|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 12/01/2005 : 17:03:40 [Permalink]
|
http://www.physorg.com/news8658.html
I just thought I'd let you know that not EVERY scientist thinks this is a "crackpot" idea, in fact a lot of folks are becomming increasingly skeptical of the gas model, both in terms of how it relates to solar bodies, as well as how it relates to Big Bang concepts and early images of our universe. The gas model is a THEORY, and one that seems to have less and less predictive capabilities in any satellite image, be it long range images, or closeup images of our own sun. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 17:21:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Talk about missing the forest for the trees! It's precisely this sort of illogic that makes you look like a crackpot.
A true skeptic is not required to stoop to logical fallacies in arguement. I'm not impressed.
quote:
No it wouldn't in fact Dave already addressed this point. He said: quote:
Temperature inversions can block air movement, and temperature gradients in the ocean can block water motion. That something can block plasma motion doesn't mean it's a solid.
But we also see "structure" in the layer that behaives completely unlike a plasma. That tsunami video is a great example. The wave that propagates through the photosphere behaves like a wave traveling through a liquid. Meanwhile, the structure on the left is not moved by the wave and it behaves more like a solid, holding a rigid and angular shape over time. More importantly this "structure" retains it's shape and relative distances over days and weeks. Solids do form in temperature ranges seen in the umbra during sunspot activity.
quote:
You really do need to develop a basic understanding of what you're talking about if you expect to be taken seriously.
quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot
The sunspot itself can be divided into two parts :
* umbra (temperatures around 2200°C)
* penumbra (temperatures around 3000°C)
Interestingly the introduction to this same article claims that sunspots are at roughly 5000 K. I'm not sure what accounts for this discrepancy.
It seems I do have to pay better attention to where WIKI uses C and K. I'll find you some links to papers that show lower temps than WIKI numbers.
How about using gas model theory to explaing to me what that stratified layer is, if it is not a solid, and explain to me where that that stratified "structure" is predicted in contemporary gas model theory. Keep in mind that this "stratification" takes place at .995R. What is that layer in gas model theory in your opinion? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/01/2005 17:30:40 |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 19:19:00 [Permalink]
|
Y'know, in the entire length of this thread the only thing I think I understand is that ronnywhite seems to be proposing that we host a Disaster Area concert, complete with sundive.
Okay. I volunteer to run the sound.  |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 20:43:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
http://www.physorg.com/news8658.html
Well, the huge ethical lapse on your part - failing to mention that not only do you support Dr. Manuel's ideas, but that you work with him - is now apparent. The strongly implied idea that the linked article supports your contentions about the increasing skepticism of the "gas model" is simply false, because it only cites Dr. Manuel, you, one other person by name and some anonymous students. The article itself says nothing about increasing rates of skepticism of the current model.
Further, where is the experimental evidence that "neutrons repel neutrons?" Protons repel protons because they're both positively charged. Neutrons are electrically neutral. Dr. Manuel needs to support his statement.quote:
The gas model is a THEORY...
So is the iron-shell model. So what?quote:
...and one that seems to have less and less predictive capabilities in any satellite image, be it long range images, or closeup images of our own sun.
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?
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.
The gas-fusion model correctly predicts the total energy output of the Sun. Your model does not. (While Dr. Manuel claims that your model predicts the Sun's luminosity, that's not the same as the total energy output, as anyone who's grabbed a hot frying pan knows.)
The gas-fusion model correctly predicts the neutrino output of the Sun. Your model does not, and in fact it cannot do so at this time, because you claim to have no idea what's going on under the "shell."
The gas-fusion model predicts that our Sun will eventually become a red giant. Your model seems to make no prections about the future of the Sun, and in fact only seems to say that big neutron stars will explode to become smaller stars. At what mass does that stop happening?
Speaking of mass, what percentage of the Sun's mass is iron, in your theory?
Speaking of the mass of iron in the Sun, your PDF file questions "where does all this iron come from?" without, I believe, actually quantifying how much iron is in the Sun. Given such an oversight, the question as posed is simply unanswerable. You make a guess, with all your "surface" talk, but it's certainly an unsatisfying guess without your statement of how much iron is there.
Current measurements by scientists say that iron ions make up 0.16% of the Sun's mass (they also say that Hydrogen makes up only 73.46% of the mass, not 90% as you claim - a factual mistake on your part). That's 3.18×1028 kg of iron, which is a hell of a lot. Were that to be solid iron, that'd be 4.14×1015 cubic kilometers of iron. I say that's "a lot" of iron, even though it's only 1/625th of the Sun's mass. Apparently, you don't think it's enough iron, but it is enough iron to make a layer at the "surface" of the Sun over 663 km thick (even thicker at 0.995R), were it actually solid.
But it's not. You rely heavily on the SERTS data without appearing to mention that all of the iron that SERTS detects is highly ionized, and therefore very hot. In fact, all of the elements SERTS can detect must be very hot, as they're all highly ionized. And nobody seems to think that the number or luminosity of the iron ion emission lines recorded by SERTS is in any way out of the ordinary as far as the gas-fusion model is concerned. In short, SERTS data lends no support to the idea that there's anything solid in the Sun at all.
And neither does all the "visual evidence," which seems to be largely conjecture based upon the appearance of images (no "lab work" there, either). Features on the Sun move with the Sun's rotation, but that doesn't mean they're solid. Bright and dark spots in difference images don't relate to absolute brightness, they relate to absolute differences between the images. A whirlpool would look like a bright, featureless spot in difference images. But enough of that, since it's unlikely you'll address it properly.
What's more important to me now is your claim (in the PDF file) that what we see in the corona is actually loops of iron plasma "insulated" by silicon. This idea fascinates me, as I can't think of a single mechanism through which such a construction might be created by what amounts to a big spark.
More questions: how thick is each of your "layers" supposed to be? We can work out the iron as soon as you tell me how much of the Sun's mass is allegedly iron. Same for silicon, neon, helium, hydrogen and the rest.
Not that any of the above really matters. Your insistence that we cannot know what's really going on, because of the expansion of the universe, the high gravity field, the possibility that "light mass" is being ignored, and every other objection you've brought to bear against the standard science, in reality, shoots your own theory in the head. Every statement you've made with certainty with respect to your model cannot be made with certainty because of the exact same arguments you've offered for why we can't know the "absolute" density of the Sun.
For example, we can't know that the stuff you see sits at 0.995R, since light gets bent in a strong gravitational field, and since we're unable (according to you) to accurately measure the mass of the Sun, we can't know how strong that field really is. So, those features could exist anywhere from 0.01R to 2.0R, but we'd never be the wiser. Hey, maybe the 171-angstrom light we're seeing is actually 4,000 angstrom light (after all, we don't have access to such strong magnetic and gravitational fields as to say that Fe IX emits 171 angstrom photons under solar conditions).
The idea that STEREO will help resolve these issues is laughable. In reality, the stress you put on the uncertainty of science undermines anything you think STEREO - and every other future Sun-observing program - might supply to support your theory. As I said, you've shot yourself in the head.
That is my number-one criticism of your theory: that you don't seem to apply your own criticisms to it. If you were to do so, you'd simply throw up your hands and say, "well, I can't know anything for sure, so one model is as good as the next!" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 21:11:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
That is my number-one criticism of your theory: that you don't seem to apply your own criticisms to it. If you were to do so, you'd simply throw up your hands and say, "well, I can't know anything for sure, so one model is as good as the next!"
Exactly. I was going to ask Michael Mozina why he questions the validity of any of these long range measurements in one breath, but then claims results support his theory in the next.
And I thought I did a good job in my parody post of predicting what his stammered excuses would be, although admittedly he left out any mention of aliens.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 21:23:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ktesibios
... proposing that we host a Disaster Area concert...
Right on, k! I can't lay claim to the idea, but count me in!
Hi Mike,
Well, I noticed from one of the websites that Steven Hawking thinks there's a black hole in the middle of the sun... given we're dealing with a topic that uncertain, maybe one can't be too open-minded. On the other hand, under some circumstances, I would trust numbers over what I saw unless what I saw could be converted to numbers that made more sense than other numbers suggesting the contrary. This is such a circumstance- but admittedly, it's a subjective call. If an aircraft "looked good" but most of the aerodynamicists said the numbers told a different story, I wouldn't want to fly in it. It seems like there's at least a fair probability that's what you're doing. Maybe better to wait until they test the thing first (meaning, come up with some kind of more specific and solid supporting theory and corroborating data.) Clearly, the evidence can't be direct, but that's OK... indirect will do just fine. Based on what I read, your interpretation of the temperature data and other is small minority view... the link you gave suggesting doubt among authorities doesn't suggest enough. Something more universally acceptable is needed which contradicts the gas model.
You might think this is too obvious to even ask, or a ridiculously trivial possibility, but sometimes that's where the oddities are from… right in clear view, off in a little corner. The part about NASA refusing to elaborate on certain aspects of the data naturally makes me wonder... just exactly how "raw" is the data? Has it gone through some transforms and had a few filters or twists-and-turns along the roadway from sensor to your PC? Is it possible that you need to be more intimately familiar with the sensors, supporting hardware, and NASAs various mathematical methods for dealing with aberrations in such data (and why) than they're willing to tell you? If they won't comment, maybe that's why they call it "raw"... maybe it would reveal somehow sensitive info RE their capabilities, the characteristics of the devices, or their digital image processing methods. Even going back to the original lunar orbit photos, they had to FFT, transform them again, then FFT^-1 just to compensate for distortion due to simple lateral camera movement relative to the surface. That data was trivial in both nature and volume compared to what you're dealing with... there must be much more numerical massaging going on behind the scenes now. You know as well as I that deviations in a continuously changing reference (background) can transform and filter into oddities between the space and time domains, and vice-versa... I don't know what the state-of-the-art methods are, but I know it's possible. Maybe that's why they call it "raw" data... maybe it's not yet "fit for public consumption," so "take it as you will" but don't take it TOO seriously... YET. If you already haven't, it seems to me that it would be a pretty easy one to definitively rule-out... run it by a few authorities on digital image collection and processing, and play "Devil's Advocate"... ask what combination of sensor hardware noise, environmental anomalies, or other aberrations run through the numerical methods known to the current state of the art could POSSIBLY account for the time-dependant geometric variations you cite. If they're utterly stumped and can't conceive of anything, you might proceed to relate observation to theories... if not, maybe take a closer look, or ask NASA about such specifics. Seems sensible to thoroughly rule-out these more mundane engineering issues first, though (???)
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 22:08:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, the huge ethical lapse on your part - failing to mention that not only do you support Dr. Manuel's ideas, but that you work with him - is now apparent.
Actually, he mentioned it in his first post.quote:
Recent Heliosiesmology findings also confirm the presense of a stratified layer at .995R, or just under the visible photosphere as Dr. Manuel and I predicted in our first paper together.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 23:18:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
A true skeptic is not required to stoop to logical fallacies in arguement. I'm not impressed.
I'm not saying that your argument is bogus because you're a crackpot, I'm saying that using a bogus argument makes you look like a crackpot. See the difference?quote:
But we also see "structure" in the layer that behaives completely unlike a plasma. That tsunami video is a great example. The wave that propagates through the photosphere behaves like a wave traveling through a liquid. Meanwhile, the structure on the left is not moved by the wave and it behaves more like a solid, holding a rigid and angular shape over time. More importantly this "structure" retains it's shape and relative distances over days and weeks. Solids do form in temperature ranges seen in the umbra during sunspot activity.
Is this the tsunami video you're referring to? I don't share your interpretation.quote:
It seems I do have to pay better attention to where WIKI uses C and K. I'll find you some links to papers that show lower temps than WIKI numbers.
Well it's pretty simple to convert between celsius and kelvin. What I was actually getting at is that the Wikipedia article itself appears to be inconsistent. The formula to convert from celsius to kelvin is just K = C + 273.15.quote:
How about using gas model theory to explaing to me what that stratified layer is, if it is not a solid, and explain to me where that that stratified "structure" is predicted in contemporary gas model theory. Keep in mind that this "stratification" takes place at .995R. What is that layer in gas model theory in your opinion?
Have you ever noticed how clouds can sometimes appear solid? It is of course an illusion based on scale and after a few minutes we can see that its shape has in fact changed significantly, but in our more whimsical moments it can be a fairly convincing illusion.
The features of the sun are many many times the scale of any terrestrial cloud, so even though they are formed of plasma it's not surprising that they can persist for a lot longer than you seem to anticipate. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 01:28:09 [Permalink]
|
Hi Mike,
OK, now I understand the relativistic issues you speculate upon- it wouldn't seem to be either provable or disprovable with current science, I don't think, but I'm not an expert. So all you've got is the visual data and a theory to account for alleged electrical energy patterns and such. Well, if the visual data can be demonstrated to impressively coincide with a mathematical model, that would be great- THAT'S what people will listen to (the experts, and everybody here, too.) I hope you succeed. You raise some interesting issues concerning relating data to theory (in the sense of assessing probabilities, interpreting data, and whether the standard view of "likelihood" could fail sometimes) but you must admit, by time-honored standards, the gas fusion theory is pretty well substantiated. The evidence is indirect, but that's not uncommon... what's more important is that it makes sense. You're really saying (kind of) that we've been "brainwashed" by the educational system and the scientific community. There really aren't any iron-clad rules as to what qualifies as "truth" and what's misinterpretation... but science has done awful well at sorting things out thus far. That's why we're so skeptical of your ideas... your compelling evidence is entirely subjective, which is not to say it's necessarily false. If we could understand it, too, you should be able to quantify it. Filter the images, whatever it takes, apply some numerical analysis so we can understand it in the language of science (equations, clear graphics) and it will be facinating to see. We're taught the language of science, we're not born literate in it. You have to express it in the right language (symbolic... and you should be able to) if there's validity to it. Without accompanying the pictures with the explanatory language, we might as well be looking at a Van Gogh. No need to explain with words, the math on paper (a screen?) says it better. |
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 12/02/2005 01:53:34 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 02:08:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
Without accompanying the pictures with the explanatory language, we might as well be looking at a Van Gogh. No need to explain with words, the math on paper (a screen?) says it better.
And then there are those of us who find math on paper to be far less intelligible than a Van Gogh...
But I place my trust in those who do like math.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/02/2005 02:09:54 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 08:05:47 [Permalink]
|
If anyone is interested about this iron chef sun business you can ask Dr. Oliver K. Manuel himself here, his screen name is om@umr.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 12:17:00 [Permalink]
|
| FYI, I will be out of the office next week doing an annual trade show/conference. I will try to respond to some of these messages before I leave on Monday, but I'll probably be offline most of next week. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 12:38:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
OK, now I understand the relativistic issues you speculate upon- it wouldn't seem to be either provable or disprovable with current science, I don't think, but I'm not an expert.
Well, I think that depends on what you mean by 'provable'. There is "evidence" to support a stratified layer under the photosphere, but whether that evidence is "proof" my model is correct is a matter of "interpretation" as well. I do however believe that the STEREO satellites will have the ability to falisify or corroborate the layering system I have put forth. I frankly could not ask for a "better" satellite technology to help answer these issues. I'm actually am quite excited at the prospect of seeing more 'evidence' to 'prove' the worthiness of this model. I don't however think it will automatically "prove" to everyone that Dr. Manuel and I are right.
quote:
So all you've got is the visual data and a theory to account for alleged electrical energy patterns and such. Well, if the visual data can be demonstrated to impressively coincide with a mathematical model, that would be great- THAT'S what people will listen to (the experts, and everybody here, too.)
As it relates to electrical discharge theory, Dr. Charles Bruce has already documented these behaviors mathematically. Dr. Manuel has also done the math from a nuclear chemistry standpoint, and Alexander Kosovichev has done the math as it relates to heliosiesmology. I'm not convinved that "math" alone will sway anyone, but the images will eventually have to be considered and accounted for in any and all solar models. These observations determine the usefulness of the model. If the model jives with observation, it is passes, if not, it fails. There is nothing unusual about this process, it SOP for any and all fields of science. The observations are key IMO.
quote:
I hope you succeed. You raise some interesting issues concerning relating data to theory (in the sense of assessing probabilities, interpreting data, and whether the standard view of "likelihood" could fail sometimes) but you must admit, by time-honored standards, the gas fusion theory is pretty well substantiated. The evidence is indirect, but that's not uncommon... what's more important is that it makes sense.
I will grant you that the gas model "theory" is "logical" and "makes sense". That is no guarantee however that this theory actually applies to a real life sun. It is the DIRECT observations that tell us whether the theory is applicable or not.
quote:
You're really saying (kind of) that we've been "brainwashed" by the educational system and the scientific community.
Basically I think that is true. We were all brainwashed myself included. That was part of why I could not fully understand the image s when I had a gas model mindset. The way to can tell this MAY be true is the fact that only ONE model is considered "viable" at this point, and there is not even any room left for any alternatives. That is not typical in areas of "hands off" sciences.
quote:
There really aren't any iron-clad rules as to what qualifies as "truth" and what's misinterpretation... but science has done awful well at sorting things out thus far. That's why we're so skeptical of your ideas... your compelling evidence is entirely subjective, which is not to say it's necessarily false. If we could understand it, too, you should be able to quantify it. Filter the images, whatever it takes, apply some numerical analysis so we can understand it in the language of science (equations, clear graphics) and it will be facinating to see.
I fail to see why we need fancy graphics to SEE structure. The fancy equations related to heliosiesmology, elecectrical discharge and chemistry didn't seem to have the impact you suggest. IMO it's the raw images that will tells us whether a "theory" is applicable in "reality". The math doesn't necessarily tell us that.
quote:
We're taught the language of science, we're not born literate in it. You have to express it in the right language (symbolic... and you should be able to) if there's validity to it. Without accompanying the pictures with the explanatory language, we might as well be looking at a Van Gogh. No need to explain with words, the math on paper (a screen?) says it better.
I think that astronomy at the moment is a bit TOO focused on math equations, and not focused enough on real life images. I saw plenty of math in that heliosiesmology paper I cited, yet you reject that math. Why? I think when you look a why you aren't moved by the math of that paper is that you still "disagree" about my "interpretation" of the data, even with all the math layed out in front of you. It still comes back to an internal choice you make that is "baised" based on what we were all taught in school. I'm not condemning that process, but it is that process that gets in the way of being "open" to any and all ideas that are "logical". This idea is also completely logical and benefits from the ability to explain any and all satellite images. Sooner or later we have to allow for competition even when other theories are "logical". The real issue is do they apply?
This really comes back to a very basic idea, and one that is easily testable. The gas model "assumes" that nothing solid exists under the photosphere. If that is true, we should NOT see a stratified layer that breaths with the solar cycle so close to the surface of the photosophere. There is no explanation for this statification in contemporary gas model of the sun. If you doubt me, try explaining that startification as such a shallow depth with a gas model. In "theory" this should be quite easy for a theory that is so well understood and so well travelled. Is it really that easy however to explain it with gas model theory? Try it a see for yourself. It's not that easy. In fact a stratified layer at such a shallow depth does NOT fit with contemporary gas model theory, and even the authors of the paper from Stanford did not try to explain it using gas model theory. Why is that? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/02/2005 16:15:11 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 16:31:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
I'm not saying that your argument is bogus because you're a crackpot, I'm saying that using a bogus argument makes you look like a crackpot. See the difference?
Not really. It's still your subjective opinion that it's a bogus arguement to begin with, and also your subjective opinion about the use of the term "crackpot". All that terms does is interject useless fallacy into the conversation.
quote:
Is this the tsunami video you're referring to? I don't share your interpretation.
Ok. Care to explain that angular "structure under the photosphere and why it retains such angular shapes in 3D so close to the surface of the photosphere?
quote:
Well it's pretty simple to convert between celsius and kelvin. What I was actually getting at is that the Wikipedia article itself appears to be inconsistent. The formula to convert from celsius to kelvin is just K = C + 273.15.
I agree that the calculation is simple, you just have notice which one was used in the first place.
quote:
Have you ever noticed how clouds can sometimes appear solid? It is of course an illusion based on scale and after a few minutes we can see that its shape has in fact changed significantly, but in our more whimsical moments it can be a fairly convincing illusion.
Sure, but I've also noticed how mountains also appear to be solid and they are. Where specifically do you see the SOHO running difference images (movie) "changing shape"?
The photosphere does indeed have a "liquid like" behavior to it. It's fluid, and sunspots tend to move around. That is completely unlike the structure we see UNDER the photosophere in that tsunami video. Notice how it is completely unaffected by the movement of the wave?
Notice in the shockwave video, how the these "structures" deflect shock waves? How do wispy clouds deflect shock waves?
quote:
The features of the sun are many many times the scale of any terrestrial cloud, so even though they are formed of plasma it's not surprising that they can persist for a lot longer than you seem to anticipate.
Your notion that the structure seen in the 171A layer are moving around. They really aren't moving around all that much. There is a certain amount of surface "erosion" that takes place during the electrical activity, but the major structures tend to be consistent and rotate uniformly. The notion that a "plasma" can hold 3 dimensional *ANGULAR* structures seems rather far fetched. As you can see in that wave, the plasmas of the photosphere are "gooey" in nature, and "liquid like" in their movement. They don't hold angular sturctures that well, certainly not 3D angular shapes for DAYS and WEEKS. A solid on the other hand DOES hold 3D angular shapes that deflect Doppler images. If you ask me, my explanation is both simpler and the only one that is "logical" based on the the behaviors of plasmas. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/02/2005 16:36:07 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
