Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually RC, the RD image disk diameter makes or breaks both models. Only one is left standing, and I know for a fact it won't be the standard solar model. I've seen the light.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Actually RC, the RD image disk diameter makes or breaks both models. Only one is left standing, and I know for a fact it won't be the standard solar model. I've seen the light.
Click to expand...
Actually Michael Mozina, the RD image disk diameter makes or breaks both models. Only one is left standing, and I know for a fact it won't be the Michael Mozina fantasy*. I've seen the basic physics thgat Michael Mozina is ignorant of.

*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.
 
GeeMack said:
Running difference images made from the color separated pairs of images above wouldn't show much contrast because the source images are only 10 frames apart. But with a 100 frame offset the running difference images would be what you see in any single frame from the videos below.

​

This first video was made by removing the green and blue from the source video leaving just the red. Then all the red was converted to grayscale. Then two frames are taken from the video 100 frames apart starting with frames 1 and 100. Then 50% gray is added to each pixel in the first image, and the second image is subtracted pixel by pixel from the first. The result becomes frame 1 in the output. Then move to frame 2 and frame 102 and repeat with all frame X and frame X+100... (These pixel values are numerical values of gray from 0 = black to 255 = white.)

Then of course these videos are sized down to 640x320 and letterboxed to 640x480 to make them fit YouTube and common video viewers. And I trimmed them down to just the first 20 seconds to make more reasonable download sizes.

​

The second video, above, is the same only I took out the red and the blue, leaving only the green from the original video. And the third, below, is the running difference video made from just the blue. I believe these red, green, and blue colors represent 211Å, 193Å, and 171Å source data respectively.

​

I use a proprietary script I wrote myself to do this processing, so I won't be more specific. Anyone with a little math background, a modicum of expertise in computer video and graphics, and some reasonable programming skills could certainly do this.




This is a very important point for this discussion. Although the running difference material we find at NASA and LMSAL probably is made pretty much exactly the way I've done it, they can look quite different by adjusting only a couple of things.

First, if you subtract frame x+1 from frame x+100 you get the videos we see above. If you instead subtract frame x+100 from frame x+1 you end up with something that looks like a negative of that video. Either the lighting comes from the other side of the mountain or your mountain turns into a valley. Take your pick.

Second, the contrast between images will obviously be affected by the offset, or how many frames apart you use for the compared images. And you need to remember that is based on the time difference between the original frames, too. A running difference video made with an offset of 10 frames might show so little change that it would look almost like a smooth gray throughout. Compare images 100 frames apart and you can see the changes between source images more clearly. You can shrink and grow your mountains by comparing frames closer or further apart in the sequence.

Many of the running difference images available from NASA and LMSAL have quite different sizes of mountains, some so huge that it's amazing we don't see them with the naked eye when there's a solar eclipse! ;)
Click to expand...

Wowza, super cool!
 
ben m said:
Those are all different wavelengths emitted particularly strongly by ultrahot iron at different temperatures. 171 is particularly strong from 600,000K iron, 193 picks up two lines (one characteristic of 1,200,000K and one of 5,000,000K) and 211 picks up 2,000,000K. At any high enough temperature, all of these lines will be emitted, but the balance between them shifts in the way I said.
Click to expand...

Oh, so the iron shell is 600,000 K, that explains everything.
 
ben m said:
The orange? If you ovelaid a visible-light image of the Sun on this, those "orange" areas are above the surface. That's the corona. At the place it meets the green edge, there's about ONE PIXEL worth---a few hundred km in projection---of either lightening of the orange or darkening of the green or both---which is entirely buried in the JPEG artifacts. Is that what you think is "limb darkening", Michael? That one sometimes-darker row of pixels? Good heavens.

If that one row of pixels were to mean something (for example, if it's still there in a FITs image, and if it's wider than the telescope PSF), it's a perfectly normal standard model meaning. That's what you expect if there's a layer ~400km thick, above the green emitter and below the orange emitter, which emits neither green nor orange. Or alternatively it's what you expect if there's an extremely optically-thin layer (O = 0.001 or so) above the green emitter which is able to absorb the green light when it's in extreme projection.

Is that one row of pixels the exciting one, Michael?
Click to expand...

I predict this will be ignored or the topic will change.
 
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...

More super cool!
 
Just wanted to say this thread is awesome.

I want to say thank you, Michael. Without all your crazy I would never have gotten such a good education from those with actual knowledge of the subject, and would instead be prone to accept fantasies such as the one you beleive.

And a big thank you to the following posters for putting the "E" in JREF:
sol invictus
dasmiller
Dancing David
ben m
W.D. Clinger

And I'm sure I've missed some, and if I have I apologize. There's been so much good info posted I can't keep track of everyone. I'm tempted to giggle like a schoolgirl ;)
 
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

That doesn't address my point. Ignoring the jagged bottom edge of the green band, the band itself shouldn't be uniformly colored because we're looking through vastly different amounts of plasma at the limb vs. 4800 km below the limb.
 
Is there anyone that disagrees with the minimums and maximums that I have outlined related to diameter of the disk in the RD images?

Is GM prepared to commit his hair yet on anything with a number attached?
 
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?

Speak up now if you disagree.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Is there anyone that disagrees with the minimums and maximums that I have outlined related to diameter of the disk in the RD images?

Is GM prepared to commit his hair yet on anything with a number attached?
Click to expand...

I would like to adopt Clinger's prediction as my own. I'm willing to wager on it, whatever terms you like. Money, eyebrows, whatever. Just name it.

You in?
 
Michael Mozina said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

C'mon Michael. You said that Clinger's prediction would clearly differentiate the standard model from your model (which you apparently like to call the Birkeland model).

Are you ready to put your money and/or hair where your mouth is? I am.
 
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 with a maximum of infinity. These are the minimum and maximum of each models. Does anyone disagree?

Speak up now if you disagree.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty certain nobody with half a brain is going to accept your ridiculous notion that you're going to prove that crackpot conjecture of yours or falsify the standard solar model by applying your unqualified and seriously mistaken opinion about solar imagery.

A running difference image is a simple graph representing differences in thermal characteristics over time. The thermal data used to create the source images comes from the corona.

There's a word for seeing things that aren't really there. It's hallucination. There's also a word for holding an erroneous belief in the face of evidence to the contrary. It's delusion.
 
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 with a maximum of infinity. These are the minimum and maximum of each models. Does anyone disagree?

Speak up now if you disagree.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

First, you haven't defined what you mean by "RD disk size". Using RD images instead of ordinary ones helps not at all and makes it much harder to predict anything.

Second, it is false to assert that the bright ring in an image of (say) 171A radiation must have a larger radius than the sun's disk in the visible (which I think is what you're trying to claim about the standard solar model). As we've been explaining, the radius of that bright ring depends on the physics of the corona and chromosphere, and it can be smaller even if every photon in it originated from well outside the photosphere.
 
Here's an excellent illustration of the point, or part of the point. Why not respond to it, Michael?

ben m said:
Under? What's this "under"? It's a 2-D photo. Either you're seeing it closer to the center of the photo, or closer to the edge. Please stick to that terminology---"under" is your intuitive interpretation which you haven't been able to justify at all---in part because your descriptions are maddeningly unclear, mixing bits of observable ("green") with bits of your guesswork ("under", "through") in a totally hashwork way.


Fix it. Here's an ASCII art cartoon of a SIDE VIEW of a simple opaque Sun with a green blob hovering in front of it. I've labeled (with letters) a bunch of lines-of-sight for an observer looking down at and past the limb. You can follow any given line of sight and figure out what the observer sees in that pixel. This is possible both for opaque features and transparent ones---I put in an example "g" to show. Then I gave you an ASCII "stem plot" where you can list what's in line-of-sight a, what's in line-of-sight b, what's in line-of-sight j, etc.

Please edit it to represent what YOU think the 3D structure is, and show how you think that 3D structure projects along the lines-of-sight. Replace the opaque 0s with "f" or "n" to represent iron or neon, for example.





Code: 
observer is up here

lines of sight,
looking down.
||||||||||
abcdefghij 
                This is a cartoon of a simple opaque sphere.
                The 0s are "opaque photospheric material".
		The "g" for example is a blob of transparent corona. 
0       g        What do we see along the lines of sight a-h?
000    g         a: 0
0000  g          b: 0
00000            c: 0 
000000           d: 0
000000           e: 0      <- when you look at an opaque sphere you  
0000000          f: 0         see the same thing right out to the edge.
0000000          g: 0+g    <- when you're looking through the green blob
0000000          h: 0+g       you see green + whatever's behind it.
00000000         i: b+g     
00000000         j: b      <- past the edge all you see is the background 
00000000                        which is "b" for black.   
00000000
00000000
00000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
000000
000000
00000
0000
000
0

bbbbbbbbbbbb background is black
bbbbbbbbbbbb
bbbbbbbbbbbb
Click to expand...
 
Why does this RD debate continue? As GeeMack says, "A running difference image is a simple graph representing differences in thermal characteristics over time." I think I understand what that means. So, how can such an image show any fixed features?
 
sol invictus said:
First, you haven't defined what you mean by "RD disk size".
Click to expand...


Since the total extent of Michael's quantitative descriptions are based on staring at pictures and counting pixels, I think he'd rather avoid the actual measurements of the Sun and its parts, and stick to sizes measured in pixels. His argument so far doesn't appear to have come from doing any hard homework like, you know, looking up the size of the Sun on Google. :eek:

It's worth mentioning here that even in our largest, best resolution solar images to date, those coming in from the SDO with the diameter of the Sun scaled to over 3200 pixels across, the thickness of the photosphere, in scale, is just about a single pixel. The Sun is typically measured to have a radius of about 695,500 kilometers at the uppermost level of the photosphere. By the time you'd travel into the Sun by the distance of just one single pixel in those highest resolution images, about 430 kilometers, the solar atmosphere would have gone from transparent to opaque. Again, that change occurs across the distance of one single pixel.

Any claims made about seeing deeper in any image, like 4800 kilometers, or in the case of looking long ways through the plasma along the limb, 80,000+ kilometers, are based on ignorance, fantasy, delusion, wishful thinking, possibly even flat out lies, but are not based in any way on the state of reality where sane intelligent people dwell.
 
I generically disagree with whatever the heck MM is doing.

It sounds like he's going to post a photo, claim there's an important edge on it somewhere but not be able to tell us whether it's a light or a dark edge. He's going to declare that this edge is inconsistent with the SSM because of (insert 3D explanation that ignores everything we've ever said about the corona). Then he'll have a fit and refuse to explain and accuse us of ignoring his evidence.
 
Perpetual Student said:
Why does this RD debate continue? As GeeMack says, "A running difference image is a simple graph representing differences in thermal characteristics over time." I think I understand what that means. So, how can such an image show any fixed features?
Click to expand...


It can't. For several reasons. One, it's just a graph, like a pie chart or a bar graph. Two, the data used to create it comes from thousands of kilometers above where Michael claims to see his mythical solid iron surface. And three, because several branches of science applied to solar research show that the solid iron surface Michael sees can not possibly exist according to the laws of physics.

The reason it continues? Hard telling. Michael's first epiphany moment in this whole crackpot adventure came from being fooled by an optical illusion he saw in a running difference image. For some reason he has argued all these years that it wasn't an illusion. I've seen people react very strangely to being fooled by magic tricks. Pride, intellectual insecurity, simple inability to acknowledge a mistake. I dunno. Perhaps his is a simple argument from cognitive dissonance?
 
The Solar EUV Radius II

Perpetual Student said:
Why does this RD debate continue?
Click to expand...
Because Mozina is an idiot? Because the gathered throng wants to humor him? My post on the topic has already fallen to the previous page, but allow to to quote myself in full from last night ...
Tim Thompson said:
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.
Click to expand...

Note that the EIT instrument on SoHO is used to measure the solar disk radius at Mozina's favorite wavelength, 171A, and the number is 969''.54 ± 0''.02. Now see this ...

On the Constancy of the Solar Diameter II; Kuhn, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 613(2): 1241-1252, October 2004
Abstract: The Michelson Doppler Imager instrument on board SOHO has operated for most of a solar cycle. Here we present a careful analysis of solar astrometric data obtained with it from above the Earth's turbulent atmosphere. These data yield the most accurate direct constraint on possible solar radius variations on timescales from minutes to years and the first accurate determination of the solar radius obtained in the absence of atmospheric seeing.

Download the PDF and look at table I, a list of solar disk radius measurements spanning 1979 - 2004. They are all between 960''.52 and 958''.54. And see the last page of the paper, where the authors determine a SoHO MDI radius 959''.28 (all are normalized to a standard distance of 1 AU).

What Mozina wants to do has already been done, and with far greater accuracy & precision that his RD diddling could ever hope to achieve. It has already been determined that the solar disk radius at 171A (transition region - chromosphere) is roughly 10 arcseconds larger than the optical (photospheric) radius. At a distance of 1 AU that angular measure translates into 7253 km, assuming I have done the conversion correctly. So there is in fact nothing to debate. It has all been done already and the Mozina model is the loser, as one would naturally expect.

The MDI instrument images the photosphere in the 6767.8 Angstrom Ni I (that's neutral, non-ionized Nickel) absorption line. That's slightly redder than the eyeball center wavelength of about 5500 Angstroms, in the rough eyeball range 4000 - 7000 Angstroms (with much variation between individual eyes). So there is no doubt that it is sensitive to the eyeball photosphere "surface", where the effective temperature is around 5800 Kelvins.
 
GeeMack said:
Since the total extent of Michael's quantitative descriptions are based on staring at pictures and counting pixels, I think he'd rather avoid the actual measurements of the Sun and its parts, and stick to sizes measured in pixels. His argument so far doesn't appear to have come from doing any hard homework like, you know, looking up the size of the Sun on Google. :eek:

It's worth mentioning here that even in our largest, best resolution solar images to date, those coming in from the SDO with the diameter of the Sun scaled to over 3200 pixels across, the thickness of the photosphere, in scale, is just about a single pixel. The Sun is typically measured to have a radius of about 695,500 kilometers at the uppermost level of the photosphere. By the time you'd travel into the Sun by the distance of just one single pixel in those highest resolution images, about 430 kilometers, the solar atmosphere would have gone from transparent to opaque. Again, that change occurs across the distance of one single pixel.

Any claims made about seeing deeper in any image, like 4800 kilometers, or in the case of looking long ways through the plasma along the limb, 80,000+ kilometers, are based on ignorance, fantasy, delusion, wishful thinking, possibly even flat out lies, but are not based in any way on the state of reality where sane intelligent people dwell.
Click to expand...

OK, then MM, can you tell me why you believe RD images show fixed features? If you have already answered this question elsewhere, I apologize for the redundancy -- I'm only an old layman.
 
Tim Thompson said:
Because Mozina is an idiot? Because the gathered throng wants to humor him? My post on the topic has already fallen to the previous page, but allow to to quote myself in full from last night ...


Note that the EIT instrument on SoHO is used to measure the solar disk radius at Mozina's favorite wavelength, 171A, and the number is 969''.54 ± 0''.02. Now see this ...

On the Constancy of the Solar Diameter II; Kuhn, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 613(2): 1241-1252, October 2004
Abstract: The Michelson Doppler Imager instrument on board SOHO has operated for most of a solar cycle. Here we present a careful analysis of solar astrometric data obtained with it from above the Earth's turbulent atmosphere. These data yield the most accurate direct constraint on possible solar radius variations on timescales from minutes to years and the first accurate determination of the solar radius obtained in the absence of atmospheric seeing.

Download the PDF and look at table I, a list of solar disk radius measurements spanning 1979 - 2004. They are all between 960''.52 and 958''.54. And see the last page of the paper, where the authors determine a SoHO MDI radius 959''.28 (all are normalized to a standard distance of 1 AU).

What Mozina wants to do has already been done, and with far greater accuracy & precision that his RD diddling could ever hope to achieve. It has already been determined that the solar disk radius at 171A (transition region - chromosphere) is roughly 10 arcseconds larger than the optical (photospheric) radius. At a distance of 1 AU that angular measure translates into 7253 km, assuming I have done the conversion correctly. So there is in fact nothing to debate. It has all been done already and the Mozina model is the loser, as one would naturally expect.

The MDI instrument images the photosphere in the 6767.8 Angstrom Ni I (that's neutral, non-ionized Nickel) absorption line. That's slightly redder than the eyeball center wavelength of about 5500 Angstroms, in the rough eyeball range 4000 - 7000 Angstroms (with much variation between individual eyes). So there is no doubt that it is sensitive to the eyeball photosphere "surface", where the effective temperature is around 5800 Kelvins.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
D'rok said:
I would like to adopt Clinger's prediction as my own. I'm willing to wager on it, whatever terms you like. Money, eyebrows, whatever. Just name it.

You in?
Click to expand...

For you it will just cost you your public change of position. I only want GM's hair. :) So if the disk fits inside the chromosphere, you'll agree I'm right?
 
GeeMack said:
It can't. For several reasons. One, it's just a graph, like a pie chart or a bar graph. Two, the data used to create it comes from thousands of kilometers above where Michael claims to see his mythical solid iron surface. And three, because several branches of science applied to solar research show that the solid iron surface Michael sees can not possibly exist according to the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

Then you have absolutely nothing to lose. Ready to bet?

This *SHOULD* be a no brainer. There's no possible way according to standard theory that the RD outline of the sphere will fit inside the chromosphere. It would defy all the laws of physics according to you. Do we have a bet?
 
Michael Mozina said:
For you it will just cost you your public change of position. I only want GM's hair. :) So if the disk fits inside the chromosphere, you'll agree I'm right?
Click to expand...
No, I'm taking W.D. Clinger's position from this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5886932#post5886932

His estimate of the circumference of the RD sphere is what I am betting on. You already stated that this would differentiate the standard model from your model.

If it turns out that Clinger is wrong, I will publicly and humbly change my position using the most abjectly apologetic terms that I can. You might say that I will eat some humble...pie.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
This *SHOULD* be a no brainer. There's no possible way according to standard theory that the RD outline of the sphere will fit inside the chromosphere. It would defy all the laws of physics according to you. Do we have a bet?
Click to expand...

a) Helloooo? There IS a way in the standard theory. I explained it nine times. Did you forget?

b) Your image analysis "skills" seem not to be able to tell the difference between a bright band and a dark band. What bright/dark pattern---if any---are you planning to use to identify an "edge"?

c) Is there something wrong with the (published, peer-reviewed, not-based-on-PR-JPEGs-analyzed-by-confirmation-bias) SOHO paper we just saw?
 
D'rok said:
No, I'm taking W.D. Clinger's position from this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5886932#post5886932

His estimate of the circumference of the RD sphere is what I am betting on. You already stated that this would differentiate the standard model from your model.

If it turns out that Clinger is wrong, I will publicly and humbly change my position using the most abjectly apologetic terms that I can. You might say that I will eat some humble...pie.
Click to expand...

Well, as I see it, essentially the bet boils down the edges of the RD image in relationship to the chromosphere. Anything outside off that smooth inside surface falsifies my model. Anything inside of it falsifies standard theory. Is that acceptable to you? In other words I don't care about the distance if it's "outside" the chrmosophere boundary, but if it's under (generally where I say it is), then I win.

I have already committed myself to shaving my head bald assuming GM has intestinal fortitude to put his hair where his mouth is. I am prepared to post a picture of me bald and eat some humble pie even if GM won't bet his hair. I sure wish GM would just get off the fence and make this fun. :)
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Well, as I see it, essentially the bet boils down the edges of the RD image in relationship to the chromosphere. Anything outside off that smooth inside surface falsifies my model. Anything inside of it falsifies standard theory. Is that acceptable to you? In other words I don't care about the distance if it's "outside" the chrmosophere boundary, but if it's under (generally where I say it is), then I win.

I have already committed myself to shaving my head bald assuming GM has intestinal fortitude to put his hair where his mouth is). I am prepared to post a picture of me bald and eat some humble pie either way. I sure wish GM would just get off the fence and make this fun. :)
Click to expand...

I'm begging you, Michael. Don't make me keep stringing this out. What was W.D. Clinger's prediction? Do you remember? Consider this a friendly test of reading comprehension.
 
ben m said:
a) Helloooo? There IS a way in the standard theory. I explained it nine times. Did you forget?

b) Your image analysis "skills" seem not to be able to tell the difference between a bright band and a dark band. What bright/dark pattern---if any---are you planning to use to identify an "edge"?

c) Is there something wrong with the (published, peer-reviewed, not-based-on-PR-JPEGs-analyzed-by-confirmation-bias) SOHO paper we just saw?
Click to expand...

Your theory would explain how a RD image disk will fit inside of the chromosphere? I must have missed that one. Try one more time to explain that to me.
 
GeeMack said:
Since the total extent of Michael's quantitative descriptions are based on staring at pictures and counting pixels, I think he'd rather avoid the actual measurements of the Sun and its parts, and stick to sizes measured in pixels. His argument so far doesn't appear to have come from doing any hard homework like, you know, looking up the size of the Sun on Google. :eek:
Click to expand...

Then why won't you place your bet and be done with it GM? Ante up, or admit you're afraid.
 
20050528-1913.JPG


Will the outlined disk in a long duration RD image from SDO fit inside the chromosphere or go outside the chromosphere GM?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Your theory would explain how a RD image disk will fit inside of the chromosphere? I must have missed that one. Try one more time to explain that to me.
Click to expand...

For the love of God. Not only did I explain it, I repeated it several times asking why you were ignoring it. Post #1969 was the first attempt.

What else have you been ignoring? All attempts to correct you on anything, apparently.
 
Last edited:
While Michael is momentarily alert, let's reiterate:

a) I don't know what 3D feature you think is emitting what color in the SDO image.
b) I don't know where you think the "darkening" is in the SDO image.
c) You obviously haven't devoted three brain cells to the Sun's optical spectrum; several people have asked.
d) You seem to disagree with the 80,000-km number but won't show your own projection calculation. If you have done such a calculation at all, you may have done it wrong.
 
It would seem that high quality observations, and analyses, have shown that the (visible light) photosphere is closest to the Sun's centre, that the transition region is above (= greater radial distance from centre) the photosphere, and the corona above that.

That only leaves the chromosphere.

Solar eclipse observations, stretching back many decades, put the chromosphere above the photosphere, and below the transition region.

These observations, and analyses, are far more precise and accurate than the observations MM has proposed, using SDO RD images (as far as I know MM has not proposed any objective, independently verifiable method of analysing the observations, so we have no way to judge what their accuracy and precision might be).

Thus we can conclude that MM's ideas (calling them a model would be a joke) are inconsistent with decades of observations.

Now for something completely different.

Readers may be interested in a recent preprint, entitled "Solar LImb Prominence CAtcher and Tracker (SLIPCAT): An Automated System and Its Preliminary Statistical Results". This give you an idea of what sorts of automated analysis of solar images, taken by observatories in space, are possible (and some results):
Wang et al. (Abstract) said:
In this paper, we present an automated system, which has the capability to catch and track solar limb prominences based on observations from EUV 304 passband. The characteristic parameters and their evolution, including height, position angle, area, length and brightness, are obtained without manual interventions. By applying the system to the STEREO-B/SECCHI/EUVI 304 data during 2007 April -2009 October, we obtain a total of 9477 well-tracked prominences and a catalog of these events available online at this http URL A detailed analysis of these prominences suggests that the system has a rather good performance. We have obtained several interesting statistical results based on the catalog. Most prominences appear below the latitude of 60 degrees and at the height of about 26 Mm above the solar surface. Most of them are quite stable during the period they are tracked. Nevertheless, some prominences have an upward speed of more than 100 km/s, and some others show significant downward and/or azimuthal speeds. There are strong correlations among the brightness, area and height. The expansion of a prominence is probably one major cause of its fading during the rising or erupting process.
Click to expand...
 
What do you say to the post quoted below, Michael?

Neither this result (that the 171A disk is larger than the optical disk) nor its opposite would (necessarily) disconfirm the standard model, for reasons ben has been trying to explain to you. But it does appear to rule out your own model, based on what you said it predicted.

Am I right? Does this falsify your iron sun model?

Tim Thompson said:
Because Mozina is an idiot? Because the gathered throng wants to humor him? My post on the topic has already fallen to the previous page, but allow to to quote myself in full from last night ...


Note that the EIT instrument on SoHO is used to measure the solar disk radius at Mozina's favorite wavelength, 171A, and the number is 969''.54 ± 0''.02. Now see this ...

On the Constancy of the Solar Diameter II; Kuhn, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 613(2): 1241-1252, October 2004
Abstract: The Michelson Doppler Imager instrument on board SOHO has operated for most of a solar cycle. Here we present a careful analysis of solar astrometric data obtained with it from above the Earth's turbulent atmosphere. These data yield the most accurate direct constraint on possible solar radius variations on timescales from minutes to years and the first accurate determination of the solar radius obtained in the absence of atmospheric seeing.

Download the PDF and look at table I, a list of solar disk radius measurements spanning 1979 - 2004. They are all between 960''.52 and 958''.54. And see the last page of the paper, where the authors determine a SoHO MDI radius 959''.28 (all are normalized to a standard distance of 1 AU).

What Mozina wants to do has already been done, and with far greater accuracy & precision that his RD diddling could ever hope to achieve. It has already been determined that the solar disk radius at 171A (transition region - chromosphere) is roughly 10 arcseconds larger than the optical (photospheric) radius. At a distance of 1 AU that angular measure translates into 7253 km, assuming I have done the conversion correctly. So there is in fact nothing to debate. It has all been done already and the Mozina model is the loser, as one would naturally expect.

The MDI instrument images the photosphere in the 6767.8 Angstrom Ni I (that's neutral, non-ionized Nickel) absorption line. That's slightly redder than the eyeball center wavelength of about 5500 Angstroms, in the rough eyeball range 4000 - 7000 Angstroms (with much variation between individual eyes). So there is no doubt that it is sensitive to the eyeball photosphere "surface", where the effective temperature is around 5800 Kelvins.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina;5888642 ... said:
This *SHOULD* be a no brainer. There's no possible way according to standard theory that the RD outline of the sphere will fit inside the chromosphere. It would defy all the laws of physics according to you. Do we have a bet?
Click to expand...
:popcorn1
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
...

Note that the EIT instrument on SoHO is used to measure the solar disk radius at Mozina's favorite wavelength, 171A, and the number is 969''.54 ± 0''.02. Now see this ...

On the Constancy of the Solar Diameter II; Kuhn, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 613(2): 1241-1252, October 2004
Abstract: The Michelson Doppler Imager instrument on board SOHO has operated for most of a solar cycle. Here we present a careful analysis of solar astrometric data obtained with it from above the Earth's turbulent atmosphere. These data yield the most accurate direct constraint on possible solar radius variations on timescales from minutes to years and the first accurate determination of the solar radius obtained in the absence of atmospheric seeing.

Download the PDF and look at table I, a list of solar disk radius measurements spanning 1979 - 2004. They are all between 960''.52 and 958''.54. And see the last page of the paper, where the authors determine a SoHO MDI radius 959''.28 (all are normalized to a standard distance of 1 AU).

What Mozina wants to do has already been done, and with far greater accuracy & precision that his RD diddling could ever hope to achieve. It has already been determined that the solar disk radius at 171A (transition region - chromosphere) is roughly 10 arcseconds larger than the optical (photospheric) radius. At a distance of 1 AU that angular measure translates into 7253 km, assuming I have done the conversion correctly. So there is in fact nothing to debate. It has all been done already and the Mozina model is the loser, as one would naturally expect.

The MDI instrument images the photosphere in the 6767.8 Angstrom Ni I (that's neutral, non-ionized Nickel) absorption line. That's slightly redder than the eyeball center wavelength of about 5500 Angstroms, in the rough eyeball range 4000 - 7000 Angstroms (with much variation between individual eyes). So there is no doubt that it is sensitive to the eyeball photosphere "surface", where the effective temperature is around 5800 Kelvins.
Click to expand...

:popcorn1
 
Hellbound said:
Just wanted to say this thread is awesome.

I want to say thank you, Michael. Without all your crazy I would never have gotten such a good education from those with actual knowledge of the subject, and would instead be prone to accept fantasies such as the one you beleive.

And a big thank you to the following posters for putting the "E" in JREF:
sol invictus
dasmiller
Dancing David
ben m
W.D. Clinger

And I'm sure I've missed some, and if I have I apologize. There's been so much good info posted I can't keep track of everyone. I'm tempted to giggle like a schoolgirl ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks Hellbound, but I am the baby amongst giants.
 
For five years now GM you've been dogging me around the internet calling me a crackpot and claiming I am deluded. You've claimed I don't have the math skills to balance a checkbook, let alone do anything useful as it relates to solar physics.

This is your golden opportunity to ensure that this hick hay-seed plowboy (and I'm not ashamed to admit I've bailed hay in my day) is completely off his rocker. You can ensure that I will go down in astronomical fork lore history as the biggest crackpot to ever live, and make my bald face the laughingstock of your entire industry for years to come.

I have staked out a tiny little 7-8 pixel sliver *inside* the surface of your supposedly "opaque" photosphere. The photoinization aspects of standard theory alone *INSIST* that not a single photons can come from inside the photosphere at these energy states. This is a complete "no brainer" based on standard solar theory. You can't lose. I"ve given you *everything in the universe outside of your supposedly "opaque' area under the chromosophere.

If we take an RD image based on standard theory that disk *MUST* be larger than the bottom of that red/orange chromosphere.

After five years of hunting me around the internet, you finally have your chance for the kill. Man or mouse?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom