|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 11/26/2005 : 14:16:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Tell me how these alleged accelerations affect our measurements of the Sun's average density. I know of no other method but relativity. Please tell me yours.....And how do you answer those questions in such a way as to claim the Sun's density is different than it is?.....I know you didn't answer the questions. I want to know how you plan to answer the questions, as they seem central to your thesis.
Actually, the density question really isn't that "central" to MY ideas, only to yours. You are making assumptions about density that I am technically not making. I'm only looking at what I can "see" in satellite images. You are insisting that density calcs falsify my model, but I have shown you that dark matter and z axis movements have never been calculated into density measurement. Dark matter is thought to compose more of our universe than regular matter. In theory at least, these calculations could by many multiples based on that influence alone. If you insist on using this idea to attempt to falsify my model, you will need to account for some of the more "important" aspects of QM that have been validated even quite recently. We know the universe expands and accelerates. Where is that influence factored into your density calcs?
quote:
Those are the questions which you must answer in order to assert the primacy of the theories you champion. Until you do, you've got nothing more than unbridled speculation.
Woah! You "handwaved" a "percieved" problem in front of me and then you refuse to consider the implications of universal acceleration and any z axis movement in such a "percieved" measurement.
quote:
Sure, dark energy might have an effect upon the measured density of the Sun, but until you can tell us the mechanism, and how much of an effect it has, you've got nothing.
That is false. Unless you can account for these influence and show that they CANNOT have any influence on these percieved measurements, then you cannot use them to falisify a model that is based on direct observation, and supported by three different areas of "science".
quote:
And unfortunately, you've proven yourself impervious to criticism of the interpretation you give to what you "see" and "hear." Your faith is, indeed, strong. Stronger than reason.
That is not so. I am being "reasonable" and every idea I put faith in is based on reason and direct observation. It is you that have irrationally put "faith" in a theory that has never been shown to apply to "reality" based on any direct observation. Show me how your faith in this theory is supported by "reason". Explain a real satellite observation from my website using gas model theory. Pick the tsunami structures seen in Doppler images, or explain these same structures seen in raw EIT video, or running difference images using gas model theory, and THEN you can lecture me about "reason" and reasonable interpretations of data.
quote:
There is no need to explain it with the gas model.
Yes there is! This is a real observation from the real world. If the gas model THEORY applies to "reality", then it should be able to explain a few rudimentary satellite images!
quote:
What explains the images is the way they were produced, which is by taking a difference between two other images. The brightness of a pixel is directly related to the difference in brightness in two different images, so there is no "light source." There is no structure. That movie is not a video, no camera you can point at the Sun could ever "see" such things.
Essentially, you are in denial of reality here IMO. I did not create any of the running difference images, nor did I create the running difference video from the TRACE satellite. This movie was created by Lockheed Martin, not me. The SOHO images were created by NASA, not me. There certainly is a light source, and there certainly is structure that can be seen in both satellites that remains in these structured forms for days.
quote:
What, isn't it obvious? To measure density, we divide the mass of an object by its volume. If dark energy has an effect on the Sun, it would be to push the outside of the Sun away from the inside, thus increasing the volume without increasing the mass, and so dropping (slightly) the density.
Or it could be PUSHING outward from every sun and PUSHING against every planet and making the density seem less than it really is. Now we've determined that the dark energy could affect things in either direction, and we've also demonstrated that these ideas have NOT been factored into density calculations. We therefore cannot use a density calculations that is known to be missing some key components as some sort of "dispoof" of what we see in satellite images, and hear in heliosiesmology, and see in nuclear chemical data.
quote:
Why? Why would the electrons "congregate" at the thinner parts of the shell, and the protons congregate at the thicker parts?
The electrons will take the path of least resistance to the surface. The thinner areas, and the areas of least resistence will become negatively charged. The thickest areas, the surface areas of greatest resistence to the flow of electrons will become positively charged in comparison. The arcs then traverse this gap and are drawn to the upper regions of the surface. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2005 : 19:44:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Actually, the density question really isn't that "central" to MY ideas, only to yours. You are making assumptions about density that I am technically not making.
You're talking about an iron shell with fissile material inside, an idea which immediately suggests checking the density to see if it's correct.quote:
I'm only looking at what I can "see" in satellite images.
Baloney, as shown by your next statement:quote:
You are insisting that density calcs falsify my model, but I have shown you that dark matter and z axis movements have never been calculated into density measurement.
No, you've only asserted the truth of that. You've never once demonstrated that nobody has ever considered dark matter and your mysterious "z axis movements" when looking at the Sun's density.quote:
Dark matter is thought to compose more of our universe than regular matter. In theory at least, these calculations could by many multiples based on that influence alone.
Upon what evidence do you base that assertion?quote:
If you insist on using this idea to attempt to falsify my model, you will need to account for some of the more "important" aspects of QM that have been validated even quite recently. We know the universe expands and accelerates. Where is that influence factored into your density calcs?
It doesn't need to be, since the universe doesn't expand inside objects.quote:
Woah! You "handwaved" a "percieved" problem in front of me and then you refuse to consider the implications of universal acceleration and any z axis movement in such a "percieved" measurement.
I didn't "handwave" anything. I specifically asked you to quantify the effects "of universal acceleration and any z axis movement" on density measurements, and I take the above to be your refusal to do so.quote:
That is false. Unless you can account for these influence and show that they CANNOT have any influence on these percieved measurements...
Nonsense. Not that you'll listen (since you didn't in at least one BAUT thread), but it's not up to me to disprove your model. My posts here are criticisms of it, yes, but it is your failure to answer those criticisms which leads me to believe that your model is non-functional.quote:
...then you cannot use them to falisify a model that is based on direct observation, and supported by three different areas of "science".
Why is it that so many solar scientists use data from the same three areas of science, and direct observation, and come up with the gas model?quote:
That is not so. I am being "reasonable" and every idea I put faith in is based on reason and direct observation. It is you that have irrationally put "faith" in a theory that has never been shown to apply to "reality" based on any direct observation. Show me how your faith in this theory is supported by "reason". Explain a real satellite observation from my website using gas model theory. Pick the tsunami structures seen in Doppler images, or explain these same structures seen in raw EIT video, or running difference images using gas model theory, and THEN you can lecture me about "reason" and reasonable interpretations of data.
Indeed, a reasonable person would look at images from an alien place like the Sun and not give them labels like "structures" or "surfaces" without realizing that such labels are only analogous, and not literally true.quote:
quote:
There is no need to explain it with the gas model.
Yes there is! This is a real observation from the real world. If the gas model THEORY applies to "reality", then it should be able to explain a few rudimentary satellite images!
No. The gas model should explain the images, but doesn't have to explain them in your terms ("structure," "light source," etc.). "Light source" is utterly meaningless when looking at a difference image, whether the gas model is true or not.quote:
quote:
What explains the images is the way they were produced, which is by taking a difference between two other images. The brightness of a pixel is directly related to the difference in brightness in two different images, so there is no "light source." There is no structure. That movie is not a video, no camera you can point at the Sun could ever "see" such things.
Essentially, you are in denial of reality here IMO. I did not create any of the running difference images, nor did I create the running difference video from the TRACE satellite. This movie was created by Lockheed Martin, not me. The SOHO images were created by NASA, not me. There certainly is a light source, and there certainly is structure that can be seen in both satellites that remains in these structured forms for days.
You are the one calling those things "structures" as if they represented a 3D object upon a flat surface, and your interpretation of them as such has nothing whatsoever to do with who created the images. Whether they were created by you or NASA is completely irrelevant to what I was saying.quote:
Or it could be PUSHING outward from every sun and PUSHING against every planet and making the density seem less than it really is. Now we've determined that t |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2005 : 20:25:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I don't think you are grasping the tenuousness of the density measurements,
You have provided no evidence that they are tenuous. And frankly the only reason that you think the measured density of the sun is incorrect is because it doesn't match your model.quote:
or the lack of accounting for any of the known forces of our universe in these calculations.
Density is a simple concept, it's just mass over volume. It's not supposed to account for the known forces of the universe. The fact that you don't realize this does not bode well.quote:
For instance, where is there any evidence of "dark energy" being factored into density calculations? How about any concept of universal acceleration? Z axis movement of any sort?
Why don't you calculate it? Show your work.quote:
A completely heilocentric concept of reality cannot possibly be considered "decisive" in any way, shape of form.
Density is not a heilocentric concept.quote:
It is a very "weak" argument at best IMO,
It seems utterly decisive to me.quote:
and it fails to address either the heliosiesmology evidence, the nuclear chemistry evidence, or the satellite observations.
How would these things factor into d=m/v?quote:
quote:
In order for your model of the sun to be correct you would need the density of the sun to be something like an order of magnitude denser than what we measure it to be. (Instead of being 1.4 times the density of water you need it to be a bare minimum of 7 times the density of water!)
Again, you are "assuming" a relatively "solid" core without respect to heat or pressure, and without respect to anything I have personally claimed. You are essentually "assuming" something I personally did not assume (nor did Dr. Manuel) and trying to suggest this is a problem. It's not a problem, just a percieved problem.
Large astronomical bodies tend to get denser with depth. I'm flabbergasted that you don't realize this.quote:
quote:
The effects that you mention are too miniscule to have such a large effect on density calculations of the sun.
Says who?
If you're really serious about this calculate it and show your work.quote:
Again, you are just handwaving at this point and not addressing the core ideas I have presented.
I've pointed out a fatal flaw in your model. There is no need to address anything else until you fix it.quote:
If we stop assuming our sun is stationary and the center of the universe, these density calculations become far more complex and certainly we cannot claim that one "relative" measurement disproves observed satellite evidence.
Sheesh, and you accuse me of handwaving.quote:
In order for you to disprove a solid surface model, you will need a lot more than a single measurement,
Why? Your model results in an incorrect density prediction for the sun. The model has to match the evidence. You seem to have it the wrong way round.quote:
expecially one that is bsed on heliocentric ideas.
You're hung up on this heliocentric thing. Factor in whatever effects you want. Calculate it, and show your work.quote:
quote:
Seriously, calculate the amount of y axis movement that would be required to account for this. I think you'll find that it would require a hell of a shove, enough that it would be trivial to observe it. If you want universal expansion to account for it, we should be seeing galaxies torn apart by this massive force, or rather, never forming in the first place.
Not at all. It would simply take more force to hold it together than we realize. The force on that string in absolute terms is significantly higher than it "appears" in relative terms.
Did you calculate it as I suggested?quote:
quote:
We presently have no reason to believe that density calculations for the sun are inaccurate. It follows that your model and not the evidence is incorrect.
We do have good reason to believe this single measurement is based on several assumptions that have not been established, and that have in fact been falsified. There is no measurement that relates to dark matter in these calculations. There is no room for z axis movement of any sort in these calculations.
You're equivocating again. Does it never occur to you that the factors you mention are not included simply because they are either irrellevant or inapplicable in the case at hand?
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2005 : 20:44:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
...I would assume that rocky materials are more common in the upper elevations.
Do you believe gas fusion is the source of light and energy given off? |
Ron White |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2005 : 21:16:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If you look at the cover December's issue of Scientific American, it shows the "waves" the progate from the core of the galaxy. Our sun rides those waves. Furthermore, out sun also experiences whatever "force" is accelerating the unverse itself.
Hey, I finally read this article. It doesn't show anything like what you claim it shows.
The article is about the question of whether Einstein's model for spacetime - a continuous, non-quantized spacetime - is correct or not. The article shows that some acoustic analogies to black holes (phonons being analogous to photons) might be demonstrating that spacetime is, instead, quantized, which would throw general relativity out on its ear.
The article says absolutely nothing about the Sun riding waves propagating from the core of the galaxy. That you can read such things into such a straightforward article speaks volumes about your ability to interpret scientific data.
In other words, if you claim the sky is blue, I'm going to need to see some confirmation from independent sources. Your say-so on scientific matters simply cannot be trusted. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 00:31:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
If the sun was deformed due to a force acting upon it in the z-axis, the deformation would be visible from Earth a quarter of a year later, as Earth's rotation around the Sun swaps the x-axis and z-axis.
Damn, I'm not thinking straight. I can't get it to make sense. Can it be that I've only slept 6 of the last 50 hours?
The sun stays in the same x,y plane that is relative to the sun's spin axis. I believe you are confusing the magnetic orienation of the sun's core with the idea that the solar system "rotates". The magnetic poles of the sun rotate relative to it's spin axis, but the planets circle the spin axis of the sun and do not rotate relative to the spin axis of the sun.
No, I'm viewing the solar system (and more exactly, Earth's orbit) as existing on the plane described by the x- and z-axis, with the surrounding stars as fixed points of reference for all axis.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 14:10:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
No, I'm viewing the solar system (and more exactly, Earth's orbit) as existing on the plane described by the x- and z-axis, with the surrounding stars as fixed points of reference for all axis.
That isn't really possible. If the sun moves up or down in the z axis, the stars may "appear" to be fixed based on distance, but there should be at least some visual changes based on this movement. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 14:42:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The article is about the question of whether Einstein's model for spacetime - a continuous, non-quantized spacetime - is correct or not. The article shows that some acoustic analogies to black holes (phonons being analogous to photons) might be demonstrating that spacetime is, instead, quantized, which would throw general relativity out on its ear.
The article says absolutely nothing about the Sun riding waves propagating from the core of the galaxy. That you can read such things into such a straightforward article speaks volumes about your ability to interpret scientific data.
You seem to jump to outrageous conclusions with limited information or complete misinformation. I didn't say a THING about the article, I only meantioned the COVER as SHOWING the wave affect I'm trying to describe. There was actually an article about this affect in the November issue of SA. There were also two recent articles about the "bar" shape of our own galaxy, and the SA article in November talked about the fact that waves propagate from the core of the galaxy. Furthermore, we need to account for the acceleration of the universe in any "density" calculations.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/12/image/a
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17634
In the November Edition of SA, see the article "Ripples in a Galactic pond". Note the bar galaxies (like our Milky Way galaxy) tend to see wave moment in harmonics of the central spin of the bar. This would cause movement in the z axis, something that has NOT been accounted for in density meaurements. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 14:43:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
Do you believe gas fusion is the source of light and energy given off?
No, I personally think the energy source is neutron repulsion and/or possibly nuclear fission. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 15:01:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
You have provided no evidence that they are tenuous. And frankly the only reason that you think the measured density of the sun is incorrect is because it doesn't match your model.
I have technically never tried to calculate a "density" of the sun, therefore the current density calculations cannot "match" or not match my model. I have simply pointed out the dubious nature of using a heliocentric THEORY about solar movement and trying to apply it to "reality". In "reality", our sun moves, and accelerates and rides the waves of our galaxy. It is not my fault that current density model are "overly-simplistic" in their construction.
quote:
Density is a simple concept, it's just mass over volume. It's not supposed to account for the known forces of the universe.
If it doesn't account for these forces, how do you know it's even CLOSE to accurate in non-relative terms?
quote:
The fact that you don't realize this does not bode well.
The fact you do not realize how significantly this number can be changed by external forces does not bode well IMO either!
quote:
Density is not a heilocentric concept.
Yes it is! The current models consider the sun to be the center of the universe and calculate density as through there is NO movement in the z axis plane. That is a heliocentric concept! The moment we allow for external influences, dark energy or universal acceleration, this concept falls apart.
quote:
It seems utterly decisive to me.
No, the satellite images and the heliosiesmology evidence and the nuclear chemical evidence is "decisive" evidence. Your "theory" about a heliocentric density calculation is the weak piece of evidence here. Until you have accounted for something like dark matter, how could you ever hope to prove that this notion is even meaningful, let alone useful? We know that dark matter represents MORE mass than what we "see", and we know it's a powerful force in univeral acceleration. Where is this powerful and important force accounted for in heliocentric concepts of solar density?
quote:
Large astronomical bodies tend to get denser with depth. I'm flabbergasted that you don't realize this.
What? I certainly realize this, especially since I learned to scuba dive at about age 15. Density calculations however are directly affected by MOVEMENT. I'm flabbergasted you don't realize this.
quote:
If you're really serious about this calculate it and show your work.
I don't really have enough information right now to "calculate" the affect of dark matter on solar density calculations. What exactly *IS* dark matter in your opinion, and how does it "push" about bodies of matter? When you can answer such questions, I'll be happy to take a shot at it.
quote:
I've pointed out a fatal flaw in your model. There is no need to address anything else until you fix it.
That is simply false. You only showed the limitiation of density calculation and how overly simplisting in construction they are at the moment. You've certainly not shown any explanation of these images using gas model theory. If you intend to show "flaws" in my model, I suggest you start there.
I'm going to skip some of the redundant stuff....
M>Can you use gas model theory to explain real life observation or not? In other words, what is that stratified layer seen in heliosiesmology at .995R? What does that represent in gas model theory? What is that structure we see in doppler and running difference and raw EIT images? What is the light source? Why does this structure rotate uniformly from pole to equator?
quote:
I don't know. Perhaps an astrophysicist could tell you.
All this demonstrates to me is that you aren't what you claim to be (an expert on astrophysics) and you aren't really in a position to disprove or dismiss anything I've said here. If you don't know the answer according to gas model theory, what makes you think there even is one?
FYI, I have emailed Dr. Kosovichev (one of the authors of that heliosiesmology paper), Lockheed Martin and NASA about this data and none of them can or has answered this question. What astrophysicist do you claim has such an answer? |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 15:15:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
No, I'm viewing the solar system (and more exactly, Earth's orbit) as existing on the plane described by the x- and z-axis, with the surrounding stars as fixed points of reference for all axis.
That isn't really possible.
Of course it is. It's basic 3D geometry. Simply assume that the z-axis goes straight through the center of earth, breaks the earth's surface at the Equator at longitude 0° at Spring Equilibrium, to then continue through the center of the sun, where origo is. Y-axis basically is the sun's rotationan axis. How difficult was that?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 15:21:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You seem to jump to outrageous conclusions with limited information or complete misinformation. I didn't say a THING about the article, I only meantioned the COVER as SHOWING the wave affect I'm trying to describe.
Oh, you're quite correct. My mistake.quote:
There was actually an article about this affect in the November issue of SA. There were also two recent articles about the "bar" shape of our own galaxy, and the SA article in November talked about the fact that waves propagate from the core of the galaxy. Furthermore, we need to account for the acceleration of the universe in any "density" calculations.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/12/image/a
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17634
In the November Edition of SA, see the article "Ripples in a Galactic pond". Note the bar galaxies (like our Milky Way galaxy) tend to see wave moment in harmonics of the central spin of the bar. This would cause movement in the z axis, something that has NOT been accounted for in density meaurements.
Um, no, gravity waves don't actually make the galaxy move up and down, literally like ripples in a pond. In fact, they warp spacetime so slightly that we haven't yet been able to detect a gravity wave at all. How much would such a tiny ripple affect density measurements?
And why is it that you haven't answered my request for you to quantify these issues? Look at my post prior to the one which garnered this reply from you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 15:27:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No, I personally think the energy source is neutron repulsion and/or possibly nuclear fission.
How much energy would be required to keep the alleged iron shell from collapsing under its own weight? And then, how much fissile material and/or whatever causes "neutron repulsion" is needed to generate that much energy? |
- 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 - 11/27/2005 : 15:30:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You're talking about an iron shell with fissile material inside, an idea which immediately suggests checking the density to see if it's correct.
For one thing, I can only see the surface and the atmosphere and I can only "guess" at what is uner the suface. I cannot therefore KNOW with any sort of scientific certainty what the "density" of the sun might be in this model. If Dr. Manuel is correct about a neutron core, this would translate to a completely different "density" than the one I first proposed. I simply have no way to calculate this number at the moment.
The second major problem with this idea is that current density measurements are overly simplistic. They do NOT account for dark matter, or repulsive forces of any sort, or allow for any significant movement of the sun in the z axis. Unless and until we understand all these external variables, there is simply no way to begin to use such an overly simplistic notion of "density" to shed any light on the validity of ANY solar model, let alone be helpful on falsifying any solar model.
quote:
No, you've only asserted the truth of that. You've never once demonstrated that nobody has ever considered dark matter and your mysterious "z axis movements" when looking at the Sun's density.
Show me one density calculation that incorporates this force into the calculation!
quote:
Upon what evidence do you base that assertion?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=00023144-9B65-1383-9A5083414B7FFE87
quote:
It doesn't need to be, since the universe doesn't expand inside objects.
How do you know that dark matter has no affect in our solar system?
quote:
Nonsense. Not that you'll listen (since you didn't in at least one BAUT thread), but it's not up to me to disprove your model.
The bautforum is organized like a religious organization. They apply different rules to "ATM" threads than they do to threads they agree with. They ban people they disagree with, and close threads they disagree with. That behavior isn't scientific at all, it is psuedoscience.
quote:
My posts here are criticisms of it, yes, but it is your failure to answer those criticisms which leads me to believe that your model is non-functional.
I have answered these so called "criticisms" in quite a bit of detail. The fact you don't want to HEAR me does not mean I have not addressed them. The fact you have FAITH the sun doesn't move in the z axis and the solar system is unaffected by "dark matter" is not my fault.
quote:
Why is it that so many solar scientists use data from the same three areas of science, and direct observation, and come up with the gas model?
Then surely you should have no problem explain what that stratified layer is that was found in heliosiesmology? Surely you should have no trouble explaining those satellite images as well. I'm not asking for the moon here, just take the first image and explain it with gas model theory.
quote:
Indeed, a reasonable person would look at images from an alien place like the Sun and not give them labels like "structures" or "surfaces" without realizing that such labels are only analogous, and not literally true.
Huh? That first running difference image shows LOTS of "structure". Even if you disagree with me about the CAUSE of such "structures", we can certainly still see them in several types of images, including the RAW EIT images, running difference images and even Doppler images. The fact you won't even accept that there is visible "structure" in these images shows how irrational your faith has become. Even Alexander Kosovichev acknowledged "structure" in that tsunami video.
quote:
No. The gas model should explain the images, but doesn't have to explain them in your terms
I'm not asking you to explain this structure on MY terms, I'm asking you to explain them on GAS MODEL TERMS!
quote:
("structure," "light source," etc.). "Light source" is utterly meaningless when looking at a difference image, whether the gas model is true or not.
That is absolutely and completely false. Something is providing the light we see in these images, regardless of what it is. Something is also creating the structures we see in these images too, even if it's not what I think it is. Something is providing the light, and something is providing the structure in these observational images of a real sun. If your favorite theory of the sun has merit, it SHOULD be able to explain the light source and structure in SOME way, even if it's not MY way. IF you believe there is a gas model explanation for these images, put them on the table and we'll see which one is "simpler" and "better" and we can start to compare ideas. If you can't provide explanations for these images, then you are essentially living on faith IN SPITE OF the evidence.
quote:
You are the one calling those things "structures" as if they represented a 3D object upon a flat surface, and your interpretation of them as such has nothing whatsoever to do with who created the images.[quote]
False. There MUST be a LIGHT source, and there *IS* visible structure that is revealed by this "light". Whatever the light source, and whatever the structure represents, it must and does have a logical and scientific explanation. If you do not like my answers, offer us some alternatives!
[quote]Why wouldn't the electrons take the path of least resistance across the surface of the iron to the high points, and instead "arc" through a tenuous, high-resistance gas?
First of all, what makes you think that plasma is "high re |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 16:01:16 [Permalink]
|
Mike:
Fission? Neutron repulsion? Now, this is getting interesting and I want to look into it... I can't at the moment, but off the top of my head I have to comment that Hans Bethe's Nobel Prize for figuring out that hydrogen fusion is the energy source has definately stood the test of time pretty well, so I can't say I'm overwhelmed with confidence in your theory. |
Ron White |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
