|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
 Posted - 12/02/2005 : 16:44:59 [Permalink]
|
Mike:
I'll be interested to see how your results turn out, as I'm sure others here will. I'm not knowledeable enough to meaningfully assess such validity relative to what's accepted, but it's a neat and imaginative idea, and your post raises some interesting issues in philosophy of science and scientific inference, which I can undestand and appreciate better than the more arcane and esoteric technical details (I'm no more qualified to make guesses about the significance of the hair-splitting than any other SFN member... I'm probably less-so in many instances.) But yea, I hope you let us know how the data sizes up. Gas model arguments sound awful good to me, but how to size these things up is "art" as well as "science" (at least until the methodologies are officially declared "science".) |
Ron White |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 18:02:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
So is the iron-shell model. So what?
So...all theories, not just new theories should have the same skepticism applied to them as it relates to real life observation of real life suns! Theory is wonderful, but observation determines theory from reality. Dr. Kristian Birkeland experimented with an iron sun model a hundred years ago and came up with behaviors and images that are nearly identical to Yohkoh images. Pure coincidence in your opinion?
quote:
Why should it, at this point in time, be able to predict what is found in images we've never been able to take before?
Because that is the only way we will ever know if the theory is correct or incorrect. In "theory" we should not see a "solid surface" under the photosphere. We do however have heliosiesmology evidence of a stratified layer. We have Doppler images of 3D surfaces of this stratified layer under the photosphere. We have satellite images galore of this same surface. We have chemical evidence that the sun is mostly made of iron and mass separates the plasmas in it's atmosphere, right down to the isotope. This would make it a perfect conductor of electricity. We just happen to see the flow of electricity from the surface "structures". All of this is 'visible' at this point in time.
I have not seen any STEREO images, but I can make a whole host of predictions about what STEREO will "discover". Specifically, I predit that it will "discover" that the transitional region we see with all that "structure" is actually located underneath of the visible photosphere, not above it as scientists *ASSUMED* they would find it. I predict STEREO will discover that the calcium ion emissions come from much lower in the atmosphere than the helium ion emissions. I predict silicon ion emissions all along the arcs, and under the penumbral filaments. You yourself could make a whole host of predictions based on the PDF file of mine that you read. It's all spelled out in black and white, layer by layer.
I'll even through in a bonus prediction. I predict the hydrogen alpha emissions occur "below" and beneath the photosphere (penumbral filaments) as well. See how easy this is when you have a model that can make predictions?
How exactly is the gas model useful if it can't make some basic predictions about images from the stereo program?
quote:
Besides which, reading that PDF file of yours, it's clear that you're not even trying to compete against the current gas-fusion model of the Sun, but against a 400-year-old model Galilleo figured out. As far as I'm concerned, that whole PDF file is simply one big straw-man argument, since you address precisely zero of the modern gas-fusion model's predictions.
I'm afraid that all of this "gas-fusion advancement" you're talking about is all predictated on the PREMISE that there is no solid surface under the photosphere. The moment you accept evidence of this stratified surface at .995R, what happens to all that 400 years of math and theory? You tell me.
I'm going to cut this one short for the time being since it's Friday night and my wife and I have a dinner date. Dave, I'm not sure why you seem to feel the need to be so "hostile" (as in your first paragraph which I ommitted). I appreciate your skepticism, but we need not be enemies here, but simply friendly skeptics with differing opinions.
I'd really like you to sit down with the first movie from Lockheed Martin and watch it a few dozen times, preferable for about 15 minutes or so on a continuous loop. Watch all the structures you see in these images and notice how little movement there is between these images. Notice the shadowing. Notice the lights on the middle surfaces and how the lighting shifts on the surfaces even though the surfaces do not move. Notice all the 'structure' in this layer. Notice the little ridges on the plains and notice the pealing affect on the right side of the image. Notice the "dust like" particles drifting from the lower right to the upper left during the movie. Pay really, really, really close attention to what you see, and explain it with gas model theory, right down the to that "peeling" effect we see during the CME.
When you can do that, then we can really have a serious discussion about falisifying models using satellite imagery. Right now, you aren't really dealing with any of the materials I've presented IMO, and this won't ever be a 'fair' or 'skeptical' discussion involving competing solar models.
Really this all boils down to a very simple assumption and a very simple (in relative terms) thing to resolve using current technology. Is there a surface under the photosphere, yes or no?
In fact I'm convinced that the STEREO system is exactly the right tool for the job and that program will "discover" all sorts of new and interesting facts about the sun. I'm even willing to stick my neck out and make some predictions about these "discoveries". If the gas model can't do that, and you can't do that personally with that model, then tell me what possible value can it have even with 400 years of effort? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/02/2005 18:10:24 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 19:38:00 [Permalink]
|
Well Mike, I have been reading this thread since it began. I am completely unqualified to argue the composition of the sun, but I have some ability to recognize style from a skeptics perspective. But I'm not going to go there, exactly. Style has been brought up before this post and you are having none of that. And I suppose if I were you I wouldn't have it either. One thing keeps troubling me though. Why are you spending so much of your valuable time trying to convince a bunch of skeptics who may have some knowledge on the subject of the make up of the sun and the physics that supports that knowledge, but in all honesty, can not speak with authority on the subject? Frankly, we are not the people you need to convince.
I would be satisfied that an interesting hypothesis has been suggested when it appears in a peer reviewed journal and is then, because of its ground breaking nature, reported on by the likes of some magazine or article somewhere, intended for popular consumption, so that even an idiot like me can understand it.
You are not posting in other threads, so it seems that your only interest in our humble little skeptic site is to promote your hypothesis. And doing that where it can do you or your hypothesis absolutely no good at all. Even if you were to convince us, how would science have been served?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 23:17:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
So...all theories, not just new theories should have the same skepticism applied to them as it relates to real life observation of real life suns!
Are you implying that the gas-fusion model has never been skeptically examined?quote:
Theory is wonderful, but observation determines theory from reality.
Theories attempt to describe reality. Theories are based upon observations. In that context, the above sentence of yours makes no sense.quote:
Dr. Kristian Birkeland experimented with an iron sun model a hundred years ago and came up with behaviors and images that are nearly identical to Yohkoh images. Pure coincidence in your opinion?
Not at all. The idea that the behaviour of a plasma within a magnetic field should be different at large and small scales is the only way you could even try to suggest "coincidence," but that's just unsupported speculation. I see no evidence that they should behave differently.quote:
quote:
Why should it, at this point in time, be able to predict what is found in images we've never been able to take before?
Because that is the only way we will ever know if the theory is correct or incorrect.
I don't believe the gas-fusion model currently makes any predictions about how solar "surface" features should look. And, as should be glaringly obvious, visible features of things are not the only way we can tell which of a set of theories is correct. Nobody has ever taken a snapshot of an electron, but electron theory is sound and useful.
quote:
In "theory" we should not see a "solid surface" under the photosphere.
You have yet to demonstrate that it is a solid surface.quote:
We do however have heliosiesmology evidence of a stratified layer.
That's not the same as evidence of a solid surface.quote:
We have Doppler images of 3D surfaces of this stratified layer under the photosphere.
No, you don't, you have Doppler images of electromagnetic waves reflecting off of something.quote:
We have satellite images galore of this same surface.
No, you don't. At least, you've never pointed one out to me.quote:
We have chemical evidence that the sun is mostly made of iron and mass separates the plasmas in it's atmosphere, right down to the isotope.
No, you don't. You have spectrographic measurements of the ions in the corona at a million Kelvin, which say precisely nothing about the make-up of any "surface."quote:
This would make it a perfect conductor of electricity.
What?!? Mass-separated plasmas are perfect conductors? Hey, if it were a perfect conductor, you've once again shot your own argument in the head, since perfect conductors generate zero heat, thus not "stripping" iron atoms off the surface.quote:
We just happen to see the flow of electricity from the surface "structures".
No, we don't. We see photon emissions from ions in a plasma.quote:
All of this is 'visible' at this point in time.
Obviously not.quote:
I have not seen any STEREO images, but I can make a whole host of predictions about what STEREO will "discover". Specifically, I predit that it will "discover" that the transitional region we see with all that "structure" is actually located underneath of the visible photosphere, not above it as scientists *ASSUMED* they would find it. I predict STEREO will discover that the calcium ion emissions come from much lower in the atmosphere than the helium ion emissions. I predict silicon ion emissions all along the arcs, and under the penumbral filaments.
And just how will STEREO accomplish such things? I'm asking which instruments will be used to make such determinations? STEREO is flying SECCHI, SWAVES, IMPACT and PLASTIC instruments. As far as I can tell, none of them probe deeper into the Sun than the upper photosphere.quote:
You yourself could make a whole host of predictions based on the PDF file of mine that you read.
Yeah, including breaking out "the layers are separated by mass into a whole slew of "predictions." Don't you think it's disingenuous to claim 15 or more predictions when it's really only one?quote:
It's all spelled out in black and white, layer by layer.
Yes, all resting on the assumption that what you think you see is actually solid.quote:
I'll even through in a bonus prediction. I predict the hydrogen alpha emissions occur "below" and beneath the photosphere (penumbral filaments) as well. See how easy this is when you have a model that can make predictions?
A model which is based upon "we can't be sure of any |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2005 : 15:15:03 [Permalink]
|
| Sorry. Double post. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/04/2005 15:18:16 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2005 : 15:16:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Well Mike, I have been reading this thread since it began. I am completely unqualified to argue the composition of the sun, but I have some ability to recognize style from a skeptics perspective. But I'm not going to go there, exactly. Style has been brought up before this post and you are having none of that. And I suppose if I were you I wouldn't have it either. One thing keeps troubling me though. Why are you spending so much of your valuable time trying to convince a bunch of skeptics who may have some knowledge on the subject of the make up of the sun and the physics that supports that knowledge, but in all honesty, can not speak with authority on the subject? Frankly, we are not the people you need to convince.
Quite the contrary any skeptic is a value resource. :) The more skeptics that join my skepticism of the gas model, the better.
quote:
I would be satisfied that an interesting hypothesis has been suggested when it appears in a peer reviewed journal and is then, because of its ground breaking nature, reported on by the likes of some magazine or article somewhere, intended for popular consumption, so that even an idiot like me can understand it.
Well, Dr. Manuel has already published a lot of matieral in peer reviewed journals and has been reported on by the likes of CNN and other news organizations. I did try to create a simplified version of the satellite material here:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/TheSurfaceOfTheSun.pdf
I'm pretty sure you'll be able to understand it.
quote:
You are not posting in other threads, so it seems that your only interest in our humble little skeptic site is to promote your hypothesis. And doing that where it can do you or your hypothesis absolutely no good at all. Even if you were to convince us, how would science have been served?
I don't share you view that only "scientists" are qualified to determine right from wrong, and a "skeptic" is somehow less important. IMO a true "skeptic" is the best friend I can have because a skeptic is typically willing to apply skepticism toward ALL ideas, not just new ones. Good skeptics with a limited scientific background are IMO better at determining truth from fictions than non skeptical scientists. Anyone can jump on the bandwagon. It takes a real skeptic to keep an open mind. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2005 : 18:06:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Are you implying that the gas-fusion model has never been skeptically examined?
Not in light of the satellite images or in light of the heliosiesmology evidence, not, it has not be skeptically examined.
quote:
Theories attempt to describe reality. Theories are based upon observations. In that context, the above sentence of yours makes no sense.
Then WHERE are the gas model predictions of a stratified layer at .995R? Where are the explanations for these satellite images using gas model theory? What is the driving force of CME's, etc? There are many observed behaviors that resulted in my theories. I see no gas model explanation for any of these satellite images.
quote:
Not at all. The idea that the behaviour of a plasma within a magnetic field should be different at large and small scales is the only way you could even try to suggest "coincidence," but that's just unsupported speculation. I see no evidence that they should behave differently.
You didn't really address my question. Why do Birkelands images of a magnetized iron terella look almost identical to Yohkoh images?
quote:
I don't believe the gas-fusion model currently makes any predictions about how solar "surface" features should look. And, as should be glaringly obvious, visible features of things are not the only way we can tell which of a set of theories is correct. Nobody has ever taken a snapshot of an electron, but electron theory is sound and useful.
That's the issue here in a nutshell. The gas model does make predictions about the fact there should BE NO STRATIFICATION at all!
quote:
You have yet to demonstrate that it is a solid surface.quote:
I have demonstrated a stratified layer at .995R. I've shown it to contain "structure" that breathes with the solar cycle. I've shown it to hold "structure" measured in days a weeks and that this structure rotates uniformly during these timelines.
quote:
That's not the same as evidence of a solid surface.quote:
The evidence is in the "structure" of this "layer". Plasma doesn't hold such structures, nor does plasma rotate uniformly on the sun.
quote:
No, you don't, you have Doppler images of electromagnetic waves reflecting off of something.quote:
Something you somehow KNOW isn't solid, but mysteriously holds structure like a solid and reflects Doppler waves like a solid?
quote:
No, you don't. At least, you've never pointed one out to me.quote:
Yes, I have. The fact you can't even tell me what this stratified layer represents in gas model theory is a dead giveaway.
[quote]No, you don't. You have spectrographic measurements of the ions in the corona at a million Kelvin, which say precisely nothing about the make-up of any "surface."[quote]
That had absolutely nothing to do with my arguement. My arguement was that nuclear chemistry suggests that the sun is mostly made of iron (Dr. Manuels work) and that it mass separates the plasma. This claim was confirmed by satellite images, but the original work was chemical in nature and had nothing to do with the mechanisms that allowed me to confirm such a finding.
[quote]This would make it a perfect conductor of electricity.
What?!? Mass-separated plasmas are perfect conductors? Hey, if it were a perfect conductor, you've once again shot your own argument in the head, since perfect conductors generate zero heat, thus not "stripping" iron atoms off the surface.
The heat comes from the arcs and the flow of electricity. The phrase "perfect conductor" was not meant to suggest it was supercondictive in nature. I think you went a bit overboard on that comment.
[quote]No, we don't. We see photon emissions from ions in a plasma.[quote]
We do indeed see that, but it's CAUSED by the flow of electricity.
[quote]And just how will STEREO accomplish such things? I'm asking which instruments will be used to make such determinations? STEREO is flying SECCHI, SWAVES, IMPACT and PLASTIC instruments. As far as I can tell, none of them probe deeper into the Sun than the upper photosphere.
The photons at 171A, 195A and 284A do not come from the upper photosphere.
[quote]Yeah, including breaking out "the layers are separated by mass into a whole slew of "predictions." Don't you think it's disingenuous to claim 15 or more predictions when it's really only one?
What? I made a LOT of predictions in that paper that are completely testable and completely falsifyable. Falsify even one of them!
[quote]Yes, all resting on the assumption that what you think you see is actually solid.[quote]
Yes, it is. Then again, the only issue here is whether or not there is a solid layer under the photosphere. It's not that difficult an issue to falisify in the final analysis, certainly not with the satellite technology that will come online over the next decade. There is nothing mysterious or ambigious here. Either there is a solid layer under the photosphere, or there isn't. It's not even complicated!
Solids hold structure. Solids deflect Doppler images and sound waves. All of this is seen in satellite images.
[quote]A model which is based upon "we can't be sure of anything" can make an infinite number of predictions, all equally unfounded, but some will undoubtedly be "affirmed."[quote]
I NEVER claimed that we cant be sure of anything. That is your own strawman. I made several predictions about the STEREO images that would all logically fit my model, starting with the fact this "stratified layer" at .995R is actually what is being imaged in satellite images of the "transtitional region", and that this layer is beneath not above the photosphere. That is something I quite s |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2005 : 20:26:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Are you implying that the gas-fusion model has never been skeptically examined?
Not in light of the satellite images or in light of the heliosiesmology evidence, not, it has not be skeptically examined.
Then what is it that you think the solar scientists are doing with all that data? Just going "oooooooh"?quote:
Then WHERE are the gas model predictions of a stratified layer at .995R?
And where are the predictions of Earth's stratosphere from the iron-core model? You won't find them.quote:
Where are the explanations for these satellite images using gas model theory?
What answers have you received from actual solar scientists?quote:
What is the driving force of CME's, etc? There are many observed behaviors that resulted in my theories. I see no gas model explanation for any of these satellite images.
I don't know why you expect one.quote:
quote:
Not at all. The idea that the behaviour of a plasma within a magnetic field should be different at large and small scales is the only way you could even try to suggest "coincidence," but that's just unsupported speculation. I see no evidence that they should behave differently.
You didn't really address my question. Why do Birkelands images of a magnetized iron terella look almost identical to Yohkoh images?
I answered your question about whether I thought it was coincidence. I don't. Now you want me to tell you why they look similar? Because they're both plasmas in a magnetic field.quote:
That's the issue here in a nutshell. The gas model does make predictions about the fact there should BE NO STRATIFICATION at all!
No, that's a strawman. Point me to even a single independent resource on the Web wherein it says "the gas-fusion model of stars predicts that every star is a simple ball of homogeneous gas," and I'll agree that it's not a strawman. The fact is, the gas-fusion model already has layers in it: the corona, photosphere, convective layer, etc.quote:
I have demonstrated a stratified layer at .995R. I've shown it to contain "structure" that breathes with the solar cycle. I've shown it to hold "structure" measured in days a weeks and that this structure rotates uniformly during these timelines.
None of which demonstrates a solid layer. Not when tsunami waves can be measured 12,000 miles from an earthquake, and not when I can see all the "structure" of the Milky Way itself (which rotates uniformly for billions of years).quote:
The evidence is in the "structure" of this "layer". Plasma doesn't hold such structures, nor does plasma rotate uniformly on the sun.
There's more to the Sun that just plasma.quote:
Something you somehow KNOW isn't solid, but mysteriously holds structure like a solid and reflects Doppler waves like a solid?
As soon as you define what a "Doppler wave" is, we can discuss this. I know of a Doppler effect, which holds for sound waves and electromagnetic waves. Using the Doppler effect, we can bounce radio waves off of thunderstorms and get an image of what they're doing. In other words, the idea that "Doppler waves" only bounce off solid structures is absurd.quote:
quote:
No, you don't. At least, you've never pointed one out to me.
Yes, I have. The fact you can't even tell me what this stratified layer represents in gas model theory is a dead giveaway.
I've already given you my best answer. You seem to have ignored it.quote:
quote:
No, you don't. You have spectrographic measurements of the ions in the corona at a million Kelvin, which say precisely nothing about the make-up of any "surface."
That had absolutely nothing to do with my arguement.
Then why the heavy emphasis on the SERTS data?quote:
My arguement was that nuclear chemistry suggests that the sun is mostly made of iron (Dr. Manuels work)...
Why won't you tell me what percentage of the Sun is iron? Then we can make some real predictions.quote:
...and that it mass separates the plasma.
How does one keep a plasma mass-separated and have iron plasma arcs "insulated" by silicon at the same time?quote:
This claim was confirmed by satellite images, but the original work was chemical in nature and had nothing to do with the mechanisms that allowed me to confirm such a finding.
Dr. Manuel's work is far from chemical in nature if he's claiming that |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2005 : 21:11:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
[quote]You didn't really address my question. Why do Birkelands images of a magnetized iron terella look almost identical to Yohkoh images?
Model it- demonstrate the correlation statistically- the probabilities will tell the rest of the story. With computers, it's easier than ever.
To me, this thread illustrates the importance of how an argument is expressed as this relates to how seriously it might, or can be considered. I think most people are capable of understanding a vast majority of ideas, if they're explained properly or adequately. There was an instance in which the profound significance of, and extent to which this is true became crystal clear to me.
Decades ago, CAT scans had been around for a few years, and a new technology- MRI- promised the advantages of x-ray 3D tomographic visualization without the need to use ionizing radiation. I read an article in a news magazine (Time, Newsweek, US News... one of those) describing the new technology, which left me completely bewildered... even though I understood the science, techniques, and equipment involved better than most people. The magazine described the science involved so poorly... "measures the magnetic resonance of the human body" (or something like that)... even though their description wasn't technically incorrect- that after beating my brains for a while I still couldn't figure out how this thing worked. It almost sounded like some New Age weirdness, or something from Star Trek. This was in the days before the Internet (now, of course, it would have just been a matter of Googling it.) I suppose I could have made some calls and/or gone to a few libraries if I'd really needed to know, but it was just a passing curiosity.
A couple of years later, I was with a physician and I casually asked, "Ever use the MRI machines?" and he said "All the time." I said, "How do they work?" and he replied, "They align the polar molecules in the body with a magnet, and shoot radio waves through it in planes." In less than 2 dozen words, it was explained with perfect clarity how the damned thing worked- and after all of that confusion, I instantly understood the whole process.
If someone had conceived of MRI before CAT technology (it could have happened that way) and tried to solicit development funding by explaining it to a businessman so terribly as in the prior instance, he might have been dismissed as a crackpot. With a good explanation, it would have been obvious to an educated or informed layman that the idea was both doable and absolutely brilliant, and one would be foolish not to fund it to the max.
I think if you present your argument in simpler, more straightforward terms, and just numerically fit whatever "look(s) almost identical" with a clearly explained theory supporting an alleged underlying mechanism, you'll find people are far more receptive to the possibilities you pose. I hope the new data you await helps you out.
If explained correctly, valid ideas can stand on their own merits, and bunk reveals itself as such, too. |
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 12/04/2005 21:42:22 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2005 : 21:48:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
I think if you present your argument in simpler, more straightforward terms, and just numerically fit whatever "look(s) almost identical" with a clearly explained theory supporting an alleged underlying mechanism, you'll find people are far more receptive to the possibilities you pose. I hope the new data you await helps you out.
I appreciate your feedback actually, and that is in fact one of the reasons I am debating these ideas in cyberspace. I would in fact like to learn how to be a better communicator of these idea and to communicate these ideas effectly.
There is however quite a bias to overcome as it relates to what we were all taught in school. It's easy enough to debate issues that are INSIDE of currently accepted theory, but it's a whole different ballgame when you are trying to suggest currently theory is wrong. No one who does that later is initially taken serious or immediately believed. This kind of change takes time and it takes information. There is indeed some new and crucial information that the STEREO satellite will be able to give us, but it would be naive to believe that the revelations of this program will instantly lay waste to the gas model theory, or to even believe that it will have a giant affect on gas model theory in the short term. Nothing significant is likely to change overnight only because new information becomes availiable. This is going to be a multi-year process no matter what on satellite system suggests since there is at least 75 years worth of bais to overcome.
My hope in discussing these issues and in making predictions about future programs is that others will remember these conversation and predictions and consider them again when the new evidence is released. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2005 : 11:24:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Then what is it that you think the solar scientists are doing with all that data? Just going "oooooooh"?
Ya, that's exactly what I think Dave. :)
Look at the heliiosiesmology data that was just released last month. There is no gas model on the planet that predicted the existence of this stratified layer at .995R. That stratification is not even supposed to be there according to gas model theory. The solar atmosphere is supposed to get progressively more dense with depth, not stratify at a shallow depth. The predictions don't match the data.
On the other hand, I predicted the existence of a stratified layer just under the photosphere BEFORE that paper was written, and in fact I predicted the existence of that stratified layer at a shallow depth using my model a full 6 months before that heliosiesmology paper was released. That surface is right where I said it would be too. The atmosophere is thin, just as I suggested. How did I know this? Satellite images!
There's no big mystery here Dave, and the data speaks for itself. The heliosiesmology data is actaully the most damaging to the gas model because that information comes out of Stanford, and they are on the forefront of heliosiesmology. I didn't make up their findings, nor did any gas model ever predict their findings.
I'm leaving for DC tomorrow and I've got a lot to wrap up before I leave so I'll wait to finish this conversation till next week. In the mean time, how about explaining what that stratified layer represents in gas model theory, and how it fits in with gas model theory since I simply don't see any way to sweep that little problem under the table. Then again, you can just go "oooooh" like everyone else.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/05/2005 11:26:21 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2005 : 11:51:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
How does one keep a plasma mass-separated and have iron plasma arcs "insulated" by silicon at the same time?
The iron plasma inside the arcs/loops is insulated by the silicon plasma since electricty follows the path of least resistance and iron conducts electricity better than silicon. The silicon keeps the electrical arcs insulated from one another. The iron plasma conducts the electricy because it is a better conductor than silicon plasma. This is basic electronics.
quote:
And just how will STEREO accomplish such things? I'm asking which instruments will be used to make such determinations? STEREO is flying SECCHI, SWAVES, IMPACT and PLASTIC instruments. As far as I can tell, none of them probe deeper into the Sun than the upper photosphere.
That is because you are "assuming" (just like they do) that anything in the 171A, 195A and 284A filters that represent temperature ranges of between 160K to 4M degrees must come from the lower corona. They and you are evidently EXCLUDING the possiblity that *ELECTRICITY* is the heat source rather than the corona. The SECCHI instrument will carry even more IRON ion filters than TRACE and these satellites will be able to image these iron ions in 3D and to observe the relationship between these emissions in relationship to the photosphere. I predict one of their early finding will be that the CME's and iron ion emissions originate UNDER, not over the photosphere once they can actually see the relationship between these layers in true 3D. Right now we only have 2D images to work with and we have to GUESS at the relationship between the various layers.
quote:
That's right, they come from the corona (at least, that's where SERTS measured them).
No, that is simply not so. SERTS simply measured iron ion emissions from the sun in many different ways. The SERTS data says nothing about where these emission come from as it relates to the solar atmosphere. Even the limb measurements, that are specifically looking outside of the photosophere say nothing about where the iron originates, and in fact we know these loops originate UNDER the photosphere.
The whole gas model is cludged together right now with bubble gum and bailing wire. After 400 years of research, the gas model can't even explain the mechnanisms that create coronal loops and fully explain their hight and heat signatures. It can't explain the cause of something as basic as a CME. Instead they give some "vague" explanation about "magnetic fluxes", and utterly ignore the driving force of these magnetic currents, namely *ELECTRICITY*. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/05/2005 11:55:00 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2005 : 12:05:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You know what? I'd much rather have complete responses from you than this half-assed stuff you're pumping out because you don't have enough time. How many times, for example, do I have to ask you for the percentage of the Sun's mass which is iron before you'll answer me? I'm patient - I can wait until you've got enough time to provide clear and complete answers.
In this particular case, there isn't a "clear and complete" answer even though you might prefer there be one. For the time being I'll say 51-75% since I have no way to give you a more scientifically accurate response. I can really only see what is OUTSIDE of the crust. If it has a neutron core, it's probably closer to the bottom figure, maybe even lower. If it's got a fission core, then it's probably somewhere in the upper end of that range.
quote:
Except you don't seem to understand that STEREO won't be taking any pictures of the Sun itself.
No, I *DO* understand that SECCHI carries more iron ion filters, and has twice the resolution of TRACE. It will look at what it THINKS is the lower chromosphere and "discover" that these emissions actually originate UNDER the photosphere.
quote:
Except you won't answer the question of how the iron layer forms in the first place, which I asked pages ago.
I must have missed your question the first time. The iron layer formed as a result of the same processes that created the crust of all the inner planets. The iron originated in the same meteorites and dust clouds that formed everthing in the solar system. The core of any planetary or solar body is hot, while space is very cold. Somewhere, far from the core, the frigid nature of space will allow a surface to "cool", just like it does on every planet. There's nothing particularly unique about how the sun formed an iron crust. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/05/2005 12:07:11 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2005 : 12:32:41 [Permalink]
|
Here is an easy to understand site that discusses the the iron sun conjecture from the point of science and astronomy.
Mike you said:
quote:
That stratification is not even supposed to be there according to gas model theory. The solar atmosphere is supposed to get progressively more dense with depth, not stratify at a shallow depth. The predictions don't match the data.
This is not true - this is how it was explained to a 6th grader, by the Cornell 'ask an astronomer' site, hope this helps:
quote:
How hot is each one of the layers of the sun?
Hi i am doing a report for my 6 grade science class. I was wondering if you could answer the following question?
How hot is each one of the layers of the sun?
The centre of the Sun: about 15 million degrees Kelvin (K).
Radiative Zone: Temperature falls from about 7 million to about 2 million K across this zone.
Convection Zone: drops from 2 million K to 5800K in this zone.
Photosphere: about 5800K, although sunspots are about 3800K - that's why they are dark.
Chromosphere: 4300 to 8300 K from inside edge to outside edge
Corona: about 1 million degrees
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 12/05/2005 12:42:23 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2005 : 12:57:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Here is an easy to understand site that discusses the the iron sun conjecture from the point of science and astronomy.
Yes, I'm well aware of Karen's presentation. We've emailed back and forth a few times over the way she presented information in the past. It's pretty much a "party line" response.
quote:
This is not true - this is how it was explained to a 6th grader, by the Cornell 'ask an astronomer' site, hope this helps:
quote:
How hot is each one of the layers of the sun?
Hi i am doing a report for my 6 grade science class. I was wondering if you could answer the following question?
How hot is each one of the layers of the sun?
The centre of the Sun: about 15 million degrees Kelvin (K).
Radiative Zone: Temperature falls from about 7 million to about 2 million K across this zone.
Convection Zone: drops from 2 million K to 5800K in this zone.
Photosphere: about 5800K, although sunspots are about 3800K - that's why they are dark.
Chromosphere: 4300 to 8300 K from inside edge to outside edge
Corona: about 1 million degrees
So which of these "zones" are you suggesting represents this stratified layer at .995R? You do realize how "shallow" a depth this is don't you? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
