Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually RC, the RD image disk diameter makes or breaks both models. Only one is left standing, and I know for a fact it won't be the standard solar model. I've seen the light.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Actually RC, the RD image disk diameter makes or breaks both models. Only one is left standing, and I know for a fact it won't be the standard solar model. I've seen the light.
Click to expand...
Actually Michael Mozina, the RD image disk diameter makes or breaks both models. Only one is left standing, and I know for a fact it won't be the Michael Mozina fantasy*. I've seen the basic physics thgat Michael Mozina is ignorant of.

*A fantasy because it violates thermodynamics, e.g see Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
GeeMack said:
Running difference images made from the color separated pairs of images above wouldn't show much contrast because the source images are only 10 frames apart. But with a 100 frame offset the running difference images would be what you see in any single frame from the videos below.

​

This first video was made by removing the green and blue from the source video leaving just the red. Then all the red was converted to grayscale. Then two frames are taken from the video 100 frames apart starting with frames 1 and 100. Then 50% gray is added to each pixel in the first image, and the second image is subtracted pixel by pixel from the first. The result becomes frame 1 in the output. Then move to frame 2 and frame 102 and repeat with all frame X and frame X+100... (These pixel values are numerical values of gray from 0 = black to 255 = white.)

Then of course these videos are sized down to 640x320 and letterboxed to 640x480 to make them fit YouTube and common video viewers. And I trimmed them down to just the first 20 seconds to make more reasonable download sizes.

​

The second video, above, is the same only I took out the red and the blue, leaving only the green from the original video. And the third, below, is the running difference video made from just the blue. I believe these red, green, and blue colors represent 211Å, 193Å, and 171Å source data respectively.

​

I use a proprietary script I wrote myself to do this processing, so I won't be more specific. Anyone with a little math background, a modicum of expertise in computer video and graphics, and some reasonable programming skills could certainly do this.




This is a very important point for this discussion. Although the running difference material we find at NASA and LMSAL probably is made pretty much exactly the way I've done it, they can look quite different by adjusting only a couple of things.

First, if you subtract frame x+1 from frame x+100 you get the videos we see above. If you instead subtract frame x+100 from frame x+1 you end up with something that looks like a negative of that video. Either the lighting comes from the other side of the mountain or your mountain turns into a valley. Take your pick.

Second, the contrast between images will obviously be affected by the offset, or how many frames apart you use for the compared images. And you need to remember that is based on the time difference between the original frames, too. A running difference video made with an offset of 10 frames might show so little change that it would look almost like a smooth gray throughout. Compare images 100 frames apart and you can see the changes between source images more clearly. You can shrink and grow your mountains by comparing frames closer or further apart in the sequence.

Many of the running difference images available from NASA and LMSAL have quite different sizes of mountains, some so huge that it's amazing we don't see them with the naked eye when there's a solar eclipse! ;)
Click to expand...

Wowza, super cool!
 
ben m said:
Those are all different wavelengths emitted particularly strongly by ultrahot iron at different temperatures. 171 is particularly strong from 600,000K iron, 193 picks up two lines (one characteristic of 1,200,000K and one of 5,000,000K) and 211 picks up 2,000,000K. At any high enough temperature, all of these lines will be emitted, but the balance between them shifts in the way I said.
Click to expand...

Oh, so the iron shell is 600,000 K, that explains everything.
 
ben m said:
The orange? If you ovelaid a visible-light image of the Sun on this, those "orange" areas are above the surface. That's the corona. At the place it meets the green edge, there's about ONE PIXEL worth---a few hundred km in projection---of either lightening of the orange or darkening of the green or both---which is entirely buried in the JPEG artifacts. Is that what you think is "limb darkening", Michael? That one sometimes-darker row of pixels? Good heavens.

If that one row of pixels were to mean something (for example, if it's still there in a FITs image, and if it's wider than the telescope PSF), it's a perfectly normal standard model meaning. That's what you expect if there's a layer ~400km thick, above the green emitter and below the orange emitter, which emits neither green nor orange. Or alternatively it's what you expect if there's an extremely optically-thin layer (O = 0.001 or so) above the green emitter which is able to absorb the green light when it's in extreme projection.

Is that one row of pixels the exciting one, Michael?
Click to expand...

I predict this will be ignored or the topic will change.
 
dasmiller said:
About that "transparent layer" in the SDO picture . . . I got to thinking about what such a thing would look like, and it seemed to me that the bottom of the band should look different from the top of the band. After all we're looking through far more gas at the bottom of the green band than at the top of the green band.

So I threw together a little code to model the sun as a series of nested spherical shells with various opacities and emissivities, jiggled the numbers to get something vaguely like the SDO image, and I got a significant brightness gradient (2nd image). I'm not seeing any such gradient in the SDO image (1st image), and the only reason the gradient isn't stronger in my model is that I assumed a uniform density within each layer.

So, if we're looking through a nearly transparent layer at the limb in the SDO image, why isn't there a gradient?
Click to expand...

More super cool!
 
Just wanted to say this thread is awesome.

I want to say thank you, Michael. Without all your crazy I would never have gotten such a good education from those with actual knowledge of the subject, and would instead be prone to accept fantasies such as the one you beleive.

And a big thank you to the following posters for putting the "E" in JREF:
sol invictus
dasmiller
Dancing David
ben m
W.D. Clinger

And I'm sure I've missed some, and if I have I apologize. There's been so much good info posted I can't keep track of everyone. I'm tempted to giggle like a schoolgirl ;)
 
Michael Mozina said:
There are mass flows (coronal loops) flowing all along the surface. It's *highly* electrically active. Those jagged areas are mass flows related to either coronal loops or twister like formations that form in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

That doesn't address my point. Ignoring the jagged bottom edge of the green band, the band itself shouldn't be uniformly colored because we're looking through vastly different amounts of plasma at the limb vs. 4800 km below the limb.
 
Is there anyone that disagrees with the minimums and maximums that I have outlined related to diameter of the disk in the RD images?

Is GM prepared to commit his hair yet on anything with a number attached?
 
Ok, so can we at least agree on some minimum and maximum parameters to falsify both solar models?

I will accept that the maximum RD disk size in my solar model can be no larger the bottom of the chromosphere with a minimum size of the core (0), likewise the minimum distances related to the standard model should be the chromosphere with a maximum of infinity. These are the minimum and maximum of each models. Does anyone disagree?

Speak up now if you disagree.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Is there anyone that disagrees with the minimums and maximums that I have outlined related to diameter of the disk in the RD images?

Is GM prepared to commit his hair yet on anything with a number attached?
Click to expand...

I would like to adopt Clinger's prediction as my own. I'm willing to wager on it, whatever terms you like. Money, eyebrows, whatever. Just name it.

You in?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ok, that is *finally* a quantified prediction and we can clearly tell the difference between standard theory and a Birkeland model. I appreciate you efforts Mr. Spock. You're redeemed. :)
Click to expand...

C'mon Michael. You said that Clinger's prediction would clearly differentiate the standard model from your model (which you apparently like to call the Birkeland model).

Are you ready to put your money and/or hair where your mouth is? I am.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ok, so can we at least agree on some minimum and maximum parameters to falsify both solar models?

I will accept that the maximum RD disk size in my solar model can be no larger the bottom of the chromosphere with a minimum size of the core (0), likewise the minimum distances related to the standard model should be the chromosphere with a maximum of infinity. These are the minimum and maximum of each models. Does anyone disagree?

Speak up now if you disagree.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty certain nobody with half a brain is going to accept your ridiculous notion that you're going to prove that crackpot conjecture of yours or falsify the standard solar model by applying your unqualified and seriously mistaken opinion about solar imagery.

A running difference image is a simple graph representing differences in thermal characteristics over time. The thermal data used to create the source images comes from the corona.

There's a word for seeing things that aren't really there. It's hallucination. There's also a word for holding an erroneous belief in the face of evidence to the contrary. It's delusion.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ok, so can we at least agree on some minimum and maximum parameters to falsify both solar models?

I will accept that the maximum RD disk size in my solar model can be no larger the bottom of the chromosphere with a minimum size of the core (0), likewise the minimum distances related to the standard model should be the chromosphere with a maximum of infinity. These are the minimum and maximum of each models. Does anyone disagree?

Speak up now if you disagree.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

First, you haven't defined what you mean by "RD disk size". Using RD images instead of ordinary ones helps not at all and makes it much harder to predict anything.

Second, it is false to assert that the bright ring in an image of (say) 171A radiation must have a larger radius than the sun's disk in the visible (which I think is what you're trying to claim about the standard solar model). As we've been explaining, the radius of that bright ring depends on the physics of the corona and chromosphere, and it can be smaller even if every photon in it originated from well outside the photosphere.
 
Here's an excellent illustration of the point, or part of the point. Why not respond to it, Michael?

ben m said:
Under? What's this "under"? It's a 2-D photo. Either you're seeing it closer to the center of the photo, or closer to the edge. Please stick to that terminology---"under" is your intuitive interpretation which you haven't been able to justify at all---in part because your descriptions are maddeningly unclear, mixing bits of observable ("green") with bits of your guesswork ("under", "through") in a totally hashwork way.


Fix it. Here's an ASCII art cartoon of a SIDE VIEW of a simple opaque Sun with a green blob hovering in front of it. I've labeled (with letters) a bunch of lines-of-sight for an observer looking down at and past the limb. You can follow any given line of sight and figure out what the observer sees in that pixel. This is possible both for opaque features and transparent ones---I put in an example "g" to show. Then I gave you an ASCII "stem plot" where you can list what's in line-of-sight a, what's in line-of-sight b, what's in line-of-sight j, etc.

Please edit it to represent what YOU think the 3D structure is, and show how you think that 3D structure projects along the lines-of-sight. Replace the opaque 0s with "f" or "n" to represent iron or neon, for example.





Code: 
observer is up here

lines of sight,
looking down.
||||||||||
abcdefghij 
                This is a cartoon of a simple opaque sphere.
                The 0s are "opaque photospheric material".
		The "g" for example is a blob of transparent corona. 
0       g        What do we see along the lines of sight a-h?
000    g         a: 0
0000  g          b: 0
00000            c: 0 
000000           d: 0
000000           e: 0      <- when you look at an opaque sphere you  
0000000          f: 0         see the same thing right out to the edge.
0000000          g: 0+g    <- when you're looking through the green blob
0000000          h: 0+g       you see green + whatever's behind it.
00000000         i: b+g     
00000000         j: b      <- past the edge all you see is the background 
00000000                        which is "b" for black.   
00000000
00000000
00000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
000000
000000
00000
0000
000
0

bbbbbbbbbbbb background is black
bbbbbbbbbbbb
bbbbbbbbbbbb
Click to expand...
 
Why does this RD debate continue? As GeeMack says, "A running difference image is a simple graph representing differences in thermal characteristics over time." I think I understand what that means. So, how can such an image show any fixed features?
 
sol invictus said:
First, you haven't defined what you mean by "RD disk size".
Click to expand...


Since the total extent of Michael's quantitative descriptions are based on staring at pictures and counting pixels, I think he'd rather avoid the actual measurements of the Sun and its parts, and stick to sizes measured in pixels. His argument so far doesn't appear to have come from doing any hard homework like, you know, looking up the size of the Sun on Google. :eek:

It's worth mentioning here that even in our largest, best resolution solar images to date, those coming in from the SDO with the diameter of the Sun scaled to over 3200 pixels across, the thickness of the photosphere, in scale, is just about a single pixel. The Sun is typically measured to have a radius of about 695,500 kilometers at the uppermost level of the photosphere. By the time you'd travel into the Sun by the distance of just one single pixel in those highest resolution images, about 430 kilometers, the solar atmosphere would have gone from transparent to opaque. Again, that change occurs across the distance of one single pixel.

Any claims made about seeing deeper in any image, like 4800 kilometers, or in the case of looking long ways through the plasma along the limb, 80,000+ kilometers, are based on ignorance, fantasy, delusion, wishful thinking, possibly even flat out lies, but are not based in any way on the state of reality where sane intelligent people dwell.
 
I generically disagree with whatever the heck MM is doing.

It sounds like he's going to post a photo, claim there's an important edge on it somewhere but not be able to tell us whether it's a light or a dark edge. He's going to declare that this edge is inconsistent with the SSM because of (insert 3D explanation that ignores everything we've ever said about the corona). Then he'll have a fit and refuse to explain and accuse us of ignoring his evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom