Delusional "Science"
If I want to win over the long haul, I cannot afford to foolishly play into your mathematical strengths. I need you to eventually play into my strengths, specifically the power of “pure observation” in satellite imagery. This particular crew seems to have forgotten all about the need for observation and the role of observation in science. SDO has provided me with a truly golden opportunity to test my theory for real and to make my case, and I intend to “seize the day” to the best of my abilities.
I think perhaps this paragraph illustrates how seriously delusional is Mozina's approach to what he, and he alone, calls "science".
To begin with, there is no way that what Mozina is doing can be considered as "observation" in any serious sense of the word. He is not looking at
images, he is looking at
press release pictures, created by artists for visual impact. The pictures he is looking at are devoid of science data. No serious scientist would ever do what Mozina is doing, and
no serious scientist has ever done what Mozina is doing. As many have already pointed out
ad nauseam, Mozina cannot even tell the difference between a real 3 dimensional object and a flat 2 dimensional picture of same. One suspects he even adds Euclid to the long list of rejected "math bunnies" (see, e.g.,
Math Bunnies & Image Bunnies,
Science by Pretty Picture Fails Again II and a ream of posts from other users). It's bad enough when you think that literally everything in a science image is physically real (hint: it's not necessarily so), but when you actually believe that a press release image has no artifacts in it at all, then you are really "
out to lunch".
Second, his comment that "
This particular crew seems to have forgotten all about the need for observation and the role of observation in science" is directly falsified by the many references to real observation contained in posts in this and other threads. Indeed, it is Mozina who in fact rejects observation and its role in science. Mozina rejects direct observations of the X-ray limb of the sun which prove that the transition zone & chromosphere are unambiguously located above the photosphere (see, e.g.,
The Solar EUV Radius,
The Solar EUV Radius II). Mozina rejects direct observations which allow for the reconstruction of the photosphere & transition region temperature profiles, proving that the temperature increases with depth (see, e.g.,
Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible,
The Transition Region). In another thread, Mozina rejected controlled laboratory observations of magnetic reconnection in laboratory plasma (see, e.g.,
Comments on Magnetic Reconnection,
Comments on Magnetic Reconnection III,
Magnetic Reconnection Redux X). He does not examine or consider the content of the experiments or observations is any way. He rejects them at once, for the sole & single reason that they do not support his own subjective preconception. That is neither science by any stretch, nor is it even particularly intelligent.
Thirdly, we simply note in passing that Mozina rejects all things mathematical, which is an instantly fatal blunder to any allegedly scientific argument (see, e.g.,
Math Bunnies & Image Bunnies).
Finally, let us combine Mozina's pathological fear of mathematics with the intriguing concept introduced here of "pure observation". This may be shocking news for some of you, but
there is no such thing as a pure observation. Set aside for the moment that what Mozina does with his pretty pictures is not "observation" at all, pure or otherwise. Images returned from any spacecraft are not like pictures from the glory days of film, nor are they quite like the pictures that come out of your digital camera. This is especially the case for X-ray images, such as the SDO images Mozina uses, because the kind of direct optics and CCD systems that work for optical and infrared cameras don't work for beans with X-rays. X-ray telescopes require grazing incidence optics. The pixels and images made from them have to be assembled based on a
mathematical model of the observing instrument. The instrument actually measures currents induced by the incident photons. The currents are fit to a model that tells you what input energy will generate the kind of current you measure, which depends on calibration measurements and energy dependent amplification in the instrument. So even if you have a real live science data image, it was still created using math, it's not a simple point and shoot image.
The bottom line is that it is Mozina, and not "this particular crew" who explicitly rejects observation and its role in science. He always rejects observations contrary to his prejudice, and what he does definitely is not observation in any serious sense. It's a good thing Mozina likes to look at images, because unfettered imagination is the only thing he has to offer.
) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.