Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Mister Earl]

You dropped the test regarding the previous photograph quickly enough when it was discovered that the green line that was the proof of your claims turned out to be post-production processing. You didn't say "I was wrong". You didn't even say "I want to verify this myself." You merely dropped it and are now trying something else to verify your claims. Even an armchair wanna-be scientist like myself knows that this isn't how science is done.

Science: "Here's the evidence. What theory can we derive from these facts?"
Woo: "Here's the idea I'm trying to prove. What can I find to support it?"

This all seems like woo to me, Michael. Sorry.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Ya. In my eyes at least those green lines on the horizon, and the depth at which the limb dimming occurs was a direct confirmation of something I predicted years ago based on the best available evidence I could think of at the time (Kosovichev's heliosiesmology data).

Michael, according to GeeMack's communication with NASA that strip is a processing artifact. And yet you trumpeted the success of your prediction before he revealed that, and now you still seem to be claiming it confirms a prediction you made.

Did you predict that NASA would process PR images in such a way that they would leave a strip that wide?

There's another, orthogonal, take on these ideas published by MM (here in the JREF, as well as elsewhere), and that's independent, empirical verification.

MM claims to find something in a non-science PR image from SDO (no one is quite sure what); yet whichever way you parse this something, you should be able to find independent confirmation of it, by the bucketload.

For example, science (not PR) images of the Sun taken by other space-based facilities (with the same, or similar, passbands; the resolution of those is more than adequate to reveal any 20 pixels-wide uniform band), and total eclipse observations (these provide clear, unambiguous data on the relative radial order of corona, transition region, chromosphere, and photosphere).

Yet, as far as I know, MM has not once even hinted that any of the many, freely available, high quality, independent, observation-based datasets could be used to test his idea, but has never even acknowledged their potential relevance when introduced by others.

So, not only surreal theoretically, but surreal from a purely empirical standpoint too.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You dropped the test regarding the previous photograph quickly enough when it was discovered that the green line that was the proof of your claims turned out to be post-production processing.

We didn't "Find out" anything of the sort. We got an OPINION from GM. That's all we have.

You say "I was wrong". You didn't even say "I want to verify this myself." You merely dropped it and are now trying something else to verify your claims. Even an armchair wanna-be scientist like myself knows that this isn't how science is done.

Wait a minute! First of all I have no idea if what GM says is true. Secondly I just gave you a perfectly good "test" to find out if it really is a processing issue, or it's real. There's a simple way to find out, but I'll be damned if I'll believe anything GM ever says to me ever again. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him.

This all seems like woo to me, Michael. Sorry.

I gave you NUMBERS, not "woo". I got "woo" from ol' toothless and no numbers.

 

[Michael Mozina]

There's another, orthogonal, take on these ideas published by MM (here in the JREF, as well as elsewhere), and that's independent, empirical verification.

MM claims to find something in a non-science PR image from SDO (no one is quite sure what); yet whichever way you parse this something, you should be able to find independent confirmation of it, by the bucketload.

If I don't tell you exactly what to look for, and make numerical predictions, how do you expect anyone to confirm anything? I wouldn't be making these types of predictions if I didn't expect others to independently confirm the results.

What numbers did you put up DRD? Where should we expect to find the long cadence RD disk outline to appear in relationship to the chromosphere in your opinion?

 

[GeeMack]

If I don't tell you exactly what to look for, and make numerical predictions, how do you expect anyone to confirm anything? I wouldn't be making these types of predictions if I didn't expect others to independently confirm the results.

What numbers did you put up DRD? Where should we expect to find the long cadence RD disk outline to appear in relationship to the chromosphere in your opinion?

I don't believe you made any sort of unambiguous prediction that can be objectively verified. I challenge you to demonstrate that you have. Quote it or repeat it. If you haven't made an unambiguous prediction that can be objectively verified, then it is a lie to claim you have.

 

[Mister Earl]

We didn't "Find out" anything of the sort. We got an OPINION from GM. That's all we have.

Did you contact the people responsible for that photograph and ask for details, to either prove or disprove GM? I'm sure he'd at least point you in the right direction to get ahold of the people he did.

Wait a minute! First of all I have no idea if what GM says is true. Secondly I just gave you a perfectly good "test" to find out if it really is a processing issue, or it's real. There's a simple way to find out, but I'll be damned if I'll believe anything GM ever says to me ever again. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him.

You don't have an idea because you didn't do any followup.

I gave you NUMBERS, not "woo". I got "woo" from ol' toothless and no numbers.

You are also ignoring every coffin nail they hammered into your hypothesis. Personally, I'd like to hear how an iron hollow sphere doesn't violate thermodynamics. It's a critical, pertinent point, and by itself invalidates your hypothesis. If you can address this in a halfway plausible fashion, then it'd be fine by me to go on to another point.

 

[Michael Mozina]

For anyone just getting into this thread, this is what a long cadence RD image looks like from SOHO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't believe you made any sort of unambiguous prediction that can be objectively verified. I challenge you to demonstrate that you have.

Either you haven't been paying attention, or you're just ignoring me entirely. I told you if we took a long cadence RD image in 171A and looked at where the disk ends, it will end 4800Km under that red chromosphere, +-1200Km. I also said the edges of the RD disk would align with the limb darkening in the original images too. If you call me a liar again, you'll regret it.

 

[GeeMack]

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050527-1913.JPG[/qimg]

For anyone just getting into this thread, this is what a long cadence RD image looks like from SOHO.

A running difference graph like that you've shown is not a picture of something. It is a graphical representation of a series of mathematical calculations using source data that was gathered from several thousand kilometers above where you claim your mythical solid iron surface exists. Also...

Your qualifications to properly understand solar imagery of any sort have been challenged. You haven't been able or willing to demonstrated that you are so qualified. Anything you present as "evidence" that involves any type of satellite or telescope imagery, regardless of the processing technique, cannot be accepted as evidence.

So even if you understood what the image means, which you apparently don't, it would be completely irrelevant to your claim that a solid surface exists some 4800 kilometers deep into the photosphere.

You know, just in case your dishonest argument is new to any lurkers.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Wow, I drop out of a thread for a few days and I miss all the excitement. GeeMack, congratulations on your coup de telephone.

But this coup hasn't killed the thread---why not? Is Mozina is going on and on as though he hadn't explicitly bet his entire model on interpreting that green band as real? Of course he is. (Or so I gather from the replies to his posts, which I'm not reading.) This is Michael Mozina we're talking about---the world's #1 expert in failing to process contradictory information.

If you've already ignored thermodynamics, electromagnetism, and materials science, and denounced the Pythagorean Theorem as a "math bunny"---well, ignoring the difference between "the Sun's limb" and "a circle drawn around the Sun in photoshop" is small potatoes. Kid stuff. Mozina could ignore that in his sleep.

(bold added)

Let's not forget that the idea MM has put forward, here in this thread, is dependent on the "Electric Sun" idea (at least, MM says it is).

Now the "Electric Sun" idea has been shown to violate the conservation of energy, or the conservation of charge (or both).

So it would seem that this idea* - put forward by MM - violates established laws of physics, equally (and at every opportunity).

* to be clear, I am referring to the idea, not MM (the person)

 

[GeeMack]

Either you haven't been paying attention, or you're just ignoring me entirely. I told you if we took a long cadence RD image in 171A and looked at where the disk ends, it will end 4800Km under that red chromosphere, +-1200Km. I also said the edges of the RD disk would align with the limb darkening in the original images too.

Word salad. I said you haven't made any sort of unambiguous prediction that can be objectively verified. It seems I was correct.

If you call me a liar again, you'll regret it.

Your incivility and your threat is noted.

 

[Michael Mozina]

A running difference graph like that you've shown is not a picture of something.

False. It is a picture of the sun with lots of processing going on. It's still an image of the sun. It's round like the sun. It has a shape and size that directly relate to the sun. It's a solar image. If we use a long cadence we come up with the outline of a disk. That disk will fit *INSIDE* of the chromospohere and all that EM lines we see in the SOHO image will come up and through the chromosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Word salad. I said you haven't made any sort of unambiguous prediction

Grrr. I just did. I just said that the disk outline we see in the SDO version of that SOHO RD image will fit *INSIDE* the chromosphere. What don't you understand about that statement?

 

[Mister Earl]

How do you intend to calculate the diameter of that disc from that running difference graph?

 

[GeeMack]

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050527-1913.JPG[/qimg]

False. It is a picture of the sun with lots of processing going on. It's still an image of the sun. It's round like the sun. It has a shape and size that directly relate to the sun. It's a solar image. If we use a long cadence we come up with the outline of a disk. That disk will fit *INSIDE* of the chromospohere and all that EM lines we see in the SOHO image will come up and through the chromosphere.

It's a graph, like a pie chart or a bar graph.

And all your talk about fitting a disk inside the chromosphere and EM lines coming up through the chromosphere? It's a bunch of words, mostly English, but they're strung together in a way that makes no sense. I said you haven't made any sort of unambiguous prediction that can be objectively verified. If you're trying to point out an unambiguous prediction, you have failed. Unambiguous means clearly stated. What you have said there is not.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How do you intend to calculate the diameter of that disc from that running difference graph?

I intend to actually look at the images and get into the image at the level of pixels. I should have 13 or so to work with all along the border. The visually interesting stuff will happen on the limbs and will related to the discharge loops and how they "come up and through" the chromosphere. The geometry of the loops should make it clear where the loops start and end, and the edge of the sphere is very clear in closeup images (at the level of individual pixels)

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's a graph, like a pie chart or a bar graph.

What is the dimension of the pie in the pie chart? What are it's physical dimensions as it relates to the chromosphere?

 

[Skwinty]

I intend to actually look at the images and get into the image at the level of pixels.

How many kilometers are represented by 1 pixel?

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050527-1913.JPG

False. It is a picture of the sun with lots of processing going on. It's still an image of the sun. It's round like the sun. It has a shape and size that directly relate to the sun. It's a solar image. If we use a long cadence we come up with the outline of a disk. That disk will fit *INSIDE* of the chromospohere and all that EM lines we see in the SOHO image will come up and through the chromosphere.

You score 2 right out of 7 (is this a new record ?

1. It is two pictures of the sun with lots of processing between them.
2. It is not an image of the sun.
3. Right: It is round like the sun (as is a coin).
4. It has a shape and size that directly relate to the changes in the sun.
5. It is not a solar image.
6. Right: If we use a long cadence we come up with the outline of a disk. It does not have to be very long as the image you spam us with shows.
7. That disk will fit *OUTSIDE * of the photosphere and all that EM lines we see in the SOHO image will come up and through the atmosphere above the photosphere.

And then there is the idiocy of

1. looking at any images at all ("bunnies in pretty pictures" science) - you should be analysing the scientific data that created the images.
2. looking at RD images - the size of the sun is just as easily found from the solar image data. RD processing is just a waste of time.
3. ignoring all of the science that has shown that the chromosphere, etc. are outside of the photosphere.
   Still ignoring that measurements show the chromosphere, etc. above the photosphere?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Either you haven't been paying attention, or you're just ignoring me entirely. I told you if we took a long cadence RD image in 171A and looked at where the disk ends, it will end 4800Km under that red chromosphere, +-1200Km. I also said the edges of the RD disk would align with the limb darkening in the original images too.

Word salad. I said you haven't made any sort of unambiguous prediction that can be objectively verified. It seems I was correct.

[...]

It's worse than that, far worse.

For example, if the relative position of the source of the 17.1 nm line emission and the chromosphere - radially, with respect to the centre of the Sun - can be estimated by numerical analysis of RD SDO images, then it must be able to be estimated from the science SDO images that were used to produce the RD ones (and, in all likelihood, more accurately estimated too).

Further, as Tim Thompson has pointed out* (several times!) direct measurements of the radius (range) of the various parts of the Sun (photosphere, chromosphere, transition region, corona) have been made, and published. They are clearly, and unambiguously, inconsistent with MM's claims (per posts in this thread).

So, one (of the many) strange things about MM's "a long cadence RD image in 171A" claim is why anyone should consider it likely certain to yield a more accurate, more precise, more certain result than the dozens (?) of previous, direct, independent analyses (based, in part, on images taken at 17.1 nm)?

Does anyone reading this know of any post, by MM, where he addresses this question?

* me too, but Tim's posts are far more detailed than mine