, and many common image formats to convert to, so those things have to be considered. But, moving on...

Now we have a series of frames from a video saved as individual images. Each pixel in a RGB image contains a mathematical representation of the combination of varying amounts of those three colors. By reversing the math, in a manner of speaking, the original amounts of each color can be determined. This can be easily done with most high-end image processing software like PhotoShop. Once you (or the software) have the original combination you can remove selected amounts of selected colors. So the blue and green are removed entirely from a frame, leaving what started out as just the red. The blue and red are removed, leaving just the green. And the green and red are removed, leaving just the blue.

Save these three individual color copies as separate image files and voila! Barring the lossy compression and artifacts, the three output images are pretty much exactly the red, green, and blue images that we started with. If there are more color combinations in the mix it might become impossible to break them back into their component parts because most imaging software is working with individual pixels as mathematical combinations of red, green, and blue.

So taking a frame from that video and separating out the three colors, we get the three images representing the 211Å, 193Å, and 171Å filters as red, green, and blue respectively. I put those images on the left side of the composite below. Go ten frames later, because there is so little change between successive frames in that video that the changes would be almost imperceptible, and separate the colors, and you get the three images I put on the right side of the composite. Even at ten frames, which would be only a couple of minutes if the movie is using every original data frame, the changes are barely noticeable. (That's why for a running difference image or video they'll typically use frames from hours or days apart.)

sdovideoframes.jpg

The interesting thing about the results is, of course, you can look at the thermal characteristics as individual images. And that is actually what these SDO data images are all about. It's unlikely that anyone at NASA who is studying this stuff technically is terribly concerned with these composite videos. They're looking at the component parts. As has been mentioned several times already, this false color pretty picture stuff is made to impress the public.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
[qimg]http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/2145/sdovideoframes.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


OMG! You have discovered that there are green trees growing on the sun! The one shown in your mosaic is about 70,000 kilometers tall and is clearly a sycamore.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
I was reading Hilton Ratcliffe's web page (he is South African and a member of the Astronomical Society of South Africa) hence my attention was drawn to him.

Horror of horrors, this is how he sees Michael Mozina:

He (Hilton)is best known in formal science as co-discoverer, together with eminent nuclear chemist Oliver Manuel and solar physicist Michael Mozina, of the CNO nuclear fusion cycle on the surface of the Sun, some 65 years after it was first predicted.

My bolding. Based on MM's ramblings here, where does solar physicist enter the equation.:boggled:

Surely this is scientific fraud.
 
dafydd said:
I'm retired now,but I worked as a reprograph.I could make a colour layer separation,and I'd be willing to bet that Michael wouldn't know where to start.
Click to expand...


Ahhh. Printing technology from the olden days. I was fortunate to learn much about the printing/imaging industry, at least conceptually, just before computers became the standard tool box. Without computers it required an admirable level of skill and a thorough understanding of the craft to get quality reproductions, especially highly detailed and in color. I think having that conceptual background gives me a more thorough understanding of what I do now with computer graphics.

Nowadays, you just have to be able to add, subtract, multiply, and divide numbers under sixteen and a half million and voila! ;)
 
Myriad said:
OMG! You have discovered that there are green trees growing on the sun! The one shown in your mosaic is about 70,000 kilometers tall and is clearly a sycamore.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...
You're quite wrong!

As I said earlier, these are Hometrees, being destroyed by an alien spacecraft that is hovering, motionless, above and to the right of them (you can only see this as a thin outline of its top; the bulk of the spaceship is rendered invisible by a particularly ingenious application of unobtainium nanoparticles) ...

Or, to paraphrase MM, waddayamean, 'what Hometrees'?!? Sheesh!
 
GeeMack said:
The SDO instruments are acquiring a frame every ten seconds. I don't know what frequency they used to make that video, but even if it's showing each frame, it's running at 30 frames per second, so that's at least 300 times real speed. I also don't know which combination of filters were used to make that video, but for the sake of example, let's say it's a composite of videos acquired from three filters, 171Å, 193Å, and 211Å. NASA colors the original data images blue, green, and red respectively.

The first thing you'd need is some video processing software which will save the movie, or a select group of frames, to a series of still frames. Most high-end video software probably does this in a batch, but even the cheap ones will probably let you save any particular frame. (Saving many frames one at a time wouldn't be fun.) Also, there are many common video formats to convert from, and many common image formats to convert to, so those things have to be considered. But, moving on...

Now we have a series of frames from a video saved as individual images. Each pixel in a RGB image contains a mathematical representation of the combination of varying amounts of those three colors. By reversing the math, in a manner of speaking, the original amounts of each color can be determined. This can be easily done with most high-end image processing software like PhotoShop. Once you (or the software) have the original combination you can remove selected amounts of selected colors. So the blue and green are removed entirely from a frame, leaving what started out as just the red. The blue and red are removed, leaving just the green. And the green and red are removed, leaving just the blue.

Save these three individual color copies as separate image files and voila! Barring the lossy compression and artifacts, the three output images are pretty much exactly the red, green, and blue images that we started with. If there are more color combinations in the mix it might become impossible to break them back into their component parts because most imaging software is working with individual pixels as mathematical combinations of red, green, and blue.

So taking a frame from that video and separating out the three colors, we get the three images representing the 211Å, 193Å, and 171Å filters as red, green, and blue respectively. I put those images on the left side of the composite below. Go ten frames later, because there is so little change between successive frames in that video that the changes would be almost imperceptible, and separate the colors, and you get the three images I put on the right side of the composite. Even at ten frames, which would be only a couple of minutes if the movie is using every original data frame, the changes are barely noticeable. (That's why for a running difference image or video they'll typically use frames from hours or days apart.)

sdovideoframes.jpg

The interesting thing about the results is, of course, you can look at the thermal characteristics as individual images. And that is actually what these SDO data images are all about. It's unlikely that anyone at NASA who is studying this stuff technically is terribly concerned with these composite videos. They're looking at the component parts. As has been mentioned several times already, this false color pretty picture stuff is made to impress the public.
Click to expand...
Thanks very much GM! :)

In the case of the two red, or two green, images (above), what would an RD image produced from them look like? And could anyone (in principle) produce an RD image (from the two originals, assuming they had the actual science images, not reconstructed non-science ones)? If so, how (I know you've explained this before, more than once, but not - IIRC - using two actual images reconstructed from a public video)? Finally, are all RD images the same? Or is it possible to produce two RD images - from the same original pair - which look completely different?
 
Skwinty said:
I was reading Hilton Ratcliffe's web page (he is South African and a member of the Astronomical Society of South Africa) hence my attention was drawn to him.
Click to expand...


Keep in mind that to be a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa requires filling out a form and sending in the... let me look it up... yes... the $13.

Horror of horrors, this is how he sees Michael Mozina:

He (Hilton)is best known in formal science as co-discoverer, together with eminent nuclear chemist Oliver Manuel and solar physicist Michael Mozina, of the CNO nuclear fusion cycle on the surface of the Sun, some 65 years after it was first predicted.

My bolding. Based on MM's ramblings here, where does solar physicist enter the equation.:boggled:
Click to expand...


Ratcliffe is a crackpot, too. He's anti-Big Bang and believes there's a "crisis in cosmology". He advances the notion that there are enough unanswered questions about the current consensus view on cosmology that it should just be scrapped and started over. Much like Oliver Manuel and Michael Mozina, he doesn't have much to offer in the way of repairing the problems. Simply pointing out possible weaknesses and handing off the burden of proof to those who promote the consensus view is about all the actual effort he's willing to muster.

Surely this is scientific fraud.
Click to expand...


Only to those who might be deceived. Obviously Michael doesn't have the qualifications to be considered a solar physicist by any objective definition, but if that's the kind of association Ratcliffe wants to present to make himself feel better about his own crackpottery, well, I think much of this thread speaks to Hilton Ratcliffe's legitimacy. :p
 
Thanks GeeMack.
As an amateur astronomer and a member of ASSA I am aware of the requirements of membership.

I was not aware of the number of crackpots involved though.
Need to view most of them with suspicion it seems:o
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Yeah, I got the opacity part.

However, my question also asks about the relative ordering of four parts of the Sun: photosphere, chromosphere, transition region, and corona.

Irrespective of opacity, surely total solar eclipse observations should be able to tell us something about which is above (i.e. further from the centre of the Sun, radially) what. As I understand it, MM's claim is that the radial ordering is something like this: chromosphere, transition region, photosphere, corona (or perhaps transition region, chromosphere, photosphere, corona).
Click to expand...

It is really hard to say what MM thinks. :)
 
Dancing David said:
Could you explain the partition bit for those of us following along?

just the vague outline will do. Thanks :)
Click to expand...

The partition function, you mean? It's a sort of generating function that contains any information you'd like to know about a thermodynamic system. (One in thermodynamic equilibrium anyway.) You start with a Hamiltonian H, which gives the energy of the system for a certain microscopic state. H depends on a bunch of parameters, some of which are microscopic degrees of freedom, and others of which are external, constant, or controllable. To get the partition function you take exponentials of the form exp(-H/kT) and you sum over its evaluations for every possible microscopic state---and this sum is the partition function Z, which is a function of those parameters that aren't microscopic degrees of freedom (such as temperature, pressure, volume, external fields, etc).

A lot of information can be obtained from Z by taking derivatives with respect to the parameters. Some useful thermodynamic identities can be proven from it, too.

I can't say I know anything about solar or plasma physics, but if someone is trying to describe the macroscopic properties of the plasma, solar corona, or what-have-you by starting with microscopic properties, they'd probably be making use of the partition function at some point. Though they'd probably also be using some fairly advanced techniques in addition that I don't yet know. Looking at the Saha equation (which the post you quoted mentioned), it seems that one form of it does make use of Z.

And I seriously doubt someone would be able to overthrow any standard model in physics without knowing something as basic and ubiquitous as the partition function. =p
 
schrodingasdawg said:
And I seriously doubt someone would be able to overthrow any standard model in physics without knowing something as basic and ubiquitous as the partition function. =p
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt Michael can overthrow his own wacky ideas even if he did know about the partition function.

Sorry Michael, but you have earned your reputation here.:crowded:
 
What a completely and utterly *USELESS* theory standard theory turns out to be. Even with the help of a chorus line of math jock, the whole lot of you can't come up with a single quantified "prediction" that you're willing to put forward. GM, you are a coward. You won't put up numbers. You can't put up numbers. You can't quantify anything related to a RD image in relationship to that chrmosphere boundary. What kind of stupid theory can't come up with a few testable prections related to RD images, particularly under the "wise tutelage" of your wonderful and wise and ever competent GM? Hell, your theory is pointless and useless if you can't even produce some actual numbers we can actually test.

From now on I better not hear a peep out of any of you about how this model isn't quantified. It did a hell of a better job "predicting" real numbers, that's for darn sure. At least we have something to test in my model. Your model is evidently useless at prediction.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
...

... and your chorus line of math bunny aficionados ...
Click to expand...


MM:
Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that every time you use the expression "math bunny" in this kind of derisive manner, you reveal yourself to be a crackpot.
Since and including Newton, all advances in physics have involved the mathematical essence of the laws of nature. That the universe behaves in such an exquisitely mathematical way has provided the basis for all the discoveries of Newton, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, etc. If it were not for mathematics, physics would be stuck in the Aristotelian world with beliefs like "continuation of motion depends on continued action of a force."
It appears to me that you have wasted a considerable part of your life weaving elaborate Aristotelian-like descriptions of the sun and the rest of the universe, when you could have used that effort to learn to use the tools to really understand what's going on. Clearly those contributors here who have the tools to genuinely deal with solar physics regard your opinions to be a joke. It's time for you to take a step back, collect yourself and invest the effort to gain the education needed for genuine knowledge. Or, you could simply accept the knowledge of those who have spent the time and effort to understand -- as I do.
As I tune in to this thread from time to time, it occurs to me that the saddest aspect of all is that you do not know how pathetically obvious your ignorance is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom