Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
D'rok,

I'd like you to think a bit about the conversations of the past couple of weeks and the physical implications of both theories as it relates to that SDO image.....
Click to expand...
D'rok,
As usual Michael Mozina is wrong.
He is applying the analysis of the photosphere to the corona. They are different.

That analysis shows that it is imposible for his fantasy* of an iron crust to emit light that can be detected above the photosphere. In order for that impossible iron crust to do this it has to be billions of times brighter than the Sun in order to penetrate the 3000 km of plasma between it and the top of the photosphere. If it was a bright as the Sun then 1 photon per 4 years would escape the Sun.

*A fanatsy because it violates thermodynamics, e.g see 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 :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutley nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 50 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Instead what we observe is a smooth region of the photosphere coming together with the chromosphere where the orange light picks up. Underneath of that layer is a lighter region that goes on for a number of pixels before finally reaching a GM style "opacity" layer that is jagged and not smooth and directly relates back to the mass flows inside the coronal loops along the "surface'. The loops then rise from that region, go up through the supposedly "opaque" photosphere, and go up through into the chromosphere and corona.
Click to expand...


That might be what you observe. But again we need to remember "hallucination" is the word for seeing things that aren't really there, and "delusion" is the word for an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary. So there are simple, mundane explanations for your problem.

And why is it that in all these years, after all the times you've been asked, you still haven't offered a method for interpreting these images, an objective quantitative method that other people can apply and independently come to the same conclusion you've reached?
 
I am back from vacation, and it looks like MM is looking at pretty pictures of the sun while ridiculing the idea of using maths for physics.

Guess his ideas work much better without maths or laws of physics.
 
Michael Mozina said:
D'rok,

I'd like you to think a bit about the conversations of the past couple of weeks and the physical implications of both theories as it relates to that SDO image.

According to mainstream theory, at this temperature, and due to the issues Ben and sol cited, these wavelengths could not possibly penetrate more than *METERS* not KILOmeters before being absorbed. The iron ion wavelengths "should" grow in intensity somewhere inside the chromosphere/lower corona.

The implications of that theory on this image is radically different, particularly in the iron ion wavelengths. If their theory was correct, there should be a very sharp, relatively smooth delineation at the surface of the photosphere. There might be a little light from the other loops getting in the way, but the light should not penetrate the surface for more than a few meters and that kind of depth would not even show up in the curvature. The iron lines would clearly and distinctly be blocked by the photosphere. The iron lines "should" start to grow in intensity somewhere inside the orange region and that should be where we observe the intensity of the iron lines pick up the most. That is not at all what we see.

Instead what we observe is a smooth region of the photosphere coming together with the chromosphere where the orange light picks up. Underneath of that layer is a lighter region that goes on for a number of pixels before finally reaching a GM style "opacity" layer that is jagged and not smooth and directly relates back to the mass flows inside the coronal loops along the "surface'. The loops then rise from that region, go up through the supposedly "opaque" photosphere, and go up through into the chromosphere and corona.

Their model is not only broken, it's irreconcilably broken to the point it could *NEVER* hope to explain that image. The new SDO images simply blow their beliefs away and blow their whole solar theory away. Only an "electric" sun theory could ever hope to ionize the plasma in the photosphere to such a high degree that these high energy wavelengths could penetrate that deeply. They will *NEVER* (certainly not GM) accept an electric sun theory, and they will *NEVER* therefore be able to explain this image. It's really that simple. Have them explain the limb darkening and lightening features of that image and the green region between the limb and the chromosphere. Dog them for awhile like you're leaning on me and see what happens.
Click to expand...

I see the same method here as in all your other explanations. You assume that you can see right through the photosphere, proclaim triumphantly that you can see right through the photosphere, and then demand to know why the standard model can't explain how you can see right through the photosphere. It is much more plausible to me to conclude that you cannot, in fact, see right through the photosphere in the first place. I would take you a lot more seriously if you could use some method other than subjective photo analysis or appeals to ancient physics to back your claims.

But whatever the case, that's a frakking amazing image. We live in an astoundingly beautiful universe.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/447006main_fulldiskmulticolor-orig_new1_full.jpg

I don't have a photoionization problem because this is an electric solar model, but you certainly have a *HUGE* problem. How come we see all those iron lines *UNDER* the photosphere along the limb between the jagged mass flow patterns that are "opaque" and the surface of the photosphere?
Click to expand...


Uh, an abundance of evidence suggests that it's because you're wrong about what you think you see since it's been demonstrated beyond anyone's doubt that you aren't qualified to properly understand solar images. :p
 
Here's Michael before he learned that the opacity didn't work in his favor.

Michael Mozina said:
Seems to me we should use 171A wavelength since that Yohkoh/Trace composite is based on a 171A image, and we should probably start with a 90/10 percent mixture of neon/(standard model elements) in terms of the plasma with a density that matches the standard model at the surface of the photosphere. How does that sound?

The umbra however is not neon. It's silicon with roughly the same density as the photosphere, so that part would need to be calculated separately in a similar 90/10 mixture of mostly silicon.
Click to expand...

"density that matches the standard model", eh? You obviously weren't thinking of Ne V at 2,000,000K at the time, were you?

Face it, Michael. You have no evidence that an transparent 3000km-thick-plasma is possible at all. (Sol is waiting for your first guess at how such a thing could be generated by "currents".)

You have even less evidence that the 6000K blackbody-emitting solar surface is the particular weird plasma whose structure you have yet to guess.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/447006main_fulldiskmulticolor-orig_new1_full.jpg

I don't have a photoionization problem because this is an electric solar model, but you certainly have a *HUGE* problem. How come we see all those iron lines *UNDER* the photosphere along the limb between the jagged mass flow patterns that are "opaque" and the surface of the photosphere?
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina,
Do you understand that this "thin green line" is of material at > 1,000,000 K?
Can you understand that all of the light in this image is from the chromosphere and corona.

As usual the answer will be an deafening silence revealing his lack of comprehension of basic physics :jaw-dropp !

And then there is the absurdity of the electric sun model - you know the one that predicts that the Sun has exploded because it has a charge greater than the maximum that a star can hold (77 Coulombs in an electrostatic calculation: On the global electrostatic charge of stars).

Can you see that the line is present on the left limb of the image but not on the right limb?
I had an idea that it could be limb darkening in the extreme UV however that would be symetrical if there was no other effect.
But the asymmetry of the line suggests that movement of the spacecraft had an effect (or that the line is just a data processing artifact)
 
Nothing Under the Photosphere

Michael Mozina said:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/447006main_fulldiskmulticolor-orig_new1_full.jpg ... How come we see all those iron lines *UNDER* the photosphere along the limb between the jagged mass flow patterns that are "opaque" and the surface of the photosphere?
Click to expand...
That's it? That's what all this fuss is about? You are a victim of wishful thinking. It is just plain obvious that there is no sign of any iron lines, or anything else, under the photosphere in this image. I see no "thin green line", as you mentioned before, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

All you ever do is look at pictures and make things up out of your imagination. We give picture books to small children because they can't read yet, but we expect them to eventually (hopefully but alas not always) graduate to words. You need to graduate to words someday, your excuse is nowhere near as good as that of a small child.
 
Well, it sounds like the only thing Mozina is willing to talk about is image analysis. OK, let's play that game.

He's posted a photo of the Sun where a 15 to 20-pixel-wide green emission is visible near the limb. He says that this green is "obviously" associated with something coming up from below the surface. (We still await his recipe for making a 3000-km-thick plasma that contains no neutral atoms but still looks like it's 6000K.)

Unfortunately, on the scale of this photo, Mr Mozina's hypothetical 3000-km-deep iron is only 6 pixels "deep" (in cross section). The mainstream photosphere is less than 1 pixel deep. How do you interpret a 20-pixel-wide feature as evidence of a 6-pixel-wide feature?

Mr. Mozina, is that green stripe coming up through your iron? (i.e. is the iron transparent?) Is there some discontinuity which tells me where I'm looking at a 6-pixel-long sub-surface part of the streamer, and where it changes into the above-surface streamer? I see no such discontinuity.

Maybe Mr. Mozina thinks he sees some sort of feature and will point it out. One might wonder---this is, after all, a press release image and not a science image---what's the resolution of this photo, anyway? That's easy to answer. Go out past the edge of the Sun and you'll see a bunch of point sources---these are stars in the background. Look at 'em! They're three or four pixels wide to begin with, and they have 6 or 8 pixels of JPEG artifacts around them. This tells you that the resolution of the instrument, post-data-processing, is only 4 pixels---and that low-contrast detail is meaningless at the level of 8+ pixels. (Unless, MM, you think that stars are actually squares, and this isn't a photo artifact?)

So you're looking at a 20-pixel wide stripe on a photo with 4-pixel resolution and 8-pixel JPG artifacts? And there's something about that 20-pixel stripe---some low-contrast detail nobody else can see---and claiming evidence that the 20-pixel thing is "emerging from" a barely resolvable 6-pixel-wide feature? And you're doing all of that looking at a 2-D projection tangent to a sphere IN A FALSE-COLOR PRESS RELEASE PHOTO? Baloney.

Geez, Michael. I didn't think it was possible, but your image analysis is as bad as your thermodynamics.
 
Last edited:
Tim Thompson said:
That's it? That's what all this fuss is about? You are a victim of wishful thinking. It is just plain obvious that there is no sign of any iron lines, or anything else, under the photosphere in this image. I see no "thin green line", as you mentioned before, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

So shall I just add: "Green areas under the chomosphere" What green areas?" to you list of solar image analysis talents?

All you ever do is look at pictures and make things up out of your imagination.
Click to expand...

Tim, that green region between the limb and the chromosphere isn't my "imagination". All you ever do is play around that math bunnies and ignore the physics entirely. "My pretty math bunny say Nickel and iron stay magically mixed together with hydrogen and make the surface "opaque", so that must be true".

Sorry Tim but SDO is not your friend. The delineation between the photosphere and chromosphere in this image is thin, clean (not distorted) and smooth. Under that chromosphere in orange is a light green region, and then finally a number of pixels down we see limb darkening. Your solar theory just died but you don't want to "see" it so you simply ignore the observational evidence that blows your theory away. These multimillion dollar images absolutely go to waste on you folks because you absolutely refuse to compare your mathematical models to the observations that falsify those mathematical models. What's the saying? There are none so blind.....
 
Last edited:
ben m said:
Unfortunately, on the scale of this photo, Mr Mozina's hypothetical 3000-km-deep iron is only 6 pixels "deep" (in cross section). The mainstream photosphere is less than 1 pixel deep. How do you interpret a 20-pixel-wide feature as evidence of a 6-pixel-wide feature?
Click to expand...

That 3000KM number that I provided was a MINIMUM, not a maximum.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Sorry Tim but SDO is not your friend. The delineation between the photosphere and chromosphere in this image is thin, clean (not distorted) and smooth. Under that chromosphere in orange is a light green region, and then finally a number of pixels down we see limb darkening. Your solar theory just died but you don't want to "see" it so you simply ignore the observational evidence that blows your theory away. These multimillion dollar images absolutely go to waste on you folks because you absolutely refuse to compare your mathematical models to the observations that falsify those mathematical models. What's the saying? There are none so blind.....
Click to expand...


So you've blown away main stream solar theory by looking at a picture that you don't even understand, declaring things to be true that you can't even explain in an objective way, and here you are whining about it on an Internet forum instead of emailing those real scientists at LMSAL to tell them of your amazing discovery?

Oh, have the folks at LMSAL taken you off their spam block list, yet? :D
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Thanks. While you were posting, I was editing my post to delete two speculative sentences, including the one you quoted. I apologize for putting them out there long enough for you to read them.
Click to expand...

Ok Mr. Spock, (FYI, I personally love Spock.) I've looked at the images again carefully and although I personally see no signs of more than perhaps a single pixel of distortion due to the jpg compression, I'll give you two pixels in each direction, both at the limb line and at the photosphere/chromosphere boundary (which looks pretty darn smooth as far as I can tell). Can you explain that light area even with 4 pixels of distortion at the limb with the standard solar model? I sure can't do that with the standard model, but Birkeland's model does predict it.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ok Mr. Spock, (FYI, I personally love Spock.) I've looked at the images again carefully and although I personally see no signs of more than perhaps a single pixel of distortion due to the jpg compression, I'll give you two pixels in each direction, both at the limb line and at the photosphere/chromosphere boundary (which looks pretty darn smooth as far as I can tell). Can you explain that light area even with 4 pixels of distortion at the limb with the standard solar model? I sure can't do that with the standard model, but Birkeland's model does predict it.
Click to expand...


Birkeland didn't suggest that the Sun has a solid iron surface. Your claim that he did is a lie. Take responsibility for your own miserably failed claim, eh? Blaming the dead guy is a despicable ploy.

Also, your unqualified and clearly incorrect claims about that image don't constitute evidence of anything except maybe that you see things that aren't really there. And we know a couple of possible reasons for that, don't we?
 
Michael Mozina said:
That 3000KM number that I provided was a MINIMUM, not a maximum.
Click to expand...
Isn't your fantasy* that the iron crust is at 0.995R (i.e. ~3000 km) where the helioseismology shows a stratification in the plasma?

That would be the mid point of the estimate - not a MINIMUM.

If not then are you retracting that the presence of the stratification is evidence for the impossible iron crust?
Can we expect you to update your web site (not likely given your track record, e.g. it still has your delusion of seeing "mountain ranges" in RD movies on it)?

Of course what atronomers mean by stratification is a change in density in the plasma and the actual data has 1300 km/s flows of plasma at a temperature > 9400 K that form that stratification.

*A fanatsy because it violates thermodynamics, e.g see 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 :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutley nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 50 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book

Michael Mozina said:
...
I sure can't do that with the standard model, but Birkeland's model does predict it.
Click to expand...
There you go again with blaming your fanatasy on a dead guy who cannot defend himself.
All you are doing is revealing your delusions and ignorance about Birkeland's experiments as in these unfounded assertions:
  1. Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
  2. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
  3. 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).
These question were asked in July 2009. An honest person would say that they were wrong or give the citations. A deluded or lying person would ignore the questions and keep on spouting unfounded assertions.

As anyone who has ever read his book knows, what he did was look at the discharges from metal spheres in gases. He stated that they looked like solar activity, such as flares and sunspots. That is an analogy and he was careful to state exactly that. It is not a model.

So:
First asked 27 April 2010 (but really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)
Michael Mozina,
Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO image features in Birkeland's book or other publications?

Remember that a scientific model that predicts things has mathematics so that the predictions can be tested. Otherwise you have an idea.
 
ben m said:
Well, it sounds like the only thing Mozina is willing to talk about is image analysis. OK, let's play that game.

He's posted a photo of the Sun where a 15 to 20-pixel-wide green emission is visible near the limb. He says that this green is "obviously" associated with something coming up from below the surface. (We still await his recipe for making a 3000-km-thick plasma that contains no neutral atoms but still looks like it's 6000K.)

Unfortunately, on the scale of this photo, Mr Mozina's hypothetical 3000-km-deep iron is only 6 pixels "deep" (in cross section). The mainstream photosphere is less than 1 pixel deep. How do you interpret a 20-pixel-wide feature as evidence of a 6-pixel-wide feature?

Mr. Mozina, is that green stripe coming up through your iron? (i.e. is the iron transparent?) Is there some discontinuity which tells me where I'm looking at a 6-pixel-long sub-surface part of the streamer, and where it changes into the above-surface streamer? I see no such discontinuity.

Maybe Mr. Mozina thinks he sees some sort of feature and will point it out. One might wonder---this is, after all, a press release image and not a science image---what's the resolution of this photo, anyway? That's easy to answer. Go out past the edge of the Sun and you'll see a bunch of point sources---these are stars in the background. Look at 'em! They're three or four pixels wide to begin with, and they have 6 or 8 pixels of JPEG artifacts around them. This tells you that the resolution of the instrument, post-data-processing, is only 4 pixels---and that low-contrast detail is meaningless at the level of 8+ pixels. (Unless, MM, you think that stars are actually squares, and this isn't a photo artifact?)

So you're looking at a 20-pixel wide stripe on a photo with 4-pixel resolution and 8-pixel JPG artifacts? And there's something about that 20-pixel stripe---some low-contrast detail nobody else can see---and claiming evidence that the 20-pixel thing is "emerging from" a barely resolvable 6-pixel-wide feature? And you're doing all of that looking at a 2-D projection tangent to a sphere IN A FALSE-COLOR PRESS RELEASE PHOTO? Baloney.

Geez, Michael. I didn't think it was possible, but your image analysis is as bad as your thermodynamics.
Click to expand...
Doing some more numbers on the image ...

The Sun subtends an angle of ~0.009 radians.

The AIA has a resolution of ~1 arcsec (which is ~5 microrads), of which there are ~1800 in 0.009 rads.

The beautiful image is 4096 x 4096 pixels, so the AIA's PSF covers approx 2x2 pixels.

In this image, a pixel corresponds to ~360 km (normal to the line of sight).

The image is an RGB false-colour one, with R being 21.1nm, G 19.3nm, and B 17.1nm; the relative RGB values for "the thin green line"* might be interesting to table (I suspect they will vary quite a bit); all three are iron ion lines.

BTW, I don't think the point sources are stars ben m; even in the EUV, the Sun is still the brightest object in the sky, by far (barring possible transients).

* which is not continuous, nor of constant width
 
Reality Check said:
Isn't your fantasy* that the iron crust is at 0.995R (i.e. ~3000 km) where the helioseismology shows a stratification in the plasma?

That would be the mid point of the estimate - not a MINIMUM.
Click to expand...


Michael doesn't really know where the surface is. He usually says .995R, but that can change if it suits his whim. He certainly doesn't know anything about his surface's thermal characteristics. He doesn't know its elemental composition. He doesn't know its density. He doesn't know how thick it is. It seems that he doesn't really know anything about that solid iron surface on the Sun except in his unqualified, unsubstantiated opinion, it exists.

Aside from the obvious fact that Michael has no math skills whatsoever, numbers are his bane for another reason. He refuses to make any quantitative claims about his mythical surface because if he does, it opens the possibility for scientific scrutiny. And as we've seen in virtually every posting in this thread, even given the fact that he's incapable of describing the surface quantitatively, his crackpot claim fails instantly when it comes up against any scrutiny at all.
 
GeeMack said:
Michael doesn't really know where the surface is. He usually says .995R, but that can change if it suits his whim.
Click to expand...

I will have to change it based on the image. It looks to be closer to 10,000KM than to 4800KM as I presumed. Frankly I'm absolutely stunned (and thrilled) at how many pixels there are between the surface and the photosphere. I was hoping for 8 or 9 pixels, not 20.

Standard solar theory cannot and never will explain that image. SDO will definitely rewrite solar history.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Can you explain that light area even with 4 pixels of distortion at the limb with the standard solar model? I sure can't do that with the standard model, but Birkeland's model does predict it.
Click to expand...
Given your ignorance of the standard model, I am not surprised that you cannot explain the "green line"/light area.

Let us first assume that the green line in image is not an artifact of image processing, e.g. to create this publicity photograph that you are obsessed with.

The red color comes from He II ions at ~60,000 K. The green and blue colors are from Fe ions at temperature of > 1,000,000 K. This means that all of the light is coming from the chromosphere and corona because that is the only place in the Sun where there is material heated to at least 60,000 K.

My first thought is limb darkening in extreme UV light showing the change in density between the chromosphere and the photosphere below it.
But the green area is deep on one side of the Sun (the left limb), varies all around the limb and is hardly there at the 4 o'clock position.

So it is more likely that this is just an effect of looking through a thicker corona at the limb.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Standard solar theory cannot and never will explain that image. SDO will definitely rewrite solar history.
Click to expand...
Standard solar theory can and has explained that image.
SDO will definitely produce new results that will continue to debunk 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 :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutley nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 50 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
At the limb, your line of sight is nearly tangent to the sun's surface. Among other things, that means each pixel on or near the limb represents a much larger area of the sun's surface than pixels nearer the center of the image.
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
Ok Mr Spock, give us a number per pixel. :)
Click to expand...

W.D.Clinger said:
Each pixel at the extreme edge covers about 60 times the area covered by a pixel at the center.
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
Ok Mr. Spock, (FYI, I personally love Spock.) I've looked at the images again carefully and although I personally see no signs of more than perhaps a single pixel of distortion due to the jpg compression, I'll give you two pixels in each direction, both at the limb line and at the photosphere/chromosphere boundary (which looks pretty darn smooth as far as I can tell).
Click to expand...
As we have seen, what you personally can see is irrelevant.

The factor-of-60 distortion has nothing to do with JPEG compression. The factor of 60 results from projecting a 3-dimensional sphere onto a 2-dimensional image.

Consider the equations for a sphere of radius 2000 pixel widths, centered at the origin, observed by a camera situated along the z-axis at infinity:

[latex]
\begin{eqnarray}
x^2 + y^2 + z^2 & = & 2000^2 \\
z(x, y) & = & \sqrt{2000^2 - x^2 - y^2} \\
z(0,0) & = & \sqrt{2000^2 - 0^2 - 0^2} = 2000 \\
z(1,0) & = & \sqrt{2000^2 - 1^2 - 0^2} \doteq 1999.99975 \\
z(0,1) & = & \sqrt{2000^2 - 0^2 - 1^2} \doteq 1999.99975 \\
z(1,1) & = & \sqrt{2000^2 - 1^2 - 1^2} \doteq 1999.9995 \\
z(1999,0) & = & \sqrt{2000^2 - 1999^2 - 0^2} \doteq 63.24 \\
z(2000,0) & = & \sqrt{2000^2 - 2000^2 - 0^2} = 0 \\
z(1999,1) & = & \sqrt{2000^2 - 1999^2 - 1^2} \doteq 63.23 \\
z(1999.99974, 1) & = & \sqrt{2000^2 - 1999.99974^2 - 1^2} \doteq 0.2
\end{eqnarray}
[/latex]

Near the center (where x and y are both near 0), the value of z is almost the same at every corner of the pixel, so the area of the sphere covered by a central pixel is almost exactly 1 (in units of square pixels).

At the limb (where x is near 2000), the value of z varies by more than 63, so the area of the sphere covered by a pixel at the limb is more than 63 (in units of square pixels).

The above is analytic geometry, as taught in high school. To have any hope of interpreting the limb of a solar image, you're going to have to understand it.
:bunnyface
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
I see the same method here as in all your other explanations. You assume that you can see right through the photosphere, proclaim triumphantly that you can see right through the photosphere, and then demand to know why the standard model can't explain how you can see right through the photosphere.
Click to expand...

I know you're kind of new to the whole solar theory debate, but this image is gold. It's not like previous images of the sun with highly limited resolution. SOHO and TRACE had 1 megapixel images to work with, and STEREO has 4. Even in STEREO images there would only be about two pixels between my theory and their theory. In this resolution however, and due to the depth of the silicon layer, it's closer to 20 pixels at the limb. That kind of resolution upgrade is a "game changer' in terms of satellite imagery. It's also "real time" which I completely envy. The guys at LMSAL and/or NASA can watch the real time movies while we mere mortals get by on a few crumbs. :)

Let me explain the importance of this specific image for you and so that you understand why I posted it. That orange outer light comes from the chromosphere. We can see the transition between the chromosphere and the photosphere appear as a smooth line on the inside of the orange emissions. There is a significant density change between the photosphere and chromosphere and that smooth inside boundary denotes the photosphere/chromosphere boundary.

According to standard theory, no iron ion light should radiate from below that point. There should be no "light green" region between that smooth inner surface and the limb darkening we observe 20 or so pixels into the image. According to standard theory, the photosphere should be "opaque" to those wavelengths in *METERS*, not kilometers, but meters. Those wavelengths should ionize elements in the photosphere and we should see no light from the iron ion wavelengths beyond perhaps the first 3 pixels (even if we assume no ionization at all) or so from that photosphere/chromosphere boundary according to their 500KM opacity math bunny. Instead what we see are 20 pixels of math bunny disaster. :)

There simply is no physical way on Earth or in this universe to explain that image with the standard solar model or *ANY* solar model that doesn't include a *HIGHLY* (Ne+4 or better energy state) ionized atmosphere.

This issue doesn't simply support Birkeland's solar model, it absolutely destroys any non-electric solar model.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
This issue doesn't simply support Birkeland's solar model, it absolutely destroys any non-electric solar model.
Click to expand...


Birkeland never suggested that the Sun has a solid iron surface. Your implication that he did is a lie.

ETA: Oh, and do you suppose LMSAL has taken you off their spam blocking list? You might want to email them, again, and tell them that everyone who works their is clueless and that you have destroyed mainstream solar physics. I'm sure they'll be pleased to know. Let us know how that turns out, will you?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I will have to change it based on the image. It looks to be closer to 10,000KM than to 4800KM as I presumed. Frankly I'm absolutely stunned (and thrilled) at how many pixels there are between the surface and the photosphere. I was hoping for 8 or 9 pixels, not 20.
Click to expand...


So you are now claiming that there is a solid iron surface on the Sun at approximately .986R. That is about 10,000 kilometers deep, about three times deeper than you've been claiming for the past five plus years. Come on, Michael, you can do it. You can admit that you've been wrong all this time, by a factor of three! :eek:
 
Michael Mozina said:
I know you're kind of new to the whole solar theory debate, but this image is gold. It's not like previous images of the sun with highly limited resolution. SOHO and TRACE had 1 megapixel images to work with, and STEREO has 4. Even in STEREO images there would only be about two pixels between my theory and their theory. In this resolution however, and due to the depth of the silicon layer, it's closer to 20 pixels at the limb. That kind of resolution upgrade is a "game changer' in terms of satellite imagery. It's also "real time" which I completely envy. The guys at LMSAL and/or NASA can watch the real time movies while we mere mortals get by on a few crumbs. :)

Let me explain the importance of this specific image for you and so that you understand why I posted it. That orange outer light comes from the chromosphere. We can see the transition between the chromosphere and the photosphere appear as a smooth line on the inside of the orange emissions. There is a significant density change between the photosphere and chromosphere and that smooth inside boundary denotes the photosphere/chromosphere boundary.

According to standard theory, no iron ion light should radiate from below that point. There should be no "light green" region between that smooth inner surface and the limb darkening we observe 20 or so pixels into the image. According to standard theory, the photosphere should be "opaque" to those wavelengths in *METERS*, not kilometers, but meters. Those wavelengths should ionize elements in the photosphere and we should see no light from the iron ion wavelengths beyond perhaps the first 3 pixels (even if we assume no ionization at all) or so from that photosphere/chromosphere boundary according to their 500KM opacity math bunny. Instead what we see are 20 pixels of math bunny disaster. :)

There simply is no physical way on Earth or in this universe to explain that image with the standard solar model or *ANY* solar model that doesn't include a *HIGHLY* (Ne+4 or better energy state) ionized atmosphere.

This issue doesn't simply support Birkeland's solar model, it absolutely destroys any non-electric solar model.
Click to expand...

Write it up. Publish it. Collect Nobel. Why are you wasting your time here?
 
GeeMack said:
So you are now claiming that there is a solid iron surface on the Sun at approximately .986R. That is about 10,000 kilometers deep, about three times deeper than you've been claiming for the past five plus years. Come on, Michael, you can do it. You can admit that you've been wrong all this time, by a factor of three! :eek:
Click to expand...

My personal opinion was about 4800 - 6000 but I would have felt a wee bit uncomfortable at the 6000 point. I can see now it's at least 7200KM and depending on the mass flows, it probably is at least 8000KM. I'm off a bit, but not by a factor of three. Do you even know how to tell the truth or is outrageous distortion of my statements your only actual talent?
 
Wow! Yet another thread in which Michael Mozina proposes a model which violates several laws of thermodynamics, ignores most of what we know about electromagnetism, and declares victory by looking at a 2D picture and claiming to know all of its 3D structure.

Now that Michael has taught us how to do this amazing and cost-effective science, let's all try it!

full-20earth2.jpg


Look at 12:00. There's a green-brown structure extending almost 1/3rd of the way through the ocean. Obviously the ocean is very deep, but transparent, and we're looking at a 2000-km-tall inverted pyramid---or perhaps a current loop---which extends right to the surface. (What, you say? "That's all structure above the ocean", you say? Look at it, you morons! It's perpendicular to the ocean, you can see it!) That's not some mysterious floating "north america", it's obviously submerged in the transparent sphere. There's another one below it, that one is submerged on the top and elevated towards the bottom. Parallax makes it a little hard to see but I think it's 5000-6000km thick.

There's also a bright white "corona" around the edge of the whole thing. It can't be clouds, clouds are fluffy and this is a haze. It's obviously a corona emitting white light, probably excited states of Xenon or Thorium---excited by current flow---ever hear of lightning? And sometimes the corona goes under the ocean, see? It happens all over the image. You'd have to be blind not to see it.

And look at this one:
040502-Schwartz8Ball.jpg


Obviously the 8-ball is transparent---just look at the edge!---and therefore Randi's head and that 8-logo thing are hovering in the center. Maybe orbiting one another. The 8-logo is clearly IN FRONT of the Randi head. You'd have to be blind not to see it.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
My personal opinion was about 4800 - 6000 but I would have felt a wee bit uncomfortable at the 6000 point. I can see now it's at least 7200KM and depending on the mass flows, it probably is at least 8000KM. I'm off a bit, but not by a factor of three. Do you even know how to tell the truth or is outrageous distortion of my statements your only actual talent?
Click to expand...


Hey, it's not my fault if you can't seem to lock in on any particular numbers. But let's get this straight. Your claim now is that there's a solid iron surface on the Sun somewhere between 7200 kilometers and 8000 kilometers down from the commonly accepted outer radius of about 695500 kilometers, or somewhere between .990R and .988R. Correct?
 
Michael Mozina said:
My personal opinion was about 4800 - 6000 but I would have felt a wee bit uncomfortable at the 6000 point. I can see now it's at least 7200KM and depending on the mass flows, it probably is at least 8000KM. I'm off a bit, but not by a factor of three.
Click to expand...
What did you base your personal opinion on?
My guess is your guess at the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin :D.

My personal opinion is that your iron crust fantasy* is at 0.001R where the temperature is about 13,600,000 K.

Of course the most idiotic things about putting your iron crust fantasy even deeper are
  1. It makes your claims of being able to see it in any image even less possible (more impossible?). Even at 3000 km it is invisible since only 1 photon per 4 years can escape the Sun from it (assuming that your crust is as bright as the entire Sun :jaw-dropp!).
    At a depth of > 7200 km you would need a iron crust emitting more light than trillions? of Suns in order to get through the plasma above it.
  2. The deeper you go the higher the temperature.
    At 500 km your iron crust has already vaporized because the temperature is 9400 K.
  3. You are getting further into the convective zone where convection takes the vaporized remains of your iron crust and spread it around the interior of the Sun.
  4. I wonder what happens to the mass of the sun in your fantasy when you have > 7200 km of "mostly" Li/Be/B/C/N/O/Si plasma above the iron crust.
*A fanatsy because it violates thermodynamics, e.g see 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 :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutley nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 50 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
Anyway, after all of the noise and yelling, MM is still breezily assuming that 171A light comes from deep under the photosphere---apparently 7000km, not 3000km, deep. As we've variously said, this is impossible in any plasma conditions anyone has ever actually proposed. MM promised to propose a new never-before-seen plasma condition under which he thinks it's not impossible. Making any progress on that, MM?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Doing some more numbers on the image ...

The Sun subtends an angle of ~0.009 radians.

The AIA has a resolution of ~1 arcsec (which is ~5 microrads), of which there are ~1800 in 0.009 rads.

The beautiful image is 4096 x 4096 pixels, so the AIA's PSF covers approx 2x2 pixels.

In this image, a pixel corresponds to ~360 km (normal to the line of sight).

The image is an RGB false-colour one, with R being 21.1nm, G 19.3nm, and B 17.1nm; the relative RGB values for "the thin green line"* might be interesting to table (I suspect they will vary quite a bit); all three are iron ion lines.

BTW, I don't think the point sources are stars ben m; even in the EUV, the Sun is still the brightest object in the sky, by far (barring possible transients).

* which is not continuous, nor of constant width
Click to expand...

Thank you. I mean that.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I don't have a photoionization problem because this is an electric solar model, but you certainly have a *HUGE* problem.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to have a model, Michael - or if you do, you're hiding it from me. If you had a model, you could tell me what kind of plasma the photosphere is composed of.
 
sol invictus said:
You don't seem to have a model, Michael - or if you do, you're hiding it from me. If you had a model, you could tell me what kind of plasma the photosphere is composed of.
Click to expand...

I have told you sol. I believe it is mostly highly ionized neon with hydrogen and electrons running through it with oxygen and all the other solar wind items in it. All of them are *highly* ionized by the current flow from the surface crust to the heliosphere and through the neon photosphere. I really don't know how to pull "better" information out of a hat. There are not many metals in the neon layer because the neon layer is evidently far higher in the atmosphere than even I realized until seeing the SDO images for the first time. That little issue blew me away and was at least another 1200 kilometers beyond my wildest dreams. :) I'm tickled pink, but it may cause me to rethink the numbers a bit. Suffice to say the loops provide the high energy ions and most of the heavier elements are concentrated inside the loops, evidently most of them are flowing around *way* under the neon layer. Some of the heavy elements in the loops rise up and through the photosphere inside the loop and eventually fall back as coronal rain (or in GM's lingo "what flying stuff"). :) The high ionization rate of neon and oxygen, and now the SDO images suggest to me that you can outright ignore the heavier elements and fixate strictly on what you see in the solar wind data. That's my personal best advice.

Keep in mind that whatever elements you find in the solar wind data (in the exact order you find them) were most likely in a highly energetic state until they exited the photosphere, so get over the notion of photoionization in the photosphere from these wavelengths inside an electric sun theory. It ain't going to happen.

Mainstream theory on the other hand is *devastated* by this visual information. That ionization concept *DOES* apply to standard theory because mainstream theory is oblivious to the discharge between the surface and the heliosphere, so it has no possible way to explain these high ionization rates, or why these wavelengths are not absorbed in the first few *METERS* of the photosphere. Birkeland's solar model may not be completely confirmed by these images, but one thing is certain, mainstream theory is falsified by these images.
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
You don't seem to have a model, Michael - or if you do, you're hiding it from me. If you had a model, you could tell me what kind of plasma the photosphere is composed of.
Click to expand...


And now he thinks he can see through 100,000 kilometers of that, uh, whatever kind of plasma.
 
GeeMack said:
And now he thinks he can see through 100,000 kilometers of that, uh, whatever kind of plasma.
Click to expand...

Most of the "extra" (7200 vs. 6000 max prior to SDO) is highly ionized silicon (You'll find that in the SERTS data too if you bothered to look). Have you even read my website?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Birkeland's solar model may not be completely confirmed by these images, but one thing is certain, mainstream theory is falsified by these images.
Click to expand...


Knock off the lie about your crazy conjecture somehow being Birkeland's solar model. It's not. And you repeating that lie will not make it true.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I have told you sol. I believe it is mostly highly ionized neon with hydrogen and electrons running through it with oxygen and all the other solar wind items in it. All of them are *highly* ionized by the current flow from the surface crust to the heliosphere and through the neon photosphere.
Click to expand...

Then your model is almost certainly ruled out by opacity alone. As I've shown, the only way 1000s of km of plasma might be transparent to 171A photons is if less than .000001 of the Ne is in any of the first, second, or third ionization states. Even then, I suspect it would still be opaque - but I can't check until you give me a scenario in which such a thing is physically possible.

I really don't know how to pull "better" information out of a hat.
Click to expand...

Then you don't have a model - it's as simple as that. Just wild conjecture.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Most of the "extra" is highly ionized silicon (You'll find that in the SERTS data too if you bothered to look). Have you even read my website?
Click to expand...


So run the calculations on that highly ionized silicon plasma and show how you can see through 100,000 kilometers of it. Remember, now that you know the opacity issue is mainstream solar theory's Achilles heel, you're going to do a little math to destroy it...

Michael Mozina said:
Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math.
Click to expand...


And sure, I've read your web site. The first lie is right there at the top of the first page. Kind of a sleazy way to get started. The entire site is a hodge-podge of severe misunderstandings, unsubstantiated and unqualified opinions, and fraudulent claims. You might want to fix that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom