|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 12/21/2005 : 15:22:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Now YOU are the one not being rational:
Actually I'm being quite rational. The last thing a gas model is expected to find under the photosphere is a surface, yet we find direct evidene of a stratification layer at .995R, smack in the middle of the presumed convection zone. Not only this, the same person's work shows that the plasma flow stops at 4800KM under the surface of the photosphere. It that's a solid surface, and it has every indication of being a surface, then the gas model is falsified. This stratification layer poses a SIGNIFICANT problem for gas model theory, and not such stratification was ever predicted at this depth.
quote:
It doesn't necessarily have to, since the gas model isn't fully developed either.
On the other hand, had the Gas Model specifically predicted that there should be no layer there at all, then the Gas Model would have been in trouble since it would have a seriously flawed prediction.
But that is essentially exactly what we have here. The is supposed to be convection zone right there that allows heat to rise from around .70R to the surface. Unfortunately for that model, there's a significant stratification in the way that has both an upper side and a lower side as well. It has a particular depth, and it seems to go spherically around the whole sun. If it looks like surface, and it acts like a surface, and blocks plasma flow like a surface and isn't supposed to even be there according to gas model theory, how do we know it's not a surface?
quote:
I find the rest of your post mostly fluff. You need to go back and study more about the Gas Model, before making more attempts at shooting it down, because right now, your efforts are counter-productive to your cause.
It's not counterproductive to point out that the gas model does predict any sort of stratification at this depth, but the sun does have such a stratification layer. We have direct evidence of the presense of something that current gas model theory isn't capable of addressing. That means that the current gas model is flawed and must be replaced with a "better" model.
Now what evidence do you have that this is some sort of exotic stratified plasma in the first place? |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2005 : 15:25:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Now YOU are the one not being rational:
Actually I'm being quite rational. The last thing that the gas model expected to find under the photosphere is a surface, yet we find direct evidence of a stratification layer at .995R, smack in the middle of the presumed convection zone. This same person's work also shows that the plasma flow stops at around 4800KM under the surface of the photosphere. If that is a solid surface, and it has every indication of being a surface, then the gas model is falsified. This stratification layer poses a SIGNIFICANT problem for gas model theory, and no such stratification layer was ever predicted at this depth.
quote:
It doesn't necessarily have to, since the gas model isn't fully developed either.
On the other hand, had the Gas Model specifically predicted that there should be no layer there at all, then the Gas Model would have been in trouble since it would have a seriously flawed prediction.
But that is essentially exactly what we have here. There is supposed to be convection zone in that location that allows heat to rise from around around .70R to the surface. Unfortunately for this concept, there's a significant stratification layer sitting in the way that has both an upper side and a lower side as well. It has a particular depth, and it seems to go spherically around the whole sun. If it looks like surface, and it acts like a surface, and blocks plasma flow like a surface and isn't supposed to even be there according to gas model theory, how do we know it's not a surface?
quote:
I find the rest of your post mostly fluff. You need to go back and study more about the Gas Model, before making more attempts at shooting it down, because right now, your efforts are counter-productive to your cause.
It's not counterproductive to point out that the gas model does predict any sort of stratification at this depth, but the sun does have such a stratification layer. We have direct evidence of the presense of something that current gas model theory isn't capable of addressing. That means that the current gas model is flawed and must be replaced with a "better" model.
Now what evidence do you have that this is some sort of exotic stratified plasma in the first place?
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2005 : 15:32:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There are any number of things the gas model fails to predict as well...
So the gas model doesn't predict everything as you insist that it must. Why must the gas model predict every feature and process on the sun with %100 accuracy? It is a requirement for no other theory. It is not a requirement that you impose on the solid surface model either. So why the double standard?quote:
...starting with what causes something as basic as a CME, what causes increased sunspot activity every 11 years, what that stratification layer is doing at that depth, etc.
The gas model is not silent on these issues as you may be implying. If you are interested in what the "gas model scientists" have to say about CME and sunspots then here are a few links you should follow up on.
Solar Smoke Rings
Coronal Mass Ejections
Sunspots: Modern Researchquote:
My current model should of course eventually give way to a more complete solid surface model of the sun.
Glad to hear it. As it stands now the solid surface model of the sun appears to be specifically geared towards making zero testable predictions. This is quite an achievement as the assumption that the sun has a solid surface would tend to imply certain inevitable conclusions (predictions if you will). But you have managed to avoid them all by resorting to ad hoc hypothesizing.quote:
The problem here in a nutshell is we found a surface under the photosphere where none was expected to be found.
Perhaps if you were to explain what was expected by gas model theorists we will better understand why it is so inconceivable that "stratification" could exist at that depth.quote:
I can't help that fact, nor can I personally ignore that data the way some folks might like. I can clearly see a stratifcation layer in heliosiesmology data that doesn't fit contemporary gas model theory. I can see the structures in that stratification layer in satellite images as well.
No one is asking you to ignore the data. The problem is that you are misunderstanding what the data represents. I don't know why this isn't clear to you.quote:
Direct observation should always be the key in determining which model is the most ACCURATE model, and which model needs to be replaced.
Absolutely. But when dealing with things that are outside of our daily experience we do need to be sure that we have an accurate understanding of what we are observing. I would suggest that you do not have a solid grasp of the type of behaviour that is expected from plasmas, especially in the condidions present in the sun and on massive scales. |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 12/21/2005 16:13:38 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2005 : 16:39:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
So the gas model doesn't predict everything as you insist that it must. Why must the gas model predict every feature and process on the sun with %100 accuracy? It is a requirement for no other theory. It is not a requirement that you impose on the solid surface model either. So why the double standard?
It need not predict EVERYTHING accurately, but it MUST be right about whether or not a solid surface exists under the photosphere. That isn't a "small" or irrelevant issue, and the discovery of a surface (assuming you ever agree) would completely falsify the gas model theory.
In the case of current gas model theory, we are supposed to be seeing convection zone in this area, not a stratfication layer.
quote:
The gas model is not silent on these issues as you may be implying. If you are interested in what the "gas model scientists" have to say about CME and sunspots then here are a few links you should follow up on.
In your own words, what causes a CME? I've read these theories and they are more than a little light on any sort of explanation that might be applied to that first Lockheed running difference movie of a CME.
Glad to hear it. As it stands now the solid surface model of the sun appears to be specifically geared towards making zero testable predictions. This is quite an achievement as the assumption that the sun has a solid surface would tend to imply certain inevitable conclusions (predictions if you will). But you have managed to avoid them all by resorting to ad hoc hypothesizing.
Excuse me? I made around 20 predictions in that first paper I wrote last summer. At least one of of these predictions been evidenced in heliosiesmology data. We see a statificaion layer at a shallow depth.
quote:
Perhaps if you were to explain what was expected by gas model theorists we will better understand why it is so inconceivable that "stratification" could exist at that depth.
As I've meantioned serveral times, this is "supposed" to be convection zone that allows heat to flow up from the core. What's that stratifical layer doing in the middle of the convection zone?
quote:
No one is asking you to ignore the data. The problem is that you are misunderstanding what the data represents. I don't know why this isn't clear to you.[/quote]
It is clear to me that you think this, but you're a little light on detailed explanations of any satellite images that are relevant to this discussion. It's easy to criticise another's point of view. It's quite another issue entirely to offer a scientifically "better" solution to a real life observation.
quote:
Absolutely. But when dealing with things that are outside of our daily experience we do need to be sure that we have an accurate understanding of what we are observing. I would suggest that you do not have a solid grasp of the type of behaviour that is expected from plasmas, especially in the condidions present in the sun and on massive scales.
[/quote]
That is where you are dead wrong. I do have an excellent grasp of the behaviors of plasma from these satellite images. We can see the fluid-like behavior of plasma in the tsunami video. That wave traverses the plasma, much like water traverses the surface of a pond. Plasmas are very dynamic. We can see evidence of this at the surface of the photosophere where we see patterns of 'convection' that also look very liquid-like in their behaviors.
That liquid like consistency is quite unlike the rigid and stable structures we see under the photosophere. These structures rotate uniformly and defect nickle ions in angular, consistant patterns. I would say it is you that lacks a clear understanding of the behaviors of plasma in solar conditions. I've been studying plasma behavior in solar conditions for nearly 15 years now. I can tell what a plasma act like and I can tell what a solid surface acts like, and I can tell you that the statification layer shows all the properties of being solid, and none of the properties associated with plasma. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2005 : 19:29:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It need not predict EVERYTHING accurately...
Thank you, I will take this as a retraction of your previous statement.quote:
...but it MUST be right about whether or not a solid surface exists under the photosphere. That isn't a "small" or irrelevant issue, and the discovery of a surface (assuming you ever agree) would completely falsify the gas model theory.
Yes it must be right about that. You though, have been arguing that the existence of stratification at .995R is evidence that the gas model is "going out the window" regardless of whether that stratification is actually solid.quote:
In the case of current gas model theory, we are supposed to be seeing convection zone in this area, not a stratfication layer.
So is it your position that a convection zone cannot show any signs of stratification?quote:
Excuse me? I made around 20 predictions in that first paper I wrote last summer. At least one of of these predictions been evidenced in heliosiesmology data. We see a statificaion layer at a shallow depth.
Which paper specifically?
Edit: Never mind, I just saw them in Dave's post.quote:
As I've meantioned serveral times, this is "supposed" to be convection zone that allows heat to flow up from the core. What's that stratifical layer doing in the middle of the convection zone?
In the middle? You've been saying that it is located at .995R. That would put it very close to the outer edge of the convection zone.quote:
quote:
I would suggest that you do not have a solid grasp of the type of behaviour that is expected from plasmas, especially in the condidions present in the sun and on massive scales.
That is where you are dead wrong. I do have an excellent grasp of the behaviors of plasma from these satellite images.
Well I only have your word on that, and frankly, given your basic misunderstandings and obvious bias, I'd say it's pretty unlikely. |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 12/21/2005 20:23:55 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2005 : 23:59:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The last thing a gas model is expected to find under the photosphere is a surface,
If you're saying "The last thing a gas model is expected to find under the photosphere is a solid surface", then I would agree with this statement.
However:quote:
yet we find direct evidene of a stratification layer at .995R,
This is in dispute. And though you've made much handwaving about "stratification layer", you have managed to convince none of us that "stratification layer" is even a scientifically correct term.
We might agree that there's something at that depth, but since none of us can actually go there and poke a stick in it, we have to rely on poor images taken by satellites. Your interpretation of those images differ from the rest of the scientific world. That says more about you than anything else. And being a skeptic, I have to question the validity of your findings.
quote:
smack in the middle of the presumed convection zone. Not only this, the same person's work shows that the plasma flow stops at 4800KM under the surface of the photosphere.
You'll have to post links to that specific work before I will even consider it. You're making a positive assertion: now back it up with evidence.
quote:
and not such stratification was ever predicted at this depth.
There you go again: that the gas model didn't explicitly predict a layer at that depth, solid or otherwise, does not falsify it. It just means that the gas model is still incomplete.
quote:
But that is essentially exactly what we have here. The is supposed to be convection zone right there that allows heat to rise from around .70R to the surface.
There are several layers of convection in the zone .70R to the surface. The outermost layer than ends at .995R just looks and behaves differently from what was expected. So what? It doesn't mean it has to be SOLID.
quote:
It's not counterproductive to point out that the gas model does predict any sort of stratification...
I meant it's counterproductive, because ther more you yab about "stratification layer" and keep displaying such poor knowledge of physics, you are making us more and more convinced that you have nothing of worth to offer. This is what I mean when I say you are counterproductive:
The more you try to convince us with your poor arguments, the less likely we are to agree with you that the sun has a solid surface.
quote:
...stratification layer...
Sigh.
quote:
Now what evidence do you have that this is some sort of exotic stratified plasma in the first place?
Does it have to be plasma? After all, the temperature of the chromosphere is only about 6000 Kelvin... |
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 - 12/22/2005 : 12:26:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
If you're saying "The last thing a gas model is expected to find under the photosphere is a solid surface", then I would agree with this statement.
Great. We're making some progress then. This seems to be a very CRUCIAL issue here. If that is an open convection zone that's one thing. If there is a solid surface, it's quite a horse of a different color.
quote:
This is in dispute. And though you've made much handwaving about "stratification layer", you have managed to convince none of us that "stratification layer" is even a scientifically correct term.
We might agree that there's something at that depth, but since none of us can actually go there and poke a stick in it, we have to rely on poor images taken by satellites.
A take exception to the notion of "poor" images. By future standards , these images aren't of the highest quality based on megapixel resolutions, but they are not "poor" images by any stretch of the imagination. They are incrediblty useful and important images.
quote:
Your interpretation of those images differ from the rest of the scientific world. That says more about you than anything else.
Actually, that isn't true. In fact Lockheed Martin has never offered me an explanation of any sort, and NASA's answer was meaningless. No one to date has really offered a comprehensive answer that fits any of the satellite or heliosiesmology evidence. Even Alexander Kosovichev took a giant step backward from the explanation he tried to offer me in the summer. It's really hard to tell if my explanation really differs from anyone "in authority", since they are keeping their mouths shut. The few alternative explanations I have been offered come from individuals. Other individuals however share my interpretation. It is really a fallacy then for you to claim my interpretations differ from the scientific world. Even the attempt to create the "illusion" of "me against the world" is another logical fallacy by the way. It is not a scientific explaination for any of the details in these images.
quote:
And being a skeptic, I have to question the validity of your findings.
Of course you do. Then again, when are your going to question the validity of the gas model in light of this stratifaction layer seen by Stanford?
quote:
You'll have to post links to that specific work before I will even consider it. You're making a positive assertion: now back it up with evidence.
Fair enough. I've posted the link in the other thread, but here it is again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1641599.stm
Notice it's the same person who was involved in the stratification paper.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0510111
Notice to that the first link suggests that sunspot behavior is a very "shallow" experience, and the plasma stops flowing around 4800KM. In the stratification paper, we see evidence of not only a top to this layer, but also an underside or bottom to this layer. We can therefore show it has a specific thickness.
All of these pieces of data are consistent with a surface crust at 4800Km that has plenty of iron.
quote:
There you go again: that the gas model didn't explicitly predict a layer at that depth, solid or otherwise, does not falsify it. It just means that the gas model is still incomplete.
This data however threatens the whole concept of a gas model. You can't just "tweek" the gas model to add a surface crust! If it's solid, the whole gas model is falsified. That brings us to those electrical arcs coming off the surface.......
quote:
There are several layers of convection in the zone .70R to the surface. The outermost layer than ends at .995R just looks and behaves differently from what was expected. So what? It doesn't mean it has to be SOLID.
But what if it is? What is it? Where does any gas model predict any "stratification" in this zone? What is "stratified"? How does this stratification layer hold structure over the course of days?
quote:
I meant it's counterproductive, because ther more you yab about "stratification layer" and keep displaying such poor knowledge of physics, you are making us more and more convinced that you have nothing of worth to offer. This is what I mean when I say you are counterproductive:
That is just plain illogical. I've shown you evidence from Stanford University and from UCLA that shows stratification between .970R and .995R. I've shown you it's not predicted to exist in any gas model on the planet. I've shown you images from this surface using doppler imaging and using running difference imaging techniques. I've show you heat signatures in TRACE/YOHKOH composite images that show heat patterns consistent with the flow of electrical arcs from this surface, through the photosphere and into the corona. I've shown you folks sunquake videos where the whole surface literally "cracks", just like the crust cracks here on earth.
You'll ingore all this data and then act like I'm somehow lacking in some sort of "special" knowledge of physics which you seem to think you posess, but you won't even offer a logical alternative to work with that is even marginally attentive to any detail whatsover. That is simply illogical IMO.
What special knowledge of physics do you posess here that gives the ability to explain these images better than I have explained them? Where is you interpretaion of these images using gas model theory? How does it explain those running difference movies better than my explaination? What holds all that structure over such long lengths of time, and where is any evidence of differential rotation in any of those running difference images?
quote:
The more you try to convince us with your poor arguments, the less likely we are to agree with you that the sun has a solid surface.
What then would you have me do here? I've handed you several kinds of scientific evidence to support my case. I've handed you three plus decades of research in the field of nuclear chemistr |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2005 : 21:00:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That is just plain illogical. I've shown you evidence from Stanford University and from UCLA that shows stratification between .970R and .995R.
"Stratification" doesn't mean "solid."quote:
I've shown you it's not predicted to exist in any gas model on the planet.
Which is irrelevant to whether or not the stratification represents a solid surface.quote:
I've shown you images from this surface using doppler imaging and using running difference imaging techniques.
You have presented no evidence that those images come from 0.995R.quote:
I've show you heat signatures in TRACE/YOHKOH composite images that show heat patterns consistent with the flow of electrical arcs from this surface, through the photosphere and into the corona.
You have? Here in one of these SFN threads? Really?quote:
I've shown you folks sunquake videos where the whole surface literally "cracks", just like the crust cracks here on earth.
Assumes facts not in evidence.quote:
You'll ingore all this data...
Strawman.quote:
and then act like I'm somehow lacking in some sort of "special" knowledge of physics which you seem to think you posess, but you won't even offer a logical alternative to work with that is even marginally attentive to any detail whatsover. That is simply illogical IMO.
Yes, it's illogical, which is why nobody here is doing it. You're the one positing "special" knowledge which few other people have, not anyone here. You're the one offering a model which can't even predict its own internal pressures (an illogical alternative to the gas-fusion model). Hey, what about addressing those predictions I pointed out on page 1 of this thread, anyway? You can take your time, of course.quote:
What special knowledge of physics do you posess here that gives the ability to explain these images better than I have explained them?
Nobody here claims to be able to explain the images better, I (at least) find your explanation absurdly lacking in predictive power compared to the standard model.quote:
Where is you interpretaion of these images using gas model theory?
Once again with the false dichotomy.quote:
How does it explain those running difference movies better than my explaination?
It doesn't have to explain it better than your explanation. It just has to use fewer unverified assumptions, and it does.quote:
What holds all that structure over such long lengths of time...
Magnetic fields.quote:
...and where is any evidence of differential rotation in any of those running difference images?
Yes, but it's very small. After all, the Sun's atmosphere at 45° turns at 93% of the speed of the rotation rate at the equator, and near the poles it's still 90% of the equator's rate. It's not a big difference (much smaller than you're implying), but it's visible in the images you've provided.quote:
I have Doppler images that show a structure under the photosphere at a shallow depth that doesn't behave like a plasma.
Then why is all of that image moving? There's nothing there which is the pitch-black one would expect of an unmoving structure.quote:
I've got evidence of arcs coming off that surface.
Only, apparently, if one looks at things in a particular way.quote:
I've got the life's work of Dr. Birkeland, Bruce and Manuel.
Dr. Birkeland's "life's work" was on the aurorae phenomena, not the Sun itself. Dr. Bruce's work is 60-something years old, and doesn't appear to be the basis for anything current (you provide a link to him reminiscing in 1968, forcryingoutloud). Dr. Manuel thinks that neutrons repel neutrons, but I can't figure out why and you won't help me to understand.quote:
What more do you want?
Helioseismoligcal evidence of a solid layer. The precise composition of that layer. A method whereby a tenuous plasma can generate neutrinos. A detailed description (over time) of how electrical fields build up and discharge across the hypothetical surface. A mechanism whereby said surface might expand and thicken, and then contract and thin, on a periodic basis. The details of the process by which the shell formed in the first place, from first iron atom to fully-formed shell. A solid-surface model which can predict the Sun's radius and temperature accurately, knowing only its mass and composition.quote:
quote:
...stratification layer...Sigh.
What a giant and rediculace NITPICK! You'll focus on a phra |
- 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 - 12/24/2005 : 06:34:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
And being a skeptic, I have to question the validity of your findings.
Of course you do. Then again, when are your going to question the validity of the gas model in light of this stratifaction layer seen by Stanford?
People much better than me has already done that and haven't found the gas model lacking in any serious way. The only one who seems to think that "stratification layer" means "solid" is you. But your solid model does not explain so many crucial things, that the gas model does: the neutrino output, the size, mass and average density.
quote:
quote:
You'll have to post links to that specific work before I will even consider it. You're making a positive assertion: now back it up with evidence.
Fair enough. I've posted the link in the other thread, but here it is again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1641599.stm
Notice it's the same person who was involved in the stratification paper.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0510111
Notice to that the first link suggests that sunspot behavior is a very "shallow" experience, and the plasma stops flowing around 4800KM. In the stratification paper, we see evidence of not only a top to this layer, but also an underside or bottom to this layer. We can therefore show it has a specific thickness.
So what? None of the papers says that the layer is solid. Only that there appears to be some sort of layer there.
quote:
All of these pieces of data are consistent with a surface crust at 4800Km that has plenty of iron.
All those pieces of data are consisten with other types of layers too, plasma-like of liquid-like. There is iron in the sun, of that there is no dispute, as well as a lot of other elements. And it makes sense that these different elements concentrate in layers. But it doesn't have to be solid.
quote:
quote:
There you go again: that the gas model didn't explicitly predict a layer at that depth, solid or otherwise, does not falsify it. It just means that the gas model is still incomplete.
This data however threatens the whole concept of a gas model. You can't just "tweek" the gas model to add a surface crust!
But you are the only one who maintain that there has to be a solid crust. The rest of us isn't interpreting any of the data as evidence of asolid crust, so consequently we do not see a need to "tweak" the gas model to incorporate one.
quote:
But what if it is? What is it? Where does any gas model predict any "stratification" in this zone? What is "stratified"? How does this stratification layer hold structure over the course of days?
Because the aparent structures (whatever makes it look like solid structures anyway) are HUGE. Didn't you admit yourself that every single pixel equals hundreds of square kilometers. We are talking about mountain ranges here. Both is surface area and in height. Such large scale structures takes time to change!
|
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 - 12/27/2005 : 21:29:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
"Stratification" doesn't mean "solid."
It doesn't mean plasma either. Then again, even "stratification" of plasma by weight is going to sink the gas model, and blow the doors off conventional gas models that claim no mass separation in the plasma by atomic weight.
quote:
Which is irrelevant to whether or not the stratification represents a solid surface.
But it is directly relevant to the viability of contemporary gas models. The old gas model is now dead. Where is the new one that predicts this layer, and how and why is it predicted to exist at this depth based on gas model concepts?
Either way you look at it, that stratification isn't predicted in current solar models. We need "better" ones now that explain these phenomenon.
quote:
You have presented no evidence that those images come from 0.995R.
On the contrary. The fact we see the at all, and so close to the surface in terms of that surface wave depth, does show it's very "shallow" under that photosphere. Their confirmation of the shallowness of that depth is a key issue. Dr. Manuel and I predicted a very shallow plasma shell with a relatively large surface crust. The fact Stanford verified this for us is all that more helpful to our case. If they had seen this stratification at .70R and nothing above that, you'd be jumping up and down claiming it's evidence to support the current gas model. Instead you are trying to ignore a stratified layer where none was EVER (IN THE WHOLE HISTORY OF GAS MODELS) predicted to exist.
quote:
You have? Here in one of these SFN threads? Really?
I was thinking in terms of my paper and my website. I'm not sure if I've posted every relevant image to these two threads and I'm too lazy to go make sure. You can find all these images on my website complete with the explanations I offer for them.
quote:
Assumes facts not in evidence..
No, it assumes OBSERVATIONS presented as evidence which you have yet to explain using gas model theory. I'm all ears. What happened in your opinion on the dates in question and how does that relate to the stratification layer at .995R?
quote:
Yes, it's illogical, which is why nobody here is doing it. You're the one positing "special" knowledge which few other people have, not anyone here.
You seem to think you are more qualified to interpret the images than I am. Why?
quote:
You're the one offering a model which can't even predict its own internal pressures (an illogical alternative to the gas-fusion model).
That wouldn't sound so ironic to me if that statified layer wasn't sitting smack dab in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone. :)
The pressures will be related to all sorts of unknowns that I cannot yet answer. I'd rather stick to what I can actually observe rather than what I would essentially have to "guess" at.
quote:
Hey, what about addressing those predictions I pointed out on page 1 of this thread, anyway? You can take your time, of course.
Was there a specific point you were trying to make or would you like a blow by blow response? Suffice to say that the gas model predicts no separation of plasmas by weight, and no stratication layer at .995. My model predicts both mass separation by weight and a surface at .995R. The mass separation issue, and the placement of the transitional region in relationship to the photosphere will be the key and deciding issue ultimately. The STEREO program offers us the hope of falsifying models mathematically in 3D. I predict it will "discover" that the transitional region where solar moss activity takes place is located under the photosphere, not over the photosphere as NASA and Lockheed Martin believe. That is a very testable and falsifyable position.
The layering scheme in my model is likewise quite easy to test in 3D. If Dr. Manuel is right, then elements are mass separated right down the the isotope. This should be easy enough to verify with the STEREO program as well. The flow of electricity from the surface features is easy enough to verify. There's nothing mysterious about the predictions of my model. All of it will be readily testable by STEREO.
quote:
Nobody here claims to be able to explain the images better, I (at least) find your explanation absurdly lacking in predictive power compared to the standard model.
Again, the irony meter is sort of pegged by that stratified layer sitting right in the middle of a presumably open convection zone in a presumably non mass separated plasma. The predictions don't seem to be worth very much when you compare them with direct observation.
quote:
Once again with the false dichotomy.
There is no false dichotomy here. I've offered you a scientific explanation using a solid surface model. You have not offered me a scientific explaination of these images using contemporary gas model theory.
quote:
It doesn't have to explain it better than your explanation. It just has to use fewer unverified assumptions, and it does.
That is false. Your model is not exempt from scrutiny based on what is found in direct observation. Your model DOES assume that mass separation does not occur. Your model DOES assume a convection zone that begins around .70R and continues to the surface. It mentions NOTHING about that stratified layer at .995R with measured THICKNESS no less. How do you explain that? Oooooops?
quote:
Magnetic fields.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/27/2005 21:36:07 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2005 : 21:58:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
People much better than me has already done that and haven't found the gas model lacking in any serious way.
So really this is mostly an appeal to authority fallacy?
quote:
The only one who seems to think that "stratification layer" means "solid" is you.
Dr. Manuel seems to be leaning my way. Those electric arcs have to be explained somehow. That stratifation layer has a specific and measured depth and has been observed to block the flow of plasma. Now that sure SOUNDS like a surface to me. :) (A little heliosiesmology humor). I didn't see anyone attempt to explain that stratification in that paper using gas model theory. Did you? If Stanford and UCLA can't explain it, what makes you think the "experts" agree with you again?
quote:
But your solid model does not explain so many crucial things, that the gas model does: the neutrino output, the size, mass and average density.
The neutrino output will be explained in a paper within the next week or so. I'll post a link for you when it's on ArXiv.
quote:
So what? None of the papers says that the layer is solid. Only that there appears to be some sort of layer there.
So what? You have something with a thickness of about .010R sitting right in the middle of your convection zone, blocking the flow of plasma, and you say "so what?"?!?!!? Ya, there does seem to be a layer there alright, a layer that blocks plasma flow and holds structure and changes in depth with the solar cycle. Its not predicted in any gas model on the face of the earth, but there it is.
quote:
All those pieces of data are consisten with other types of layers too, plasma-like of liquid-like.
Plasmas are liquid-like in their behavior. We can see that wave passing over that tsunami video, like a wave travels through water. Likewise we can see a "structure" under that wave that isn't moving and isn't affected by the flow of plasma around it. That is how a solid would behave. That rotation we see in SOHO images that shows these same structures days later is also consistent with a solid surface. Those arcs coming off that stratified layer are consistent with solids emitting electrical arcs. According to gas model theory, there is no mass separation of plasmas, so what in the world is that layer doing there at that depth in the first place? How is it different from the layers above it and below it? How does it hold it's shape like the shapes we see under the wave?
quote:
There is iron in the sun, of that there is no dispute, as well as a lot of other elements. And it makes sense that these different elements concentrate in layers. But it doesn't have to be solid.
Now you personally have deviated from standard gas model theory. Standard gas model theory does NOT predict mass separation of elements as you suggest. That exactly what got Dr. Manuel in trouble in fact. His observations suggested the elements were arranged by atomic weight, right down to the isotope. Gas model theoriest therefor rejected his views. Care to now explain why you are suggesting this idea?
quote:
But you are the only one who maintain that there has to be a solid crust. The rest of us isn't interpreting any of the data as evidence of asolid crust, so consequently we do not see a need to "tweak" the gas model to incorporate one.
Your "tweak" rather thretens the entire premise of the gas model, specifically that it's mostly hydrogen, and not mass separated. Your ideas are exactly the same ideas that got Dr. Manuel's work rejected in the first place! What kind of "tweak" is that? That layer is mostly IRON if we go what kind of photons it's emitting.
quote:
Because the aparent structures (whatever makes it look like solid structures anyway) are HUGE. Didn't you admit yourself that every single pixel equals hundreds of square kilometers. We are talking about mountain ranges here. Both is surface area and in height. Such large scale structures takes time to change!
I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't cut it. We can see "change" happen on the surface of that photosphere during that tsunami video. We can see the strucutures underneath are not changing at all, or nothing at all even in the same range of the kinds of changes we see in that surface. In the Trace RD image, we see almost no change over very long periods of time. In the SOHO RD image we see little if any change over *8 DAYS*.
So, now I'm to believe you and accept a 'mass separated' plasma model, but then that layer must have a lot of iron in it since that is where the iron rich coronal loops originate. Care to explain why YOU don't have density problem now, as well as a problem explaining how fusion might occur in "heavier than iron" layer of plasma? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2005 : 22:55:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
So, now I'm to believe you and accept a 'mass separated' plasma model, but then that layer must have a lot of iron in it since that is where the iron rich coronal loops originate.
What evidence is there that the coronal loops are "iron rich?" Most of the images you have are of only iron plasma, because the filters were tuned to only look for iron plasma. Similarly, SERTS only looked for EUV data, ignoring the rest of the spectrum (and thus well over 2,000 isotopes).
Were I to put a "candy-apple red" filter on a traffic camera, I might conclude that there are mostly red cars on the road. But I'd be wrong. |
- 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 - 12/27/2005 : 23:36:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It doesn't mean plasma either. Then again, even "stratification" of plasma by weight is going to sink the gas model, and blow the doors off conventional gas models that claim no mass separation in the plasma by atomic weight.
Don't jump the gun. You don't have stratification by atomic weight. All you have is "stratification" period.
In other words, the doors have yet to be blown off. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2005 : 08:36:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
People much better than me has already done that and haven't found the gas model lacking in any serious way.
So really this is mostly an appeal to authority fallacy?
It is an appeal to authority I admit that, but the appeal is not fallacious when it is to experts in the field. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html
If you manage to publish "the solid surface of the sun" in a peer-review journal, I'll gladly consider you an authority too.
'Til then, Astronomers at NASA and elsewhere don't seem impressed by you, and they are astronomers, not computer programmers.
If your speculations regarding a solid surface on the sun had enough substance, I would have heard something from elsewhere about it. I'm the president of the astronomy club where I live, and though I'm not as interested in solar physics as some of the other members, they would have alerted me of something as sensational as "a gas model in crisis", as they monitor both peer-reviewed publications and popular science magazines.
quote:
I didn't see anyone attempt to explain that stratification in that paper using gas model theory. Did you? If Stanford and UCLA can't explain it, what makes you think the "experts" agree with you again?
There we have you using false dichotomy:
Just because they cannot explain the result in the current gas-model does not necessarily mean it is solid. If they had thought that the result indicated a solid layer, they would have said so in no such uncertain terms as "stratification" which does not mean "solid".
You are reminding me of an idiot who visited us some time back who insisted that black holes are liquid because Steven Hawking said that it "evaporates".
quote:
quote:
But your solid model does not explain so many crucial things, that the gas model does: the neutrino output, the size, mass and average density.
The neutrino output will be explained in a paper within the next week or so. I'll post a link for you when it's on ArXiv.
That will be some interesting reading. I hope you won't accuse me of appeal to authority, if I refer to others the more heavy stuff of the readings. I know some physics, but I'm far from a master of it.
But I know something about "neutrons repelling neutrons": They don't. They don't "care", since they electrically neutral.
What holds up a neutron star from collapsing into a black hole is the Pauli Exclusion Principle. A balloon keeps its shape thanks to molecules bouncing in the inner side of the surface. A "gas" of neutrons cannot do that because 99% of atoms are empty space, even in solids. And when a neutron eventually hits a nucleus it either pass through if the energy is high enough, or it gets absorbed. It doesn't bounce back, keeping pressure up like normal gas molecules do.
Your model is seriously flawed if you need to rely on the sun having a neutron star core: the neutron star requires 1,4 sun masses to exist.
quote:
quote:
There is iron in the sun, of that there is no dispute, as well as a lot of other elements. And it makes sense that these different elements concentrate in layers. But it doesn't have to be solid.
Now you personally have deviated from standard gas model theory. Standard gas model theory does NOT predict mass separation of elements as you suggest. That exactly what got Dr. Manuel in trouble in fact. His observations suggested the elements were arranged by atomic weight, right down to the isotope. Gas model theoriest therefor rejected his views. Care to now explain why you are suggesting this idea?
Different elements with the same kinetic energy will have different velocities, because of their weight. In a gas, molecules have random velocities, but it makes sense that there will be at least some differentiation between elements. In Earth atmosphere, oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide mix evenly even if the molecular weight differs more than 50%, but if the difference is high enough, there will be a gradual separation: Radon will sink, and neon will rise. But I do not expect elements to get sorted right down to the isotopes. (and here comes an argument from incredulity fallacy:) I find it ridiculous considering the thermal turbulence in the atmosphere of the sun.
quote:
So, now I'm to believe you and accept a 'mass separated' plasma model, but then that layer must have a lot of iron in it since that is where the iron rich coronal loops originate. Care to explain why YOU don't have density problem now, as well as a problem explaining how fusion might occur in "heavier than iron" layer of plasma?
You are setting up a couple of dichotomies again:
I suggest there might be some differentiation in elements at and above the surface, but not layers sorted right down to isotopes.
The mixing of elements will still happen, especially in the convection zone, at .70+R where there is much "turbulence". And I think you are an idiot for suggesting that I would imply that the sun had a heavier-than-iron core.
Especially in the light that you think the sun's core is a neutron star. That is what you are claiming, isn't it? |
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. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2005 : 11:29:16 [Permalink]
|
Forgive me for not wading through the million+ words of this topic and your website, but I have some questions.
1) Are you saying all stars are like this? If not which ones are not solid surface stars.
2) What happened in the early universe when there was no Iron or miniscule amounts of it? What changed to make the new stars have a solid surface?
|
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
