|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 02/15/2006 : 14:48:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
That which is highlighted in a running difference image is the difference (whod've thunk it?). What remains the same from image to image (like say, a solid surface) is [b]removed[b].
Well, let's start by dispelling a few misconceptions right from the start. Unless the lighting conditions stay *exactly* the same from one frame to the next, and the surface never moves, the surface will reflect light differently at different times. In fact, it is because the lighting *changes* over time, and the surface moves over time, that allows us to image the surface using these running difference imaging techniques.
quote:
I'm posting a link to some software I whipped up to illustrate this. Anyone is more than welcome to download it and have a play with it. It kept me amused for a couple of hours putting it together this morning.
You're comparing apples to oranges. No one is going to deny that might be able to you create "similar" kinds of images in running difference images using software and graphic programs. These images weren't created that way, and your example really doesn't explain anything that relates to these actually images, or relates to anything happening on the sun. Perhaps if you could explain exactly how that Lockheed RD image came to look as it does, I might have some idea of how you figure this excersize applies in this particular case.
quote:
I'm nowhere near vain enough to believe that my miniscule effort posted here is anywhere near as sophisticated as those of the TRACE program, but I believe the principles are the same.
The only thing that seems to be the "same" as far as I can tell is the fact you subtracted one image from the other. The rest really doesn't apply to all the angular structures we see in the Lockheed RD image, nor does that explain how or why all these "structures" stay in the same relationships to one another while floating on something thinner than aerogel that is boiling and convecting and changing it's cells every 8 minutes or so. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 15:05:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You're mixing and matching your strawmen Dave. The term in that paper "photosphere" relates to all the plamsa in the atmosphere.
But that was precisely my other point: you're taking a term created by solar scientists and making it mean something completely different than its standard usage. You use the word 14 times in "Isotopes Tell Sun's Origin and Operation," and never once do you warn the reader that you've redefined the word to mean "the entire solar atmosphere over the solid shell" instead of the standard "layer of the Sun from which visible light comes."quote:
We simply picked a point of reference to gas model theory for use in a single sentence.
No, 14 different sentences.quote:
There is in fact hydrogen and helium in the photosphere and that was a useful point of reference for that particular sentence. You are now trying to build a federal case as I'm more fully explaining *all* of the issues involved. I think you're deliberately avoiding the issues by focusing on single words in single sentences.
I'm not focusing on single words in single sentences, I'm focusing on your wanton redefinition of words to mean whatever you want them to mean instead of what they mean to everyone else in the same field of study.quote:
quote:
Unsupported by evidence.
Until you come up with a better explaination to explain why none of the the structures moved in the RD image, even over such extended periods of time while somehow suspended over "thinner than aerogel" material that boiling and changing every 8 minutes, I'm going to have to simply ignore that statement.
Ah, so you go ahead and ignore the fact that you cannot provide evidence to support your theory, regardless of the presence or absence of any other theory. Once again, you are attempting to say that until some other viewpoint provides evidence, you don't have to. Your theory fails because of that, Michael.quote:
You'll have to at least offer something better than you have offer to date to explain the consistency of the structures in that image. You'll need to be a *lot* (and I mean *a lot*) more attentive to detail. A handwave isn't going to cut it.
None of this does anything to provide positive evidence for your tautological claims. This isn't a competition between your model and the gas model, it's now a test to see if your model is both internally consistent and matches the reality we can objectively measure.quote:
quote:
Since you've called the "nuclear chemistry" into question and refuse to provide evidence for your assertions about the satellite |
- 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 - 02/15/2006 : 15:34:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
The term "realtivity" is useless unless you have a frame of reference. If you mean it has a "net" (frame of reference is just the sun itself) negativity, what is the source of the extra electrons or the drain for all the missing protons?
The frame of reference would have to be the universe itself. The sun is negatively charged in comparison.
quote:
I'm sorry, but "sure it does" isn't a valid argument. I've read Manuels work. He talks about mass fractionation in the solar atmosphere and as part of a possible explaination for the formation of our solar system. This is not support for your suggestion that the entire sun is mass fractionated.
You'll have to explain this from your perspective, because from my perspective this doesn't make sense. According to Manuel, *many* (most likely all) elements show patterns of mass fractionation, right down to the individual isotope of each element. How can that not support my visual conformation of a separation of plasmas?
quote:
I think you're getting confused over your own terms here. "Every kind of element shows evidence of mass separation" does not make sense. Firstly, what is a "kind" of element?
Every gas he's looked at.
quote:
Secondly, in what context does every element show this evidence, and what is the evidence in the first place?
Every element shows signs of this same mass fractionation pattern. In other words, it's not limited to "some" of these gases, but is seen in them all, from helium to neon, to even xenon. They all show the same patterns of mass fractionation.
quote:
Much of Manuel work described how mass separation processes in the past may have led to the observed relative isotopic abundances in meteorite and moon rock samples. The contents of the samples are no longer mass separated (and were not at the time of the analysis). This does not imply that anything in particular is mass separated now.
Once they leave the atmosphere of the sun, they need not be "arranged" in any particular order at this time, I agree. His studies do show that they all were arranged this way at some point in time.
quote:
Manuel did not "observe" mass separation. He measured relative isotopic and elemental abundances and proposed mass separation as a part of the explaination for these measurements. I could study the same samples and suggest an alternative theory that aliens put the mixtures together that way because thats the order they should be in according to their alphabet. This does not mean that I have "observed" alien atomic sorting.
If you disagree with his interpretation, you are then obligated to offer one of your own.
quote:
Your observations are different. You are observing something more directly, namely satellite imagery of certain parts of the solar atmosphere. You have analyzed difference imagery (which shows what is changing / moving) at a very specific wavelength and interpreted it as showing what is unchanged for a bulk material, posited as a solid.
Again, if you disagree with my interpretation, you need to posit one of your own and show how it's scientifically "better" than the one I offered, or show how my interpretation is wrong from a scientific perspective.
quote:
It doesn't work well if you are right which is definately special pleading.
Well, it works "well enough" for the time being provided that you exlude and ignore a lot of data.
quote:
Be careful with words like "mostly" and "some". Apart from being vague, they seem to be inappropriate in the context of all the evidence. I'm not trying to prove a point by popularity, but I think "some" support is more than a little biased.
Well, I do wish to be fair. There are observations that jive with gas model predictions. It would be unfair not to suggest there is at least "some" support for the model. I do not however believe that you or anyone else I've met in cyberspace can explain these solar satellite images using gas model theory. I've never seen a comprehensive explaination of an RD image, not in all this time, certainly not one that was comprehensive or attentive to any detail. The best I get are a few handwaves and some inuendo's about how other things can 'look similar' without any explaination of how that relates back to contemporary theory.
quote:
No, the measurements are based on the actual data from the instruments that recorded them. Based upon the measurments (not faith) a model was developed and further measurements were taken and an iterative process of model refinement begins.
While spectroscopic analysis is useful for isolating the elements present, it cannot tell us the relative abundances of elements without making some very key assumptions, namely.....
quote:
Do you really believe the model was developed with the direct assumption that "the sun is not mass separated"?
Yes, because *unless we assume* a non mass separated model, there is not way to use spectroscopic data to determine relative abundances of elements. Since spectroscopy is mentioned as the method used to determine the solar makeup, this *assumption* is nothing more than special pleading.
quote:
This conclusion was reached (if at all) after observational confirmation, not as a precursor to theoretical develomkent and observsation.
But data can be interpreted in many different ways. There is rarely only one way to interpret any data set. In this case the *only* way we |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 15:51:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
In that case you are wrong. Here's why: Physicist Chandrasekhar has demonstrated that a neutron star cannot exist if it's mass is below 1,4 solar masses. This means that it is impossible for the interior of the sun to be a neutron star.
Only if you do not consider the possible influence of Birkeland currents. We're right back to a density issue, but that will be true of a fission model as well IMO.
Bullshit! It's a mass issue, not primarily a density issue as far as the sun goes. Not until you have a mass of 1,4 solar masses can you even get the density high enough (through gravitational contraction) to make a stellar body collapse into a neutron star. Unless you can provide some really serious mathematical proof that Chandrasekhar was wrong about the 1,4 solar mass limit, I'm going to consider your claim pulled out of your ass.
quote:
It's no better, nor any worse than a fission model in that respect.
Good, then I can discount the fission model as well.
quote:
It would still be a huge structure with a very powerful magnetic field.
Yes. Probably a rotating globe of plasma 0,7R in diameter.
quote:
It looks rather "active" to me particularly at an electrical level. It interacts with the universe around it in very powerful ways.
Yet you cannot provide evidence of such interactions. Birkeland currents strong enough to accelerate the sun even as much as 1m/s2 would require such a high current it would fry any satellite in polar orbit around the sun to a crisp. Are there any satellites in polar orbits?
quote:
I don't personally think it's a one way flow of energy. Birkeland currents have really important relavancies as it relates to current flow and mass flow.
Yet you cannot present any number on them. That makes me question the validity of your assumptions.
quote:
Even in the mass flow data from heliosiesmology we see mass flows toward the surface from the outside universe. This is most likely in the form of electrons. How all this mass flow ties back into star longevity is way beyond me at this point.
Since the mass of the electron is less than 1/4000th of any atom nucleus other than hydrogen and helium, any mass flow detected by helioseismology would be atoms and ions, and not electrons.
quote:
quote:
Rotating plasma certainly will generate a magnetic field, so the standard solar model can provide an explanation for the magnetic field generated in the core of the sun.
I would agree, but how strong of a magnetic field would it generate in material that isn't even aerogel density?
Deeper in the core of the sun, the pressure and temperature would be higher. As would density, thanks to compression by gravitational forces. I'm not very well versed in that particular aspect of the solar model, and since I'm at work right now, I don't have time to check that out.
Picture this though: The sun is larger than you think...
quote:
Somehow we see material that has almost no "density" to speak of, producing temperatures in the millions of degrees. None of that really adds up.
Why not? Magnetic fields can accelerate ions to incredible speeds as long as there is practically nothing to break the flow. Kinetic energy on Molecular/atomic/ionic level equals temperature. Perhaps you are confusing temperature with energy content?
quote:
quote:
You haven't forgotten the gas laws have you?
You mean *plasma* laws don't you?
Explain to me in mathematical terms how they are different, with respect to temperature, volume, and pressure...
quote:
quote:
For there to be a high pressure in a very thin (=low desity) plasma you have to have a very high temperature.
In that video that shows the gas bubble surrounded by a water shell, why in your opinion does the gas inside need to be a very high temperature?
I never said it had to. It does need a slightly higher pressure in order to keep the water shell inflated.
quote:
quote:
If you can't see how this water bubble experiment is totally inappropriate as an explanation of a star, then I don't see how we can ever come close to an agreement.
Ok, I'll bite. Why is it "totally inappropriate"? Isn't the shell in that video more dense than the air bubble inside of it? Is there a large temperature difference between the two layers? How is this different in your opinion, and why would you assume such a model cannot possibly apply?
Because the water bubble isn't held together by gravity. It's held together by the surface tension (which incidentally involves electromagnetic forces). It's globe of liquid that contains a gas bubble also held together by the surface tension of the surrounding w |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 16:06:13 [Permalink]
|
Michael, do you think you might explain to me in what ways your ideas of Birkland currents differ from "magic" and how their properties differ from "what-ever-the-hell-I-can-imagine?"
|
"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 - 02/15/2006 : 16:34:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/24jul02_gcont_ai.jpg
I don't see any depth in that image at all, just varying amounts of light being emitted from plasmas at various temperatures. Your interpretation is not supported by any two-dimensional image, and your self-contradiction is impressive.
http://www.lennartnilssonaward.se/scharmer/scharmer.html
quote:
Picture recorded by Goran Scharmer, image processing by Mats Lofdahl
Please note: This is a very big picture (4.2 mB)
The picture is recorded close to the solar limb, where we do not lookvertically down at the solar surface, but from an angle. The impression we get from this picture is that the solar surface is not flat everywhere. Near the dark pores and sunspots, we see what looks like hills and mountain ridges, sticking up above the surroundings. This is not an illusion: the solar surface, when seen at the very high resolution of the Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope, displays a 3D surface with "hills" and "valleys". The reason for this is primarily related to magnetic fields. In a simplified way, magnetic fields can be described as providing a pressure, somewhat similar to gas pressure. Where there is strong magnetic field, this "magnetic pressure" is also strong. In order to stay in balance, i.e in order not to start expanding, the gas pressure in the magnetized gas has to be lower than that of the surroundings. Low gas pressure is essentially equivalent to low density which means that the magnetized gas is more transparent than the surrounding gas. We therefore see up to a few hundred km deeper down into regions with strong magnetic field, giving the surface its three-dimensional nature.
Take it up with the creator of the picture Dave. Your denial routine isn't very impressive, nor are your research skills. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 17:09:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Michael, do you think you might explain to me in what ways your ideas of Birkland currents differ from "magic" and how their properties differ from "what-ever-the-hell-I-can-imagine?"
Do you mean besides the fact they've been documented already inside and outside of the solar system? Do you mean besides the fact that electromagnetic fields can and would have an influence on metal spheres?
Care to explain to me what the cause of coronal loops might be that is indistiguishable from "magic" or differs from "what-ever-the-hell-I-can-imagine"? |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 17:31:28 [Permalink]
|
Mozina said:
quote:
Ya, but I'm just getting started.
Just make sure to stay on your meds.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 18:47:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Mozina said:
quote:
Ya, but I'm just getting started.
Just make sure to stay on your meds.
Check. As long as the world doesn't run out of coffee and chocolate, I'll be fine thanks. :) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 20:07:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Take it up with the creator of the picture Dave. Your denial routine isn't very impressive, nor are your research skills.
That's it? That's all you've got to say?
Okay, I'll take a "poor research skills" label. You've still got:- circular evidence that soft X-rays are absorbed by the photosphere while extreme UV isn't,
- no evidence that TRACE can see anything 3,480 km (or 4,800 km) below the photosphere,
- self-generated evidence that all of helioseismology is invalid,
- no evidence that acceleration affects our ability to accurately measure mass,
- no evidence that dark matter or dark energy could generate even a 0.007% difference in our measurement of the Sun's density,
- an isotope analysis which fails to work for Earth (so why should we think it'll work for the Sun?),
- no evidence of mass separation within the Sun which doesn't rely upon the assumption that there is mass separation within the Sun,
- no evidence that Birkeland's model used an iron sphere,
- no evidence that Birkeland's model wouldn't be applicable to a big ball of plasma,
- no evidence that electric arcs can accelerate electrons to high energies,
- your own statement that your assertions of a neon layer and a silicon layer are wild guesses,
- a superb ability to ignore people who point out your flawed methods of analysis (for one example, see "blackbody radiation" and your attempt to apply it to iron ions),
- an even more fantastic ability to redefine terms and then refuse to divulge your own personal meanings,
- a super-incredible ability to quantify almost nothing about your model, and still claim its validity,
- and so, in short, you've got no evidence that there is anything solid in the Sun.
Yes, I'd much rather learn something - like that sunspots actually are a few hundred km deeper than the rest of the photosphere - than be the proud promoter of such a flawed and useless model as your own, Michael. |
- 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 - 02/15/2006 : 20:07:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, Michael, it is still you who are confused about blackbody radiation and how it does not apply to the tremendously ionized iron visible in the 171A images.
This comment caught my eye. This is an excellent example of special pleading. I'll bite. Why not?
quote:
Highly ionized iron doesn't emit a spectrum anything like what a black body would, so the assumption that it would act like a black body is simply false.
First of all, there is no guarantee that ONLY iron will emit photons in this filter's field of view. In fact that one filter picks up a rather large temperature range of emissions. It can see plasma from about 160K degrees to about a million degrees Kelvin. It also sees Calcium ions in the 4M degree range and Fe XX in the 10 to 20 million degree range. That single filter has quite a broad temperature "spectrum" that it can see as does the 195A image. Each filter sees a RANGE of wavelengths, not just one.
Frankly none of that is particularly important since it's quite clear that coronal loops are hotter than the surrounding materials. You can tell that in every Yohkoh SXT image. That Yohkoh filter sees a far greater range of temperatures and wavelengths and it shows us that the coronal loops are the focal point of all the high temperature emissions.
I even went so far as to do a bit of my own math in that thread to show that if the black part of that image was really hotter than the coronal loops, we'd all be fried to a crisp. I see that math isn't really the be-all-end-all you folks make it out to be. Math gets ignored just as quickly as anything else.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 20:13:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Take it up with the creator of the picture Dave. Your denial routine isn't very impressive, nor are your research skills.
That's it? That's all you've got to say?
That's really all that is left *to* say Dave. Even the guy that created the image, a man honored with the Lennart Nilsson award disagrees with you and your interpretations of this image. It doesn't matter what anyone says to you, you're just detached from reality and you could care less what *anyone* else thinks, not just me. I'm not the one to create the image, so why in the world would I disagree with the author? You however seem to think you know more about this image than even the guy that created it, and you've given me zip in the way of a logical explanation. What else is left to say Dave? Pure denial is a tough nut to crack, and changing the subject now only makes you look bad IMO.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 20:21:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
http://trace.lmsal.com/Public/Gallery/Images/movies/T171_991127.mov
And according to the description of that movie, it's all million-Kelvin stuff which, since you have provided no evidence of million-Kelvin temperatures in the upper half-percent of the Sun below the photosphere, must be in the corona and thus have nothing to do with the helioseismology flow patterns below the photosphere.
This comment also warranted a response. The light from the arcs is million K plus, but that light reflects off all kinds of things, from the surface itself to things in the atmosphere, like the dust in the RD image that drifts to the left, and like these tornado structures as well. It's also quite likely that current is running through these structures, but I seriously doubt they are in fact their own light source. That certainly isn't a given. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/15/2006 20:22:52 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 20:31:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I even went so far as to do a bit of my own math in that thread to show that if the black part of that image was really hotter than the coronal loops, we'd all be fried to a crisp. I see that math isn't really the be-all-end-all you folks make it out to be. Math gets ignored just as quickly as anything else.
What they were telling you is that when iron (and calcium) ions do not put out a blackbody spectrum (and they don't, regardless of the imaging systems capabilities), then you can't seriously apply a blackbody calculation to the whole Sun using iron (and calcium) ion temperature data. It's inapplicable. Tenuous plasmas do not meet the definition of a black body. That you seem to still refuse to understand this, and still defend your blackbody calculation as if it were valid, simply destroys your credibility even further.quote:
You however seem to think you know more about this image than even the guy that created it...
You're lying about me again, since I already said that I learned something from it.quote:
...and you've given me zip in the way of a logical explanation.
What part of my retraction did you not understand?quote:
What else is left to say Dave? Pure denial is a tough nut to crack...
Indeed, like your pure denial of my new understanding of the Sun.quote:
...and changing the subject now only makes you look bad IMO.
Changing the subject? Everything I brought up has been discussed in the last eight pages of discussion, Michael, and most of it in the last three or four pages. Everything. You've still got:- circular evidence that soft X-rays are absorbed by the photosphere while extreme UV isn't,
- no evidence that TRACE can see anything 3,480 km (or 4,800 km) below the photosphere,
- self-generated evidence that all of helioseismology is invalid,
- no evidence that acceleration affects our ability to accurately measure mass,
- no evidence that dark matter or dark energy could generate even a 0.007% difference in our measurement of the Sun's density,
- an isotope analysis which fails to work for Earth (so why should we think it'll work for the Sun?),
- no evidence of mass separation within the Sun which doesn't rely upon the assumption that there is mass separation within the Sun,
- no evidence that Birkeland's model used an iron sphere,
- no evidence that Birkeland's model wouldn't be applicable to a big ball of plasma,
- no evidence that electric arcs can accelerate electrons to high energies,
- your own statement that your assertions of a neon layer and a silicon layer are wild guesses,
- a superb ability to ignore people who point out your flawed methods of analysis (for one example, see "blackbody radiation" and your attempt to apply it to iron ions),
- an even more fantastic ability to redefine terms and then refuse to divulge your own personal meanings,
- a super-incredible ability to quantify almost nothing about your model, and still claim its validity,
- and so, in short, you've got no evidence that there is anything solid in the Sun.
None of the above subjects are new, Michael, and I'm still waiting for responses from you regarding them. |
- 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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 20:36:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The light from the arcs is million K plus, but that light reflects off all kinds of things, from the surface itself...
You have presented no evidence that 171A light reflects off your allegedly solid surface.quote:
...to things in the atmosphere, like the dust in the RD image that drifts to the left...
You have presented no evidence that 171A light reflects off of dust.quote:
...and like these tornado structures as well.
The "tornado structures," being black in the images, are clearly blocking 171A light, not reflecting it.quote:
It's also quite likely that current is running through these structures, but I seriously doubt they are in fact their own light source. That certainly isn't a given.
No, certainly not. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
