|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 01/26/2006 : 21:18:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You've steadfastly refused to provide even the most rudimentary explanations for several issues that are critical to the possibility of a solid surface sun.
That is pure BS. I've answered TONS of questions. You on the other hand won't address even ONE, not the first image on my website, not the isotope analysis, not the electrical aspects that Maryland University confirmed, none of it. You'll just sit there and blame everyone else for not convincing you without you even lifting a finger to research anything. Talk about fantasies that fall apart....
It's very clear me now that you don't have the scientific skill to deal with the isotope analysis. You can't explain even the first image on my website. You haven't added ANYTHING of any scientific value to this discussion. In fact all you seem to be able to do is be rude and obnoxious and hurling cheap shots. You must know by now that your pointless diatribes aren't affecting me one iota, so who are you grandstanding for at this point?
Either tackle the isotope analsysis, or get lost. I already told you that I'm tired of your laziness and I'm bored of you. Go away if the science is too steep for you. Your comments are obviously devoid of scientific merit. Your pointless rude comments mean nothing to me so save your wasted breath and get busy on the isotope analysis if you expect me to take you seriously. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 21:29:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Yes, but whether the speed change is caused by temperature or density, it's still a 0.1% difference, right?
I don't think so actually. I think the .1% figure relates to a presumed "density" change in this region based on the assumption that its hot plamsa. I don't believe that figure relates to the change in sound speed through this region. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 21:40:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Actually, I am in fact questioning one of the fundamental "assumptions" of contemporary heliosiesmology theory, specifically I question the ASSUMPTION that all speed changes occur ONLY in plasma.
Name a solid, Michael, and we can explore how different or similar it would appear to be to a plasma surrounding it using helioseismological methods.quote:
I don't profess to KNOW anything other than I KNOW that speed changes can be related to density changes in solids, and I KNOW that this possibility is not currently considered in contemporary heliosiesmology studies.
Then you know wrong, since Kosovichev's 2005 paper was explicitly measuring density changes, and because two other helioseismology studies measured the density of the Sun at a variety of depths and found the helioseismology methods to match the standard solar model to within 2%.quote:
quote:
No, because you have no clue as to whether the mass flow work is correct or not, seeing as how it's based upon the same "faulty" assumption that there are no solids present in the Sun.
From the surface of the photosophere to the surface of the sun, our "faulty assumption" won't make one iota of difference. Birkeland's model includes a plasma atmosphere from the corona to the surface. Plasma may exist under the surface as well. The only region where this data becomes "faulty" is the "stratification layer" from .995R to .985R-.97R. That faulty assumption would radically alter the "interpretation" of the data in this region.
Then you don't understand helioseismology. To measure anything below your allegedly solid surface, the sound waves measured at the photosphere would necessarily pass through your solid layer, changing the total point-to-point travel time (as well as the locations of the points at which the waves became apparent at the surface, since the sound-refraction index would probably be drastically different at the interfaces) and thus the analytical results. Unless, of course, the layer had nearly the same compressibility, density and temperature of the surrounding plasma. And would such a layer be plausible?quote:
quote:
Figure 3 shows the downward flow patterns have a "tendency to end" closer to 6,000 km (0.991R) than 3,460 km (0.995R). Some of the strongest downflows (near the center of the umbra) are at 0.995R.
I would expect that the base of the funnels represents the most turbulant regions of mass flows, both in terms of moving plasma, and in terms of electrons from the universe funneling their way to the surface. There's more than likely a significant increase of the flow of electrical current at the base of these funnels to would continue for some distance as the stream of electrons enters the solid surface.
How many electrons, and why are they moving at less than 500 m/s?quote:
I don't believe that there is only a 1% change in density in the region as Dr. Kosovichev believes. I do not assume as he does that only plasma can exist under the photosphere.
Please go ahead and do the math to show that a solid can look like a plasma if only you change your assumptions. In other words, Dr. Kosovichev's raw data set, plus the conclusion from previous studies that the standard model is correct, led him to believe that there were only 0.1% or less density changes to be measured. What are the properties of a solid which would not result in massive differences between theory and observation?quote:
If the density change was really only .1%, it's pretty unusual that all the plasma downdrafts all end at this location.
No, the density change of 0.1% has nothing to do with that sunspot article. Why are you so fixated on that? Dr. Kosovichev wasn't even using the same set of sound frequencies to measure those two different things. That you can somehow equate the two means you don't know what you're talking about.quote:
There's also that that pesky little problem of explaining why there is ANY significant density transition in this region in the absense of mass separation.
Then you don't understand the gas laws. Gasses under pressure (from the gasses sitting on top of them in a gravitational field) are more dense than gasses under less pressure. Add to that the fact that hot gasses are less dense than cold gasses, and the fact that there is convection going on in mostly-discrete cells, and you've got a good recipe for density stratifications without need of mass separation of isotopes.quote:
So the moment we pull a single thread (assumption), the whole thing unravels and nothing about a whole field of science becomes useful? That's not even rational, and I wouldn't make any kind of claims like this.
It's absolutely rational. The whole philosophy of science is based upon the assumption that there is an reality separate from our minds, and that we can measure that reality and learn about it. If that assumption were shown to be incorrect, nothing about any science would be useful at all. The fact that you're removing a fundamental portion of helioseismology absolutely means than anything built on top of it will become unstable, and possibly crash to the ground (by analogy, you are attempting to weaken the foundation of the building).quote:
The ENTIRE FIELD of heliosiesmology is predicated on the concept that the "sun rings like a bell" being struck by grains of sand. I can explain why it rings in the first place and that ringing is due to arcs on a metal surface, it's not due to interactions between plasmas that are more thin than aerogel!
|
- 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 - 01/26/2006 : 22:00:01 [Permalink]
|
Ok, thanks, Dave. I think I understand the situation much more clearly after your last post (meaning I got some numbers wrong in my last one).
Essentially, the sun was pinged with sonar and got back a return that pretty much exactly matched what they were expecting if the sun were a ball of gas. Had there been a solid iron-composite layer sitting there (regardless of what was "assumed"), the results of the return would have set up red flags like crazy because it totally would have clashed with their expectations. Michael's only recourse now is to deny the accuracy of Kosovichev's results to the extent that he would basically be calling him an incompetent boob who missed a glaring discrepancy in his data. Well, either that or come up with a solid that has all the properties of a superheated plasma, as you say.
|
"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 01/26/2006 22:01:24 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 22:01:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I guess fear is the motive that prevents you from doing any work related to isotope analysis by Dr. Manuel.
No, I have no fear. I reviewed Manuel's material. It doesn't support your fantasy, and I'm not going to go through any effort to try to make it support your fantasy. That's your fucking job. The fact that you can't understand that, in plain English, every single time anyone tells you, is one of the reasons people won't take you seriously. You don't get it, no matter how many times it's explained.quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert...
The isotope analysis cannot tell us whether or not the sun has a solid surface, which is your main conjecture.
That is quite correct.
We all agree, even you, but one of us tends to forget, that would be you. The isotope analysis doesn't support your wild guess about a solid surface in any way. Get over it. Drop it. The fact that you keep bringing it up, even when it's useless to your case, is baffling to say the least.quote:
That is pure BS. I've answered TONS of questions. You on the other hand won't address even ONE, not the first image on my website, not the isotope analysis, not the electrical aspects that Maryland University confirmed, none of it.
The Maryland University material seems to confirm electrical activity. It doesn't confirm your fantasy, either. It doesn't confirm that electricity is the light source. It doesn't confirm that electrical activity is eroding some imaginary solid surface. I don't have to address it in any more detail. It doesn't, as is, support your fantasy.
If you can use that Maryland University material as background to do some actual scientific analysis of how that electrical activity directly contributes to supporting your wild fantasy, do it. It's your job. How many times do you have to hear that before it sinks in? It's not anyone else's job to do your work. (Oh, and there you go again whining about that isotope analysis that doesn't even support your wild fantasy.)
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 23:00:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Ok, thanks, Dave. I think I understand the situation much more clearly after your last post (meaning I got some numbers wrong in my last one).
Essentially, the sun was pinged with sonar and got back a return that pretty much exactly matched what they were expecting if the sun were a ball of gas.
Yeah, except that the Sun "pings" itself for a variety of reasons. All that the MDI instrument on SOHO does is "read" the ups and downs of the photosphere to a fairly-high resolution which, over time, can offer data on the sound frequencies appearing at each location imaged. A sound of frequency X over here at time T, which later appears over there at time T+87 (whatever units you want to use) tells us something about how deep those sound waves went, the curve they took, and all sorts of other stuff.quote:
Had there been a solid iron-composite layer sitting there (regardless of what was "assumed"), the results of the return would have set up red flags like crazy because it totally would have clashed with their expectations.
Mostly right. The assumptions are important at first.
Think about it this way: if you've got a cube of iron that's 5,950 meters on a side, and you and a friend are on opposite faces, and your friend taps the iron with a hammer, you ought to hear the tap exactly one second later (coming up through the iron on your side of the cube). If, instead, you hear the sound 0.9 seconds after your friend taps, then you know you're not dealing with a cube of pure iron (or maybe it's a cube of really hot iron). So you'd start doing tests with various precise frequencies of sound waves, to see if that makes a difference (it will if there's a density change at an angle - think of how a prism splits light based upon frequency), or you'll switch to different faces of the cube (or different locations on each opposing face) to see how that changes the tap-and-listen timings. Or any of a number of other tests which might be suggested by the physical properties of the cube along with your knowledge of pressure-wave physics.
All of this stuff you do in an attempt to deduce the properties that you can't physically examine without cutting open this beautiful 3.7-mile cube you've somehow attained. (I am so jealous.) So, you start out by assuming that your cube is entirely iron, but when your observations don't match your assumptions, you know it's not purely iron, and the search is on for what it's really made of.quote:
Michael's only recourse now is to deny the accuracy of Kosovichev's results to the extent that he would basically be calling him an incompetent boob who missed a glaring discrepancy in his data. Well, either that or come up with a solid that has all the properties of a superheated plasma, as you say.
Absolutely correct.
Similarly to the "iron cube" you've got (I really want one of those), helieoseismology at first assumed that if the Sun were a big ball of gas, then sound waves within it should behave in certain predictable manners. When they did behave in those ways (to within 2% of the predictions), it was then safe to say that either the assumptions were correct, or there's something going on which appears to be almost indistinguishable from our assumptions being correct. It most certainly doesn't mean that our assumptions were flat-out wrong, unless there's some aspect to this science which we've fucked up completely.
For both models to be correct to any degree of accuracy would require such extreme circumstances that evidence for them would be necessary before acceptance could even begin, similar to that which would be required if I were to claim I've got a dragon in my garage. |
- 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 - 01/26/2006 : 23:27:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
When they did behave in those ways (to within 2% of the predictions), it was then safe to say that either the assumptions were correct, or there's something going on which appears to be almost indistinguishable from our assumptions being correct. It most certainly doesn't mean that our assumptions were flat-out wrong, unless there's some aspect to this science which we've fucked up completely.
Alright, now I've got it. Thanks for that extended explanation. So Michael's bitch that the assumption that the sun was a ball of gas somehow influenced the results it simply impossible. The results could have affirmed or challenged that assumption (in this case, they affirmed it), but they couldn't actually be different based on the original assumption, which seems to essentially be what he's suggesting.
I cannot imagine Michael coming to any other conclusion except that he was wrong. There simply is no longer any way for him to pretend that's it's possible for the sun to have a sold 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 |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/26/2006 23:28:41 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2006 : 00:16:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Name a solid, Michael, and we can explore how different or similar it would appear to be to a plasma surrounding it using helioseismological methods.
The only logical "solid" here I can think of would be the two images of meteorite fragments on the first page of my website.
The sound travel will be directly related to the density and temperature and FORM of the material in question. By "form" here I mean "solid" or "plasma". Each layer will have it's own unique properties.
The penumbral filament layer IMO is neon plasma. I believe it to be quite a bit "thicker" than this aerogel consistency you attribute to the photosphere.
I have a quick question. Both you and Nereid seemed to be concerned about the propogation of light through this much plasma, but you seem to think it's outrageously thin in the first place. From your perpective, I'm suggesting that HUGE arc begin 3000 miles below this thin surface and extend all the way through it, into the chromosphere and beyond. I fail to see why you would logically question the fact that we would see light from giant arcs of this size through such a thin layer of material that you associate with the surface of the photosophere. I'm not altogether convinced that anything that thin and dispersed could ever hope to reflect sound waves, let alone block light from 3000 mile long arcs.
quote:
Then you know wrong, since Kosovichev's 2005 paper was explicitly measuring density changes, and because two other helioseismology studies measured the density of the Sun at a variety of depths and found the helioseismology methods to match the standard solar model to within 2%.
Each and every one of these density calculations "assumes" that most speed changes reflect temperature changes in plasma. They are not at ALL based on Birkeland's solar model, or consider such a model. These density calculations (not related to a single indivual) are based on the "assumption" that the sound changes are related to sound changes in plasma. That is "theory" that has not been established in this case.
quote:
Then you don't understand helioseismology.
Understanding it, and agreeing with it are two different issues.
quote:
To measure anything below your allegedly solid surface, the sound waves measured at the photosphere would necessarily pass through your solid layer, changing the total point-to-point travel time (as well as the locations of the points at which the waves became apparent at the surface, since the sound-refraction index would probably be drastically different at the interfaces) and thus the analytical results. Unless, of course, the layer had nearly the same compressibility, density and temperature of the surrounding plasma. And would such a layer be plausible?
I would have to agree with all of your logic till we get to the part about "drastically different at the interfaces" part. The rest of your expanation addresses most of the rest of my concerns, however....
I would not necessarily assume that the sound changes between plasma layers was "drastically" different. I would expect to see that the various layer would necessarily get more dense and cooler with depth. There *may* be a noticable distinction between the calcium and silicon plasmas, but IMO, the compression at these depths functions more like the oceans of the earth, and IMO, it's a lot more dense than aerogel, particularly by the time we reach the deepest depths near the surface. The consistency of the plasma at the surface must be "dense" enough to carry away vast quantities of heat, and aerogel isn't going to cut it.
quote:
How many electrons, and why are they moving at less than 500 m/s?
I can't really answer the first question, but the second number you cite is base upon how far electrons might travel into the surface before being captured in a solid, averaged over time. I'm not sure I'd personally worry much about the "speed" of the movement since the electrons will be absorbed and then this number will be compared to the flow of plasma above the surface, all of which is averaged over time.
quote:
Please go ahead and do the math to show that a solid can look like a plasma if only you change your assumptions. In other words, Dr. Kosovichev's raw data set, plus the conclusion from previous studies that the standard model is correct, led him to believe that there were only 0.1% or less density changes to be measured. What are the properties of a solid which would not result in massive differences between theory and observation?
The obvious factors that would apply IMO would be:
A) What material is the photosophere made of?
B) What temperature is it at the surface? (I'll accept current measurements)
C) Does the temperature increase or decrease with depth?
D) Does the plasma "compress" at depth? If so, to what depth? Are different materials compressed differently, etc.
(I'll have to assume I'm right to do some of the rest)
E) Assuming the photosphere is made of neon plasma, the umbra is composed of silicon plasma and a layer of calcium plamsa/liquid? sits underneath, what are the temperatures of each layer?
F) What is the temperature of the surface?
G) What is the surface made of?
H) What kind of sound waves are we talking about? Are different frequencies reflected differently, ect?
I think you get the picture. If you want the "best picture" scenario, here's the reader's digest version:
The plasma of the photosphere compresses with depth. It is packed by gravity and arranged by element down to the isotope inside a huge electromagnetic field. The plasma compresses consistently with depth, although mass separation points between elements may show "some" obvious transition points. In order to compute "best case" scenarios, you'd have to consider the temperatures and densities and forms of each element at each transition point.
quote:
No, the density change of 0.1% has nothing to do with that sunspot article.
Why do you say that? I would suggest these two phenomenon are related. The plasma flows under the sunspot end at .995R, right where we see some evidence of density stratification. There is no reason to believe these two phenomenon are not related, and much evidence in the way of plasma flow to suggest that they ARE related.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/27/2006 00:23:19 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2006 : 02:01:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'm a certified scuba diver in real life. I understand all about pressure and density and thermoclines and a lot of things related to these areas of science. I know them because you can actually kill yourself if you don't consider the implications of these things.
The problem here is you have a distinct transition point, where the sound waves behave quite differently, and it's a very obvious, not gradule transition point. The fact it's not a gradual transition is the key.
Does salt water mix evenly with fresh water in a gradual transition, or is there a "distinct transition point," relatively speaking of course?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That little "illusion" even has ravines along the right side. It has mountain ranges and shadow effects. There's even particles blowing in the plamsa wind. All of these structures are there even hours later, in exactly the same relationships. All of this stuff that is less dense that aerogel? You don't find that to sound rather "fishy" consisdering the movement patterns going on in the photosphere that is supposed to be UNDERNEATH this layer and supporting it? That is some REALY, REALLY and I mean REALLY rigid aerogel!
Hours doesn't cut it when it comes to these "structures" you're seeing, since you're looking at HUGE convection cells tranforming slowly before your eyes. Days, maybe then you'd have something. Oh, but we already know these "mountains and ravines" don't last days, do they? You think they must be "eroded" away in some process which you cannot quantify. Too bad, because Occam's Razor means that it makes much more sense to think they are slowly moving clouds of plasma.
Michael, you might be a nice guy in real life, but you seriously must come to terms with the fact that the evidence is just against you on this. No fame and glory awaits. You're just grasping at straws at this point.
|
"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 01/27/2006 02:17:43 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2006 : 10:10:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Does salt water mix evenly with fresh water in a gradual transition, or is there a "distinct transition point," relatively speaking of course?
That analogy doesn't compare well to this scenario. According to gas model theory, there is no mass separation on the sun, and there is only plasma to work with.
quote:
Hours doesn't cut it when it comes to these "structures" you're seeing, since you're looking at HUGE convection cells tranforming slowly before your eyes.
"Huge convection cells" in the corona? I'd have a bit more sympathy for this arguement if you weren't trying to apply a concept that applies to the photosphere to a layer is prumably far way from the structures you describe. There is also no problem at all picking out movement in the photosophere even WITH "huge convection cells" to hold it together. That arguement doesn't even hold up to scrutiny in the layers it is KNOWN to apply to.
quote:
Days, maybe then you'd have something.
Check out the SOHO RD images then! The one of my website is put together over *8 FULL DAYS*.
quote:
Oh, but we already know these "mountains and ravines" don't last days, do they?
In rare instances the last whole rotation cycles in fact. Again, checkout the SOHO RD images.
quote:
You think they must be "eroded" away in some process which you cannot quantify.
I'm beginning to wonder if there is a comprehension problem around here, or just a bad case of alzheimers going around. :)
The process is called "electricity". I can't believe I have to explain the PROCESS yet again. It's all right there on the model page of my website.
quote:
Too bad, because Occam's Razor means that it makes much more sense to think they are slowly moving clouds of plasma.
Occam's Razor means we don't need two transition layers. One that sits under the photosphere works just fine. This wouldn't be so weak of an arguement if you weren't utterly ignoring the fact that there IS no movement in the structures of that Lockheed RD image, and there *IS* movement in the "clouds" of the cells of the photosophere, which come and go every 8 minutes. There is an *OBVIOUS* behavioral difference in the plasma of the photosphere vs. the layer in question. It is the difference between looking at materials like "clouds" as you call it, vs. looking at a surface. The clouds, or in this case plasma, move around haphazzardly, just like we would expect from a plasma. The RD image layer however does not.
quote:
Michael, you might be a nice guy in real life, but you seriously must come to terms with the fact that the evidence is just against you on this. No fame and glory awaits. You're just grasping at straws at this point.
That is a bit ironic IMO since you are trying to apply a generic answer of "convection cells" to a layer that isn't even in the photosphere according to NASA. You've go absolutely different movements of structure in the photosphere than you do in the this layer as well. IMO you're grasping at straws in a big way, and so is Dave.
Dave didn't try to attribute these structures to supersized convection cells. He attributed the lack of movement to some idea that the electromagnetic fields are somehow stable. The problem with his answer is that the coronal loops are moving all over the place during this time line. Neither one of you has come up with a satisfactory answer based on the evidence, and you two aren't even on the same page in the first place. I'm getting quite an assortment of explanations for these rigid structures, but neither explanation I've heard so far matches the visual evidence. You can't apply a structure from the photosphere to this layer so your explantion doesn't work, and you can't attribute "structure" to magnetic field lines that change around in a matter of minutes. Neither of these TWO DIFFERENT explanations fits with what we actually see, therefore you two are grasping at DIFFERENT straws. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/27/2006 11:43:26 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2006 : 11:00:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Alright, now I've got it. Thanks for that extended explanation. So Michael's bitch that the assumption that the sun was a ball of gas somehow influenced the results it simply impossible.
It's not only "possible", in this case it is quite "probable" based on the evidence revealed in the technique. The "pinging" is actually caued by the electrical arcs in the first place. The movement of these sounds reveal a distinct transition layer at .995R. You can see this transitional region in the flow patterns of figure 3. The downward vertical flow patterns turn into horizontal ones at .995R. The underside vertical movements also "flatten out" as they hit the underside of the same layer. Despite Dave's claim there certainly *IS* evidence that plasma flows are interfered with by a stratification layer at .985R to .995R. In this region is a layer that interfers with the flow of plasma. That layer is certainly NOT "invisible" in the heliosiesmology data by any stretch of the imagination. You can see it's influence between figures 2A and 2B in the flow patterns near the columns, and you can see it's influence in figure 3 as downward flow patterns flatten out in this region.
quote:
The results could have affirmed or challenged that assumption (in this case, they affirmed it), but they couldn't actually be different based on the original assumption, which seems to essentially be what he's suggesting.
The flow patterns ARE different than theory however. No current gas model expected this stratification layer to exist at .995 that interferes with the plasma flow. No one has explained why these downward flow patterns all flatten out .995R. No one has explained why the plasma flows differently underneath this layer than on top. The results of these tests ARE different than expected, or gas model theory would have predicted that statification layer to start with.
quote:
I cannot imagine Michael coming to any other conclusion except that he was wrong. There simply is no longer any way for him to pretend that's it's possible for the sun to have a sold surface.
I don't have to "pretend" anything. I've got satellite images of the surface. I've got heliosiesmology flow patterns that are consistent with a surface and nuclear chemistry evidence that confirms the surface is mostly made of iron. I've even got evidence from Maryland University to corroborate the electrical nature of the coronal loops coming off the surface. It seems to me it's the gas model theorists that have to "pretend" that Lockheed RD image doesn't exist, and pretend those flattened flow patterns aren't really there in figure 3. They have to pretend that the isotope analysis doesn't show signs of mass separation.
How about you and Dave work on explanation for that RD image that you both agree on, and then we can decide whether your combined explanation works or doesn't work. At it is, you both offered different explanations that would require a radically different placement. Dave's location for this layer is consistent with NASA's explanation, but your's is not. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2006 : 11:37:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
No, I have no fear. I reviewed Manuel's material. It doesn't support your fantasy, and I'm not going to go through any effort to try to make it support your fantasy. That's your fucking job.
I think that has to be the single dumbest comment I've seen on this forum. For some unknown reason you personally think that Dr. Manuel's work doesn't support my claims even though Dr. Manuel himself claims his work DOES support my case and he has done four additional papers with me over the last year. That isn't even rational. Your behavior is just like that of a creationist. You can't deal with the isotope analysis, so you don't. Wow, how impressive.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2006 : 12:04:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Mostly right. The assumptions are important at first.
The assumptions are ALWAYS important. If we "assume" that all speed changes are directly related to temperature changes in plasma, then all we will "interpret" from the data is a temperature change in plasma.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2006 : 12:11:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'm beginning to wonder if there is a comprehension problem around here, or just a bad case of alzheimers going around. :)
The process is called "electricity". I can't believe I have to explain the PROCESS yet again. It's all right there on the model page of my website.
"Electricty" is not an erosion process. You claim it is the driving mechanism of this mysterious process, but eletricty in and of itself is not sufficient to account for the rebuilding of "mountains" one they've been vaporized away. No geologist would ever stop at "wind" to explain erosion here on Earth, since it is a woefully incomplete description.
quote:
Neither one of you has come up with a satisfactory answer based on the evidence, and you two aren't even on the same page in the first place. I'm getting quite an assortment of explanations for these rigid structures, but neither explanation I've heard so far matches the visual evidence. You can't apply a structure from the photosphere to this layer so your explantion doesn't work, and you can't attribute "structure" to magnetic field lines that change around in a matter of minutes. Neither of these TWO DIFFERENT explanations fits with what we actually see, therefore you two are grasping at DIFFERENT straws.
First of all, Dave and I don't need to explain anything or "be on the same page." We aren't defending a theory, remember? This has been explained to you several times now. Secondly, my remarks weren't meant to be taken as anything more than a layman's description. Since clouds of gas can hold "shapes" for extended periods of time, your obeservations are absolutely worthless. I don't care how long you've stared at images taken over a few hours. I will always reject them as being consistent with a plasma. What you consider to be the strongest aspect of your case, I consider to be the weakest. I don't care what you think you see. I don't believe you understand what you're looking at.
|
"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 01/27/2006 12:14:06 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2006 : 12:37:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The only logical "solid" here I can think of would be the two images of meteorite fragments on the first page of my website.
The sound travel will be directly related to the density and temperature and FORM of the material in question. By "form" here I mean "solid" or "plasma". Each layer will have it's own unique properties.
The penumbral filament layer IMO is neon plasma.
But the iron/nickel surface you suggest is nowhere near the "penumbral filament layer," it is under the calcium plasma layer in your model. Those are the two substances which need to be compared in order to determine the difference in sound speed.quote:
I believe it to be quite a bit "thicker" than this aerogel consistency you attribute to the photosphere.
Come on, Michael, you know the actual values. The standard model says that the density of the plasma just above 0.995R is one-hundedth that of the lightest aerogel. It also says the density of the plasma at the top of the photosphere is one fifteenth less dense still.
But, you've got to specify the density you think the calcium plasma is at. An iron/nickel meteorite is going to have a density slightly higher than pure iron, by about 0.6%, so the speed of sound through it will be about 0.33% lower than pure iron, or about 5931 m/s. The speed of sound in the calcium will be dependent upon what you think the density is. Once you provide a range of possibilities, we can compare the two.quote:
I have a quick question. Both you and Nereid seemed to be concerned about the propogation of light through this much plasma, but you seem to think it's outrageously thin in the first place. From your perpective, I'm suggesting that HUGE arc begin 3000 miles below this thin surface and extend all the way through it, into the chromosphere and beyond. I fail to see why you would logically question the fact that we would see light from giant arcs of this size through such a thin layer of material that you associate with the surface of the photosophere. I'm not altogether convinced that anything that thin and dispersed could ever hope to reflect sound waves, let alone block light from 3000 mile long arcs.
It's easy to see why. The density of Earth's atmosphere at an altitude of 50 km is less (by more than 50%) than the density of the top layer of the photosphere of the Sun, at 0.0000009 g/cm3, and that density drops to 0.0000000005 g/cm3 at 100 km altitudes, and keeps dropping until at 1000 km, it's only about 0.000000000000000005 g/cm3. That's very thin stuff, yet this 950-km-thick section of Earth's atmosphere is completely opaque to all extreme UV light (none of it gets as low as 50 km). That's why TRACE and RHESSI and other EUV imagers are satellites (or, like SERTS, sub-orbital rockets).
So, we've got an example of a less-dense layer of a mixture of gasses, only a third as thick as the total atmosphere over top of your allegedly solid surface, which completely blocks the frequencies of light present in the 171A and 195A TRACE images. We've also got TRACE white-light images of the same places, at the same times, as 171A flare images, but which show, at most, a sunspot, which means that the stuff going on at 171A is completely invisible between 4,000A and 7,000A, either because the atmosphere covers and hides it or because it doesn't radiate as a black body.quote:
quote:
Then you know wrong, since Kosovichev's 2005 paper was explicitly measuring density changes, and because two other helioseismology studies measured the density of the Sun at a variety of depths and found the helioseismology methods to match the standard solar model to within 2%.
Each and every one of these density calculations "assumes" that most speed changes reflect temperature changes in plasma.
Where did you get that idea?quote:
They are not at ALL based on Birkeland's solar model, or consider such a model.
If Birkeland's model were correct, the helioseismology results would be different from what they are.quote:
These density calculations (not related to a single indivual) are based on the "assumption" that the sound changes are related to sound changes in plasma. That is "theory" that has not been established in this case.
No, the theory was tested by saying, "if the Sun is a ball of gas, then we should see sound move through it like this," and then by measuring the ways that sound moves through the Sun, that theory was verified.quote:
quote:
Then you don't understand helioseismology.
Understanding it, and agreeing with it are two different issues.
You're not just disagreeing with it, though, you're claiming that helioseismology works in a completely different fashion than it does by saying that its results can be correct for areas under a solid surface.quote:
I would have to agree with all of your logic till we get to the part about "drastically different at the interfaces" part. The rest of your expanation addresses most of the rest of my concerns, however....
I would not necessarily assume that the sound changes between plasma layers was "drastically" different. I would expect to see that the various layer would necessarily get more dense and cooler with depth. There *may* be a noticable distinction between the calcium and silicon plasmas, but IMO, the compression at these depths functions more like the oceans of the earth, and IMO, it's a lot more dense than aerogel, particularly by the time we reach the deepest depths near the surface. The consistency of the plasma at the surface must be "dense" enough to carry away vast quantities of heat, and aerogel isn't going to cut it.
Unfortunately, your opinions don't cut it, either, since you seem to be wholly unwilling to actually educate yourself about the mode |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
