|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 01/07/2006 : 11:06:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, I think we can forget all the business about any changes which may or may not exist with Mozina's "crater." Instead, given the knowledge that this "crater," if it sits on Mozina's solid surface, should spin once every 27.3 days, we can use TRACE's images to test that hypothesis.
Since we now been through about 20 pages, I am pretty much done with this conversation at this point. What I find most frustrating Dave is that you only half listen to what I say, and you make me personally explain every single detail of my theory to you over and over again.
If I had not already told you a *bunch* of times already that the surface undergoes significant change over time because of the intense electrical activity from the surface, this line of reasoning would make a lot of sense and would be a rational arguement. As it is, it just shows me how little you are listening and paying attention to anything I say. I applaud your mathematical efforts, but if you'd been listening even a wee little bit, you'd already know why it's unlikely to work out the way you seem to expect it to.
While some larger "features" on the surface can and do make an entire rotation somewhat in tact, smaller objects on the surface are eroded over time. If you keep ignoring the important details of my model, you will continue to poke holes in a strawman that has nothing to do with my model.
Why is it you keep ingoring my point about surface erosion Dave? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/07/2006 11:14:05 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2006 : 11:23:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Mozina expects us to recognize all of these differences as being the result of changing "light sources," but that sort of hand-waving is becoming less credible in the face of all this data. Finally, below you can find an "crater-by-crater" comparison of all 21 images:
There is no handwaving on my part Dave. I have observationally demonstrated every point I have made. You can see that exact effect on the Lockheed image on my website.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi
The "structures" are very consistent and aren't changing much in that movie, but the lighting sources change from individual frame to individual frame. We can however see some surface peeling in this video along the right lower half of the screen. When you see it all in movie form, particularly with the resolution and precision that Lockheed used to create this set of images, you can easily see that the structures themselves undergo a whole host of lighting changes even while the surface features remained fixed. It's not a handwave Dave, I've got direct visual confirmation of this effect in that first Lockeed video on my website. I've also got direct observation of surface erosion, and direct observational evidence of the energy states of the arcs that cause the erosion and are the source of the non-stationary lighting.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/search/Keyword/SolarFlare.html
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002400/a002462/ar9906-zoom-rotate.mpg
Notice that Rhessi sees the sun's high energy emissions are associated with the arcs, and the very highest energy emissions occur along the base of the arc where the surface erosion is taking place. You'll also notice in this movie that the lighting source shifts around as the arcs change shape and direction. This is called OBSERVATION Dave, not handwaving. What you are doing is handwaving and utterly ignoring the key points I have patiently explained to you over and over again. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/07/2006 11:40:43 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2006 : 11:29:08 [Permalink]
|
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633
As Dave already noted, the most recent paper is now on Avxiv. You are welcome to comment on it if you wish. The previous links I posted for Dave showing the RHESSI/TRACE view of these solar events shows what the process "looks like" from the surface, through the atmosphere of th sun. All of the high energy emissions from the sun are assocated either with the electrical arcs themselves, or cracks in the actual surface. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2006 : 11:31:52 [Permalink]
|
| Here's a quick question for you Dave. In that Lockheed movie, where do you see ANY signs at all of differential rotation? Why don't we see any signs of differential rotation in that movie? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/07/2006 11:49:53 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2006 : 11:49:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Since we now been through about 20 pages, I am pretty much done with this conversation at this point. What I find most frustrating Dave is that you only half listen to what I say, and you make me personally explain every single detail of my theory to you over and over again.
You haven't explained in any detail whatsoever how "erosion" can make a 30,000-plus km "crater" move so that it appears to rotate around the Sun in 24.7 days instead of 27.3 days.quote:
If I had not already told you a *bunch* of times already that the surface undergoes significant change over time because of the intense electrical activity from the surface, this line of reasoning would make a lot of sense and would be a rational arguement. As it is, it just shows me how little you are listening and paying attention to anything I say.
I am paying very close attention. You haven't explained the "erosion" process at all, you've simply asserted that it occurs.quote:
I applaud your mathematical efforts, but if you'd been listening even a wee little bit, you'd already know why it's unlikely to work out the way you seem to expect it to.
I know why it's unlikely to work the way one should expect it to: because it's a hand-waving argument which simply asserts "one cannot measure the speed of the surface based on visible features." So tell me, Michael, how did you measure the rotation of the surface while taking "erosion" into account?quote:
While some larger "features" on the surface can and do make an entire rotation somewhat in tact, smaller objects on the surface are eroded over time.
We've got only 57 hours of data on the "crater."quote:
If you keep ignoring the important details of my model, you will continue to poke holes in a strawman that has nothing to do with my model.
You have presented no details regarding "erosion," you've simply asserted that it occurs.quote:
Why is it you keep ingoring my point about surface erosion Dave?
I'm not ignoring it, you've made it impossible to take "erosion" into account in any calculation. Just like you assert that it is impossible to measure the mass of the Sun.
My next task is working on the truly large "features" you present in the SOHO movie. How much do those erode?
Oh, and why haven't you addressed the fact that SOHO/MDI detects movement into and within your allegedly solid layer, Michael? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2006 : 12:06:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Since we now been through about 20 pages, I am pretty much done with this conversation at this point. What I find most frustrating Dave is that you only half listen to what I say, and you make me personally explain every single detail of my theory to you over and over again.
Actually Dave W. has done a superior job of explaining your theory, far better than you have, at least from a layman's point of view. And the details don't seem to be working out in support of it. As I've mentioned before (other people have mentioned it, also), if you're trying to convince laymen, you need to find a better way to make your case. If you're trying to convince experts (which you don't seem very willing to do at this point), then you've come to the wrong place.
As interesting as the discussion has been, and as intriguing as the possibilities are, your arrogant apologetics are getting stale. I, for one, won't be sorry to see you stop beating this dead horse. Now don't get me wrong, if you really do have a legitimate theory, and if you really can support it in such a way that it makes sense to regular people, I'm interested. But so far your act looks just like the creationists who claim the existing theory of evolution doesn't support their "model", therefore they must be correct. That doesn't cut it, not in their "science" and not in yours.
You've asked many times for us to just wait wait wait, and said the evidence is forthcoming from the next breed of satellites. Okay, we'll wait. In the meantime, I'm glad to hear you say, "I am pretty much done with this conversation at this point." Come on back this summer after you further "solidify" your theory, and bring us some references to your material in the peer reviewed science journals. Thanks for your time. We aren't going anywhere. 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2006 : 13:24:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Since we now been through about 20 pages, I am pretty much done with this conversation at this point. What I find most frustrating Dave is that you only half listen to what I say, and you make me personally explain every single detail of my theory to you over and over again.
You haven't explained in any detail whatsoever how "erosion" can make a 30,000-plus km "crater" move so that it appears to rotate around the Sun in 24.7 days instead of 27.3 days.
Not to mention the unfathomable amount of matter that has to be eroded. Given the size of the crater ridges, there are millions of cube kilometres of solid iron that has to erode away from 100+km high ridges within a month. Mozina had yet to propose something that make solid iron erode that quickly.
|
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 01/07/2006 13:25:11 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2006 : 14:03:17 [Permalink]
|
Well, it's not solid iron, Mab. In fact, Mozina doesn't even know what the alleged "surface" is made of, other than it's "mostly" iron.
And, of course, with the "crater," the timespan is much less than a month. It seems to appear and disappear within less than three days. And Mozina never answered the question about how it formed in the first place. |
- 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 - 01/07/2006 : 14:04:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Mr. Mozina:
Perhaps you might feel that we're more "even" were I to point out every instance where I felt insulted by you. For example, your insistence that I'm "ignoring" things that I've actually been discussing. That you have little respect for me is more than clear from your own snide remarks, liberally sprinkled throughout your posts. I might get angry about that, and huff about like a primadonna if I had an ego that needed soothing. But I don't. Your suggestion that I do appears to be just so much psychological projection.
No Dave, it's actually just an observation on my part. Most folks I discuss this idea with are able to discuss these conceptswithout the need to resort to insults and name calling. You however keep interjecting words like "shoddy" into the conversation as though the use of a fallacy is going to impress me in some way. I get the feeling it just makes your ego feel better, but I personally think it's a self defense mechanism of some sort. You won't sway me with argument by ridicule. You might sway me with science. If you wish to make any inroads with me on these points, you'll have better sucess by leaving out the unnecessary diatribe.
quote:
Anyway, I apologize for the "shoddy" comment, and will instead focus on why it is my opinion that your work (both on your website and as it is described by you here) needs improvement.
I actually appreciate that Dave. If we are going to continue this conversation, I would like it to take on a civil tone. I'm too busy to waste my time trading silly insults with you.
quote:
It is clear that you have becomed confused about who is claiming what and when, on several issues. I never once claimed that the density stratification at 0.995R could be explained by magnetic fields, and neither did anyone at Stanford.
What is the cause then? Why was this stratified layer never predicted in any gas model on the planet? What's it doing right there, and how did it get there and what differentes it from the materials above and below it?
Actually Alexander Kosvichev and I exchanged a lot of emails back in June and July. I can tell you that "fixed magnetic fields" was his original explanation to me. He could not however explain what "fixed" these magnetic fields in 3 dimensions at that time. In his more recent paper, he backs off this explanation and notes the difficulty of using magnetic fields to explain an entire "layer" that has both a top and a bottom. While he probably doesn't believe magnetic fields are the cause of this layer at this point in time, he certainly did try to suggest that as a cause for the "structures" we see in the tsunami video that appear under the surface of the photophere back in June. I even posted a specific quote that he asked me to add to my website that is related to this topic and is still on my website in fact.
quote:
Kosovichev, at one point in time, suggested that magnetic fields could be responsible for the massive downflow of plasma which triggered the wave seen in the "tsunami" video, but later retracted that thought. His retraction, therefore, has nothing to do with Lockheed's explanation of the "crater" image as being the result of magnetic fields,
I want to state for record that I *HIGHLY* and I mean *HIGHLY* respect Alexander Kosovichev and his work. I am also very grateful for the time he spent with me personally. I trust his scientific research and data 100%. In the JUNE/JULY time frame he did in fact suggest that my explanation was inaccurate, but he has remained quite silent on this point since the release of his last paper, where he specifically backed off his early explanation. I should point out that it was Dr. Kosovichev that turned by website on to his friends at Lockheed Martin and I have seen a LOT of website traffic from Lockheed Martin's servers since that time frame.
I totally respect a person who is able to change their mind based on new and more complete information. I think that is all that has happened in his case. Alexander Kosovichev's own reasearch led him away from his early explanation. That is a very respectable scientific change of mind IMO, and I have nothing but respect for his ability to reevaluate his position based on more complete data and a more thurough research of the subject.
quote:
and they show the magnetic "intrusion" they believe responsible for it.
Where do they show this? What causes this "magnetic intrusion" you believe is responsible for this crater? Where is this crater located in relationship to the photosphere in your opinion, above it, below it, on it? Where is it?
quote:
Lockheed doesn't attempt to explain the magnetic field there, either. They simply measured it.
I can even explain these magnetic fields! The magnetic fields come from the electrical arcs from the surface. There is nothing mysterious about the cause of the magnetic field in my model. How about you explain what what that magnetic field is doing there in this position, and how it holds three dimensional, angular shape in 3D, using gas model theory for us.
quote:
Since they (and we) are well aware that a charged plasma can be guided and steered by a magnetic field (maintaining a plasma in a "magnetic bottle" here on Earth is done all the time), the "crater" image seems well-explained, even if we cannot yet say how, precisely, that magnetic field is generated.
No, you did not explain a three dimensional crater with a handwave statement called "magnetic fields". What holds these fields in these exact shapes for hours and days Dave? I can explain this behavior with a solid. You can't do that with plasma like we see in the photosphere that moves like a liquid. That plasma is very volitile and changes rapidly over time.
quote:
And you're right, the standard solar model does not yet explain the generation of the magnetic field.
The standard model doesn't explain anything at all IMO. In fact, it's put together with bubble gum and bandaids if you ask me. There's not a peep about that stratifaction layer in the current gas model, so it's pretty useless IMO. I'm sure someone will create an "ad hoc" explanation for it sooner or |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2006 : 14:09:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, it's not solid iron, Mab. In fact, Mozina doesn't even know what the alleged "surface" is made of, other than it's "mostly" iron.
That is because that is the "best" answer that I can currently give you based on nuclear chemistry and based on the spectral output.
quote:
And, of course, with the "crater," the timespan is much less than a month. It seems to appear and disappear within less than three days. And Mozina never answered the question about how it formed in the first place.
It mostly likely formed because of surface erosion, and it most likely was eroded away from the surface in exactly the same way.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002400/a002462/ar9906-zoom-rotate.mpg
Notice that the highest energy emissions come from the arcs, and from around the surface erosion processes that occur at the base of these arcs. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2006 : 14:43:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Actually Dave W. has done a superior job of explaining your theory, far better than you have, at least from a layman's point of view.
Well, from a non-laymans point of view (as it relates to my own theory at least), he has done a very poor job of understanding or explaining it or even grasping the more important aspects of my theory. That isn't to say that I have done a particularly good job explaining it, in fact it would suggest that this conversation demonstrates that I have quite a bit to learn about communicating these ideas thuroughly to a given audience.
quote:
And the details don't seem to be working out in support of it.
That is because Dave has not included a lot of the details that WOULD help support it. In other words if you ignore the fact the lighting will change with time, and you ignore the concept of surface erosion, then sure, I agree, Dave's arguement don't SEEM to be helping my case. Then again, you can't ignore these issues and expect it to make sense.
quote:
As I've mentioned before (other people have mentioned it, also), if you're trying to convince laymen, you need to find a better way to make your case. If you're trying to convince experts (which you don't seem very willing to do at this point), then you've come to the wrong place.
I can see that this is a true statement. Since I have limited time, I will likely put this conversation on hold until it's more convenient for me to continue. I will continue to post at the bautforum.com since there are more 'experts' that frequent that forum and I'm finding the converstations there to be more "rewarding' on a personal level. I think for a while at least I will stick to trying to convince the "experts". You are welcome to follow or join the discussions on that forum if you like.
quote:
As interesting as the discussion has been, and as intriguing as the possibilities are, your arrogant apologetics are getting stale.
I too am tired of the ego venting that goes on here. I guess I do get tired of the attitude at time and I'm guilty of reflecting it right back at folks after awhile. I think you're right about this point however, I have allowed ego to influence the discussion in non-productive ways. That's part of the value of having these discussions so I can learn from the mistakes I make. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as being "arrogant". That certainly wasn't my intent.
quote:
I, for one, won't be sorry to see you stop beating this dead horse. Now don't get me wrong, if you really do have a legitimate theory, and if you really can support it in such a way that it makes sense to regular people, I'm interested.
Please then, stay interested. Look at the STEREO data as it becomes available. I predict they will discover that the transitional region that NASA and Lockheed believe is above the photosphere is actually located under the photosphere at about .995R. That system has the capacity to falsify and/or validate both my model and NASA's model as it relates to the placement of the transitional region in relationship to the photosphere. Right now that third dimension has to be "infered" or intepreted. STEREO will take the guess work out of that process and give us mathematically precise answers. If I am right, STEREO will "discover" that this transitional region is not above the photosphere as Lockheed and NASA have assumed even before launching these satellites. Instead they will discover it to be located right where Stanford and UCLA have demonstrated this stratification layer to exist. That is a very testable and falsifyable prediction you can follow and measure as time goes by. If I haven't turned you completely off to the idea at this point, I encourage you to follow the outcome of that program. I believe it will shed a lot of light on the problems with current gas model theory.
quote:
But so far your act looks just like the creationists who claim the existing theory of evolution doesn't support their "model", therefore they must be correct. That doesn't cut it, not in their "science" and not in yours.
Except in this case, nuclear chemistry is on my side not yours. I've shown evidence from Dr. Manuels work that shows how isotope analysis favors my "interpretation" of the evidence. From my perspective the entire gas model looks a lot like a creationists argument. They have a lot of FAITH in the idea because that is what they were taught, but gas model theorists that can actually explain solar satellite images like that first Lockheed movie on my website are few and far between.
What is the lighting source of that movie? What are those structures? Why do the structure remain consistent while the lighting source changes? What is that pealing going on along the lower right hand corner of the video? These are all important and relevant questions.
quote:
You've asked many times for us to just wait wait wait, and said the evidence is forthcoming from the next breed of satellites. Okay, we'll wait.
I'm not asking you to "wait" actually. I'm simply pointing out that STEREO will be a very unique satellite system, and it will have a unique ability to organize the layers of the sun in mathematically precise way. That particular system is going to be capable of falsifying either my model or NASA's model one way or the other. If I am right, it will find that the transitional region that it expects to find above the photosphere is actually underneath of the photosphere. If however NASA is right, and this layer is above the photosphere, it blows my theories out of the water. In essense, I'm simply sticking my neck out and giving you a very testable way to determine who is right.
On the other hand, I have already used 4 different solar satellites to support my case. I've already provided evidence from Stanford and UCLA to support my interpretation. In my mind, I'm convinced, even if others are not yet convinced. I'm also a self employed programmer and have nothing to fear by being wrong as it relates to my career or my financial well being. I'm therefore happy to stick my neck out and offer you valid, scientific ways to verify or falsify my ideas in the future.
quote:
In the meantime, I'm glad to hear you say, "I am pretty much done with this conversa |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/07/2006 14:51:46 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2006 : 15:13:18 [Permalink]
|
Michael Mozina, perhaps you need to start by detailing everything you can about this "surface erosion." Explain exactly how electrical arcs erode a composite iron surface, how variations in composition might effect that erosion, over what time spans such erosion occurs, what features we would expect such erosion to produce, etc. Because right now I have no clear idea how your extremely vague notion of erosion relates to or explains Dave's observations of a "crater" moving several kilometers across what is supposed to be a solid surface.
Also, I'm not sure how you can make the claim that your model "predicted" a stratified layer when your model seems to have been invented to explain that layer once it had already been observed. Therefore, the existence of the layer can't really be said to "support" your model in any real sense, since it is your model. That's all you appear to have.
|
"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 01/07/2006 15:18:45 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2006 : 15:43:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Here's a quick question for you Dave. In that Lockheed movie, where do you see ANY signs at all of differential rotation? Why don't we see any signs of differential rotation in that movie?
The movie's images span from about 11.87°S to about 30.52°S. The northern-most rotation would then be about 14.10°/day, and the southern-most rotation would be about 13.67°/day, a difference of 0.43°/day, less than the possible variation in the equation. Plus, the movie spans perhaps six hours of time, so we would expect the northern edge to have moved just 3.53°, and the southern edge to have moved 3.42°, a difference of only 0.11°. Now, considering that the horizontal difference between two neighboring pixels in the middle of the image is about 0.038°, any difference we should see (ignoring the inherent variation of the differential rotation equation) would be on the order of 3 pixels.
Given the fact that the top third of the movie is almost feature-free, and given the fact that it's a running difference movie and the methodology is not specified, seeing a difference of three pixels between the top and bottom edges of the movie images is a bit much to expect. In other words, we don't see differential rotation because:- the frames are small,
- the movie is short,
- it's been processed, and
- it may be swamped by local variations
Now, since you expect me to answer your question (and I did), how about you answer mine? Please explain why SOHO/MDI detected motion into and within your supposedly solid layer. Not just "above" the layer, but deep within it. Pointing to the sunspot article while ignoring the images of deep motion throughout the plasma below 0.995R didn't answer the question before, and it doesn't answer it now. |
- 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 - 01/07/2006 : 19:20:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Michael Mozina, perhaps you need to start by detailing everything you can about this "surface erosion."
That would probably take days, in and of itself. I'll begin by characterizing the processes for you however.
Watch this movie:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002400/a002462/ar9906-zoom-rotate.mpg
In the circled blue areas, you'll see a process of surface erosion going on at the base of these huge electrical arcs everywhere the arcs touch the surface. In these areas of surface erosion, we can sometimes see positron/electron anihilation in the blue circled areas from RHESSI. The process can often be very dynamic, and involve huge areas of the surface. The majority of the erosion takes place in the "hottest" areas, the areas of greatest electron/positron interaction.
quote:
Explain exactly how electrical arcs erode a composite iron surface, how variations in composition might effect that erosion, over what time spans such erosion occurs, what features we would expect such erosion to produce, etc. Because right now I have no clear idea how your extremely vague notion of erosion relates to or explains Dave's observations of a "crater" moving several kilometers across what is supposed to be a solid surface.
That first image should give you some idea of context. This image shows the process in progress in very clean detail since the flotsum and jetsom going on in the atmosphere is removed in the RD images:
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi
You can see evidence of the changing nature of the arcs (like you see in the first movie) play out on the surface structures of that image, particluarly in the center area. In that area you see a mountain range. The structures stay stationary throughout the movie, but the lighting changes rapidly. The process you see play out on the right hand side is the same process you see in the first image in the circled blue regions. That is where positron/electron anihilation occurs and surface pieces are being ripped off into the electrical arc.
If you've ever used an arc welder before, you can appreciate how fast the rod can "burn" with the right amperage. If you haven't used one, I suggest you try it a few times. You'll also appreciate the amount of heat that you'll get from an electrical arc. :)
quote:
Also, I'm not sure how you can make the claim that your model "predicted" a stratified layer when your model seems to have been invented to explain that layer once it had already been observed.
There is actually some truth to your statement in the sense that EVERYTHING about this model is meant to explain something that has already been observed. I'm not "guessing" at anything in that sense, and I didn't make the first observation of anything by myself.
In addition, there had already been some "observations" via heliosiesmology that suggested an "inner" region (though it wasn't well located prior to the Stanford paper) existed under the photosphere. In essense the Stanford paper also corrobarates the notion of surface erosion over the solar cycle since is shows rather drastic (many 10s of kilometers) surface changes over an eleven year solar cycle. Whatever that layer is, it's "dynamic" in terms of thickness, just as any surface crust is dynamic. It however is MORE dynamic in terms of size and scope and movement as you can witness in that sunquake video. Keep in mind there we two incidents only about 10 days apart on HUGE solar scales.
quote:
Therefore, the existence of the layer can't really be said to "support" your model in any real sense, since it is your model. That's all you appear to have.
Let's all get over any concept of ego here once and for all. Technically it's not "my model" in the first place. You'd have to say that Dr. Kristian Birkeland really invented this model, or at least he certainly did a ton of lab work on it. He beat me to an understanding of solar activity by at least 100 years. Dr. Charles Bruce documented the electrical discharges that occur on the surface of the sun over 50 years ago. Dr. Manuel nailed the nuclear chemistry side of these arguments about 35 years ago. My only real talent is satellite image analysis. Everything I have presented is data that is freely available from NASA, JPL and Lockheed and I created exactly nothing.
This issue has nothing to do with me as an individual. It is about truth and myth and observation.
I observe structure in that Tsunami video which I circled for you on my website. That shows us the existence of "structure" under the waves of the photosphere. I observe structure in those RD images that last for days, even weeks on end and rotates uniformly from pole to equator. I observe that Dr. Manuel has been trying to explain the nuclear chemistry aspects of the sun for some time. I observe the Dr. Birkeland had this all figured out over 100 years ago. I am merely an observer of what exists and has already been documented to exist. The images I've presented to you here, and the energy states they represent is knowledge that comes not from me as an individual, but from NASA directly. I'm just a skeptic like you that applies the same skepticism to ALL solar theories. That is the only difference between us at this point. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2006 : 20:29:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
In other words, we don't see differential rotation because:[list=1]the frames are small,the movie is short,
My dear Dave, what *am* I going to do with you? Sometimes you impress me no end (your math skills mainly), and other times you disappoint me to tears.
Let's try this visually for a moment. Let's look at how the surface of the photosphere actually behaves over a half hour period of time based on your Wiki math formula, shall we?
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg
Notice all that movement and change we see, not just in one little tiny area, but all throughout the whole area. This is just a half hour time frame. That's how your WIKI math formula applies to the plasma of the photosphere Dave. That's what it looks like visually. There is dynamic and increadible change in the plasma layers of the photosophere. They are analogous to clouds in the earth's atmosphere and show all sorts of change play out in relatively short time frames. You don't seem to grasp the significance of a three pixels change in random directions or what that might look like. They'd look like the dynamic change we see in the "surface" of the photosphere. The change is HUGE, dynamic and FAST Dave. It's much more fluid and dynamic, even in short timelines, certainly in HOUR PLUS timelines.
The solar surface changes can also be "relatively" fast, but not as fast as changes to the photosphere. They tend to be localized, typically to the areas at the base of the arcs. They tend to be concentrated in limited regions of the surface at any given time. The right lower corner of the gold RD Lockheed image is what that "looks" like on the surface when this erosion occurs. There is in fact "change", but only local changes, and over much longer timelines. (Several hours vs. several minutes)
quote:
it's been processed,
So what? So are virtually ALL the satellite images we see. Even the straight shots show "surface features" that are not variable on the same time scales as the surface of the photosphere.
The other "processed" image that shows this surface is the tsunami video:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi
That structure under the surface on the left doesn't move like the wave on the photosphere above it. That structure doesn't change over the same timescales as the photosphere that is above it, or even close to the timescales of the photosphere. That video by the way uses a doppler imaging technique using Nickel ions. We all accept that Doppler images can and will reveal surface features through clouds. In essense that exactly what's going on in this video, only in this case we see solids below plasma. The structures we see have NOTHING at all to do with the technique used. That tsunami video uses an entirely different satellite using an entirely different technique but shows the same difference in change and texture that TRACE records. The structures are not related to a single satellite or a single imaging technique. You keep acting like it's only one technique or one satellite that shows such structure. That is simply not the case.
quote:
andit may be swamped by local variations
Those "local variations" are clearly visible in the first photosophere video I posted Dave. We can see that math formula play out big time in that video in just 1/2 hour scales. That underneath layer however shows virtually NO change over six hours in the Lockheed video, and almost no change over several hours in the SOHO tsunami video created by Alexander Kosovichev.
quote:
Now, since you expect me to answer your question (and I did),
Not really Dave. You gave me a math formula and I showed you how it applies to the plasma of the photosphere in a very visual and dynamic way. That is in fact how your math formula applies to the layer it was designed to apply to. I've shown you visually how that is a totally different rate and type of movement from what we see in the layer below the photosphere.
I see almost NO surface changes in that six hour RD image from Lockheed over a multi hour timeline, yet I see TONS of change in any image of the photosphere in just a half an hour time scale. You didn't give me a very reasonable reason to believe your 3 random pixel movements wouldn't show up rather dynamically in the RD image. They certainly show up rather dynamically in any video of the photosphere. You can watch that wave pass right over the structures in the layer at .995R. The layer at .995R does not move, even though the wave passes through the plasma layers above it.
quote:
how about you answer mine? Please explain why SOHO/MDI detected motion into and within your supposedly solid layer.
I'm sure they detect all sorts of movement up and down the slopes of an every changing lanscape given enough time and enough sets of data. The difference here is based on RATE OF CHANGE, and DENSITY. Clouds move differently and change differently than the surface of the earth. The surface of the sun is much more dynamic but you can easly "observe" the density differences between the structure in the bottom of that tsunami video and the photosphere that propogates the wave above it.
You can see remarkable differences between the movements of the plasma at the top of the photosphere vs. the amount of change seen in the layer below.
Try this SOHO RD movie Dave:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/The%20Surface%20Of%20The%20Sun_0001.wmv
Surely you can see the difference between the kind of features and the way they rotate in that image vs. an image of what the photosphere is doing? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/07/2006 20:37:21 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
