|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 01/26/2006 : 17:53:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
A single aspect of someone's work can be inaccurate, or can be misenterpreted based on a misconception, WITHOUT invalidating ALL of the work of an individual. It's never as back and white as you seem to suggest. The technique Kosovichev is using obviously works quite well at revealing mass flows and I have a great deal of confidence in the mass flow aspects of his findings. The ASSUMPTION that no solids can exist under the photosphere is NOT accurate however, and it skews the HEAT related aspects of these images. In other words the change in the speed of the sound waves is currently attributed to a temperature change, when in fact it could and does actually represent an area of density change.
Because that is a fundamental part of helioseismology (the ability to tell density changes from temperature changes), you aren't just calling all of Dr. Kosovichev's work into question, you're calling the entire field of helioseismology into question.
It's simply incredible (in that it makes you not at all credible as knowledgable on this subject) that you can point to a temperature change which might be a density change in one paper, yet completely fail to point to another paper's reliance on "density stratifications" and ask, "what if those are actually temperature gradients?"
It is further incredible that you can suggest that it's possible that a temperature change might be a density change without also suggesting there might be a compressibility (gamma) change in there, as well. The speed of sound isn't dependent on just temperature and pressure, after all.
So, your point of how a change in the speed of sound might mean a change in density instead of a change in temperature actually also questions whether or not it might be a change in compressibility (and if you're positing a solid/plasma interface, such a change will almost certainly happen). And so, your point is to question the very fundamentals of the entire field of helioseismology.
And in doing so, you are forced to say that so long as you don't know whether the sunspot 10% speed of sound change represents a delta-T or a delta-p, you also don't know whether Kosovichev's "density stratification" doesn't actually represent a delta-g, while both T and p were constant.
You cannot possibly claim that one is correct and the other rests upon questionable assumptions, since they both rest on the same assumptions.quote:
This idea is supportable based on the mass flow patterns seen in his other work.
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.quote:
The downard mass flow patterns show a definite tendency to end at .995R.
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.quote:
Likewise the underside mass flow patterns are quite different than the flow patters above this density change, and show signs that the column has risen into a layer that is rigid and causes the material to pushes away from the rising column.
How do you explain it if the density change is less than 0.1%, as Dr. Kosovichev says?quote:
In this case the term 'properly' relates back to a specific "assumption" that was made at the time these bits of data were being analysed. If we are trying to use this data to differentiate between a Birkeland solar model and a gas model, we would need to incorporate a METHOD to determine if a speed change was actually due to temperature change or density change. Since the "assumption" these results are based upon does not account for even the possibility that solids could exist under the photosphere, there is no way to use this data to help us answer this question. If and when you can show us a reliable METHOD to differentiate between density changes, and temperature changes, then you can make such statements.
Right! You are, once again, showing that you are calling into question the entire field of helioseismology. If the assumption that there are no solids within the Sun is incorrect, then the whole field is wrong and can tell us nothing useful about anything, not density stratifications, not up- and downflows, not temperatures. You are attempting to pick-and-choose which of the helioseismology results are "good" and which are "questionable," but in reality, since the whole field is based upon the "no solids in the Sun" assumption, you cannot - with any credibility - proclaim that the flows are accurate while the density measurements are not.quote:
Since we do not know whether Birkland's model is correct or gas model theory is correct, it is not "proper" to simply ASSUME that everything below the surface of the photosphere is made of plasma and ASSUME that any sound changes are related to heat fluxuations.
Well, that's why "we" don't assume any such thing, except in your mind.quote:
Because Birkeland's model was never considered in these density calculations, these results cannot be used to falsify Birkeland's model.
Because Birkeland's model was never considered in these flow calculations, these results cannot be used to verify Birkeland's model. I knew you'd catch on eventually.quote:
That speed change at 4800km could be a solid, which would also cause an increase in the speed of the sound waves.
Once again, please name a non-homogenous mix of materials which, when solid, would cause an increase in sound wave velocity of 10% over the calcium plasma in your model.quote:
This posibility of a solid layer under the photosophere was not considered in the density paper by Kosovichev.
And that blanket statement is why you are arguing for throwing out the 0.995R figure, as well as the sunspot paper. He |
- 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 - 01/26/2006 : 18:14:16 [Permalink]
|
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. The data does tell us that the sun is mostly made of iron, and the sun mass separates the plasma in it's atmosphere. If you look up "iron sun manuel" in a search engine, you'll find he's been talking about this now for 30 plus years. That data alone blows away contemporary gas model theory which does not even allow for mass separation to occur. It also directly refutes any concept that the sun is made of mostly "hydrogen gas".
quote:
And considering we now have a litany of problems with the solid surface model, including but not limited to a "mostly iron" substance having a density less than that of aerogel,
Your statement has already been proven to be a false statement. I already pointed out that the change in the speed of sound in this layer can just as easily indicate the presense of a change in density in a solid. There was no method used in Kosovichev's paper that would allow us to differentiate a change in speed related to change in density vs. a change in speed related to a change in temperature. The fact it was ASSUMED that this represents a temperature change only is what resulted in these concept of a "thin plasma" in this depth range. The moment you allow for these sound changes to represent density changes the whole process turns on it's head. There is no "density problem" here at all, and I've already gone to all the trouble to explain *EXACTLY* why there is no actual density problem here, yet there you go again, acting like I never addressed this issue head on. Come on!
quote:
there is no reason to assume the solid surface model is even viable at this point, let alone "proven."
Birkeland's solar model is not only viable, it is actually supported by the fact that the speed of the sounds change at just about the same depth as the plasma flows end. The movement of the plasma behaves and moves quite differently underneath the surface than it does in the atomosphere above the surface. All this heliosiesmology data lends STRONG support to Birkeland's model, and that suspiscious end to the plasma flow isn't and was never predicted in gas model theory, certainly never at that depth. That end of the plasma flow at that depth also makes your assertion that this layer is not made of a dense material quite questionable. At no time to we see any of the columns actually rising through this presumably thin material and going directly up through the photosphere. Again, your suggestion this layer is "thin" is not supportable by the evidence of that flow pattern paper.
quote:
The iron sun model is fucked and cannot be saved by the results of the isotope anaysis alone. That is what I meant. Do you get it now?
What I "get" is that the easiest was to "deal" with me is to hurl ad hominem insults, and colorful languange at me and ignore the data I present entirely. It's becoming a predictable pattern in fact. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/26/2006 18:19:08 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 18:53:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Even if some individual never gets around to answering anymore of your personal list of questions, it has no scientific bearing at all on this issue. The fact you percieve this issue as some sort of ego battle, with winners and losers, only demonstrates to me how "unscientific" and irrational you've become.
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. You don't like it when someone expects you to actually take responsibility, and I do expect you to take responsibility. For some reason that seems to piss you off. I noticed it pissed you off on that other forum when people expected you to take responsibility for your claims there, too. That's something you have to deal with. It's your problem. Your fantasy is falling apart. Tough luck.
I don't "win" anything even though you can't support your case. I have nothing at stake. The fact that you don't understand that, no matter how often and how simply it's explained, only serves to add to the evidence that you have some kind of cognitive disability. I didn't stick my neck out, postulate a ludicrous claim, place it in front of the world, only to be completely incapable of supporting it at any level. That was you. Now in light of the following, I think we all understand that your job here is probably done.quote:
Originally posted by Dave W....
That's about 1 part in 1.433×1029 when compared to the Sun's total mass, making the Sun's density actually 1.4100000000000001700000000000098 g/cm3. [...] Oh, hell, round it up to 1.41000000000000018 g/cm3.
So I think I'm reading this right. This calculation takes into account all the mass, dark matter, and dark energy that might have any effect on the measured density of the sun. That would change the calculated density of Michael's solid shell from about 0.0000306306 g/cm3 to about 0.000030630600000000004 g/cm3. And this is rounded off to give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant.
Okay, Michael, if you have a shred of hope left it relies on this: Describe the composition of the solid that has a density somewhere between those of hydrogen and helium. This material must remain solid at temperatures approaching 4000°C. Mass, in the form of magma and electrons, must be able to freely pass through it in any direction at speeds up to 3000 miles per hour. The material is composed of at least 51% iron. It conducts electricity. Solar winds cause dust to blow from it. The effects of wind and electricity cause it to erode, which would certainly diminish the thickness, therefore requiring some mechanism for it to be replenished.
Your concerns about isotope analysis, about those pictures you've stared at for a long long time, about dark matter and dark energy, about the cause of solar winds, about electrical arc erosion, and all your other equally unsupported guesses and apologetics notwithstanding, you need to come up with the material. And if you can't describe a solid material to meet the above specifications, the surface of the sun isn't solid. And your wild speculation moves from the realms of a simple uninformed, unscientific wild guess to a useless tidbit of yesterday's news.
Dave W. mentioned a really rational response that might be fitting at this point...quote:
Well, the logical choice I would make would be to say, "since the idea of a solid shell with half its mass coming from iron yet less dense than helium at STP is absurd, I will stop defending this model."
So how about describing the composition of that solid material, Michael? I'm sure we're all intrigued. 
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 18:54:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
What I "get" is that the easiest was to "deal" with me is to hurl ad hominem insults, and colorful languange at me and ignore the data I present entirely. It's becoming a predictable pattern in fact.
What on earth are you talking about, Michael? I said the model was screwed. The model which you have now taken great pains to stress should not be associated exclusively with you. How could a criticism of the model be construed as an attack against you?
At the moment, it seems very clear to me that this has become a very "personal" issue inside you, and your attitude toward me is simply a "knee-jerk" reaction to having your show busted.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 19:09:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Actually, that is false.
Okay, I apologize. How about apologizing to me for having mistaken impressions about what I was saying?quote:
Instead of using or considering anything I presented and could present, I was instead *TOLD* to do OOM calcs on *ONLY TWO* images (so they woulndn't have to consider what Yohkoh or Rhessi see). Better yet, I was given a "two parter" that included the NEED to figure out light penetration through plasma, not one of my "stronger" suits at the moment.
Indeed, you do need to figure out how well (or poorly) light penetrates those 3,460km of plasma in order to be able to claim that TRACE has any imagery at all from down there.quote:
Not only did I present my own OOM calcs, I showed some from the University of Maryland. Had they not banned me, I would have posted some new info from Lockheed Martin, about the RANGE of capabilities of these satellites. The 171A and 195A filters are able to see calcium emisions in the 4 million degree range and are also able to see Fe XX ions at 10-20 MILLION degrees. In short, if the dark areas of that surface were "hotter" than the light areas, they would need to be in excess of 20 million degrees. My black body calculation already showed that they are WELL over budget in terms of energy release (by several orders of magnitude) even at 1 million degrees. I could of course run the black body numbers for a 20 million degree surface for you here, but what would be the point? That calculation would be completely rationalized away or utterly ignored, just like everything else I present.
http://trace.lmsal.com/Science/ScientificResults/Publications/phillips_tr_resp_apj.pdf
Indeed, what would be the point of running a blackbody calculation on something which so obviously does not radiate as a black body? Just look at the spectra in figure 1. Black bodies do not radiate in spikes, they've got a nice, somewhat shifted bell curve. It's one thing to use blackbody calculations as a rough first-order estimate for total solar power (even then it isn't accurate), but it's quite another to apply those calculations to a plasma (as in, it's entirely inappropriate). Furthermore, temperatures in "hot loop-top emission, either confined spots or 'spine' structures in loop arcades" surely cannot be accurately extrapolated to a whole-Sun blackbody calculation.
If those were the BAUT people's "rationalizations," then they are accurate ones. "Black body" means a certain thing in physics, and the further one gets from a blackbody temperature/wavelength curve (to the point of individual spikes, even!), the less appropriate blackbody calculations will be.quote:
The University of Maryland has already demonstrated the link between CME and electricity:
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~white/papers/03_norh_020723.pdf
So now it's ok to ignore the University of Maryland's work only because some indidual didn't provide some additional math?
Not at all. You'll need to do additional math to show how this paper supports your model in any way, since coronal loops are high-energy plasmas with lots of free electrons in the standard model, too. In fact, to show that your model can accurately explain the results in this paper, you'll have to tell us about the "acceleration mechanism of very high efficiency" present in or above your solid shell.
On the other hand, this UM paper doesn't seem to concern itself with cause-and-effect at all. It sure looks like the flares are causing the electrons to accelerate, but your model would have it be the other way around, wouldn't it?quote:
From my perpespective, the need for mathematical representation by me PERSONALLY, before even considering the nuclear chemistry and the other data I've presented is unscientific. It would not matter if I personally could not do ANY MATH WHATSOEVER. That has no influence on the value of any of the other materials I have presented over the last year.
Sure it does. If you couldn't do any math, you couldn't be expected to tie the data from the disparate fields together. If you think electron flow through a solid can mimic free plasma flow when viewed via sound wave ripples on the surface 3,000+ km above, in whole or in part (thus tying together electrical conductance and helioseismology), then you should have the data to demonstrate as much before you make the statement. If you don't have such data when you make the statement, then you're just talking out your butt and your references are irrelevant.quote:
The whole notion of "banning" someone only because they disagree with you and won't do your personal bidding is rediculace. That is the way a RELIGION operates. That is not supposed to be how a SCIENTIFIC organization functions. IMO that website is properly named. It's definely "bad astronomy" alright. Burn the heretics!
Well, you can believe they banned you because they disagree with you, but you'd be lying to yourself. Or, you're claiming that Phil lied about his reasons for banning you. It seems to me that the demands which will be placed upon you, the claimant, in that forum are spelled out up front. You got banned for failing to meet those expectations. If you weren't prepared to do so, you never should have posted in the first place (and they obviously considered the whole thing a waste of time).
And, of course, assuming that the rules enforced on an Internet message board have anything to do with the rules of science is absurd. It's not your message board, you don't get to post freely, and they have no obligation to leave your posts available and unedited (in other words, be glad they haven't deleted all your messages). You want a strictly scientific venue of discussion, you're going to have to go to the peer-reviewed journals, but that doesn't make Phil and company "religious" about their views.
And, if you think making personal attacks like that is a bad thing, then why did you just do that? |
- 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 - 01/26/2006 : 19:28:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Your statement has already been proven to be a false statement. I already pointed out that the change in the speed of sound in this layer can just as easily indicate the presense of a change in density in a solid. There was no method used in Kosovichev's paper that would allow us to differentiate a change in speed related to change in density vs. a change in speed related to a change in temperature. The fact it was ASSUMED that this represents a temperature change only is what resulted in these concept of a "thin plasma" in this depth range. The moment you allow for these sound changes to represent density changes the whole process turns on it's head. There is no "density problem" here at all, and I've already gone to all the trouble to explain *EXACTLY* why there is no actual density problem here, yet there you go again, acting like I never addressed this issue head on. Come on!
Except that you are confusing four peer-reviewed articles for a single one. Nobody is talking about the 10% increase in sound speed when they're talking about your model's density problem. They are, instead, talking about how multiple independent helioseismologists have verified the standard solar model to within 2%, which says that the density of the plasma just above 0.995R will be 0.00003 g/cm3, and that in Kosovichev's 2005 paper (from which you originally got the 0.995R figure, which doesn't match the sunspot study) he was specifically looking for density stratifications, and the ones he measured were less than 0.1%.
In other words, if the sunspot paper didn't exist, you'd still have a "density problem" to overcome, based upon three other articles. And that one paper doesn't save your model, since as you readily admit, the change in speed could be due to temperature changes. The very charge you are levelling is that helioseismologists can't tell the difference (and so you can't, either).quote:
Birkeland's solar model is not only viable, it is actually supported by the fact that the speed of the sounds change at just about the same depth as the plasma flows end. The movement of the plasma behaves and moves quite differently underneath the surface than it does in the atomosphere above the surface. All this heliosiesmology data lends STRONG support to Birkeland's model...
Except that the helioseismology data says that the spped of sound, density and compressibility of the plasma above and below that "layer" actually match the standard solar model to within 2%, meaning that no solid layer could be "floating" on the sea of plasma below it, simply because that plasma is far too thin to hold a structure up against the forces of gravity.
Going back to your Earth/Sun comparison, the magma upon which the Earth's crust "floats" is actually more dense than the crust, not less.quote:
...and that suspiscious end to the plasma flow isn't and was never predicted in gas model theory, certainly never at that depth.
So what? Evidence against the gas model isn't evidence for your model.quote:
That end of the plasma flow at that depth also makes your assertion that this layer is not made of a dense material quite questionable. At no time to we see any of the columns actually rising through this presumably thin material and going directly up through the photosphere. Again, your suggestion this layer is "thin" is not supportable by the evidence of that flow pattern paper.
Why are you fixating upon that one paper, and ignoring the others? |
- 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 - 01/26/2006 : 19:46:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Because that is a fundamental part of helioseismology (the ability to tell density changes from temperature changes), you aren't just calling all of Dr. Kosovichev's work into question, you're calling the entire field of helioseismology into question.
Well, you're right about the last part, this issue is not related to a single individual, it's related to a set assumption that are made by a LOT (probably all) of the folks that study heliosiesmology today. Specifically there is an ASSUMPTION that there is nothing solid under the photosphere.
quote:
It's simply incredible (in that it makes you not at all credible as knowledgable on this subject) that you can point to a temperature change which might be a density change in one paper, yet completely fail to point to another paper's reliance on "density stratifications" and ask, "what if those are actually temperature gradients?"
But I'm willing to explore ALL possibilities Dave. I'm not one thta is ASSUMING that all the material has to be plasma, therefore we are looking at a temperature change......
quote:
It is further incredible that you can suggest that it's possible that a temperature change might be a density change without also suggesting there might be a compressibility (gamma) change in there, as well. The speed of sound isn't dependent on just temperature and pressure, after all.
I don't recall ever making that claim to begin with! I simply pointed out that sound change isn't dependent on the presense of plasma.
quote:
So, your point of how a change in the speed of sound might mean a change in density instead of a change in temperature actually also questions whether or not it might be a change in compressibility (and if you're positing a solid/plasma interface, such a change will almost certainly happen). And so, your point is to question the very fundamentals of the entire field of helioseismology.
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.
quote:
And in doing so, you are forced to say that so long as you don't know whether the sunspot 10% speed of sound change represents a delta-T or a delta-p, you also don't know whether Kosovichev's "density stratification" doesn't actually represent a delta-g, while both T and p were constant.
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.
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.
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.
quote:
How do you explain it if the density change is less than 0.1%, as Dr. Kosovichev says?
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.
If the density change was really only .1%, it's pretty unusual that all the plasma downdrafts all end at this location. 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.
quote:
Right! You are, once again, showing that you are calling into question the entire field of helioseismology. If the assumption that there are no solids within the Sun is incorrect, then the whole field is wrong and can tell us nothing useful about anything, not density stratifications, not up- and downflows, not temperatures.
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.
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!
quote:
You are attempting to pick-and-choose which of the helioseismology results are "good" and which are "questionable,"
No. I am using Birkelands model to understand what results are likely to be accurate and which results are likely to be inaccurate based on CURRENT theory. I am then applying these understandings to the data set and getting the most I can out |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/26/2006 21:25:54 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 20:01:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Birkeland had a THEORY. I found OBSERVATIONAL support via satellite imagery. That is my sole claim to fame.
Claim to fame? Holy crap! Thanks, I really needed a laugh, it's been a long day. One day I will be able to tell my grandkids that I corresponded with you.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 20:31:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
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.
That has to be one of the most ridiculous and certainly one of the most blatantly incorrect statements you've made. You KNOW that speed changes can be related to density changes in solids, and you KNOW that this possibility is not currently considered in contemporary heliosiesmology studies. You're 100% wrong. Now how about you acknowledge being wrong for once. Come on, you can say it Michael, "Boy was I wrong about that!"
Below are just some of the fast easy ones. Shall I post links to some of the other tens of thousands of articles that clearly state density is definitely a consideration in heliosiesmology studies? Man it's amazing how you can be so completely uninformed and make such serious blunders and still think you might convince other people to believe in your fantasy. quote:
Helioseismology...
The theories of stellar structure and evolution applied to our Sun are called solar models. The solar model equations must be solved numerically, and the solutions are usually tables describing solar chemical composition, density, luminosity, mass, pressure and temperature at different depths in the Sun.
Helioseismology is currently the best method for verifying those theories and for understanding the structure and interior processes within a star.
quote:
Surface Waves and Helioseismology...
These sound waves, and the modes of vibration they produce, can be used to probe the interior of the sun the same way that geologists uses seismic waves from earthquakes to probe the inside of the earth. Some of these waves travel right through the center of the sun. Others are bent back toward the surface at shallow depths. Helioseismologists can use the properties of these waves to determine the temperature, density, composition, and motion of the interior of the sun. A number of fascinating discoveries have been made in the last few years using the science of helioseismology.
quote:
Helioseismology...
Acoustic waves cannot propagate in a medium with variable density unless their wavelength is smaller than the length over which the density changes significantly. The rapid decrease in the density at the solar surface causes sound waves of frequency less than about 5mHz (periods greater than 3.3 minutes) to be reflected and thus trapped inside the Sun.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 20:37:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
How do you explain it if the density change is less than 0.1%, as Dr. Kosovichev says?
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.
What? If you consider the raw data "good," then on what grounds are you disputing the less than .1% density change figure, regardless if that "transition" is caused by a difference in temperature or a difference in composition?
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 20:39:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Okay, I apologize. How about apologizing to me for having mistaken impressions about what I was saying?
I've thought about our relationship quite a bit the last few days. I'm not really proud of the hostility between us at times, and I've been a pain in backside at times when perhaps I should have extended an olive branch. Like I said, I'm learning and growing and I don't profess to be perfect either.
I respect the fact that you are attempting to deal with these issue "scientifically" using the methods of science. There will however be some areas of concern between us since I am not favoring a gas model theory, nor subscribing to any ASSUMPTIONS based on gas model theory. We will somehow have to get over our differences in these areas, but I believe we're generally on the right track and looking at the right kinds of data.
I'm sorry for whatever hostilities I've created between us Dave. That really wasn't my intent.
quote:
Indeed, you do need to figure out how well (or poorly) light penetrates those 3,460km of plasma in order to be able to claim that TRACE has any imagery at all from down there.
Actually, I tend to agree with you. It would be a good thing to tackle this issue, but since I believe that the plasmas are mass separated in the solar atmosphere, and I'm not positive about the thicknesses of any layer from the umbra on down, I can't adequately do that with any scientific integrity at the moment. I could "guess" I suppose, but that's the best I could hope to do at the moment. My "guess" however would be based on a number of assumptions that you probably wouldn't agree with in the first place. For instance I beleive that the penumbral filament layer is predominantly neon, while the umbra layer is silicon. Iron flows through all the layers.
quote:
http://trace.lmsal.com/Science/ScientificResults/Publications/phillips_tr_resp_apj.pdf
Indeed, what would be the point of running a blackbody calculation on something which so obviously does not radiate as a black body? Just look at the spectra in figure 1. Black bodies do not radiate in spikes, they've got a nice, somewhat shifted bell curve. It's one thing to use blackbody calculations as a rough first-order estimate for total solar power (even then it isn't accurate), but it's quite another to apply those calculations to a plasma (as in, it's entirely inappropriate).
This is ultimately a double standard. I agree with you that it doesn't radiate as a "perfect" black body, but solar output numbers ARE calculated this way, and they presumably apply just fine to the surface and material of the photosphere because that is what they are based upon. You can't claim it applies in one instance and then claim it doesn't apply when it's not convenient. If that technique works to calculate solar output for gas model theory with something the consistency of aerogel, it should work just fine in my model too.
quote:
Furthermore, temperatures in "hot loop-top emission, either confined spots or 'spine' structures in loop arcades" surely cannot be accurately extrapolated to a whole-Sun blackbody calculation.
I agree, but that was my whole point in the first place. If the whole surface were really these temperatures, we'd be quick fried. The arcs are the HOT EXCEPTION, in an otherwise cool photosphere.
quote:
If those were the BAUT people's "rationalizations," then they are accurate ones. "Black body" means a certain thing in physics, and the further one gets from a blackbody temperature/wavelength curve (to the point of individual spikes, even!), the less appropriate blackbody calculations will be.
I sort of agree with you actually, but you had to have been there to understand my motives. The whole conversation began when folks tried to use blackbody radiation principles to explain sunspots and why they are dark. If you wish to use these principles you have to use the consistently. I agree that it's too simplistic a concept the way it was used, but Wiki uses the same logic in their output OOM calcs for the sun.
The University of Maryland has already demonstrated the link between CME and electricity:
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~white/papers/03_norh_020723.pdf
quote:
Not at all. You'll need to do additional math to show how this paper supports your model in any way, since coronal loops are high-energy plasmas with lots of free electrons in the standard model, too.
When you apply that logic to the coronal loops, you find they contain high amounts of electrons and heat and they are the hottest things on the surface, not the dark areas of the 171A image as Lockheed Martin claimed. Even in contemporary gas model theory the coronal loops are the hot exception. That is in fact the whole point of my picking on Lockheed's explanation in the first place. It's wrong in BOTH models.
quote:
In fact, to show that your model can accurately explain the results in this paper, you'll have to tell us about the "acceleration mechanism of very high efficiency" present in or above your solid shell.
The acceleration mechanism is current flowing from electrical discharges from the surface.
quote:
On the other hand, this UM paper doesn't seem to concern itself with cause-and-effect at all.
Ya, convenient isn't it? We see all sorts of current flowing but nobody can explain why it's flowing or where it's flowing from or to. We have electromagetic fields around these loops that contain current flow, but somehow they aren't hot electrical arcs?
quote:
It sure looks like the flares are causing the electrons to accelerate, but your model would have it be the other way around, wouldn't it?
No. The electrical current from below seeks to be discharged through the solar atmosphere. The flare is the result of the formation of an electrical arc between two areas of the surface with a dissimilar charges. The arc is the accelerator.
quote:
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/26/2006 20:47:19 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 21:05:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
That has to be one of the most ridiculous and certainly one of the most blatantly incorrect statements you've made. You KNOW that speed changes can be related to density changes in solids, and you KNOW that this possibility is not currently considered in contemporary heliosiesmology studies. You're 100% wrong. Now how about you acknowledge being wrong for once. Come on, you can say it Michael, "Boy was I wrong about that!"
I suppose this explains how and why you and I are different.
I guess fear is the motive that prevents you from doing any work related to isotope analysis by Dr. Manuel. The moment you attempt to critique his work is the moment I can say to you "Look you're wrong" and I'll be able to prove it. As long as you avoid that data like the plague, you have no risk, and you can keep taking cheap and meaningless pot shots from the peanut gallery. That is a lot safer way to go, I must admit.
On the other hand I'm not at all afraid to be wrong, or to admit I've been wrong about something. It happens to everyone. I accept it as a a natural part of life. If you wish me to admit a mistake in this instance you must first SCIENTIFICALLY demonstrate your case. When you can SCIENTIFICALLY (not ad hominem BS, but real science) prove to me that current heliosiesmology techniques include allowances for Birkland's model, and include the possibility that sound waves can travel faster through solids based on density changes, I'll be glad to do as you ask. At the moment, you've failed to show me where Dr. Kosovichev (or anyone for that matter) has included Birkeland's theories into their equations. I'm not ever sure how the "density" of penumbral filament layer was calculated to begin with based on the raw data. It seems like even that number was "assumed" based on theory.
quote:
Below are just some of the fast easy ones. Shall I post links to some of the other tens of thousands of articles that clearly state density is definitely a consideration in heliosiesmology studies?
Only the density of PLASMA is considered, but there is no consideration for the possibility that sound changes reflect density changes in SOLIDS. There is absolutely nothing in these equations that allow us to determine the CAUSE of the speed change, and no consideration for the possibility that solids exist under the photosphere. They are all computed based on the ASSUMPTION that everything is PLASMA.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 21:07:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
What? If you consider the raw data "good," then on what grounds are you disputing the less than .1% density change figure, regardless if that "transition" is caused by a difference in temperature or a difference in composition?
The grounds for my objection are based on the current ASSUMPTION in heliosiesmology that no solids exist under the photosphere, therefore any speed changes in sound waves are related to temperature rather than density. The moment you accept the possibility of the presense of solids to exist under the photosphere, the sound changes could/would be indicative of density transitions, not temperature related thermoclines. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/26/2006 21:09:05 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 21:15:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
What "proof" is there that no solids exist under the photosphere?
What "proof" is there it's not made of green cheese? After all, you don't have the slightest idea how dark matter might affect the properties of cheese in those high heat, low density, and strongly magnetic situations. Even if there was "no proof that no solids exist under the photosphere", it wouldn't lend one iota of support to the notion that solids do exist there.quote:
Birkeland wasn't talking out of his butt, and neither was Manuel, and neither was Bruce. All of them used a lot of math. If you aren't happy with me over some archane need to explain everything mathematically, then seek your answers elsewhere. It's not about me and it's never been about me. What I can and cannot do is irrelevant to this topic.
Wrong again. In this case what you can and cannot do is integral to this topic. You claim to have developed a solar model. You haven't. Period. I know it gets under your skin when someone suggests you actually do your job, but people are going to keep on telling you that until you do. What you've done is barely a miserable excuse for your job. Why don't you develop a solar model. For real. Here's how...quote:
Solar Modelling...
A solar model is the solution to a set of equations describing the physical processes occurring within the Sun. These equations are often divided into two subsets, the structure equations and the chemical evolution equations. In the very simplest cases, these equations are coupled nonlinear first-order ordinary differential equations, but more realistic models usually involve coupled nonlinear first-order partial differential equations. In either case, the equations cannot be solved analytically and thus must be solved numerically. Therefore, a solar model is usually comprised of a set of tables describing the conditions (chemical composition, density, luminosity, mass, pressure, temperature, etc.) at different depths in the star.
"... archane need to explain everything mathematically..." You're a riot!
See all that stuff about math, equations, tables, composition, and all that hard complicated looking stuff. Science, what a drag. You keep calling your wild guess a "model". It's not, not until you do the hard parts. You can stop wondering why people think you're woefully ill prepared when you start running your mouth off with your silly guesses and conjectures. There's your answer. As far a solar models go, right now what you've got is pretty close to nothing.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 21:16:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The grounds for my objection are based on the current ASSUMPTION in heliosiesmology that no solids exist under the photosphere, therefore any speed changes in sound waves are related to temperature rather than density. The moment you accept the possibility of the presense of solids to exist under the photosphere, the sound changes could/would be indicative of density transitions, not temperature related thermoclines.
Yes, but whether the speed change is caused by temperature or density, it's still a 0.1% difference, right? And you do admit that there is a plasma layer above your solid surface, right? So what am I missing? How can you go from a plasma to a solid with only a 0.1% difference in sound wave speed? What would the differences in temperatures between the solid and non-solid layers need to be in your model for this to seemingly inconsequential speed change to actually be a boundary between substances of radically different compositions? Or are you saying this is all just a temperature change happening entirely within your solid layer? In which case, where then do you mark the boundary?
|
"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 21:18:09 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
