|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 01/29/2006 : 13:05:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Before going further, Michael, in what units would one measure "absolute" density?
I don't think so Dave. I've gone through 13 pages of questions and answers with you over the heliosiesmology data, and it's clear we have a ways to go yet on that subject. In the mean time, you haven't addressed that mass separation issue, nor the data behind it. You insist that I deal with the materials in specific papers and I will insist you now deal with mine. I've been faithful to the process here and I've even used data from some of the papers you handed me to bolster my case. Those flow patterns certaily do not resemble an area that is only .1% mor dense than the layers above it. Your smoke analogy was more of a smoke screen, since you won't see smoke flatten out for thousands of miles all in a straight line.
I think before we address any other issues, it's time now for you to at least start dealing with the mass separation issues, and the data behind it. When you've addressed this data, and we've finished with the heliosiesmology issues, and we've looked at that RD image again in light of the changing arcs, *then* I'll revisit other issues with you again. As it is, I feel like the the most important data is being sidelined here intentionally and you are simply tossing out anything else to distract us from these core issues. It's only fair now that you start to deal with at least some part of the isotope analsys that suggests patterns of mass separation.
quote:
What materials comprise your allegedly solid surface?
It is made of all the materials you see in the spectral output of the sun.
quote:
How dense is it?
Where? You again seem to believe there is a homogenous crust that fits nicely into a math formula. I've explained now several times that the crust of the sun is not homogeneous and there isn't a "single" answer to this question. I get the feeling you keep trying to oversimplify this issues even though I've carefully explained it isn't that easy or simple. What do you want me to do here, pull a number out of my back pocket that we both know is a gross oversimplification?
quote:
What is its modulus of elasticity? What is its electrical resistance? Melting point?
Ditto. You might as well start with the melting point of the earth's crust. In fact you might as well start by taking ALL the numbers you are seeking from the measurements of the earth's crust, or the crust of Mars because that is most likely at least "similar" in composition to any crust.
quote:
Are the plasmas in your model transparent to EUV light?
In a relative sense, evidently so. I see light from the surface so it must go through the plasma of the umbra, the penumbra the chromosophere and the corona.
quote:
How did you measure the depth at which the "action" in the Lockheed "gold" video takes place?
I did so mainly based on Kosovichev's data. The downward flow patterns end near the surface. Most likely they start to end at calcium plasma boundary, but the general depth is based on Kosovichev's data related to the flow pattern changes and the stratification depths he outlined.
quote:
Can you prove that the loops and arcs move around during the period that movie takes place?
Yes, but I'll have to put together the raw FITS images for you in movie form. I won't get to that for a few days. In the mean time, you can peruse the raw FITS files during the times listed, and see for yourself in just a few images that the atmosphere above the surface is changing quite rapidly. You can see that effect play out in the RD image as the light and showing around the mountain area in particularly changes rather dramatically throughout the movie. I can and will demonstrate this for you in movie form, but probably not till Tuesday or Wednesday.
quote:
How can I tell a shadow from a lack of emissions in that movie?
You can tell because the shadows are directly related to the structures they are next to. The plasma is flowing from the bottom right to the upper left, creating more electrical activity on that windward side, leaving most of the shadows on the upper left side of most of the structures. Keep in mind the plasma movement is much like the movement of air or water over surfaces. There are local "currents" that don't follow that pattern, but by and large, most of the shadows are located along the left side of all the structures in the image.
quote:
What is under your allegedly solid shell?
Magma. Maybe even heated, pressurized plasma at some point. I can only see to the shell itself using satellite images. I know that Nickel and sulfur are likely to be found under that surface since these are the elements that increase in the SERTS data during active phases.
quote:
Using Dr. Manuel's equations, can you calculate for me the solar abundance of nickel?
I think he or Paul already did that somewhere, but I'll have to look that number up. I'd "guess" off the top of my head it's the same ratio you see in common meteorite fragments and/or supernova remnants.
quote:
Where is the evidence that helioseismologists always assume that a change in sound speed means a change in temperature?
The evidence is in the equations themselves that are all related to "ideal gases". There is no mention in these formulas of anything related to sound travel in solids.
quote:
I already have.
How have you shown a flaw in the mass separation data? Th |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/29/2006 13:40:45 |
 |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 13:12:59 [Permalink]
|
Okay, let's see how close I got with my predictions...quote:
Originally posted by me...
I predict Michael will give no straight answers to any of the above questions. I predict he will get defensive. I predict he will claim he's already provided the answers. I predict he will again show how he doesn't understand the simple concept that it's his responsibility to prove his own claim. And I predict an ad hominem attack on me for having the nerve to expect him to actually do the job he hasn't yet even begun to do. Any bets?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Look who's talking Dr. Denial? I must have asked you a dozen times to address the nuclear chemistry and you've "slithered" away from that issue ever single time. You obviously don't have the competence to deal with it, nor the integrity to admit it. You of all people should really avoid throwing stones. The only thing that is impossible for me to grasp is how you can utterly ignore the Lockheed and SOHO RD images, utterly ignore the isotope analysis, utterly ignore those flow patterns we see in heliosiesmology data, utterly ignore Birkeland's work, and utterly ignore Bruces work as well. I find that behavior impossible to grasp.
[...]
I predict you will never give me a straight answer to the very first question I asked you, specificallly the nuclear chemistry. I predict you will do what you always do and run like hell from anything even remotely related to science. I predict you will keep personalizing the issue, and ignoring the work of Birkeland, Bruce and Manuel only because it scares the hell out of you. I predict that no matter how much additional information I might lay out your feet, you will continue to personalize the issue, because you don't have the scientific knowledge to deal with any of the real issues openly and honestly. I predict instead that you'll keep looking for places to hurl cheap shots and pointless diatibe, since that seems to be about all you're good for.
Well, well, what do you know, I got 'em all. My predictions were 100% accurate, perfect score. Not a single answer to a single question. Not a speck of evidence. Not even a guess. No science, no math, no physics, nothing. Defensiveness certainly. Absolutely doesn't understand that it's his job to support his guess. And there was at least one ad hominem attack in there as well.
You've only proven one thing in your 300 postings here Michael. You've proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that you're all mouth and no substance. You can't answer the simplest questions about your silly fantasy. Even a useless troll could make something up! You're less capable than a troll. You keep crying that other people aren't doing the chemistry or the physics for you. It's not their job, not mine, not Dave W.'s, nobody's but your own. And you can't. You've blown every chance you had so far, and you've had your sorry ass kicked all over this discussion in the process. You've got nothing.
I may keep picking apart your whining temper tantrums and pointing out how you have no evidence, because it's just too easy, but you've made it 100% clear to everyone who might ever read this, there's no debate about that silly solid sun crap you've manufactured in your mind. For a debate to exist there needs to be a case presented. It's nobody else's job to present the case. It's yours. You haven't provided one, not even a little. You've failed miserably. 
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 13:16:35 [Permalink]
|
| GeeMack, get a life. I'm not even going to respond to any of your personal questions until you start dealing with the mass separation issues. If and when you show that you are man enough and science oriented enough to stick your neck out a bit and address the isotope analysis, then I'll consider doing something more for you personally. Until then, get lost. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 14:15:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Originally posted by Dave W....
What materials comprise your allegedly solid surface?
It is made of all the materials you see in the spectral output of the sun.
It has been determined with spectroscopy that the composition of the sun, by number of atoms, is ~94% hydrogen, ~6% helium, with ~0.13% made up of other elements, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen being the most abundant. It also contains traces of aluminum, iron, magnesium, neon, phosphorus, potassium, silicon, sodium, and sulfur.
By mass, the percentage composition of the elements in the sun is ~71% hydrogen, ~27% helium, ~1% oxygen, ~0.5% carbon, ~0.15% iron, with lesser amounts of the other elements.quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Originally posted by Dave W....
What is its modulus of elasticity? What is its electrical resistance? Melting point?
Ditto. You might as well start with the melting point of the earth's crust. In fact you might as well start by taking ALL the numbers you are seeking from the measurements of the earth's crust, or the crust of Mars because that is most likely at least "similar" in composition to any crust.
By weight the relative percentages of materials that make up the crust of the Earth are ~46% oxygen, ~27% silicon, ~8% aluminum, ~5% iron, ~3.5% calcium, ~3% sodium, ~2% potassium, ~2% magnesium, and ~1% all other elements.
So now we finally know what Michael accepts as the elemental makeup of the surface of the sun. We get somewhere between 0.15% iron and 5% iron depending on if we use his claim that it has the same makeup as that of Earth's crust, or if we use his claim that it has the composition derived from spectroscopic analysis of the sun. Of course in either case that's a far cry from the 51+% claimed in all preceding discussion of the composition of the sun's "solid" surface. I think we should get a more specific answer.
Direct question: Given that you've just waffled all over the solar system and provided absolutely no reasonable or consistent answer to the above questions, what is the elemental makeup of your alleged solid surface?
Edited to fix a decimal point. |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 01/29/2006 14:24:39 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 14:35:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
GeeMack, get a life. I'm not even going to respond to any of your personal questions until you start dealing with the mass separation issues. If and when you show that you are man enough and science oriented enough to stick your neck out a bit and address the isotope analysis, then I'll consider doing something more for you personally. Until then, get lost.
I'll deal directly with isotope analysis, again, one more time. We have all agreed, even you have, that the isotope analysis you refer to does not provide support to your notion that the surface of the sun is solid. Your incessant concern for it does beg the question, why can't you just shut the hell up about the irrelevant issues?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 14:36:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
It has been determined with spectroscopy that the composition of the sun, by number of atoms, is ~94% hydrogen, ~6% helium, with ~0.13% made up of other elements, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen being the most abundant. It also contains traces of aluminum, iron, magnesium, neon, phosphorus, potassium, silicon, sodium, and sulfur.
All of these percentages "assume" there is no mass separation of plasma in the atmosphere, and counting photons is not a valid way to determine composition in the presence of mass separation and Birkeland's solar model.
If and when you are man enough to address the isotope analysis that shows evidence of mass separation, then I'll be happy to address your other questions. Until you do however, it's really not going to do you a lot of good to scream and holler. We'll both know who's avoiding the istope analysis, like any good creationist might do. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 14:39:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
I'll deal directly with isotope analysis, again, one more time. We have all agreed, even you have, that the isotope analysis you refer to does not provide support to your notion that the surface of the sun is solid. Your incessant concern for it does beg the question, why can't you just shut the hell up about the irrelevant issues?
So you essentially reject gas model theory and accept his conclusion that the sun is mass separated. It is simply the issue of solid/vs. heavy dense plasma you are concerned about? Shall I assume you're now in Birkeland's camp rather than in Galileo's camp? It's concieveable here we're both on the same side and are quibbling over a minor point. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 15:45:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I don't think so Dave. I've gone through 13 pages of questions and answers with you over the heliosiesmology data, and it's clear we have a ways to go yet on that subject. In the mean time, you haven't addressed that mass separation issue, nor the data behind it.
What mass separation "issue?" If it is a necessary and sufficient piece of evidence for a solid surface being under the photosphere, then please describe this "issue" in detail. I'd rather not get hung up on irrelevancies.quote:
You insist that I deal with the materials in specific papers and I will insist you now deal with mine. I've been faithful to the process here and I've even used data from some of the papers you handed me to bolster my case.
Incorrectly, but okay.quote:
Those flow patterns certaily do not resemble an area that is only .1% mor dense than the layers above it.
Prove it. Do the necessary calculations to show your assertion is true.quote:
Your smoke analogy was more of a smoke screen, since you won't see smoke flatten out for thousands of miles all in a straight line.
Considering the Sun is curved, and the plots in Dr. Kosovichev's paper don't show that curvature, I'd be surprised if the plasma was flattening out "all in a straight line," too.quote:
I think before we address any other issues, it's time now for you to at least start dealing with the mass separation issues, and the data behind it.
As soon as you describe how it's relevant to your solid surface, we can address it.quote:
When you've addressed this data, and we've finished with the heliosiesmology issues...
We'll never finish with the helioseismology issues until you stop misrepresenting the practice of helioseismology.quote:
...and we've looked at that RD image again in light of the changing arcs, *then* I'll revisit other issues with you again.
It was a simple question which I'd asked before and you refused to answer again: in what units would one measure "absolute" density?quote:
As it is, I feel like the the most important data is being sidelined here intentionally and you are simply tossing out anything else to distract us from these core issues. It's only fair now that you start to deal with at least some part of the isotope analsys that suggests patterns of mass separation.
If it's relevant to your solid surface, I will. But so long as a "mostly iron Sun" can be described by a Sun with a big ball of iron at its center, or as a Sun chock-full of iron plasma, or with iron cubes floating around in it randomly, then there's no point. Why should we assume that "mostly iron Sun" means "mostly iron with a solid, not-completely-iron shell near the visible surface?"quote:
quote:
What materials comprise your allegedly solid surface?
It is made of all the materials you see in the spectral output of the sun.
Which doesn't help at all, since (for example) molecular hydrogen and oxygen will behave differently from water, which will behave differently from hydrogen peroxide, despite all three being made of the same two atoms. So long as your description of the materials making up the shell is at the atomic level, and not the molecular level, no testable predictions can be made because we cannot begin to even guess at how the shell should behave macroscopically.quote:
quote:
How dense is it?
Where? You again seem to believe there is a homogenous crust that fits nicely into a math formula. I've explained now several times that the crust of the sun is not homogeneous and there isn't a "single" answer to this question. I get the feeling you keep trying to oversimplify this issues even though I've carefully explained it isn't that easy or simple. What do you want me to do here, pull a number out of my back pocket that we both know is a gross oversimplification?
Despite the Earth's crust being made of all sorts of different materials - everything from uranium ore to diamonds - geologists can still agree that the average density of the crust is about 2.5 g/cm3. I can even say that the average density of a typical iron/nickel meteorite is close to 8 g/cm3, and back it up with references and math. If you can't offer even a range of possible average densities for your Sun's shell, then how can you possibly claim that an 0.1% density difference is too low?quote:
quote:
What is its modulus of elasticity? What is its electrical resistance? Melting point?
Ditto. You might as well start with the melting point of the earth's crust. In fact you might as well start by taking ALL the numbers you are seeking from the measurements of the earth's crust, or the crust of Mars because that is most likely at least "similar" in composition to any crust.
Ditto the above. It's not my job to present numbers for your solar-shell model. Were I to do so, and any calculations come out against you, you'd just smirk, "well, I sure didn't give you those numbers, so they don't disprove my model." I'm starting to conclude that the reason you're loathe to provide the information I've been asking about is just so that your model cannot be |
- 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 - 01/29/2006 : 15:58:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
So you essentially reject gas model theory and accept his conclusion that the sun is mass separated. It is simply the issue of solid/vs. heavy dense plasma you are concerned about? Shall I assume you're now in Birkeland's camp rather than in Galileo's camp? It's concieveable here we're both on the same side and are quibbling over a minor point.
You have stated, and everyone involved in this discussion has agreed, that the isotope analysis you speak of does not provide evidence to support your conjecture that the surface of the sun is solid. You can now assume that. And since we agree that it does not support your claim, there's no reason to bring it into the discussion again.
Your other assumption, that I might "... essentially reject gas model theory and accept his conclusion that the sun is mass separated," is unfounded. I have not expressed an acceptance of any particular solar model. You made the claim that the sun has a solid iron surface. It does or it doesn't. That is the singular issue of this discussion. Other possibilities which may or may not be correct are not relevant to this discussion. You are required to bring evidence to prove your claim. If what you bring is not scientifically acceptable evidence, or if it is irrelevant to the issue of the sun having a solid surface, as is the isotope analysis, it will be discarded and we move on. That's how it works here.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 16:31:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You have stated, and everyone involved in this discussion has agreed, that the isotope analysis you speak of does not provide evidence to support your conjecture that the surface of the sun is solid.
And I have also stated that this very same isotope evidence certainly DOES support the concept of mass separation, which is completely consistent with Birkeland's model, and completely inconsistent with gas model theory. Both cannot be true. Either gas model theory is correct, or the sun mass separtes it's atmosphere as the isotope analysis suggests. There is no middle ground here.
There is some middle ground however as it relates to a solid vs. a dense plasma. In other words, you could accept Dr. Manuel's analysis which supports my mass separated model of the sun, or you can reject his analysis in favor of a solar model that involves no mass separation. The question here is simple and easy. My model requires that the solar atmosphere be mass separated, and to support THAT side of my argument I have provided Dr. Manuel's data. The question for you is simple. Do you believe the sun is mass separated or not?
Now you can dodge and weave around the issue for another 3 or 4 threads, but if you aren't man enough to take a stand and a position on the evidence I have used to support my model, why should I waste my time on you?
quote:
You can now assume that. And since we agree that it does not support your claim, there's no reason to bring it into the discussion again.
BS! That is nothing but a cheap, obvious and childish copout. There is evidence in the satellite images to support the notion of mass separation, irregardless of whether or not you accept a surface made of solids. If the sun is mass separated as this istope analysis suggests, it does bolster my model which requires mass separation for it to work at all. Now that aspect has never been in doubt, and your attitude towards me would be no better than CLAIMING that you believe that the sun is mass separated, since that is what *WE* have agreed to. Stop these high school games and deal with the scientific data, or go away. I'm not impressed with your attitude at all Dr. Denial. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/29/2006 16:53:29 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 16:53:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What mass separation "issue?"
I beg your pardon? Kosovichev's interpretation of density are based on the "belief" that the sun does not mass separate the plasma's in it's atmosophere, from about 4800KM below the surface to the top of the lower corona.
quote:
If it is a necessary and sufficient piece of evidence for a solid surface being under the photosphere, then please describe this "issue" in detail. I'd rather not get hung up on irrelevancies.
This isn't simply an irrelevancy, it's the central and more core issue there is related to solar theory. Either the sun is mass separated or it is not. Each option is mutually exclusive to the other. Current gas model theory requires that then sun is *not* mass separated. Birkeland's model and Manuel's model require that the sun be mass separated. Birkeland even experimented with gases covering solids in his lab experiments. It is not only a key issue, it really the primary issue. If there is no mass separation as gas model theory and Kosovichev believe, then there cannot be a solid surface under the photosphere. If however the sun is mass separated by atomic weight, then it is possible for the sun to have a solid surface under the plasma even if it's not a guarantee of a solid surface. It is however critical to determine which of these options apply to solar physics. If the sun is mass separated then Birkeland's model, and Manuel's data could be the key to unlocking every "mystery" there is regarding solar physics, and Kosovichev's data must be reconsidered in light of this new understanding.
On the other hand, if the sun is not mass separated then the my model cannot and will not hold up to scrutiny. It's a simple as that. This is not only a "minor" point, this is a 90% of the issue. We may still have to "quibble" about whether this stratification layer is a solids vs dense plasma, but the gas model would be falsified in one fell swoop if we accept that the sun is mass separated.
I'm going to stop here because I want a response now. I've been patient, and I've shown you how this issue of mass separation directly relates to Kosovichev's data, and his interpretation of this data. I've spent 14 pages now of questions and answers with you, but you've not once touched on this most crucial of issues.
Let's get on with it. How do you know that Kosovichev's assumption of a non mass separated photosophere is accureate, and how do you know that the sun is not mass separated as Manuel insists?
I'm going to respond to the heliosiesmology questions once I see a little movement here on the mass separation issue.
quote:
Why should we see an increase in light when there's 4,800 km of cooler gasses over top of the hot stuff? For the same reason that my oven doesn't get brighter in visible light when I turn it up to its highest temperature.
Why wouldn't we see this "hot region" not light up just like the top of penumbral filament layer? In other words, why isn't there a bright glow at the bottom of the bucket? We often do in fact see filaments heat up and glow in the oven when it's turned up high, so I'm not sure your analogy really works. How thin again is that atmosphere? How much light would that much heat produce? You're the one making the claims here not me. I'd like to see some figures on those numbers. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 16:55:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
And I have also stated that this very same isotope evidence certainly DOES support the concept of mass separation, with is completely consistent with Birkeland's model, and completely inconsistent with gas model theory. Both cannot be true. Either gas model theory is correct, or the sun mass separtes it's atmosphere as the isotope analysis suggests. There is no middle ground here.
There is some middle ground however as it relates to a solid vs. a dense plasma. In other words, you could accept Dr. Manuel's analysis which supports my mass separated model of the sun, or you can reject his analysis in favor of a solar model that involves no mass separation. The question here is simple and easy. My model requires that the solar atmosphere be mass separated, and to support THAT side of my argument I have provided Dr. Manuel's data. The question for you is simple. Do you believe the sun is mass separated or not?
Now you can dodge and weave around the issue for another 3 or 4 threads, but if you aren't man enough to take a stand and a position on the evidence I have used to support my model, why should I waste my time on you?
I take it you're ceding the position that the sun has a solid iron surface.quote:
BS! That is nothing but a cheap, obvious and childish copout. There is evidence in the satellite images to support the notion of mass separation, irregardless of whether or not you accept a surface made of solids. If the sun is mass separated as this istope analysis suggests, it does bolster my model which requires mass separation for it to work at all. Now that aspect has never been in doubt, and your attitude towards me would be no better than CLAIMING that you believe that the sun is mass separated, since that is what *WE* have agreed to. Stop these high school games and deal with the scientific data, or go away. I'm not impressed with your attitude at all Dr. Denial.
Ahhh, stop your whining.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 17:34:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Let's get on with it. How do you know that Kosovichev's assumption of a non mass separated photosophere is accureate, and how do you know that the sun is not mass separated as Manuel insists?
Beats me. I don't know that Kosovichev assumes that the Sun's atmosphere isn't mass-separated. The critical question is, "would a mass-separated photosphere affect helioseismic results?" I certainly can't say one way or another, but it's your hypothesis, so you tell me: Demonstrate that a mass-separated photosphere would so skew the helioseismology data that Kosovichev must either be wrong or biased against the idea.
Because from what I see of the methodology, if the photosphere of the Sun were mass separated, and if mass separation would lead to results inconsistent with the standard solar model, then any helioseismologist worth her salt should have said, "hey, wait a minute, these numbers aren't working right!"quote:
I'm going to respond to the heliosiesmology questions once I see a little movement here on the mass separation issue.
Well, I can't go any further on the mass separation issue until you describe how helioseismology results would be different between the standard solar model and the mass-separated photosphere model.quote:
quote:
Why should we see an increase in light when there's 4,800 km of cooler gasses over top of the hot stuff? For the same reason that my oven doesn't get brighter in visible light when I turn it up to its highest temperature.
Why wouldn't we see this "hot region" not light up just like the top of penumbral filament layer? In other words, why isn't there a bright glow at the bottom of the bucket?
What bucket? You don't think that the dark region is a physical hole, do you?quote:
We often do in fact see filaments heat up and glow in the oven when it's turned up high, so I'm not sure your analogy really works.
If you can see through the sheet metal on the outside of your oven, I think you've either got x-ray vision or you need a new oven.quote:
How thin again is that atmosphere? How much light would that much heat produce? You're the one making the claims here not me. I'd like to see some figures on those numbers.
Since you've called into question the ability of helioseismology to determine anything, I can't answer either question. The density and temperature both depend on helioseismology verifying the standard model correctly, but you claim that instead of just verifying it, Kosovichev and every other helioseismologist instead "assumes" it, thus making every speck of data coming from the field unreliable. So, since per your accusation, I've got no idea how much density or heat we're talking about, your questions are unanswerable. |
- 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 - 01/29/2006 : 17:36:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
There is evidence in the satellite images to support the notion of mass separation...
What is that evidence? (Asked for the second time, 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 - 01/29/2006 : 18:45:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
There is evidence in the satellite images to support the notion of mass separation...
What is that evidence? (Asked for the second time, now.)
Ok, we'll start with the photophere/chromosphere delineation. We can also progress downward to the umbra penumbra region, and finally the silicon/calcium layer. You'll find flared indentations at the boundries where plasma flows up and into the next layer, flaring out the hole across the top of the penumbral filments. As the thicker plasma from below hits the photosophere/chromosophere boundry, it flares out and sink back into the umbra. That is why we see plasma flowing up and down at the pemumbral filament layer.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg
Then of course there is that umbra/penumbra boundary where we go from light areas to very dark areas and the sides of the filament layer are lit up until we hit the silicon plasma layer, where the filaments stop. Your bright hot region should be visible at the bottom of this bucket if it's as hot as you claim and as thin as you percieve it to be. Where's the light at the bottom of the sunspot well? And no, I don't think it's a "hole", but it's a region that should be lit up like a Christmas tree since it's presumably hotter than anything around it. Why don't we see it, or see evidence of this heat buildup in the plasma? In short, why isn't it glowing BRIGHTER than the plasma around it? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/29/2006 18:58:37 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
