Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[GeeMack]

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?

Everything. There is no "SDO version of that SOHO RD image". The phrase "will fit *INSIDE*" has no reasonable meaning in that context. And even "the chromosphere" is completely ambiguous as you're using it. The entire comment certainly doesn't mean anything that could be considered an unambiguous prediction that can be objectively verified.

 

[Mister Earl]

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)

Assume it's 1,000 pixels across. What formula would you use to calculate the exact diameter of the sun in that picture? Given that pixels granulate the visual data presented, how do you intend to correct this? Or will you give the result a "+ or -" factor to factor in the granularity? How will you determine the exact distance of the SOHO to the limbs of the sun? Is the granularity of the picture more than 1000km? If so, wouldn't that render this picture useless for the purpose you intend it?

 

[GeeMack]

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

There is no pie in a pie chart. The physical dimensions of any particular running difference graph as it relates to the chromosphere will vary depending on the quantitative analysis of the graph. And nothing about any argument you've ever made has been quantitative to that extent.

But here's what I get. That running difference graph you just posted, on my monitor, is about 1/17209728800th the dimension of the lower boundary of the chromosphere.

 

[Reality Check]

You seem to forget that 4800Km +- 1200Km I posted. You seem to forget that quantified "prediction" I made about the RD 171A image. Let me highlight your quantitative predictions on the RD images:

Anyone can make up numbers. The scientific prediction comes in explaining how you got these numbers in such a way that peole can check what you did. What is beeter is that they can do the same calculation in other situations to further confirm (or debumnk) the theory.
You made no quantified predictions about any RD image at 171A or any other passband.

Let me highlight our quantitative predictions on the RD images: Every pixel in them are records of changes between images.

So you have numbers, Michael Mozina?
How about some page numbers:

• 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).
• Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book? (really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)
• Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind

And most of these questions involve numbers

• How much is "mostly neon" MM?
• What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model?
• Entire photon "spectrum" is composed of all the emissions from all the layers
• Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer?
• How did you measure the curvature of penumbral filaments in the Hinode images?
• Calculation for the depth of the SOT_ca_061213flare_cl_lg.mpg filament?
• Explain the shape of your electrical arcs (coronal loops)
• How can your iron "crust" not be a plasma at a temperature of at least 9400 K?
• How can your "mountain ranges" be at a temperature of at least 160,000 K?
• Just how high are your "mountain ranges"?
• Why does the apparent height of your "mountain ranges" depend on the timing of source images for the RD process when the light sources and mountains in the images are the same?
• Can you show how you calculated that "3000-3750 KM" figure for the photosphere depth?

 

[sol invictus]

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?

Well, in this post I asked "Does this falsify your iron sun model?" (referring to the literature Tim cited).

Michael's response was

It will if it holds up to SDO style scrutiny.

In other words, he acknowledged that those analyses do indeed falsify his "model", but he ignores them.

 

[Reality Check]

If ... Birkeland model. ....

Can you understand the stupidity of defaming Birkeland's good name?
​

 

[GeeMack]

Anyone can make up numbers. The scientific prediction comes in explaining how you got these numbers in such a way that peole can check what you did. What is beeter is that they can do the same calculation in other situations to further confirm (or debumnk) the theory.
You made no quantified predictions about any RD image at 171A or any other passband.

Yes. Consideration must be given to objectivity, which has been wholly absent from any of Michael's arguments. That prediction depends on being tested by some objective method which is clearly stated and repeatable in such a way that other people, when applying that method, come to the same conclusions as Michael. I'm sure we all agree that no such prediction has been made.

 

[ben m]

Assume it's 1,000 pixels across. What formula would you use to calculate the exact diameter of the sun in that picture? Given that pixels granulate the visual data presented, how do you intend to correct this? Or will you give the result a "+ or -" factor to factor in the granularity? How will you determine the exact distance of the SOHO to the limbs of the sun? Is the granularity of the picture more than 1000km? If so, wouldn't that render this picture useless for the purpose you intend it?

Mister Earl, before you devote two microseconds to anything MM says about SOHO, let me direct your attention to his post #2464.

I have tried and tried and tried to get a useful measurement out of SOHO and STEREO that was definitive, but the resolution was simply not good enough IMO. In SDO however PS, there's no way to miss the problem.

According to MM, SOHO doesn't have high enough resolution to test his theories. Right from the horse's mouth. Don't waste your time.

 

[Mister Earl]

I'm just wondering if he already has a plan, as far as how to do the actual calculations, or if it's more of a matter of "I'll cross that bridge when I get to it" type deal. And if he already does have the formulas ready to go, if he's applied them yet.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm just wondering if he already has a plan, as far as how to do the actual calculations, or if it's more of a matter of "I'll cross that bridge when I get to it" type deal. And if he already does have the formulas ready to go, if he's applied them yet.

Michael's qualifications to understand the math necessary to flesh out his conjecture in any meaningful way have been challenged, repeatedly. In all the years of his attempting to defend this claim, he hasn't demonstrated that he has any such qualifications. In fact, no argument he has ever made has had any mathematical support at all.

 

[sol invictus]

I'm just wondering if he already has a plan, as far as how to do the actual calculations, or if it's more of a matter of "I'll cross that bridge when I get to it" type deal. And if he already does have the formulas ready to go, if he's applied them yet.

Actual calculations? Formulas? Michael??

 

[dafydd]

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.

Science is not done by making threats,but of course you are not a scientist.

 

[Tubbythin]

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.

So, your error... Is it Gaussian? If so, am I to assume the error given is +- one sigma? How sure are you the true value lies in the range 3600 km to 6000 km?
If it isn't Gaussian, what does the error represent?

 

[Tubbythin]

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.

Yes. There's a very simple way to find out. You can ask them. Have you done so yet? If not, why not? If you're so sure he's lying to us all then being able to post there actual reply would reveal GM as a fraud. I'm sure you're keen to do that?

So, have you asked them?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael's qualifications to understand the math necessary to flesh out his conjecture in any meaningful way have been challenged

I already "fleshed out" my number and my technique. You've so far produced nothing quantitatively to compare it to in any meaningful way. I already explained to you that the longer cadence provides crisper transitions along the limb. I've already explained that the edges you will find will relate directly back to the limb darkening of the original images, and I have already told you where you will find the edges of the disk, specifically at 4800Km +- 1200km, right where the limb darkening is located. They are physically connected processes.

If you can't compete with real numbers on the diameter of that disk compared to the diameter of the chromosphere, oh well. You can't say I didn't tell you how to find the disk.

 

[Mister Earl]

I already explained to you that the longer cadence provides crisper transitions along the limb.

Are you referencing that image that GM states that the limb darkening is a result of post-processing modifications?

 

[Michael Mozina]

People, people, people......

This is actually very simple stuff. According to Birkeland's theory, the limb darkening and the RD image will be directly related. Wherever the discharges begin, they have to all begin from the same place, they have to rise up through the chromosphere, and they have to light the regions between the surface and the chromosphere. These are "givens" in a Birkeland model.

The limb darkening in the original SDO iron line images, will directly relate to the origin of the light. There should be a 4800KM gap in the disk and the chromosophere in the RD image that will directly correspond to that limb darkening at 4800KM. They are physically connected processes in probably any electric sun model.

The only way to be sure is to run a longer cadence RD process on the sphere and see how it relates to the outline of the chromosphere. In a Birkeland model it should fit nicely inside that line. In a standard model, it should fit pretty much right along that line, maybe way above it, but never below it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Are you referencing that image that GM states that the limb darkening is a result of post-processing modifications?

I don't believe him. I see that same opaque limb darkening in every iron ion wavelength in every movie and image from SDO. He's wrong.

 

[dasmiller]

The only way to be sure is to run a longer cadence RD process on the sphere and see how it relates to the outline of the chromosphere.

Why should a longer cadence RD show this better than a shorter cadence RD? (assuming, for the moment, that an RD image would show something relevant)

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why should a longer cadence RD show this better than a shorter cadence RD? (assuming, for the moment, that an RD image would show something relevant)

The longer cadence allows more to change between the images so that we have crisper lines along the limb to work with. If the cadence is short, it's harder to pick out the edges of the disk. If the cadence is longer, there are crisper transition lines to work with, and more "stuff" in the atmosphere to see how it relates to the outline of the disk. At the limbs that should directly correlate to the limb darkening we see in *ALL* iron ion movies/images. The "tornados" we see on the horizon should also mostly occur on that 4800km section of the horizon too.

FYI, I'm not basing my beliefs on that one SDO image and I've only begun to drop shoes. I've got at least two more installments planned for my website based on images I've found in the SDO first light batch of images. I'll post new links to the blog as the new installments come online.