Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
Come on. I'm not looking for the anything other than a ballpark figure on the circumference of the RD sphere at 171A?
Click to expand...

Sometimes repetition is the only thing that works. Same answer as before---the prediction you're asking for is a stupid one which doesn't test the model. I explained why and you ignored it. Let's try again:

ben m said:
Michael, please answer a few simple questions.

a) Did I or did I not explain where an optically-thin corona layer will show up in 2D projection? Was there something wrong with that explanation?

b) Did I or did I not explain where a self-semi-opaque corona layer will show up in 2D projection? Was there something wrong with that explanation?

c) Did I or did I not explain where a externally-absorbed corona layer will show up in 2D projection? Was there something wrong with that explanation?
Click to expand...

I will stand by my baseball and cat-tail predictions, by the way.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Dear Mr. Spock,

Since you were so kind to give GM a hand on his last project about how far GM thinks I can see into the atmosphere, and you obviously have the angle stuff down pat, could you please be so kind as to help him again with his RD image project? He seems to be the resident expert on things related to RD images so the two of you should be able to work out something.

I'm not looking for anything fancy, just a simple "ballpark" will do. I'm specifically interested in 171A, and I'll be happy with 1200KM either direction. Anything close will do, so long as we have some way to distinguish between the two theories. I just want to know what you think the circumference of the RD sphere will be.
Click to expand...


You want to know the circumference of the Sun? About 4.37 million kilometers. No need to get your misunderstanding of running difference images in the mix. That's just confusing the issue.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Come on. I'm not looking for the anything other than a ballpark figure on the circumference of the RD sphere at 171A?
Click to expand...

Michael, no one is going to answer your question. Do you know why?

According to the SSM, the 171A radiation originates somewhere in the chromosphere or above. So the sphere where it originates does indeed have a larger radius than the photosphere does.

But what you seem to be incapable of comprehending is that the radius of the circle one sees in a 2D image, RD or not, cannot be simply converted into the radius of that sphere. To do that conversion requires a very detailed knowledge of the corona and chromosphere, which no one here has (and possibly no one has, I don't know).

So we can't answer your question, both because it's nonsense and because even the slightly more sensible version of it (what's the radius of the bright ring on the 171A image, for example) requires knowledge none of us have access to.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Come on. I'm not looking for the anything other than a ballpark figure on the circumference of the RD sphere at 171A?
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as a "figure on the circumference of the RD sphere at 171A". That's a string of words, yes, and they are pretty much all English, yes, but the way they're strung together makes the combination meaningless.
 
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/tracepr2.htm

The moss consists of hot gas at about two million degrees Fahrenheit which emits extreme ultraviolet light observed by the TRACE instrument. It occurs in large patches, about 6,000 - 12,000 miles in extent, and appears between 1,000 - 1,500 miles above the Sun's visible surface, sometimes reaching more than 3,000 miles high. It looks "spongy" because the patches are composed of small bright elements interlaced with dark voids in the TRACE images. These voids are caused by jets of cooler gas from the Sun's lower atmosphere, the chromosphere, which is at about 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The bright moss elements move around and can vary in brightness over very short periods of time -- 30 seconds or less.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine. Does that help?
 
GeeMack said:
There is no such thing as a "figure on the circumference of the RD sphere at 171A". That's a string of words, yes, and they are pretty much all English, yes, but the way they're strung together makes the combination meaningless.
Click to expand...
20050527-0713.JPG


20050527-0713.JPG

20050527-1313.JPG


Those are three separate RD images (from NASA). You can't see a sphere and a figure out a circumference?
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/tracepr2.htm

Emphasis mine. Does that help?
Click to expand...


Now you're talking about a phenomenon that is occurring some 1500 to 2500 kilometers above the photosphere. So in light of your previous unintelligible ramblings about something you imagine you see, through 80,000 kilometers of opaque plasma, that supposedly exists 4800 kilometers into the photosphere, does that help? Not a lick. It's nonsense. Totally and completely unrelated nonsense.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/tracepr2.htm
Does that help?
Click to expand...

No, that doesn't "help". Knowing that the cloud is a 3D sphere at Rsun+1500km does not tell you what its 2D projection looks like. Its 2D projection might end at Rsun+1500km if this material is very optically thin. Or it might end centerwards of Rsun if there's another shell of absorber (even a very thin one) slightly further out. Or it might trickle out to Rsun (but not brighten much on the way) if it's optically thick. Understand?
 
Ok, start with a diameter then. Anything will do. Please, just come up with a way to differentiate between standard theory and the predictions I have made. I'm not looking for anything fancy.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Those are three separate RD images (from NASA). You can't see a sphere and a figure out a circumference?
Click to expand...

I do not see a sphere. I see a disk. A disk is the projection of a 3D sphere onto 2D, and such projections are complicated by viewing angle and absorption issues. Do any of these words ring a bell?

"2D" is an interesting word, I wonder if it has ever come up on this thread before ...
 
Michael Mozina said:
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050527-0713.JPG[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050527-0713.JPG[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050527-1313.JPG[/qimg]

Those are three separate RD images (from NASA). You can't see a sphere and a figure out a circumference?
Click to expand...


A sphere is a three dimensional object. Those running difference graphs are two dimensional renderings of mathematical calculations based on comparisons between sequences of thermal data gathered over a period of time.

And the circumference of the Sun is still about 4.37 million kilometers.
 
ben m said:
I do not see a sphere. I see a disk. A disk is the projection of a 3D sphere onto 2D, and such projections are complicated by viewing angle and absorption issues. Do any of these words ring a bell?

"2D" is an interesting word, I wonder if it has ever come up on this thread before ...
Click to expand...

All I want is the diameter of the disk according to standard theory. Is that really too much to ask?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ok, start with a diameter then. Anything will do. Please, just come up with a way to differentiate between standard theory and the predictions I have made. I'm not looking for anything fancy.
Click to expand...

Glad to! Standard theory predicts that the Sun is a 6000K blackbody with absorption lines. Your theory predicts that the Sun is a 2000K blackbody with NO absorption lines, overlaid by a (ETA: much brighter) >100,000K emission line plasma showing neon and silicon lines predominantly in the far UV. That's a great test of the two models.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
A sphere is a three dimensional object. Those running difference graphs are two dimensional renderings of mathematical calculations based on comparisons between sequences of thermal data gathered over a period of time.

And the circumference of the Sun is still about 4.37 million kilometers.
Click to expand...

Please work with Mr. Spock and decide a diameter, and then please state that number relative to surface of the photosphere and which side of the photosphere it's on, inside or outside.
 
Michael Mozina said:
All I want is the diameter of the disk according to standard theory. Is that really too much to ask?
Click to expand...


The diameter of the Sun is about 1,391,000 kilometers, or in miles that's about 864,000. Is it too much to ask that you Google these things yourself?
 
GeeMack said:
The diameter of the Sun is about 1,391,000 kilometers, or in miles that's about 864,000. Is it too much to ask that you Google these things yourself?
Click to expand...

So you are now publicly prepared to wager your hair on that lower figure, + 1200KM? Just to be generous I'll give you anything above (larger than) the photosphere. Deal?
 
Michael Mozina said:
So you are now publicly prepared to wager your hair on that lower figure, + 1200KM? Just to be generous I'll give you anything above (larger than) the photosphere. Deal?
Click to expand...


Gibberish. We aren't inside your head, Michael. We don't know the words and sentences you're hearing but not writing. You wanted to know the diameter of the Sun, a figure easily found in about 12 seconds on Google even with a slow connection. It took you several pages of uncivil badgering and taunting to finally spit it out. It's a childish and dishonest game you're playing trolling this forum like that. If you've got something to say, say it.
 
About that "transparent layer" in the SDO picture . . . I got to thinking about what such a thing would look like, and it seemed to me that the bottom of the band should look different from the top of the band. After all we're looking through far more gas at the bottom of the green band than at the top of the green band.

So I threw together a little code to model the sun as a series of nested spherical shells with various opacities and emissivities, jiggled the numbers to get something vaguely like the SDO image, and I got a significant brightness gradient (2nd image). I'm not seeing any such gradient in the SDO image (1st image), and the only reason the gradient isn't stronger in my model is that I assumed a uniform density within each layer.

So, if we're looking through a nearly transparent layer at the limb in the SDO image, why isn't there a gradient?
 

Attachments

  • SDO limb blowup.jpg
    SDO limb blowup.jpg
    29.6 KB · Views: 3
  • Limb, thin green neon, black iron.jpg
    Limb, thin green neon, black iron.jpg
    63 KB · Views: 7
I can tell from the title this argument is going to be futile without even reading the posts. On this forum anyway :) Good luck anyway (to whichever side is correct, be damned if I know)
 
Michael Mozina said:
Dear Mr. Spock,

Since you were so kind to give GM a hand on his last project about how far GM thinks I can see into the atmosphere, and you obviously have the angle stuff down pat, could you please be so kind as to help him again with his RD image project? He seems to be the resident expert on things related to RD images so the two of you should be able to work out something.
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, the following story says something important about RD images.

A mathematician and a solar physicist had drunk too many math bunnies. "The reason people don't appreciate physics is that you guys do such a lousy job of teaching math. Excuse me a minute."

While he was gone, the mathematician waved a couple of sawbucks at the waitress and said, "These are yours if, when my friend comes back, you'll answer my question exactly as I tell you."

"Mmm...what do I have to say?"

"One third x cubed."

"One third eggs cubed?"

"One third x cubed. And don't say another word after that."

"Okay."

When his friend came back, the mathematician suggested he had been underestimating the intelligence of the general public. "Why, I'll bet you a hundred dollars our waitress knows a little calculus. Wanna find out?"

"You're on."

They called her over and the mathematician asked, "What's the integral of x squared dee x?" The waitress looked surprised and bit her lip. The physicist laughed.

The waitress glared, said "One third x cubed," and stormed off to the bar. The bartender slid over to ask what was wrong. "I know it won't sound like much, but...that idiot over there made me leave out the constant!"

RD images leave out the constant.

Michael Mozina said:
I just want to know what you think the circumference of the RD sphere will be.
Click to expand...
A little more than three times its diameter.
:vulcan:
 
dasmiller said:
About that "transparent layer" in the SDO picture . . . I got to thinking about what such a thing would look like, and it seemed to me that the bottom of the band should look different from the top of the band. After all we're looking through far more gas at the bottom of the green band than at the top of the green band.

So I threw together a little code to model the sun as a series of nested spherical shells with various opacities and emissivities, jiggled the numbers to get something vaguely like the SDO image, and I got a significant brightness gradient (2nd image). I'm not seeing any such gradient in the SDO image (1st image), and the only reason the gradient isn't stronger in my model is that I assumed a uniform density within each layer.

So, if we're looking through a nearly transparent layer at the limb in the SDO image, why isn't there a gradient?
Click to expand...


In Michael's fictional conjecture that is a non issue. A few days ago he claimed he was seeing through 100,000 kilometers of plasma, then he changed his mind to his current position where he claims he's seeing through 80,000 kilometers. There was no concern at all for the quantitative difference of 20% more or less plasma. Obviously in his version it looks exactly the same either way and that plasma is equally transparent no matter what the depth. No questions asked.

Heck he doesn't even care about the serious pixel counting problems that SDO image presents. The looks-like-a-bunny scientific method doesn't concern itself with things that can easily be shown to contradict reality.
 
GeeMack said:
In Michael's fictional conjecture that is a non issue.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know.

MM's taking the position that he can see a transparent layer in the SDO image, and therefore any model that doesn't allow a transparent layer must be wrong. Others have argued that you can't tell that it's a transparent layer from the SDO image (true) and that we have good reason to believe that a transparent layer can't be there (also true). I'm taking the more head-on approach that the green strip in the SDO image isn't a transparent layer because it doesn't actually look like a tranparent layer.

I'm not optimistic. But it was kind of an interesting project.
 
dasmiller said:
Yeah, I know.

MM's taking the position that he can see a transparent layer in the SDO image, and therefore any model that doesn't allow a transparent layer must be wrong. Others have argued that you can't tell that it's a transparent layer from the SDO image (true) and that we have good reason to believe that a transparent layer can't be there (also true). I'm taking the more head-on approach that the green strip in the SDO image isn't a transparent layer because it doesn't actually look like a tranparent layer.

I'm not optimistic. But it was kind of an interesting project.
Click to expand...


And appreciated. Too bad the against-the-mainstream proponents can't be as thorough with their analysis and modeling. It seems they rely strictly on other people's work and then they turn it into some contorted version of its original useful self.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Believe it or not, the following story says something important about RD images.

A mathematician and a solar physicist had drunk too many math bunnies. "The reason people don't appreciate physics is that you guys do such a lousy job of teaching math. Excuse me a minute."

While he was gone, the mathematician waved a couple of sawbucks at the waitress and said, "These are yours if, when my friend comes back, you'll answer my question exactly as I tell you."

"Mmm...what do I have to say?"

"One third x cubed."

"One third eggs cubed?"

"One third x cubed. And don't say another word after that."

"Okay."

When his friend came back, the mathematician suggested he had been underestimating the intelligence of the general public. "Why, I'll bet you a hundred dollars our waitress knows a little calculus. Wanna find out?"

"You're on."

They called her over and the mathematician asked, "What's the integral of x squared dee x?" The waitress looked surprised and bit her lip. The physicist laughed.

The waitress glared, said "One third x cubed," and stormed off to the bar. The bartender slid over to ask what was wrong. "I know it won't sound like much, but...that idiot over there made me leave out the constant!"

RD images leave out the constant.


A little more than three times its diameter.
:vulcan:
Click to expand...

Thank you Mr. Spock for the amusing story, and anytime you want your ten bucks, just PM me with an address. :) That was definitely worth $10. to me. I'll even throw in a beer if we ever meet up. :)

Ok, that is *finally* a quantified prediction and we can clearly tell the difference between standard theory and a Birkeland model. I appreciate you efforts Mr. Spock. You're redeemed. :)
 
The Solar EUV Radius

The Solar Radius and Limb Brightening in the EUV during Cycle XXIII
12th European Solar Physics Meeting, Freiburg, Germany, held September, 8-12, 2008
The Solar Radius in the EUV during Cycle XXII
Astronomy and Astrophysics 476(1): 369-372, December II 2007

The meeting poster and the published paper are essentially duplicates of each other. I was able to download the PDF of the former with no problems, while the latter has a PDF via arXiv.

Abstract (common to both): We have determined the solar transition region and coronal radius at EUV wavelengths and its time evolution during Solar Cycle XXIII using daily 30.4 and 17.1 nm images obtained by the Extreme Ultraviolet Imager (EIT) aboard the SoHO satellite. The radius was obtained by fitting a circle to the limb brightness ring. The weighted mean of the temporal series gives (967''.56 ± 0''.04) and (969''.54 ± 0''.02) at 30.4 and 17.1 nm respectively. No significant correlation was found with the solar cycle at neither of the two wavelengths. Since the temperature formation of the 30.4 nm line is between (60 - 80) 103 K (Transition Region), the obtained result is greater than that derived from present optical atmospheric models. On the contrary, this height is compatible with radio models. We also present results of the limb brightening time evolution.

Note that the shorter wavelength (17.1 nm = 171A) gives a slightly but significantly larger radius. Also note that both are larger than the optical radius. The optical radius is the photosphere and the 30.4 & 17.1 nm radii are in the transition region, which is seen to be above the photosphere. No surprise here, since we already know from a few decades of direct observation that the transition region is above the photosphere.
 
dasmiller said:
So I threw together a little code to model the sun as a series of nested spherical shells with various opacities and emissivities, jiggled the numbers to get something vaguely like the SDO image, and I got a significant brightness gradient (2nd image). I'm not seeing any such gradient in the SDO image (1st image), and the only reason the gradient isn't stronger in my model is that I assumed a uniform density within each layer.
Click to expand...

Thanks! Very nice work.
 
Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked

This iron crust within the Sun idea of Micheal Mozina is very easy to disprove (big surprise :eye-poppi!): It is thermodynamically impossible since it must be at a temperature of at least 9400 K (as measured within the photosphere) and so be a plasma. This has been pointed out to MM many times over the years. Here are some of the explanations given to him that he continues to not be able to understand:
This alone makes his idea into a complete fantasy and his continued belief with it a delusion and so we could stop there but... The continuous issuing of unsupported assertions, displays of ignorance of physics and fantasies about what he imagines in images are illustrated in this list of unanswered questions. The first question was asked on 6th July 2009.

  1. What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected?
  2. What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona.
  3. Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
  4. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
  5. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
  6. Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
  7. Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question?
  8. More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth
  9. Formation of the iron surface
  10. How much is "mostly neon" MM?
  11. Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?
  12. Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina
  13. Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina.
  14. Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested?
  15. Is Saturn the Sun?
  16. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
  17. What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model?
  18. What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K?
  19. Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles?
  20. Entire photon "spectrum" is composed of all the emissions from all the layers
  21. Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves?
  22. Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere?
  23. Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer?
  24. What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers?
  25. What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer?
  26. Explain the shape of your electrical arcs (coronal loops)
  27. What is your physical evidence for the silicon in sunspots?
  28. How do MM's "layers" survive the convection currents in the Sun?
  29. Where are the controllable empirical experiments showing the Iron Sun mass separation?
  30. How can your iron "crust" not be a plasma at a temperature of at least 9400 K?
  31. How can your "mountain ranges" be at a temperature of at least 160,000 K?
  32. Where is the spike of Fe composition in the remnants of novae and supernovae?
  33. Which images did you use as your input for the PM-A.gif image, etc.?
  34. Where did your "mountain ranges" go in Active Region 9143 when it got to the limb?
  35. Do RD movies of inactive regions show "mountain ranges"?
  36. Just how high are your "mountain ranges"?
  37. How does your iron crust exist when there are convection currents moving through it?
  38. Why does the apparent height of your "mountain ranges" depend on the timing of source images for the RD process when the light sources and mountains in the images are the same?
  39. Why does the lighting of your "mountain ranges" move depending on the RD process?
  40. Why are the coronal loops in the RD images aligned along your "mountain ranges" rather than between them as expect fro electrical discharges?
  41. Why are the sunspot umbra not "mostly" iron plasma (Fe was also detected by SERTS as was C and a dozen more elements)?
  42. Can you show how you calculated that "3000-3750 KM" figure for the photosphere depth?
  43. How did you determine that the filaments "abruptly end right there"?
  44. Citation for the LMSAL claim that coronal loops all originate *ABOVE* the photosphere?
  45. Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind
  46. How did you measure the curvature of penumbral filaments in the Hinode images?
  47. How does your Iron Sun fantasy create the observed magnetic field of the Sun?
  48. Calculation for the depth of the SOT_ca_061213flare_cl_lg.mpg filament?
  49. Can you understand that the photosphere is defined to be opaque?
  50. A comment on MM's ability to interpret images: No little plasma (penumbral) filament!
  51. Where has any one in this thread claimed that the umbra is 2D?
  52. Is Michael Mozina's claim of measuring the curvature of the filaments true?
  53. Do you understand how fluorescent tubes ("neon bulbs") work?
  54. Can you explain why limb darkening does not diisprove your model?
  55. Why is the SERTS data on the corona applicable to sunspots?
  56. Please define a "current carrying plasma" from a textbook.
  57. How does the SERTS data show that all of the neon and silcon in the Sun's atmosphere is highly ionized?
  58. Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book? (really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)
  59. Where does the current from your impossible iron crust come from?
  60. Did you cherry pick the SDO image to support your fantasy? - the answer is yes. MM saw a "green line" in one PR image and ignored its absence in another.
  61. This post deserves mentioning: Math Bunnies & Image Bunnies
  62. Can Micheal Mozina understannd simple geometry?
  63. What is wrong with W.D.Clinger's calculation?
    Two recent questions but I fully expect the MM will be able to refute the geometry textbooks :rolleyes: !
  64. Got numbers, Michael Mozina? or What real quantified predictions come from Michael Mozina's Iron Sun fantasy? Is MM's idea complete useless :eye-poppi?
 
Last edited:
Ok, so can we at least agree on some minimum and maximum parameters to falsify both solar models?

I will accept that the maximum RD disk size in my solar model can be no larger the bottom of the chromosphere with a minimum size of the core (0), likewise the minimum distances related to the standard model should be the chromosphere with a maximum of infinity. These are the minimum and maximum of each models. Does anyone disagree?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050527-0713.JPG
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050527-0713.JPG
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050527-1313.JPG

Those are three separate RD images (from NASA). You can't see a sphere and a figure out a circumference?
Click to expand...
We have yes and so we can.
Luckily the visible surface of the Sun contains many changing plasma features. This means that when these RD images are constructed they show up these changes. If there are a lot of chnages tthe outlinbe of the Sun can be seen in the RD images.

The point is that you do not need RD images to measure the size of the Sun. Astronomers have been doing this for centuries.

This does suggest how MM can totally overturn solar physics in the next few months:
SDO will start to collect actual science data (rather than the first light data used for testing) in the middle of May.
AIA (Atmospheric Imaging Assembly)
The Atmospheric Imaging Assembly images the solar atmosphere in multiple wavelengths to link changes in the surface to interior changes. Data includes images of the Sun in 10 wavelengths every 10 seconds.
Click to expand...
This Atmospheric Imaging Assembly page lists the 10 channels.

So MM can take the data, analyse it and see if the surface he detects is at the same position in all 10 wavelengths, i.e. the same distance from the center of the Sun as in the 2D image.

My expectation:
He will fail completely since his fantasy* of an iron crust does not exist.
I think that he will find that the "surface" is further out from the center of the Sun with shorter wavelengths.

*A fantasy because it violates thermodynamics, e.g see Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
dasmiller said:
About that "transparent layer" in the SDO picture . . . I got to thinking about what such a thing would look like, and it seemed to me that the bottom of the band should look different from the top of the band. After all we're looking through far more gas at the bottom of the green band than at the top of the green band.

So I threw together a little code to model the sun as a series of nested spherical shells with various opacities and emissivities, jiggled the numbers to get something vaguely like the SDO image, and I got a significant brightness gradient (2nd image). I'm not seeing any such gradient in the SDO image (1st image), and the only reason the gradient isn't stronger in my model is that I assumed a uniform density within each layer.

So, if we're looking through a nearly transparent layer at the limb in the SDO image, why isn't there a gradient?
Click to expand...

There are mass flows (coronal loops) flowing all along the surface. It's *highly* electrically active. Those jagged areas are mass flows related to either coronal loops or twister like formations that form in the atmosphere.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ok, so can we at least agree on some minimum and maximum parameters to falsify both solar models?

I will accept that the maximum RD disk size in my solar model can be no larger the bottom of the chromosphere with a minimum size of the core (0), likewise the minimum distances related to the standard model should be the chromosphere to infinity. These are the minimum and maximum of each models. Does anyone disagree?
Click to expand...
Yes.
  1. We do not need RD images. We still do not know why you are obsessed with them.
  2. We are not talking about the standard model in this thread but:
    The minimum disk size in any image of the Sun will be larger than the photosphere. So an image in white light will show the size of the Sun out to the photosphere. An image in light emitted by the chromosphere will show the size of the Sun out to the chromosphere. Ditto for the corona.
    If you want to do the data analysis of the SDO scientific data when it arrives, feel free.
Another symptom of a crank to add to the list in this post:
  • Unable to understand the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.
    Any defects with the standard model does not support your fantasy*.
Since you just have a fantasy, I cannoot say what it would predict.

*A fantasy because it violates thermodynamics, e.g see Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
Marcus said:
If it's time for the lurkers to kick in, I will agree and say that this thread has been very educational. Although MM's knowledge of math and physics seems to be even less than my own casual knowledge, the responses to his woo have been terrific.
Click to expand...

Seconded. And they have been astonishingly patient.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom