Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Myriad said:
I have a question about that image. It appears to show a solid surface with ridges and other terrain elevation features.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what it does show, just like the ridges that are observable in Kosovichev's Doppler image. The "lifespan" and behaviors of these features is not like the behaviors and lifespan of plasma "structures".

These features can be seen in the image because they have distinct highlights and shadows that make them appear to be strongly and directionally illuminated, from a source located to the upper right of the area (since the highlights face that direction and the shadows are opposite) and from an elevation considerably above the plane of the surface (because the shadows are short).

My question for the iron sun proponents is, what's the source of that directional illumination?
Click to expand...

The sun is rotating between images. That consistent rotation from left to right between images creates what you're calling a "directional" illumination, although the loops themselves are the light source.

If we're going to interpret the image based on what it looks like, it sure looks like there's a directionally localized light source brighter than the sun's surface shining on the sun's surface. What and where is that light source?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

The "light source(s)" are the coronal loops. They are discharge processes that heat the plasma to millions of degrees. The rotation of the sun between the two images is what creates the directional component, as does the movement of plasma past the surfaces. The "windward" side of the mountain ranges experience more electrical activity, and that too can (and does) have some influence on what we observe. The direction of plasma can be observed pretty clearly during the CME as particles from the surface blow from the bottom right toward the upper left of the image.

Keep in mind that brightly lit areas will rotate right, leaving a darker outline to the left. Each image is a composite image from two images taken a short time (10-30 minutes) apart. The movement of active areas between images creates what you're describing as the directional component of the lighting. The lighting however is strictly limited to "electrified plasma' inside the coronal loops.
 
Ziggurat said:
Care to explain these images?
[qimg]http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/2000apr4/SOHO/20000404_1632_c2rdif.gif[/qimg]
Apparently there are giant mountains extending out from the "surface" of the sun like spokes.
Click to expand...

Um, no. If you watch more than a single image (you can't tell anything from one RD image), you'll notice that everything in the image changes over time. The only "patterns" you'll observe in LASCO RD images are the stars in the background because like the surface features of the sun, they are consistent from one frame to the next. The plasma flowing off the sun however is highly mobile and nothing stays "rigid" from one frame to the next.

Either that, or interpreting light and dark parts of a running difference image as terrain features doesn't actually work.
Click to expand...

You can't tell what's solid from a single frame of a RD movie. The only way you'll notice "rigid features" is to observe many RD images over time. The LASCO RD images show a very clear pattern of change over time because the plasma is moving away from the sun. Unlike the 171A images, moving plasma is not stationary.
 
Ziggurat said:
Let's go through the calculation. I'll consider a small square patch of this surface, of sides LxL and depth z. The volume is L2z, and the mass is pL2z where p is the density. The weight of the shell is a bit tricker. At the outer surface, the gravity is g, but it's zero at the inner surface, and it varies linearly between the two. So the average gravity will be half the surface gravity, so the weight will be gpL2z/2.

OK, what keeps this patch of surface from falling inwards?
Click to expand...

Surface tension and electromagnetic influences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXsvy2tBJlU

According to your overly simplistic thinking, the water shell should crush the air bubble, but it does not. Why not?
 
CaveDave said:
The term "resonant cavity" in this usage doesn't mean the sun *has* a cavity within it, just the modes of oscillation follow similar principles.
Click to expand...

How? How does plasma that is thinner than air at sea level act as a "resonant cavity"? Nice trick from ultra thin plasma.
 
CaveDave said:
Yeah "in a lab", but last time I looked. labs could not duplicate Solar conditions.
Click to expand...

Labs seem to duplicate the conditions necessary to heat plasma to millions of degrees. It requires "electricity".

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

How much of Lambda-CDM theory is composed of ordinary matter and energy that show up here on Earth? Don't even get me started......
 
Reality Check said:
And there is the problem already mentioned that the temperture is observed to increase with depth.
Click to expand...

Baloney. The corona radiates at millions of degrees. The chromosphere is about 20,000K. The photosphere is closer to 5700K. The deeper we go into the atmosphere the cooler it gets as the plasmas become more dense.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
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).
Click to expand...

It's a crust made of ordinary elements from the periodic table. It's not homogeneous.

It does seem though that you are not asserting it to be a hollow sphere.
Click to expand...

No, I would assume the core is composed of pressurized plasma.

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.
Click to expand...

The outer layers are thin, hot and they are traversed by charged particles flowing *AWAY FROM* the sun. The heat is going to be picked up and carried away by the charged particles flowing from the sun.

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”.
Click to expand...

Sure, but those photons are going to run into charged particles flowing from the sun.

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.
Click to expand...

That's simply not true. By your logic the photosphere cannot be cooler than the chromosphere or the corona, but it is. Evidently the thermodynamics involved in heating the solar atmosphere is lot more complicated than you think. By your logic the corona should heat the photosphere to millions of degrees.
 
MM, just a quick lurker question. You say the images posted on your site show a solid solar surface. And that those images where created with an image processing method called 'running difference'. Would an RD image of a gasous sun look very similar to your images? If not, why not?

Thanks - H
 
Perpetual Student said:
Well, so far it appears that we have another retreat by MM.
Click to expand...

Pfftt. Neither you or Geemack have touched Kosovichev's image. What are those "rigid features" under the photosphere in the areas I circled in this image?
tsunami1.JPG


http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi

Notice how the wave passes over the rigid outlines PS? Please explain how those rigid features persist over the lifetime of the video, and why they do not change their shape due to movements of the wave.

The only one "retreating" around here are you folks. You won't touch the images. GM thinks he "explained every pixel" of a specific RD image simply by describing the technique. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" That's just pathetic.
 
Humanzee said:
MM, just a quick lurker question. You say the images posted on your site show a solid solar surface. And that those images where created with an image processing method called 'running difference'. Would an RD image of a gasous sun look very similar to your images? If not, why not?

Thanks - H
Click to expand...

There are Nickel ion Doppler images on my website as well as RD images by the way, including Kosovichev's video.

Yes, a plasma sun or surface looks very different that what we observe in 171A or 195A or 284A, the iron ion wavelengths. If for instance you take a look at the 304A images, or g-band images, you see very different sorts of features, and no "rigidness" over an extended period of time. That is due to the movement of plasma over time. The structures of the photosphere come and go in about 8 minute intervals. Plasma is "liquid like" in it's movements just as Kosovichev's wave demonstrates. The features under the wave however are "rigid" and not act like a liquid. They don't move in the same way. They don't change their shape as quickly.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi

Watch the wave pass over the rigid outlines to the left of the epicenter of the wave. The wave is caused by a volcanic event. If you look closely enough you'll even see a single dark pixel in the epicenter of the wave just before the wave begins to form. You're literally watching a volcanic event disturb the surface of the photosphere.
 
I appreciate the response. I am checking the linked site to where that avi came from and how it was made. Is that a RD image?

Thanks - H
 
Michael Mozina said:
Surface tension and electromagnetic influences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXsvy2tBJlU

According to your overly simplistic thinking, the water shell should crush the air bubble, but it does not. Why not?
Click to expand...

Use my equation, figure out what the pressure from gravity should be. Don't assume the answer (which is obviously all you did), calculate it. How big is the gravitational self-pressure for that bubble? Does my model actually predict that the air bubble should be crushed? Or are you as wrong as ever?

Physics is quantitative. I quantified. Can you do the same? No, you cannot. Not even when someone hands you the relevant equations.
 
brantc said:
The source of the illumination is the discharges at the base of the loop(footprints) as well as the loops it self. Same as arc welding or a arc lamp!!! This takes place with the light from ionized iron(77,000 to 1.5 million K).

The light source in the images is the loop itself as well as the footprints at the end of the loop arc.
Click to expand...

I wonder, do you get the same mountains when you look in another spectral line? Can you please show us that the 171 A and the 193 A images show the same mountain ridges?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Pfftt. Neither you or Geemack have touched Kosovichev's image. What are those "rigid features" under the photosphere in the areas I circled in this image?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/tsunami1.JPG

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi

Notice how the wave passes over the rigid outlines PS? Please explain how those rigid features persist over the lifetime of the video, and why they do not change their shape due to movements of the wave.

The only one "retreating" around here are you folks. You won't touch the images. GM thinks he "explained every pixel" of a specific RD image simply by describing the technique. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" That's just pathetic.
Click to expand...
Pfftt.
Your continued ignorance is what is pathetic.
  • GM and I have explained every pixel in the RD movie. You are the one deluded enough to think the adjoining regions of heating anfd cooling plasma in the corona are mountain ranges.
  • There is "flying stuff" in the movie. As the TRACE astronomers state this "flying stuff" is "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."
Apparently you cannot read 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:
Baloney. The corona radiates at millions of degrees. The chromosphere is about 20,000K. The photosphere is closer to 5700K. The deeper we go into the atmosphere the cooler it gets as the plasmas become more dense.
Click to expand...
Baloney.
The corona radiates at millions of degrees. The chromosphere is about 20,000K. The photosphere is closer to 5700K.
Measurements of temperature under the photosphere show that temperature then increases.
Tim Thompson said:
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. 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.

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...

Michael Mozina:
Rather than derailing brantc's thread, perhaps your would like to continue the discussion of your "Iron Sun" delusion where you brought it up originally in this forum.
Start by answering this question: How can your iron "crust" not be a plasma at a temperature of at least 9400 K?
 
Last edited:
Edited: This post became redundant after my postings that follow.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
That is exactly what it does show, just like the ridges that are observable in Kosovichev's Doppler image. The "lifespan" and behaviors of these features is not like the behaviors and lifespan of plasma "structures".
Click to expand...


That is, of course, a lie. There are no surface features in a running difference image. And Kosovichev's research clearly shows that there is nothing solid about the surface of the Sun.

The sun is rotating between images. That consistent rotation from left to right between images creates what you're calling a "directional" illumination, although the loops themselves are the light source.
Click to expand...


That is, of course, another lie. The light source in a running difference image is the LEDs in your computer monitor. It is a graph, a visual representation of a series of mathematical calculations. The original images used as the source for the calculations are data gathered from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. It is impossible for the results of a computer generated graph to show anything below the photosphere.

The "light source(s)" are the coronal loops. They are discharge processes that heat the plasma to millions of degrees. The rotation of the sun between the two images is what creates the directional component, as does the movement of plasma past the surfaces. The "windward" side of the mountain ranges experience more electrical activity, and that too can (and does) have some influence on what we observe. The direction of plasma can be observed pretty clearly during the CME as particles from the surface blow from the bottom right toward the upper left of the image.
Click to expand...


That is another lie. You have no qualifications to speak with any expertise on the issue of running difference images. There are no mountain ranges, valleys, nothing. It is impossible to generate a graphical representation of change between images of data gathered from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere and somehow magically turn the output into a picture of a surface far below the photosphere. Impossible.

Keep in mind that brightly lit areas will rotate right, leaving a darker outline to the left. Each image is a composite image from two images taken a short time (10-30 minutes) apart. The movement of active areas between images creates what you're describing as the directional component of the lighting. The lighting however is strictly limited to "electrified plasma' inside the coronal loops.
Click to expand...


The light comes from the inside of your computer monitor. A running difference image is a graph showing the mathematical difference between pixels in a series of images.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Um, no. If you watch more than a single image (you can't tell anything from one RD image), you'll notice that everything in the image changes over time. The only "patterns" you'll observe in LASCO RD images are the stars in the background because like the surface features of the sun, they are consistent from one frame to the next. The plasma flowing off the sun however is highly mobile and nothing stays "rigid" from one frame to the next.



You can't tell what's solid from a single frame of a RD movie. The only way you'll notice "rigid features" is to observe many RD images over time. The LASCO RD images show a very clear pattern of change over time because the plasma is moving away from the sun. Unlike the 171A images, moving plasma is not stationary.
Click to expand...


And once again your qualification to understand running difference images has been challenged. Remember, you were given the opportunity to explain, pixel by pixel, exactly how a running difference image is made. I did it, but you abandoned that opportunity. You were asked to explain the process you used to make your fake running difference images, and because you were caught in a lie, you abandoned that request.

And aside from the fact that you can't explain running difference graphs, you have a bigger problem in the fact that the data used to create the original source images was taken from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. It can't possibly show anything below the photosphere. For you to claim it does is a lie.

Don't forget, the challenge has been offered. Pick a piece of solar video, one of those 171Å videos from the STEREO web site maybe, and you can I can both process it into a running difference video. We'll see who has the results to match those posted by LMSAL and NASA. We'll both explain how we got our results. But if you're not up to the challenge, if you really aren't the expert on running difference images that you claim to be, if you really are willing to publicly admit defeat and admit that you have failed, that's okay. Nobody really thinks you can do it anyway. :D
 
Michael Mozina said:
There are Nickel ion Doppler images on my website as well as RD images by the way, including Kosovichev's video.
Click to expand...


Except the "running difference images" you claim to have made yourself are fakes. You ran an image or two through a couple of PhotoShop filters. The fact that you can't (won't) explain how you made them supports my claim that they are frauds.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The only one "retreating" around here are you folks. You won't touch the images. GM thinks he "explained every pixel" of a specific RD image simply by describing the technique. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" That's just pathetic.
Click to expand...


Oh, so you are going to explain every last pixel of a running difference image. So you are going to pick a STEREO or SOHO video that we can both turn into a running difference video so we both know that we both understand the process and the results.

Who am I kidding? No, you aren't.

:dl:​
 
Humanzee said:
I appreciate the response. I am checking the linked site to where that avi came from and how it was made. Is that a RD image?

Thanks - H
Click to expand...

That is indeed a running difference image. GM actually explained the mechanics of how it's created pretty accurately, but that mechanical explanation doesn't explain the events observed in the image itself. Notice that a 'coronal mass ejection' occurs at roughly the center point of that image about half way through the video. You can observe the direction of the plasma flow relative to the solid surface by watching the particles in the atmosphere and how they move after they are ejected during the CME. The basic pattern of plasma movement during the video is from the bottom right toward the upper left. The general movement of the sun is left to right, although the image has been cropped to fit and therefore the movement of the sun is not obvious. That movement between images creates a scenario where the active regions move toward the right, and leave shadows to the left where they had been located in the previous image. Both the movement of the sun, and the movement of the plasma have an effect on the image.

Keep in mind that other wavelengths do not produce the same types of images in RD techniques. That is because plasma is typically very mobile and doesn't generally hold any specific "structure" for more than about 8 minutes or so in the case of the photosphere.

That orange video from Kosovichev is a Doppler image not a running difference image. It shows us the liquid like nature of the photosphere as the wave passes over the photosphere. The items under the photosphere however are "rigid" in comparison to the photosphere.

tsunami1.JPG


Notice the areas I circled in this image and notice how these "structures" stay rigid in comparison to the wave in the photosphere. The wave is a great example of plasma and how it typically behaves. It's very fluid like in nature. The rigid features under the wave however do not change and are persistent throughout the video.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi

The point here is that *TWO* techniques show the same rigid features that should not exist if the sun were made of nothing but plasma.
 
tusenfem said:
I wonder, do you get the same mountains when you look in another spectral line?
Click to expand...

Yes. 171A and 195A produce the same basic features. The 284A images tend to be "similar' but the energy outputs are somewhat different, and it seems to be "blurred" by the photosphere more than the other two iron ion wavelengths.

Can you please show us that the 171 A and the 193 A images show the same mountain ridges?
Click to expand...

Sure. LMSAL has a nice four wavelength image on their website of the same event and area of the sun.

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive11.html
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/Seaton_T010828_00UT_multi.gif

The two images on the left are 195A (top) and 171A(bottom). The top image on the right is 284A, and shows what I would call a "blurrier' image of roughly the same basic features. The last image (bottom right) shows us mostly just the surface of the photosphere. Each of the iron ion wavelengths creates RD images with persistent features, whereas other wavelengths that are mostly due to the photosphere show no such persistent rigidness.
 
Reality Check said:
GM and I have explained every pixel in the RD movie.
Click to expand...

Talk about delusions. You've not explained *ANY* pixel of any specific frame of that video. All GM has done is (relatively correctly) explained the RD technique itself. In no way did either of you explain anything related to the solar events that related to any pixel in any specific frame of that video. You're only deluding yourself RC.
 
Reality Check said:
Baloney.
The corona radiates at millions of degrees. The chromosphere is about 20,000K. The photosphere is closer to 5700K.
Click to expand...

By your logic, that cannot happen. The corona should heat all the layers up to millions of degrees according to your notions of heat flow! You simply *assume* it heats up below the photosphere. Most of the studies of sunspots reveal they have *COOLER* plasma in them. How is that possible if the temperature under the photosphere 'heats up'? Where does that lower temperature plasma come from if not from under the photosphere?
 
GeeMack said:
And once again your qualification to understand running difference images has been challenged. Remember, you were given the opportunity to explain, pixel by pixel, exactly how a running difference image is made. I did it, but you abandoned that opportunity. You were asked to explain the process you used to make your fake running difference images, and because you were caught in a lie, you abandoned that request.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? Those aren't "fake" RD images! Why would I even "fake" an RD image in the first place let alone invest 2500 dollars in IDL software? You don't even make any sense.

FYI, I have no objection to your description of the basics of the technique. It's the fact you refuse to address anything specific in the images that I object to.

You personally rely on personal insults and ad homs more than anyone I've ever met in cyberspace. It's like talking to a parrot that was owed by a sailor. If you keep calling me fraud, you best be prepared to back that up in court.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
Except the "running difference images" you claim to have made yourself are fakes. You ran an image or two through a couple of PhotoShop filters. The fact that you can't (won't) explain how you made them supports my claim that they are frauds.
Click to expand...

This is a complete and absolute lie on your part. Period. FYI it makes no damn difference how they were created or what software package was used to create them. They would not be "fake" or "frauds" unless someone specifically changed the original images or used a different technique on them, and no such thing was done to the images I cited. You're pushing your luck dude. Keep in mind that your public comments on this website are something you can be held liable for, including charges of fraud. You're crossing important legal lines now.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
As the TRACE astronomers state this "flying stuff" is "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...

Why would superheated plasma from the CME "fall back as a dark cloud" if it's not made of heavier materials? What exactly causes "coronal rain" in your opinion?
 
GeeMack said:
That is, of course, a lie. There are no surface features in a running difference image. And Kosovichev's research clearly shows that there is nothing solid about the surface of the Sun.
Click to expand...

Then what are those rigid features under the wave in Kosovichev's video? Stop dodging that direct question.
 
Michael Mozina said:
This is a complete and absolute lie on your part. Period. FYI it makes no damn difference how they were created or what software package was used to create them. They would not be "fake" or "frauds" unless someone specifically changed the original images or used a different technique on them, and no such thing was done to the images I cited. You're pushing your luck dude. Keep in mind that your public comments on this website are something you can be held liable for, including charges of fraud. You're crossing important legal lines now.
Click to expand...


So sue me. You have posted fraudulent material on your web site. You claim they are running difference images. They are not. When asked to explain the process you used to create them, you refused. Yet I was able to explain it easily. You used a couple of PhotoShop filters on some original STEREO images and made some fake ones. They're not even good fakes for god's sake! :D

Now, are you willing to explain exactly what the process was that you used to make them, or aren't you?

Aside: Here's where I predict Michael will throw another tantrum. He'll blame me for his inability do demonstrate hs qualifications. He'll whine and complain because I know this stuff and he doesn't. He'll whine and cry and badmouth me for treating him badly when all I really am doing is challenging his claim.

Here's where he could take advantage of a beautiful opportunity to explain every last pixel in a running difference image, explain how any process can be applied to a couple of images of data gathered thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, and somehow show surface features below the photosphere.

Keep in mind that Michael's crazy notion would be like taking a couple of weather satellite photos of a completely cloud covered city, running them through some sort of computer program, and having the results show the streets of the city. Only his nutty conjecture would be unimaginably more difficult because there is vastly more opaque material to see through and several thousand more kilometers of distance to account for in the running difference graphs made from solar satellite images.​

So here we are again, Michael. You've run your mouth once more and claimed some level of expertise in running difference images. You claim to be qualified to understand and analyze them. And once more, you are balking when put to the challenge.

Pick one of those STEREO videos. You and I will both apply our running difference processing on them. You and I will come back here when we're done and explain how we got our results. Both of us will post our running difference videos here so everyone can see how we did. Do you have the stuff, Michael? Can you do it like you claim you can? Or are you going to let this glorious opportunity go by, and just run away screaming like you have, well, every single time anyone has ever challenged your qualifications?

How about the rest of you? Wouldn't you like to see Michael actually demonstrate that he understands what he's talking about, for the first time ever in all his years on the Internet?
 
Michael Mozina said:
You didn't answer the question and avoided the question as usual. Duh.
Click to expand...


I certainly did answer it. Your reply is another lie. Now, are you going to demonstrate your qualifications regarding running difference images or weasel out for the, what, hundredth time?
 
Michael Mozina said:
If you're so confident I have committed fraud, make it easy (and cheaper) for me to sue you and email your real name and address at:

michael@thesurfaceofthesun.com

I'll make sure my layer has something on your desk within a week.
Click to expand...


Thanks for admitting that you don't have the qualifications to speak with any expertise on running difference images.

And yes, the images you've created are fakes. Really, sue me. I say you are presenting fradulent material on your web site to support your crackpot claim.

But if you're going to get all legal, remember when you "bet the farm" the data returned from the STEREO program would prove your conjecture within a few months... back in 2006? Have that lawyer of yours draw up the papers to transfer your farm to me. You lost that bet. :D
 
GeeMack said:
I certainly did answer it. Your reply is another lie. Now, are you going to demonstrate your qualifications regarding running difference images or weasel out for the, what, hundredth time?
Click to expand...

You did *NOT* explain the rigid outlines under the wave. You simply ignored the data you don't want to deal with as usual. Care to try again?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Talk about delusions. You've not explained *ANY* pixel of any specific frame of that video. All GM has done is (relatively correctly) explained the RD technique itself. In no way did either of you explain anything related to the solar events that related to any pixel in any specific frame of that video. You're only deluding yourself RC.
Click to expand...
Talk about delusions and wilful ignorance.
GM Has explained *EVERY* pixel on the images. They are the result of the RD process.
I have explained every feature of the RD movie that you are obsessed with as related to the solar events that the movie is calculated from.
The TRACE astronomers have explained the "flying stuff" as the consequence of the changing temperatures of the CME.
You're only proving yourself to be deluded for the millionth time MM.
 
MM: How can your iron "crust" not be a plasma at a temperature of at least 9400 K

Michael Mozina:
Rather than derailing brantc's thread, perhaps your would like to continue the discussion of your "Iron Sun" delusion where you brought it up originally in this forum.
First asked 7 April 2010
Start by answering this question: How can your iron "crust" not be a plasma at a temperature of at least 9400 K?

Alternately:
brantc,
Can we take it that you are OK with Michael Mozina hijacking this thread for his version of your idea?
If so I will copy the list of outstanding questions about his idea to here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom