Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Been there. Done that. You didn't listen then any better than you're listening to sane, intelligent people correct your foolishness now.

What have you "corrected" about these images here in this thread now? You're acting like a child and avoiding the images entirely, just like a big chicken

Edited by Locknar:

Edited for breack of Rule 10

.

Quote:

We don't need a self professed expert. Dr. Neal Hurlburt says you're wrong. There likely isn't a higher level expert in solar imagery in the world. Let me repeat: Dr. Neal Hurlburt says you're wrong.

Oh, so one appeal to authority fallacy and I'm supposed to be impressed?

Quote:

I've explained the images in detail. Every single pixel. You can't get more detailed than that. Again, your lack of ability to understand that isn't anyone's fault but your own. But for you to say that nobody has explained them, or that I haven't explained them, makes you a liar.

You did not. You handwaved away and *ABSOLUTELY IGNORED* all the details in the images. Particles in the solar atmosphere? What particles in the atmosphere? Peeling on the right side? What peeling effect on the right side. You've never personally put any serious effort into explaining the details of the images, and you never even touched Kosovichev's video. Your just a thug and a zealot who has nothing to offer in terms of actual physics, or cause and effect relationships.

Quote:

And, one more time for the apparently reading impaired, your harebrained conjecture about the solid surface of the Sun isn't Electric Universe, Michael, and it's damned certain that it isn't a theory, so it really doesn't belong in this thread. If you'd like to discuss that craziness, start a thread on it.

Gee, you got hairbrained and crazy in the same paragraph. You must be so proud of yourself. Yawn. You guys really are a petty, ugly, and violent little cult. You aren't scientists. Scientists focus on observations and ideas not individuals. Scientists can agree to disagree without resorting to childish name calling. You're just sleazy, lazy and ignorant - by choice.

Please do not swear in posts, as stated in Rule 10 of your Membership Agreement.

Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:Locknar

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Completely wrong according to you or to me? I'm still waiting to see which of you (if anyone here) has the intestinal fortitude to actually sit down and explain these two images professionally and fully, down to the subtle details in each of the images. I'm looking to see you explain the *PROCESS* we observe in these images and the *CAUSES* behind these observations, down to the detailed observations in each image. You're welcome to include math if you like, but I mostly interested in hearing you physically explain these images in terms of cause, effect and specific detailed observation.

It's very clear that LMSAL *ASSUMES* that all the light in these images occur *completely* above the photosphere. How would you verify that *assumption*, and how do you explain the "persistence" and angular patterns (if you don't like rigid) of the features in that image?

Actually LMSAL dopes not assume that. The TRACE instruments just happen to be *DESIGNED* to that way:

Quote:

The Transition Region and Coronal Explorer is a NASA Small Explorer (SMEX) mission to image the solar corona and transition region at high angular and temporal resolution.

FYI (since it is unlikely that you know this) - The Sun's structure above the convective region is the photosphere, then the solar atmosphere consisting of these zones (going outwards):

• temperature minumum.
• chromosphere
• transition region
• corona
• heliosphere

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Actually LMSAL dopes not assume that. The TRACE instruments just happen to be *DESIGNED* to that way:

They are not. They are *designed* to pick up light from specific wavelengths, three of which are highly sensitive to iron ion emissions (other elements as well) and one of which is most sensitive to helium emissions. Period! We cannot even be absolutely sure which region of the sun we're looking at based only upon temperature, particularly in Birkeland's model. In his model the coronal loops discharge across the surface and rise high into the atmosphere around the globe. We could potentially observe the whole coronal loop, from the surface (solid in Birkeland's model) through the photosphere (in Birkeland's model) and high into the corona.

Ok, I'll bite, how do you know exactly where the base of the coronal loops are located based on the design of the equipment?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

They are not. They are *designed* to pick up light from specific wavelengths, three of which are highly sensitive to iron ion emissions (other elements as well) and one of which is most sensitive to helium emissions. Period!
...snipped usual Birkeland hero worship...

That is correct. The instruments are "*designed* to pick up light from specific wavelengths, three of which are highly sensitive to iron ion emissions (other elements as well) and one of which is most sensitive to helium emissions.".
It just so happens that those 3 wavelengths are not issued by the photosphere (as far as I know). They are issued by Fe ions in the corona.
Corona

Quote:

These spectral features have since been traced to highly ionized Iron (Fe-XIV) which indicates a plasma temperature in excess of 10^6 kelvin

TRACE has this caption for one of their images

Quote:

A major solar flare produced an arcade resembling a slinky. That flare has featured here before, but this time we are showing a set of composite images that shows the thermal evolution of the material. The X5.7 flare occurred at 10:03UT on 14 July 2000, in Active Region 9077, and was observed by TRACE in three colors: the red image shows the ultraviolet continuum, generally characteristic of cool, dense gas; the blue image shows the 171Å pass band, characteristic of material around 1 million degrees; the green channel shows material hotter than about 1.5 million degrees up to approximately 10 million degrees.

The temperature of the photosphere is ~6,000 K.

Thus the TRACE image you are obsessed with is of the emission from the corona's 1,000,000 K plasma. It is not of the emission from the photosphere's 6,000 K plasma.

As far as I know (and the above quote supports this) the photosphere is invisible in the 171Å pass band. But my knowledge of stellar physics is limited (I am honest unlike you) so a real astronomer may want to comment.

I also find it strange that NASA are so incompetent to create a "Transition Region and Coronal Explorer" and not design it to exclude extraneous data from the photosphere.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Michael Mozina: Have you read your own web site?
Di you know why the "mountain ranges" in your caption for the TRACE image is completely wrong?

Completely wrong according to you or to me?

Completely wrong according to your web site.
Read your web site and a few minutes of thought will tell you that describing the features of the TRACE AVI as "mountain ranges" is absurd.

If this is beyond you then here is a hint:
Mountain ranges have a basic property that excludes them from being imaged by TRACE even if they were at the 1,000,000 K that the 171Å pass band is sensitive to.

[Reality Check]

The TRACE web site has more information on the pass bands used in the instruments. The 173Å pass band (I assume that this is the 171Å pass band in their captions) has a width of 6.4Å and observed Fe IX at a temperture of 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The TRACE web site has more information on the pass bands used in the instruments. The 173Å pass band (I assume that this is the 171Å pass band in their captions) has a width of 6.4Å and observed Fe IX at a temperture of 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K.

So all we really know with our monocular view (one viewpoint) is that whatever we're looking at probably includes iron that is highly ionized and it could be anywhere in the atmosphere. Lightening bolts here on Earth do not restrict themselves to the upper atmosphere of Earth. If we were looking at a discharge event from far away, we could not and would not automatically *assume* that this process occurred high in the Earth's atmosphere. Furthermore, we know that coronal loops do not restrict themselves to a single point in the solar atmosphere. They rise up from the base of the loop, and at times they reach well into the corona. We can't simply *assume* however that the base of the coronal loops are located in the corona.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000...074/index.html

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Completely wrong according to your web site.
Read your web site and a few minutes of thought will tell you that describing the features of the TRACE AVI as "mountain ranges" is absurd.

Because it is ultimately a "running difference" image which shows change over time, and stability over time as well, it isn't absurd. That structure under Kosovichev's wave is significantly more "rigid" or "persistent" (if you prefer) than anything in the photosphere. Furthermore, we know that it is located *under* the photosphere because we can see the effect of the wave on the outline of the structure, yet that structure retains it's angular shape throughout the video. The same is true in the "physical objects" that create the reflection and emission patterns we observe in these RD images.

What we can be sure of however is that the coronal loops are generating the original photons that make up the original images. If we intend to discuss the various observations in the RD image, we all have to understand that the coronal loops are the only thing in the atmosphere that is hot enough to generate these 171A, 195A and 284A wavelengths. The plasma that emits this particular light *must be* at in the 1M to 2M degree range minimum. It also includes significant amounts of ionized iron throughout the length of the loop.

Quote:

If this is beyond you then here is a hint:
Mountain ranges have a basic property that excludes them from being imaged by TRACE even if they were at the 1,000,000 K that the 171Å pass band is sensitive to.

The mountain ranges do not emit this light. They simply reflect the light in specific geometric patterns and they retain a rigid outline that does not "change over time" at the same rate as plasma. Because the surface produces fixed and angular reflection patterns, we can ultimately see the outline of many of the surface features.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

That is correct. The instruments are "*designed* to pick up light from specific wavelengths, three of which are highly sensitive to iron ion emissions (other elements as well) and one of which is most sensitive to helium emissions.".
It just so happens that those 3 wavelengths are not issued by the photosphere (as far as I know).

Ok, so as far as we both know, the 6K degree plasma of the photosphere does not emit these wavelengths. We also know that coronal loops do emit these wavelengths so they are very hot, and they must contain iron ions within the loop, over the whole length of the loop. Some loops certainly reach far out into the corona, so the only remaining question is where these loops originate and terminate. We need to know if they begin above or below the photosphere. Watch that NASA animation and explain to me why you believe that the loops *must necessarily* originate above the photosphere.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Because it is ultimately a "running difference" image which shows change over time, and stability over time as well, it isn't absurd. That structure under Kosovichev's wave is significantly more "rigid" or "persistent" (if you prefer) than anything in the photosphere. Furthermore, we know that it is located *under* the photosphere because we can see the effect of the wave on the outline of the structure, yet that structure retains it's angular shape throughout the video. The same is true in the "physical objects" that create the reflection and emission patterns we observe in these RD images.

Except that it's been proven that you don't have the slightest idea what a running difference image is, how it's made, or what it's supposed to be showing. So your assessment is garbage.

[Tim Thompson]

Let's start here.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

How do you know Bruce was wrong about his theories about these high energy events?

Reference: http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
To start with, I simply note that Bruce does not mention gamma rays at all. So I have no idea what he thought they should look like, or even if he thought about it at all. Now, right at the top of the page Bruce says (emphasis mine) ... "The object is to show that all cosmic atmospheric phenomena can be explained as deriving from electrical discharges, resulting from the breakdown of electric fields generated by the asymmetrical impacts between dust particles, such as are effective in terrestrial electrical sand and dust storms and in thunderstorms." What, exactly is the bolded phrase supposed to mean? Does it mean literally everything that happens in the atmosphere? or does it mean only electromagnetic things that happen in the atmosphere? Or perhaps "cosmic" is supposed to refer to connections between processes in the atmosphere and processes in space? I find Bruce's very first sentence rather cryptic.

But clearly he thinks that the same dust mechanism is at the root of the sun's electrical activity, because he says so: (emphasis mine again) ... "It is thus fortunate that we are able to see the details of the sun's atmospheric structure in sunspots, and verify that it conforms to the picture which the discharge theory had led us to expect; that is, a general background atmospheric temperature of around 4,000°K in which electric fields can be built up by asymmetrical impacts between solid particles, just as occurs in terrestrial sand and dust storms and in the ejectamenta above volcanoes."

In answer to your question, I know that Bruce is wrong because his proposed mechanism for generating electric charge is not physically possible. The maximum temperature that dust grains ("solid particles") can survive is about 2000 Kelvins, half of Bruce's optimistically low 4000 Kelvin background temperature. At photospheric temperatures solid particles would be smashed apart by the high speed collisions, or broken apart by the high ultraviolet photon flux. So I will say that Bruce's hypothesis is simply impossible.

Now let us go on.

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Nobody is arguing that electric currents cannot generate gamma rays. Nobody is arguing that electric currents are not responsible for some of the observed gamma rays.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Why aren't you acknowledging that it is one known and verified way to generate gamma rays around bodies in space, and therefore the most likely way the sun generates them in it's atmosphere as well?

I do acknowledge that it is one known and verified way to generate gamma rays. But there are other known and verified ways to generate gamma rays too, so why not acknowledge them as well? It is not reasonable to simply assume that all or most of the gamma rays are generated by one and only one mechanism, that's the process of trying to force nature to bow to our pre-conceptions. Rather, the reasonable thing to do is look at the gamma rays and let them tell you, by their physical characteristics (line width & line shape, band center & band width, spectral energy distribution, relative line strengths & etc.) how they were generated. Let nature lead the investigation, not prejudice.

When we do that we find that the sun generates gamma rays from all manner of sources. There is of course the ubiquitous e^-/e⁺ annihilation line at 511 keV, the neutron capture line at 2.223 MeV, nuclear de-excitation line emission from C, O, Ne, Mg, Si, and Fe, as well as bremsstrahlung from accelerated electrons. The bremsstrahlung is the component that you would assign to "electric discharge", since the narrow line emission obviously is not.

Electric discharge, as I understand the words, is not physically reasonable. In order to have "electric discharge", you have to mechanically separate charges to build up a strong electric field (that's what Bruce tries to do). Then you get breakdown and discharge arcs. Then you have to do it all over again. It's pretty hard to tell the difference between that scenario and a perpetual motion machine. If the energy we see is all supposed to come from the discharges, then where does the energy come from, and what is the mechanism, that produces charge separation in the first place? And since you are separating charges in an electrically conductive environment, how do you prevent quick discharge, and manage to build up strong electric fields?

It makes far better physical sense to realize that magnetic reconnection will transfer a great deal of kinetic energy directly to the plasma, and that Faraday's Law will also generate strong (but temporary) electric fields as a result of the ubiquitous and unavoidable dynamo magnetic fields in the photosphere. This completely avoids all of the physical difficulties related to discharge mechanisms, is all completely consistent with known basic physics, and is all completely consistent with the wide variety of observed properties of the sun.

In short, the mainstream models work well and make physical sense, whereas the electrical discharge mechanism does not work and does not make physical sense. Hence, unless you can come up with far stronger arguments than you have managed to muster thus far, I will stick to the mainstream.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

So all we really know with our monocular view (one viewpoint) is that whatever we're looking at probably includes iron that is highly ionized and it could be anywhere in the atmosphere. Lightening bolts here on Earth do not restrict themselves to the upper atmosphere of Earth. If we were looking at a discharge event from far away, we could not and would not automatically *assume* that this process occurred high in the Earth's atmosphere. Furthermore, we know that coronal loops do not restrict themselves to a single point in the solar atmosphere. They rise up from the base of the loop, and at times they reach well into the corona. We can't simply *assume* however that the base of the coronal loops are located in the corona.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000...074/index.html

You still do not get it.
The 173Å pass band used in the TRACE instrument has a width of 6.4Å and observed Fe IX at a temperture of 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K.
Fe IX is generally present in the corona, not just in coronal loops.
The photosphere is too cool to be detected in the 173Å pass band.

Therefore the TRACE image is of activity in the corona - the activity leading up to a coronal mass ejection.
It is not an image of the photosphere.

One more time:
The 173Å pass band is use so that radiation from the surface of the Sun is *NOT* detected.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

...snipped dumb stuff...
The mountain ranges do not emit this light. They simply reflect the light in specific geometric patterns and they retain a rigid outline that does not "change over time" at the same rate as plasma. Because the surface produces fixed and angular reflection patterns, we can ultimately see the outline of many of the surface features.

Your ignorance is showing yet again .
There are no mountain ranges and the light detected is not reflected.

Since it is obvious that you are not actually thinking about running difference imagery, I will put you out of your misery of ignorance:
Do what NASA does to create running difference images.

1. Take a photo of a mountain range.
2. Take another photo of a mountain range.
3. Subtract the first image from the second image. The result is the first image in the running difference AVI.
4. Continue taking photos and subtracting the previous photo.

Guess what vanishes from the first and subsequent images? The mountain range!

Running difference imagery for some reason only shows running differences!
What you see in the TRACE running difference AVI are changes in the radiation observed 173Å pass band. Any persistent structures are removed by the processing.

What you think are "mountain ranges" are actually regoins in the corona that are changing tempertaure from one frame of the AVI to another. They look structured because (I think) the temperture changes are caused by magnetic fields in the corona.

Simple enough for you?

Summary:

• No "mountain ranges" in the TRACE running difference images.
• The 173Å pass band is incapable of detecting radiation from the surface of the sun or below.
• The 173Å pass band is detecting radiation from transition region and corona.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You still do not get it.
The 173Å pass band used in the TRACE instrument has a width of 6.4Å and observed Fe IX at a temperture of 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K.

And that tells us that coronal loops reach those temperatures. We are still left with the question of whether the coronal loops start above or below the photosphere.

Quote:

Fe IX is generally present in the corona, not just in coronal loops.

The loops are the primary emitters of these wavelengths, and Thompson scattering takes place in the solar atmosphere. The corona is thinner and hotter than the photosphere, but that still says nothing about the location of the base of the loops. The Earth's atmosphere is much cooler than the Sun's atmosphere, but discharges in the Earth's atmosphere can heat plasma in the atmosphere to very high temperatures. Just because the temperature of the photosphere is 6K does not mean that discharges below the photosphere cannot heat plasma to millions of degrees. You can't simply *assume* these emissions can *only* come from the corona.

Quote:

The photosphere is too cool to be detected in the 173Å pass band.

Sure, but z-pinched filaments inside that photosphere can and do reach millions of degrees. Even with NASA and LMSAL there is debate about where these loops originate and where they become visible. This animation demonstrates that these "loops" often begin far below the photosphere.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000...074/index.html

You seem to assume that a hot loop cannot reside inside a relatively cooler plasma. Take a look at an ordinary plasma ball and you will see that this is not so. The electron temperatures can be OOM's higher than the ambient plasma temperature.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

And that tells us that coronal loops reach those temperatures. We are still left with the question of whether the coronal loops start above or below the photosphere.
...snipped derail into coronal loops and z-pinches...

No loops are needed. The transition zone and corona plasma are at temperatures of over 100,000 K. The 173Å pass band only includes radiation from plasma at a tempertaure of between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K.

Thus anyone with 2 brain cells can see that detectors using the 173Å pass band

1. Can only see light emitted from plasma from the transition zone and corona.
2. Cannot see light emitted from anything witk a temperature less than 160,000 K, i.e. cannot see the surface of the Sun (FYI: photosphere).

On second thoughts coronal loops may be relevant.

Quote:

Coronal loops populate both active and quiet regions of the solar surface. Active regions on the solar surface take up small areas but produce the majority of activity and are often the source of flares and Coronal Mass Ejections due to the intense magnetic field present

(emphasis added)
The TRACE running difference AVI includes a CME. Your "mountain ranges" could be the temperature changes in coronal loops that are the source of that CME.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Your ignorance is showing yet again .

Do you guys *always* feel the need to posture in every post? It gets old.

Quote:

There are no mountain ranges and the light detected is not reflected.

Yes there are, yes it is.

Quote:

Since it is obvious that you are not actually thinking about running difference imagery, I will put you out of your misery of ignorance:

FYI, to do that, you would need to actually deal with some of the real details of these images (like the plasma particles, peeling, ect), which of course none of you have actually done and probably never will do.

Quote:

Do what NASA does to create running difference images.

1. Take a photo of a mountain range.
2. Take another photo of a mountain range.
3. Subtract the first image from the second image. The result is the first image in the running difference AVI.
4. Continue taking photos and subtracting the previous photo.

Guess what vanishes from the first and subsequent images? The mountain range!

Well that depends. The sun (and any mountains on it) rotates between images, so you're generally left with an outline of the mountain. If the lighting changes on the mountain from one image to the next, you'll also see patterns caused by these lighting changes. Coronal loops are rather dynamic and rarely stay "fixed" either in terms of position or in terms of light output.

Quote:

Running difference imagery for some reason only shows running differences!

Sure, and it can also show the outline of consistent (persistent), features where light intensity varies from one image to the next.

Quote:

What you see in the TRACE running difference AVI are changes in the radiation observed 173Å pass band. Any persistent structures are removed by the processing.

Again, there are many factors in play here, and the sun's atmosphere is highly dynamic. What you're saying is technically (factually) correct *IF* (and only if) all factors stayed completely consistent from one image to the next. Since that is never the case, it's never that simple.

Quote:

What you think are "mountain ranges" are actually regoins in the corona that are changing tempertaure from one frame of the AVI to another.

What makes you think that the base of these loops originate in the corona? The temperature is not changing by the way, it's the light reflections that vary as the loops themselves vary.

Quote:

They look structured because (I think) the temperture changes are caused by magnetic fields in the corona.

There are in fact temperature variations from one image to the next, but only in the loops themselves. The lighting variations and movement of objects however can change and therefore things in the image can change. That "dust' (for lack of better term) that blows around in the atmosphere after the CME event is one such example.

Quote:

Simple enough for you?

I'm afraid it's OVERLY simplistic and your "explanation" addresses none of the actual details in this specific image.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Your ignorance is showing yet again .
There are no mountain ranges and the light detected is not reflected.

Since it is obvious that you are not actually thinking about running difference imagery, I will put you out of your misery of ignorance:
Do what NASA does to create running difference images.

1. Take a photo of a mountain range.
2. Take another photo of a mountain range.
3. Subtract the first image from the second image. The result is the first image in the running difference AVI.
4. Continue taking photos and subtracting the previous photo.

Guess what vanishes from the first and subsequent images? The mountain range!

Running difference imagery for some reason only shows running differences!
What you see in the TRACE running difference AVI are changes in the radiation observed 173Å pass band. Any persistent structures are removed by the processing.

What you think are "mountain ranges" are actually regoins in the corona that are changing tempertaure from one frame of the AVI to another. They look structured because (I think) the temperture changes are caused by magnetic fields in the corona.

Simple enough for you?

No, it's not. Michael labors under a fundamental misunderstanding of what a running difference image is. And no matter how simple or how complicated an explanation might be, he absolutely refuses to get it. It's been explained to him in depth, how the images are created, what they mean, how they aren't what he thinks they are. But you see, if he were to actually allow himself to understand, his whole delusion would come crashing down. Then he wouldn't be Mr. Science Hero, smarter than all scientists who have come before him (except Birkeland). He will forever remain in his own mind Michael Mozina, discoverer of the astrophysical Truth.

He'll ask why there are mountains in the image. We'll tell him there aren't. He'll demand we look again, closer, longer, try harder. He'll remind us that he's looked at the picture for hours, nay years! He'll tell us if we look long enough we'll see the mountains, too. We'll tell him again they're not mountains. He'll ask us why he sees mountains. We'll postulate that it's because he's mentally ill. Then he'll cry like a little girl, swear, moan, and generally treat everyone like crap. Then he'll start over. He'll eventually post literally thousands of times denying reality and claiming that everyone else has a problem because we don't buy into his delusion. It's actually rather pathetic.

As long as he wallows deep in the mire of his willful ignorance, he can proclaim victory over science. Believe me, you will never get him to understand how simple it is. In fact, the delusion is so strong in him that he will lie to avoid escaping it. He will staunchly declare that nobody has ever addressed the issue of his sacred images, even though it's been done time and time again. Grade school kids get it. Michael never will.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Do you guys *always* feel the need to posture in every post? It gets old.

It is not old when you display your ignorance with just about every post

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Well that depends. The sun (and any mountains on it) rotates between images, so you're generally left with an outline of the mountain. If the lighting changes on the mountain from one image to the next, you'll also see patterns caused by these lighting changes. Coronal loops are rather dynamic and rarely stay "fixed" either in terms of position or in terms of light output.

Look at the AVI. Do the "mountain ranges" in the corona drift through it?
They do not. NASA is not dumb enough to ignore the rotation of the Sun when they take images of corona.

Can you give a citation to the paper that states that the TRACE detector detects reflected light rather than emitted light? What about a textbook?


And...
Your ignorance is showing yet again Micheal Mozina .
Your "and any mountains on it" comment is so ignorant that it is not even wrong. You know that the 173Å pass band only includes radiation from plasma at a temperature of between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K, i.e. the temperatures of the transition zone and corona plasma.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

There are in fact temperature variations from one image to the next, but only in the loops themselves. The lighting variations and movement of objects however can change and therefore things in the image can change. That "dust' (for lack of better term) that blows around in the atmosphere after the CME event is one such example.

Then you agree - the "mountain ranges" in the corona are temperature changes in the coronal loops.

Only a crackpot would ignore the actual science used in constructing the running difference images and see "mountain ranges".

Only an ignorant crackpot would place these "mountain ranges" in the photosphere when the 173Å pass band only includes radiation from plasma at a temperature of between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K, i.e. the temperatures of the transition zone and corona plasma.

Only a really ignorant crackpot would think that the the light being detected is reflected rather than emitted light.

[Reality Check]

Hi GeeMac. Could you give some links to the posts where running difference images were explained to Micheal.

That way I do not need to go over old material
On the other hand it is so interesting showing just how much a crackpot Micheal Mozina is.
On another hand it is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel! He provides shch easy material to work with.

[Reality Check]

Michael Mozina:
First asked on 23rd June. 2009.
No real response yet (25th June 2009 and counting).
How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?

• galaxy rotation curves (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
• the motion of galxies in galactic clusters (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
• the actual measurement of the mass density of galactic clusters showing that about 2% is in the galaxies and IGM (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, indirect measurement)
• the two actual measurements of the separation of dark matter from normal matter:
  • NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (Bullet Cluster)
  • another observation (MACS J0025.4-1222)
    (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, direct measurements of the separation of dark and normal matter)
• A bit of supporting evidence is that the Millennium Run used the Lambda-CDM model to replicate the large-scale structure of the universe. CDM = Cold Dark Matter.

N.B. The above evidence is based on empirical data (as defined in MM's web site, e.g. the solar data and images which are from uncontrolled experiments).
Newtonian dynamics have been confirmed in controlled experiments.
Maxwell's equations have been confirmed in controlled experiments.
General Relativity has been confirmed in controlled experiments.

So far we have seen

• Michael Mozina's usual inability to understand what empirical means with his "empirical measurments of an *CONTROLLED* experiment" nonsense.
• His personal opinion that somehow astronomers have underestimated the visible mass of galaxies. That would have to by a factor of 50 or more.

The last point demands more questions:
First asked 25 June 2009:
Would you like to explain how the astronomers got the mass so wrong, e.g.

• What visible matter are they not accounting for?
• How is the mass of the visible matter they are accounting for measured incorrectly?
• Is the Sun two times heavier than orbital mechanics say that it is? 10 times? 50 times? 100 times? Or greater?

Perhaps this just your personal opinion unsupported by any empirical evidence just because you cannot understand the evidence for dark matter?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Hi GeeMac. Could you give some links to the posts where running difference images were explained to Micheal.

That way I do not need to go over old material
On the other hand it is so interesting showing just how much a crackpot Micheal Mozina is.
On another hand it is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel! He provides shch easy material to work with.

Oh, man. You asked for it. This has been going on for years, since 2002 at least. Here's a compendium, a virtual cornucopia of Michael's "Surface of the Sun" antics. Of particular interest are the discussions about running difference images in the material on the Skeptic Friends Network (bottom of the list of links below). That is just one of several places where the concept of running difference images was explained in great depth. You'll also see where Michael completely folded as he demanded that everyone else explain the images, which I did in detail, yet he was wholly incapable of explaining them himself. It's tedious, but humorous, too, in a pathetic sort of way.

On this page at SFN, (and the pages that follow, and at several other places in that ridiculously long conversation) I offered Michael the opportunity to help us understand the meaning of the image, how we could determine the height of the mountains and depth of the valleys. His world class evasion technique shone through in style. Yes, he weaseled. He didn't have the stuff. Shortly after, he abandoned his participation there, slinked away utterly defeated.

Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum...

8 pages, 30 posts per page...

Michael Mozina's 'Sun has a solid surface' idea

13 pages, 30 posts per page...

ATM site claims Sun's surface is solid

14 pages, 30 posts per page...

Sun Is Mostly Iron, Not Hydrogen

12 pages, 30 posts per page...

Does Lockheed Martin Understand Black Body Radiation?

Sockpuppet: ManInTheMirror - 4 pages, 30 posts per page...

ManInTheMirror's claims concerning a BAUT conspiracy

Sockpuppet: ManInTheMirror - 36 pages, 30 posts per page...

Current theory is no scientifically "better than" plasma cosmology.

Einstein@Home forum at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee...

How the sun shines

Over 3,000 postings over at the Skeptic Friends Network...

Surface of the Sun

[Reality Check]

Wow - thank you GeeMack!

For any interested lurkers:
You may have thought that Michael Mozina was being unfairly labeled as a crackpot (or even a crank) in this forum. Have a peek at these links.
IMHO calling him a crackpot is a compliment !

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

It is not old when you display your ignorance with just about every post

You and Geemack seem to have a need to be personally insulting in every single post? Why is that? The only one displaying their ignorance around here is you, starting with the fact you ignored *EVERY SINGLE IMPORTANT DETAIL* in the image. More importantly you have *NOT ADDRESSED MY KEY POINT*. You cannot know for a fact that what you observe is located in the corona. All you know for sure is that it comes for plasma that is OOM's hotter than the photosphere, just as discharges in the Earth's atmosphere heat plasma in the atmosphere to very high temps. That's all you know based on the "design" of the equipment. You cannot just *ASSUME* that every photon you observe comes from the corona.

Quote:

Look at the AVI.

I've spent hours if not days and weeks looking at that image making sure I could explain the various details of that image.

Quote:

Do the "mountain ranges" in the corona drift through it?

That is *NOT* an image of the *ONLY* the corona. You keep *ASSUMING* something you have not and cannot demonstrate.

Quote:

They do not. NASA is not dumb enough to ignore the rotation of the Sun when they take images of corona.

Nobody accused NASA of being dumb and I'm quite aware that this image is centered and chopped.

Quote:

Can you give a citation to the paper that states that the TRACE detector detects reflected light rather than emitted light? What about a textbook?

How would TRACE differentiate one type of photon (reflected vs direct emission) from another?

Quote:

And...
Your ignorance is showing yet again Micheal Mozina .

Wow, you got in the ignorance thing twice and yet you *STILL* haven't tackled a single detail of the image. When you can't respond, you just ridicule, is that it?

Quote:

Your "and any mountains on it" comment is so ignorant that it is not even wrong. You know that the 173Å pass band only includes radiation from plasma at a temperature of between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K, i.e. the temperatures of the transition zone and corona plasma.

You are still not listening or at least your are not comprehending what I am saying. I've been clear that the light source is the coronal loops, not the crust. Light reflection *patterns* can be observed from the crust, but nobody is claiming that the surface itself emits these photons! Wake up. Listen to my explanation so that at least you *UNDERSTAND* it before you start ridiculing it. It would be helpful to see you pick some of the various details of that image and explain them.

Quote:

Only a crackpot would ignore the actual science used in constructing the running difference images and see "mountain ranges".

Oh, and you got in the crackpot adhom too. Gee, I would never have predicted this sort of behavior.

Quote:

Only an ignorant crackpot

Wow, ignorance and crackpot in the same sentence! You really must be incapable of explaining *ANY* of details in that image or you would just do so. Instead it seems as though all you've got are insults. Yawn. If and when you or anyone else bothers to explain the image, down to the subtle details in *that* image, you'll continue to bore me and you will certainly never convince me that you have a clue what you're talking about. In fact it is very clear from these conversations that you do not understand these images well enough to explain the details in the image which is exactly why you've resorted to pure insults, and you hope like hell nobody notices you didn't once address a single detail in the image. I noticed.

The more time that goes by while none of you step up to the plate and start explaining the details of the image, the more it becomes quite clear to me that you simply can't do it.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Wow - thank you GeeMack!

For any interested lurkers:
You may have thought that Michael Mozina was being unfairly labeled as a crackpot (or even a crank) in this forum. Have a peek at these links.
IMHO calling him a crackpot is a compliment !

Ya, like you actually had the time to go through and read and absorb any of those links.......

You folks are pathetic. You're ignorant and you remain that way intentionally by *NOT* reading the actual materials suggested, or responding to it intentionally and then simply parroting your current belief set. How very sad. I didn't think *anyone* could rival GeeMac for pure ignorance and arrogance and childish insults, but you're definitely right up there. You two are peas in a pod.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

...snip...
That is *NOT* an image of the *ONLY* the corona. You keep *ASSUMING* something you have not and cannot demonstrate.

NASA did not assume anything and can demonstrate that the TRACE detector is detecting activity in the corona.

The surface of the Sun is at a temperature between 4500 and 6000 K(photosphere).
An instrument that cannot detect radiation from plasma (or a chunk of iron) with a temperature between 4500 and 6000 K will not see the photosphere. The surface of the Sun will be invisible to such an instrument.

If you disagree with this statement then point out the physical reason why a detector that cannot detect light from the photosphere will detect light from the photosphere.

The 171A pass band of the TRACE detector detects radiation from plasma with a temperature between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K.

A couple of simple question for Michael Mozina just requiring a yes or no answer (not that we are going to get yes or no!):
Does the photosphere (surface of the Sun) have a temperature between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K?

Is the accepted temperature of the photosphere (6000 K) between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K?



And in case you are ignoring what the TRACE instrument actually does (or have forgotten how to read or follow links), here is the information from the TRACE (LMSAL) web site.
Here is the TRACE mission web site. This includes a page on the TRACE instrument. The TRACE instrument detects light in various pass bands. Here is the TRACE instrument pass bands web page:

Quote:

Here is the actual pass band.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Ya, like you actually had the time to go through and read and absorb any of those links.......

You folks are pathetic. You're ignorant and you remain that way intentionally by *NOT* reading the actual materials suggested, or responding to it intentionally and then simply parroting your current belief set. How very sad. I didn't think *anyone* could rival GeeMac for pure ignorance and arrogance and childish insults, but you're definitely right up there. You two are peas in a pod.

Since GeeMack demonstrates clear sceintific reasoning I take "peas in a pod" as a compliment.

Thanks Michael

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You and Geemack seem to have a need to be personally insulting in every single post? Why is that? The only one displaying their ignorance around here is you, starting with the fact you ignored *EVERY SINGLE IMPORTANT DETAIL* in the image. More importantly you have *NOT ADDRESSED MY KEY POINT*. You cannot know for a fact that what you observe is located in the corona. All you know for sure is that it comes for plasma that is OOM's hotter than the photosphere, just as discharges in the Earth's atmosphere heat plasma in the atmosphere to very high temps. That's all you know based on the "design" of the equipment. You cannot just *ASSUME* that every photon you observe comes from the corona.

Methods for determining the source location of the images were discussed in depth in some of your earlier conversations on other forums. Reality Check just described another way. That you aren't able to understand isn't anyone else's fault.

Quote:

I've spent hours if not days and weeks looking at that image making sure I could explain the various details of that image.

And you're still wrong. And you still aren't able to explain the images in a way that normal, same people can understand.

Quote:

That is *NOT* an image of the *ONLY* the corona. You keep *ASSUMING* something you have not and cannot demonstrate.

It's been demonstrated.

Quote:

Wow, you got in the ignorance thing twice and yet you *STILL* haven't tackled a single detail of the image. When you can't respond, you just ridicule, is that it?

Every single pixel of the image has been explained. You can't get any more detailed than that.

Quote:

You are still not listening or at least your are not comprehending what I am saying. I've been clear that the light source is the coronal loops, not the crust. Light reflection *patterns* can be observed from the crust, but nobody is claiming that the surface itself emits these photons! Wake up. Listen to my explanation so that at least you *UNDERSTAND* it before you start ridiculing it. It would be helpful to see you pick some of the various details of that image and explain them.

It would be helpful for you to pick some details of the image and explain them. And please do so in a way that can be understood by other people. After all this time you have yet to convince anyone that you're correct. So you must be missing something crucial in your method explanation.

Quote:

Oh, and you got in the crackpot adhom too. Gee, I would never have predicted this sort of behavior.

It's not an ad hominem. He's not saying you're wrong because you're a crackpot. That would be an ad hominem. He's saying you're a crackpot because you're so very wrong and so insistent that you're right. Because you've invented your own brand of totally distorted science and you make up your own definitions for terms, by the very definition of the word, you're a crackpot.

Quote:

Wow, ignorance and crackpot in the same sentence! You really must be incapable of explaining *ANY* of details in that image or you would just do so. Instead it seems as though all you've got are insults. Yawn. If and when you or anyone else bothers to explain the image, down to the subtle details in *that* image, you'll continue to bore me and you will certainly never convince me that you have a clue what you're talking about. In fact it is very clear from these conversations that you do not understand these images well enough to explain the details in the image which is exactly why you've resorted to pure insults, and you hope like hell nobody notices you didn't once address a single detail in the image. I noticed.

And every time you claim that the details of your pretty pictures haven't been thoroughly explained you're lying. Your very own history of discussions on various forums supports this.

Quote:

The more time that goes by while none of you step up to the plate and start explaining the details of the image, the more it becomes quite clear to me that you simply can't do it.

Seems everyone but you has explained the images, or is happy with the explanations offered by others. Care to take a stab at it yourself, Michael?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

NASA did not assume anything and can demonstrate that the TRACE detector is detecting activity in the corona.

You can't *ASSUME* ASSUME, *AAAAAAASSSSSUUUUMMMMEEEE* that! The Earth's atmosphere is relatively cool, but discharges in the Earth's atmosphere emit gamma and x-rays. You can't assume you only observe *A* specific part of the solar atmosphere, particularly in Birkeland's solar model where discharge "arcs" go from point to point across the surface, but rise far into the atmosphere. You can't just *ASSUME* all parts of the coronal loops are in the corona. The footprints could begin far below the photosphere as that NASA animation demonstrates.

Quote:

The surface of the Sun is at a temperature between 4500 and 6000 K(photosphere).

Just because parts of the photosphere are relatively cool, you can't know for a fact that *all* parts are cool. You can't claim that just because the temperature of the atmosphere of Earth is relatively low that those gamma and x-rays could not have come from plasma near the Earth's crust.

Quote:

An instrument that cannot detect radiation from plasma (or a chunk of iron) with a temperature between 4500 and 6000 K will not see the photosphere. The surface of the Sun will be invisible to such an instrument.

I agree. I'm not suggesting this is the case. Only *ELECTRIFIED* (current carrying) plasma will emit these wavelengths in the solar atmosphere. The surface might reflect a few photons that might be "averaged" (not necessarily differenced) into images, but even I assume most of the photons come from discharge loops in the atmosphere not the surface itself. Parts of the surface are "ripped from" the surface, as that peeling in the image demonstrates, but only when it's electrically ionized will it emit those particular photons. There are also large *and* small discharge loops and many more "small" ones near the surface than larger ones that reach into the corona. These small loops follow the terrain and also can be observed in averaged and even difference images.

Quote:

If you disagree with this statement then point out the physical reason why a detector that cannot detect light from the photosphere will detect light from the photosphere.

The only way that it will detect light from the photosphere is if it has an electrified "z-pinch" filament running through that particular part of the photosphere. The loops however originate far *below* the photosphere and can be seen below the photosphere. The photosphere is a very thin layer of light plasma and it does not emit nor absorb a lot these particular wavelengths, whereas it tends to absorb more x-rays as the trace/yohkoh composite image demonstrates.

Quote:

The 171A pass band of the TRACE detector detects radiation from plasma with a temperature between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K.

And in an "intellectually honest" manner, what is the most likely "cause" of plasma being heated to those temperatures? In other words, what known force of nature heats plasma to extreme temperatures in the Earth's atmosphere?

The rest of this post seems like a repeat so I'll stop here and let you think about my response.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Seems everyone but you has explained the images, or is happy with the explanations offered by others. Care to take a stab at it yourself, Michael?

Name a single detail that is observable in the image that you or anyone here actually "explained"?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Methods for determining the source location of the images were discussed in depth in some of your earlier conversations on other forums. Reality Check just described another way. That you aren't able to understand isn't anyone else's fault.

Just because you personally *ASSUME* loops are invisible until they reach the photosphere does not mean that they are in fact not visible under the photosphere. NASA has a nice animation for you of how they come from underneath the photosphere and erupt into the corona.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000...074/index.html

The base of these loops originate *FAR BELOW* the photosphere.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Every single pixel of the image has been explained. You can't get any more detailed than that.

You are completely deluded. You haven't touched a single specific detail of the image nor has anyone else in this forum, let alone touched that image from Kosovichev and that "persistent feature" I circled for you. You're evidently incapable of engaging in honest dialog.

[Tim Thompson]

As is usually the case for discussions like this there are too many simultaneous topics. Really, each topic should have its own thread just to avoid confusion. But that won't happen.

But I did note a page or 2 back that there was a brief and unsettled discussion on the claim that the rings of Saturn are primarily plasma as opposed to simple ice & rock (mostly ice). We know now as a matter of fact that the rings of Saturn are not plasma and are not dominated by plasma. The only phenomenon associated with the rings that can be vaguely associated with plasma are the "spokes" discovered by the Voyager spacecraft.

And since we are very image oriented in this thread, I will present here a series of images which falsify the rather fanciful notion that the rings of Saturn are a "self luminous" plasma.

First, I draw your attention to Cassini images PIA08362 and PIA08361. These two spectacular images show the shadow of Saturn across the rings. If the rings were plasma, and shined with their own light, rather than simply reflected light, then they should not be invisible in the images. But they are.

Another set of revealing images: PIA08992, PIA08267, PIA08248 and PIA08247. These images all show a specular reflection of the sun off the rings. Plasma rings will not show specular reflection, but ice rings will and do.

See image PIA08735. This image shows a composite, as well as the 3 individual images of the rings at the wavelengths 1.3, 2.4 & 5.1 microns. The rings are brightest at 2.4 microns, where one expects the maximum reflection of sunlight from the icy rings. The rings are visible, but not bright, at 1.3 microns, where reflection of sunlight will be weaker. The rings are invisible at 5.1 microns, where water ice is a strong absorber of sunlight, and should reflect essentially none at all. This multiband image is consistent with icy rings and is not consistent with plasma rings of any kind.

See images PIA03561 and PIA03562. These images show the temperature of the rings as a function of sun angle for both the sunlit & unlit faces of the rings. They show the obvious effect of increased & decreased insolation. No plasma ring system could ever look like this, but an icy ring system must look like this. And see PIA07008, a thermal image of the planet and rings at 17.65 microns. Here the rings rotate clockwise around the planet and you can see that they warm up (brighten) as the ring particles move out of the planet shadow and into sunlight. Plasma will not do that but ice will.

See PIA08356. Here you can download a movie of the rings, as seen from Cassini, as the spacecraft passes the ring plane and moves from the sunlit to the unlit face of the rings. A self luminous plasma will look the same as seen from either side. But not so particles, which will make the sunlit side of the rings look distinctly (and predictably) different from the unlit side, the difference between back-scattered and forward-scattered light. The movie clearly shows the strong difference expected from icy rings.

The rings of Saturn that we see are not a plasma. They cannot be a plasma, that's obvious. But Saturn does have a plasma ring, not unlike the belts of charged particles that encircle Earth. That plasma ring is visible in image PIA10094. The real plasma ring lies about 5 times farther from Saturn than do the visible, icy rings. Of course it does not shine with a visible light (one would not expect any realistic plasma ring to shine anyway because of the high temperature required for it to do so). This image is a map of the ring, constructed using data from the magnetospheric imaging instruments on Cassini.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Quote:

An instrument that cannot detect radiation from plasma (or a chunk of iron) with a temperature between 4500 and 6000 K will not see the photosphere. The surface of the Sun will be invisible to such an instrument.

I agree. I'm not suggesting this is the case.
...snip...

Then why does your web site claim that images from an instrument (TRACE) whose 171A pass band cannot see the surface of the Sun are showing "mountain ranges" on the photosphere (the surface of the Sun)?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Just because you personally *ASSUME* loops are invisible until they reach the photosphere does not mean that they are in fact not visible under the photosphere. NASA has a nice animation for you of how they come from underneath the photosphere and erupt into the corona.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000...074/index.html

The base of these loops originate *FAR BELOW* the photosphere.

Nice animation of the magnetic fields that standard solar physics derives as originating under the photosphere (how many decades has thid been known?).
Of course it is an animation and states nothing about the visibility of the magnetic fields under the photosphere.

These magnetic fields cause sunspots and flares. They cause coronal loops. So what?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Quote:

The 171A pass band of the TRACE detector detects radiation from plasma with a temperature between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K.

And in an "intellectually honest" manner, what is the most likely "cause" of plasma being heated to those temperatures? In other words, what known force of nature heats plasma to extreme temperatures in the Earth's atmosphere?

This does not matter for the TRACE discussion since astronomers have measured the coronal temperature and use the 171A pass band to detect activity only in the corona (the surface of the sun is invisible) but...
As as been stated to you many times (in this an other fora):
Coronal heating problem and proposed solutions.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You are still not listening or at least your are not comprehending what I am saying. I've been clear that the light source is the coronal loops, not the crust. Light reflection *patterns* can be observed from the crust, but nobody is claiming that the surface itself emits these photons! Wake up. Listen to my explanation so that at least you *UNDERSTAND* it before you start ridiculing it. It would be helpful to see you pick some of the various details of that image and explain them.

This part merits some additional commentary because Michael is completely ignorant of what a running difference image is, and it could be confusing for other readers when they see him constantly describing it so very wrongly. The "light source" in the running difference image truly is the florescent light behind the LCDs on your flat screen monitor (or the glowing phosphorous if you still have a CRT). Regardless of the appearance, there is no light and shadow in a running difference image.

A running difference image isn't a picture of anything in the conventional sense. It doesn't show any structure, surface, texture, valleys, mountains, or any such thing. It is a graph, a visual depiction of a data set, or more precisely a visual depiction of the difference between two adjacent data sets.

As a fairly simple description, imagine this. A satellite takes a photo of an area of the Earth, a cloud covered area with clouds so dense that it's impossible to see the surface below. A few minutes later the satellite takes another photo of the exact same place, still completely covered with dense clouds, but the clouds have moved some between the first photo and the second. So you have two slightly different photos of the exact same place, but with a little difference in the cloud pattern.

Now run those two images through a small computer program that compares them pixel by pixel. If a pixel in Photo A is lighter than the corresponding pixel in Photo B, the program prints a pixel representing the amount of change to the lighter side in the corresponding location of the output, the running difference image. If the pixel in Photo A is darker than the same one in Photo B, the program prints a pixel showing the amount of change darker into the matching location in the running difference output. The pixels that create the output only show the change between the pixels in the two photos being compared.

Interestingly (or not really so much), the output image may have areas which seem to fade up from dark to light or areas which fade down from light to dark. These areas may look like hills and valleys, look like places that are lit up, and look like places covered by shadows, but that's not what they are at all. When you get done processing those two satellite photos of the cloud covered Earth, the resulting running difference image does not show the surface of the Earth through the clouds. Just as those running difference images Michael is so fond of waving around here do not show the surface of the Sun. They can't. No method of solar imagery can possibly look deep enough into the Sun to see Michael's alleged surface at or near .995R.

Oh, and the colors are arbitrary, too. Rather than using shades of gray (which might be a source for Michael's confusion, but I'd venture a guess it goes much deeper than that), the program could be written to use varying tones of red pixels to show where and how much Photo B got brighter, and varying tones of green pixels to show where and how much Photo B got dimmer. The result would be an image with brightly colored patterns, but it would still simply be a graphical representation of the differences between one photo and another.

Review: Running difference images aren't pictures. They are charts or graphs of data showing the differences between source images from a running sequence. That's why they call them "running difference" images. Duh! Simple as that. Michael's interpretation of this stuff is just plain flat out wrong.

There. I've addressed the issue of the running difference images, every single tiny detail, every last pixel, thoroughly and completely, again. So from now on, when Michael starts his bawling about how nobody ever explains these images, we can all look back at this posting and know he's lying, again.

Now we may proceed with the ridiculing.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Nice animation of the magnetic fields that standard solar physics derives as originating under the photosphere (how many decades has thid been known?).
Of course it is an animation and states nothing about the visibility of the magnetic fields under the photosphere.

These magnetic fields cause sunspots and flares. They cause coronal loops. So what?

So the density of the photosphere is significantly less than the density of air at sea level and less than the density of plasma in the plasma ball on my desk if I'm not mistaken. What makes you think you would not see high energy wavelengths inside of such a light plasma?

FYI Tim, I started a response to you after work, stepped away for awhile to eat and finished it later. When I went to post it, evidently my "token had expired" and it ate my post. I will respond to you again. Please be patient.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

This does not matter for the TRACE discussion since astronomers have measured the coronal temperature

Huh? That was a complete non sequitur. The two things aren't even related. It does matter and when the "measure"" the coronal temperature they don't seem to apply any technique at all to deal with Thompson scattering from the loops, so what exactly are they measuring?

Quote:

and use the 171A pass band to detect activity only in the corona

You do not KNOW that for a fact. If the loops begin under the photosphere, and the photosphere is very light, how can you know you don't observe under the surface of the photosphere at this particular wavelengths?

Quote:

(the surface of the sun is invisible) but...
As as been stated to you many times (in this an other fora):
Coronal heating problem and proposed solutions.

The corona is heated by coronal loops and by discharges process between the surface and the heliosphere. I was no mystery as to why this happens to Birkeland and his companions. 100 years later and the mainstream is still scratching their heads and ignoring the one demonstrated method to achieve these temperatures, these patterns in the solar atmosphere and these observations of high speed solar wind.

I'm afraid you'll need to explain to me why you think we can't see these loops deep inside the photosphere, particularly in light of various composite images and the fact that Birkeland's loops originate at the "bumps" on his "surface" and rose up through the plasma atmosphere.



This Yohkoh (yellow)/Trace (blue) image demonstrates that the 171A wavelengths are visible far deeper into the atmosphere than the x-rays.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

This part merits some additional commentary because Michael is completely ignorant of what a running difference image is, and it could be confusing for other readers when they see him constantly describing it so very wrongly. The "light source" in the running difference image truly is the florescent light behind the LCDs on your flat screen monitor (or the glowing phosphorous if you still have a CRT). Regardless of the appearance, there is no light and shadow in a running difference image.

That's not what I asked you. I asked you (others actually): "What is the light source of the *ORIGINAL* 171A images?"

Quote:

Now run those two images through a small computer program that compares them pixel by pixel. If a pixel in Photo A is lighter than the corresponding pixel in Photo B, the program prints a pixel representing the amount of change to the lighter side in the corresponding location of the output, the running difference image. If the pixel in Photo A is darker than the same one in Photo B, the program prints a pixel showing the amount of change darker into the matching location in the running difference output. The pixels that create the output only show the change between the pixels in the two photos being compared.

Quote:

. No method of solar imagery can possibly look deep enough into the Sun to see Michael's alleged surface at or near .995R.

Bull. Not only do the 171A standard and RD images allow us to see deeply enough into the solar atmosphere, so do Kosovichev's doppler techniques which is why we observe persistent features and structures in both images. RD images of clouds change over time. That's what these sorts of images show us in fact. They also demonstrate which regions are NOT changing. In a light plasma, during a CME event, we would expect light plasma to blow around all over the place and for nothing to remain "stable or persistent" for any lengthy duration. Instead we find persistence in these images that is unlike the lifetimes of structures in the photosphere that come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals, but rather we find persistent structures that remain for hours on end in angular patterns like the small angular block at the top of the RD image.

Quote:

Oh, and the colors are arbitrary, too.

Duh.

Quote:

Review: Running difference images aren't pictures. They are charts or graphs of data showing the differences between source images from a running sequence.

They also show us what did not change, even in the middle of significant CME event as witnessed in that video. Plasma ebbs and flows, much like those particles flow in the atmosphere after the CME event.

Quote:

There. I've addressed the issue of the running difference images, every single tiny detail, every last pixel, thoroughly and completely, again.

You did not. You never addressed or explained a single specific detail of this image, not the rigidness or persistence of any of the features in the image, not the "dust in the wind", not the CME itself, not the peeling effect along the right, nothing. Not one single specific detail within the actual image was addressed. If that's his best "analysis" of multimillion dollar satellite images you are capable of, that is completely pathetic. Some "pixel by pixel" analysis.

[Reality Check]

[quote=Michael Mozina;4844193]Huh? That was a complete non sequitur. ...snipped...quote]
Talk about non sequitur!
This is a discussion of the TRACE instrument and the fact that it cannot detect the photosphere because the photosphere has been measured to have a temperature of ~6000 K.



What matters is that astronomers have

1. Measured the temperature of the photosphere.
2. Measured the temperature of the corona.
3. Designed an instrument (TRACE instrument) with a filter (the 171A pass band) that excludes radiation that is emitted from objects that are cooler than 160,000 K or hotter than 2,000,000 K.
4. Taken images in the the 171A pass band of a CME event that happened in the corona.

A similar experiment for the simple minded (Hi Michael ):
Put a red ball in front of a blue screen.
Add a red light pass band filter to the lens of a camera.
Take a picture.
Will anyone but the simple minded expect to see the blue screen in the picture?

Replace the blue screen with the photosphere (which emits white light) and the red ball with the corona (which emits ultraviolet light). All we have done is shift along the electromagnetic spectrum.
Replace the red light pass band filter with a 171A pass band filter.
Take a picture.
Will anyone but the simple minded expect to see the photosphere in the picture?

ETA:
Maybe MM will suggest that the million degree activity is happening on the photosphere - this is comparable to the red ball being on the blue screen above. Astronomers will find this laughable since that will be easy to detect. Side on views of flares and CME show that they happen in the corona. Of course MM will then have solid iron "mountain ranges" that are 1,000,000 K hot!

Let us end up with some simple yes/no questions for you to ignore.
First asked 26 June 2009.


Michael Mozina:

1. Does the the photosphere have a temperature between 4500 and 6000 K?
2. Does the corona have a temperature of between 1 and 3 million K?
3. Will the 171A pass band of the TRACE instrument only detect radiation from material that has a temperature between 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K?
4. Can the 171A pass band of the TRACE instrument detect radiation from material that has a temperature between 4500 and 6000 K?

If your answer to 4 is yes then everyone will see that you are lying.
If your answer to 4 is no then the TRACE images are of activity in the corona. Your statement on your web site that "The flare activity is caused by increased electrical activity as fast moving plasma sweeps over surface ridges, resulting in increased electrical activity on the windward side of the mountain ranges." is then wrong. If it remains then you are lying again.