Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Reality Check said:

The photosphere is THICK, especially optically.

Click to expand...

NASA's simple definition of "photosphere" goes something like this: It consists of a zone in which the gaseous layers change from being completely opaque to radiation to being transparent.

So unless Michael and brantc are challenging that definition, the photosphere is gaseous not solid, and at its deepest, it is so optically thick that it is indeed opaque to radiation. By definition. So if, on the impossible chance there's something solid below the photosphere, it would not be visible, no reflecting light, nothing. We wouldn't be able to see it, not with our eyes, not with the fancy optical instruments at observatories and on satellites, not with any photographic technique, and not in running difference images no matter how they're processed.

We determine the construction of the Sun below the photosphere by using helioseismology. At its simplest that can be described as using acoustic and/or gravity waves which naturally occur on and within the Sun, and analyzing the way they propagate through the interior of the Sun. The results of that analysis clearly show that there is no solid surface. Use of these techniques, although fairly new, isn't cutting edge science anymore. Helioseismology is used to continuously monitor what's happening on the far side of the Sun.

Hey Michael, you said you'd be making up a couple of running difference videos for us to see. You wouldn't be going back on your word, would you? Probably this afternoon, eh?

GeeMack said:

NASA's simple definition of "photosphere" goes something like this: It consists of a zone in which the gaseous layers change from being completely opaque to radiation to being transparent.

So unless Michael and brantc are challenging that definition, the photosphere is gaseous not solid, and at its deepest, it is so optically thick that it is indeed opaque to radiation. By definition. So if, on the impossible chance there's something solid below the photosphere, it would not be visible, no reflecting light, nothing. We wouldn't be able to see it, not with our eyes, not with the fancy optical instruments at observatories and on satellites, not with any photographic technique, and not in running difference images no matter how they're processed.

We determine the construction of the Sun below the photosphere by using helioseismology. At its simplest that can be described as using acoustic and/or gravity waves which naturally occur on and within the Sun, and analyzing the way they propagate through the interior of the Sun. The results of that analysis clearly show that there is no solid surface. Use of these techniques, although fairly new, isn't cutting edge science anymore. Helioseismology is used to continuously monitor what's happening on the far side of the Sun.

Hey Michael, you said you'd be making up a couple of running difference videos for us to see. You wouldn't be going back on your word, would you? Probably this afternoon, eh?

Click to expand...

Comedy of Errors Solar Science

Tim Thompson said:

To begin with, the "footpoint" of the loop is defined to be where the loop intersects the photosphere, so you lose that one to the dictionary.

Click to expand...

brantc said:

Yes, that may be the definition but is that where they really are?

Click to expand...

The location where the loop intersects the photosphere is by definition the footpoint of the loop. So we know exactly what they really are, and that's it. If you have some other physical entity in mind, it's not a "footpoint", so you will need a new word for it, like maybe "brantcpoint". It does have a ring to it.

Tim Thompson said:

Of course, we already know that the magnetic fields around sunspots and active regions penetrate deeply into the photosphere, so if that is a point you are trying to make, then you are working hard to convince people of something that everybody already knows. But if you are trying to argue that the 171Å emission comes from below the photosphere, you have failed rather miserably to do so. I point out that you have never been able to produce a single image that unambiguously supports your claim. What you are seeing is loops that penetrate the top of the chromosphere, and then assuming that they are in fact penetrating the photosphere.

Click to expand...

brantc said:

I think that all of the papers that you posted are based on Bilderberg continuum atmosphere from the 50's.

Click to expand...

Well, you think wrong. They are not, and had you actually cited the source paper for the Bilderberg continuum atmosphere (Gingerich & de Jager, 1968) and studied it a bit before posting, you might have figured that out for yourself and not bothered to post such a comment at all. See, for instance, the comment in Fontenla, et al., 2006: "As is usual in photospheric modeling (e.g., Gingerich & de jager, 1968; Gingerich, et al., 1971), we adjust the temperature stratification as a function of gas pressure in such a way that the computed intensities match the observed disk center intensities and center to limb variation (CLV) at various wavelengths. We base this study on our CLV observations using the Precision Solar Photometric Telescope (PSPT, e.g., Volger, et al., 2005) ..." So each paper uses either a model derived from their own observations, a model given by another source, or some combination of the two. If you want to know specifically which model was used by which paper, you have to read the paper and see for yourself.

brantc said:

The emission regions originally appear to be based on temperature assumptions for a fusion model.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. The "fusion model" has nothing at all to do with the emission regions; never has, never will, and never could in any case. The transition region location is derived directly from the observations of the solar atmosphere and has no logical connection at all to any model for the heat source. The observed gas is what it is, no more & no less.

brantc said:

FeIV is really hot so its where its really hot. But they are confusing the iron emission in the corona with the loop footprints.

Click to expand...

Nonsense again. The loop footpoints are points, or nearly so, small bright regions. The corona emission is continuous. There is no confusion between a few bright points on the one hand and smooth emission from everywhere on the other hand. Where do you come up with such silly ideas?

brantc said:

I would expect that there is a layer of iron atoms but how did those atoms get there?? Especially when there is an enrichment of up to 5 times. That does not give you the source of the iron emissions!!!

Click to expand...

Enrichment with respect to what? And why would you expect a layer of iron atoms? The 171A emission can come from iron line emission or thermal emission. You can't just look at a single waveband and know what it comes from. The continuous emission is most likely thermal continuum and the filamentary emission most likely from ionized iron at high temperatures. The only way you can use this emission to argue in favor of a layer of iron is to assume, a priori, that the layer is there to justify itself.

brantc said:

Solar surface. Loop footprints 1500?km below the photosphere.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_000719_123108.gif
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_000828_170708.gif

Click to expand...

There are no loop footpoints or footprints visible below the photosphere in either of these images.

brantc said:

This one you can see the formations under the loops that result from coronal rain.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif

Click to expand...

I see no such thin in this picture.

brantc said:

This view spicules are more apparent.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_980819_0604.gif

Click to expand...

But the spicules are already a well known feature of the chromosphere (Beckers, 1972 and citations thereto). What do they have to do with whatever you are going on about, anyway?

brantc said:

There is no question that 171 penetrates the thin photosphere, that the layer that is luminescent, and is only a few hundred miles thick.

Click to expand...

In fact, there is really no question but that the 171A emission does not penetrate the photosphere at all. There is no possibility of any iron layer or other significant amount of iron below the photosphere, so there will be little if any iron line emission. And the layers where temperatures are high enough to produce either the ionized iron emission or thermal emission at that short wavelength are way too far below the photosphere. The overlying plasma is much too opaque, we would never see it.

brantc said:

So in reality every assumption that went into building TRACE is based on a solar "model". Do you think they designed the cameras to to overexpose on purpose?? Those people are great engineers but if they are confined by theorists then that what you get.

Click to expand...

Models, yes, but models tied to real observations and real physics. Your "models", on the other hand, are not at all consistent with any imaginable real physics. Your models are more closely aligned with comedy of errors physics.

Thanks for the science, and boo to those who delude themselves.

Iron sun disproved and outstanding questions for brantc

brantc has a idea that there is a solid iron shell inside the Sun.
The problem is that simple thermodynamics states that there can be no such shell. Pointed out in this post by sol invictus and many times to Micheal Mozina woith his similar idea.
brantc then proves that his iron shell cannot exist since his answer to
What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum temperature of 5777 K?
was It is ~1500 miles below the photosphere.
But the photosphere is at at temperature of ~6000 K and its temperature has beem measured to increase with depth to ~9400 K (at 500 km I believe). This is consistent with an internally heated body, i.e. a Sun with fusion happening at the core. Solids cannot exist at ~6000 K let alone ~9400 K or higher.


brantc has still missed these the questions but they are not that relevant anymore. I may add a couple more just to show how bad the idea is.

1. Why is your solid iron surface emitting IR or EUV light that is typical of plasma?
   First asked 31 March 2010
2. What density measurments does the hollow iron shell account for?
   First asked 2 April 2010
3. What is your "slightly different model of gravity"?
   First asked 2 April 2010
   So far it is any model that he want so long as it "supports" his thermodynamically impossible iron shell .
4. How thick is your thick hollow shell made of iron?
   First asked 2 April 2010
   First answer : 93 986 kilometer thick shell but the Sun is all iron and a vaccuum inside the shell !
5. Cite the detection of your 93,986 kilometer thick iron shell in helioseismology?
   First asked 6 April 2010
6. Prediction of the solar neutrino flux from "aether based" reactions?
   First asked 7 April 2010
7. Please list the empirical controlled experiments for "aether based" reactions.
   First asked 7 April 2010

Reality Check said:

brantc has a idea that there is a solid iron shell inside the Sun.
The problem is that simple thermodynamics states that there can be no such shell. Pointed out in this post by sol invictus and many times to Micheal Mozina woith his similar idea.
brantc then proves that his iron shell cannot exist since his answer to
What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum temperature of 5777 K?
was It is ~1500 miles below the photosphere.
But the photosphere is at at temperature of ~6000 K and its temperature has beem measured to increase with depth to ~9400 K (at 500 km I believe). This is consistent with an internally heated body, i.e. a Sun with fusion happening at the core. Solids cannot exist at ~6000 K let alone ~9400 K or higher.


brantc has still missed these the questions but they are not that relevant anymore. I may add a couple more just to show how bad the idea is.

1. Why is your solid iron surface emitting IR or EUV light that is typical of plasma?
   First asked 31 March 2010
2. What density measurments does the hollow iron shell account for?
   First asked 2 April 2010
3. What is your "slightly different model of gravity"?
   First asked 2 April 2010
   So far it is any model that he want so long as it "supports" his thermodynamically impossible iron shell .
4. How thick is your thick hollow shell made of iron?
   First asked 2 April 2010
   First answer : 93 986 kilometer thick shell but the Sun is all iron and a vaccuum inside the shell !
5. Cite the detection of your 93,986 kilometer thick iron shell in helioseismology?
   First asked 6 April 2010
6. Prediction of the solar neutrino flux from "aether based" reactions?
   First asked 7 April 2010
7. Please list the empirical controlled experiments for "aether based" reactions.
   First asked 7 April 2010

Click to expand...

No. I was basically ignoring you because of the request made from the original post. I asked people to be civil and no "crank" or "crackpot".

"So my model is pretty different(woo) for all you skeps out there but dont go calling me names, ask real questions."

brantc said:

No. I was basically ignoring you because of the request made from the original post. I asked people to be civil and no "crank" or "crackpot".

"So my model is pretty different(woo) for all you skeps out there but dont go calling me names, ask real questions."

Click to expand...

Interesting. Your refusal to support your crackpot conjecture is based on your feigned indignation. So much for that Nobel Prize, eh? Yep, I'm sure that's how Neil deGrasse Tyson or Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking would handle it.

Here's a real question. So far you've only offered looks-like-a-bunny grade school kid science and your unsupported assertions. Do you have any legitimate, quantitative, scientific evidence to support your crackpot claim?

brantc said:

No. I was basically ignoring you because of the request made from the original post. I asked people to be civil and no "crank" or "crackpot".

"So my model is pretty different(woo) for all you skeps out there but dont go calling me names, ask real questions."

Click to expand...

I did not go calling you names. You have shown yourself to have a Crank/crackpot idea. I have been careful not to call you a crank or crackpot but if you want to take ownership of the title feel free ! It is a pejorative term but I cannot think of any more appropriate term. Unorthodox could be used but that assumes that your idea has some basis in science.

I did ask real questions. You have just selected to ignore them because you either cannot answer them or have a very thin skin.
Perhaps you can nominate someone whose has not offended you to ask exactly the same questions?

Michael Mozina - 8th April 2010 said:

I haven't yet. You'll need to be a bit patient. IDL is installed on my home PC, and it's a single installation license. I do have a day job you know.

I think before I spend money on a lawyer, I'll spend some time creating a few RD movies for you first and stuff your arrogant attitude right down your throat. We'll then compare them to what NASA has in their daily archives and see what you come up with for the same time period. Like I said, I have a day job, and you aren't my first priority in life, even with that smug arrogant attitude. Chill for a while.

Click to expand...

Since it's been a few days I thought I'd remind you of this one. You said you'd demonstrate that you're qualified to understand and offer an informed opinion on running difference imagery. Some of us have been waiting over four years now, and the folks in this thread have been waiting over a week. Since you said you'd support your claimed qualifications here you've written almost 10,000 words, posted 20+ links and probably almost as many pretty pictures, but not one of those words was to explain every single pixel in your running difference images, as I have done so very many times. Not one of those links went to any of your own examples of those running difference videos that you said you'd make.

I wonder if this is going to be like the spring of 2006 when you said you were going to "shine" because you were such an expert at running difference images. You were going to explain them in great detail, every last pixel, but then you simply abandoned the forum where you were involved in that discussion.

I'm sure you don't want anyone to think that your web site, right from the very first thing you post as evidence, is a sham, just a bunch of bogus, unsupported nonsense. I called it a fraud earlier, and so far it seems you're refusing to counter that position. So how about you get those videos prepared like you said you would. Maybe you can actually follow through instead of walking away this time like you usually do.

Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible III

brantc said:

... ask real questions."

Click to expand...

This has been done. Unfortunately, real answers are not forthcoming. First & Foremost, I and others assert that it is not physically possible to have a solid & rigid iron surface in or on the sun because thermodynamics does not allow it. The photospheric & subphotospheric plasma is both hot enough & dense enough that it would melt & vaporize such a surface in short order. See, for example, my post 236 & post 130 above in this thread, as well as Sol Invictus post 898 in the Magnetic Reconnection thread.

I and others have asked the real question: How do you get around this thermodynamic problem? You have yet to provide a serious answer. You should either ...

1. Admit that you have no answer, and abandon your model, or ....
2. Admit that you have no answer, but insist you must be right anyway, or ...
3. Ignore the issue & hope it will go away, or ..
4. Provide a serious answer, or ...
5. Think of yet another option.

This is the single most fundamental & important question before you on this topic, or so I think. If you cannot satisfy the fundamental requirements of thermodynamics, then your entire model is a dead issue. No other argument is even worth making if you can't deal with this one. This one is a definite show-stopper, both for your argument and Mozina's as well.

brantc said:

"ask real questions."

Click to expand...

I have a real question. I asked it already: Can you explain your alternative model of gravity, in which an enormous hollow iron ball can exist which the conventional model says would be roughly 10,000 times too heavy to support its own weight?

running difference imagery

Click to expand...

I can't find any hits for this on Wiki, could anyone point me to where I could get an idea of what it means?

brantc said:

No. I was basically ignoring you because of the request made from the original post. I asked people to be civil and no "crank" or "crackpot".

"So my model is pretty different(woo) for all you skeps out there but dont go calling me names, ask real questions."

Click to expand...

Brantc:
I have two questions that I think you can answer.

1. How do you have a solid or something approaching solid surface, when there is a radiating layer at a much higher temperature, so close by?

2. If the density of iron is such that you would need a sphere then how does it avoid collapse? Even if you have a new theory of gravity, that is what would happen. Unless you are saying that this new gravity does not match current observations.

3. What other lines of evidence are there for the aether?

Toke said:

I can't find any hits for this on Wiki, could anyone point me to where I could get an idea of what it means?

Click to expand...

Think of digital video compression. If the back ground remains the same, the pixels relating to the stationary image is recorded once and if the image changes (ie subject is moving) the moving pixels get recorded every frame.
This saves on the amount of data needed to render the original image.

Anything standing still doesn't get updated very often but anything moving gets updated all the time. The running difference imagery is similar to this , I think. The one frame has an amount of grey added to each pixel, the original pixel value plus the added grey is subtracted from the next frame and what remains is the moving pixel value, once again I think.

See Geemack's posts about this.

Toke said:

I can't find any hits for this on Wiki, could anyone point me to where I could get an idea of what it means?

Click to expand...

Here's a link to a pretty thorough plain English explanation of what a running difference image/video is.

For all practical purposes think of the original images used for these solar running difference graphs as images of thermal characteristics rather than of material. A running difference image or video shows the difference between one image and the next in a series, or between sequential frames in a video. They are simple charts of the mathematical difference between each pixel in one image and each corresponding pixel in another. The result of such processing, although it may look like a surface or structural features, is no more a picture of an actual thing than a bar graph is a picture of a row of buildings or a pie chart is a picture of an actual pizza.

The reason they're used by the various solar research organizations is to observe, in a simple graphical way, changes in thermal characteristics over time.

Hmmm it seems that this discussion is starting to hang on a single piece of evidence.
However I'd like to hear the other reasons Brantc and MM feel we should abandon the current laws of physics for their model.

After all, no new scientific model hangs on a single example or technique.
So, with that in mind

Why does the earth, with far less mass than the sun, not have an internal iron shell, but rather an iron core? How does your new model account for that?
Could you give the model (preferably with calculations) to explain how the iron shell of the sun formed initially and is stable?
How is the sun heated exactly since in your model most of its mass seems to be in a static iron shell.
What experiments have you performed or would you suggest need to be performed to actually prove how your model of the sun works (I realize that not every physicist can reproduce nuclear fusion, but the experiments have been done)?
How long would your sun last and how old would it currently be?
Where did your iron come from initially? The big bang theory allows for mainly hydrogen and some helium, which contracts into stars synthesizing the higher atomic compounds and spreading it into the galaxy for second/third generation stars to capture. Since your model does not seem to power stars with nuclear fusion, there needs to be another source for iron, what is it?
Or do you believe the big bang model/particle physics to be wrong, in which case, what theory do you have available to replace it that gives explains the results of collider data so far?

Lukraak_Sisser said:

Hmmm it seems that this discussion is starting to hang on a single piece of evidence.

Click to expand...

I focus on the running difference images that Michael uses to support his crackpot conjecture mainly because it's the very first piece of "evidence" he waves around. It's the stuff right at the very top of his web site and is apparently one of his more substantial reasons for believing in the solid surfaced Sun myth. So I target that part of it because it's his Exhibit One, and because I have a great deal of expertise in the area. Once Michael understands that it doesn't support his claim, he can put it behind him and move on to the more physics oriented elements of the issue.

However I'd like to hear the other reasons Brantc and MM feel we should abandon the current laws of physics for their model.

After all, no new scientific model hangs on a single example or technique.
So, with that in mind

Why does the earth, with far less mass than the sun, not have an internal iron shell, but rather an iron core? How does your new model account for that?
Could you give the model (preferably with calculations) to explain how the iron shell of the sun formed initially and is stable?
How is the sun heated exactly since in your model most of its mass seems to be in a static iron shell.
What experiments have you performed or would you suggest need to be performed to actually prove how your model of the sun works (I realize that not every physicist can reproduce nuclear fusion, but the experiments have been done)?
How long would your sun last and how old would it currently be?
Where did your iron come from initially? The big bang theory allows for mainly hydrogen and some helium, which contracts into stars synthesizing the higher atomic compounds and spreading it into the galaxy for second/third generation stars to capture. Since your model does not seem to power stars with nuclear fusion, there needs to be another source for iron, what is it?
Or do you believe the big bang model/particle physics to be wrong, in which case, what theory do you have available to replace it that gives explains the results of collider data so far?

Click to expand...

Well now you're asking for quantitative support. In all the years these folks have been blathering about their crackpot solid surfaced Sun conjecture on the Internet, they have never offered any quantitative support. So good luck with that.

GeeMack said:

Here's a link to a pretty thorough plain English explanation of what a running difference image/video is.

Click to expand...

Thank you, quite educational.

I could tell from his conclusion about a solid iron shell that there were something wrong with his evidence, but I had no idea that it was that irrelevant to his case.

I understand why you focus on that bit Geemack, but like I said, Michael seems to claim quite a lot based on a few pictures that mainstream physicists do not interpret as mountains or permanent features on the sun.
So hence the questions. After all, I'd like to know how his version of physics explains all the things I mentioned. And how he goes from "I see a permanent feature" to "Therefore its an iron shell". After all there are more elements in nature, so why not a carbon shell, or a silicate shell?

Active Region 9143 & "Mountains" on the Sun

GeeMack said:

You don't seem to understand. There are no structures for anything to reflect from.

Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/171surfaceshotsmall.JPG[/qimg]

Ya, except for all the structures in the image.

Click to expand...

The image above appears on Mozina's surface of the sun webpage with a caption which includes the statement, "The flare activity is caused by increased electrical activity as fast moving plasma sweeps over surface ridges, resulting in increased electrical activity on the windward side of the mountain ranges." Consistent, of course, with Mozina's assertion here that we are looking at mountain ranges on a crusty, mostly iron surface.

We have already seen convincing evidence that fundamental thermodynamics does not allow for the possibility of an iron crust of any kind. We have also seen no rational counterpoint to this argument from either brantc (who favors a solid, rigid surface), or Mozina (who favors a less solid & rigid crust of some ill-defined sort). It is apparent that the whole "mountain" story is simply an optical illusion, where the brain creates mountains out of pure imagination, given a few hints from suggestive lighting. Some here have likened it to "seeing bunny rabbits in the clouds", and I don't doubt that is what Mozina is in fact doing, imagining mountains where none really are.

Since fundamental physics does not seem to sway the bias of the True Believer, perhaps another image to counter Mozina's images? Mozina identifies this as Active Region 9143, his image above dated 28 Aug 2000. The structures he identifies as mountains are in fact simply magnetic field loops. While Mozina's image looks essentially straight down onto the "mountains", other images show the same active region near the limb of the sun. In this viewing geometry, we should see the "mountains" in relief along the rim of the sun; we should be looking at the faces of the slopes of the mountains. But see 171Å Image dated 25 Aug 2000, which clearly shows the magnetic field loops and no sign of mountains in relief anywhere. Furthermore, see the Quicktime movie of the same view of the same region, showing a flare eruption. You can see that the loops are really loops, changing with time, and not static, as one would expect for mountains misinterpreted as loops. This image & movie certainly argue against the interpretation of mountains in the single still frame, or movie, provided by Mozina, because the viewing angle should reveal any structures in relief along the limb of the sun.

Mountains do not get up and walk around (except of course for the infamous saga of Billy the Mountain). I have used the very handy Active Region Maps page from the Mees Solar Observatory in Hawaii in an attempt to track the motion of the solar active region 9143 across the disk. You can track the progress of AR 9143 in the archived maps, from its first appearance on 25 Aug 2000 until it rotates all the way around and out of view after 5 Sep 2000, 12 days in all. The locations given on the maps are not easily interpreted; I can't tell if the longitude coordinate is supposed to move with the sun or not. However, the latitude coordinate is fairly obvious. If the sun were a rigid rotator, the latitude coordinate must remain fixed for any feature fixed to the rigid surface. As we can see, this is not the case for active region 9143, which migrates in latitude over a range between 18 & 20 degrees. The Carrington longitude ("LO" on the archived maps) is fixed to the rotating sun, as is longitude on Earth. Once again, the active region 9143 is not fixed, but rather moves in Carrington longitude between 44 & 48 degrees. So the "mountains" appear to migrate across the visible disk of the sun in both latitude & longitude, hardly the kind of behavior one would expect from a fixed "mountain" on an iron crust or surface.

Active regions are associated with sunspot groups, but active region number are assigned by NOAA, and are not always the same for a given physical sunspot group. So I tried to recover the same physical active region as it came around again, starting roughly 27 Sep 2000. I think that active region 9166 on the maps is probably the same group. I tried using the archived sunspot drawings from the 150-foot solar tower telescope at Mt. Wilson Observatory to recover the same group from its morphology. But the groups are highly variable in morphology and I can't reliably identify the same group coming back around (witness the sudden eruption of spots between Sep 13 & Sep 14 2000). If I could, then I could track the migration of the group in latitude & longitude over even longer periods. But I was unable to do that.

So, in summary:

1. Thermodynamics is still a strong & fundamental argument against any iron crust or surface.
2. Images of the same active region near the limb of the sun fail to reveal the relief expected from mountains in silhouette.
3. The apparent migration of the active region in fixed latitude & longitude argues against the "mountain" interpretation.

All of these 3 items taken simultaneously argue strongly against the mountain interpretation of Mozina's images of active region 9143. But I add the comment that the thermodynamic argument is, by itself, a show stopper that kills the argument altogether. I add the limb imagery & migration only to add evidence of a more eye-ball variety, for those unmoved by arguments based on fundamental physics.

Prediction: Michael will somehow spin those images as further evidence that his theory is correct.

GeeMack said:

Since it's been a few days I thought I'd remind you of this one. You said you'd demonstrate that you're qualified to understand and offer an informed opinion on running difference imagery. Some of us have been waiting over four years now, and the folks in this thread have been waiting over a week. Since you said you'd support your claimed qualifications here you've written almost 10,000 words, posted 20+ links and probably almost as many pretty pictures, but not one of those words was to explain every single pixel in your running difference images, as I have done so very many times. Not one of those links went to any of your own examples of those running difference videos that you said you'd make.

I wonder if this is going to be like the spring of 2006 when you said you were going to "shine" because you were such an expert at running difference images. You were going to explain them in great detail, every last pixel, but then you simply abandoned the forum where you were involved in that discussion.

I'm sure you don't want anyone to think that your web site, right from the very first thing you post as evidence, is a sham, just a bunch of bogus, unsupported nonsense. I called it a fraud earlier, and so far it seems you're refusing to counter that position. So how about you get those videos prepared like you said you would. Maybe you can actually follow through instead of walking away this time like you usually do.

Click to expand...

This will be revolutionary, making the wait well worth it!

Michael Mozina said:

It literally "peals" particles from the surface and ionizes them in the loop.

Click to expand...

You certainly must mean "peel" as in "ablate" or "rip from".

"Peal" is what a large bell does.




[BBunny]"What a maroon!" [/BBunny]


Dave

Tim Thompson said:

Mountains do not get up and walk around (except of course for the infamous saga of Billy the Mountain).

Click to expand...

A mountain I would certainly never **** with, or his wife (growing out of his shoulder).

I saw Mountain live in the early '70s (probably '72) at Newcastle City Hall. Knight and Laing didn't move around much (being on keyboards and drums respectively) but West (nearest thing I've seen to a mountain that moved!) and Pappalardi did some walking about.

brantc said:

No. I was basically ignoring you because of the request made from the original post. I asked people to be civil and no "crank" or "crackpot".

Click to expand...

Speaking only for myself, I have endeavoured to NOT call you names, as I believe you to be a misguided student locked into an unfortunate set of choices of pseudo-scientific beliefs, and that you are, hopefully, capable of being yanked back to reality if presented with sufficient evidence.

This DOES NOT apply, however, to your current beliefs which are (I believe) manifestly crankish and, AFAIK, Fair Game according to this forum's rules. This may seem to be a fine distinction, but I am convinced that an attack on your ideas does not constitute an attack on you PERSONALLY. (Any Moderator is free to correct me if I am misunderstanding.)

I always try to be as kind as possible to youthful seekers-of-knowledge who I have reason to believe have simply strayed off the path, because I have done so, myself, in the past, and I try to always be aware that ANYONE is able to occasionally miss the mark. There should be no shame if one is lured toward a seductive falsehood; the shame would be in stubbornly refusing to admit one's shortcoming and insisting that one is iinfallible.

"So my model is pretty different(woo) for all you skeps out there but dont go calling me names, ask real questions."

Click to expand...

I MAY have called a few names in the direction of Mozina and some others, and I feel justified in doing so, because of their behavior, duck-and-dodge tactics, and absolute refusal to LEARN when people with far more "chops" than they can ever HOPE to possess have repeatedly shown them where they are wrong.

You claimed to be a member of {some Junior Science League -- forgive my old-man's short memory} that evidently encourages independent thought and research -- BRAVO, I commend you for that; but part of the scientific method they are probably trying to impart is to recognize when you are heading for a dead-end and gracefully withdraw (sometimes with an apology, but not always required). The point is that one DOES realize the mistake and correct it.

I have attempted in previous posts to "ask [you] real questions" and to give you hints as to threads of inquiry you might follow, hopefully to your benefit, but I can't recall you having responded to my suggestions (perhaps my memory, again.); so, I don't think that if you willfully continue to post Mozina-style whaledreck without putting forth any effort to learn from those remarkable members (most of whom leave me in the dust as far ar their education and level of expertise), who take their time and energy to help you, and others, actually be EXPOSED to real BLEEDING-EDGE Physics, you deserve any more mercy.

Good luck to you.

Cheers,

Dave

Bolding added.

Tim Thompson said:

It is apparent that the whole "mountain" story is simply an optical illusion, where the brain creates mountains out of pure imagination, given a few hints from suggestive lighting. Some here have likened it to "seeing bunny rabbits in the clouds", and I don't doubt that is what Mozina is in fact doing, imagining mountains where none really are.
...
The structures he identifies as mountains are in fact simply magnetic field loops. While Mozina's image looks essentially straight down onto the "mountains", other images show the same active region near the limb of the sun. In this viewing geometry, we should see the "mountains" in relief along the rim of the sun; we should be looking at the faces of the slopes of the mountains. But see 171Å Image dated 25 Aug 2000, which clearly shows the magnetic field loops and no sign of mountains in relief anywhere. ...

Mountains do not get up and walk around (except of course for the infamous saga of Billy the Mountain).

Click to expand...

"In and around the lake, Mountains come out of the sky, and they STAND THERE..."

~ "Roundabout", YES

ETA: Even Psychedelic-rock poet-songwriters know mountains don't move around!

Cheers,

Dave

CaveDave said:

You certainly must mean "peel" as in "ablate" or "rip from".

"Peal" is what a large bell does.




[BBunny]"What a maroon!" [/BBunny]


Dave

Click to expand...

Lol,he can't even spell peel and we are supposed to believe that he is a scientist.

dafydd said:

Lol,he can't even spell peel and we are supposed to believe that he is a scientist.

Click to expand...

oh, I'd give him a pass on that one. I try to be careful about spelling and grammar myself, but I've known some very sharp, competent people who were very careless about them.

Perpetual Student said:

This will be revolutionary, making the wait well worth it!

Click to expand...

Well, if you mean waiting for about 20 GB of SSW and SSWDB files to download, I suppose it was 'well worth it' on some level. Revolutionary wasn't the goal. "Best tools" was more the goal of this particular process. It took most of Sunday, and all day Monday to download the SSWDB files for Trace and SOHO. I suppose it was well worth the effort to stuff GM's ridiculous smugness down his throat IMO.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/jref/rdquiz.wmv

Mind you I used Movie Maker of all things to string the individual images together today lest you folks blow an absolute fuse around here over having to wait a few more days.

FYI, the images were made using the ITT 7.11 engine of IDL (Thanks for the demo of 7.11 Nigel), Festival, the Solarsoft libraries for IDL, and required the use of SSWDB files as well.

Now GM, where's your RD video? How was it made? Please "explain" some part of the image in terms of "solar physics" for us, particularly the "persistent patterns" we observe in the image and how they stay consistent in the image.

Holy Cow! I've been busy for a few days and the thread goes ballistic? Yikes. It will take me awhile to catch up on these responses.

GeeMack said:

And I'm sure you'll be getting around to processing those running difference videos when you get back.

Click to expand...

Done. Let's see your videos, lets hear you explain how they were made, and lets hear you explain something useful about the image in terms of solar physics.

Oh, wait. I'm sure you're going to leave it exactly where you've left it for five-plus years now, bold assertions, lies, running your mouth, and absolutely not a mote of effort invested into showing that you're actually qualified to speak on the issue of solar physics.

Click to expand...

You're dead wrong. I took the time to reload all the "best" tools on a new computer so I could stuff RD images down your throat all day every day if you like. Now that were hopefully past the BS of mechanically creating them, let's hear you actually *EXPLAIN* them in terms of solar physics.

So much for the time I've spent making the videos I made, eh?

Click to expand...

How much time did you spend? How did you create them?

I'm far more interested in finding out how much time you'll spend actually explaining the solar process we see in the Gold RD image. You've avoided that part of your "explanation" now for what, 5 years?

Perpetual Student said:

This will be revolutionary, making the wait well worth it!

Click to expand...

Indeed. But if history is any indication, Michael is pretty near to abandoning this discussion. For one thing, Reality Check's ever growing list of unanswered questions keeps on growing, and even with the most resolute effort to ignore that, it's becoming an elephant in Michael's living room.

Also, neither Michael nor brantc are able to describe their harebrained conjecture in quantitative terms. It might be that brantc is just too much of a newbie to understand that physics must be described in mathematical terms, that any data must be quantified, but Michael knows better. He hates math and doesn't understand it well enough to apply it to his claims, and he also knows that everyone else has busted him on it. He knows he can't go on forever weaseling out of quantitatively explaining his position. (But you've got to admire his perseverance.)

And there's this: Michael has backed himself into a corner. One of the foundational components of his claimed "evidence" is his radical misunderstanding of various solar imagery, running difference images in particular. In tens of thousands of posts over the past half a decade, probably millions of words, never has he once ventured to explain in detail any of the images he thrusts into the conversations. Yes, he spends a lot of time saying they look like something or other, but never has he given us the process he uses to make his determination. Never once has he explained how he reaches his conclusion. Never once has he offered a method that other people could apply to viewing those images, objectively, and somehow come to the same conclusion he does.

And when called on the issue of running difference imagery, the core of his faith, when his qualifications are challenged and he's asked to actually demonstrate that he does understand what he's claiming he says, well, let's let him say it in his own words...

Michael Mozina - 8th April 2010 said:

I haven't yet. You'll need to be a bit patient. IDL is installed on my home PC, and it's a single installation license. I do have a day job you know.

I think before I spend money on a lawyer, I'll spend some time creating a few RD movies for you first and stuff your arrogant attitude right down your throat. We'll then compare them to what NASA has in their daily archives and see what you come up with for the same time period. Like I said, I have a day job, and you aren't my first priority in life, even with that smug arrogant attitude. Chill for a while.

Click to expand...

Yep, backed into a corner indeed. Now he could just blather onwards as if this part of the conversation never occurred and hope maybe people forget he said this. But he knows that's not likely. Here we are still asking five years after he first tried to ignore it.

He could, if he knew what he was talking about, actually produce, but holy smokes if he actually did understand this stuff you'd think maybe on SFN or the BAUT, or earlier in this thread, somewhere in the Internet in the millions of words he's written, he would have actually come up with the goods. So I say his claim to understand running difference images is fraudulent.

Obviously there's another angle available to him, that being his historically effective strategy of quietly walking away when he knows he can't defend an indefensible position. When people aren't willing to engage him any longer, when it's obvious that turning the burden of proof isn't working and asking other people to do his homework isn't panning out, it would be ridiculous to continue trying to support the claim. And that's where I predict this whole thing will go, and possibly quite soon.

But, in the meantime, how 'bout it there, Michael, got those running difference videos ready yet? You know, the ones you're going to use to stuff my... er... to show us that you do understand the subject of running difference graphs as you claim to understand it? It's been over a week. I made four of them in a less than and hour, and I overlaid your very own face on them so you'd know they're my own work. We're all anticipating the results of your effort. Don't let us down, okay?

Michael Mozina said:

Well, if you mean waiting for about 20 GB of SSW and SSWDB files to download, I suppose it was 'well worth it' on some level. Revolutionary wasn't the goal. "Best tools" was more the goal of this particular process. It took most of Sunday, and all day Monday to download the SSWDB files for Trace and SOHO. I suppose it was well worth the effort to stuff GM's ridiculous smugness down his throat IMO.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/jref/rdquiz.wmv

Mind you I used Movie Maker of all things to string the individual images together today lest you folks blow an absolute fuse around here over having to wait a few more days.

FYI, the images were made using the ITT 7.11 engine of IDL (Thanks for the demo of 7.11 Nigel), Festival, the Solarsoft libraries for IDL, and required the use of SSWDB files as well.

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity Michael, what is it you think that video shows?

If I had no idea where it came from or what it was (which I don't actually) and you asked me if it could be an image of a solid surface, I'd say obviously not. For example, look at the two features near the lower left, and compare (say) the first frame with the last frame. They're very different - so whatever those are, they're obviously not mountains (or any other feature of a solid surface).

CaveDave said:

Now you have the CHEEK to threaten legal action?

Click to expand...

Ya, and I'm serious too. I don't take kindly to being accused of "fraud".

But I can offer one: CHUTZPAH!

Click to expand...

What can I say?

IMHO, the fraud lies in what you claim is IN those images, and the Victims are the poor souls who are gullible enough to believe your whale dreck.

Click to expand...

Well, *THAT* would at least be a "rational" claim on your part because it has nothing to do with the mechanics of creating the images in question and relates to the actual "interpretation" of the images. The notion of "fraud" seems a bit harsh. I don't accuse you folks of "fraud" for peddling that dark energy/inflation nonsense because I know you actually believe it to be true even if you can't empirically demonstrate any of it.

I have some tech calls to catch up on, and this post is obviously going to be a long one.

sol invictus said:

Out of curiosity Michael, what is it you think that video shows?

Click to expand...

I think it shows I can create RD images using IDL, Solarsoft, Festival and the SSWDB tools, the same tools that the "pros" use.

Michael Mozina said:

Done. Let's see your videos, lets hear you explain how they were made, and lets hear you explain something useful about the image in terms of solar physics.

Click to expand...

In terms of solar physics, how is it that you can take data from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere and process that data in such a way that you can see something that you claim exists thousands of kilometers away and below a totally opaque surface? In terms of solar physics, you can't.

You're dead wrong. I took the time to reload all the "best" tools on a new computer so I could stuff RD images down your throat all day every day if you like. Now that were hopefully past the BS of mechanically creating them, let's hear you actually *EXPLAIN* them in terms of solar physics.

Click to expand...

And I made several in a half hour by using the same process as was explained to me by Dr. Hurlburt of LMSAL. Add 50% gray to the pixels in one image, subtract the values of the corresponding pixels in another image, and the result is a graphical representation of a mathematical process, none of which shows any solid surface.

How much time did you spend? How did you create them?

Click to expand...

See above.

I'm far more interested in finding out how much time you'll spend actually explaining the solar process we see in the Gold RD image. You've avoided that part of your "explanation" now for what, 5 years?

Click to expand...

The solar processes you see in a graphical representation of a series of mathematical calculations? Interesting concept, Michael, but wrong. The original data was used to show thermal characteristics of the Sun's corona, thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. Those original images were processed with a very simple algorithm to generate a graphical display of a series of mathematical calculations. A running difference image is used to view changes in thermal characteristics over time. And that, as explained to you so many many times, is all there is to it. Nothing magical about it. You cannot see anything below the photosphere in any running difference image if for no other reason than the data used to create those graphs was obtained thousands of kilometers away from where you think you see the bunnies.

GeeMack said:

But, in the meantime, how 'bout it there, Michael, got those running difference videos ready yet?

Click to expand...

Yep. I've posted the first one for you. Guess you missed it eh?