|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 02/09/2006 : 22:14:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I don't really see a lot of things that "hurt" the feasibility of my model that I can't at least explain in a theoretical way.
Explain? Or explain away? Because all I see is you dismissing evidence, not providing counter-evidence on the topics that are being addressed at the time. You're always eager to switch the subject. The fact that you've been evasive through 4 threads now doesn't mean you've answered anything that's been addressed to you. Dave still can't get you to agree with the fundmental principles of determining the density of an object, let alone gotten you to the point where you two are dicussing actual figures.
|
"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 02/09/2006 22:15:14 |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 22:14:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The implication of mass separation however is that it lands a death blow to current gas model theory. If there is mass separation, then everything related to current gas model theory is meaningless, and we have to start over.
...and this is where you loose most of the credibility you have. It seems way to much of a false dichotomy to me.
I will not accept this premise until you can give a detailed explanation to why the current gas model becomes meaningless.
You are using big words here, Michael. I really hope you can back it up with an equally big (as in good) explanation.
I can imagine a hypothetical situation where at least a partial mass separation of the sun may contribute the 2% deviation from the ideal gas model that was detected by helioseismologists.
That's why I'm unprepared to discount the standard solar model just yet.
|
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 - 02/09/2006 : 22:17:24 [Permalink]
|
Michael always speaks in such sweeping terms. Oh, one guy disagrees with the Big Bang theory? Then the entire thing is unproven crap. And I agree, it does seriously damage his credibility.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 22:44:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Come on HH. Current solar theory is *predicated* on *faith* in the notion that the sun is not mass separated. If it is mass separated, current theory is useless and must be replaced. Maybe you might not replace it automatically with a solid surface model, but you'll have to replace it with a mass separated model of some sort. The implication of this data is huge, and has increadible implication on astronomy as a whole. This is no "minor" issue.
As Dave W. said, the Sun may be mass separated and not have a solid surface, the Sun may have a solid surface and not be mass separated, the Sun may be not mass separated and not have a solid surface, or the Sun may be mass separated and have a solid surface. One or more of those options might seem more reasonable, but there's no particular dependency on mass separation to the resolution of your claim any way or another.quote:
It's not that they just "look" like a solid surface, it "behaves" as though it has a solid surface. You can see a shock wave propogate through the solar atmosphere on my website and watch those shock waves run into objects that deflect the shockwaves into space. You can watch a rigid, angular structure be completely unaffected by the wave moving the the photosophere in the tsunami video by Kosovichev. You can see this rigidness of this layer in the RD images. You can see these same structures over rotate evenly from pole to equator over a period of days. You can see electrical arcs come from the surface as well. It's not simply how it "looks", it's how those structures behave that matters.
Running difference images are not actual pictures of anything. What might look like a solid surface in a running difference image is no more an actual solid surface than what looks like a bunny in a passing cloud is a real bunny.quote:
That is a just a rediculace statement. In the 9 months I've been debating these ideas in cyberspace, not more than a handful of people have even offered an explanation for the very first image on my website. No one has ever given a comprehensive explanation that expained why these "structures" we see do not more around as do the structures in the photosphere that come and go every 8 minutes. No one has addressed that image in detail or in a way that scientifically pans using gas model theory. I've talked to people all over this planet in that time, on many different forums. Not once has anyone put a dent on that very first image.
Now keep in mind that this image isn't even what first convinced me there is as surface. It's just a good, closeup image of the surface, and ther is much to be seen in that image. There are tons more, but no one ever gets past that first image. As I recall, you tried to explain these structures by using photosphere structures that aren't even a part of the area where this image comes from. It's not an easy image to deal with based on gas model principles.
I've looked at so many images now that clearly reveal the solid surface, and the electrical arcs from the surface that I can't even look at solar images without seeing some sign of some activity that begins at the surface. All of what I see, I can pretty much explain now with Birkelands model. When I clung to gas model theory, I couldn't get past that first image either. I had no idea how to explain it with gas model theory. I still don't know how to explain it based on gas model theory, and evidently nobody does.
Then let me help out by giving you an explanation. Running difference images aren't showing any real physical stuff, no matter what it looks like. I've shown several examples of running difference images that could demonstrate the Sun is a nearly flat disk with three dimensional rocks and gravel laying around on a flat solid background of space. We all know that isn't the case. The images you're using to support your claim are no more meaningful than those thousands of other such images that look like physical impossibilities.quote:
I hear you on that point. I've already stuck my neck *WAY* out on a limb with the STEREO program. I'm betting the farm that they'll "discover" that the 171A, 195A, and 284A image originate *underneath* the photosphere, not above it. That's a real falsification mechanism that I'll accept as a viable way to determine which "interpretation" is accurate, and there should not be much room for error. I'm going to pay close attention to that data, I assure you. I'm interesting in both proving my case and also in falsifying it as well.
So far the best we can see is about 1.6 micron near-infrared light, allowing a view of only about 50 km deeper than visible light. Apparently right now we can only see about 500 to 600 km into the photosphere, even with X-rays and gamma rays. If the images we get back from the STEREO program can give you any more to work with, great. It will be interesting to see what comes back.quote:
It has *always* been about science. That has been my motive from the start. I've not made a dime on this project and I doubt I ever will. My primary motive in doing all this is because I didn't want my kids to be taught myths in school. I feel about Birkeland's model the way you feel about evolution. It's always been about science from my perspective.
Please Michael, if you're going to insist this is truly about science and you're going to suggest this is Birkeland's model, describe his model for us. A solar model is a mathematical description, not a visual comparison, and not a supposition based on the appearance of an experiment. If what you're presenting is Birkeland's model, there is a very specific and technical description available. Tossing out a book title and suggesting everyone reads the book and gets from it you think they should isn't science. You need to provide a detailed description and provide some references. If we can understand the specifics of Birkeland's conjecture it would certainly give a better basis for understanding what you're trying to say.
|
| Edited by - GeeMack on 02/09/2006 22:52:25 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 23:08:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Explain? Or explain away? Because all I see is you dismissing evidence, not providing counter-evidence on the topics that are being addressed at the time.
What "counter evidence" have you provided regarding the isotope analysis? What explanation do you offer regarding that first image on my website using gas model theory?
There are things I can explain in tangible, observable terms. There are other things I can't explain in tangible terms because no living human being knows what those terms might be. Unless we have a full understanding of how our sun accelerates itself everyday, and until we know where 90% of the mass of the universe might be, then it seems awfully premature to be writing off Birkeland solar model based on heliocentric concepts of density. That is expecially true since Birkeland "predicted" Birkeland currents in the first place, and they've been demonstrated to exist both inside and outside of this solar system. I just can't just ignore what I see in satellite images or in isotope analysis only because we don't have the technology yet to know if our solar system is being acelerated by Birkeland currents, and we don't have the technology yet to determine where 90% of the mass of our universe might be.
quote:
You're always eager to switch the subject.
I'm always eager to discuss solar images and isotope analysis. These are tanglible observations that I can then comment on. When we start into theoretical ideas, and cosmic scale Birkeland currents, it gets a lot harder to find observations to support such concepts, only because we don't have the technology yet to study it fully.
quote:
The fact that you've been evasive through 4 threads now doesn't mean you've answered anything that's been addressed to you. Dave still can't get you to agree with the fundmental principles of determining the density of an object, let alone gotten you to the point where you two are dicussing actual figures.
Until you or Dave can demonstrate a way to determine the density of an unknown material without touching it, I can't see a way to really start on the density issue. Everything will ultimately be predicated on the density of the penumbral filaments and the umbra. Since we can't touch these filaments or scoop off a liter or two from it's surface compare it to something else, it's pretty vague how we might determine the density of this layer at the top of the photosphere.
I've spend two full threads now answering everything I can answer without knowing what those filaments are made of, and how that material is affected by the conditions near the surface. Without understanding what the filaments are made of, and without being able to touch them, and without understanding how the flow of electricity might affect them, I see no way to accurately determine their actual density.
Now keep in mind that this is only ONE aspect of the heliosiesmology evidence. Some of that same evidence *does* support Birkeland's model, including that sound change at .995R, the plasma that turns at right angles, and the differences in the plasma flow around that column both under and above .995R stratification layer. These behaviors, including the flow patterns around the column are not easy to explained in gas model model theory, and even Kosovichev didn't seem comfortable offering an explanation for the plasma flow differences above and below that stratification layer. I even used some of this heliosiesmology data to support Birkelands model.
How about we now get a lot less evasive about the mass separation data? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 23:18:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
You are using big words here, Michael. I really hope you can back it up with an equally big (as in good) explanation.
I believe I can back it up, starting with that first Lockheed RD image on my website, and including the sunquake images, as well as the doppler images and the composite images. I've got evidence of electrical arcs coming off the surface. And oh, yes, I also have evidence of mass separation.
quote:
I can imagine a hypothetical situation where at least a partial mass separation of the sun may contribute the 2% deviation from the ideal gas model that was detected by helioseismologists.
That's why I'm unprepared to discount the standard solar model just yet.
I can imagine that we could all imagine a whole host of hypothetical possibilities, all of which "might be" or "could be" possible. The real proof however is found in the observations and in the images themselves, which is why I am so keen to discuss them.
Let's try combining just two sets of observations and how about offering me a valid way to explain that first RD image using gas model theory that is also completely consistent with the behavior we see in the sunquake videos on January 5th and 15th of 2005. This should be particularly relevant to this discussion since Kosovichev's last paper was all about tsunamis (sunquakes) on the photosophere, and those surface "cracks" also occured on every one of the days meantioned in that paper. There is defitely a one to one correlation between surface fractures seen at 195A and photosopheric disturbances.
If you can combine even two images into a cohesive explanation that ties all this stuff together using gas model theory, I will promise to be a lot less "bold' with my comments in the future. :) |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 23:18:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
How about we now get a lot less evasive about the mass separation data?
Nobody is evading. Everyone in these discussions has suggested, at least once, if you'd like to talk about subjects that don't have a direct bearing on supporting your conjecture of a solid surfaced Sun, open another thread. It would seem if you have a legitimate interest in your solid surface Sun notion, and if you'd like to stay even remotely scientific about it, you yourself wouldn't want to get all caught up in the ambiguous irrelevant issues. Now if you have a way to draw a specific, technical correlation between the mass separation issue and the possibility of a solid surfaced Sun, you should clearly, quantitatively, and scientifically explain that correlation.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 23:26:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Michael always speaks in such sweeping terms. Oh, one guy disagrees with the Big Bang theory? Then the entire thing is unproven crap. And I agree, it does seriously damage his credibility.
Give me one scientific reason why I should favor the notion of "Big Bang" that began as some sort of explosive "singularity" as opposed to say a "Big Slam" of intersecting waves of matter or subatomic particles? |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 23:26:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I believe I can back it up, starting with that first Lockheed RD image on my website, and including the sunquake images, as well as the doppler images and the composite images. I've got evidence of electrical arcs coming off the surface. And oh, yes, I also have evidence of mass separation.
We've already agreed the mass separation issue does not yet provide any legitimate support for your conjecture because you haven't yet provided a clear, specific explanation as to how it does support it. And running difference images are graphs of activity, differences. They aren't showing solid surfaces. It just looks like it. Would you please leave the unrelated tangent issues behind and move forward with supporting your claim?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 23:31:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Nobody is evading.
Then take a stand and tell me what you think about Manuel's evidence of mass separation. Is he right or is he wrong. If he is wrong, explain why he is wrong. Don't hedge, don't evade the question, just put your opinions on the table so we can all scrutinize your position on the matter.
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 23:46:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Then take a stand and tell me what you think about Manuel's evidence of mass separation. Is he right or is he wrong. If he is wrong, explain why he is wrong. Don't hedge, don't evade the question, just put your opinions on the table so we can all scrutinize your position on the matter.
I've been very clear about my stand on the issue, but I'll be glad to go over it once more. I am in complete agreement with everyone else who has reviewed Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis as far as its relationship to your conjecture. It does not provide support for your solid surface Sun conjecture in any specific or relevant way. You have not yet given any explanations about how it might provide such support, and until you do, it's irrelevant to this discussion.
Scrutinize away. But if your scrutiny is likely to turn into more of your talking about mass separation, without providing that necessary direct correlation to supporting your solid surface Sun conjecture, would you please open a separate thread. This thread is about your claim that the Sun has a solid surface and your task of proving that claim.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 23:55:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Then take a stand and tell me what you think about Manuel's evidence of mass separation. Is he right or is he wrong. If he is wrong, explain why he is wrong. Don't hedge, don't evade the question, just put your opinions on the table so we can all scrutinize your position on the matter.
I've been very clear about my stand on the issue, but I'll be glad to go over it once more. I am in complete agreement with everyone else who has reviewed Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis as far as its relationship to your conjecture. It does not provide support for your solid surface Sun conjecture in any specific or relevant way. You have not yet given any explanations about how it might provide such support, and until you do, it's irrelevant to this discussion.
Scrutinize away. But if your scrutiny is likely to turn into more of your talking about mass separation, without providing that necessary direct correlation to supporting your solid surface Sun conjecture, would you please open a separate thread. This thread is about your claim that the Sun has a solid surface and your task of proving that claim.
Evasion 101: When asked a yes/no right/wrong question, never directly answer that question. Instead go off on a tangent unrelated to this right/wrong question, and ignore the point entirely.
Is he right, or is he wrong. Don't be evasive this time.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/09/2006 23:56:44 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 00:23:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Evasion 101: When asked a yes/no right/wrong question, never directly answer that question. Instead go off on a tangent unrelated to this right/wrong question, and ignore the point entirely.
Is he right, or is he wrong. Don't be evasive this time.
I have expressed my complete, relevant thoughts on the issue well over a dozen times now. Whether he is right or wrong, or whether I believe he is right or wrong, is not a relevant point to the subject of this discussion. Your concern is as important to this discussion as if you were pressing me for my favorite color or my opinion on breakfast cereals. It simply has nothing to do with this conversation. So please open another thread if you wish to discuss issues that aren't directly relevant to supporting your claim of a solid surfaced Sun. If I should find the discussion in that other thread interesting enough, I may just join in.
Since you've brought up the issue of evading questions, please answer the following questions that have been posted in just the last page and a half. Once you've taken care of your responsibility to this discussions and we get caught up, perhaps we can move ahead, that is if you still have any concern for trying to prove your solid surface Sun guess.Dave W. said: Would you agree, Michael, that we have found the mass of the Earth without knowing anything about it but its radius and the acceleration due to its gravity?
Dave W. said: While I was mistaken when describing this to HalfMooner - since we don't need to know the mass of the Earth to know the mass of the Sun - would you agree, Michael, that we've found the mass of the Sun knowing nothing more about it than its distance from Earth and the Earth's acceleration due to the Sun's gravity?
Dave W. said: So, Michael, you'll have to explain the relationship between acceleration and mass, using an equation or two of some sort, before I can calculate the magnitude of its effects on our density measurements. But since neither the whole mass of the universe nor relativistic effects can begin to account for a measurable difference in density for our purposes, I'd be rather stunned if your alleged "acceleration" can do so.
Dave W. said: Now that that is out of the way, shall I assume that your lack of response means I went through all that work for nothing, or shall I be reasonable and wait a while for a reply to my answer to the questions that you asked me?
Dave W. said: Understandable, but I think what is truly critical now is that you answer the primary questions put to you in my long, long post near the start of this thread: do you agree that we can learn the mass of a thing (like the Earth or the Sun) without being able to touch it or know its composition?
Dave W. said: Just how the heck does an electrical arc "produce" hydrogen in the absence of hydrogen? Electric arcs are a chemical phemonenon, not a nuclear phenomenon, and in all 60+ pages of this thread so far, I don't recall you mentioning hydrogen being a constituent of the surface or of the plasmas near the surface. We've got a mostly-iron shell mixed with oxygen, calcium and (apparently) any metal one might name, a calcium plasma over that, a silicon plasma over that, and a neon plasma over that. Just where is this hydrogen being produced?
I said: Please Michael, if you're going to insist this is truly about science and you're going to suggest this is Birkeland's model, describe his model for us. A solar model is a mathematical description, not a visual comparison, and not a supposition based on the appearance of an experiment. If what you're presenting is Birkeland's model, there is a very specific and technical description available. Tossing out a book title and suggesting everyone reads the book and gets from it you think they should isn't science. You need to provide a detailed description and provide some references. If we can understand the specifics of Birkeland's conjecture it would certainly give a better basis for understanding what you're trying to say. If you would please, get these matters out of the way. Address them as completely as you can before you change the subject to other issues.
|
| Edited by - GeeMack on 02/10/2006 00:24:45 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 00:35:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Whether he is right or wrong, or whether I believe he is right or wrong, is not a relevant point to the subject of this discussion.
LOL! You're a textbook case Dude. :)
quote:
Your concern is as important to this discussion as if you were pressing me for my favorite color or my opinion on breakfast cereals.
Yes, I'm sure your breakfast cereal has exactly the same implication on solar theory and astronomy in general as the concept of solar mass separation. :) Man you are a riot at times. 
(I fixed a "you're" for you since I know how much mispellings irk you) |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/10/2006 00:44:05 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 08:35:39 [Permalink]
|
I wrote:quote:
(18:07 on 2/08) Here's another simple question about the Lockheed "gold" video for you, Michael: using the center of the Sun's image from TRACE as a zero latitude, zero longitude reference point, at what location (in degrees of lat. and long.) is the center of the first frame, and at what location is the center of the last frame?
...
If you still consider Kosovichev's work to be "good" in determining plasma flows, then you have to admit that the umbra of a sunspot is a massive downflow of plasma, and not a surging upflow as you are expecting us to believe.
That question (and the also-quoted point) have not been answered by any of your last 34 posts, Michael.quote:
(20:16 on 2/08) You still haven't explained how it [the mass separation and isotope data] relates to "the density issue" (as if there were only one) as I don't see any reason why your neon plasma cannot be 0.000002 g/cm3. The "significance" of what you've said about the "data" is that you can't offer up any density values at all, and can only offer a vague and unsupported conjecture that a calcium plasma might (for unknown physical reasons) approach the density of an unknown solid under unknown conditions of gravity and electromagnetism. I can't "address" that issue at all, since it rests entirely on things we haven't measured in any way, so there's no way to validate or invalidate that guess.
...
Unless you're claiming that if the Sun has a solid conductive shell it'll somehow be accelerated differently by these currents than if it were a ball of conductive plasma.
...
So tell me how to factor in this "acceleration."
All three have gone unaddressed in your last 29 posts, Michael.quote:
(14:51 on 2/09) Would you agree, Michael, that we have found the mass of the Earth without knowing anything about it but its radius and the acceleration due to its gravity?
...
...would you agree, Michael, that we've found the mass of the Sun knowing nothing more about it than its distance from Earth and the Earth's acceleration due to the Sun's gravity?
(19:45 on 2/09) No model we have of any physical process is 100% accurate, so why would you demand our model of plasma acoustics to be 100% accurate?
Unaddressed in your last 11 posts, Michael.quote:
(20:37 on 2/09) ...do you agree that we can learn the mass of a thing (like the Earth or the Sun) without being able to touch it or know its composition?
Unaddressed in your last eight posts, Michael.quote:
(21:45 on 2/09) If you're going to frame it like that, you're still going to have to explain, in detail, why you think that a solid shell is impossible without a mass-separated atmosphere. As far as I can tell, the two things are not interdependent.
...
Just how the heck does an electrical arc "produce" hydrogen in the absence of hydrogen? ... Just where is this hydrogen being produced?
Unaddressed in your last seven posts, Michael.
Some of the above unanswered points/questions are even about the things you say you want to talk about, Michael. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
