• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Electric universe theories here.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
That spectrum tells you nothing at all about what the top of the photosphere emits. Get real. All you know is that the *WHOLE THING* emits a lot of wavelengths. You know absolutely nothing about the photosphere from that data.
Click to expand...

That's not true. But it's also not relevant. It tells you a temperature, and it tells you that whatever is at that temperature is opaque.

The same thing that happens when you go to the bottom of the atmosphere on the sun. You find a "crust".
Click to expand...

Boy, did you miss the point. If you go to the bottom of the ocean, you will find that it's dark. On the proper scale, water is, in fact, opaque to visible light. Same thing with the plasma in the sun's photosphere. That it may look transparent when sitting in a tiny little box is irrelevant.

The *WHOLE* sun may indeed emit a lot of wavelengths. That tells you absolutely nothing about the surface of the photosphere.
Click to expand...

The photosphere is by definition where the visible light comes from. If you don't believe that astronomers can measure the depth of the photosphere, that's one thing. But to pretend that light is coming from under the photosphere is, well, nonsensical.

The problem is that my understanding can accommodate and explain the various details of both those images and every image on my website in fact.
Click to expand...

And yet, it cannot handle the most basic concepts about temperature.

Not one of you has touched a specific detail of that specific image! What does that tell us?
Click to expand...

That I don't care to replicate the work of others on that topic.

You'll find them flying out of the whole sun 24/7. They are found in something called "solar wind".
Click to expand...

And in things called plasmas. What's the atmosphere of the sun made out of? Oh, that's right: plasma! Why is it that so many advocates of the idea that conventional astronomy ignores the electromagnetic properties of plasma so often demonstrate that they themselves don't understand the [/i]electromagnetic properties of plasma?[/i]

Most of the rest is rehash, so I won't bother.
Click to expand...

Of course. You never bothered the first time, why should now be any different? Why should you address the fact that whatever is under the photosphere must be at least 6000 K hot?

The fact you see a lot of different wavelengths from the whole sun does not tell us squat about the output of the photosphere.
Click to expand...

Well, since the photosphere is defined as the part of the sun that emits what we see, I'd say you're axiomatically wrong. But it's still irrelevant: whatever it is we're seeing is at 6000 K, and it's opaque. You can't hide a cooler surface under a 6000 K opaque surface.

With the exception of a very few wavelengths like k-band or white light,
Click to expand...

Bwahahahahahaha! Tell me, Michael, what's the wavelength of white light?

I also observe calcium and silicon emissions from deeper layer of the sun too.
Click to expand...

If you see emission lines on top of a blackbody spectrum, that means the source is hotter than the blackbody spectrum. Still doesn't help your case, Michael.

You simply use the BB idea as a handy way of calculating energy and opacity, but these things *ASSUME* things that simply are not true
Click to expand...

No, Michael. The only thing a blackbody spectrum assumes is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds. There is no other assumption. If you think there is, then you clearly don't understand what a blackbody spectrum means.

including the notion that iron and nickel stay mixed with hydrogen.
Click to expand...

No, Michael. When I see a blackbody spectrum, I don't need to conclude anything about the source's composition in order to know that it's a blackbody, it's got a temperature I can determine, and it is opaque. Those are the only conclusions I need to make in order to show that whatever is under the photosphere must be at least 6000 K. Composition is irrelevant to that conclusion.
 
tusenfem said:
One of the interesting things about Birkeland is, is that he was a wonderful experimentalist and knew how to interpret the measurements that he made.
Click to expand...

Yes, he was quite unlike you folks that don't even comprehend what an actual "control mechanism" looks like or the reason that a control mechanism is required in a real "experiment".

And indeed he inferred that there had to be charged corpuscules coming from the sun (like in MM's signature).
Click to expand...

He knew 100 years ago that the sun spewed electrons and ions of every flavor. Your beloved mainstream ridiculed him for 60 or so years until Chapman's elegant but pointless math was put to rest based on in situ satellite measurements of currents in space. Somehow after 100 years, you and the mainstream still remain blind to every other part of his work.

However, as anyone can see (except maybe for MM and Sol88) the solar wind can never be created with the Sun being a cathode, like in Birkies experiments. I am sure Birkie would have realized that too, because the solar wind consists of both electrons and positive ions, which cannot be generated by a cathode.
Click to expand...

If you had actually read Birkeland's work like a real scientist should do, you would know that he already understood that particles of the sphere were being deposited as "soot" on the sides of his chamber, requiring him clean it periodically. That is why my sig line is not limited to electrons. Then again, you and every other skeptic (save perhaps Tim) wouldn't have a clue because you've never read his work.

By the way, I wonder if Sol88 is the Mr. Hyde to MM's Dr. Jackyll. S disappears as M pops up ...
Click to expand...

Paranoid perhaps?

So, can we stop this rediculous notion of the iron sun (or rather MM not understanding what pictures in different spectral bands mean and how the Sun creates a black body spectrum through local thermal equlibrium) and get to the real stuff here.
Click to expand...

What "real" stuff? Unlike Birkeland you folks have *NEVER* created a working model, you don't have a clue why solar wind accelerates, you don't have any evidence that "magnetic reconnection" is fundamentally (at the level of actual physics) any different from "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection" mixed in with a wee bit of induction. All you can do is blind yourself to the obvious reason why a solar atmosphere act like any other atmosphere and releases x-rays and gamma-rays, namely due to electrical discharges. Instead you're hopelessly confused by your own math formulas, you don't have a clue what a 'control mechanism' looks like or what purpose it serves.

The electric universe, there are many questions left that have never been answered:

  • comments like "the original charge separation", what does that mean
Click to expand...


  • It means that the core of the sun releases free electrons and protons. The electrons discharge themselves toward the heliosphere (case in Birkeland's experiments) and they drag the protons and other ions along for the ride. Birkeland already knew all of this by the way. He explains this in his book, but alas one has to actually read it.

    the problem with creating water from machined oxygen ions in the solar wind
    Click to expand...

    Huh? What does that have to do with Birkeland's solar theory.

    what maintains the enormous currents that create the stars in a z-pinch, and how much current is actually needed
    Click to expand...

    If you'd read Birkeland's book, you'd know that no external currents may be required save perhaps some positively charged interstellar wind. He proposed an internal fission type process and mentioned uranium by name. Not bad for 100 years ago.

    But now that MM has come to stage, it seems we only get ***WORDS*** with never anything qualitatively
    Click to expand...

    I can certainly explain these images qualitatively right down to small detail. In four years I've yet to see any of you hotshots put your money on the table and explain the actual details of this actual image even qualitatively. I don't even want to see your math until I hear your physical explanation of this process.

    let along quantitative.
    Click to expand...

    I handed you a whole paper on heliosiesmology just full of quantitative measurements and techniques. I even have confidence in their accuracy myself because I can see the results for myself in his Doppler images. That angular rigid (persistent) structure I circled for you is unlike the fluid nature of plasma.

    Suddenly 5 pages of "it too" - "is not" with really a nerve wracking and annoying self-interpretation of physics by MM. This goes no where, it would be best to close this thread.
    Click to expand...

    There you go trying to stifle the conversation by closing the thread. You guys can't handle an open and honest debate. If you could, you would simply explain the various details of these two images and that would be that. Since you can't do that, you've stooped to the oldest trick in the book, the personal smear campaign. How pitiful. Pity you can't boil me in oil here and close threads at your leisure at every website in cyberspace. Someday you'll have to either explain these images or accept the fact that you can't. When I finally accepted that fact from the standpoint of standard solar theory, and looked at the images themselves for answers, the answers came. It just took time and research. I was stunned to see that Birkeland had already tested every critical detail of such a model 100 years before I even thought of the idea.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
If you'd read Birkeland's book, you'd know that no external currents may be required save perhaps some positively charged interstellar wind. He proposed an internal fission type process and mentioned uranium by name. Not bad for 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't a bad guess. Too bad it's wrong.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's not true. But it's also not relevant. It tells you a temperature,
Click to expand...

How does it tell you *A* temperature? The sun is certainly not a single temperature.

and it tells you that whatever is at that temperature is opaque.
Click to expand...

No, it does not. You made that up, or more accurately, you *ASSUMED* it was the case.

Boy, did you miss the point. If you go to the bottom of the ocean, you will find that it's dark. On the proper scale, water is, in fact, opaque to visible light.
Click to expand...

All light penetrates to some depth of water and water is significantly more dense than light hydrogen and helium plasma. Water does not absorb every wavelength at the same rate either, hence the ROYGBIV rule. The wavelength denotes and energy state and the density of the medium is also critically important in understanding which wavelengths are light to penetrate the deepest. You'd also have to really understand the actual elements that make up the thing you describe as well as the temperature and density.

Same thing with the plasma in the sun's photosphere. That it may look transparent when sitting in a tiny little box is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Bull. We can see electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere from space. The medium is critically important. This is another example of your industry's strong need to *OVERSIMPLIFY* every physical process. Chapman's overly simplistic theories were easier to understand and explain mathematically, so the mainstream clung to Chapman's math for 60 years. You put far too much emphasis on a math formula and far too little emphasis on physics and physical tests with real control mechanisms.

The photosphere is by definition where the visible light comes from.
Click to expand...

It's a plasma layer of neon, so it just so happens to radiate brightly in visible light. So what? When we observe a sunspot, the upwelling silicon plasma is often hotter and cooler than the surface of the photosphere and yet it's not emitting anywhere near as much visible light as the neon part of the plasma. that is due to it's physical structure, not just it's temperature.

If you don't believe that astronomers can measure the depth of the photosphere, that's one thing. But to pretend that light is coming from under the photosphere is, well, nonsensical.
Click to expand...

Actually, sunspot activity might allow you to physically measure it, and I accept the depth attributed to that layer of plasma. I simply don't believe that this layer blocks all light at 171A. I think that idea is nonsensical given the physical evidence.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg
Click to expand...

The x-rays are in fact absorbed in the photosphere much faster than the 171A. That's why only the tops of the loops, the parts outside of the photosphere are visible by yohkoh, wheras TRACE sees down to the bottom of the loop, far underneath the photosphere. You are oversimplifying the light absorption process. It's never uniform nor does it block all light instantly, regardless of the medium in question. It's been a long week and I need a beer. I'll look at the rest of your post later to see if I missed something critical.

The main debate here is Tim's comment about density having virtually no importance, and the idea that only one surface is a "black body". That's clearly not correct. The medium of the photosphere will absorb various wavelengths of light at different rates, and the absorption spectrum and rate will be determined by its composition and density.
 
Ziggurat said:
No, Michael. The only thing a blackbody spectrum assumes is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds. There is no other assumption. If you think there is, then you clearly don't understand what a blackbody spectrum means.
Click to expand...

You aren't paying attention to my argument. I don't believe that the surface of the photosphere is a "black body". Period. It's simply an extremely thin layer of neon plasma sitting between a lighter and hotter helium plasma above and denser, cooler silicon layer below. It's akin to a cloud covering on Earth. It definitely will no radiate as a "black body". No thin plasma acts that way. It emits specific wavelengths based on the elements and their valence shells. The BB concept is simply a handy mathematical construct, much like Chapman's math. It just has no actual physical relevance to the sun. Hydrogen plasma at those densities will not behave like a "black body". If you think otherwise, let's see your physical *EXPERIMENTS* with actual *CONTROL MECHANISMS*.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You aren't paying attention to my argument. I don't believe that the surface of the photosphere is a "black body". Period.
Click to expand...

In other words, the photosphere isn't really a photosphere at all. Yes, I know that's your claim. I also know that it's irrelevant: whatever it is that we're seeing is a blackbody. That means it's opaque and hot. Whatever is under it is therefore at least that hot as well. I don't care what you think the origin of that radiation is, whether you think it's the photosphere (as actual astronomers do) or if you think it's from something under the photosphere, that blackbody radiation is coming from somewhere. And it sure as hell ain't coming from under your solid shell. So if there's a solid shell under the photosphere, it must be at least 6000 K. Which, well, even you don't swallow that nonsense. But all you're really doing is exchanging a physical absurdity (solds at 6000 K) for a physical impossibility (a cooler region underneath an opaque hot region).
 
Lurker interlude:

GeeMack and Reality Check have clearly and succinctly explained what Running Difference images are in a fashion that even an arts grad like me can understand. If their explanation is correct, all other issues aside, Michael's entire theory is debunked. I have no reason to think that their explanation is incorrect. Michael has offered no rebuttal but to insist that the images show something that, by their very nature, they cannot.

There is something really tragic here. Michael has hung his hat on something that he appears to be willfully misunderstanding and he is clinging to it like it's the last thing he has. Given his health announcement in his other thread, this may actually be the case. I think he is going to take this futile battle with him to his grave. This makes me a little bit sad.

Going to rub kitty's tummy now.

:End lurker interlude
 
Michael Mozina said:
How does it tell you *A* temperature? The sun is certainly not a single temperature.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Yes, there is a range of temperatures coming from the photosphere. They're all close enough together that for these purposes. And yes, you can still assign a single temperature based upon total output energy, and this temperature represents a sort of average of the visible part of the sun.

No, it does not. You made that up, or more accurately, you *ASSUMED* it was the case.
Click to expand...

No, Michael. If something emits blackbody radiation, it must be opaque. The sun emits blackbody radiation. It is therefore opaque. This is not an assumption. This is a requirement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

All light penetrates to some depth of water and water is significantly more dense than light hydrogen and helium plasma.
Click to expand...

And glass is denser than water, but can be more transparent. So what? Light has a finite penetration depth in plasma. At the temperatures and densities of the photosphere, that penetration depth isn't that large.

Bull.
Click to expand...

Wow, did you miss the point. A cup of water looks transparent, but an ocean of water is not. A small box of plasma may look transparent, but tens of kilometers need not be. Where is your physical evidence that the penetration depth of IR, visible, and UV light is longer than the thickness of the photosphere? Oh, that's right: you don't have any.

It's a plasma layer of neon, so it just so happens to radiate brightly in visible light. So what?
Click to expand...

What on earth makes you think the photosphere is made of neon?

I simply don't believe that this layer blocks all light at 171A.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. You can't get significant emissions at 171 A unless you're MUCH hotter than 6000 K. So regardless of how transparent it is at that wavelength, it's still opaque over the region in which anything below 6000 K would be radiating appreciably. Which means you can't have anything under it at colder temperatures.

You are oversimplifying the light absorption process. It's never uniform nor does it block all light instantly, regardless of the medium in question.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if it's "instant". It still gets blocked. So you can't have something under it that's colder. There's no way around that, Michael.
 
D'rok said:
Given his health announcement in his other thread
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing him with MacM. They both cling to absurd ideas in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence, but they are different.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Which *SPECIFIC* detail of this *SPECIFIC* RD or Doppler image did you or anyone else address?
Click to expand...


I explained every pixel of your precious running difference image. Every single pixel. Pick a specific pixel and go re-read my explanation. Apply that explanation to the pixel in question. There you go. Specific as hell. I explained it in a way that was understandable by pretty much every English speaking person over about 10 years old, with the exception of those who are mentally ill and/or mentally retarded. Several other members on this and other forums have explained them in great detail, also.

Michael Mozina said:
You know DRD, I was naive when I began these conversations 4 years ago. I thought for awhile that some real "scientist' might come along and say something to the effect of: "You know Mr. Mozina, I realize that you believe for the time being that you're observing a surface in these images, but let me explain all the details of these images from the perspective of the standard solar model and I think you'll see why you're wrong about that". I then figured someone might actually "explain" these images in a professional way that left no doubt that I was simply wrong. Nobody ever did that, or even *tried* to do that with any sort of professionalism or attention to detail.
Click to expand...


Another lie. Many people have. But you want a real scientist? How about the guy who oversees the TRACE program, Neal Hurlburt of Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory. He addressed your misunderstanding in the most simple, most expert terms possible. When I asked him...

GeeMack's Email said:
In this video (T171_000828.avi), and other "running difference" images and videos, where there seems to be areas of light and shadow and often the appearance of some sort of surface, it is true that this effect is actually an optical illusion resulting from the process of creating a "running difference" image?
Click to expand...


Dr. Hurlburt said...

Dr. Neal Hurlburt's Email said:
The answer is yes.
Click to expand...


His qualifications? He's responsible for the data acquisition and analysis for the The Transition Region and Coronal Explorer, the TRACE satellite used to gather the images that you so seriously misunderstand. He's the boss man in that department. From his bio web page at LMSAL...

Hurlburt's research revolves around solar convection theory with an emphasis towards the application of modern computational and visualization technologies. He is currently active in developing and applying numerical models of nonlinear compressible MHD to sunspots and dynamos, in the comparison of these simulations to high-resolution solar observations, and in the visualization and management of the large datasets resulting from both simulation and observation. Hurlburt has developed and run his large-scale numerical simulations on many varieties of vector and parallel supercomputers and mini-supercomputers. He has devised, developed and managed several substantial visualization and data processing systems which exploit the latest in interactive graphics, workstations and highspeed networks.​

But Michael, you have a lot of gall. Christ, you can't even explain the image yourself. You can't say which points in the picture represent altitudes how high or depressions how low. You've balked at describing which areas might be artifacts of the running difference image creation process and which might be actual terrain. You have never explained how anyone with any equipment can see anything several thousand kilometers below the photosphere. Certainly no professional astrophysicist on Earth is aware of a way to do it. When asked to provide an objective method to analyze the picture, you know, so other people could come to the same conclusion you have, you have been totally unable to do that. That's when you turn and run, change the subject, totally pussy out, because there is no objective method that can be applied to reach the conclusion you've reached. None.

Michael, you are wrong about running difference images, and you are a bald faced liar. Every time you say your images haven't been explained in detail, you're lying again. And when someone has been proven a liar, as you have, and continues to spew the same lie over and over, it's a symptom of serious mental illness. Even in the world of crackpots you're a failure. With your miserably poor communication skills, your complete lack of math skills, and particularly your inability to be honest, you give even other crackpots a bad name. Do you think your friends would be proud of you knowing you're so attached to your delusion that you've become a compulsive liar to support it? How do you square it with your kids? Teach them, "If you're too stupid to do math and you just don't understand science, go ahead and lie?" :confused:
 
Ziggurat said:
I think you're confusing him with MacM. They both cling to absurd ideas in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence, but they are different.
Click to expand...

Whoops! You're correct. My mistake. Sorry Michael!

:o
 
Michael Mozina said:
IIt seems to me RC that you are overlooking the obvious. The loops are heated over their entire length because they are like any ordinary current carrying thread in plasma. They form filamentary shapes due to the current flow and the magnetic field created by the flow "pinches" these flows into tightly spiraling "ropes". It's not just a part of the loop that is lit and very hot, the whole thing is lit from one base to the other. The bases of the loops however do not "start" or become visible *ONLY* after the reach the corona. They are emitting these high energy wavelengths far below the photosphere and we are able to see them far below the photosphere. The yellow x-ray part of composite image shows us where the loops reach into the corona. While we can only observe the tops of the loops when they reach the corona, we can observe the bases of the loops far underneath the photosphere, deep *INSIDE* the sun. The loops are just as hot below the photosphere and they are also emitting x-rays under the photosphere, but the photosphere absorbs the x-rays, whereas it does not absorb all the photons in 171A.
Click to expand...
It seems to me MM that you are overlooking the obvious.
There is no evidence that coronal loops are heated over their entire length.
There is no evidence that coronal loops are heated over that part that is visible above the photosphere.

There is evidence from the TRACE 171A pass band data that a large part of the length of coronal loops in the corona does not vary much in temperature.
That is in fact evidence that the plasma is not heated other than the amount needed to maintain the temperature. But given your lack of knowledge of physics it is not surprising that you think "heated" means "constant temperature".

Then there is the fact you have not presented any evidence for your assertion that that coronal loops are "electric currents".
Is this to be just another of your unfounded assertions such as
  • "we can observe the bases of the loops far underneath the photosphere, deep *INSIDE* the sun"
  • "The loops are just as hot below the photosphere and they are also emitting x-rays under the photosphere, but the photosphere absorbs the x-rays, whereas it does not absorb all the photons in 171A."
Who is "we" and where did they publish their Nobel Prize wining paper that stated this?
What is your evidence that X-rays are absorbed by the photosphere and UV light is not?

A bit of basic physics:
The core of the Sun is really, really hot since there is fusion happening there - judging by the neutrino flux. This means lots of X-rays are being emitted by the electrons in the core plasma. What happens when something absorbs light? It heats up.
The conclusion of your absorption assertion is that either the photosphere is at typical X-ray temperates (millions of degrees) or no other energetic process (e.g. fusion or even fission) is happening inside the photosphere.
Both conclusions are contradicted by the evidence
  • The photosphere is measured to have a temperature of ~6000 K.
  • Neutrinos are measured to come from the Sun and the Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein effect confirms that they passed through very large electron densities (as expected at the Sun's core).

It seems to me MM that you are overlooking the obvious:
The composite image is of 2 images taken looking down on the Sun. There is no way from that image alone to tell the height of any of the emissions. For that you need side-on images of coronal loops.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The surface of the photosphere is not the surface of the sun that my website describes. The surface of the photosphere is simply another atmospheric layer of the sun, not unlike the chromosphere nor more unique than the chromosphere. It's simply the top of the neon layer of plasma, whereas the chromosphere is mostly helium and emits in Helium wavelengths. The actual surface crust is located at around .995R.

You fixating on the temperature of the top of the photosphere is like you fixating on the top of the chromosphere and claiming the photosphere must be at least the same temperature as the chromosphere. In reality, the top of the chromosphere is much hotter than the top of the photosphere. Likewise the top of the silicon layer is significantly more dense and cool than the top of the photosphere.
Click to expand...
You need to make sure that you alway qualify "surface" so that pepole do not think that this is the standard usage of the term in solar astronomy, i.e. the visible surface of the Sun (the photosphere).

I am not "fixating" on the temperature of the photosphere - that is the visible surface of the Sun.

The photosphere is not a top of your hypothetical, mythical, "neon layer" assertion.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Yawn. None of you have touched a single specific detail in the that RD image, the Doppler image or any image I've provided. Take a few course and let me know when you've got an explanation that is attentive to detail. :)
Click to expand...

Liar.

RD TRACE image
We have told you exactly what is in the RD TRACE image - a computer construction of what is changing in the 171A pass pand of the TRACE images.
All of the details are the things that are changing temperature, intensity and position. You want to see fixed features and so you call these measurements of change "mountain ranges".

Doppler image
And your own web site has the explanation of the Doppler image from Dr. Alexander G. Kosovichev:
"The consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions.
We know this from the simultaneous measurements of solar magnetic field, made by SOHO. These are not solid structures which would not have mass flows that we see.
These images are Doppler shift of the spectral line Ni 6768A.
The Doppler shift measures the velocity of mass motions along the line of sight. The darker areas show the motions towards us, and light areas show flows from us. These are not cliffs or anything like this. The movie frames are the running differences of the Doppler shift. For the illustration purpose, the sunquake signal is enhanced by increasing its amplitude by a factor 4."
 
D'rok said:
Lurker interlude:

GeeMack and Reality Check have clearly and succinctly explained what Running Difference images are in a fashion that even an arts grad like me can understand.
Click to expand...

So, let's see you put some of your new found knowledge to use and explain some of the *ACTUAL DETAILS* of *THIS SPECIFIC* image. What's the flying stuff, and the peeling we observe along the right during the image? Why are their angular patterns in the image and why don't they change radically over the timeline of the video, particularly during and after the CME event?
 
Reality Check said:
Liar.
Click to expand...

You are a liar and a con artist. You have intentionally and specifically and *carefully* avoided dealing with any of the specific observations of that RD image. You've given broad handwave type answers rather than focus on any real details related to any specific events in these images. Name a single specific detail or event in the image that you or anyone else has actually dealt with or explained?
 
Reality Check said:
RD TRACE image
We have told you exactly what is in the RD TRACE image - a computer construction of what is changing in the 171A pass pand of the TRACE images.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. It also shows what is *NOT* changing as well, including all those angular structures none of you want to talk about or deal with.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Which *SPECIFIC* detail of this *SPECIFIC* RD or Doppler image did you or anyone else address?
Click to expand...
*EVERY* detail of this *SPECIFIC* RD or Doppler image was addressed not only by people in this forum but also by people in other forums as in the links in GeeMack's list:
GeeMack said:
Oh, man. You asked for it. This has been going on for years, since 2002 at least. Here's a compendium, a virtual cornucopia of Michael's "Surface of the Sun" antics. Of particular interest are the discussions about running difference images in the material on the Skeptic Friends Network (bottom of the list of links below). That is just one of several places where the concept of running difference images was explained in great depth. You'll also see where Michael completely folded as he demanded that everyone else explain the images, which I did in detail, yet he was wholly incapable of explaining them himself. It's tedious, but humorous, too, in a pathetic sort of way.

On this page at SFN, (and the pages that follow, and at several other places in that ridiculously long conversation) I offered Michael the opportunity to help us understand the meaning of the image, how we could determine the height of the mountains and depth of the valleys. His world class evasion technique shone through in style. Yes, he weaseled. He didn't have the stuff. Shortly after, he abandoned his participation there, slinked away utterly defeated.
Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum...
8 pages, 30 posts per page...
13 pages, 30 posts per page...
14 pages, 30 posts per page...
12 pages, 30 posts per page...
Sockpuppet: ManInTheMirror - 4 pages, 30 posts per page...
Sockpuppet: ManInTheMirror - 36 pages, 30 posts per page...
Einstein@Home forum at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee...
Over 3,000 postings over at the Skeptic Friends Network...
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
You need to make sure that you alway qualify "surface" so that pepole do not think that this is the standard usage of the term in solar astronomy, i.e. the visible surface of the Sun (the photosphere).
Click to expand...

From my website:

The sun's photosphere is often mistakenly referred to as the surface of the sun. In reality however, the sun's photosphere is only a "liquid-like" plasma layer made of neon that covers the actual surface of the sun. That visible layer we see with our eyes is composed of penumbral filaments that are several hundred kilometers deep. This visible neon plasma layer that we call the photosphere, and a thicker, more dense atmospheric layer composed of silicon plasma, entirely covers the actual rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer of the sun. The visible photosphere covers the actual surface of the sun, much as the earth's oceans cover most of the surface of the earth. In this case the sun's photosphere is very bright and we cannot see the darker, more rigid surface features below the photosphere without the aid of satellite technology.
Click to expand...

That's pretty specific.

I am not "fixating" on the temperature of the photosphere - that is the visible surface of the Sun.
Click to expand...

It's just *a* layer of the sun that happens to emit visible light. So what? It's just a thin layer of plasma that is utterly incapable of acting like a "black body" because it's far too thin to do so.

The photosphere is not a top of your hypothetical, mythical, "neon layer" assertion.
Click to expand...

You guys can't even seem to comprehend mythical from hypothetical. Neon exists in nature. You might accuse me of using a hypothetical, but there is nothing "mythical" about it. Dark energy, dark matter and invisible dead inflation faeries are mythical entities that never show up in a lab. Neon shows up in a lab. It also emits white light.
 
Reality Check said:
*EVERY* detail of this *SPECIFIC* RD
Click to expand...

********. Name one *SPECIFIC* observation from the image that you or anyone else actually addressed?

Edited for Beach of Rule 10
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Mozina said:
Yes, I know. It also shows what is *NOT* changing as well, including all those angular structures none of you want to talk about or deal with.
Click to expand...
The stupidity is amazing.
If you subtract an image from another image then by definition you only have what has changed between the 2 images.
Therefore there are no persistent structures in the RD image.
 
GeeMack said:
I explained every pixel of your precious running difference image. Every single pixel.
Click to expand...

Liar. You handwaved some general ideas and intentionally avoided every specific detail in the image. Name a single actual observed event in that image you actually "explained"?
 
Michael Mozina said:
So, let's see you put some of your new found knowledge to use and explain some of the *ACTUAL DETAILS* of *THIS SPECIFIC* image. What's the flying stuff, and the peeling we observe along the right during the image? Why are their angular patterns in the image and why don't they change radically over the timeline of the video, particularly during and after the CME event?
Click to expand...
He does not have to since we have already explained "EVERY DETAIL" of *THIS SPECIFIC* image.

But let us humor the crackpot since he is unable to read the TRACE website
  • flying stuff = the CME passing across the image during ejection and fally back toward the photosphere (changes in position).
  • angular patterns = the C3.3 flare changing previous to and during the CME event. The solar flare is probably climbing and changing intensity. The images do change a bit on the fringes (unlike your mythical "mountain ranges"). That is the flare expanding a bit on the edges.
N.B. The C3.3. flare is associated with the CME, which happen in both active and quiet solar regions. That means that they just happen in the same area. They do not cause each other and a CME need not affect the flare.
TRACE
This is a snapshot of Active Region 9143 observed with TRACE in the 171Å passband, showing bright material around 1 million degrees. This image, taken at 17:07UT on August 28, 2000, shows the corona during a C3.3 flare, associated with a mass ejection (towards the upper left of the image). The associated 3.3MB AVI movie (Cinepak compressed) shows the flare and mass ejection as a difference movie: where the image turns bright, the solar corona has become brighter after 16UT, and where it turns black it has dimmed. This shows the ejected material very well, first flying upward at several hundred kilometers per second. Later, some of it is seen to fall back as a dark cloud.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
You guys can't even seem to comprehend mythical from hypothetical. Neon exists in nature. You might accuse me of using a hypothetical, but there is nothing "mythical" about it. Dark energy, dark matter and invisible dead inflation faeries are mythical entities that never show up in a lab. Neon shows up in a lab. It also emits white light.
Click to expand...
It is mythical because a crackpot is presenting the idea.
It is hypothetical because the crackpot cannot give any evidence for it.
 
Almost forgot this :blush: !
Michael Mozina:
First asked on 23rd June. 2009.
No real response yet (27th June 2009 and counting).

How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
  • galaxy rotation curves (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
  • the motion of galxies in galactic clusters (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
  • the actual measurement of the mass density of galactic clusters showing that about 2% is in the galaxies and IGM (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, indirect measurement)
  • the two actual measurements of the separation of dark matter from normal matter:
  • A bit of supporting evidence is that the Millennium Run used the Lambda-CDM model to replicate the large-scale structure of the universe. CDM = Cold Dark Matter.
N.B. The above evidence is based on empirical data (as defined in MM's web site, e.g. the solar data and images which are from uncontrolled experiments).
Newtonian dynamics have been confirmed in controlled experiments.
Maxwell's equations have been confirmed in controlled experiments.
General Relativity has been confirmed in controlled experiments.


So far we have seen
  • Michael Mozina's usual inability to understand what empirical means with his "empirical measurments of an *CONTROLLED* experiment" nonsense.
  • His personal opinion that somehow astronomers have underestimated the visible mass of galaxies. That would have to by a factor of 50 or more.
The last point demands more questions:
First asked 25 June 2009:

No real response yet (27th June 2009 and counting).
Would you like to explain how the astronomers got the mass so wrong, e.g.
  • What visible matter are they not accounting for?
  • How is the mass of the visible matter they are accounting for measured incorrectly?
  • Is the Sun two times heavier than orbital mechanics say that it is? 10 times? 50 times? 100 times? Or greater?
Perhaps this just your personal opinion unsupported by any empirical evidence just because you cannot understand the evidence for dark matter?
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's just *a* layer of the sun that happens to emit visible light.
Click to expand...

And that light just happens to be a blackbody spectrum.

So what? It's just a thin layer of plasma that is utterly incapable of acting like a "black body" because it's far too thin to do so.
Click to expand...

If it emits like a blackbody (and it does), then it must absorb like a blackbody.

Neon shows up in a lab. It also emits white light.
Click to expand...

Under what conditions does it emit white light?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Yes, he was quite unlike you folks that don't even comprehend what an actual "control mechanism" looks like or the reason that a control mechanism is required in a real "experiment".
Click to expand...

As you have no idea what kind of things I have done in my scientific life, this is a bold comment, but anywhooooo

Michael Mozina said:
He knew 100 years ago that the sun spewed electrons and ions of every flavor. Your beloved mainstream ridiculed him for 60 or so years until Chapman's elegant but pointless math was put to rest based on in situ satellite measurements of currents in space. Somehow after 100 years, you and the mainstream still remain blind to every other part of his work.
Click to expand...

I cannot be held responsible for tha actions of peeps before I was born, dear MM, so I don't frakking care. I am of the opinion that Chapman was totally wrong and out of order with respect to his shutting Birkie out of the (mainly UK) scientific community. So, if you have an axe to grind, take it up with Chapman.

Michael Mozina said:
If you had actually read Birkeland's work like a real scientist should do, you would know that he already understood that particles of the sphere were being deposited as "soot" on the sides of his chamber, requiring him clean it periodically. That is why my sig line is not limited to electrons. Then again, you and every other skeptic (save perhaps Tim) wouldn't have a clue because you've never read his work.
Click to expand...

How would you know what I have read or not? So now the soot are the ions of the solar wind? RIIIIIIGHT That was just happening because of chemical reaction inside his glass box, and indeed he needed (to let his assistants creap into that box) to clean it.

But ***AGAIN***, a cathode ***CANNOT*** accelerate ***BOTH*** electrons and ions, so the idea that the sun is a cathode and the heliosphere is the anode is totally rediculous to explain the solar wind.

Michael Mozina said:
Paranoid perhaps?
Click to expand...

Not half as much as Birkeland was, when in Egypt. I am just considering that MM and Sol88 are the same persons.

Michael Mozina said:
What "real" stuff? Unlike Birkeland you folks have *NEVER* created a working model, you don't have a clue why solar wind accelerates, you don't have any evidence that "magnetic reconnection" is fundamentally (at the level of actual physics) any different from "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection" mixed in with a wee bit of induction. All you can do is blind yourself to the obvious reason why a solar atmosphere act like any other atmosphere and releases x-rays and gamma-rays, namely due to electrical discharges. Instead you're hopelessly confused by your own math formulas, you don't have a clue what a 'control mechanism' looks like or what purpose it serves.
Click to expand...

Real stuff as in like ***YOU*** calculating something, instead of showing nice pics (another thing you have in common with Sol88, the "look at the pretty pic, I do not understand it, but it definitely shows that I am right" kind of "physics").

Interestig you start talking about reconnection, because, inadvertently, I found this process near Venus, and lo-and-behold, the data from VEX showed almost exactly what a numerical model (that I did not know beforehand) said should happen. Your ever and ever complaint about reconection, wanting it to be called "circuit reconnection" (which is not so terrible) or "particle reconnection" (which is outright ludicrious) is fine, but you never ***EVER*** explain how the topology of the magnetic field as observed in simulations, experiments and space happens in your preferred model (but that is a whole other thread that we need not put into this one here, it already exists)

By the way MM, have YOU ever worked in a plasma laboratory? (I have)

Michael Mozina said:
It means that the core of the sun releases free electrons and protons. The electrons discharge themselves toward the heliosphere (case in Birkeland's experiments) and they drag the protons and other ions along for the ride. Birkeland already knew all of this by the way. He explains this in his book, but alas one has to actually read it.
Click to expand...

Could you please show how these puny electrons with a mass of 1/1836 of a proton can do such a thing? That they would be able to pull along a few protons, I could believe, but ***THE SOLAR WIND IS ELECTRICALLY NEUTRAL***, so I really would like you to show us how this is being done, equal amounts of electrons and protons, with also all the other known parameters of the solar wind like temperatures, velocities etc. etc.
(well that ain't never gonna happen, getting MM to really calculate something and show that it can be done, he'd rather handwave, with very very big waves)

Michael Mozina said:
Huh? What does that have to do with Birkeland's solar theory.
Click to expand...

Ah, you see, this thread is NOT about Birkeland. He is interesting, but this whole thread is about the Electric Universe. ***YOU*** turned it into a Birkie thread, because of your narrow view of "space physics." These were general questions for the EU proponents (of which ***YOU*** apparently are one).

Michael Mozina said:
If you'd read Birkeland's book, you'd know that no external currents may be required save perhaps some positively charged interstellar wind. He proposed an internal fission type process and mentioned uranium by name. Not bad for 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

HELLOOOOOOOOO, somebody pick up the clue phone, we ARE NOT discussing Birkie. According to the EU stars are created from big intragalactic currents that create a z-pinch and then there is a star, which is an arc, or something silly like that. So the question to the EU peeps is what creates these huge intragalactic currents and what is the strength needed to create a z-pinch and a star.

MM this has NOTHING to do with fission of uranium in the sun, the EU could not care less about Birkies ideas on that kind of stuff, stars are z-pinches in intragalactic current channels. Get updated dude!

Michael Mozina said:
I can certainly explain these images qualitatively right down to small detail. In four years I've yet to see any of you hotshots put your money on the table and explain the actual details of this actual image even qualitatively. I don't even want to see your math until I hear your physical explanation of this process.
Click to expand...

Well, looking at your pc screen for 4 years, will certainly damage your eye sight, so that is probably why you come up with all this nonsense, and then of course the fact that you do not understand how bandpass filters work and how images of bandpass filtered pics have to be interpreted (e.g. black does not mean that there is nothing there, it means there is nothing there that emits in that wavelength band)

Michael Mozina said:
There you go trying to stifle the conversation by closing the thread. You guys can't handle an open and honest debate. If you could, you would simply explain the various details of these two images and that would be that.
Click to expand...

This is no debate, sorry, it is merely turning into a schoolyard brawl, and until you show that indeed you understand physics, bandpass images, the real greateness of Birkie, and lost more, there is nothing to discuss about anymore, your errors have been shown again and again and again here and on BAUT. The fact that you are "steadfast" in your "defence" of Birkie is good, but it should not blind you to any mistakes that you may have made.
 
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
It means that the core of the sun releases free electrons and protons. The electrons discharge themselves toward the heliosphere (case in Birkeland's experiments) and they drag the protons and other ions along for the ride. Birkeland already knew all of this by the way. He explains this in his book, but alas one has to actually read it.
Click to expand...

And MM you failed to explain how this works when I asked you, granted you had a lot on your plate at the time.

So you have electrons being either repulsed from teh charge of teh surface or being attracted to a lay of opposite charge, correct?

Then you have the positively charged ions being towed by the electrons, correct?

As I asked before: this raises some questions
(Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do.)

-given the lower mass of the electrons
--what velocity must the electron have to tow the positive ions with them?
--or is there a higher proportion of electrons to compensate for the much higher mass of the positive ions?
--what ration between velocity/momentum of the electrons and the proportion of the electrons do you suggest?

Then there is the issue of the opposite charges:

In the case of repulsion from the surface the positive ions are going to be attracted to the surface.
-what velocity/momentum and proportion of the electrons is needed to compensate for that?

In the case of the attraction to the outer layer the positive ions are going to be repulsed by the charge of the outer layer.
-what velocity/momentum and proportion of the electrons is needed to compensate for that?


So then we get down to possible observations that would support your theory:
-is the proportion of electrons to positive ions appropriate to your model, from observations?
-what charge would be needed on the heliosphere to account for the needed acceleration of the electrons and positive ions? What is the observed value?
 
Michael Mozina said:
So, let's see you put some of your new found knowledge to use and explain some of the *ACTUAL DETAILS* of *THIS SPECIFIC* image. What's the flying stuff, and the peeling we observe along the right during the image? Why are their angular patterns in the image and why don't they change radically over the timeline of the video, particularly during and after the CME event?
Click to expand...

Can't say it better than this:

In running difference images and videos, where there seem to be areas of light and shadow and often the appearance of some sort of surface, this effect is actually an optical illusion resulting from the process of creating a "running difference" image. (GeeMack)

If you don't grasp how that negates your entire premise and makes micro-analyzing "surface" details nonsensical, there probably is no hope for you.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The surface of the sun is less than 2000 Kelvin. Just as the photosphere is cooler than the chromosphere and the chromosphere is cooler than the corona, so too the layers under the photosphere (silicon and calcium layers) are cooler and more dense than the photosphere. The surface itself is rather cool compared to the photosphere and it would need to be cool enough for solids to form given the gravity conditions that exist at the surface.
Click to expand...

You're taking conclusions and then bashing the evidence over the head to fit! Don't you understand that it gets hotter as you decrease radius? Even Jupiter is like that, and we actually sent a probe into the planet. You insist that the surface is cool enough because you NEED it to be cool enough or your theory falls apart! You have no evidence. You have no proof. You have a picture that you don't even understand, and you're waving it around like the Golden Tablets.

I don't think any of you have ever acknowledged that I have always insisted that the double layers under the photosphere are cooler than the photosphere which is why we often find cooler (and hotter) material rising through the photosphere during sunspot events. When the silicon layer is hot enough, it squirts through the neon plasma of the photosphere and we get sunspots. Never have I suggested that iron is stable at 6K degrees. I wonder if you folks will *EVER* acknowledge that point? How many years has it been now?
Click to expand...

Sunspots are areas of relatively cooler gas. Sunspots are still 4000 K. The photosphere and its sunspots are the coolest regions on the sun, and yet you ignore satellite data to prop up your iron ball theory. It's no wonder scientsist laugh at you and don't bother giving you a definite answer. You're not even wrong.
 
Michael Mozina said:
First off, your side is hurling 10 times the insults my way. Secondly, it's your side that has it in their head that this image *must* in some way be associated with gas model solar theory. I'm more than happy to listen to your responses, but they MUST be attentive to details within the actual image if you expect me to take you seriously.
Click to expand...
No, you're just a crackpot who refuses to admit that he's wrong. You get so hyped on on an image, and you don't have a clue about it. You're working backwards from a conclusion.

I am not talking about the surface of the photosphere, I'm talking about the crust underneath the photosphere.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't exist. Evidence? No pictures. Show us, without using pictures, that such a thing can exist on the sun. Remember to provide calculations about density and the composition of the material, and how mass is distributed while maintaining the same radius and gravitational pull. Oh, you can't? Sorry, my bad.

No, I did not. I embraced a decade worth of SOHO and Trace and Yohkoh images. That Doppler image shows a rigid feature in the photosphere. I didn't expect to find it, it's just there. Those persistent features of the RD image are just there too. I didn't make them up and you haven't explained their cause.
Click to expand...

You embraced something without knowing what it is. That's like embracing a cactus, though less amusing. The Doppler image shows a rigid feature only to you. Do you understand that? You're the only one seeing the pink elephant. There are persistent features on Jupiter as well, and that's not solid. Unless you're claiming that Jupiter is a ball of iron as well. Good luck with that one. Nevermind the fact that Jupiter and the Sun have similar composition. How can that be unless they are both gaseous bodies?

It's not just *ONE* image that convinced me, it *EVERY* one of the 17 Gigabytes of RD image, Doppler images, composite images, etc that convinced me. Note that at the time I was blissfully unaware of Birkeland's model, I assumed the gas model solar theory was accurate and I was simply trying to 'explain' these images.
Click to expand...

Then you are easily fooled. Birkeland may have had some good ideas that even stuck around, but I think you need to get caught up with 21st century physics and astronomy and put the 19th century astronomy aside.

Your the one insisting standard solar theory offers us an explanation, so let's hear it? Let's see you explain the details of these images for us?
Click to expand...

I can't because I'm not qualified. If I were to take a stab at it, I'd say that's a Doppler image of the sun. Did it never occur to you that things can have form? I see that stuff all the time when I look at clouds. I see areas of turbulence from interactions with gas on the photosphere.

And to think you folks accuse me of insults. Get real. You folks belittle and attack individuals, not ideas. You also rely *HEAVILY* upon personal insult.
Click to expand...

You're not innocent of this, so don't get started. I'm calling you out as a scientist. Your methods are nonexistant and you haven't done any actual work aside from shout and scream and point at the picture. To say you lack the basic understanding is not an insult or an attack. It's the truth. You have no idea how go about proving something.

Yawn. None of you have touched a single specific detail in the that RD image, the Doppler image or any image I've provided. Take a few course and let me know when you've got an explanation that is attentive to detail. :)
Click to expand...

The others have gone into good detail about those images, you've chosen to ignore them so you can continue to claim empty victories. You're a troll. An entertaining troll, but a troll.
 
Michael Mozina to D'rok said:
So, let's see you put some of your new found knowledge to use and explain some of the *ACTUAL DETAILS* of *THIS SPECIFIC* image. What's the flying stuff, and the peeling we observe along the right during the image? Why are their angular patterns in the image and why don't they change radically over the timeline of the video, particularly during and after the CME event?
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina to Reality Check said:
You are a liar and a con artist. You have intentionally and specifically and *carefully* avoided dealing with any of the specific observations of that RD image. You've given broad handwave type answers rather than focus on any real details related to any specific events in these images. Name a single specific detail or event in the image that you or anyone else has actually dealt with or explained?
Click to expand...


D'rok can't tell you why there is peeling. There isn't peeling. He can't tell you about the flying stuff. There isn't any flying stuff. He understands that a running difference image is a graphical representation of the change between two or more images in a series. His understanding is in exact agreement with Dr. Neal Hurlburt, the man who is in charge of acquiring and analyzing the data from the TRACE satellite.

Reality Check's assessment also agrees with Dr. Hurlburt's. Again you're asking him to explain why there's a bunny in the clouds, but you will never get a satisfactory answer to that question. There is not a reason for there being a bunny in the clouds because there is not a bunny in the clouds. You're asking a question that can't be answered rationally. Your question itself is simply not rational.

You're not asking these people to answer your questions. You're demanding that they agree with you. And they aren't going to agree with you for the simple reason that you are wrong. You're a crackpot, a lunatic, and throwing temper tantrums while insisting on maintaining your ignorance is making you look scary, like someone who's dangerously mentally ill.

Michael Mozina to Reality Check said:
Yes, I know. It also shows what is *NOT* changing as well, including all those angular structures none of you want to talk about or deal with.
Click to expand...


No, it does not show anything that hasn't changed from one source image to the next. It can't. That's not how running difference images work. That's what the people say who obtained the data, analyzed the data, and prepared the image. Michael, they are right and you are wrong, unless you're calling Neal Hurlburt a liar, too. Remember Dr. Hurlburt? He's the one whose multi-million dollar TRACE project at LMSAL has made this image available to you.

Michael Mozina to GeeMack said:
Liar. You handwaved some general ideas and intentionally avoided every specific detail in the image. Name a single actual observed event in that image you actually "explained"?
Click to expand...


There is not a single actual observed event in that image. The "event" was a computer program comparing pixel X3,Y7 in Photo A to X3,Y7 in Photo B, then printing another pixel, one representing the difference between those two pixels, into space X3,Y7 in the output. Then the program moves on to pixel X4,Y7 then X5,Y7 then X6,Y7 and so on, until it has compared every pixel between the source images. Dr. Hurlburt from LMSAL agrees.

A running difference video is a sequence of these, a graphical representation of the change in the intensity of each pixel from one image to the next through a series of source images. There are no details of any output image that are any more specific than each pixel. You'd be an idiot, Michael, if you were to ask someone to explain, well, what you're asking them to explain. You can call me a liar for not addressing something that isn't even there, but it's irrational to do so. And it just lends more credibility to the notion that you might be a sick man in desperate need of professional help.

But, I am ever willing to give you another chance. I'll give you the (absurdly remote to the point of being beyond reasonable) possibility that there is something legitimate behind your lunacy, and maybe you are just wholly incompetent at communicating it. Why don't you explain the running difference image. After all, you haven't, yet. Or are you going to be a hypocrite as well as a liar? So far, in literally years of babbling this nonsense, all you've been able to say is, "It looks like a surface to me." And I hope you'd agree, that ain't science.

Here's my comment from a previous posting. You might start explaining specifics, in detail, by answering some of these concerns...

GeeMack said:
But Michael, you have a lot of gall. Christ, you can't even explain the image yourself. You can't say which points in the picture represent altitudes how high or depressions how low. You've balked at describing which areas might be artifacts of the running difference image creation process and which might be actual terrain. You have never explained how anyone with any equipment can see anything several thousand kilometers below the photosphere. Certainly no professional astrophysicist on Earth is aware of a way to do it. When asked to provide an objective method to analyze the picture, you know, so other people could come to the same conclusion you have, you have been totally unable to do that. That's when you turn and run, change the subject, totally pussy out, because there is no objective method that can be applied to reach the conclusion you've reached. None.
Click to expand...


:) Thanks, Vermonter, for making it this simple...

Vermonter to Michael Mozina said:
You're not even wrong.
Click to expand...
 
GeeMack said:
D'rok can't tell you why there is peeling. There isn't peeling. He can't tell you about the flying stuff. There isn't any flying stuff.
Click to expand...

This is why you have zero credibility GeeMack. Of course there is flying stuff. It's a CME event for crying out loud! "Flying stuff" is a given during CME activity and flying stuff from the CME can be observed in the images, both the original 171A images, as well as the RD images. These are exactly the kind of statements you make that demonstrate to me that you have absolutely no clue about the physical processes we are observing in these multimillion dollar satellite images. You put no effort at all into actually analyzing the images, or the physical processes we observe in these images. You won't see because you refuse to see and you berate anyone who can see.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
So how do you get the positive ions in the solar wind?
Click to expand...

They are attracted to the outbound electrons and follow them. In larger CME events, the plasma in the solar wind acts as a conductor for electrons and they are ionized in the electron stream in the case of coronal loops.
 
D'rok said:
Can't say it better than this:

In running difference images and videos, where there seem to be areas of light and shadow and often the appearance of some sort of surface, this effect is actually an optical illusion resulting from the process of creating a "running difference" image. (GeeMack)
Click to expand...

That answers does not address the angular persistent patterns in the image. We observe "flying stuff" flowing from the bottom right toward the upper left right after the CME event. Moving and changing elements are revealed in these images, as well as *NON MOVING* elements. What are those angular persistent patterns in the image? What is the "cause" of their stationary appearance? Why doesn't the CME blow them away like it blows "stuff" into the atmosphere?

If you don't grasp how that negates your entire premise and makes micro-analyzing "surface" details nonsensical, there probably is no hope for you.
Click to expand...

If that is the best that all of you can cumulatively come up with in terms of satellite imagery analysis, perhaps there is no hope for you folks. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? Peeling? What peeling? Such statements are nothing but a sad, sad, sad denial song and dance routine.

Anybody actually watching the image with an open mind and open eyes is going to notice the flying stuff entering the atmosphere right after the CME event and they'll notice the peeling effect along the right bottom corner that occurs shortly thereafter. They'll also notice all those persistent angular structures in the image too and I'm sure they'll wonder why they appear to be "rigid" in the image. Aren't you folks even the least be curious about the details we observe in the images?
 
Michael Mozina said:
This is why you have zero credibility GeeMack. Of course there is flying stuff. It's a CME event for crying out loud! "Flying stuff" is a given during CME activity and flying stuff from the CME can be observed in the images, both the original 171A images, as well as the RD images. These are exactly the kind of statements you make that demonstrate to me that you have absolutely no clue about the physical processes we are observing in these multimillion dollar satellite images. You put no effort at all into actually analyzing the images, or the physical processes we observe in these images. You won't see because you refuse to see and you berate anyone who can see.
Click to expand...


Dr. Hurlburt says you're wrong. Liar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom