Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reality Check said:
Talk about delusions and wilful ignorance.
GM Has explained *EVERY* pixel on the images. They are the result of the RD process.
Click to expand...

No. He described the mechanical process of how an RD image is created. In no way did he explain any cause/effect relationships between any specific solar activity and any specific pixel in any specific image. You folks are absolutely clueless.
 
Michael Mozina said:
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?
Click to expand...


Sure, right after you answer this one: Whose face is this?


And now that you've officially bailed out on supporting your claim to understanding running difference images, you know nobody will let you forget that. :D
 
Michael Mozina said:
No. He described the mechanical process of how an RD image is created. In no way did he explain any cause/effect relationships between any specific solar activity and any specific pixel in any specific image. You folks are absolutely clueless.
Click to expand...


You don't even understand the mechanical process, Michael. You do not have the qualifications to speak with any authority whatsoever on the issue of running difference images. Let it go, man. You're only making yourself look more and more foolish each time you throw another tantrum and each time you ignore another request to explain the graphs, pixel by pixel, like myself and several others have done.
 
Michael Mozina said:
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?
Click to expand...
By the laws of physics it can and does happen.

All sunspots have cooler plasma than their surrounding plasma and the mechanism is well understood. I sugeest that you learn something about the Sun :jaw-dropp .

I do not *assume* it. It is *measured*.
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
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
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
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.
Click to expand...

How exactly is attempting to demonstrate the existence of a solid surface a hijack of his thread? I was careful to even point out that wireless transmission of electricity is a demonstrated real process. You seem to have an unusual notion of a hijack.
 
GeeMack said:
Sure, right after you answer this one: Whose face is this?
Click to expand...

Another dodge. How cute.

And now that you've officially bailed out on supporting your claim to understanding running difference images, you know nobody will let you forget that. :D
Click to expand...

How have I "officially bailed out" of anything in your mind? Are you going to send me your info, yes or no? Are you afraid of what might happen if you do?
 
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...
One of the few times that you have ever said anything right.
They are not "fake" RD images because no one knows why or how you created or copied these images.
They look like altered images of the Sun. They show no rigid structures, just the usual solar activity of the plasma in the photosphere.
 
Just out of morbid curiosity, how are the RD images I cited a "fraud" in your opinion? How does one "fake" a running difference image exactly?
 
Michael Mozina said:
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?
Click to expand...
It falls back as a "dark cloud" because the TRACE astronomers are describing images that appear in the RD movie - a "black cloud" that falls back toward the surface. It does this beacuse of a little thing called gravity.
 
Reality Check said:
One of the few times that you have ever said anything right.
They are not "fake" RD images because no one knows why or how you created or copied these images.
They look like altered images of the Sun. They show no rigid structures, just the usual solar activity of the plasma in the photosphere.
Click to expand...

Actually RC, nobody has ever accused me of fraud before let alone over something so petty and stupid. I would not even have a clue how to "fake" a running difference image and I certainly would not have invested in IDL software if I intended to "fake" any images on my website. In fact I have been extremely careful to use only LMSAL and NASA images (or public domain images) rather than using any of my own image with the exception of the four images I cited just so that nobody would attempt to accuse me of image manipulation of any sort. The fact he would be so stupid and so arrogant about those four specific images is simply unbelievable and I will make him pay dearly for his libelous comments if he is man enough to send me his real info.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Another dodge. How cute.
Click to expand...


And you apparently don't understand that until you can tell me whose face that is, I can't tell you what the rigid stuff is in your image.

Now I can come up with at least one very well evidenced explanation for why you see things that aren't really there, but I'm sure you wouldn't find it very flattering.

How have I "officially bailed out" of anything in your mind? Are you going to send me your info, yes or no? Are you afraid of what might happen if you do?
Click to expand...


Sue me. I have nothing to fear by calling your fraudulent material fraudulent. Maybe you want to ask your lawyer how well you'll do in a court case where you're required to demonstrate that those fakes are genuine running difference images. Let me know what he says, eh? :D

But, so as to not let you change the subject too far, a common strategy for you when you can't answer a question or you run your mouth and people actually expect you to back up your claims...

How is it that anyone might take an image containing data that was obtained thousands of kilometers above the Sun's surface, and process that data so that it somehow ends up showing solid surface features thousands of kilometers below and under a totally opaque photosphere?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Actually RC, nobody has ever accused me of fraud before let alone over something so petty and stupid. I would not even have a clue how to "fake" a running difference image and I certainly would not have invested in IDL software if I intended to "fake" any images on my website. In fact I have been extremely careful to use only LMSAL and NASA images (or public domain images) rather than using any of my own image with the exception of the four images I cited just so that nobody would attempt to accuse me of image manipulation of any sort. The fact he would be so stupid and so arrogant about those four specific images is simply unbelievable and I will make him pay dearly for his libelous comments if he is man enough to send me his real info.
Click to expand...

Well, if you seriously think you've been libelled and/or slandered (not sure which applies to an internet post), you can start the suit and have a court order issued to JREF to get his real info.

I mean, really, posturing that you'll get him "if he only sends his real info" is a rather, um, juvenile attempt at intimidation.

Reminds me of playgrounds around the nation..."Yeah, you're lucky I have to catch the bus or I'd beat you up good!"

Looks around for more gas to throw on the fire :D
 
Hellbound said:
Well, if you seriously think you've been libelled and/or slandered (not sure which applies to an internet post), you can start the suit and have a court order issued to JREF to get his real info.
Click to expand...

That's expensive and slow. If he's so sure of himself, he can send me a real name and address and we'll settle this fast and permanently.
 
GeeMack said:
And you apparently don't understand that until you can tell me whose face that is, I can't tell you what the rigid stuff is in your image.
Click to expand...

What type of dodge is that? It's not even clever or relevant. All you're doing is demonstrating to everyone that you have no interest in honestly or openly dealing with that rigid element under the wave. That's pure denial GM.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Just out of morbid curiosity, how are the RD images I cited a "fraud" in your opinion? How does one "fake" a running difference image exactly?
Click to expand...


I already explained that, too. You run a couple of STEREO images through a few PhotoShop filters and voila, you get the fakes you're passing off as running difference images.
 
GeeMack said:
I already explained that, too. You run a couple of STEREO images through a few PhotoShop filters and voila, you get the fakes you're passing off as running difference images.
Click to expand...

How would that even be a "fake" RD image? What exactly constitutes a "real" RD image, and why would one particular image manipulation program be "fake" or only one image program "real"?

Are you going to email me your info?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Then what are those rigid features under the wave in Kosovichev's video? Stop dodging that direct question.
Click to expand...

Kosovichev's own explanation should suffice, yes? He says they aren't rigid features nor are they under the "wave". Why should we believe you and not him?
 
Michael Mozina said:
What type of dodge is that? It's not even clever or relevant. All you're doing is demonstrating to everyone that you have no interest in honestly or openly dealing with that rigid element under the wave. That's pure denial GM.
Click to expand...


Michael, honestly, truthfully, and to the best of not only my knowledge but to the best of the knowledge of every last professional physicist on the face of this planet including Dr. Kosovichev, there is no rigid element under the wave.

Like I said, I could certainly venture an opinion based on a half a decade worth of evidence as to why you believe you see something solid there. But it would only piss you off. And I'm sure I'm not the only one here who would rather see you stop throwing tantrums and start trying to support your crackpot notion about the Sun.

And just so we don't forget, your qualifications to analyze and/or explain running difference images has been challenged, and so far you have outright refused to support your claim of being qualified.
 
D'rok said:
Kosovichev's own explanation should suffice, yes?
Click to expand...

Why? Are you appealing to authority perhaps?

He says they aren't rigid features nor are they under the "wave". Why should we believe you and not him?
Click to expand...

You should believe me because he offered us no relevant way to explain the rigid outlines in the video, just as nobody here will offer us a relevant way to explain those features using a plasma sun model.
 
GeeMack said:
Michael, honestly, truthfully, and to the best of not only my knowledge but to the best of the knowledge of every last professional physicist on the face of this planet including Dr. Kosovichev, there is no rigid element under the wave.
Click to expand...

Well, the problem is that none of you account for that rigid outline under the wave. To his credit Dr. Kosovichev spent many emails with me trying to do so, but he ultimately didn't offer us a physically viable method to explain it. You won't do that either.

And just so we don't forget, your qualifications to analyze and/or explain running difference images has been challenged, and so far you have outright refused to support your claim of being qualified.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what makes you think that *YOU* are qualified to explain a solar RD image. So far all you've done is talk about the technique mathematically and you have outright ignored the solar processes and the specific pixels in specific images. What exactly are your qualifications as it relates to solar physics? I accept that you understand the math related to RD image processing but I see no evidence at all that you know squat about solar physics or solar images in general.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Why? Are you appealing to authority perhaps?
Click to expand...

Of course. He's the expert, not you or me. Appeal to appropriate authority is perfectly valid. If not, you can kiss the entire legal tradition of western civilization good-bye. As a non-scientific layperson, my only challenge is identifying the appropriate authority to appeal to. If the choice is between Kosovichev and you, my choice isn't you.



You should believe me because he offered us no relevant way to explain the rigid outlines in the video, just as nobody here will offer us a relevant way to explain those features using a plasma sun model.
Click to expand...
Why would he? The outlines aren't rigid, and he explained why they aren't.
 
Michael Mozina said:
How would that even be a "fake" RD image? What exactly constitutes a "real" RD image, and why would one particular image manipulation program be "fake" or only one image program "real"?
Click to expand...


I'll take that as an implied admission that I am correct in my assessment that you twiddled with a couple of PhotoShop filters. But I already knew that. You see, I happen to understand what it takes to make running difference images the way the good folks at LMSAL make them. I also understand that the fraudulent "running difference" images you supposedly made are most likely just some PhotoShop messing. Mind you, there's nothing wrong with screwing around with PhotoShop. After all, that's how we know UFOs and ghosts and bigfoot is real, too.

Are you going to email me your info?
Click to expand...


Sure, right after you let me know how your lawyer responds when you tell him you won't be able to actually support your claim because the you made the images in PhotoShop just like I said you did. They're fakes. :D
 
Michael Mozina said:
Well, the problem is that none of you account for that rigid outline under the wave. To his credit Dr. Kosovichev spent many emails with me trying to do so, but he ultimately didn't offer us a physically viable method to explain it. You won't do that either.
Click to expand...


I'd be happy to give my opinion on why you think you see things that aren't really there. And my opinion is supported by several thousand of your posts on several Internet forums. But you'd be offended by the truth.

I don't even know what makes you think that *YOU* are qualified to explain a solar RD image. So far all you've done is talk about the technique mathematically and you have outright ignored the solar processes and the specific pixels in specific images. What exactly are your qualifications as it relates to solar physics? I accept that you understand the math related to RD image processing but I see no evidence at all that you know squat about solar physics or solar images in general.
Click to expand...


Yes, I understand the math involved in creating the graphs. You don't understand math at all, much less what is involved in producing running difference output. Therefore I'm qualified to say what the running difference graphs show and don't show. You aren't. Your qualifications have been challenged, and you have refused to offer any support for your claim that you are qualified.

Oh, and your ignorance of this issue hasn't gone unnoticed: What method is involved in taking images of data from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, and processing them in some way that shows surface features below the photosphere? Can we take it that you're going to remain ignorant on that point?
 
D'rok said:
Of course. He's the expert, not you or me.
Click to expand...

But that expertise is only meaningful if he can offer us an explanation for the rigid aspects of the image. If not, his "expertise" is limited in that aspect and we still need a valid explanation for those rigid outlines in the image. That is essentially where things sit.

Appeal to appropriate authority is perfectly valid. If not, you can kiss the entire legal tradition of western civilization good-bye.
Click to expand...

It's actually a fallacy in debate, and also problematic. In this case it's not actually relevant because he offered no viable way to "explain" it. We still need to explain those features of that image. If the expert has no explanation, where does that leave us exactly?

As a non-scientific layperson, my only challenge is identifying the appropriate authority to appeal to. If the choice is between Kosovichev and you, my choice isn't you.
Click to expand...

Well, that technically only works if the expert has an explanation to offer us that is physically viable. In this case, no such explanation exists. Now what?

Why would he? The outlines aren't rigid, and he explained why they aren't.
Click to expand...

They are certainly more "persistent" than anything in the photosphere. The surface features of the photosphere change over about an 8 minute interval.
 
GeeMack said:
I'll take that as an implied admission that I am correct in my assessment that you twiddled with a couple of PhotoShop filters.
Click to expand...

Are you stating publicly that I fraudulently manipulated the images using any specific program, Photoshop, IDL routines, or otherwise? Yes or no? If so, how did I commit fraud in your opinion?
 
Michael Mozina said:
How exactly is attempting to demonstrate the existence of a solid surface a hijack of his thread? I was careful to even point out that wireless transmission of electricity is a demonstrated real process. You seem to have an unusual notion of a hijack.
Click to expand...
You have a crackpot delusion that there is an iron "crust" in the Sun with the elements in the Sun stratified.
brantc has a crackpot delusion that there is an solid iron shell in the Sun with Aether batteries.
This is a thread about brantc's crank delusion not yours.
It is a hijack of his thread if he wants to talk about his crank idea (as in the OP) rather than yours. That is why I asked him whether he considered it to be a hijack.

Can I take it that you are OK with answering all the 30-odd outstanding questions on your idea here instead of the other thread?
 
If you start with a conclusion - the features are rigid - and then demand that the expert provides an explanation for why the features are rigid, why do you act surprised when the expert doesn't agree with your conclusion? What explanation do you think he should give for a false conclusion? The question to ask should be - are these features rigid? The answer given by Kosovichev is no. And he explained his answer. QED.
 
GeeMack said:
Yes, I understand the math involved in creating the graphs.
Click to expand...

So what? What do you know about solar physics or satellite images in general?

You don't understand math at all,
Click to expand...

You do realize I'll bury you in court for this sort of trash, right?

much less what is involved in producing running difference output.
Click to expand...

The only problem in your rant here of course is that I accepted your '"Explanation" of the technique long ago, so we aren't actually arguing over the technique, just the fact you avoid the solar physics entirely.

Therefore I'm qualified to say what the running difference graphs show and don't show. You aren't.
Click to expand...

Until you address the physics of what's happening in the image, frame by frame, pixel by pixel, all you've done is address the math and ignored the physics entirely. That's typical of you guys.

Your qualifications have been challenged, and you have refused to offer any support for your claim that you are qualified.
Click to expand...

I can demonstrate your ignorance on qualification right here, right now, just by noting that you're bitching about a software program, not a technique and technically speaking it doesn't matter which software one uses to create a basic RD image. That Photoshop rant was your own worst enemy.

By the way, be specific. What did I manipulate in any of those images that constitutes "fraud"?
 
D'rok said:
If you start with a conclusion - the features are rigid - and then demand that the expert provides an explanation for why the features are rigid, why do you act surprised when the expert doesn't agree with your conclusion? What explanation do you think he should give for a false conclusion? The question to ask should be - are these features rigid? The answer given by Kosovichev is no. And he explained his answer. QED.
Click to expand...

We went back and forth between the terms "rigid" and "persistent" and the difference between the two in our emails so you can take your pick. I believe the term "persistent" is a better term by the way, but he didn't explain that part of his answer which is why it's not on my website. I felt I offered him that statement on my website, but I was highly disappointed at his lack of an explanation for the persistent features in the image. If you look closely, it's not just the circled regions that are persistent under the wave. There are many features under that wave that are unaffected by the wave, and persistent throughout the image that remain "unexplained".
 
Reality Check said:
You have a crackpot delusion
Click to expand...

Ah, the GM style of debate. You got two loaded words in row. How cute.

that there is an iron "crust" in the Sun
Click to expand...

No! You continue to ignore the fact I didn't claim the crust or the sun to be made of "iron" and only iron. In fact I have explicitly mentioned to all of you that it is an ordinary crust and not homogeneously any element.

with the elements in the Sun stratified.
Click to expand...

The plasma atmosphere is stratified, yes.

brantc has a crackpot delusion
Click to expand...

So your technique isn't actually "personal", you just go below the belt all the time when someone disagrees with you, is that it?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
We went back and forth between the terms "rigid" and "persistent" and the difference between the two in our emails so you can take your pick. I believe the term "persistent" is a better term by the way, but he didn't explain that part of his answer which is why it's not on my website. I felt I offered him that statement on my website, but I was highly disappointed at his lack of an explanation for the persistent features in the image. If you look closely, it's not just the circled regions that are persistent under the wave. There are many features under that wave that are unaffected by the wave, and persistent throughout the image that remain "unexplained".
Click to expand...

For the sake of argument, let's say his explanations for the features are unsatisfactory - that in no way constitutes positive evidence for your explanation. You have to provide that yourself.

For instance, in the quoted bit above, you are still starting with a conclusion - i.e., that the features are "under" the wave rather than features "of" the wave. You certainly cannot conclude that based on Kosovichev's (presumed) failure to precisely explain those features. You have to provide some basis for this besides your own desire that it should be so.
 
Hey Michael, I'm still waiting for you to calculate the gravitational pressure for a water bubble using my model. Do you need me to do it for you? Or will you admit that you had no idea what you were talking about when you claimed my model should predict the bubble would crush the air inside it?
 
Ziggurat said:
Hey Michael, I'm still waiting for you to calculate the gravitational pressure for a water bubble using my model. Do you need me to do it for you? Or will you admit that you had no idea what you were talking about when you claimed my model should predict the bubble would crush the air inside it?
Click to expand...

On a related note, I'm wondering what's become of brantc: I think all this shouting distracted him, just when he was about to explain his model of gravity - the one which lets a hollow sphere of iron remain stable when Newton thinks it ought to be 10,000 times too heavy to support its own weight.

He may be back, though. He may just be doing some calculations. We can but hope.
 
D'rok said:
For the sake of argument, let's say his explanations for the features are unsatisfactory - that in no way constitutes positive evidence for your explanation. You have to provide that yourself.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough. We still do need to "explain" that part of the images however.

For instance, in the quoted bit above, you are still starting with a conclusion - i.e., that the features are "under" the wave rather than features "of" the wave.
Click to expand...

We both seemed to agree on that point actually, but your right it's an "assumption", albeit based upon hours of analysis. I've long since lost count of the number of times I've watched that video.

You certainly cannot conclude that based on Kosovichev's (presumed) failure to precisely explain those features. You have to provide some basis for this besides your own desire that it should be so.
Click to expand...

There has to be a logical explanation for those persistent features. It's not as though they must defy logical explanation or they even should defy logical explanation. There has to be logical reason that those features remain persistent whereas the structures of the photosphere tend to come and go in 8 minute intervals. There must also be a valid reason why the wave distorts the "features"as it passes over them, which IMO favors the "under" rather than the "through" or "over" interpretation of where the features are located in relationship to the wave on the surface of the photosphere.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
On a related note, I'm wondering what's become of brantc: I think all this shouting distracted him, just when he was about to explain his model of gravity - the one which lets a hollow sphere of iron remain stable when Newton thinks it ought to be 10,000 times too heavy to support its own weight.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that depend a lot upon the surface tension of the crust and the pressure and temperature of the materials inside? That water should have sunk to the bottom too, but the air inside the water shell is stable, even to the point of ejecting water droplets that are injected into the air pocket. If you watched the tablet part, the little air bubbles are eaten by the larger bubble and the water shell is stable. Once in awhile an ejection of water occurs, but the shell and air bubble inside are very stable.
 
GeeMack said:
Oh, and your ignorance of this issue hasn't gone unnoticed: What method is involved in taking images of data from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, and processing them in some way that shows surface features below the photosphere? Can we take it that you're going to remain ignorant on that point?
Click to expand...

Here's the LMSAL image that demonstrates that the footprints of the loops are located *UNDER*, not above the photosphere. Notice the effect on the surface of the photosphere from the coronal loops passing through it.

15%20April%202001%20WL.gif
 
Michael Mozina said:
Wouldn't that depend a lot upon the surface tension of the crust and the pressure and temperature of the materials inside?
Click to expand...

I'm having trouble seeing how the electrostatic attraction which, for example, helps water molecules cling together in a soap bubble would help sustain a vast hollow ball of iron. Maybe I mistake your point.

Regarding internal pressure, I rather gathered that brantc's particular model envisages an iron shell constituting virtually the whole of the sun's mass. If there's anything inside, he's yet to divulge what it is.

A really, really impressive Kinder toy perhaps.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I'm having trouble seeing how the electrostatic attraction which, for example, helps water molecules cling together in a soap bubble would help sustain a vast hollow ball of iron. Maybe I mistake your point.
Click to expand...

There's a bit more going on the video and more to consider at it relates to surface tension and gravitational force at various points inside the sphere. First we should note that the gravitational force in the core of the sphere is actually zero. The lighter elements inside of a shell with some surface tension would naturally tend to collect there.

Regarding internal pressure, I rather gathered that brantc's particular model envisages an iron shell constituting virtually the whole of the sun's mass. If there's anything inside, he's yet to divulge what it is.
Click to expand...

Well, it could be relatively "hollow" in terms of average density compared to the outside "shell" as the water bubble analogy demonstrates.

FYI, even a basketball with a hole doesn't necessarily or automatically "collapse" into itself.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I'm having trouble seeing how the electrostatic attraction which, for example, helps water molecules cling together in a soap bubble would help sustain a vast hollow ball of iron.
Click to expand...

Well, keep in mind that solid metals would have an electrostatic attraction, particularly in an electrically active environment.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Wouldn't that depend a lot upon the surface tension of the crust
Click to expand...

No. Surface tension doesn't apply to solids, and even in liquids it's fairly weak and doesn't scale with volume. Whereas gravity keeps getting stronger the larger your object becomes. So surface tension is irrelevant to your iron sun model.

and the pressure and temperature of the materials inside?
Click to expand...

Um... the pressure was what I calculated to be many orders of magnitude too large. And temperature just makes the problem worse, since it softens materials from their low-temperature strength.

That water should have sunk to the bottom too, but the air inside the water shell is stable
Click to expand...

What's the force of gravity for that bubble, Michael? Come on, quantify it. It's not hard to figure out. Is gravity relevant to the water bubble? And if not, how can you compare it to your iron sun model, where gravity clearly will have a major impact?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom