Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Perpetual Student said:
Michael Mozina: Why do you believe you see fixed features in RD images? Please explain!:hb:
Click to expand...

As Michael is in dodge mode, I will try to summarize the only two answers I have ever seen him give to this question. (Sometimes he muddles and blurs these two answers together).

1. There is an external light source that produces areas of light and shadow on the "mountains" in the gold-coloured RD image. As that light source moves/changes/whatever, the areas of light and shadow on the mountains change, and therefore this change is captured in an RD image. Voila! Mountains!

2. The "mountains" are really just plasma contours of solid features below. As the plasma flows over these features, you can see the outlines of those features captured in an RD image.

Of course, if you've been following this or other threads, I'm sure no explanation is required for why both of those answers are laughably wrong.
 
dasmiller said:
If you mean me, then that's not what I'm suggesting. I've been working directly with the NASA PR photo*. I think NASA photoshopped the image.

Okay, actually, I'm certain that NASA photoshopped the image. Of course, my speculations about exactly what photoshopping they did are just speculations.

*yes, there's something faintly absurd about the idea of working directly with a PR photo.
Click to expand...

I predict it won't matter what software was used to create the image. The color under the chromosphere will always and completely depend on the RGB color scheme of the iron ion wavelengths and their respective outputs. I predict you can play with the RGB settings of the iron ion wavelengths and see a change in the color scheme that follows your RGB selection.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I predict you can play with the RGB settings of the iron ion wavelengths and see a change in the color scheme that follows your RGB selection.
Click to expand...

I predict that you can achieve the same effect with a picture of your grand mothers 100th birthday tea party:p
 
nvidiot said:
No test, just your basic, run of the mill, childrens astronomy book grade structural cutaway of the sun with indications of what's where, and how it works together. Pretty simple request considering you apparently have a reasonable, scientific theory on the nature and structure of the sun. (Which disagrees with the entire compendium of human knowledge of astronomy, physics, spectroscopy and scientific principles in general.)

It may of course tie you down to attempting to actually elucidate some of your "woo" I think the term on these forums are, so I doubt you'll actually follow through, but I can only live in hope I suppose.
Click to expand...
There is a structural cutaway image that Michael posted some pages back. I'm too lazy to look for it, but if you find it, it is...interesting.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I predict it won't matter what software was used to create the image. The color under the chromosphere will always and completely depend on the RGB color scheme of the iron ion wavelengths and their respective outputs. I predict you can play with the RGB settings of the iron ion wavelengths and see a change in the color scheme that follows your RGB selection.
Click to expand...

WTF does that even mean?
 
@ D'rok.

Oh god. Oh christ. I saw the cutaway on the webpage.

The stupid! IT BURRRRRNNNNS! ARRRRRGGGGGH!

*skull caves in after self ignition of internal iron crust*
 
D'rok said:
As Michael is in dodge mode,
Click to expand...

Could you elaborate for me how *I* have dodged anything? I provided you with images, numbers, a full explanation of how to verify my claims, everything. I made another "crazy" prediction about that "disk" in the RD image that GM can't see. I've been willing to stick out my neck at every turn and put this theory to the "test" in the SDO images too. Was it my fault I was right about the fact that the opaque math bunny claim was false? Is it my imagination there are green edges under that chromosphere?

I have provided a full quantitative and qualitative explanation of the key elements of my "predictions". Nobody seems to care one iota that Birkeland's model passed the observation test and the SSM went down in green iron flames. Did I create that SDO image too? Did I doctor it in any way? Did I count pixels to verify the Kosovichev's Doppler numbers?

I will try to summarize the only two answers I have ever seen him give to this question. (Sometimes he muddles and blurs these two answers together).

1. There is an external light source that produces areas of light and shadow on the "mountains" in the gold-coloured RD image. As that light source moves/changes/whatever, the areas of light and shadow on the mountains change, and therefore this change is captured in an RD image. Voila! Mountains!
Click to expand...

No, just "Viola", "patterns". How come those "patterns" are so persistent if the structures in the photosphere come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals? How come they all rotate uniformly in the north and south poles?

2. The "mountains" are really just plasma contours of solid features below. As the plasma flows over these features, you can see the outlines of those features captured in an RD image.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's all true, it's just happening underneath that dead opaque math bunny. The contours of the mass flows follow the contours of the iron surface. You can't really see the surface, you just see the flow lines of all the small loops that traverse the surface.

Of course, if you've been following this or other threads, I'm sure no explanation is required for why both of those answers are laughably wrong.
Click to expand...

What exactly more can I tell you besides the fact that I agree that they related to light from the discharge filaments not the actual surface, they take place 4800km under that dead opaque math bunny, and the RD image at 171A in a long cadence will show you exactly where it is in relationship to the chromosphere along the limbs?

Holy cow! I can't make it any simpler to lop off my head again! I just barely survived that last "test" by the the green hairs of only 4800Km. I'm already sticking my neck out again making a new prediction related to the RD images that nobody seems to willing to even "put to the test"? What can I do to convince you if offering up my next "crazy" prediction will not suffice?

The fact I passed the green light exam on SDO should have made you do an about face instantly. Instead you want more. I gave you more. What more can I do? Are you going to try to falsify my claim, yes or no?
 
Last edited:
nvidiot said:
Michael Mozina said:
I predict it won't matter what software was used to create the image. The color under the chromosphere will always and completely depend on the RGB color scheme of the iron ion wavelengths and their respective outputs. I predict you can play with the RGB settings of the iron ion wavelengths and see a change in the color scheme that follows your RGB selection.
Click to expand...

WTF does that even mean?
Click to expand...


Maybe this will help...

GeeMack said:
[...]

Consequently [Michael's] qualifications to communicate in a sane, intelligent, rational way on the issue of solar physics are now being directly challenged. So far you have been unable to demonstrate that you are remotely qualified to do so. Your arguments are strings of senseless, incoherent sciency sounding words which, given the way you assemble them, lack any connection to reality. The ones which do form complete thoughts are mostly arguments from ignorance and incredulity, and in many cases as demonstrated by evidence, they are intentional distortions of legitimate science, strawmen, and bald faced lies.
Click to expand...
 
It's almost.... beautiful....

I've read you've claimed that you "predicted" something about the "green" in recent images. Care to point to your "prediction"? Oh that's right, others have asked that already.

*twiddles thumbs*
 
Pure_Argent said:
No, it's megalomania if you're right as well.
Click to expand...

How? Did I call it a "Mozina" solar model? I'm simply trying to get the word out to the public.

Then it's falsified, and this thread should die.
Click to expand...

It will be falsified or verified when we all see a long cadence 171A and/or FeXX RD image placed inside that red/orange chromosphere. If it doesn't fit nicely inside that red/orange chromosphere with 4800Km to spare, *THEN* (and only then) has this theory been falsified. Take your best shot.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Could you elaborate for me how *I* have dodged anything? I provided you with images, numbers, a full explanation of how to verify my claims, everything. I made another "crazy" prediction about that "disk" in the RD image that GM can't see. I've been willing to stick out my neck at every turn and put this theory to the "test" in the SDO images too. Was it my fault I was right about the fact that the opaque math bunny claim was false? Is it my imagination there are green edges under that chromosphere?

I have provided a full quantitative and qualitative explanation of the key elements of my "predictions". Nobody seems to care one iota that Birkeland's model passed the observation test and the SSM went down in green iron flames. Did I create that SDO image too? Did I doctor it in any way? Did I count pixels to verify the Kosovichev's Doppler numbers?



No, just "Viola", "patterns". How come those "patterns" are so persistent if the structures in the photosphere come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals? How come they all rotate uniformly in the north and south poles?



Actually, that's all true, it's just happening underneath that dead opaque math bunny. The contours of the mass flows follow the contours of the iron surface. You can't really see the surface, you just see the flow lines of all the small loops that traverse the surface.



What exactly more can I tell you besides the fact that I agree that they related to light from the discharge filaments not the actual surface, they take place 4800km under that dead opaque math bunny, and the RD image at 171A in a long cadence will show you exactly where it is in relationship to the chromosphere along the limbs?

Holy cow! I can't make it any simpler to lop off my head again! I just barely survived that last "test" by the the green hairs of only 4800Km. I'm already sticking my neck out again making a new prediction related to the RD images that nobody seems to willing to even "put to the test"? What can I do to convince you if offering up my next "crazy" prediction will not suffice?

The fact I passed the green light exam on SDO should have made you do an about face instantly. Instead you want more. I gave you more. What more can I do? Are you going to try to falsify my claim, yes or no?
Click to expand...
:deadhorse
 
D'rok said:
:deadhorse
Click to expand...

I'd say that's pretty true. I did however offer you all a logical way to falsify this solar model (again) as if the green light under the chromosphere wasn't enough.

The ball is in your court to either falsify or verify the model. I can only offer you logical ways to falsify the model. I can't make you do so.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I'd say that's pretty true. I did however offer you all a logical way to falsify this solar model (again) as if the green light under the chromosphere wasn't enough.

The ball is in your court to either falsify or verify the model. I can only offer you logical ways to falsify the model. I can't make you do so.
Click to expand...

Burden of proof fail. Again.

Your claim. Your burden. All of the ways that the iron sun violates the laws of physics means you have a lot of work to do. Proceed. Elsewhere. Internet pissing matches are not science.
 
FYI D'rok...

Until SDO I had not even seen an FeXX image of the sun. I will still "predict" that wavelength will show exactly the same disk in exactly the same location as the 171A RD image at 4800km under the chromosphere. I gave you two wavelengths to work with, one of which I had never even seen until SDO. How much more specific can I get?
 
Michael Mozina said:
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050527-1913.JPG[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Michael, does your theory explain why Ethel Merman is a permanent feature of the sun?

Look carefully.

130124bdf19eabb765.jpg


130124bdf19eac3a14.jpg


Note the characteristic hair style, dress style, bust line, and arms-outstretched singing stance.

Since you claim this image has inspired you and you have studied it closely, you could not possibly have missed a 200,000 kilometer tall Ethel Merman, and your theory must be able to explain her presence there. If it cannot, then it is useless. Don't you agree?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
D'rok said:
Burden of proof fail. Again.

Your claim. Your burden. All of the ways that the iron sun violates the laws of physics means you have a lot of work to do. Proceed. Elsewhere. Internet pissing matches are not science.
Click to expand...

The proof is in the RD images. I will never again be accused of fraud for producing a solar image. I'm done producing images. I'm into the "prediction" stage of the Birkeland solar model now. Other folks can try to verify or falsify those predictions at their leisure. I've done everything I can think of predicting here in this thread, starting with that *IMPOSSIBLE* and 'crackpot' claim of predicting those green light coming from under a dead opaque math bunny. That was by far the single most important prediction of this model and I have absolutely no more doubts about this solar model. It passed it's most important visual test in the first light images of SDO. The SSM necessarily went down in green flames. It had to be either/or and I even predicted the depth to a "sliver" in terms of quantification. Nailed it.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
How? Did I call it a "Mozina" solar model? I'm simply trying to get the word out to the public.
Click to expand...

It's called "snark". You should try it sometime. ;)

It will be falsified or verified when we all see a long cadence 171A and/or FeXX RD image placed inside that red/orange chromosphere. If it doesn't fit nicely inside that red/orange chromosphere with 4800Km to spare, *THEN* (and only then) has this theory been falsified. Take your best shot.
Click to expand...

No, it has been falsified, by the simple fact that you misunderstand what it is that RD images show. It is not possible to get a picture of a "stable surface" in the kind of pictures that you have presented. They do not take pictures of stable surfaces. They show only that which changes.
 
Pure_Argent said:
It's called "snark". You should try it sometime. ;)



No, it has been falsified, by the simple fact that you misunderstand what it is that RD images show.
Click to expand...

If I misunderstand them, then the RD image that I suggested we try to create will show us that won't it?

It is not possible to get a picture of a "stable surface" in the kind of pictures that you have presented. They do not take pictures of stable surfaces. They show only that which changes.
Click to expand...

So let's try my technique and see what happens? I can't be right can I? This should be a very simple way to falsify this theory once and for all. Of course those green lines should not have been there either, and their absence would have falsified this theory too, but alas it passed that test. I offered you a new way to falsify the model a week or so later. What can I do? I can only lead the horse to the water. I can't make him drink. I've given you a new way to falsify this model (again). It's up to you to decide if you want to check it out.

Nobody here seems to be the least bit willing to even try it out.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
If I misunderstand them, then the RD image that I suggested we try to create will show us that won't it?
Click to expand...

Yes, and that's exactly what it does. Its very nature contradicts what you say it does. You have, essentially, taken a photo of your backyard and said "I can tell that it was ninety-four-point-two degrees out when I took this photo by looking at the color of the leaves on the trees". It doesn't work. That's not what the picture does.
 
Michael Mozina said:
If I misunderstand them, then the RD image that I suggested we try to create will show us that won't it?



So let's try my technique and see what happens? I can't be right can I? This should be a very simple way to falsify this theory once and for all. Of course those green lines should not have been there either, and their absence would have falsified this theory too, but alas it passed that test. I offered you a new way to falsify the model a week or so later. What can I do? I can only lead the horse to the water. I can't make him drink. I've given you a new way to falsify this model (again). It's up to you to decide if you want to check it out.

Nobody here seems to be the least bit willing to even try it out.
Click to expand...

(With apologies to Bertrand Russell)

The celestial teapot that I am sure I have observed orbiting the earth has a measurable spout. See! Here it is in this image! When the new telescope with the hi-res camera goes online, I predict that I will measure that spout to be 6 inches. Why can't your standard model predict the length of the spout? Huh? Huh? Victory is mine!
 
Michael Mozina said:
Could you elaborate for me how *I* have dodged anything? I provided you with images, numbers, a full explanation of how to verify my claims, everything. I made another "crazy" prediction about that "disk" in the RD image that GM can't see. I've been willing to stick out my neck at every turn and put this theory to the "test" in the SDO images too. Was it my fault I was right about the fact that the opaque math bunny claim was false? Is it my imagination there are green edges under that chromosphere?
Click to expand...


It's your imagination.

I have provided a full quantitative and qualitative explanation of the key elements of my "predictions". Nobody seems to care one iota that Birkeland's model passed the observation test and the SSM went down in green iron flames. Did I create that SDO image too? Did I doctor it in any way? Did I count pixels to verify the Kosovichev's Doppler numbers?
Click to expand...


Several serious problems and at least one lie in this. Your statement that some number of pixels represents some number of kilometers is not a quantitative explanation of anything. We have already determined in this thread, as well as several times in several places in the past, that your crackpot conjecture is not Birkeland's solar model. Kristian Birkeland didn't propose a solar model. You have not done an observation test. You stared at a picture and saw exactly what you wished to see. You don't even know where the gross errors are in your pixel counting, so you can't possibly be verifying anything. And Kosovichev's research shows plasma moving at several thousand kilometers per hour directly through the area that you claim is solid.

No, just "Viola", "patterns". How come those "patterns" are so persistent if the structures in the photosphere come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals? How come they all rotate uniformly in the north and south poles?
Click to expand...


The "patterns" you're seeing are not in the photosphere. They are an optical illusion created by the processing of thermal data which is gathered from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere.

Actually, that's all true, it's just happening underneath that dead opaque math bunny. The contours of the mass flows follow the contours of the iron surface. You can't really see the surface, you just see the flow lines of all the small loops that traverse the surface.
Click to expand...


You can't see a surface or anything traversing the surface. What you're seeing is a graph assembled from data taken from several thousand kilometers above where you claim the solid surface exists.

What exactly more can I tell you besides the fact that I agree that they related to light from the discharge filaments not the actual surface, they take place 4800km under that dead opaque math bunny, and the RD image at 171A in a long cadence will show you exactly where it is in relationship to the chromosphere along the limbs?
Click to expand...


No radiation is making its way up from 4800 kilometers into the photosphere. It's opaque below approximately 400 kilometers.

Holy cow! I can't make it any simpler to lop off my head again! I just barely survived that last "test" by the the green hairs of only 4800Km. I'm already sticking my neck out again making a new prediction related to the RD images that nobody seems to willing to even "put to the test"? What can I do to convince you if offering up my next "crazy" prediction will not suffice?

The fact I passed the green light exam on SDO should have made you do an about face instantly. Instead you want more. I gave you more. What more can I do? Are you going to try to falsify my claim, yes or no?
Click to expand...


You have not even thoroughly analyzed the image you claim supports your crackpot conjecture. Any test you may believe occurred you failed, for a variety of reasons not the least of which is your total and complete misunderstanding about what you're seeing in that SDO image. Your claim has been falsified by legitimate research that spans several branches of science. The solid iron surface you claim exists has been shown to be impossible.

Michael Mozina said:
The proof is in the RD images. I will never again be accused of fraud for producing a solar image. I'm done producing images. I'm into the "prediction" stage of the Birkeland solar model now. Other folks can try to verify or falsify those predictions at their leisure. I've done everything I can think of predicting here in this thread, starting with that *IMPOSSIBLE* and 'crackpot' claim of predicting those green light coming from under a dead opaque math bunny. That was by far the single most important prediction of this model and I have absolutely no more doubts about this solar model. It passed it's most important visual test in the first light images of SDO. The SSM necessarily went down in green flames. It had to be either/or and I even predicted the depth to a "sliver" in terms of quantification. Nailed it.
Click to expand...


Your qualifications to understand running difference imagery have been challenged and you have been wholly unable to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications. Any argument that you put forth that implies that you do is dishonest. Your web site contains dishonest and fraudulent information. Your crackpot conjecture is not Birkeland's solar model. For you to continue to argue that it is, is dishonest. You have made no predictions in a scientific sense. Your argument to the contrary is dishonest. It's your responsibility to support your claim. Your constant attempts to deflect that burden of proof is dishonest. And you are entirely wrong about the green line in that SDO image. It is dishonest of you to argue that is supports your crackpot conjecture.
 
GeeMack said:
The "patterns" you're seeing are not in the photosphere.
Click to expand...

Then the "disk" should be *OUTSIDE* of the photosphere, not *under* the chromosphere. Your opaque math bunny has a 4800Km disaster happening inside of it GM.

Ante up with your own number related to the size of the disk outline in relationship to the chromosphere, or go away. You're boring.
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
(With apologies to Bertrand Russell)

The celestial teapot that I am sure I have observed orbiting the earth has a measurable spout. See! Here it is in this image! When the new telescope with the hi-res camera goes online, I predict that I will measure that spout to be 6 inches. Why can't your standard model predict the length of the spout? Huh? Huh? Victory is mine!
Click to expand...

Huh?

All scientific theories are judged on how correctly they can "predict" something useful that we might then compare to "observation" (my court now). If they are correct, then they should be easily able to accept my generous offer of any disk size greater than the white light photosphere, and accept my teenie, weanie, tiny, impossible crackpot sliver prediction as a no brainer and ante up. Not one of them is willing to do so. Are you?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Then the "disk" should be *OUTSIDE* of the photosphere, not *under* the chromosphere. Your opaque math bunny has a 4800Km disaster happening inside of it GM.
Click to expand...


Your unqualified opinion about the SDO image is wrong. You do not know what the green strip means.

Ante up with your own number related to the size of the disk outline, or go away. You're boring.
Click to expand...


You have made an error in counting the pixels in what you believe to be the disk outline.

And my number, my quantitative prediction is as I've already stated, zero professional physicists on the entire planet will find your argument convincing. Zero is a number.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Hoy.

Well, anyone who goes back and reads this thread will find that I am the only human being alive (other than published team members) that "predicted" that green glow under the chromoshere. I even predicted a distance too based on Kosovichev's heliosiesmology data which I have also been debating now since the dawn of time (well, 4-5 years now).
Click to expand...
Hoy. A lie.
Your first post about the image was pointing at it and claiming a depth of ~78,000 km. You then retracted this for 4800 km.
Kosovichev's heliosiesmology data proves that your iron crust fantasy* does not exist because it has hot plasma flowing through it.

You arre also ignoring question (number 60 of 64 :eye-poppi !)
*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.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I'm sick and tired now of being called a crackpot, and crank, yada, yada, yada. I've provided plenty of "quantified" and testable predictions now for anyone and everyone to checkout for themselves. That's really the best I can do at the moment. What do you want, blood?
Click to expand...
You are called a crackpot and crank because you are one:
Are you aware that you are displaying the symptoms of a crank?

The actual answer to:
would be good. Since you have plenty of "quantified" and testable predictions it should be easy.

P.S. One thing that scientists do when they publish the predictions of their theories is show their working in enough detail so that other people can replicate the prediction. Remenber to do this.
 
Reality Check said:
You are called a crackpot and crank because you are one:
Are you aware that you are displaying the symptoms of a crank?

The actual answer to:
would be good. Since you have plenty of "quantified" and testable predictions it should be easy.

P.S. One thing that scientists do when they publish the predictions of their theories is show their working in enough detail so that other people can replicate the prediction. Remenber to do this.
Click to expand...

Real men do it with math RC.
 
What went wrong with your counting of pixels in the SDO image

Michael Mozina said:
Note that I predicted that 4800Km figure years ago based on the heliosiesmology data. They're struggling like hell now to figure out how to explain those images because they don't jive with their actual "predictions" at all.
Click to expand...
You did.
You also threw that 4800Km figure away based on yiour analysis of the green line in one SDO image (not in the other image :jaw-dropp!) fot 78,000 km. Then you retracted the assertion.

First asked 4 May 2010
Michael Mozina,
What went wrong with your counting of pixels in the SDO image?
 
Michael Mozina said:
GeeMack said:
Your unqualified opinion about the SDO image is wrong. You do not know what the green strip means.
Click to expand...

Then step up to the plate, put your own numbers on the table and be a man about it. Inside or outside the base of the chromosphere. Man or mouse?

It's such a simple "test", I'm certain you personally could it in your sleep!
Click to expand...


You do not understand what the green area in the SDO means. No test you can devise using that as a measurement could possibly be meaningful. This gross misunderstanding on your part demonstrates yet again that your arguments are wholly void of any semblance of legitimate science.

Have you ever figured out how many pixels are involved in your error in counting? I've mentioned it for several days now, ever since you started crowing about how the success of your claim hinges on the location of that green strip in the SDO image, and you've ignored it every time. Doesn't it concern you in the least that you're counting wrong?

Are you really going to admit that your crackpot conjecture has been shown to be false if that green line doesn't really separate the chromosphere from your alleged solid surface? I don't believe you will, and I don't think anyone else here believes it either.
 
FYI Ben, I have no idea why you got so flustered. I told you *A LONG* time ago that you were in the game and agreed you had put *YOUR* numbers on the table. At no time did that excuse these two from anything. I'm sorry that I managed to alienate you. That wasn't my intent. In retrospect I have been sloppy with terms like "no one", etc. I rescind all of that as it relates to you personally.
 
GeeMack said:
You do not understand what the green area in the SDO means.
Click to expand...

Then be a man, put your numbers on the table and let history decide. Your call.

Bluffing time is over. It's time to put your cards on the table and let the numbers speak for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Spock...

Can I put you down for pi * the diameter of the base of the chromosphere on the circumference?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
The be a man, put your numbers on the table and let history decide. Your call.

Bluffing time is over. It's time to put your cards on the table and let the numbers speak for themselves.
Click to expand...


You ignored the rest...

Have you ever figured out how many pixels are involved in your error in counting? I've mentioned it for several days now, ever since you started crowing about how the success of your claim hinges on the location of that green strip in the SDO image, and you've ignored it every time. Doesn't it concern you in the least that you're counting wrong?

Are you really going to admit that your crackpot conjecture has been shown to be false if that green line doesn't really separate the chromosphere from your alleged solid surface? I don't believe you will, and I don't think anyone else here believes it either.
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI Ben, I have no idea why you got so flustered. I told you *A LONG* time ago that you were in the game and agreed you had put *YOUR* numbers on the table. At no time did that excuse these two from anything. I'm sorry that I managed to alienate you. That wasn't my intent. In retrospect I have been sloppy with terms like "no one", etc. I rescind all of that as it relates to you personally.
Click to expand...

You alienated him by completely ignoring nearly everything he posted, despite the considerable time and effort he put into those posts.

Fortunately other readers of this thread (including me) learned quite a lot from them, so the effort wasn't wasted.
 
Ziggurat said:
:id:
Click to expand...

Ya, it is ironic that I am one of only two folks to put any numbers on the table, although i want to hear ben say that the outcome will be decided by the numbers.

It's absolutely amazing to me that I picked such a tiny little sliver of an impossible crackpot number yet everyone seems so squeamish about offering up their public position on the matter. Look folks, if I'm right, you'll come around sooner or later. If I'm wrong, you have a perfect way to falsify my model. What's the hold up? Got numbers Zig on the outline of the disk?
 
I'm coming in a little late on this one. Is he saying that the sun has a solid iron surface, or a mix of stuff that is mostly iron? Is the shape alone of this spherical shell of iron supposed to hold it up against gravitational collapse? I would think that the heat and pressure applied to a spherical, hollow iron shell would immediately rupture and dissolve it, causing the iron to sink into the core.
What mechanism do you propose that would both support a shell like this, and also prevent heat from causing it to lose its rigidity? How think would this shell have to be, and how does that measure up against the known mass of the sun?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom