|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 01/07/2006 : 22:54:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
Actually, my math skills don't extend much beyond simple trigonometry anymore (too many years have passed with them being unused), and your disappointment seems to rest upon a misunderstanding of both the MDI and solar differential rotation, but read on for the details...quote:
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.
What? You're just flat-out wrong. The differential rotation of the Sun refers to visible-surface rotation of things like sunspots over days. Given two different latitudes, one can observationally determine that sunspots closer to the equator move faster than those closer to the poles. The differential rotation formula doesn't apply in any way, shape or form to the movement of photospheric convection-cell granules or supergranules. We see the whole scene shift in the movie you've just presented because nobody decided to synch up the frames to the sunspot, whereas in the Lockheed "gold" video, they obviously did synch the frames up to show only the motion they wanted to show (go measure the raw images yourself this time, but I can tell you that the features seen do move from left to right).quote:
They are analogous to clouds in the earth's atmosphere and show all sorts of change play out in relatively short time frames.
Nobody has disputed that the convection granules within the photosphere do just that.quote:
You don't seem to grasp the significance of a three pixels change in random directions or what that might look like.
You don't seem to understand that the three-pixel change I calculated based upon the differential rotation equation wouldn't be in a "random" direction, but would be evidenced by a feature at the top of the Lockheed video shifting three pixels to the right (horizontally) relative to the features at the bottom of the video. But there are no features at the very top of the Lockheed video, and the movie you've just presented moves a hell of a lot more than three pixels.quote:
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.
Well, then it's a good thing that the "crater" isn't a part of the photosphere, then, isn't it? I mean, from your perspective, it's 3,460 km under the photosphere. From my perspective, it's 1,000 km or more above the photosphere.quote:
The solar surface changes can also be "relatively" fast, but not as fast as changes to the photosphere.
How fast? Given the typical current in a solar arc (in your model), how much change should we see?quote:
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.
So what? You do know that the areas which look like a flat gold "surface" in the Lockheed video are, in fact, mostly black in the original images, right? As if there isn't any light reflecting off any surface. That's a big important "so what" right there.quote:
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.
More on this later, but...quote:
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.
No, we don't. The Michelson Dopper Imager uses entirely different techology than does, for example, Doppler weather radar here on Earth. The two aren't comparable, except that they both use the word "Doppler" in their names. Doppler weather radar measures air speed through opaque clouds (because water vapor is transparent at the radar frequency used), while the MDI "sees" the redshift or blueshift of nickel ion absorbtion lines (in other words, the MDI doesn't even look for light, but for the absence of light) within the chromosphere. Doppler weather radar sends out a "pulse" of radio waves, and examines the time shift of the pulse when it echoes back towards the transmitter. The MDI doesn't send anything out, but instead measures for how far away the nickel-ion absorbtion line is away from its location if the ions were at rest relative to the satellite. Doppler weather radar can "see" through clouds to tell us what's going on inside. The MDI can "see" nothing but a nickel plasma and how fast it's moving, period.quote:
In essense that exactly what's going on in this video, only in this case we see solids below plasma.
No, we cannot see below the plasma, because the MDI sees |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2006 : 21:14:48 [Permalink]
|
On a lark, I calculated how far, in kilometers, that 11% "crater" discrepancy is.
According to Mozina, "erosion" is responsible for shifting the position of that "crater" by 39,210 km.
That's 680 km/hr.
That's 189 horizontal meters of "ferrite surface" blasted away from the left side of the crater, while a similar amount is deposited on the right side of the crater, each and every second for 57 hours, 39 minutes and 15 seconds.
If the "crater" was 30,000 km across at the outside, and maybe 250 km tall (an admitted guesstimate, but Mozina hasn't done better), that's 2.23 million cubic kilometers of material getting vaporized, and another 2.23 million km3 being deposited every second.
It takes a hell of a lot of power to "erode" that much material, that fast. Anyone want to calculate it, assuming oh, pure calcium just to make it easy? |
- 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 - 01/08/2006 : 22:27:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
On a lark, I calculated how far, in kilometers, that 11% "crater" discrepancy is.
According to Mozina, "erosion" is responsible for shifting the position of that "crater" by 39,210 km.
That's 680 km/hr.
That's 189 horizontal meters of "ferrite surface" blasted away from the left side of the crater, while a similar amount is deposited on the right side of the crater, each and every second for 57 hours, 39 minutes and 15 seconds.
If the "crater" was 30,000 km across at the outside, and maybe 250 km tall (an admitted guesstimate, but Mozina hasn't done better), that's 2.23 million cubic kilometers of material getting vaporized, and another 2.23 million km3 being deposited every second.
It takes a hell of a lot of power to "erode" that much material, that fast. Anyone want to calculate it, assuming oh, pure calcium just to make it easy?
His dodge that erosion is resposible is laughable anyway. First, burning away an iron composite surface is not "erosion." Second, such a process vaporizes the metal, it doesn't redeposit in another location the way wind moves sand. Third, even if there was some unknown process capable of literally demolishing and replacing mountains over the course of a few hours, there is no mechanism I can even conceive of that would slide whole mountains (or craters) intact around the surface of a celestial body.
As much as he whines whenever the integrity of his work is critiqued, his theory is shoddy. It has holes you can drive a semi through. Yet he wants us to abandon the gas fusion model for it? Ridiculous. And we can safely say that we haven't rejected his theory because of some kind of irrational attachment to the old, but because after careful consideration, his theory is wildly implausible.
No sane person could rationally consider the solid-surface model a viable option. Only ego can be responsible for his continued insistance.
|
"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 01/08/2006 22:28:44 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2006 : 00:54:52 [Permalink]
|
| This thread is beyond me but I got curious about if it were going on over at the BABB (now the BAUT) forum and I found it started but got locked for MM's failure to respond to particular challenges. Just thought I'd share that here. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2006 : 11:53:52 [Permalink]
|
Actually, most of Mozina's threads over at BAUT forums are still open:And most of them have something to do with his main thesis.quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
His dodge that erosion is resposible is laughable anyway. First, burning away an iron composite surface is not "erosion."
Well, we can probably leave the terminology issues aside, so long as Mozina actually defines the process accurately. I don't think he's trying - like we've seen before from others - to redefine a word in order to conflate the new definition with the old.quote:
Second, such a process vaporizes the metal, it doesn't redeposit in another location the way wind moves sand.
It more than vaporizes it, it vaporizes it and strips between 10 and 16 electrons off the iron atoms! So, not only does the deposition process (whatever it is) require the placement of massive amounts of material (2.23 million cubic kilometers is equivalent to an 162-km diameter sphere, larger than most asteroids) every second, but the cooling of that much material from a million Kelvin to below 2000 K (again, every second).quote:
Third, even if there was some unknown process capable of literally demolishing and replacing mountains over the course of a few hours, there is no mechanism I can even conceive of that would slide whole mountains (or craters) intact around the surface of a celestial body.
Yes, it is quite odd that an unspecified deposition process and a poorly specified "erosion" process can work concurrently to shift a feature like the "crater" across Mozina's alleged surface. It's even more odd that these processes, working together, would shift the "crater" coincidentally in pretty much the same direction that the Sun is spinning. But these sorts of arguments from (justified) incredulity cannot be well-quantified.
Instead, let's look at what can be quantified. To strip ten electrons from an iron atom, one must add 101,841.4 kJ/mol of energy to already metled, vaporized and atomized iron. That's the amount of energy required to ionize iron after it's been split from whatever other atoms make up the molecules of the alleged "shell." If we assume that the material allows for only a tenth of iron's molar volume, then there's 0.709 moles of iron per cm3 of material, thus only 72,206 kJ/cm3 needed for ionization of the iron portion to observed levels. That works out to 1.61019×1029 joules for the whole 2.23 million km3, which when multiplied by the 207,555 seconds of time it took the "crater" to move, gives us 3.342×1034 joules to do the moving of just one side of the "crater." So, for the whole crater, it would be double that, and according to Mozina's own power-output calculation, the entire Sun pumped out 8.09×1031 joules in the same time period.
Whoops. That's nearly three orders of magnitude too small to ionize the iron (and only the iron) in that "crater."
In order to get the "crater erosion" to take only as much power as the Sun, the iron density of the material needs to be 1/825th as high as I've guessed (which is nowhere near as high as Mozina's 51-plus percent, anyway), or the crater could be just 302.8 meters tall instead of 250,000 meters (which would make it nearly flat and almost invisible in those TRACE images). And both of those scenarios still require the entire power output of the Sun to be "focused" on the rims of that 30,000-km "crater" with perfect efficiency for over 57 hours.
We know that didn't happen (the Sun didn't go black for over two days except for a little ring), so Mozina has some more explaining to do. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2006 : 15:15:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
Compared to most of us, he does a helluva impressive job. Believe me, unless someone uses those things regularly (especially the advanced stuff) it's amazing how quickly we "get rusty" and forget. Things I thought I'd never forget out of college seemed "long gone" just a few short years later. I've been "almost" lazy enough to ask a one of the young techie people in college or "not long out of it" on this website "to give things a shot" instead of reviewing/hacking at it myself with long-dormant brain cells thoroughly fermented over decades... but not quite (at least not so far :) |
Ron White |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2006 : 21:33:47 [Permalink]
|
I'm rather annoyed at myself for not having thought of this earlier, but we can get a fairly good idea of where the 171-Angstrom images are coming from by examining images taken from the edge of the Sun.
Again, we start with an image in white light, to get an idea of the radius of the Sun as measured at the top of the photosphere. In this case, the edge of the Sun is about 5 pixels left of center (on the horizontal centerline of the image), or at 946.3 arcseconds (in TRACE coordinates). Subtract half a percent (for Mozina's 0.995R layer), and we get 941.6 arcseconds.
Now, look at a 171-Angstrom image taken just 70 seconds later (so the movement of TRACE should make little difference). The left-most (deepest) bright pixel of the stuff on the edge of the Sun (again on the centerline) is 4 pixels left of center, or at 946.8 arcseconds.
That's about 5.2 arcseconds too far to the right to be at 0.995R, and with each arcsecond being more than 725 km, it's off by more than 3,770 km. That 0.995R layer is supposed to be 3,460 km under the photosphere in Mozina's model, not 310 km over it. |
- 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 - 01/11/2006 : 16:34:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm rather annoyed at myself for not having thought of this earlier, but we can get a fairly good idea of where the 171-Angstrom images are coming from by examining images taken from the edge of the Sun.
No, that won't work. First of all, you are trying to compare RAW 171 images to the photosphere rather than running difference images. The problem with doing this is that raw images show all the movement of these iron ions through the whole atmosphere (from the surface to the corona). These iron ion photons do not emit just at the surface as you seem to think.
Here are some images/animations that do apply:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002700/a002713/Sunspots.mpg
In this animation, we see that the coronal loops originate UNDERNEATH the visible photosphere, not above it. We can see them come through the photosphere in these images:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg
The yellow areas represent areas where Yohkoh is able to observe x-rays as the coronal loops come through the photosophere and enter the corona and begin to glow in soft x-ray.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/T171_1600_WL_000606_1500.gif
This is composit image that shows white light and 171A images. Again, we can see the arcs come through the sunspots just as in the animation. We can also see lots of green dots underneath the photosphere where photons are coming up from below.
You've meantioned now several times about the location of the crater but you offered us no legitimate way to diferentiate lighting changes, nor have you give me a clue how you "eyeballed" the presumed center of a very large crater. Why wouldn't you pick an angular structure on the side of the crater to make such a determination?
Like I said, it is encouraging to me that you are looking for ways to falsify my position mathematically, but you aren't applying any of the basic concepts of my model to any of your "disproofs".
The fact the surface is erroding and pieces of it are being moved around the surface by the arcs precludes us from expecting the surface to remain "constant". Several of the RHESSI movies I've posted here and at the bautforum show that the highest energy areas are located at the base of the arcs, and at this points we see evidence of energy states that are simply amazing:
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~white/papers/03_norh_020723.pdf
Notice the highest temperature readings in that paper. Notice also that the bulk of the heating takes place at the base of the arcs:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/spacesci/sunearth/tracecl.htm
quote:
Millions of different-sized arches, called coronal loops, comprise the corona, and a 30-year old theory assumes that the loops are heated evenly throughout their height. The TRACE observations show that instead, most of the heating must occur at the bases of the coronal loops, near where they emerge from and return to the solar surface.
I'm swamped at work right now, and I will only be posting here sporatically this month. I'll try to respond to any significant objections, but I will be less active on the boards this month.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2006 : 16:53:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
His dodge that erosion is resposible is laughable anyway.
I did not "dodge" Dave's points. In fact I methodically pointed out the problems of trying to distinguish surface from arc, and the problem with essentially trying to "eyeball" the center of a crater in an area of active electrical erosion.
quote:
First, burning away an iron composite surface is not "erosion."
Sure it is. It's a kind of erosion that moves material from one area of the surface to another.
quote:
Second, such a process vaporizes the metal, it doesn't redeposit in another location the way wind moves sand.
Actually, it DOES redeposit most of it in another location. Some of it even falls back down as "rain" in fact. Have you ever used an arc welder? Some of the rod materials does end up in the weld. Why do you suppose that is? Metal is certainly being vaporized and transported from one location to another.
quote:
Third, even if there was some unknown process capable of literally demolishing and replacing mountains over the course of a few hours, there is no mechanism I can even conceive of that would slide whole mountains (or craters) intact around the surface of a celestial body.
It's not an "unknown" process at all. It's a well known and well understood process called "electricity". Here's a paper about the energy states of the electricity I'm talking about:
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~white/papers/03_norh_020723.pdf
quote:
As much as he whines whenever the integrity of his work is critiqued, his theory is shoddy.
First of all, I never "whine". Secondly, the term "shoddy" is nothing more than your personal opinion and it's devoid of any scientific arguement. In short it's nothing more than a logical fallacy. I could care less what you think. I'm not even sure you'll read that single link I provided you so you might educate yourself about the energy states I'm trying to convey, but you can't say I didn't provide you with the right data, even if your understanding of the data is "shoddy".
quote:
It has holes you can drive a semi through. Yet he wants us to abandon the gas fusion model for it?
There are no "holes" in Dr. Birkeland's model. In fact, it has a solid surface. :)
The holes you are talking about are the HOLES in the gas model like that missing explanation of that stratification layer at .995R.
quote:
Ridiculous.
Your use of verbage is at times "ridiculous".
quote:
And we can safely say that we haven't rejected his theory because of some kind of irrational attachment to the old, but because after careful consideration, his theory is wildly implausible.
There is nothing "implausible" about anything I have suggested. It may SEEM that way to you perhaps, but it's all very logical and plausible from a scientific perspective. I can explain all sorts of observed phenomenon using the model that Birkeland first proposed 100 years ago. In fact I can explain just about EVERY image from sun I've ever seen using that model. Gas model theorists can't even explain that first image on my website as far as the lighting source, the structures, the peeling on the right, etc.
quote:
No sane person could rationally consider the solid-surface model a viable option. Only ego can be responsible for his continued insistance.
These are the kinds of childish and pointless tirades that get very old. I was sane the day I sat down to look at the raw SOHO images believing the sun to be a giant ball of gas. I was sane the day after I first viewed them and wasn't sure anymore. I used a very sane brain to put together a very logical and scientific model to explain what was observed. Nothing was done that was "insane". These kinds of comments are childish and they make it seem like I'm disssing these ideas with someone who is still in high school who's never learned to debate properly.
Ego is irrelevant to this discussion. I neither invented the iron sun idea, nor did I first propose it. I simply choose to favor Birkeland's/Bruce's/Manuel's model because it offers us a scientific means to explain what has been directly observed. These kinds of comments you can also just keep to yourself. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/11/2006 16:59:31 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2006 : 16:59:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The fact the surface is erroding and pieces of it are being moved around the surface by the arcs precludes us from expecting the surface to remain "constant".
That is not a fact, that's just your (so far unsupported) conjecture. You've offered no mechanism by which large surface feature can "move around" intact over a solid surface.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2006 : 17:07:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It's not an "unknown" process at all. It's a well known and well understood process called "electricity". Here's a paper about the energy states of the electricity I'm talking about:
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~white/papers/03_norh_020723.pdf
That has absolutely nothing to say about moving metal structures intact around the surface of a celestial body. Yes, the "process" you are attempting to use to explain this phenomenon is indeed unknown. The energy is only part of the puzzle. You need to explain how that energy could slide mountains around.
The interior of the Earth is also very hot and contains a great deal of energy. The processes of crust subduction and mountain forming are well known. However, if I were to claim Mount Fuji moved over 200 miles over the surface of the Earth intact in the matter of just a few hours, then I can no longer claim that well known processes can account for this feat.
You refuse to explain how such a seemingly supernatural event could occur. Yes, you absolutely are dodging the issue. Waving papers on electricy about isn't going to cut it.
|
"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 01/11/2006 21:24:22 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2006 : 17:18:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
First of all, I never "whine"....These are the kinds of childish and pointless tirades that get very old.
Main Entry: ti·rade
Pronunciation: 'tI-"rAd also ti-'
Function: noun
Etymology: French, shot, tirade, from Middle French, from Old Italian tirata, from tirare to draw, shoot
: a protracted speech usually marked by intemperate, vituperative, or harshly censorious language.
Sorry, but that wasn't a "tirade." However, calling it one would certainly qualify as whining.
quote:
I was sane the day I sat down to look at the raw SOHO images believing the sun to be a giant ball of gas. I was sane the day after I first viewed them and wasn't sure anymore. I used a very sane brain to put together a very logical and scientific model to explain what was observed. Nothing was done that was "insane".
Clinging to a model that can't even explain the density of the sun without speculating about "unknown dark energy" is not a reasonable position. It is not the response of a sound mind.
quote:
These kinds of comments are childish and they make it seem like I'm disssing these ideas with someone who is still in high school who's never learned to debate properly.
Neither is including a childish comment inside a comment where you accuse another of childishness.
quote:
Ego is irrelevant to this discussion. I neither invented the iron sun idea, nor did I first propose it. I simply choose to favor Birkeland's/Bruce's/Manuel's model because it offers us a scientific means to explain what has been directly observed.
Ego has everything to do with it. You're smarter and more open-minded than all the other dogmatic scientists, remember? Why else can no one else working today see that the gas model is on such poor footing besides yourself?
quote:
These kinds of comments you can also just keep to yourself.
Though I'm not in the habit mincing words, since it seems to upset you so, I'll do my best to avoid derogatory slings in the future.
|
"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 01/11/2006 21:23:17 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2006 : 18:41:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I did not "dodge" Dave's points. In fact I methodically pointed out the problems of trying to distinguish surface from arc, and the problem with essentially trying to "eyeball" the center of a crater in an area of active electrical erosion.
Yes, you did dodge the issue of the crater and Dave W.'s analysis of it. You made the claim that the crater was evidence of your interpretations of your observations. That claim has been legitimately brought into question. You do the work. You attempt to substantiate that it is indeed a crater of some sort and explain, thoroughly, how it supports your theory of a solid surface.
If you can't substantiate your own "evidence", set it aside. Admit that having brought that crater into the discussion was moot, and move on to other things. Or maybe you're just too lazy to work the bugs out of your own theory. You've expressed some wonder at how you are being perceived as arrogant. This is one clear example.
So for a serious analysis of the "crater", how about you measure it and measure its movement. Describe the depth and width. Explain the mechanism for the "erosion". How much material gets moved? How fast? How? Is it anomalous or is it something that we might expect to see regularly? And your standard reply of, "Hey, come on guys, prove me wrong," isn't how science works. You're not proving yourself right. That's your job. Do it.
You think the surface of the sun is solid. People ask you for more than your interpretation of your observation to back up your claim. You show the pictures around and ask everyone to notice how it really looks solid. When others say it doesn't look solid to them, you say it really really looks solid to you. When you get more requests to back up your claim, you ask people to prove you wrong. People keep asking you to prove yourself right, and you respond by asking them again to prove you wrong. You follow by claiming it really really really looks solid. And 'round and 'round you go. So we aren't just misperceiving your continued claim as hand waving. That is hand waving.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2006 : 19:16:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No, that won't work. First of all, you are trying to compare RAW 171 images to the photosphere rather than running difference images. The problem with doing this is that raw images show all the movement of these iron ions through the whole atmosphere (from the surface to the corona). These iron ion photons do not emit just at the surface as you seem to think.
No, I don't think that at all, and you know that I don't think that because I've asked you, specifically, how I can tell the difference between 171A ions on the surface and the ones at tens of thousands of km over the surface. You have yet to offer me any sort of methodology to distinguish the two. So I developed my own, which offers a "minimum altitude" test when there's a 171A glow with blackness towards the Sun's center. That particular 171A glow is over 300 km above the photosphere. If you'd like to demonstrate 171A light coming from below the photosphere, please do so, and supply your raw data and calculations as I did.quote:
Here are some images/animations that do apply:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002700/a002713/Sunspots.mpg
In this animation, we see that the coronal loops originate UNDERNEATH the visible photosphere, not above it.
An artist's rendition of how the magnetic field loops evolve around sunspots is some sort of "evidence" that 171A light comes from below the surface?quote:
We can see them come through the photosphere in these images:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg
The yellow areas represent areas where Yohkoh is able to observe x-rays as the coronal loops come through the photosophere and enter the corona and begin to glow in soft x-ray.
I'd like a link to the original, please.quote:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/T171_1600_WL_000606_1500.gif
This is composit image that shows white light and 171A images. Again, we can see the arcs come through the sunspots just as in the animation. We can also see lots of green dots underneath the photosphere where photons are coming up from below.
Nope, there's no way to distinguish what's "on top" of what in that image. It could all be planar.quote:
You've meantioned now several times about the location of the crater but you offered us no legitimate way to diferentiate lighting changes, nor have you give me a clue how you "eyeballed" the presumed center of a very large crater. Why wouldn't you pick an angular structure on the side of the crater to make such a determination?
I offered a detailed description of my methodology for finding the location of the "crater," a methodology which is intended to minimize error. Once again, it appears that you haven't been paying attention.quote:
Like I said, it is encouraging to me that you are looking for ways to falsify my position mathematically, but you aren't applying any of the basic concepts of my model to any of your "disproofs".
Basic concept: the surface rotates once every 27.3 days. Unfalsifiable assertion: the "crater" moves due to "erosion." As soon as you tell us how to take erosion into account, I will. Until then, I stand by my calculation that it would take the power of more than 825 suns to cause that erosion in the first place. This, of course, cannot possibly falsify your erosion idea, but it sure shows the absurdity of it being responsible for the 11% difference between your rotation rate and the "crater's" observed rotation rate.quote:
The fact the surface is erroding and pieces of it are being moved around the surface by the arcs precludes us from expecting the surface to remain "constant".
Which is precisely why your suggested method for locating the "crater" cannot possibly work. If you're going to suggest tests of your own theory, perhaps you could avoid basing them on premises contradictory to your own theory.quote:
Several of the RHESSI movies I've posted here and at the bautforum show that the highest energy areas are located at the base of the arcs, and at this points we see evidence of energy states that are simply amazing:
[SNIP...]
All of which is irrelevant to the problems at hand:
1) SOHO/MDI has detected the flow of material within your allegedly "solid layer," at speeds upwards of 1,000 km/sec.
2) The energy required to move your "crater" by an extra 39,000 km in 57 hours would require at least 825 suns, all focused on that spot.
3) You have yet to demonstrate that any particular 171A image comes from 3,460 km below the visible surface of the photosphere.
I'm sure there are more, but let's just focus on three, so it'll take up less time. |
- 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 - 01/12/2006 : 12:49:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
That is not a fact, that's just your (so far unsupported) conjecture. You've offered no mechanism by which large surface feature can "move around" intact over a solid surface.
But I never claimed it moved around an "intact" solid surface feature. That was Dave's EYEBALLING of the presumed "center" of a crater you are refering to, and I wasn't the one making that claim. Dave never explained how he eyeballed the center of the crater in these images, nor did he explain how he differentiated arc emissions from surface features. Until he can do that, I can't really go any further on that issue. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
