Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
D'rok said:
Of course he has never made that claim.
Click to expand...

But I did and you can check it out. In fact you can see the disk with your own eyes in the RD SOHO images on my website. That was another testable prediction that I came up with that GM seems to be pretty clueless about. Check it out for yourself now as the data becomes available. Find out who told you the truth in living color.

You may not have educated us (Tim, Sol, Ben et al have that well in hand), but you have entertained us.

Ciao.
Click to expand...

I'm glad I could at least provide you with some entertainment if nothing else. :) Nice talking to you. Live long and prosper.
 
D'rok said:
Yet you ignore every single comprehensive and utterly devastating explanation for why you aren't seeing what you think you're seeing.

The rest of us read those explanations.
Click to expand...

Not a *SINGLE* one of those so called "explanations" came with a numerical prediction related to SDO or any explanation of how they arrived at that number. Why not? I antied up with real numbers, real error bars and a real reason as to how I arrived at those numbers. So far all I've heard from them are a bunch of math homework assignments for yours truly and I've see no legitimate "prediction" from any of them complete with error bars. Why is that D'rok? If their fancy solar theory is so valid, so flawless, so useful in terms of it's predictive abilities, where are their numbers?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
If it doesn't show what I think it shows then my theory is falsified! What more do you want? I can only stick my neck out so many times in hope that you might actually lop it off and get it over with. Unfortunately for you there is a green 4800km problem in your theory in just the first round of first light SDO images. The SSM will not survive SDO.
Click to expand...

That's just it.

YOU are the ONLY one who thinks your images show anything from under the photosphere.

NO ONE ELSE here, or in professional astronomy, or in solar physics, agrees with that interpretation.

Add to that the fact that you're basing this on a manipulated image presented for PR reasons, rather than the science data.

This is PRECISELY the problem I'm trying to address, and others have been trying to address. Between your mis-interpretation of this image and your mis-undertsanding of what an RD image is, there's no point in taking your bet. There's no point in talking about your "4800km problem" (btw, wasn't it 7,000 soemthing a few pages back?) because NO ONE ELSE recognizes that the problem even exists.

If hundreds of people look at a picture, and all ofthem say "It's a picture of a flower" except for one who claims "It's a picture of an alien spacecraft"...which interpretation would you bet money on?
 
Here is what they will try to do D'rok. See if I'm right.

They will *NEVER* ante up any quantitative "prediction" prior to something being "published" related to SDO. They can't. The SSM is utterly *useless* at correctly predicting the SDO images. If they were "fair" about it, they'd offer you some numbers of their own, they'd explain how they arrived at them based on the standard model theory, and they'd be willing to stand by the results of our "tests" in the SDO data. Since they really don't know *what* to do with that green light, they will hem and haw and ignore any and all requests for a numerical prediction based on their theory.

Note that I predicted that 4800Km figure years ago based on the heliosiesmology data. They're struggling like hell now to figure out how to explain those images because they don't jive with their actual "predictions" at all.

If they want to keep their dead theory on life support, now they need to postdict a fit to that SDO green line data and they'll try to do so *only* based on the SDO imagery and some new goofy quirks that they will claim they didn't "discover" until SDO. Watch and see what happens. In the mean time maybe you can get them to actually "predict" something numerically "before" things start to be published, and maybe you can get them to agree to the "tests" I have set forth. I can't do that. They're evidently afraid to commit to any of the three items on my list.
 
Last edited:
Hellbound said:
That's just it.

YOU are the ONLY one who thinks your images show anything from under the photosphere.

NO ONE ELSE here, or in professional astronomy, or in solar physics, agrees with that interpretation.
Click to expand...

So put my theory to the test and run long cadence RD images at 171A and FEXX and see if I'm right! What do you have to lose? How could I be right?
 
Michael Mozina said:
So put my theory to the test and run long cadence RD images at 171A and FEXX and see if I'm right! What do you have to lose? How could I be right?
Click to expand...

BECAUSE RD IMAGES WILL NOT SHOW WHAT YOU EXPECT THEM TO SHOW.

Again, you fail to understand.

An RD image will show ONLY things that CHANGE. So even assuming your crust existed, it WOULD NOT SHOW UP ON AN RD IMAGE.

So the test you're putting forward is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS AT DOING ANYTHING TO PROVE YOUR THEORY.

You can't be this dense. I can only assume you're being willfully ignorant.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Not a *SINGLE* one of those so called "explanations" came with a numerical prediction related to SDO or any explanation of how they arrived at that number. Why not? I antied up with real numbers, real error bars and a real reason as to how I arrived at those numbers. So far all I've heard from them are a bunch of math homework assignments for yours truly and I've see no legitimate "prediction" from any of them complete with error bars. Why is that D'rok? If their fancy solar theory is so valid, so flawless, so useful in terms of it's predictive abilities, where are their numbers?
Click to expand...
They can't give a numerical prediction for the length of the spout of the celestial teapot Michael. For the simple and obvious reason that it doesn't exist, despite your insistence that you can see it.
 
Last edited:
Hellbound said:
BECAUSE RD IMAGES WILL NOT SHOW WHAT YOU EXPECT THEM TO SHOW.

Again, you fail to understand.

An RD image will show ONLY things that CHANGE. So even assuming your crust existed, it WOULD NOT SHOW UP ON AN RD IMAGE.

So the test you're putting forward is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS AT DOING ANYTHING TO PROVE YOUR THEORY.

You can't be this dense. I can only assume you're being willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the Mozinaverse. 'Tis a silly place.
 
No numbers, no numbers, no numbers.

What I find most frustrating about this thread is the complete lack of integrity when it comes to responding in kind with actual numeric predictions. Instead of willingly agreeing to a series of "prediction/falsification" tests based on numerical predictions and how well we do, I get a bunch of math assignments and nothing useful with which to verify or falsify the SSM.

Does that seem fishy to anyone else besides me? Come on! Your fancy solar theory is supposed be super fabulous at "predictions". You have math jocks up the wazoo around here, and yet none of you can come up with some numerical prediction about the SDO data *BEFORE* things get published?

I've put my public neck on the line now for 5 years by claiming I could "see" light under the chromosphere. I've been called every name in the book including a fraud. Lo and behold however the first light SDO images demonstrate that your opaque math bunny is dead, and that is why none of you will put forth any real "quantified predictions". I better never hear you guys complain about how I never quantify anything ever again. I *NAILED* that 4800 Km figure! Your theory *FAILED* it's first critical observational test, and the "impossible" showed up in living color that is directly related to the iron line color scheme. The SSM is dead.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I already see claims that somehow I photoshoped the image. That's absurd.
Click to expand...

If you mean me, then that's not what I'm suggesting. I've been working directly with the NASA PR photo*. I think NASA photoshopped the image.

Okay, actually, I'm certain that NASA photoshopped the image. Of course, my speculations about exactly what photoshopping they did are just speculations.

*yes, there's something faintly absurd about the idea of working directly with a PR photo.
 
Perpetual Student said:
Michael Mozina: Why do you believe you see fixed features in RD images? Please explain!:hb:
Click to expand...

20050527-1913.JPG

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/The Surface Of The Sun_0001.wmv
This is almost surreal from my perspective.

A guy comes up to you on street and says "Hey, I have a wonderful discovery to share with you.". He proceeds to tell you all about the "disk" you will find under the chromosphere. He tells you how to find the disk. He shows you a picture of it. He tells you where it is located in relationship to the chromosphere.

Another guys walks up 10 minutes later. You ask him if he's seen the disk inside the sun. He says "Disk? What disk?"

Will any of you lift a figure to find out which man is right and if there is a disk inside the sun with 4800 KM of atmosphere around it?
 
Last edited:
Because he's insane perhaps?

Read a fair few pages of this monstrous thread. I cannot believe that someone would be that willingly and obviously stupid.

But I suppose it just goes to prove that the more human beings there are, the more likely you are to come up with one who says some seriously crazy s@%#.

Tell you what though "Mr Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius", please post a concise, descriptive and demonstrative diagram of your proposed structure of the sun and it's components. I'd just looooove to see one.

EDIT: See, in your example above, the second guy happens to be a Solar Physicist, who proceeds to explain that a RD image shows no static features, that the ideas inherent in claiming that a "disc" exists in a permanent state on the "surface" of the sun are bats@%# crazy and btw this first guy doesn't know the first thing about evidence, mathematics, physics or for that matter science in general.

The guy you walked up to with your "wonderful discovery" looks at you a little strange, with a bit of pity in his eyes, and you end up chattering to yourself about iron stars somewhere with nice padded walls and good drugs.
 
Last edited:
nvidiot said:
Because he's insane perhaps?

Read a fair few pages of this monstrous thread. I cannot believe that someone would be that willingly and obviously stupid.

But I suppose it just goes to prove that the more human beings there are, the more likely you are to come up with one who says some seriously crazy s@%#.

Tell you what though "Mr Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius", please post a concise, descriptive and demonstrative diagram of your proposed structure of the sun and it's components. I'd just looooove to see one.
Click to expand...

So really, just one "test" should resolve the whole matter, right?
 
No test, just your basic, run of the mill, childrens astronomy book grade structural cutaway of the sun with indications of what's where, and how it works together. Pretty simple request considering you apparently have a reasonable, scientific theory on the nature and structure of the sun. (Which disagrees with the entire compendium of human knowledge of astronomy, physics, spectroscopy and scientific principles in general.)

It may of course tie you down to attempting to actually elucidate some of your "woo" I think the term on these forums are, so I doubt you'll actually follow through, but I can only live in hope I suppose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom