Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[GeeMack]

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.

You are being totally ambiguous. How much longer? What cadence? Directly related how? What sort of objective definition do you have for "edges"? How can you possibly see anything 4800 kilometers deep at some kind of edges when you're looking through 80,000 kilometers of plasma? What do you mean by "connected"? Your 4800 kilometers worth of pixels +/-1200 kilometers is nonsense. You have never made an unambiguous prediction that can be objectively verified. It is dishonest to claim you have.

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.

Compete with what? Nobody else here is making a crackpot claim. You are, Michael. Only you. So will you define the disk? Define what you mean by diameter? Compare it how to the diameter of the chromosphere? I already told you that running difference graph you posted above, on my monitor, is about 1/17209728800th the dimension of the lower boundary of the chromosphere. Is that the kind of quantitative explanation you're talking about?

 

[grmcdorman]

FYI, MM won't be responding for a while:

Michael Mozina has been suspended for three days for repeatedly ignoring mod warnings.

OT: Like other lurkers, I've been enjoying the informative posts on the "mainstream" science by various members. I won't comment on Mr. Mozina's posts, as he is unable to respond for the interim.

 

[Perpetual Student]

FYI, MM won't be responding for a while:



OT: Like other lurkers, I've been enjoying the informative posts on the "mainstream" science by various members. I won't comment on Mr. Mozina's posts, as he is unable to respond for the interim.

Tough call! There have been many provocative posts here by many. Right or wrong, it's very difficult to hold your own in this kind of debate without an occasional emotional moment.

 

[sol invictus]

Tough call! There have been many provocative posts here by many. Right or wrong, it's very difficult to hold your own in this kind of debate without an occasional emotional moment.

I'm inclined to agree. But that post about Marines and headshots was pretty creepy. Maybe that's what pushed it over the top.

Anyway I think a 3 day break might be a very good thing for Michael right now. This obsession is extremely unhealthy, in my opinion.

 

[Dancing David]

Even given that, what is the power source of the electric sun? If the sun is generating the stupid amounts of electricity it would need to be as bright as it is, how is it doing that? If the sun is not, where does the electricity come from, and how would we go about detecting that?

.

Which also gets to the Ziggurat theorem of "If the sun had the charge to light up like that the sun would explode at relativistic speeds."


My paraphrase, Zig is not responsible for any errors in what i just typed.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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.

I don't believe you can possibly show where Birkeland ever said anything about limb darkening and running difference images. In fact, I know you can't. This comment is a lie.

I'd like to offer a slightly different perspective.

Many of us have come to the conclusion that MM's approach to science is fundamentally different than our own (well, I have anyway).

As I said elsewhere in JREF, physics, astronomy, etc - as branches of science - are quantitative, and have been at least since the time of Galileo. Take away the numbers, the equations, the formulae, and you don't have physics or astronomy, period.

MM does not see it that way.

In fact, you can make an extremely powerful case that MM is, to all intents and purposes, quantitatively illiterate (innumerate?) - see the bizzare posts on pi, in this thread, for example.

This fundamental difference, in approach and perception, makes communication difficult (note that there is precious little evidence that MM himself is aware of even the outlines of what quantitative means). So, for example, to MM what Birkeland wrote is, in essence, just the terrella photographs (the pages and pages of equations in Birkeland's books are completely unintelligible). And, to MM, a 'theory' is just a guess, a hunch, a smooth-reading string of words. And "According to Birkeland's theory" simply means "that's my understanding of it"; "limb darkening and running difference images" are consistent derivations from what MM works out from reading Birkeland's words, parsed using a private glossary.

So, to MM, none of this is "a lie", if only because, to MM, it's a self-evident truth.

OK, so that's my somewhat different perspective.

 

[dasmiller]

I'd like to offer a slightly different perspective.

Many of us have come to the conclusion that MM's approach to science is fundamentally different than our own (well, I have anyway).

As I said elsewhere in JREF, physics, astronomy, etc - as branches of science - are quantitative, and have been at least since the time of Galileo. Take away the numbers, the equations, the formulae, and you don't have physics or astronomy, period.

MM does not see it that way.

In fact, you can make an extremely powerful case that MM is, to all intents and purposes, quantitatively illiterate (innumerate?) - see the bizzare posts on pi, in this thread, for example.

This fundamental difference, in approach and perception, makes communication difficult (note that there is precious little evidence that MM himself is aware of even the outlines of what quantitative means). So, for example, to MM what Birkeland wrote is, in essence, just the terrella photographs (the pages and pages of equations in Birkeland's books are completely unintelligible). And, to MM, a 'theory' is just a guess, a hunch, a smooth-reading string of words. And "According to Birkeland's theory" simply means "that's my understanding of it"; "limb darkening and running difference images" are consistent derivations from what MM works out from reading Birkeland's words, parsed using a private glossary.

So, to MM, none of this is "a lie", if only because, to MM, it's a self-evident truth.

OK, so that's my somewhat different perspective.

Agree. And I believe that the whole "mathless" approach has become a trap for him. He can't justify the time and effort needed to actually get comfortable with the necessary math unless he admits (to himself) that the math is necessary and important. And if he admits that the math is important, then he'd have to admit that he really doesn't have the background necessary to debate these things with the likes of Tim, GM, Sol, Ben, and many others here.

Plus - for him, a little math doesn't help. He knows that if he learns a formula or two, and shows them off here, we're likely to jump all over him for getting the units wrong, applying it where it doesn't apply, using completely wrong inputs, misinterpreting the results, etc. And we probably would, too.

So, he's stuck. He can't prove to the scientific community that he's right without math, but math is his critics' home turf.

But speaking as someone who's spent many, many tedious hours wading through uncertainty analyses: Seeing MM justify the 1200 km error bar based on how it "feels" to him is . . . . well, it's probably best that I don't articulate.

 

[Skwinty]

Well in my opinion, MM does have a vivid imagination and would have done well in the stone age spurring Neanderthals on to out of the box thinking.
He also has incredible stamina and the hide of a rhinocerous.

Pointed barbs and poison tipped arrows have no effect on him.
I am trying to say something good about him mind you.

 

[nescafe]

Which also gets to the Ziggurat theorem of "If the sun had the charge to light up like that the sun would explode at relativistic speeds."

Indeed. Even if there was a generation mechanism in the Sun's iron crust that generated the current flows needed to produce the sorts of arcs needed to generate as much light as it does, why should it arc in the "atmosphere" to any significant degree when the iron crust would be a fine conductor on its own?

If the Sun has either a positive or negative charge sufficient to induce the sorts of arcing needed for it to be a luminous as it is, why does it not explode at a significant fraction of the speed of light due to mutual repulsion of its constituent particles?

If it is part of some sort of galactic flux tube carrying the sort of current flow needed to make the Sun glow like it does, why has that flux tube not sterilized the Earth?

Until Michael can answer these questions, all the stuff he keeps going on about is irrelevant.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which also gets to the Ziggurat theorem of "If the sun had the charge to light up like that the sun would explode at relativistic speeds."


My paraphrase, Zig is not responsible for any errors in what i just typed.

That's completely correct.

 

[sol invictus]

Indeed. Even if there was a generation mechanism in the Sun's iron crust that generated the current flows needed to produce the sorts of arcs needed to generate as much light as it does, why should it arc in the "atmosphere" to any significant degree when the iron crust would be a fine conductor on its own?

If the Sun has either a positive or negative charge sufficient to induce the sorts of arcing needed for it to be a luminous as it is, why does it not explode at a significant fraction of the speed of light due to mutual repulsion of its constituent particles?

If it is part of some sort of galactic flux tube carrying the sort of current flow needed to make the Sun glow like it does, why has that flux tube not sterilized the Earth?

Until Michael can answer these questions, all the stuff he keeps going on about is irrelevant.

Indeed. But there are so many more.... such as

How can the temperature at the iron surface be below the melting point of iron?

How can a solid iron surface withstand the gravitational stress on it?

How is a solid surface consistent with helioseismology (which Michael claims he trusts)?

How can 6000K plasma be transparent to VUV radiation?

Each of those things by itself makes this model wildly inconsistent with basic facts about nature.


Then there are the "data analysis" type questions:

Why are the solar images taken by various satellites inconsistent with this "theory"?

What about the results of several careful analyses done on SOHO images that directly contradict what Michael says is his primary prediction?

Why was Michael so quick to crow over a feature in an image that turned out to be a photoshop artifact, and fail to acknowledge that when it was revealed?

Why did he make no attempt on his own to learn how the image was created or what it represents?

Why does he insist that difference images are the best way to see unchanging features?

Etc.

 

[Darth Rotor]

As you move out in radius, it decreases until you get about 500km above the top of the photosphere, where it's approximately 4000K.

What's surprising is that as you continue to move out from there, the temperature increases, to as high as ~2,000,000K in the corona.

There's a very nice chart here.

How does this happen? I should preface this by saying that my expertise in this area is minimal. But I think the basic point is that everything above the photosphere is optically thin (that's actually true by definition, but never mind), at least to most visible frequencies of light - which happen to be where the sun radiates most of its power.

What that means is that a typical photon emitted by the sun will propagate up from near the top of the photosphere, through the chromosphere and corona, without scattering or being absorbed. Therefore if there are processes that heat the corona to a high temperature, it will not necessarily rapidly equilibrate with the photosphere.

If those processes continue to dump energy into it, it can come to an approximate equilibrium at a temperature higher than that of the photosphere.

But this clearly does require some form of energy deposit other than direct heat flow from the core of the sun. I believe there are still open questions around that, but the best explanation involves magnetic reconnection.

More E for my JREF today, thanks sol.

My lower order analytic skills don't find in the continuum any known zone or region where the temp would drop to where the iron isn't liquid or gas. I think I have that right.

DR

 

[DSo]

I have been harping on that 4800 Km figure for *years* now. SDO simply provided me with the visual confirmation of that number.

"Confirmation"?

The SanJose Sharks beat the Detroit Redwings 4-3 last night. That confirms that my daughter is 4' 3"

 

[ben m]

Then there are the "data analysis" type questions:

Yep. It's worth highlighting that real experimenters spend a whole lot of time on data analysis questions. If you think you've got some data that could be relevant to some hypothesis, you need to establish:

a) How will I attempt to do the comparison? Is this the only way or the best way?
b) What's the false positive rate for this type of comparison?
c) What's the false negative rate?
d) What sort of alternative hypotheses should I also run comparisons on? Does the test discriminate between some or all of them?
e) How accurately do I need to specify the hypotheses?
f) Where in this process would an error make itself obvious?
g) Is there a blind analysis, trials penalty, or other safeguard against bias?
h) How do I get an error bar, and what does that bar mean?
i) Do I know what I'm doing?

For every paper I've ever published, even the ones with utterly unsurprising results, I can answer (or at least discuss) all of those questions. First I show that I've got a good analysis technique and that you ought to trust the results it produces; Iif there are caveats or conditions to that I tell you what they are; then I apply it and show you what it produced.

Anyone want to fill in the blanks for Mozinavision? If he had walked up to you a month ago and said "I propose that the best way to determine whether the Sun is a cold solid iron shell covered in ultrahot neon is to look at running-difference images and count bright pixels at the limb", could he have argued for the reliability of this technique?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Forums like this provide a wonderful way to communicate with the world. Without JREF (and similar forums) what would the probability be that I could communicate with so many people here in such a meaningful way? Obviously, zero. With so many experts in so many specialties, it's like having a physician next door, a physicist or cosmologist across the street, a chemist for a brother, etc. And, they are all available to answer a question or perhaps provide a new perspective and some fascinating discussion. As a retired guy with a lifelong passion for all areas of science, which has been restricted for the most part to reading science periodicals and books, this has opened a wonderful world for me. I genuinely appreciate the input of all who participate.

So, after that rather verbose preamble, my real purpose here is to speculate a little about what it would be like to spend a few hours or even days in person with some of the professionals here along with Michael Mozina regarding the subject of this thread. Would such a head-to-head environment be helpful for MM to better understand the degree of depth and scope of the underlying science involved and ultimately lead him to fathom how out of touch he is with reality? For example, could someone here provide a vehicle for MM to understand the problems with the thermodynamics of his model? -- or provide an understanding of the information that is (and is not) available from RD imaging? Would that carnival of babbling about the green line have been put to rest quickly, rather than watching his exuberant ascension to euphoria only to crash and burn in a fit of frustration, all based on an extraordinarily naive approach to science? People behave quite differently in a personal one-on-one environment. They tend to listen better, try to understand the points made by an antagonist and can strive for consensus. It certainly is not always the case, but I think a person to person environment is a little more conducive to useful dialogue than this kind of forum.

So, wistfully, I can imagine being in a room (a participant or a fly on the wall) fascinated by the discussion and watching MM being moved to see the light – or not. Either way, thanks for all for your contributions. I’m sure there will be more to come when MM returns from purgatory.

 

[sol invictus]

Forums like this provide a wonderful way to communicate with the world. Without JREF (and similar forums) what would the probability be that I could communicate with so many people here in such a meaningful way? Obviously, zero. With so many experts in so many specialties, it's like having a physician next door, a physicist or cosmologist across the street, a chemist for a brother, etc. And, they are all available to answer a question or perhaps provide a new perspective and some fascinating discussion. As a retired guy with a lifelong passion for all areas of science, which has been restricted for the most part to reading science periodicals and books, this has opened a wonderful world for me. I genuinely appreciate the input of all who participate.

So, after that rather verbose preamble, my real purpose here is to speculate a little about what it would be like to spend a few hours or even days in person with some of the professionals here along with Michael Mozina regarding the subject of this thread. Would such a head-to-head environment be helpful for MM to better understand the degree of depth and scope of the underlying science involved and ultimately lead him to fathom how out of touch he is with reality? For example, could someone here provide a vehicle for MM to understand the problems with the thermodynamics of his model? -- or provide an understanding of the information that is (and is not) available from RD imaging? Would that carnival of babbling about the green line have been put to rest quickly, rather than watching his exuberant ascension to euphoria only to crash and burn in a fit of frustration, all based on an extraordinarily naive approach to science? People behave quite differently in a personal one-on-one environment. They tend to listen better, try to understand the points made by an antagonist and can strive for consensus. It certainly is not always the case, but I think a person to person environment is a little more conducive to useful dialogue than this kind of forum.

So, wistfully, I can imagine being in a room (a participant or a fly on the wall) fascinated by the discussion and watching MM being moved to see the light – or not. Either way, thanks to all for your contributions. I’m sure there will be more to come when MM returns from purgatory.

Well, one thing he could do is hire a professional physicist to consult on his model. I'm sure if he offers the appropriate compensation he'd be able to find someone. Or he could try a grad student (they're generally hungry), although it might not be as useful for him.

I'm actually aware of cases where this has happened: successful businessmen with big ideas about physics hiring professionals to help them understand what (if anything) is wrong with their ideas.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Well, one thing he could do is hire a professional physicist to consult on his model. I'm sure if he offers the appropriate compensation he'd be able to find someone. Or he could try a grad student (they're generally hungry), although it might not be as useful for him.

I'm actually aware of cases where this has happened: successful businessmen with big ideas about physics hiring professionals to help them understand what (if anything) is wrong with their ideas.

What a great point! Given the passion demonstrated by MM over so many years for this topic, what better way to enhance his understanding than to hire a grad student (or grad level teacher) for solid analysis and tutoring about his model? In his shoes, I would seek out an accomplished person to do it in a heart beat! What better way to gain the tools to wage his battle and show the world he is the smartest uneducated physicist in the history of the world.

 

[Ziggurat]

What a great point! Given the passion demonstrated by MM over so many years for this topic, what better way to enhance his understanding than to hire a grad student (or grad level teacher) for solid analysis and tutoring about his model? In his shoes, I would seek out an accomplished person do it in a heart beat! What better way to gain the tools to wage his battle and show the world he is the smartest uneducated physicist in the history of the world.

That won't work. All the grad students are already corrupted by the system, brainwashed into believing the standard model.

 

[GeeMack]

Well, one thing he could do is hire a professional physicist to consult on his model. I'm sure if he offers the appropriate compensation he'd be able to find someone. Or he could try a grad student (they're generally hungry), although it might not be as useful for him.

I'm actually aware of cases where this has happened: successful businessmen with big ideas about physics hiring professionals to help them understand what (if anything) is wrong with their ideas.

What a great point! Given the passion demonstrated by MM over so many years for this topic, what better way to enhance his understanding than to hire a grad student (or grad level teacher) for solid analysis and tutoring about his model? In his shoes, I would seek out an accomplished person do it in a heart beat! What better way to gain the tools to wage his battle and show the world he is the smartest uneducated physicist in the history of the world.

I've asked Michael many times over the years why he doesn't get someone with some math skills to help, since he clearly must know he lacks those capabilities himself. I can't recall any acknowledgement of the question, much less an answer.

I've also asked many times who, of all the world's physicists, he would consider expert enough in the subject of astrophysics that he would accept their word if they told him he's wrong. His response? The person who would agree that there is a solid iron surface showing in a running difference image. In other words, no professional physicist, unless they agree he's right, is qualified to tell him he's wrong.

And frankly I don't believe he would need to actually pay anyone to help. If any competent physicists thought there was any merit at all to Michael's crackpot conjecture, they would line up at his door offering their services in order to get a piece of that Nobel Prize action. The fact that in five years of his carrying on all over the Internet, not one single legitimate scientist (barely a single person outside of a kid in a junior science club) has found the claim to be even remotely reasonable and worthy of any scientific attention.

That won't work. All the grad students are already corrupted by the system, brainwashed into believing the standard model.

Yep, it's a conspiracy.

 

[Perpetual Student]

That won't work. All the grad students are already corrupted by the system, brainwashed into believing the standard model.

Here's a potentially useful approach for MM:
Hire a professional (or accomplished grad student), with the following mission:

MM (speaking to his hired hand): "I have an unorthodox model of the sun which involves its structure, thermodynamics, elemental make-up, etc. Initially, your training will prejudice you to reject it out of hand. Your mission is to suspend all your doubts and work with me to make my model work in the framework of modern physics. If you see a conflict (for example) of observed spectra with my model or inconsistency with the laws of thermodynamics, let's look for ways to resolve conflicts in favor of my model while preserving the laws of physics. That is our mission: to find all means possible to work together to resolve these conflicts. Let no stone remain unturned! If it is at all possible, my model will prevail."

Now, one of three things should happen:

1. MM is correct and they succeed in verifying his model.
2. MM learns enough physics from the process to abandon his fanciful model.
3. No change! MM will dismiss the hired hand as a failure.