Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
phunk said:
You lost me there, how can a single image be aligned? Aligned to what?


How so?


I'm not ignoring any implications, I'm not the one making claims here. I'm pointing out the things that YOU are ignoring. You're making assumptions about all of the images rather than going to the source and asking.


Again, how can a single image be the right scale and/or alignment. Neither of those measurements makes any sense on its own.
Click to expand...

Zig was right about the alignment of the GIF files. If we take the 4500A GIF image and position it with any iron ion wavelength, the limb darkened region always appears just above the horizon of the 4500A image. It works out beautifully in terms of overall size and alignment IMO to support the SSM.

If however we take either the 1600A or 1700A images and try to exactly the same thing, it doesn't work out, nor does either wavelength align to the 4500A image. Why?

If they are not aligned now, then it won't get "better" once they do align the GIF's in terms of the alignment of the 4500A to the iron lines. It might make the 1600A, 1700A and 4500A come more into alignment, but that isn't going to help support the SSM in terms of how that all aligns itself back to the original iron line images.
 
Michael Mozina said:
If we take the 4500A GIF image and position it with any iron ion wavelength, the limb darkened region always appears just above the horizon of the 4500A image.
Click to expand...

I'm going to ask again, maybe this time you'll answer. What does limb darkening mean?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
http://aia.lmsal.com/public/firstlight/20100408_044515/f0193.gif

Look at the 12:15 position of this image, and all along the limbs of this image. There is a region behind and above the dark jagged limb that is brighter than the limb itself. The limb is "opaque" to light behind that point. It's the A) location of your earlier diagram.
Click to expand...

So, for you, does limb darkening mean that the limb is darker than the corona, or that the limb is darker than the apparent center of the sun's disk, or is it simply the ragged edge of the photosphere? Or is it something else?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
http://aia.lmsal.com/public/firstlight/20100408_044515/f0193.gif

Look at the 12:15 position of this image, and all along the limbs of this image. There is a region behind and above the dark jagged limb that is brighter than the limb itself. The limb is "opaque" to light behind that point. It's the A) location of your earlier diagram.

http://phunkadelic.org/sd01-2.jpg
Click to expand...

That's not limb darkening. This is part of why it's so damn hard to know what you're talking about, you use established terms to mean something completely different than everyone else.

Limb Darkening
 
Michael Mozina said:
phunk said:
I'm going to ask again, maybe this time you'll answer. What does limb darkening mean?
Click to expand...

http://aia.lmsal.com/public/firstlight/20100408_044515/f0193.gif

Look at the 12:15 position of this image, and all along the limbs of this image. There is a region behind and above the dark jagged limb that is brighter than the limb itself. The limb is "opaque" to light behind that point. It's the A) location of your earlier diagram.

http://phunkadelic.org/sd01-2.jpg
Click to expand...


You are wrong. That is not what limb darkening is. And your gross misunderstanding of that simple concept only goes to support the notion that you don't possess the qualifications to communicate in a sane, rational, or intelligent manner on the subject of solar physics. But that will happen when you claim to be qualified and your qualifications are challenged. Bummer for you.
 
phunk said:
Michael Mozina said:
http://aia.lmsal.com/public/firstlig...4515/f0193.gif

Look at the 12:15 position of this image, and all along the limbs of this image. There is a region behind and above the dark jagged limb that is brighter than the limb itself. The limb is "opaque" to light behind that point. It's the A) location of your earlier diagram.

http://phunkadelic.org/sd01-2.jpg
Click to expand...
That's not limb darkening. This is part of why it's so damn hard to know what you're talking about, you use established terms to mean something completely different than everyone else.

Limb Darkening
Click to expand...
Not to mention that the terms used are not defined, that many key terms are enclosed in double quote marks (or not, it's apparently quite arbitrary), that the inferred (from the context) meanings of many words changes post to post, that ...

MM got very upset - many posts, and threads, ago - when I called his use of key terms idiosyncratic ... and then kept right on being idiosyncratic! :D
 
phunk said:
That's not limb darkening. This is part of why it's so damn hard to know what you're talking about, you use established terms to mean something completely different than everyone else.

Limb Darkening
Click to expand...


For a guy who claims to have created his own crackpot conjecture about the composition of the Sun somewhere around five years ago, it is interesting that he didn't have the slightest idea what the photosphere was until a couple weeks ago, and only today did he learn what limb darkening is. :D
 
GeeMack said:
For a guy who claims to have created his own crackpot conjecture about the composition of the Sun somewhere around five years ago, it is interesting that he didn't have the slightest idea what the photosphere was until a couple weeks ago, and only today did he learn what limb darkening is. :D
Click to expand...

It's not my personal fault you guys cling to what Alfven called "pseudoscience" and you make up oxymoronic terms right and left like "negative pressure vacuums". It's not my fault that you personally don't understand the term "opaque" either.

I try to get by as closely to your own terminology as I can, but since you guys make up dark energy gnomes and inflation faerie variations galore, it's hard to communicate with an industry that is based on only 4% real physics, and 96% ad hoc nonsense.
 
GeeMack said:
For a guy who claims to have created his own crackpot conjecture about the composition of the Sun somewhere around five years ago, it is interesting that he didn't have the slightest idea what the photosphere was until a couple weeks ago, and only today did he learn what limb darkening is. :D
Click to expand...


Damn. Looks like I spoke too soon. He still doesn't know what photosphere means.

Michael Mozina said:
It will necessarily be greater than or equal to the diameter of the surface of the photosphere in the SSM, correct (+- 3.5 meters)?
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
If they are not aligned now, then it won't get "better" once they do align the GIF's in terms of the alignment of the 4500A to the iron lines.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would you do that? That's the wrong thing to do, Michael. The correct thing to do is to find out the actual angular coverage of the different images, and adjust them based on that angular coverage. If you try to adjust them with respect to each other, then you're assuming that they should coincide in particular ways. And as you should know by now, making assumptions about these images is not the correct way to proceed.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I haven't dismissed any evidence. I've looked at all of it. The outcome has to be decided by work that is "published' by someone other than GM and myself based on SDO images. How is that complicated?
Click to expand...

I have observed you and interacted with you on other threads. When cornered, you inevitably ramble on about "math bunnies" and perform one of your escape acts. I do not believe your engagement in these discussions is honest because you do do not have the knowledge and skills to participate in these discussions. You are a pretender, and I for one, see through your act, which is as transparent as empty space.

So, to repeat:
Again you continue all this blather about wagering! How could anyone bet someone who dismisses scientific evidence? On what basis could anyone possibly win? You do not have even the slightest understanding of the nature of scientific evidence, you don't understand the mathematics required to evaluate any evidence and you have a bias toward accepting only the mythology of your own idiosyncratic observations!
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
So your degree isn't in "civil" discourse I take it? You can sure dish it out, but you can't take it.

Larger or smaller than the surface of the photosphere?
Click to expand...


Since you clearly don't know what the word "photosphere" means, nobody can possibly say whether something, especially something you can't even describe in an understandable way, is smaller or larger.

Michael Mozina said:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/24jul02_gcont_ai.jpg

It's the surface of that gold shinny layer (+-3.5 *METERS*).
Click to expand...


See? I was right. You don't have the slightest idea what "photosphere" means.

Is there any particular reason you refuse to actually read a book or two on basic solar physics so you can understand this simple stuff and maybe communicate in a sane, rational, and intelligent manner when trying to discuss the subject?
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
I have observed you and interacted with you on other threads. When cornered, you inevitably ramble on about "math bunnies" and perform one of your escape acts. I do not believe your engagement in these discussions is honest because you do do not have the knowledge and skills to participate in these discussions. You are a pretender, and I for one, see through your act, which is as transparent as empty space.
Click to expand...

Is that an empty space filled with dead inflation gods and mythological forms of dark energy? I'm sorry, but when it comes to empirical physics, their side is the "pretender". None of their stuff works in a lab, with possible exception of "circuit reconnection" when they fire up the "current flow" in their experiments.

So, to repeat:
Click to expand...

That would be "physics" in general, starting with the fact that iron and hydrogen will not stay "mixed" in an electromagnetic environment. I've showed you the mass flows up and through the surface of the photosphere in Hinode images galore. I've shown your tons of images that disprove the "opacity' argument and you refuse to even consider them. I'm sorry you feel as you do, but I assure you that physics (of mass movement) is on my side. We live inside of an electric universe PS.

It's 'possible' this solar model is wrong, but it's certain that he current solar model will be falsified IMO. It's only a question of when and how that will happen. The constant stream of solar wind however is completely congruent with all of Birkeland's theories, and he was the first individual to claim the sun was a cathode. I know for a fact that his theories worked in a lab, and I know for a fact he was no "pretender" PS.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
Since you clearly don't know what the word "photosphere" means, nobody can possibly say whether something, especially something you can't even describe in an understandable way, is smaller or larger.




See? I was right. You don't have the slightest idea what "photosphere" means.

Is there any particular reason you refuse to actually read a book or two on basic solar physics so you can understand this simple stuff and maybe communicate in a sane, rational, and intelligent manner when trying to discuss the subject?
Click to expand...

Is there any particular reason that you've been as slippery as a greased pig when it comes to getting a straight answer out of you? "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" Please.
 
Keep in mind D'rok that the convecting surface is the starting point, and none of the iron ion wavelengths should penetrate more than about 3.5 *meters* into that surface according to the SSM.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's 'possible' this solar model is wrong, but it's certain that he current solar model will be falsified IMO. It's only a question of when and how that will happen. The constant stream of solar wind however is completely congruent with all of Birkeland's theories, and he was the first individual to claim the sun was a cathode. I know for a fact that his theories worked in a lab, and I know for a fact he was no "pretender" PS.
Click to expand...


Birkeland suggested that the Sun emits particles which coalesce into planets. Of course nothing he ever did in a lab would support that insane notion. Clearly in some regards Birkeland was a total Bozo without the slightest clue of the makeup or function of the Sun. And even sadder than his idiocy, you hold him up as some kind of a hero. You build your arguments by picking and choosing, and in many cases dishonestly forcing incorrect interpretations into Birkeland's research. Birkeland would be the first one to tell you you're wrong.
 
GeeMack said:
Birkeland suggested that the Sun emits particles which coalesce into planets. Of course nothing he ever did in a lab would support that insane notion. Clearly in some regards Birkeland was a total Bozo without the slightest clue of the makeup or function of the Sun.
Click to expand...

Thus spoke the champion of civil discourse.
 
Last edited:
Skwinty said:
Michael,
You keep saying if only you had the FITS file.
Can you tell me why?
What is the difference between FITS, TIFF, JPG and GIF?

What parameters make the FITS file the key ?:confused:
Click to expand...
Hi Skwinty: A FITS file contains the actual scientific data. It is what astronomers actually use to analyze images rather than MM's "I see bunnies in pretty pictures" non-science.

The reason that there is no FITS file available for the SDO publicity images is simple: There is no actual released scientific data.
These publicity images were created from raw, first light data sent from SDO.

Real scientific data is due mid-May
After a series of engine burns SDO has reached geosynchronous orbit. Data will be available after a series of activities that include powering up the Ka-band transmitter, opening the instrument doors, and configuring the instruments to start science observations. This will happen approximately in mid-May, and the SDO team is looking forward to the new data.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
As I stated this morning the GIF's would tend to corroborate that statement IMO *IF* we assume the images are all aligned with each other. What then do we do with the fact that the 1700A, 4500A and 1600A all produce different sized disks?
Click to expand...
That is easy and so obvious Michael Mozina:
The artist who created these publicity pictures scaled them differently and so produced different sized disks :jaw-dropp !
 
Michael Mozina said:
Thus spoke the champion of civil discourse.
Click to expand...
Thus spoke the champion of defaming Birkeland's good name just to boost his fantasy* of an impossible iron crust in the Sun:
Micheal Mozina has a habit of essentially labeling Kristian Birkeland as having no knowledge of physics, e.g. the simple thermodynamics that make an iron crust impossible.
P.S.
First asked 28 April 2010
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Michael Mozina,
Perhaps you can explain why the first image in the SDO images gallery (the second image is the one you selected), does not have any "green line".
Click to expand...

* 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 absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
Does the SDO data have the needed resolution

A previous (and still unanswered :eye-poppi) question was:
This post separates out the allied quesiton:
Michael Mozina posted
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
I was disappointed to be sure. There simply was not the resolution necessary IMO to make a convincing case. Thanks to SDO that has all changed.
Click to expand...
This was in reply to
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina - 02/09/2006
[Skeptic Friends Network]: I hear you on that point. I've already stuck my neck *WAY* out on a limb with the STEREO program. I'm betting the farm that they'll "discover" that the 171A, 195A, and 284A image originate *underneath* the photosphere, not above it. That's a real falsification mechanism that I'll accept as a viable way to determine which "interpretation" is accurate, and there should not be much room for error. I'm going to pay close attention to that data, I assure you. I'm interesting in both proving my case and also in falsifying it as well.
Click to expand...

First asked 9 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
Does the SDO data have the needed resolution?
Or are you going to move the goalposts yet again?
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Thus spoke the champion of defaming Birkeland's good name just to boost his fantasy* of an impossible iron crust in the Sun:
Click to expand...

You and I see things *very* differently. My little ego would have *loved* to call this "my idea", but dude, Birkeland and *his whole team* beat me to this idea by 100 years. Some of them paid for their research with frostbite and a couple with their lives. To me it would be a complete dishonor to science for me to lay claim to a cathode solar model, albeit simply a "plasma layered' model, or a solid surface model. Honestly RC, that's how I see it. You can complain about it all you like, but from my perspective at least, I'm trying to be 'true to science' by giving credit where credit is actually due on the off chance I happen to be right. If you can't accept that, "Oh well". I'm not going to stop calling a cathode solar model a "Birkeland" solar model, and I really don't know what else to tell you.
 
Reality Check said:
A previous (and still unanswered :eye-poppi) question was:
  • Why was the resolution in the STEREO data not enough to "make a convincing case"
This post separates out the allied quesiton:
Michael Mozina posted

This was in reply to


First asked 9 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
Does the SDO data have the needed resolution?
Or are you going to move the goalposts yet again?
Click to expand...

I've already explained that I would be arguing with you over one or two pixels in STEREO. It's now or never in SDO. I doubt I'll live long enough to see a "better" resolution image of the sun in the wavelengths I'm interested in.
 
Have you learned any thermodynamics in the last 4 years

Michael Mozina posted in another forum
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina - 02/09/2006
[Skeptic Friends Network]: I hear you on that point. I've already stuck my neck *WAY* out on a limb with the STEREO program. I'm betting the farm that they'll "discover" that the 171A, 195A, and 284A image originate *underneath* the photosphere, not above it. That's a real falsification mechanism that I'll accept as a viable way to determine which "interpretation" is accurate, and there should not be much room for error. I'm going to pay close attention to that data, I assure you. I'm interesting in both proving my case and also in falsifying it as well.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis added)

First asked 11 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
Since you are interested in falsifying your "case" that these is an iron crust, it is obvious that you will have sat down and educated yourself in the basics of physics.

Have you learned any thermodynamics in the last 4 years and the fact the this rules out your iron crust?
If not then try this simple controlled, empirical experiment: Approach a source of heat like an electric heater or your fireplace. Note that it gets hotter as you get closer. This means that things get hotter as they get closser to a source of heat.
Now look at the science:
  1. The photosphere is ~6000 K.
  2. Your iron crust is 4800 km below this and closer to the fusion in the Sun's core.
  3. Thus everything in the Sun under the photosphere is hotter than 6000 K.
  4. Iron boils at 3134 K.
  5. Therefore your iron crust does not exist.
The situation is the same if we throw away all our knowledge of the Sun (and a lot of physics) and use the crank electric universe idea that the Sun is externally heated. In that imaginary case, the Sun will heat up to ~6000 K everywhere within the photosphere over 5 billions years. Your iron crust boils again.
 
RC, I don't pretend to understand the thermodynamics of how it all works yet. I'm still working on few "basic" predictions like where the surface is located with respect to that convection surface we see in white light. If you can't accept that, oh well, but a lack of an 'explanation' on my part is not a valid falsification of this or any scientific theory. I couldn't begin to explain the thermodynamics of the SSM and how your corona gets to millions of degree temps. Does that mean the SSM is falsified too? Get real.
 
What is the resolution needed for the wavelengths that you are interetsed in

Michael Mozina said:
I've already explained that I would be arguing with you over one or two pixels in STEREO. It's now or never in SDO. I doubt I'll live long enough to see a "better" resolution image of the sun in the wavelengths I'm interested in.
Click to expand...
You have not explained anything about the STERO data:
But this leads to new questions:
First asked 11 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
What is the resolution needed for the wavelengths that you are interetsed in?
How did you calculate it?
Why do you think that no image ever taken of the Sun will ever in your lifetime be good enough?
 
This iron crust within the Sun idea of Micheal Mozina is very easy to disprove (big surprise :eye-poppi!): It is thermodynamically impossible since it must be at a temperature of at least 9400 K (as measured within the photosphere) and so be a plasma. This has been pointed out to MM many times over the years. Here are some of the explanations given to him that he continues to not be able to understand:
This alone makes his idea into a complete fantasy and his continued belief with it a delusion and so we could stop there but... The continuous issuing of unsupported assertions, displays of ignorance of physics and fantasies about what he imagines in images are illustrated in this list of unanswered questions. The first question was asked on 6th July 2009.

  1. What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected?
  2. What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona.
  3. Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
  4. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
  5. 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).
  6. Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
  7. Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question?
  8. More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth
  9. Formation of the iron surface
  10. How much is "mostly neon" MM?
  11. Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?
  12. Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina
  13. Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina.
  14. Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested?
  15. Is Saturn the Sun?
  16. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
  17. What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model?
  18. What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K?
  19. Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles?
  20. Entire photon "spectrum" is composed of all the emissions from all the layers
  21. Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves?
  22. Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere?
  23. Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer?
  24. What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers?
  25. What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer?
  26. Explain the shape of your electrical arcs (coronal loops)
  27. What is your physical evidence for the silicon in sunspots?
  28. How do MM's "layers" survive the convection currents in the Sun?
  29. Where are the controllable empirical experiments showing the Iron Sun mass separation?
  30. How can your iron "crust" not be a plasma at a temperature of at least 9400 K?
  31. How can your "mountain ranges" be at a temperature of at least 160,000 K?
  32. Where is the spike of Fe composition in the remnants of novae and supernovae?
  33. Which images did you use as your input for the PM-A.gif image, etc.?
  34. Where did your "mountain ranges" go in Active Region 9143 when it got to the limb?
  35. Do RD movies of inactive regions show "mountain ranges"?
  36. Just how high are your "mountain ranges"?
  37. How does your iron crust exist when there are convection currents moving through it?
  38. 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?
  39. Why does the lighting of your "mountain ranges" move depending on the RD process?
  40. Why are the coronal loops in the RD images aligned along your "mountain ranges" rather than between them as expect fro electrical discharges?
  41. Why are the sunspot umbra not "mostly" iron plasma (Fe was also detected by SERTS as was C and a dozen more elements)?
  42. Can you show how you calculated that "3000-3750 KM" figure for the photosphere depth?
  43. How did you determine that the filaments "abruptly end right there"?
  44. Citation for the LMSAL claim that coronal loops all originate *ABOVE* the photosphere?
  45. Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind
  46. How did you measure the curvature of penumbral filaments in the Hinode images?
  47. How does your Iron Sun fantasy create the observed magnetic field of the Sun?
  48. Calculation for the depth of the SOT_ca_061213flare_cl_lg.mpg filament?
  49. Can you understand that the photosphere is defined to be opaque?
  50. A comment on MM's ability to interpret images: No little plasma (penumbral) filament!
  51. Where has any one in this thread claimed that the umbra is 2D?
  52. Is Michael Mozina's claim of measuring the curvature of the filaments true?
  53. Do you understand how fluorescent tubes ("neon bulbs") work?
  54. Can you explain why limb darkening does not diisprove your model?
  55. Why is the SERTS data on the corona applicable to sunspots?
  56. Please define a "current carrying plasma" from a textbook.
  57. How does the SERTS data show that all of the neon and silcon in the Sun's atmosphere is highly ionized?
  58. Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book? (really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)
  59. Where does the current from your impossible iron crust come from?
  60. Did you cherry pick the SDO image to support your fantasy? - the answer is yes. MM saw a "green line" in one PR image and ignored its absence in another.
    The SDO image"green line" is a processing artifact as confirmed by the NASA team.
    But anyway
    What went wrong with your counting of pixels in the SDO image?
    Where are your calculations that the SDO artifact has a width of *EXACTLY* 4800 km
  61. This post deserves mentioning: Math Bunnies & Image Bunnies
  62. Can Micheal Mozina understannd simple geometry?
  63. What is wrong with W.D.Clinger's calculation?
    Two recent questions but I fully expect the MM will be able to refute the geometry textbooks :rolleyes: !
  64. Got numbers, Michael Mozina? or What real quantified predictions come from Michael Mozina's Iron Sun fantasy? Is MM's idea complete useless :eye-poppi?
  65. Can you cite the paper where Kosovichev states that "those loops are mass flows" (coronal loops?)?
  66. Are galaxies electrical discharges from magnetized iron spheres (Birkelands "nebulae model")?
  67. How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?
  68. Can you understand that the disk radius in RD images depends on solar activity?
  69. Will you yank down your web site as promised after your prediction failed?
  70. Why are you still ignoring that measurements show the chromosphere, etc. above the photosphere?
    (this happens to be one reason why MM is called a crank)
  71. Why was the resolution in the STEREO data not enough to "make a convincing case"? (calculations please :rolleyes: )
Micheal Mozina has a habit of essentially labeling Kristian Birkeland as having no knowledge of physics, e.g. the simple thermodynamics that make an iron crust impossible.
Not really a question, just a list of the symptoms of a crank or crackpot that MM displays
 
Just out of curiosity RC?

How long do you think it would take an opponent of the SSM to create a list of questions that I personally could not answer about the SSM? Would the length of that list of unanswered questions falsify or verify the SSM in your mind somehow?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom