Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
Solid iron, I think, but I'm new as well.
So far, he hasn't presented an answer to any of these questions. And, since he's failed to do so for five years, I wouldn't expect one any time soon.
Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...
- Thread starter brantc
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fusion solar power
- Status
Solid iron, I think, but I'm new as well.
So far, he hasn't presented an answer to any of these questions. And, since he's failed to do so for five years, I wouldn't expect one any time soon.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
It wasn't wasted on me either. I told him a long time ago he was in the game. What was I supposed to do about everyone else? I still want to hear you *all* commit your public position on the outcome based on the cold hard numbers. It would be really nice if you offered us a "consensus opinion", but that might be a lot to ask for. This should be a "no brainer" based on GM's dessciption. Ben's comments make things really interesting from my perspective, particularly the notion of a consensus. I just *love* being on the outside of the political process.
You are all of course welcome to ante up your own personal numbers rather than joining the consensus. Care to ante up sol? I'm tired of being on different sides and I want this to be over as quickly as possible. I have no other ulterior motives. Just the rough prediction will do, something that preferably give us the margin of error in determining the "correct" model.Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
The problem, that you have YET to address in any fashion beyond your assertion, is that the numbers you are asking for are meaningless.
You want to apply these numbers to an RD image, which does not measure what you want the numbers to apply to.
You got your "numbers" from an erroneous interpretation of a heavily modified image, whose bearing to the actual data is in doubt.
The RD image, and any measurements based thereon, will neither prove nor disprove either theory, so the test you're insisting on is pointless and meaningless.
The fact that you can't realize ANY of this speaks wonders for your reasoning ability.
I'll go on record and say that you won't see anything below the surface of the photosphere, just as you have not seen anything below that surface so far.
If you want to prove your case (and something that is closer to resembling a valid test), you need to take ALL the SDO images that contain the frequency your interested in. We should be able to see your "green lines" in every image, at the same distance from the disc edge.
BTW, regarding the "surface features" you claim to see on the solar "crust"...have you checked the gravitational force acting on your iron shell? I'm not going to repeat what others have said about the shell collapsing..I'll give you whatever magical force inside keeps it spherical. My question is: How to ANY rigid surface features, espescially those made from iron and/or silicon, actually resist the gravity long enough to make any recognizeable three dimensional structure?
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
The consensus opinion is, based on your demonstrated lack of qualifications to understand solar physics at any level, that you don't have any idea what you're talking about. The consensus opinion is that you've failed in every conceivable way to support your crackpot claim.
How did this slip by you again?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,787
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
I predict that you will never understand that these first light, public relations images constructed from non-calibrated data were created by artists to look pretty. But then your obsession with pretty pictures is well documented.
It is probable that an artist masked off part of an image during the construction of the composite image in order to make the coronal activity prettier.
I predict that you will never be able to answer:
Did you cherry pick the SDO image to support your fantasy*? - the answer is yes. MM saw a "green line" in one PR image and ignored (and it continuing to ignore
!) its absence in another.Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Did you cherry pick the SDO image to support your fantasy*? - the answer is yes. MM saw a "green line" in one PR image and ignored (and it continuing to ignore
Even in the image he chose, he only looks at one small area. Shouldn't the green line be visible in multiple places around the rim?
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
No. Space is unusually curved in that vicinity, which is why I said "a little more than three times its diameter" instead of pi.
I'll stand by that estimate. If you are too busy to provide sol invictus with the numbers he needs to calculate the opacity for your conditions, and too busy to fill in ben_m's diagram for your interpretation of the geometry, then I'm too busy to calculate a more precise value for the chromosphere's ratio of circumference to diameter.
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,787
Mostly iron, I think. He's not very clear about these details.
I believe he has suggested there's some internal pressure from plasma inside to help support it. Of course he can't and won't quantify that in any fashion, so we have no way of knowing how much pressure that's supposed to provide.
Your thinking is correct.
This is the funniest part:
"Surface tension and electromagnetic influences"
It doesn't. Michael won't even try to put numbers to any of it. Which is why is current accusations ring so hollow (pun intended).
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The defaming of Birkeland's good name continues.
Michael Mozina,
Birkeland was a more than competent scientist. He certainly knew about the laws of thermodynamics and would understand that a ~6000 K photosphere rules out an iron crust below the photosphere.
- Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible? First asked 8 July 2009. See this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's iron surface.
- Why this iron crust is thermodynamically impossible
- Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible IV
- Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book? (really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)
- Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
- Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
- Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
- Is Saturn the Sun?
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K
) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
If my numbers are truly meaningless then the images themselves will demonstrate that point. IF however there is a 4800Km gap between the edge of the disk and the bottom of the chromosphere, then what?
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
You are doing such a good job of debunking your fantasy* that there is no need for me to "ante up". It is like watching a monkey play poker
!ETA:
I do not really "disagree with your numbers and methods" except in the idiocy of thinking that there is depth information in the 2D image of the Sun (see ben m's post for a graphic illustration of how you are wrong).
I am sure that if you conted the pixels, got a figure of 78,000 km for the width of the green line at one point then the width of the green line at that point is 78,000 km.
Or maybe you are referring to some numbers about the standard model and confirming that you are a crank:
Are you aware that you are displaying the symptoms of a crank?
- Unable to understand the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.
Any defects with the standard model does not support your fantasy.
! * 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
) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
Last edited:
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
The question is, if there isn't...
Are you really going to admit that your crackpot conjecture has been shown to be false if that green line doesn't really separate the chromosphere from your alleged solid surface? I don't believe you will, and I don't think anyone else here believes it either.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
FYI sol the only three numbers I am even remotely actually interested in are your numbers and Ben's numbers, and Spock's numbers preferably a "consensus" between the three of you. If you can't come with a consensus separate numbers will do, but it would be nice if we all have our margins of error, and it's first come first serve on the margins of error.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
I defer to sol invictus and ben_m, who are the only physical scientists in that trio.FYI sol the only three numbers I am even remotely actually interested in are your numbers and Ben's numbers, and Spock's numbers preferably a "consensus" between the three of you. If you can't come with a consensus separate numbers will do, but it would be nice if we all have our margins of error, and it's first come first serve on the margins of error.
Before they can give you their numbers, you'll have to give sol invictus the numbers he needs to complete his calculation of the opacity, and you'll have to fill in ben_m's diagram. Focus!
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Are you aware that you are displaying the symptoms of a crank
First asked 3 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
Are you aware that you are displaying the symptoms of a crank or crackpot?
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.[/quote]
First asked 3 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
Are you aware that you are displaying the symptoms of a crank or crackpot?
- No actual scientific model so you have no way of making any quantitative predictions.
The scientific theory has a model, makes predictions and these are found to be correct. - Your fantasy* has not changed significantly in the 4 or more years that you have been touting it. All you have been doing is bolting on more stuff withough addressing the fundemental flaw - your iron crust cannot exist.
- Ignoring the lack of evidence for your fantasy*.
- No scientific analysis of any observational data about the Sun. All you do is take the images constructed from the data and imagine that you see things in them (the "I see bunnies in pretty pictures" anaysis!).
- A rather astounding lack of knowledge of physics, especially in relation to the Sun, e.g. you were ignorant of optical depth.
- A nasty dependence on argument by authority, incuding attributing your fantasy to Birkeland.
It is almost as if the only physics books that you have ever read are by Birkeland and Alfven. Even then you get a lot wrong about Birkeland 's book. - An inability to answer questions (over 60 now in my list!).
- Unable to understand the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.
Any defects with the standard model does not support your fantasy. - Displays of the repetative behaviour typical of cranks or crackpots.
The biggest one is the continuous posting of images that just display your lack of understanding of them. - (4 May 2010) Not realizing that they have to defend their fantasy* by actually dong some work. They usually try to get other people to do their work for them. They typically ignore the results and then expect other people not to notice this.
Michael Mozina did this with his constant shifting of the goalposts for sol victus's optical depth calculation. And he is deluded enough to think that this behavior will encourage other people to do he work for him, e.g.
- (4 May 2010). A little truism that cranks ignore: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
An iron crust inside the Sun is extraordinary since it violates the laws of thermodynamics. A delusion that it can be seen in RD images is not even evidence.
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K
) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.[/quote]Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I defer to sol invictus and ben_m, who are the only physical scientists in that trio.
Before they can give you their numbers, you'll have to give sol invictus the numbers he needs to complete his calculation of the opacity, and you'll have to fill in ben_m's diagram. Focus!
I would be most appreciative of any input or insights you have to offer us during this process Mr. Spock. I appreciate your math and physics skills a great deal.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
That is correct.
Michael Mozina's interpretation of the green line (parbably an artifcat introduced by an artist making the pretty PR picture) seems to be as a kind of limb darkening of the photosphere & chromosphere? & corona? above his iron crust fantasy. This has a few consequences:
- It should be seen in original images used to create the picture.
The image has been deconstructed and the green line is not there. But if the deconstruction was wrong I am sure that MM's comphrehensive image processing skills can fix it
. - It should be in every image constructed from the data.
It is not in the first image that MM ignored. - It should be present around the the entire limb.
It is not. - It should be consistently bright.
It is not.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
MM has not yet got to one of the craziest part of his fantasy - why there are layers to start with (hint: "mass separation" which imples that inside his iron crust there is a Co crust, inside that a Ni crust, etc.).
And of course yet another fatal flaw in his fantasy - no mechanism by which his iron crust can be created to start with!
The sun is a sphere. It is not a disc and does not incorporate any disk. The sun also has no edges. Therefore when you refer to the "edge of the disk" you can only be referring to a characteristic of an optical image of the sun, not of the sun itself.
The bottom of the chromosphere is a feature of the sun.
Since images of the sun are generally found on earth, and the earth is about 93,000,000 miles from the sun, there will always be a gap of about 93,000,000 miles between "the edge of the disk and the bottom of the chromosphere."
My conclusion then is that gap were found to be 4800 Km instead, we'd all burn up. (Unless for some reason we sent a rocket carrying photographs of the sun to the sun. In which case the rocket and the photographs would burn up.)
Do you see the problem here? You are inquiring about the distance between an optical artifact on an image, and a physical feature of the sun. It's like asking how far the horizon is from Mexico. The question makes no sense (other than in the way I just answered it).
Perhaps you meant to ask something more like, "What if a gap representing, on the scale of the image under examination, a distance of 4800 Km, between the edge of the sun's disk and [some other feature of the image whose position in the image can be ascertained by...]?" That's a question that could make sense. But you have not yet asked it, because you have not filled in the details of the necessary part inside the brackets.
Respectfully,
Myriad
- Status