Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/171surfaceshotsmall.JPG[/qimg]

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive4.html
Click to expand...

When I squint and turn my head just right, I can see a Bunny in there.






Oops, GeeMack beat me to it.:(

ETA: Michael, if you "don't get the joke" yet, it has to do with you and your (few) "acolytes" being "Pixel Kiddies"; you stare for hours at legitimate images and tell yourselves stories about what you fancy is hidden inside, then congratulate yourselves on having made monumental discoveries that the scientific conspiracy clique missed or suppressed.

ANYONE can look long enough at clouds or wood grain and do much the same; the difference being MOST people have developed (as maturity progresses) the ability to distinguish between pareidolia and reality.
Just Sayin...

D.
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
After his ignorance is exposed, as on other threads, MM will simply withdraw, only to later reappear on another thread starting the same "9 year old kid version of looks-like-a-bunny science" all over again.
Click to expand...

I love how you folks take million dollar satellite images and reduce the information to "looks like a bunny" nonsense.

It "looks like" a tsunami passes through the photosphere, yes, no?

What's that "rigid" (for lack of a better term) set of outlines in the image under the photosphere?
 
CaveDave said:
When I squint and turn my head just right, I can see a Bunny in there.
Click to expand...

Same question to you as to PS. What causes those rigid outlines in the Doppler image by Kosovichev which the wave passes over in the image? What started the tsunami in the photosphere?

You know "observation" is in fact about "studying" an image, not simply reducing it to pixel intensities and ignoring the content altogether as GM is famous for at this point. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" When ignorant people like GM ignore the data altogether, all I can do is shake my head in absolute disgust. It's bad enough that you folks don't respect the "pixel Kiddies" doing what you're supposed to do as well. It's another thing entirely to ignore the physical evidence completely as you're evidently intent on doing.

That sure "looks like" that "discharge" passes through the photosphere too, but I'm sure you'll ignore that data as well.
15%20April%202001%20WL.gif
 
Michael Mozina said:
I love how you folks take million dollar satellite images and reduce the information to "looks like a bunny" nonsense.

It "looks like" a tsunami passes through the photosphere, yes, no?

What's that "rigid" (for lack of a better term) set of outlines in the image under the photosphere?
Click to expand...


Only one of us in this conversation thinks running difference images show some kind of solid surface. That would be you. You are the one who buys into the little kid science of imagining things in pictures and believing without evidence that they somehow represent reality. (Well maybe there's two of you if brantc is willing to follow your crackpot claim about running difference images).

Michael, please explain every single pixel of that first image from your web site, as I and so many other people have done, or admit that you can't. Every single pixel. Pick a pixel or two or several hundred and describe exactly what has been done with the original images to make each of those pixels what it is. I bet you still can't do it. Not after a half a decade of claiming you can.

And wasn't it back in 2005 or '06 that you said you knew how a running difference image was constructed and said you were prepared to create some to show us we were wrong? What happened with that? Got some video you've made into a running difference video? A couple images perhaps? What's the matter, Michael? Can't you do it? You said you could.
 
The Man said:
So now your “solid surface” isn’t all that solid or just isn’t mostly iron?
Click to expand...

It's mostly solid, not necessarily mostly iron. The overall content including the core is mostly iron and nickel but the crust is simply a crust just like the Earth's crust, and not homogeneous in content.

That you imagine it is kept “cool” by some “cool layer of plasma” that you imagine hardly constitutes an explanation, just your speculation and most of us would have already surmised that you think it is cooled somehow. Explaining where and how the heat is generated and how it is lost would be a start. The particular branch of physics in this case would be thermodynamics (as mentioned before).

Based on the article you cited are you claiming your ferrite “curst” is under some similar type of pressure? Are you aware of the relationships between pressure, volume, heat energy and temperature?
Click to expand...

I'm simply suggesting the crust itself is cooled by it's plasma atmosphere, it's under greater pressure than on the surface of the Earth, and the constant flow of particles away from the sun move heat away from the surface. The outer layers of the sun are progressively hotter and thinner than the layer closest to the crust. Heat is carried away from the crust of sun by the constant flow of particles away from the sun.
 
GeeMack said:
Sure. I'm not a plasma Sun proponent, but I can easily explain the running difference graph. You take a series of images. You add 50% gray value to each pixel in the first image then subtract the value of each corresponding pixel in the second image. The result is a graph representing the change in the values of the pixels between the first and second image, or between successive images in the case of a running difference video.

There. Explained every single pixel.
Click to expand...

Er, no. You "explained" the "running difference" imaging technique. Care to "explain" the CME event, or any relevant set of pixels in the image in terms of what they represent and how they exist like that during the CME event?

"Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" won't cut it. You'll need to explains something useful about the features in the image. How about Kosovichev's doppler image? What are those rigid features I outlined in the image?
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's mostly solid, not necessarily mostly iron. The overall content including the core is mostly iron and nickel but the crust is simply a crust just like the Earth's crust, and not homogeneous in content.
Click to expand...


No, it's not solid. Helioseismology shows that there is nothing that can remotely be described as solid on, under, near, within, surrounding, or anywhere in the proximity of the surface of the Sun. None. It isn't solid. It all moves like plasma, somewhere in the neighborhood of 1200 meters per second. Solid stuff doesn't flow. That's part of the definition of solid.

Michael, you are wrong.

Now when can we expect that pixel by pixel analysis of that first image on your web site? You know, that one you keep dangling in everyone's face and lying about by saying nobody has explained it? That one that I've explained oh so many times in oh so many ways? (There is something humorously ironic about the fact that you cry and whine, and lie, about that image all the time, yet you can't explain it yourself.)

In 2006 you said you were prepared to explain that image, right down to the pixel, how it was created and why every pixel is the color that it is. If I recall you said you were going to "shine" because running difference images are your area of expertise. Well, you're on, Michael. Shine!
 
GeeMack said:
And as for seeing iron plasma, lots of it, in coronal loops, I think you've radically misunderstood what the 171Å and 195Å filters are doing for the satellite images. They are used for sorting out areas of varying thermal characteristics. They are not used to determine elemental composition of the plasmas.
Click to expand...

I think we all understand that just fine GM. The problem is that you're "assuming" that the elements themselves stay "mixed", iron with hydrogen, nickel with helium, etc. That's the part of your model that lacks credibility, particularly in light of solar satellite imagery like Kosovichev's Doppler image and RD images.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Er, no. You "explained" the "running difference" imaging technique. Care to "explain" the CME event, or any relevant set of pixels in the image in terms of what they represent and how they exist like that during the CME event?
Click to expand...


Yes. Sure. Each pixel is a graphical representation of the mathematical difference between the values of two coresponding pixels in a pair of sequential images of the Sun gathered through a 171Å filter. That filter is used to make a thermal analysis of a CME. But by the time you see a running difference image, it has become a simple graph showing a relative change in those thermal characteristics over a period of time.

"Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" won't cut it. You'll need to explains something useful about the features in the image. How about Kosovichev's doppler image? What are those rigid features I outlined in the image?
Click to expand...


There are no rigid features. It only appears that way to the ignorant, the stupid, and the deluded. I repeat, they are not rigid features. See how easy this stuff can be when you actually understand? :D

And I take it from your continued ignorance of the question that you simply cannot explain that very first image on your web site. Dammit, I was so looking forward to you creating a running difference video so we could see that you actually understand them. You don't. (But I've known that for almost 5 years now. :))
 
Michael Mozina said:
I think we all understand that just fine GM. The problem is that you're "assuming" that the elements themselves stay "mixed", iron with hydrogen, nickel with helium, etc. That's the part of your model that lacks credibility, particularly in light of solar satellite imagery like Kosovichev's Doppler image and RD images.
Click to expand...


You are apparently not qualified to discuss running difference images. You have never shown that you know anything about them. What you have said about them is in direct contradiction to the people who created them. You said you could make one. Do it. You said you could explain one. Do it. Pixel by pixel. I did. Are you going to admit after all these years that your butt has been kicked when it comes to that very first image on your web site? :p
 
Tim Thompson said:
Not in this universe. Physics is not so easily derailed as a thread on a discussion page :D

The melting point of iron is 1811 Kelvins, and its boiling point is 3134 Kelvins. The effective temperature of the photosphere of the sun is 5777 Kelvins, which significantly exceeds both of those temperatures.
Click to expand...

In sunspots the lowest temp measured was 3180K Sunspots are holes in the photosphere.

Exposed to a temperature that high the iron will not "thermalize" anything, certainly not by any physics that works in this universe. It will melt & boil & vaporize, and it will do so fairly quickly.
Click to expand...

From Scientific American.
When magnetic field lines reconnect, they release energy; some researchers suspect that fine-scale magnetic reconnections above the sun's surface provide the energy to heat the corona.

Whatever the cause, some heat does indeed leak back toward the solar surface, but the total amount of energy so transported is really quite small, and cannot raise the photospheric temperature very much. The reason for this is the extremely rapid fall-off of mass density with height above the solar surface. That is, although the material in the corona is very hot, it is also very tenuous. Thus, the energy transported back toward the surface is dissipated into an ever increasing mass of material as it works its way down, whereas the heat transported outward is readily dissipated into the vacuum of space."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=i-read-that-the-suns-surf&page=2
Click to expand...

You could say the same thing about the photosphere vs the iron.
Only a small amount of energy(light) comes from the photosphere since its a thin plasma I would expect it to have lines.
However as you move up from the surface you would get varying levels of energies of ions. I.e. below the visible surface of the photosphere's .6 eV you would get .4eV etc as you go deeper. This is electric acceleration, the particles gain kinetic energy as they move away from the surface. The mass that intercepts the photons is moving away from the surface.

If the ion is trapped in a layer, all you are doing is measuring its radiation that tells you its at this temperature. So the actual heat motion of the photosphere is not transferred to the surface only the photons that are emitted by the photosphere that are in the visible to blue/H alpha range.

Here is the spectrum of an arc. This is what is being emitted from the surface. Look at the picture from TRACE.
http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/spectroscope/figs/Calibrated/gifs/CarbonArc.gif

So the emission from the photosphere may be only 2 or 300 nm wide with the rest of the light energy coming from the surface.

Solar wind origins ESA. Expansion at the loop footprint.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=37003

Furthermore, one must remember that 5777 Kelvins is an effective temperature, a best fit blackbody to an actual thermal emission that is a superposition of blackbody emission curves that are generated at different depths in the photosphere.
Click to expand...

Yeah, surface of last scattering, takes a million years for a photon to get to the surface, etc.

I'm saying that the temperature from 1000K to 5000K is the result of electric acceleration, the IR and light from molten to vaporized iron as well as full arc light from loop footprints..

The photosphere is effectively transparent to IR to visible, UV to EUV , hard x-rays, gammas..

Limb observations of the sun make it possible to retrieve the temperature structure of the photosphere as a function of depth, in much the same way as limb observations of Earth's atmosphere by satellites allows us to retrieve temperature profiles for the Earth's atmosphere (see, e.g., Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal, Wiley-VCh 2004, chapter 5: "The photosphere"; The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres by David Gray, Cambridge University Press 2005, 3rd edition). The temperature at the lowest level we can determine is 9400 Kelvins. We don't see much of that on Earth, because of the opacity of the overlying layers. But your iron surface is pretty much hugging the 9400 Kelvin base of the photosphere. To the best of my knowledge, the highest boiling point for any element is Rhenium, which boils at 5869 Kelvins, so no known element can survive as a solid or even as a liquid at the temperature found at the base of the photosphere.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would expect a higher temperature because you are looking directly at the activity at the loop footprints on the surface. This reading is an average of the surface temperature(cold iron + spots of molten/ vaporized iron). Not a spot reading.
The full disk is a broader average leading to a lower temperature.

The iron surface of the sun is thermodynamic toast, and "thermalize" is a pleasant fiction that bears no resemblance to the physics of this universe.
Click to expand...

See above. I will actually try to work out the spectrum bandwidths.
 
GeeMack said:
No, I do not. You and Michael Mozina may believe you see structures under the photosphere, but you don't either. Nobody does. Even with the IR filters that allow us the deepest view, we can only see about 500 km into the photosphere. It's all plasma, brantc, not a single solitary hunk of anything solid in there at all.
Click to expand...

We are seeing the loop footprints.

And as for seeing iron plasma, lots of it, in coronal loops, I think you've radically misunderstood what the 171Å and 195Å filters are doing for the satellite images. They are used for sorting out areas of varying thermal characteristics. They are not used to determine elemental composition of the plasmas.
Click to expand...

OK. We know that iron at this temperature emits light in this wavelength. By using a filter we can observe the activity of iron(loops, CME's, arcades) at this temperature. Its pretty much only iron at this temperature thats why they are using those wavelengths. And not only that we can see the surrounding area by this same EUV light.
So by default we know we are looking at ionized iron.

Abstract Recent atomic data have been used to analyze a solar flare spectrum obtained with the Goddard Space Flight Center's grating spectrometer on the OSO-5 satellite. There exist in the wavelength region 90–200 Å strong lines from each of the ions Fe xviii-Fe xxiv. The Fe xxi lines can be used as an electron density diagnostic for the 107 K plasma. From our analysis of a particular flare, we find a steep positive slope in the emission measure between 106.5 and 107.2 K and an electron density of sim4 × 1011 cm–3 at 107 K. We emphasise the need for high spectral and spatial resolution observations of solar flares in this wavelength region, which has to date been largely neglected.http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...age=199&epage=199&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Perpetual Student said:
Solar physics is already tough enough without the distraction of crackpots!
Click to expand...

The state of "solar physics" today is absolutely pathetic. The mainstream can't even explain something like solar wind, something Birkeland "predicted" (real empirical predictions by the way) 100 years ago.
 
Michael Mozina said:
... What started the tsunami in the photosphere?
Click to expand...
I know... I know... Is it turbulence due to heat flux?

... all I can do is shake my head in absolute disgust. ...
Click to expand...
Much as we do...

That sure "looks like" that "discharge" passes through the photosphere too, but I'm sure you'll ignore that data as well.
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15%20April%202001%20WL.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
Looks like a bunny?

Michael Mozina said:
It's mostly solid, not necessarily mostly iron. The overall content including the core is mostly iron and nickel but the crust is simply a crust just like the Earth's crust, and not homogeneous in content.
Click to expand...
So it is solid throughout?
How do you justify that density-wise?

I'm simply suggesting the crust itself is cooled by it's plasma atmosphere, it's under greater pressure than on the surface of the Earth, and the constant flow of particles away from the sun move heat away from the surface. The outer layers of the sun are progressively hotter and thinner than the layer closest to the crust. Heat is carried away from the crust of sun by the constant flow of particles away from the sun.
Click to expand...

Wave your hands, try to get the audience to look away, suggest all you want, you still cannot make it work thermodynamically.

Period.

Cheers,

Dave
 
Michael Mozina said:
The state of "solar physics" today is absolutely pathetic. The mainstream can't even explain something like solar wind, something Birkeland "predicted" (real empirical predictions by the way) 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

So again we are back to 100 year old papers?

Alfven, Birkeland, real empirical predictions, laboratory experiments with REAL control mechanisms, ~RRRoock -- whee hoo~, Polly wants his cracker, ARRROCK.

[In case you missed that joke, too, that is the parrot you remind me of]

D.
 
Last edited:
CaveDave said:
So again we are back to 100 year old papers?
Click to expand...

No, 100 year old experiments that show "electric universe" theories work in a lab, unlike 95+ percent of mainstream mumbo jumbo.

Alfven, Birkeland, real empirical predictions, laboratory experiments with REAL control mechanisms, ~RRRoock -- whee hoo~, Polly wants his cracker, ARRROCK.

[In case you missed that joke, too, that is the parrot you remind me of]

D.
Click to expand...

I think you folks need someone harping on you about the value of real physics. You folks seem to have no clue how to tell the difference between a "real physical force" like an EM field and some crap you simulate on a computer related to invisible fairy energy.
 
brantc said:
We are seeing the loop footprints.
Click to expand...

FYI, The footprints of the loops seen in 171A, 195A and 284A all originate *UNDER* the photosphere, not above it as LMSAL claims.

15%20April%202001%20WL.gif


LMSAL evidently doesn't bother to even look at their own videos or they'd notice the effect on the surface of the photosphere when the loops discharge through it.
 
CaveDave said:
I know... I know... Is it turbulence due to heat flux?
Click to expand...

Well, if you mean a volcanic event, sure.

Much as we do...
Click to expand...

I can just imagine Birkeland's reaction at seeing your confusion about the cause of solar wind.....

Looks like a bunny?
Click to expand...

Do you folks do anything other than belittle the value of "observation"? Did it look like a tsunami, yes or no? Was it in fact a wave on the photosphere, yes or no? What are those rigid outlines under the wave?

So it is solid throughout?
Click to expand...

No, I was talking about the crust itself, not the entire sun. Even parts of the surface are "volcanically active" and not necessarily solid per se. The sun itself isn't dense enough to be entirely solid.

How do you justify that density-wise?
Click to expand...

I don't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaHLwla2WiI

Wave your hands, try to get the audience to look away, suggest all you want, you still cannot make it work thermodynamically.
Click to expand...

Even if that were completely true, so what? Mainstream theory can't make something as simple as solar wind work in a lab, and you aren't abandoning that theory. The mainstream has never demonstrated sustained fusion either. You still aren't abandoning fusion sun theory. What's the big deal with a few "unexplained" aspects of any theory?
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
You are apparently not qualified to discuss running difference images.
Click to expand...

This from the guy who's best analysis of the images was "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?". Please. You haven't a lick of scientific credibility to your name after that ridiculous comment.

You have never shown that you know anything about them.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact I've created them including those STEREO images on my website. Have you even bothered to make one yourself? Yes or no?

What you have said about them is in direct contradiction to the people who created them. You said you could make one. Do it.
Click to expand...

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/AM-A.JPG
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/AM-B.JPG
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/PM-A.gif
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/PM-B.gif

Let's see you "do" one.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, 100 year old experiments that show "electric universe" theories work in a lab, unlike 95+ percent of mainstream mumbo jumbo.
Click to expand...
Yeah "in a lab", but last time I looked. labs could not duplicate Solar conditions.

And just WHERE do you come up with your fanciful percentages? I submit that you pull them from your rectum -- prove me wrong.

I think you folks need someone harping on you about the value of real physics. You folks seem to have no clue how to tell the difference between a "real physical force" like an EM field and some crap you simulate on a computer related to invisible fairy energy.
Click to expand...
You certainly do more than enough harping for 100 cranks, but you have demonstrated no real understanding of Physics so far.

If you have evidence for the imaginings of your fevered "mind", then by all means collect them, write the papers, and relax while the Nobel Committee decides to award you the the Prize. Time's a wastin' -- get started.

Michael Mozina said:
Well, if you mean a volcanic event, sure.
Click to expand...
And you seem to support vulcanism further downpost. Hmmm.

I can just imagine Birkeland's reaction at seeing your confusion about the cause of solar wind.....
Click to expand...
Just as one could imagine Linus Pauling's consternation at seeing his vitamin-C concepts shot down in flames.

Being once-genius has never implied being always-genius, but, what was your point?

Do you folks do anything other than belittle the value of "observation"? Did it look like a tsunami, yes or no? Was it in fact a wave on the photosphere, yes or no? What are those rigid outlines under the wave?
Click to expand...
OK. You tell us.

No, I was talking about the crust itself, not the entire sun. Even parts of the surface are "volcanically active" and not necessarily solid per se. The sun itself isn't dense enough to be entirely solid.
Click to expand...
Alright, now enlighten us on what exactly you envision as as supporting this "shell" that doesn't violate thermodynamics or the observed mass/size -- AKA density.

Even if that were completely true, so what? Mainstream theory can't make something as simple as solar wind work in a lab, and you aren't abandoning that theory. The mainstream has never demonstrated sustained fusion either. You still aren't abandoning fusion sun theory. What's the big deal with a few "unexplained" aspects of any theory?
Click to expand...

Well, you could start at "does it match what we already have massive evidentiary and theoretical support for?" and go on towards "OK, we see something unexpected here, what is that trying to tell us" and on from there.

Oh wait, you weren't talking "observations" were you, you said "What's the big deal with a few "unexplained" aspects of any theory?", didn't you? Well, that doesn't sound like anything a self-respecting scientist would want to propose with his name attached. {I could be off base here, and trust that some REAL scientist will correct me.:) I have never claimed to be anything but an interested amateur at science.}

Cheers,

Dave
 
Michael Mozina said:
That sure "looks like" that "discharge" passes through the photosphere too, but I'm sure you'll ignore that data as well.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15 April 2001 WL.gif
Click to expand...
We know that you are largely ignorant of solar physics, MM, e.g.
These are some of the questions that MM has been asked and seems incapable of answering other than by unsupported assertions

But from a knowledgeable, layman's point of view I see overloaded CCD elements causing zigzags in that image.

I know that it is physically impossible for the zigzags to be discharges because the photosphere is a plasma and plasmas can never support discharges.
 
brantc said:
Calculated Weight of the sun 1.9891×10^30 kg
iron 7.874 g/cc water = 1 sun = 1.4
Solar radius (6.95500 × (10^5) km) / 7.4 = 93 986.4865 kilometer thick shell
Click to expand...
So now your claim is that the Sun is a 93 986.4865 kilometer thick iron shell with absolutely a perfect vacuum inside it?

:dl:
 
Michael Mozina said:
Any of you plasma sun proponents care to explain even the very first LMSAL image on my website??
Click to expand...
We can: You have a delusion that these running difference images show a solid surface with mountain ranges.
You must also have some sort of memory disorder since the TRACE RD movie has been explained to you many times in the e;ectric universe theories thread.

Reality Check said:
...
  • the fact that a running difference animation is a representation of the changes in the original images. Thus any persistant features are records of changes in the original images. You cannot say whether a feature in an RD animation actually exists as the same feature in the original images until you inspect the original images. So there are RD animations with
    • "stars" corresponding to moving stars.
    • "mountain ranges" that are actually areas of cooling and heating plasma on either sides of flares.
    • "flying stuff" which is moving plasma from a CME that is also changing temperature.
    • "peeling stuff" which is moving plasma from a CME that is also changing temperature.
Click to expand...

One of the unanswered questions in MM's 'iron sun without aether batteries' idea:
Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question? First asked 10 July 2009
 
Michael Mozina said:
How about Kosovichev's doppler image? What are those rigid features I outlined in the image?
Click to expand...
From your own web site:
I must note here that Dr. Kosovichev is a VERY, very nice person, but he in NO WAY endorses my views about there being a "solid" surface on the sun. In a recent email from Dr. Kosovichev, he explained these features in the following quote:
"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."
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, for anyone actually following this thread, the sun's atmosphere is "layered" into various elements with the hottest and least dense layers on the outside and the "coolest" (relative term mind you) layers underneath. That is why the neon photosphere is cooler and more dense than the helium chromosphere, and why the hydrogen corona is the hottest and least dense layer of the sun.
Click to expand...
FYI:
  1. How does the "mostly neon" surface emit white light? First asked 19 July 2009
    Now retracted for
  2. Entire photon "spectrum" is composed of all the emissions from all the layers First asked 3 August 2009
  3. Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere? First asked 30 July 2009
  4. Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer? First asked 30 July 2009
  5. What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers? First asked 30 July 2009
  6. What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer? First asked 30 July 2009
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's mostly solid, not necessarily mostly iron. The overall content including the core is mostly iron and nickel but the crust is simply a crust just like the Earth's crust, and not homogeneous in content.



I'm simply suggesting the crust itself is cooled by it's plasma atmosphere, it's under greater pressure than on the surface of the Earth, and the constant flow of particles away from the sun move heat away from the surface. The outer layers of the sun are progressively hotter and thinner than the layer closest to the crust. Heat is carried away from the crust of sun by the constant flow of particles away from the sun.
Click to expand...


Uh huh, what amount of particles, what energy levels are needed and why isn't there IR radiation inwards? What stops the IR radiation?

Your magic refrigeration lacks an explanation to make it un-magical.
 
Michael Mozina said:
This from the guy who's best analysis of the images was "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?". Please. You haven't a lick of scientific credibility to your name after that ridiculous comment.
Click to expand...


I have offered my analysis of various running difference images and videos many times on this forum and others starting more than 4 years ago. None of them amounted to "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" Your comment is a lie. Still. Again.

Except for the fact I've created them including those STEREO images on my website. Have you even bothered to make one yourself? Yes or no?
Click to expand...


Yes. Take two images, add 50% gray to the first one, then subtract the value of each pixel in the second image from the value of the corresponding pixel in the first image. The running difference output of that mathematical process is a graph where each pixel is a simple graphical representation of the calculated difference between the pixels in the first image and their counterparts in the second. For a video you use sequential frames, or frames a given distance apart, and make the mathematical comparison the same way. A running difference video is simply the series of processed output frames.

Once more, in case we have lurkers or newbies here: A running difference image is not a picture of anything real or tangible or solid per se. It is a graph, a chart, a visual representation of a series of mathematical calculations. The running difference images Michael tries to foist upon us as evidence of a solid surfaced Sun are no more pictures of the Sun's surface than a pie chart is an actual picture of blueberry pie or a bar graph shows a row of buildings.

One of the interesting things about a running difference image (BTW, they call them that for a reason) is the fact that any static features, anything solid or stationary, anything that doesn't change between the input images will show up as neutral gray in the running difference output. You won't see it.

If you have a series of weather images of clouds passing over Mt. Everest, and you create a running difference graph from those images, the output will show the change in location (maybe temperature, maybe moisture content, maybe density, depending on what the original images showed of course) of those clouds. But Mt. Everest, by nature of the fact that it didn't change from image to image in the originals, won't even show in the running difference output. That's how surface features are handled in the running difference processing.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/AM-A.JPG
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/AM-B.JPG
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/PM-A.gif
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/PM-B.gif
Click to expand...


So let's see if you did this correctly, you know, the way they do it at LMSAL to create the running difference graphs you imagine show a solid surface on the Sun...

Which images did you use as your input for the PM-A.gif image? What mathematical process did you apply to obtain your result? In that image, the pixel in column 1371, row 758 has a value of about 20% black. Why is it that color? (Prediction: I don't think you have the qualifications you claim and you can't answer this question because you don't understand running difference images. I predict a tantrum instead because blowing your problems off onto other people is one of your dishonest tactics to distract from the legitimate questions you can't answer.)

Where in that image do you believe you're seeing solid physical features? Why does no professional physicist on Earth agree that's what you're seeing? And perhaps most importantly, what is it about the creation process that makes you think you see physical features below the photosphere when the data gathered to create the original images was taken from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere?

Let's repeat that question right here, since you will likely ignore it. No excuses this time, Michael. None of your standard ploy of ignoring the questions that make you uncomfortable. This is apparently a very difficult thing for you to deal with because you've ignored it flat out for years. You claim that you're seeing solid surface features in running difference images.

In your image PM-A.gif, or any running difference image or video for that matter, what is it about the process of creating a simple graphical representation of a series of mathematical calculations that you believe allows you to see physical features below the photosphere when the data used to create the original images was taken from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere?

You see, you've been touting that very first image on your web site as being a sort of smoking gun for years now. If you can't explain (not assert but explain, support with evidence, describe in a plausible quantitative legitimately scientific way) how it actually shows what you claim it shows, then of course you'll agree that you should remove it from your web site and stop trying to use it to support your crackpot conjecture.

Let's see you "do" one.
Click to expand...


Which pixel(s) in which images would you like me to use? Or which video?
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
I have offered my analysis of various running difference images and videos many times on this forum and others starting more than 4 years ago. None of them amounted to "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" Your comment is a lie. Still. Again.




Yes. Take two images, add 50% gray to the first one, then subtract the value of each pixel in the second image from the value of the corresponding pixel in the first image. The running difference output of that mathematical process is a graph where each pixel is a simple graphical representation of the calculated difference between the pixels in the first image and their counterparts in the second. For a video you use sequential frames, or frames a given distance apart, and make the mathematical comparison the same way. A running difference video is simply the series of processed output frames.

Once more, in case we have lurkers or newbies here: A running difference image is not a picture of anything real or tangible or solid per se. It is a graph, a chart, a visual representation of a series of mathematical calculations. The running difference images Michael tries to foist upon us as evidence of a solid surfaced Sun are no more pictures of the Sun's surface than a pie chart is an actual picture of blueberry pie or a bar graph shows a row of buildings.

One of the interesting things about a running difference image (BTW, they call them that for a reason) is the fact that any static features, anything solid or stationary, anything that doesn't change between the input images will show up as neutral gray in the running difference output. You won't see it.

If you have a series of weather images of clouds passing over Mt. Everest, and you create a running difference graph from those images, the output will show the change in location (maybe temperature, maybe moisture content, maybe density, depending on what the original images showed of course) of those clouds. But Mt. Everest, by nature of the fact that it didn't change from image to image in the originals, won't even show in the running difference output. That's how surface features are handled in the running difference processing.




So let's see if you did this correctly, you know, the way they do it at LMSAL to create the running difference graphs you imagine show a solid surface on the Sun...

Which images did you use as your input for the PM-A.gif image? What mathematical process did you apply to obtain your result? In that image, the pixel in column 1371, row 758 has a value of about 20% black. Why is it that color? (Prediction: I don't think you have the qualifications you claim and you can't answer this question because you don't understand running difference images. I predict a tantrum instead because blowing your problems off onto other people is one of your dishonest tactics to distract from the legitimate questions you can't answer.)

Where in that image do you believe you're seeing solid physical features? Why does no professional physicist on Earth agree that's what you're seeing? And perhaps most importantly, what is it about the creation process that makes you think you see physical features below the photosphere when the data gathered to create the original images was taken from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere?

Let's repeat that question right here, since you will likely ignore it. No excuses this time, Michael. None of your standard ploy of ignoring the questions that make you uncomfortable. This is apparently a very difficult thing for you to deal with because you've ignored it flat out for years. You claim that you're seeing solid surface features in running difference images.

In your image PM-A.gif, or any running difference image or video for that matter, what is it about the process of creating a simple graphical representation of a series of mathematical calculations that you believe allows you to see physical features below the photosphere when the data used to create the original images was taken from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere?

You see, you've been touting that very first image on your web site as being a sort of smoking gun for years now. If you can't explain (not assert but explain, support with evidence, describe in a plausible quantitative legitimately scientific way) how it actually shows what you claim it shows, then of course you'll agree that you should remove it from your web site and stop trying to use it to support your crackpot conjecture.




Which pixel(s) in which images would you like me to use? Or which video?
Click to expand...

:popcorn1
 
Perpetual Student said:
:popcorn1
Click to expand...


Hang on to your seat, Perpetual Student. This is going to be good. Michael is going to show us all, finally, exactly how a running difference image/video is made. He will start with one of the 171Å or 195Å videos from the STEREO, TRACE, or SOHO program, apply his process, and the result will be very much the same as those created by the professionals who create those graphs for NASA and LMSAL.

Then he will explain how the finished graph shows features on a surface he claims exists below the photosphere even though the data used to create his image/video was gathered from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere.

You see, he claims to be qualified to analyze running difference images. He claims to understand their construction and what they represent. He claims that these images and videos are evidence of his crackpot notion because, as he claims, they show a solid surface. His claim to be qualified has been challenged, not just here but years ago on the BAUT forum and others. He has boldly asserted his claims to be true, but not once in all these years has he demonstrated the truth of his claims.

I'm sure that if he considers himself a legitimate scientist he will now be more than happy to put aside our concerns about his qualifications and actually show us that he is right and we are wrong. Maybe he can go to this page at the STEREO web site and download this video (171profile_zm_best.mov), for example. Then he can process it into a running difference video.

The result of his effort will of course show features thousands of kilometers below any of the data shown in the original video itself. His running difference video will look very much like the ones made by LMSAL and NASA, and not like a piece of crap made by applying the "Difference Clouds", contrast, and brightness filters in PhotoShop like the ones he tried to pass off as running difference images already...

Michael Mozina said:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/AM-A.JPG
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/AM-B.JPG
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/PM-A.gif
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/PM-B.gif
Click to expand...


I see you brought some :popcorn1 , Perpetual Student. You might want to pull up a comfortable chair. There's a prospective Nobel Prize winning scientist just about to come in here, finally after 5 years of people asking him to, and after 5 years of him badgering and taunting other people to do it, finally he's going to explain this stuff so we can see that he's not just hallucinating when he claims to see surface features in those running difference images on the front page of his web site!

Or not...
:dl:​
 
Michael Mozina said:
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/171surfaceshotsmall.JPG[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Care to explain these images?
20000404_1632_c2rdif.gif

Apparently there are giant mountains extending out from the "surface" of the sun like spokes.

Either that, or interpreting light and dark parts of a running difference image as terrain features doesn't actually work.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's mostly solid, not necessarily mostly iron. The overall content including the core is mostly iron and nickel but the crust is simply a crust just like the Earth's crust, and not homogeneous in content.
Click to expand...

Ok so now the surface is a bit mushy or "mostly solid" and made of 'unknownium' (since you apparently don't know what you want to claim it is made of). It does seem though that you are not asserting it to be a hollow sphere.

Michael Mozina said:
I'm simply suggesting the crust itself is cooled by it's plasma atmosphere,
Click to expand...

Thus the problem, “simply suggesting” is not explaining.



Michael Mozina said:
it's under greater pressure than on the surface of the Earth, and the constant flow of particles away from the sun move heat away from the surface. The outer layers of the sun are progressively hotter and thinner than the layer closest to the crust. Heat is carried away from the crust of sun by the constant flow of particles away from the sun.
Click to expand...

You do understand that heat energy (usually measured in calories) moves from a higher temperature to a lower temperature, don’t you? So your hotter “outer layers” would, well, heat up the inner layers. You might want to take a look at something called thermal equilibrium. You do understand that heat energy is also radiantly transferred in all directions, don’t you? It doesn’t need “particles” (other then photons) to “carry’ it anywhere including from your hotter outer layers to your “mostly solid” “crust”. For some bizarre reason you just seem to want to ‘simply suggest’ that “Heat is carried away from the crust of sun by the constant flow of particles away from the sun” without any regard for thermodynamics whatsoever. The only way that heat energy would only be emitted by your “crust” to your surrounding and particularly outer layers is if your “crust” was hotter than your surrounding layers and particularly your outer layers. You might what to also look at something called Maxwells demon as that seems to be what you are “simply suggesting”.
 
Cite the detection of your 93,986.4865 kilometer thick iron shell in helioseismology

brantc said:
I have speculated as to whats inside but I dont know.

All I have to go on is helioseismology.;)
Click to expand...
First asked 6 April 2010
brantc
Can you cite the detection of your 93,986.4865 kilometer thick iron shell in helioseismology?
 
The next several posts promise to be REALLY entertaining! I've got my :popcorn1 , Ya'll should get yours ready, too!

Ever get a big rat trapped in a corner? They will either attack viciously or escape if they can find a way; they will NEVER surrender.

I predict MM will behave in exactly the same manner. (Probably escape by pretending he was never cornered in the first place!)

We'll see, won't we...


:dl:​


Cheers,

Dave
 
My model seems to have been taken over at this point.

My model is a fully iron shell or solid. Rigid as shown in the difference images.
Those images show the changes in light from frame to frame. You have to start with a full frame to show changes. If its reflecting from a surface and the surface is moving, you will see the changes in light.
If the flare is moving from frame to frame, those are differences that you will see. You will not see changes below a certain arbitrary level of light. They use ionized iron light and show the differences from frame to frame with that light reflected or not.

The surface is as you see it.
It is just like a cathode glow with thermionic emission, as in the lab.

I have already described it mostly.

It acts like a transformer in that it transforms the background energy of the universe into "electricity" that manifests at the surface as electrical discharges.

There is no neutron star in my model, I dont even believe in neutronium.

No liquid involved(I'm pretty sure). Plasma discharges. I have seen the tsunami. I think that is a surface wave phenomena that shows up in the photosphere because it is a layered plasma.

For instance Ca first ionization level is 6.113 eV Thats 66,000 K.
Neon. 21.564 eV 21.56400 * 11 000 = 237 204K Gotta be a plasma.

The loops and the footprints I'm pretty sure are a million or so degrees.
Thats what makes the iron hypervelocity blobs and the coronal rain that cools and makes the features under the coronal loops and arcades.

I will watch from the sidelines and contribute when I can.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom