Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Many thanks, Tim Thompson for On Kristian Birkeland and Solar Models

If anyone is interested, the full text of his book "Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition, 1901-1902" Volumes I and II is available for free. It is a 158 MB PDF file.

The speculative parts of the book start on page 611 with

• Chapter V "IS IT POSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN ZODIACAL LIGHT, COMETS' TAILS, AND SATURN'S RING BY MEANS OF CORPUSCULAR RAYS?"

and continue into

• Chapter VI "ON POSSIBLE ELECTRIC PHENOMENA IN SOLAR SYSTEMS AND NEBULAE."
  N.B. We now know that "nebulae" are galaxies.

The Sun is covered from page 662 ("Experiments showing Analogies to Solar Phenomena").

Tim Thompson said:

Remember that Mozina always speaks derisively of mathematics, totally overlooking the key role of mathematics in modern science.

Click to expand...

The analogy that strikes me is a bunch of us watching a French TV show. In this analogy, you and Sol and Ben and a few others are fluent in French, I had a couple years of French back in high school, MM doesn't speak a word of it. And yet he keeps insisting that the rest of us are completely wrong about the subject of the show, and doesn't see why understanding French would help to understand the show.

D'rok said:

You've staked your public reputation on a bet with me that pi will have a different value in the Mozinaverse. And you're going to prove this with an RD image of the sun.

Doesn't this worry you at all?

Click to expand...

I really feel sorry for you D'rok because you're walking into the middle of what has already been a five year soap opera that spans so many different boards, even I've lost count. Over the past years I've been virtually executed twice, called a crackpot at least 10,000 times (mostly by GM) and I've been the single biggest vocal critic of not only mainstream solar theory, but mainstream cosmology theory in general. They hate me.

Let me see I can recap things for you just a bit, and for the lurkers I'll backtrack a bit so they can more easily follow along in the conversation.

Keep in mind that the value of any solar model (any scientific model) is how well it can "predict" the outcome of various "tests", generally done via "observation". The reason I quantified some predictions is so that you'll be able to see how well I do as the SDO data finally starts to be "published" through the "proper channels".

After putting my numbers on the table, I have been trying to get some of the mainstream proponents to quantify their theory as well so that we can see how well each theory "predicted" the outcome of the SDO observations.

Since GM seemed to be having a devil of a time coming up with any real numbers, Dear Mr. Spock was kind enough to work with GM to come up with *SOME* type of quantification related to GM's concept of a RD image. Their numbers put the disk far outside the photosphere. Unfortunately the numbers they came up with don't relate to the actual "rigid feature disk", they most likely related to the outside edges of the coronal loops rather than the disk itself. That's directly related to GM's pitiful understanding of a RD image, not due to Spock's math by the way.

Tim was kind enough to actually demonstrate exactly how clueless that GM *still* seems to be since Tim found papers for us that estimate the diameter of the disk that GM cannot find at closer to 7000KM outside of the photosphere. Tim's papers are much closer to the visual numbers since they are based upon observation, not math alone.

Tim is pretty much the resident "EU sun hater". Evidently he got started in that role before I even got involved in the EU concepts based on what I saw in satellite images. He's a very good resource of reading material by the way, and I find myself liking him in spite of his position. What's not to like?

Sol and Ben are probably your best math/chemistry analysts and probably my favorite characters in this little five year melodrama. DRD has typically played the role of grand inquisitor at most boards but mostly she's been kicking back here. I'm not sure what's up with that change of heart exactly, but she's turned into a more likable character.

Tusenfem is the resident "magnetic reconnection" expert. IMO that term is just a bad name for "circuit reconnection", so we've gone back and forth over that issue now a number of times.

Suffice to say, these are the main cast members what I would call the "heavy duty EU haters". They don't just dislike the solar theory I've presented, they loathe the whole concept of an electric universe, but unfortunately for them, that's what the SDO images tell us. FYI, that "EU hater" thing is not true of sol, Spock or Ben. They seemed to simply get drawn into the conversation for their own reasons.

I'm trying to get one or more of them to now bet on the RD "disk" size we might find in SDO images. Based on Tim's papers and Spock's efforts, we should not expect the "disk" to be about 1.1R and the rounded edges extending out to several R.

This now allows us to "test" our competing theories in the SDO data. *IF* Birkeland's model is correct, and long cadence RD image in 171A should produce a outline like you see in the SOHO image that fits nicely *INSIDE the chromosphere. There should be about 4800 KM around all the edges.

According to mainstream theory, the disk should larger than the base of the chromosophere.

These are mutually exclusive concepts by the way. According to mainstream theory, the surface of the "opaque photosphere' is about 6000K so any/all iron ion wavelengths should be blocked in about 3.5 meters, making it *impossible* to "see light" under the chromosophere in their theory.

Even if GM never is man enough to put his hair on the line, at least now we have two theories that are reasonably well quantified so we should be able to 'test' both ideas in the SDO data.

That's pretty much where things sit.

GlennB said:

Of MM's green/dark image --

If the dark stuff is the iron and the green surface ring is "not iron, but glowing stuff ", how come I can see green stuff floating all over the dark stuff elsewhere?

Click to expand...

The iron lines originate at the surface but extend far into the corona. They also come from all parts of the surface, not simply the limbs. We can just see the "glow" more clearly at the limbs.

Does it rain up there?

Click to expand...

Yes. It's called coronal rain.

Does the iron have great big rust holes in it, letting the green glow through from behind ? Would this mean there's green glowy stuff *behind* the iron?

Click to expand...

The glowing stuff *is* the iron inside the discharge loops lighting up the atmosphere.



Those lines we see are the discharge filaments rising from the surface up through the chromosphere. That green glowing region is 4800km of opaque math bunny disaster. The limbs do not become "opaque" for about 4800km under that chromosphere. The area that they claim is "opaque" is "aglow" and obviously it's not "opaque" (GM definition). Only at the 4800Km point do we see any GM style "opaqueness" where all light is actually blocked. That point where it becomes GM style opaque is the iron surface.

Michael Mozina said:

The glowing stuff *is* the iron inside the discharge loops lighting up the atmosphere.

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/sdo/sd01.jpg[/qimg]

Click to expand...

Does it strike you as puzzling that the 'atmosphere' has such a clean, sharp edge? And that it is nowhere ruffled by the huge upwellings of plasma that apparently go right through it? And that there's little or no 'atmosphere' around the 3:00 position of the composite image?

Michael Mozina said:

Only at the 4800Km point do we see any GM style "opaqueness" where all light is actually blocked. That point where it becomes GM style opaque is the iron surface.

Click to expand...

The black is where the iron becomes opaque? What? Michael, you've been arguing that the green stuff is a glowing atmosphere above the iron. You've been arguing that the iron is behind the green stuff.

But now you're saying that the green light stops because something opaque appears---behind it????

Think about the geometry of that for a few seconds, Michael. This must be why I never understood your 3D-model-to-2D-image projections---you were doing something too nonsensical to believe.

ben m said:

The black is where the iron becomes opaque?

Click to expand...

The black is where the surface becomes opaque. There's stuff flying round in the atmosphere too.

What? Michael, you've been arguing that the green stuff is a glowing atmosphere above the iron.

Click to expand...

It is. It's an ionized silicon and neon atmosphere with highly iron light coming from inside the coronal loops rising up and through the chromosphere and into the corona.

You've been arguing that the iron is behind the green stuff.

Click to expand...

The "opaque' (GM style) limb is the surface ben. This isn't complicated. The light green area between the surface and the chromosphere is lit up from the discharges through the coronal loops. The green light directly related to the ionized iron from the surface being ionized by the discharge process inside the loops.

But now you're saying that the green light stops because something opaque appears---behind it????

Click to expand...

No. The atmosphere is only so thick Ben. The discharges can only occur with that distance. it's a distance of 4800KM. It's lit up like a Christmas tree due to all the light being emitted inside the discharge loops. The limbs go dark at the surface.

You simply do not understand what I'm saying yet ben. When you get the epiphany, it's all makes sense.

Ben, the surface is the dark limb where it becomes GM style opaque. That amosphere is highly ionized and has iron discharge filaments passing up and through it, far into the corona. I've always needed something like this resolution, with a clear chromosphere ring to be able to demonstrate this, but SDO provides me with that capability.

You might also go checkout the MDI images Ben. In the first image there is a very angular "persistent structure", right under the photosphere, with discharge processes visible all along the sides of the rigid feature. Both the Doppler equipment and the AIA imaging equipment show 'rigid features" at about 4800KM +- 1200KM under the surface of the neon layer.

There's no way this can be a mistake Ben. I've been looking at satellite images now for 20 years. I have dreamed of the day to have images of this sort of resolution to make my case, and that day has come. I've put forth my predictions, and I have verified them in the SDO images now. You folks don't even seem to be interested in looking at at 16megapixel image simply because it's in the JPG format. You folks throw away pixels like they are meaningless, whereas I treat them all like gold. You can't throw away enough pixels in SDO images to make your problem go away ben. You have a 4800KM credibility gap in that opaque math bunny claim all round the limb.

dasmiller said:

Does it strike you as puzzling that the 'atmosphere' has such a clean, sharp edge?

Click to expand...

Not really. It's layered. Right above the surface is silicon (I'm going to remove the calcium layer from my model very soon). Above that sits another, evidently thinner layer of neon). It should have rounded edges near the chromosphere and jagged edges at the surface.

And that it is nowhere ruffled by the huge upwellings of plasma that apparently go right through it?

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by that because I see all sorts of action around the limbs, both in white light and in iron related activity. Some areas are "quiet",whereas some look to be more active.

And that there's little or no 'atmosphere' around the 3:00 position of the composite image?

Click to expand...

That was the hardest region to get any readings because it's "drowned out" by the light in front. I don't really see it as anything more than a lighting issue related to timing. I'm sure if we waited till the bright areas rotated over the horizon that it has the same region too.

There's just no way that the 4800 figure I got from Kosovichev SOHO MDI data could match so perfectly with that opaque limb unless this model is right. It fits down to within 24KM to the numbers I picked out of Kosovichev's data. That cannot be a "coincidence".

sol invictus said:

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?

Click to expand...

It will if it holds up to SDO style scrutiny. We now seem to have two very well defined numbers. One should put the RD image "disk" 7000+ km above the base of the chromosphere, whereas the other puts it 4800 km under the chromosphere.

One good long cadence 171A RD SDO image that is shown in relationship to that red chromophere should do the trick. If the standard model is correct, the RD outline should be well into the red. If Birkeland's model is correct, the jagged surface should be outlined inside the red part by 4800KM and we should see lines coming up from under the red part in coronal loops that should be easiest to spot near the poles.

Is anyone other that D'rok going to ante up a public change of opinion on the outcome of any of these predictions?

I "predict" that the RD image disk that GM cannot see will fit nicely inside that red chromosphere, and your opaque math bunny claims will die a complete death at that point.

On Kristian Birkeland and Solar Models II

ben m said:

Tim, does this mean that the "terrella"---the thing Michael always juxtaposes with photos of the Sun to argue that Birkeland had the truth about solar flares---was only ever meant to be a model of the Earth and aurorae?

Click to expand...

GeeMack said:

His terrella experiments were almost exclusively related to the Earth and the aurora borealis/australis.

Click to expand...

I have the 2-volume polar expedition book, though I have not thoroughly explored all 900+ pages of it. As far as I can tell, Birkeland's terrella was intended only to model the earth and electric currents in earth's magnetic field. While Birkeland, like many other curious scientists of his times, was interested in the sun, he never produced anything that could be called a "model" of the sun, in any serious sense, so far as I know.

You can see similarities in Birkeland's thinking and later in Alfven's. Birkeland genuinely pioneered the idea of electric currents in space, it was his baby. So naturally he wanted it to explain everything. He thought the zodiacal light was an electrical phenomenon, but we now know that it is sunlight reflecting off of dust in the plane of the solar system. Birkeland also thought that the discharging of charged particles from the sun could be responsible for its light & heat as well, while we now know that it's the other way around; it's the heat of the sun that is responsible for the light and the charged particles. It's natural that Birkeland thought the way he did, and 100 years ago those were ideas that deserved serious attention, such was the state of knowledge at the time. But 100 years later, we know a great deal more. Science has left some of Birkeland's ideas behind.

Hannes Alfven was the major architect of modern plasma physics and magnetohydrodynamics. It should come as no surprise that he, like Birkeland before him, wanted his brainchild to be the key to understanding everything. When Alfven was at his peak in the 1950's & 1960's, he developed plasma cosmology, to compete with big bang & steady state cosmologies. He received a Nobel Prize for his plasma physics, but his plasma cosmology is now an anachronism that is known not to work. Like Birkeland he had a lot of ideas, and like Birkeland, some were left behind by science, while others pushed science forward.

Alfven & Einstein also shared a common failure. Einstein invented quantum mechanics, and then decided it was wrong. Alfven invented magnetohydrodynamics, and then decided it was wrong. But both Alfven & Einstein were themselves wrong, and both became somewhat anachronistic in their later years, both left behind by advancing science.

One of Mozina's many mistakes is to elevate Birkeland & Alfven to demigod status. But science leaves everybody behind sooner or later. It left Birkeland behind, it left Einstein behind and it left Alfven behind. I would say it left Mozina behind too, but then, Mozina was never able to keep up in the first place.

Tim Thompson said:

I have the 2-volume polar expedition book, though I have not thoroughly explored all 900+ pages of it. As far as I can tell, Birkeland's terrella was intended only to model the earth and electric currents in earth's magnetic field.

Click to expand...

Keep reading. I think the solar implications get covered around page 660 or so.

Michael Mozina said:

If the standard model is correct, the RD outline should be well into the red.

Click to expand...

Nope, wrong wrong wrong wrong. I explained it five times; in fact you asked "can you explain that", and I pointed you to my earlier explaination. Several other people have posted similar explanations.

Do bigger fonts help? What does it take to get you to read these posts? Blinking text? All caps?

Dancing David said:

I have been looking at this image, and I don't see the green line in this one:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/firstlight/preview/composite20100330_4096.jpg

Click to expand...

I'd say that's because there is no chromosphere overlay, so you can't see the light between the dark limbs and the chromosphere. The light may not be green in that image but there would be light between the GM style opaque limb and the chomosphere. It all depends on the coloring scheme of the image and the wavelengths, but there will always be some kind of light between the chromosphere and the opaque limb under the chromosphere, and it will always be 4800km in distance.

ben m said:

Nope, wrong wrong wrong wrong. I explained it five times; in fact you asked "can you explain that", and I pointed you to my earlier explaination. Several other people have posted similar explanations.

Do bigger fonts help? What does it take to get you to read these posts? Blinking text? All caps?

Click to expand...

Ya, you better go through it again, because there is no way in hell I can see under the surface of the photosphere according to you so there is no way the RD disk could come out smaller than the chromospehere. What did I miss about "opaque" that really isn't "opaque" until the 4800KM mark?

Michael Mozina said:

The black is where the surface becomes opaque. There's stuff flying round in the atmosphere too.

Click to expand...

The surface becomes opaque when you're looking through it at a shallow angle? Nonsense.

No. The atmosphere is only so thick Ben. The discharges can only occur with that distance. it's a distance of 4800KM. It's lit up like a Christmas tree due to all the light being emitted inside the discharge loops. The limbs go dark at the surface.

Click to expand...

Word salad.

You simply do not understand what I'm saying yet ben.

Click to expand...

Darn right.

When you get the epiphany, it's all makes sense.

Click to expand...

I don't want an epiphany, I want a DIAGRAM. Scientists don't discover things, write crappy explanations, and wait around for other people to see the light. They explain it as clearly as possible; if the first explanation doesn't work they do it better and try again.

DRAW A DIAGRAM. It'll help you as well as everyone else.

Ben, the surface is the dark limb where it becomes GM style opaque. That amosphere is highly ionized and has iron discharge filaments passing up and through it, far into the corona. I've always needed something like this resolution, with a clear chromosphere ring to be able to demonstrate this, but SDO provides me with that capability.

Click to expand...

A) Nope, backwards. An opaque surface gets worse (i.e. more opaque, darker) closer to the limb (steeper viewing angle) and makes the limb DARKER. You've described the opposite---something that's brighter at the limb and darker straight-on? Opacity doesn't give you that.

B) If the difference between the "green" area (seen at a steep angle) and the "black" area (seen closer to face on) has to do with the surface opacity, then it doesn't have a darn thing to do with the depth of anything, nor with the iron. If that's how it works, then the position of the green-black transition depends only on the details of the opacity that you just attributed it to.

Please explain carefully again ben how the sharp, highly feature filled outlined "disk" in this image could possibly fit *INSIDE* the chromosphere in standard theory?

Michael Mozina said:

Ya, you better go through it again, because there is no way in hell I can see under the surface of the photosphere according to you so there is no way the RD disk could come out smaller than the chromospehere. What did I miss about "opaque" that really isn't "opaque" until the 4800KM mark?

Click to expand...

You ignored it the first five times. Tell me what you failed to understand then. Do it. Quote the posts.

Here's another try. Limb darkening caused by opacity: take a line-of-sight which projects 5000km centerward of the surface. You're looking nearly-across the surface and very slightly down at an angle of about 7 degrees. Take a line of sight which projects 4000km centerwards of the surface; you're looking down at an even shallower angle of 6 degrees. Do the geometry---the 6 degree line of sight has a lot further to go through any layer than the 7 degree line of sight does. Further to go = harder for light to get out.

ETA: You've used up all of your strikes on this one, MM. I don't want to see another "oh gosh, I just don't see it, explain it" post on this point, MM. If your next post doesn't contain an honest attempt at a trigonometric calculation---it's not hard---then you're back on ignore.

GeeMack said:

A running difference image is a graph, like a pie chart or a bar graph, a sort of areal histogram. There is no such thing as a running difference outline of a sphere. .

Click to expand...

Boloney! That disk outline is unmistakable and it's going to fit inside the chromosphere with 4800Km to spare just as I predicted. If you want to challenge me for real you will have to do so numerically. Since we all know that your hair is more important to you than your professional pride, we all know that's never going to happen. At least we know who the Alpha male is around here. All those math skills and you can't compete with a guy who can't balance his checkbook according to you. How sad for you.

ben m said:

You ignored it the first five times.

Click to expand...

I'm ignoring it because it came with no "numbers". I need a real numerical prediction out of you at 171A just like I did. Where should I see that RD image outline? Where should I see the limb darkening? How did you arrive at your figure?

Michael Mozina said:

I'm ignoring it because it came with no "numbers". I need a real numerical prediction out of you at 171A just like I did. Where should I see that RD image outline? Where should I see the limb darkening? How did you arrive at your figure?

Click to expand...

"Five times"? I arrived at that figure by counting the posts.

The whole point of the calculation is to show that "where to see the outline in 2D" depends sensitively on the corona/chromosphere and is NOT the same thing as measuring the 3D radius of the emission.

Last chance, Michael---how well do you understand the trigonometry that relates the 3D radius (for which I DO have a prediction) to the appearance of the 2D outline (for which I don't?). The difference is trigonometry, which I invite you to calculate. Read my posts, I practically did it for you. No trig = you're on ignore.

Come on Ben.

Please provide me with an actual "numerical prediction" in terms of the outline of the disk that we should expect to see in a 171A RD long cadence image with respect to the chromophere. Please state your prediction in Kilometers, above or below the photosphere, and please provide margins of error. Please explain how you arrived at your figures and what data you used to arrive at that figure.

Ben, I'm not doing anymore homework assignments for anyone. I've done all the assignments I needed to do to come up with a testable prediction based on the tenets of the solar model I promote. I need you to do exactly the same thing with your model so that we can compare numbers. If you won't do that, you might as well put me on ignore, because I'm going to ignore your explanation until it comes with an actual numerical prediction on the 171A wavelengths. Will other iron ion wavelengths be different or the same? I need actual numbers ben, so we can compare the our predictions to the SDO data, not more homework assignments.

Michael Mozina said:

Ben, I'm not doing anymore homework assignments for anyone.

...

I need actual numbers ben, so we can compare the our predictions to the SDO data, not more homework assignments.

Click to expand...

BZZT. Wrong answer. I could explain why it's the wrong answer, but it looks like you'd ignore that too. Bye bye, troll.

Michael Mozina said:

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050527-1913.JPG[/qimg]

Boloney! That disk outline is unmistakable and it's going to fit inside the chromosphere with 4800Km to spare just as I predicted. If you want to challenge me for real you will have to do so numerically. Since we all know that your hair is more important to you than your professional pride, we all know that's never going to happen. At least we know who the Alpha male is around here. All those math skills and you can't compete with a guy who can't balance his checkbook according to you. How sad for you.

Click to expand...

It's been fun,but I will stop following this now.Michael, you are a total nutcase.Alpha male indeed! Pathetic.

Michael Mozina said:

Please provide me with an actual "numerical prediction" in terms of the outline of the disk that we should expect to see in a 171A RD long cadence image with respect to the chromophere. Please state your prediction in Kilometers, above or below the photosphere, and please provide margins of error.

Click to expand...

Michael, a big part of the problem here is that you ask questions like this. How can anyone state a prediction for how big the outline of a disk in an image will be in kilometers??

The prediction will depend entirely on how big a version of the image you happen to be looking at...

You probably think I'm joking, or splitting hairs, or something. That's another big part of the problem. You just don't see the issue here, which is that you cannot easily convert a distance in 3D space, measured in km for example (for which we do have a sharp disagreement), into the radius of a disk on a 2D photograph (RD or not). The results of that conversion depend on many factors. As far as I can tell you've done it incorrectly for your own "model", and you've certainly badly misunderstood what the SSM predicts.

Michael Mozina said:

I really feel sorry for you D'rok because you're walking into the middle of what has already been a five year soap opera that spans so many different boards, even I've lost count. Over the past years I've been virtually executed twice, called a crackpot at least 10,000 times (mostly by GM) and I've been the single biggest vocal critic of not only mainstream solar theory, but mainstream cosmology theory in general. They hate me.

Let me see I can recap things for you just a bit, and for the lurkers I'll backtrack a bit so they can more easily follow along in the conversation.

Keep in mind that the value of any solar model (any scientific model) is how well it can "predict" the outcome of various "tests", generally done via "observation". The reason I quantified some predictions is so that you'll be able to see how well I do as the SDO data finally starts to be "published" through the "proper channels".

After putting my numbers on the table, I have been trying to get some of the mainstream proponents to quantify their theory as well so that we can see how well each theory "predicted" the outcome of the SDO observations.

Since GM seemed to be having a devil of a time coming up with any real numbers, Dear Mr. Spock was kind enough to work with GM to come up with *SOME* type of quantification related to GM's concept of a RD image. Their numbers put the disk far outside the photosphere. Unfortunately the numbers they came up with don't relate to the actual "rigid feature disk", they most likely related to the outside edges of the coronal loops rather than the disk itself. That's directly related to GM's pitiful understanding of a RD image, not due to Spock's math by the way.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050527-1913.JPG
Tim was kind enough to actually demonstrate exactly how clueless that GM *still* seems to be since Tim found papers for us that estimate the diameter of the disk that GM cannot find at closer to 7000KM outside of the photosphere. Tim's papers are much closer to the visual numbers since they are based upon observation, not math alone.

Tim is pretty much the resident "EU sun hater". Evidently he got started in that role before I even got involved in the EU concepts based on what I saw in satellite images. He's a very good resource of reading material by the way, and I find myself liking him in spite of his position. What's not to like?

Sol and Ben are probably your best math/chemistry analysts and probably my favorite characters in this little five year melodrama. DRD has typically played the role of grand inquisitor at most boards but mostly she's been kicking back here. I'm not sure what's up with that change of heart exactly, but she's turned into a more likable character.

Tusenfem is the resident "magnetic reconnection" expert. IMO that term is just a bad name for "circuit reconnection", so we've gone back and forth over that issue now a number of times.

Suffice to say, these are the main cast members what I would call the "heavy duty EU haters". They don't just dislike the solar theory I've presented, they loathe the whole concept of an electric universe, but unfortunately for them, that's what the SDO images tell us. FYI, that "EU hater" thing is not true of sol, Spock or Ben. They seemed to simply get drawn into the conversation for their own reasons.

I'm trying to get one or more of them to now bet on the RD "disk" size we might find in SDO images. Based on Tim's papers and Spock's efforts, we should not expect the "disk" to be about 1.1R and the rounded edges extending out to several R.

This now allows us to "test" our competing theories in the SDO data. *IF* Birkeland's model is correct, and long cadence RD image in 171A should produce a outline like you see in the SOHO image that fits nicely *INSIDE the chromosphere. There should be about 4800 KM around all the edges.

According to mainstream theory, the disk should larger than the base of the chromosophere.

These are mutually exclusive concepts by the way. According to mainstream theory, the surface of the "opaque photosphere' is about 6000K so any/all iron ion wavelengths should be blocked in about 3.5 meters, making it *impossible* to "see light" under the chromosophere in their theory.

Even if GM never is man enough to put his hair on the line, at least now we have two theories that are reasonably well quantified so we should be able to 'test' both ideas in the SDO data.

That's pretty much where things sit.

Click to expand...

I guess that's a "no" to my question then. Frankly, I am embarrassed on your behalf. I am flabbergasted, but I am forced to conclude that you don't even know what pi is or why Clinger's prediction that the circumference of your RD disk will be a little more than three times its diameter will always be a true statement no matter what solar model is correct. Why did you bet against that?

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that, because you have much bigger fish to fry here than me, you were just not reading my posts and had just skimmed Clinger's. But I now think that you actually do not understand and that your willingness to bet against the value of pi is genuine ignorance.

I don't think anyone here hates you. I think you are a constant source of bewilderment, amazement, and aggravation, especially for those (not me) with genuine expertise in the field that you so colossally blunder through.

sol invictus said:

Michael, a big part of the problem here is that you ask questions like this. How can anyone state a prediction for how big the outline of a disk in an image will be in kilometers??

The prediction will depend entirely on how big a version of the image you happen to be looking at...

You probably think I'm joking, or splitting hairs, or something. That's another big part of the problem. You just don't see the issue here, which is that you cannot easily convert a distance in 3D space, measured in km for example (for which we do have a sharp disagreement), into the radius of a disk on a 2D photograph (RD or not). The results of that conversion depend on many factors. As far as I can tell you've done it incorrectly for your own "model", and you've certainly badly misunderstood what the SSM predicts.

Click to expand...

So what does the SSM "predict" in terms of the outline of the disk compared to the chromosphere? I "predicted" a number in terms of the disk size in relationship to the chromosphere. If we are to compare models, I need something to compare it to. Start with 171 spread 6 hours apart and we should come up with an image that looks a lot like that SOHO image. How big will the disk be compared to the chromosphere?

I'm sorry if that's a difficult sort of thing to "predict" in the SSM, because it's not a difficult calculation (no calculation at all in fact) in a Birkeland model. It must be 4800KM inside the chromosphere.

The only way to judge the validity of specific model is to see how well they accurately "predict" things. I've predicted some things now sol, but I need some definitive to compare it to.

D'rok said:

I guess that's a "no" to my question then. Frankly, I am embarrassed on your behalf. I am flabbergasted, but I am forced to conclude that you don't even know what pi is or why Clinger's prediction that the circumference of your RD sphere will be a little more than three times its diameter will always be a true statement no matter what solar model is correct. Why did you bet against that?

Click to expand...

If that's what you thought I was betting against, I wasn't. I was simply betting against the standard model. Period. The standard model *CANNOT* produce a disk smaller than the diameter of the chromosphere, nor smaller in circumference than the photosphere. That's it. It's limited to the diameter of the photosphere.

The circumference of an RD image in Birkeland's solar model will not be pi * diameter of the photosphere. It won't even be close.

They are 13 pixels short all along the side and when that gets factored into the circumference, they'll come up *A LOT* of pixels short and they will be a lot off on the circumference.

sol invictus said:

Michael, a big part of the problem here is that you ask questions like this. How can anyone state a prediction for how big the outline of a disk in an image will be in kilometers??

The prediction will depend entirely on how big a version of the image you happen to be looking at...

You probably think I'm joking, or splitting hairs, or something. That's another big part of the problem. You just don't see the issue here, which is that you cannot easily convert a distance in 3D space, measured in km for example (for which we do have a sharp disagreement), into the radius of a disk on a 2D photograph (RD or not). The results of that conversion depend on many factors. As far as I can tell you've done it incorrectly for your own "model", and you've certainly badly misunderstood what the SSM predicts.

Click to expand...

Here's the deal sol. There is an easy way now with SDO to compare the outline of the chomosphere, to the outlines we see in the iron line image, and the RD iron line images. In a Birkeland models those "rigid features" on that RD disk must reside inside the outline of the chromosphere. I can "predict" at what point that will occur. If the SSM is just as useful, it too should be able to predict that number, shouldn't it?

Michael Mozina said:

If that's what you thought I was betting against, I wasn't.

Click to expand...

Go back and read this time Michael. That is exactly what you were betting against. I gave you multiple chances to back out, but you boldly pressed on.

Read Clinger's post:

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

And then these posts from me, particularly the last one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5888357#post5888357
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5888375#post5888375
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5888655#post5888655
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5888680#post5888680
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5889551#post5889551

I realize you have lots of ongoing conversations to manage, but this is just bizarre. You come across like you have some learning disability that affects your reading comprehension and/or your ability to communicate.

dafydd said:

It's been fun,but I will stop following this now.Michael, you are a total nutcase.Alpha male indeed! Pathetic.

Click to expand...

GM has spent the last 5 years of his life dogging me around the internet, calling me a crackpot in every post, and claiming over and over and over again that I can't balance a checkbook. He's even gone so far as to call me a fraud publicly. You would think that with SDO now online, he would be *THRILLED* to show off his mathematical prowess, put up some numbers and take me up on the offer.

Instead of doing the "right" thing in terms of settling a scientific dispute, he refuses to offer us any predictions of his own, he continues to parrot the same nonsense over and over and he runs from a friendly gentleman's bet. I even offered him a "suckers bet" according to the SSM. I offered him *everything in the universe* outside of his supposedly "opaque" (GM STYLE) photosphere.

Why in the world would GM miss his golden opportunity to really make me pay for my foolishness? It seems to me that after all this time he'd be eager to finish the job and really humiliate me good and proper. Instead he's chosen to simply humiliate himself by refusing to back up his bluster with any real numbers. And to think he called me a fraud......

D'rok said:

Go back and read this time Michael. That is exactly what you were betting against. I gave you multiple chances to back out, but you boldly pressed on.

Read Clinger's post:

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

And then these posts from me, particularly the last one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5888357#post5888357
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5888375#post5888375
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5888655#post5888655
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5888680#post5888680
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5889551#post5889551

I realize you have lots of ongoing conversations to manage, but this is just bizarre. You come across like you have some learning disability that affects your reading comprehension and/or your ability to communicate.

Click to expand...

You know D'rok, it's entirely possible that I missed whatever point you were trying to make in your last few posts. I have been busy going to high school plays and trying to pin these guys down on some real numbers so that we can see if their solar model can actually "predict" something useful in an SDO image.

You're welcome to think whatever you like.

If however you take Pi*diameter of the white light image, it won't be the same of Pi*diameter of disk in the RD image. They will come up differently.

ben m said:

BZZT. Wrong answer. I could explain why it's the wrong answer, but it looks like you'd ignore that too. Bye bye, troll.

Click to expand...

I'm going to ignore anything that isn't a quantified prediction. It's time to pony up your own number Ben. I've done my part. Your turn.

Michael Mozina said:

You know D'rok, it's entirely possible that I missed whatever point you were trying to make in your last few posts. I have been busy going to high school plays and trying to pin these guys down on some real numbers so that we can see if their solar model can actually "predict" something useful in an SDO image.

You're welcome to think whatever you like.

If however you take Pi*diameter of the white light image, it won't be the same of Pi*diameter of disk in the RD image. They will come up differently.

Click to expand...

I don't care if you ignore me. I'm a distraction to the real value in this thread anyways, which is for interested lurkers and minor participants to learn from your betters.

Your strategy is transparent Michael. You are doggedly moving the thread away from your failures to address the opacity of Mozplasma with Sol and basic geometry with Ben. This bogus prediction challenge is just that, bogus, and sadly, obviously so. I don't know physics, but I do know a bit about argument and rhetoric. You are an amateur in that department too.

Ok D'rok..

I went back and read the posts in question and I see why you're embarrassed for me. I really wasn't paying attention to what you were asking and I simply assumed a SSM photosphere diameter in his answer. In retrospect I should have paid more attention to your question, but I had a lot going on this weekend.

The point I have been trying to make (rather poorly) is that there will be a measurable difference in the diameter and circumference of the photosphere and the diameter and circumference of the RD image. They will not work out the same. The RD image will come up 4800Km smaller on each side than the chromophere along each side.

D'rok said:

I don't care if you ignore me. I'm a distraction to the real value in this thread anyways, which is for interested lurkers and minor participants to learn from your betters.

Click to expand...

I don't think of you that way, but it has been busy this week for me.

Your strategy is transparent Michael. You are doggedly moving the thread away from your failures to address the opacity of Mozplasma with Sol

Click to expand...

Er, not actually. I was waiting to see what Oliver came up with but now that I know what 94A interacts with, I'm trying to figure out a temperature of the plasma. You do realize I get asked a million different questions and not all of them are questions I can answer, right?

and basic geometry with Ben.

Click to expand...

I'm done doing math assignments for others. I produced my numbers and my predictions. I want something to compare them to in the SSM. It's their turn to produce some numbers.

This bogus prediction challenge is just that, bogus, and sadly, obviously so. I don't know physics, but I do know a bit about argument and rhetoric. You are an amateur in that department too.

Click to expand...

I put up real numbers D'rok, not "rhetoric". The numbers I put up can be "falsified" in a standard empirical manner too. That isn't "rhetoric", that is a real honest scientific prediction.

What numbers have *THEY* even given you to look at so far?

The reason I wanted GM to "bet" on the RD image is because nobody else in five years has ever even claimed to understand much about them. He's the only individual I've met that claimed to "understand" them in fact besides me. My prediction is a "crackpot' prediction according to GM, so why wouldn't GM just take me up on it and be done? Why all the foot dragging?

The rhetoric isn't coming from me. I put up my numbers. The rhetoric is coming from them. They *WON'T* provide you with any predictions. How is that not "rhetoric"? How do we "test" anything they've told you thus far in an SDO image?

One key point D'rok

The photoionization issue that sol and I have been discussing is critical as it relates to the SDO images. In the standard solar model *NONE* of these iron ion wavelengths can come from under the chomosphere. They would photoionize something in the photosphere within a few feet and would never show up in even a single pixel under that red chromosphere.

The mainstream has a *huge* problem now trying to even explain that first composite first light image. Not only is there plenty of light coming from under the chromosphere, there is 4800Km of it. That's not just a "small" problem for the standard theory. That's a gigantic problem. Unless that region is highly ionized, there's no way light on these wavelengths would be visible in that region.

Are you going to ask them about that little "problem", or are you just going to be skeptical towards one model and not the other? Shouldn't they have to explain that, just like I explained that in my model?

You know D'rok, that rhetoric comment stung a little.

I have made several key 'predictions" already that have "come true". I certainly "predicted" that those iron lines would be visible under the chromosphere based on ionization states. That was not only a "successful prediction" that is different from standard theory, it's *impossible* according to current theory. That's quite an "out there" prediction that came to pass.

I have also predicted various ionization states of the neon in the atmosphere based on these conversations. Even the 94A showing interference with neon makes complete sense in this model because neon is in the atmosphere in this model. That doesn't really add up in the standard model however, now does it?

I put up key predictions about the location of the origin of the iron lines and RD images too.

The only way to judge the merits of a scientific theory is to put up numbers and make real predictions. That includes predictions about RD images too. The whole point of me making these predictions is so that you (or anyone) can check them out for themselves.

What has the other side actually "predicted" for you in terms of numbers? Did they predict the RD disk size yet? GM can't even seem to see a disk at all. Did their model "predict" any sort of interference pattern with 94A? Did their side "predict" anything at all yet in terms of what we might see in an SDO image that they have been willing to publicly commit to, and commit their public position on? No. They won't do that.

It seems to me that numbers are not "rhetoric", nor are any of the predictions I have made here been a form of "rhetoric".

What has GM predicted for you that you can look at in an SDO image and "test"? What has anyone told you from their side that you can "test' in an SDO image?

All I have heard from their side of the aisle this week is rhetoric and not one single shred of a prediction that I might put to the test in the SDO images I've seen thus far.

I've "predicted' what a Ne+4,+3 image might look like. I've predicted lots of things that people can test. That isn't "rhetoric", those are real "predictions". Even my original "prediction" about depth came from heliosiesmology data and was not "rhetoric" even before seeing the SDO images. After seeing them, I can assure you that *NONE* of this is "rhetoric".

What I have yet to see are any actual predictions from them that might actually be used to falsify their model. Do you think that's a coincidence?

If that green region between the cromosphere and the darkened limb doesn't falsify their opacity claims and their solar model, I don't know what will. it simply should not be there D'rok.

The thing I find so strange about your theory is that if the mainstream theories have such a 'huge' problem, why doesn't it show up in any of the other parts of mainstream physics?
Its not like these calculations are only used for solar imaging. So if there is such a massive error it should show up in any field using optics and electomagnetism, which would include all laser/microscopy/electronmicroscopy/television/radar and many more technologies. Yet all of these do not report said error, nor are the predictions made using the standard model incorrect.
Inversely, would your model hold up when making predictive calculations for all these fields?
They are far more easy to test than the solar model and would go a great length to validating your idea.
What I've also still not seen (though maybe I've missed in in the posts) is how you propose your 'crust model' actually formed. Matter being attracted by gravity does not on its own form a hollow shell, but rather will form a globe with the heaviest material in the middle, as seen from all the other planets and planetoids in the solar system and shown by experiments on gravity. What is the lower limit in your theory for the warping of gravity to that extent?

Michael Mozina said:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050527-1913.JPG

Click to expand...

Boloney! That disk outline is unmistakable and it's going to fit inside the chromosphere with 4800Km to spare just as I predicted. If you want to challenge me for real you will have to do so numerically. ...quote]
Boloney! That disk outline is unmistakable and it's going to fit outside the chromosphere with 100,000 km to spare just as an idiot looking at bunnies in images woud predict!
If you want to challenge me for real you will have to do so numerically.
If you want to challenge me for real you will have to start by ignoring your obsession with RD images.

Michael, from my perspective, none of what you do is science in any meaningful sense of the word. I think you enjoy the attention you receive here, negative though it is. I have been lurking in your various JREF threads for quite a while, and I have seen absolutely every aspect of your model authoritatively demolished time and time again. I've even skimmed some of the threads on other sites where precisely the same thing happens. And yet you continue to find new ways to avoid coming to terms with your own mistakes at the same time as you continue to find new ways to repeat them. You duck, dodge and weave when cornered, and retreat into false bravado when no other avenue is left for escape.

In my mind, you are an Internet legend, but not for the reasons you might like.