|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 07/17/2006 : 08:00:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why do you need STEREO data to find something which should be discoverable given the Sun's mass
Because this particular thickness issue can't be determined from mass alone.
quote:
the amount of electrical activity within the layers you posit,
I don't see how that is going to help us either.
quote:
and the relative abundances of the various isotopes in them?
How do *we* intend to determine the relative abundances of elements in a mass separated solar model? Are you suggesting we use Manuel's work to do this? Even if we use this method to determine abundances, how do we know how much of the calcium in the atmosphere, and how much is in and under the surface?
quote:
In order to validate your theory, Michael, STEREO has to actually come up with measurements that match the numbers that your model produces, because matching guesses based on a subset of a single sunspot's flow diagrams doesn't validate anything, since those measurements would not match flow diagrams taken from areas away from sunspots.
You are right about the fact one one sunspot can't reliably tell us the whole layering picture Dave, but it may have to be the piece that we use to tell us about the layering scheme, since we can use this data to note where the mass flows become horizontal. Those areas would be the areas of greatest interest to us since a change in density should become apparent and factor into the mass flow data. I'm inclined to think the heliosiesmology data is our best bet in this regard, even if our prediction is based on a limited data set. The other layers are all arranged like an onion skin, and this layer isn't going to be any different. Any obvious change in density between silicon and calcium should affect sound waves and mass flow patterns. Even if we used Dr. Manuel's data to come up with relative abundances of calcium, we can't know the percentage of calcium in the atmosphere, vs. how much of that calcium is inside and under the surface. The only way to know the thicknesses IMO, is to observe where the mass flows tend to show horizontal tendencies. IMO, that's our best bet, even if our prediction is based on a limited data set, including a "single" reliable data set. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2006 : 09:10:46 [Permalink]
|
FYI about running difference images John:
The SOHO RD movies on my website are put together from stillshots that were copied and pasted from the original _dit_ files located in the SOHO archives. They are simply captured stillshots from the archived _dit_ movies that I strung together into movie form. The original (raw) images that were used to create these particular RD "snapshots" were spaced approximately 6 hours apart. This is actually far too long of a timeframe to be "optimal" as it relates to revealing the real sizes of surface features in reasonable detail. When one uses that long of a timeline between the two subtracted images, it tends to exaggerate the surface features quite a bit, making them appear to be very "large" surface features, when in fact they are quite a bit more "subdued" and localized. The longer the timeline between the two raw images that are used in the substraction process, the greater the amount of exaggeration that takes place. If you want to get a "better" understanding of the affects of timing between images play in the features that are seen in RD images, you may want to watch and review a month or two of the original _dit_ images I got the stills from. Most of the "grainier" daily movies tend to be based on raw still shots that are uniformly spaced about 6 to 12 minutes apart. In these "shorter window" images we can often make out small surface "ridges" that remain quite fixed and rotate very uniformly. During short timelines there is also a lot of "atmospheric interference" that tends to make things look "hazy". There is a trade off here as it related to the spacing between the raw images.
The optimal timeline for revealing the "stonger surface features" (as Stein from NASA put it) in full surface SOHO images tends to be 18 to 30 minutes between the two images. During that timeframe, enough rotational movement has occured on the surface to create a strong "pattern" from the surface. It is possible to take 3 to 7 images over an hour and a half timeline and subtract one from another, from another and come up with greater "detail" of surface contours. These multiple image creations however are no longer "running difference" images in the conventional sense. There is also a bit of an "art" to that process related to the timing between the images and it is more difficult to explain the reasons why this technique works to most folks. Using just two subtracted images is easier to understand and to explain, particularly in the beginning.
The TRACE RD movie was created out of raw images that are spaced closer together as it relates to timing. Furthermore, they are based on a "zoomed in" view of the surface. The "exaggeration" of these "features" is therefore much less, and these images represent "truer to life" examples of what the structures on the surface are like in terms of size and shape and to some degree "height" as well. You can't "really" guage the z component very well in even these images since a single pixel can represent hundreds of kilometers in size. They do however reveal very consistent patterns on the surface that hold their geometric relationships to other patterns in the image. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/17/2006 09:15:11 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2006 : 09:35:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why do you need STEREO data to find something which should be discoverable given the Sun's mass
Because this particular thickness issue can't be determined from mass alone.
Of course not, which is why the conjunction in that sentence was 'and', not 'or'. Given that you say that the mass separation is due to gravity and electric fields, then the amount of mass separation should be discoverable given the Sun's mass and the electrical activity and the relative abundances of all the isotopes. The thicknesses of the layers will be dependent upon all three factors, not any one of them.quote:
How do *we* intend to determine the relative abundances of elements in a mass separated solar model? Are you suggesting we use Manuel's work to do this?
Would you accept any other method? Don't you, by having your name as a co-author on one of the mass-separation papers, accept and even promote that method?quote:
Even if we use this method to determine abundances, how do we know how much of the calcium in the atmosphere, and how much is in and under the surface?
Dr. Manuel claims that his relative abundances are for the "bulk Sun," and so when coupled with the Sun's total mass, those numbers represent absolute maximum amounts. That would be a starting place for investigation which is better than a guess.quote:
You are right about the fact one one sunspot can't reliably tell us the whole layering picture Dave, but it may have to be the piece that we use to tell us about the layering scheme, since we can use this data to note where the mass flows become horizontal.
No, because if you examine all of the flow diagrams for that particular sunspot, you'll note that the mass flows only appear to "become horizontal" if you look at them from one particular angle. From another angle, a huge flow through the middle becomes apparent, and you haven't provided any data which supports your idea that electrons conducting through a solid can look like mass flow in a plasma to helioseismological methods.quote:
Those areas would be the areas of greatest interest to us since a change in density should become apparent and factor into the mass flow data.
Any area which appears to disprove your hypothesis should be of utmost importance, Michael.quote:
I'm inclined to think the heliosiesmology data is our best bet in this regard, even if our prediction is based on a limited data set. The other layers are all arranged like an onion skin, and this layer isn't going to be any different. Any obvious change in density between silicon and calcium should affect sound waves and mass flow patterns.
Why do you assume there will be density changes between the layers?quote:
Even if we used Dr. Manuel's data to come up with relative abundances of calcium, we can't know the percentage of calcium in the atmosphere, vs. how much of that calcium is inside and under the surface.
If Dr. Manuel's data, coupled with some number for the total mass of the Sun, shows that the calcium layer can't possibly be more than, for example, 573 meters thick even if included 100% of the Sun's calcium, then we will know, before STEREO launches, that the calcium layer in your model will effectively be invisible to STEREO (since it's resolution won't allow it to see something less than a couple hundred kilometers or so).quote:
The only way to know the thicknesses IMO, is to observe where the mass flows tend to show horizontal tendencies. IMO, that's our best bet, even if our prediction is based on a limited data set, including a "single" reliable data set.
Well, Michael, what can I say but... if your model can't do something as simple as predict the thicknesses of the layers that you claim exist, then what good is it? |
- 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 - 07/17/2006 : 09:42:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why do you need STEREO data to find something which should be discoverable given the Sun's mass, the amount of electrical activity within the layers you posit, and the relative abundances of the various isotopes in them? In order to validate your theory, Michael, STEREO has to actually come up with measurements that match the numbers that your model produces, because matching guesses based on a subset of a single sunspot's flow diagrams doesn't validate anything, since those measurements would not match flow diagrams taken from areas away from sunspots.
One more point I would make here Dave:
The primary reason that STEREO confirmation is so important is because even *with* other kinds of data we might use, there is still a certain amount of human interpretation required. We will still need corrorating evidence to support this human interpretation aspect of any model we might put together. STEREO gives us the ability to take a lot of the guess work, and all the human interpretation out of the equation. If the solar moss activity is originating and visible underneath of the photosphere, then Lockheed's position about the location of this solar moss phenomenon will have been falsified. The percieved location of the "transition region" is going to have to change accordingly. If however it can be demonstrated that solar moss activity always originates above the photosphere in the corona, then my "interpretation" about the positioning of the transition region will likewise have been falsified. This is a very testable difference between our two interpretations. They place the transition region above the photosphere, whereas I suggest that solar moss activity originates under the photosphere. Only one our interpretation as to the location of the solar moss activity can be accurate.
Likewise the mass separation issue/question is critical to our understanding of the funtioning of a sun. If it can be demonstrated that the sun's plasmas are separated and arranged like an "onion skin", with the heavier plasmas sinking under the lighter ones, then current gas model theory will have been falsified, and my model will have been "supported" using that very same set of data. Likewise if there is no sort of "onion skin" separation of plasmas in the solar atmosphere, my interpretation of these images will have been falsified. This is again a very testable and very significant difference between these two models and these two interpretations. More importantly only one model and only one of these interpretations is going to jive with STEREO observations.
STEREO is pretty much a critical necessity as it relates to observing solar statellite phenemenon, which is I'm sure why it was created in the first place. No other piece of gear could hope to demonstrate these two points with 3 dimensional precision. No other kind of observation could hope to answer these two important questions. No new model is ever taken "seriously" without corroborating evidence, and STEREO promises to open up many doors in that respect. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2006 : 10:33:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Of course not, which is why the conjunction in that sentence was 'and', not 'or'. Given that you say that the mass separation is due to gravity and electric fields, then the amount of mass separation should be discoverable given the Sun's mass and the electrical activity and the relative abundances of all the isotopes. The thicknesses of the layers will be dependent upon all three factors, not any one of them.
There are more than these three factors however, which I'll explain below:
quote:
Would you accept any other method?
As it relates to the thickness of the atmospheric plasma layer, yes. As it relates to total amount of calcium present, maybe not. The other factor that we have to account for here is how much of the calcium is embedded in the surface, and how much is under the surface. I can't simply assume that all the calcium from Dr. Manuel's calculations will be necessarily sitting in the atmosphere.
quote:
Don't you, by having your name as a co-author on one of the mass-separation papers, accept and even promote that method?
As a method for determining *total* amounts of materials present, sure. As a method for determining the thicknesses of plasma layers, absolutely not. The atmosphere only accounts for a small percentage of the total materials present.
quote:
Dr. Manuel claims that his relative abundances are for the "bulk Sun," and so when coupled with the Sun's total mass, those numbers represent absolute maximum amounts. That would be a starting place for investigation which is better than a guess.
I don't disagree with you here, I just see no reliable way to determine how much of this "total" calcium might be present in the solar atmosphere, and how much of it will be embedded in the crust and located under the surface of the sun. The "density" of this material will also be highly critical to any sort of volume calculations.
quote:
No, because if you examine all of the flow diagrams for that particular sunspot, you'll note that the mass flows only appear to "become horizontal" if you look at them from one particular angle. From another angle, a huge flow through the middle becomes apparent, and you haven't provided any data which supports your idea that electrons conducting through a solid can look like mass flow in a plasma to helioseismological methods.
And I don't know how to demonstrate that at the moment either.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v557n1/53591/fg3.gif
If you look at this image closely however, you'll find that in both the north south and east/west configurations, there is a definintely "flatening" of mass flows in the 3500-4000 km range whereas the greatest amount of sound change occurs at about .993R based on Kosovichev's stratification paper. This suggests to me that the calcium layer is somewhere between 800 and about 1300km thick. Maybe I could shave another 100KM or so off the calcium layer, but this data would suggest to me that the silicon layer is far deeper than the calcium layer, which "seems" to be inline with the way I've interpreted the satellite images as well.
quote:
Any area which appears to disprove your hypothesis should be of utmost importance, Michael.
The two things I focused on regarding the STEREO predictions are IMO the most important aspects of the solar model I've presented. That's why I chose those two items in particular.
quote:
Why do you assume there will be density changes between the layers?
Because of the flare patterns at the top each layer. The layers tend to "flare out" at the top, suggesting there is a significant density difference between the upwelling material and the layer above it.
quote:
If Dr. Manuel's data, coupled with some number for the total mass of the Sun, shows that the calcium layer can't possibly be more than, for example, 573 meters thick even if included 100% of the Sun's calcium, then we will know, before STEREO launches, that the calcium layer in your model will effectively be invisible to STEREO (since it's resolution won't allow it to see something less than a couple hundred kilometers or so).
Even in that scenario, it will likely show up as a thin line, but it should be noticably lower in the atmosphere than the helium layer far above it.
quote:
Well, Michael, what can I say but... if your model can't do something as simple as predict the thicknesses of the layers that you claim exist, then what good is it?
I handed you an "early" prediction based on actual heliosiesmology data, and based on an interpration of two dimensional satellite images Dave. The thicknesses of the various layers been "predicted" in my model. Whether or not that prediction is accurate will depend entirely on how well I've "intepretated" the satellite images and the heliosiesmology data. If anything I've probably *over*estimated the thickness of the calcium layer in relationship to the thickness of the silicon layer. These layers however will be "measurable" with the right kind of technology, and enough resolution, even if STEREO won't have the resolution necessary to do it. We will have to see whether it shows up as one pixel wide, or 3 or 4. Based on the mass flow patterns, I would expect it to be at least 800KM thick, and possibly even more. I just can't be more accurate than this range at the moment, whereas many of the other numbers are more known. For instance, the depth of the photosphere is more or less "measured" at this point, as is the rough depth of the chromosphere. I therefore have a greater confidence in these numbers. Since no one besides me seems to be aware of a silicon layer in the first place, there is no one who's actually attempted to "measure" it yet. I therefore have "less" confidence that this part of my prediction. There's no great myetery here.
I really don't think anyone is going to get very "uptight" about even a 1000km error on my part |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2006 : 11:11:53 [Permalink]
|
Let me ask you a couple of relevent questions here that relate back to Kosovichev's "subsurface stratification" paper.
Let's start with: What is it?
In other words, we both seem to agree that there is some change in sound speed that seems to begin at about .995R, and peaks at around .993R. What causes this phenomenon, and can we use that to judge the thicknesses of things as well?
If we accept some sort of density change at .995R, this change could represent the top of the calcium layer, could it not? Likewise the peak change occurs at about .993R, which is where that layer may end. Would that be an appropriate interpretation of that data from a mass separated pespective in your opinion? If not, why not? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/17/2006 11:12:32 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2006 : 13:43:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
As it relates to the thickness of the atmospheric plasma layer, yes. As it relates to total amount of calcium present, maybe not. The other factor that we have to account for here is how much of the calcium is embedded in the surface, and how much is under the surface. I can't simply assume that all the calcium from Dr. Manuel's calculations will be necessarily sitting in the atmosphere.
You're right, Michael, which is why I'm not asking you to do so. I'm asking you to assume it only for the purposes of self-checking your work to date, in that if you temporarily assume that 100% of the isotopes of the elements making up the layers in the atmosphere are actually in the atmosphere, then the results of the physics ought to say that the total thickness of all the layers is more than 0.007R. If it's much less than that, then you know there's a problem with your hypothesis even before STEREO launches.
The real problem, of course, is that you don't know the Sun's mass, nor can you characterize the electrical activity, so there really is no place to start, even if you wanted to perform this basic test of your theories.quote:
The "density" of this material will also be highly critical to any sort of volume calculations.
Yes, and part of the calculations based on mass, electrical activity and isotope abundance would have to be based upon your resistive heating idea, gravitational force and the standard equations for pressure, temperature and density of gasses. Given the three factors I mentioned, the density of the plasmas at any given depth should be derivable from the physics.quote:
quote:
...and you haven't provided any data which supports your idea that electrons conducting through a solid can look like mass flow in a plasma to helioseismological methods.
And I don't know how to demonstrate that at the moment either.
My question is still this, then: why should we assume it is true?quote:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v557n1/53591/fg3.gif
If you look at this image closely however, you'll find that in both the north south and east/west configurations, there is a definintely "flatening" of mass flows in the 3500-4000 km range...
I see "flattening" of flows throughout the 3,000-12,000 km range. I also see plenty of vertical motion (in both directions) through the range you specify.quote:
...whereas the greatest amount of sound change occurs at about .993R based on Kosovichev's stratification paper.
Quote the paper to support that remark. From what I remember, he never discussed the "greatest amount of sound change," since the paper was about the motions of layers over time.quote:
This suggests to me that the calcium layer is somewhere between 800 and about 1300km thick. Maybe I could shave another 100KM or so off the calcium layer, but this data would suggest to me that the silicon layer is far deeper than the calcium layer, which "seems" to be inline with the way I've interpreted the satellite images as well.
You'll have to explain how you got from flattening and the 0.993R number to those thickness values.quote:
quote:
Any area which appears to disprove your hypothesis should be of utmost importance, Michael.
The two things I focused on regarding the STEREO predictions are IMO the most important aspects of the solar model I've presented. That's why I chose those two items in particular.
I was talking about other flow images which show no evidence of "flattening" in them at all.quote:
quote:
Why do you assume there will be density changes between the layers?
Because of the flare patterns at the top each layer. The layers tend to "flare out" at the top, suggesting there is a significant density difference between the upwelling material and the layer above it.
I don't get it: all of the material above your alleged surface is, in the diagrams you linked to, downwelling. Where is there upwelling material to "flare out?"quote:
quote:
If Dr. Manuel's data, coupled with some number for the total mass of the Sun, shows that the calcium layer can't possibly be more than, for example, 573 meters thick even if included 100% of the Sun's calcium, then we will know, before STEREO launches, that the calcium layer in your model will effectively be invisible to STEREO (since it's resolution won't allow it to see something less than a couple hundred kilometers or so).
Even in that scenario, it will likely show up as a thin line, but it should be noticably lower in the atmosphere than the helium layer far above it.
No, if the reality is as extreme as my example numbers, the calcium layer would be half a percent of a pixel (or less) thick. If an image filter were "tuned" to the calcium layer under those conditions (with all non-calcium stuff black), and the camera took images with 256 gray levels, then the camera would see a single row of pixels at a level of 1 (256 times 0.005) with all other pixels black - not accounting for noise of any sort. Since no camera I'm aware of has a noise level of less than one LSB, that small a signal would truly be invisible.quote:
I handed y |
- 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 - 07/17/2006 : 13:50:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Let me ask you a couple of relevent questions here that relate back to Kosovichev's "subsurface stratification" paper.
Let's start with: What is it?
That paper describes how the density stratifications from about 0.970R up to 1.0R behave oddly relative to the 11-year solar cycle, with those below 0.990R (if I remember correctly) contracting while those above that level expand (and vice versa).quote:
In other words, we both seem to agree that there is some change in sound speed that seems to begin at about .995R, and peaks at around .993R.
No, we don't agree on that, and Kosovichev's "stratification" paper doesn't even mention that.quote:
What causes this phenomenon, and can we use that to judge the thicknesses of things as well?
I don't know what causes a phenomenon of which I am unaware.quote:
If we accept some sort of density change at .995R, this change could represent the top of the calcium layer, could it not?
Michael, the density of the Sun changes by four orders of magnitude in the top 5% of the Sun's radius. Kosovichev measured many "stratifications" in order to create the chart of the relative motions of them over the solar cycle.quote:
Likewise the peak change occurs at about .993R, which is where that layer may end.
I have no idea from where that assertion is coming.quote:
Would that be an appropriate interpretation of that data from a mass separated pespective in your opinion? If not, why not?
Not, due to the issues raised, above. |
- 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 - 07/17/2006 : 15:42:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Those aren't predictions, Michael, they're guesses, because the physics is all unknown.
I'll get to the rest of your post a bit later today, but this particular comment was worth responding to all on it's own, particularly since this comment is indicative of a serious and falacious bias that plagues astronomy today.
Humans can begin to understand how something works and aquire knowledge about something in a general sense without necessarily knowing all the mathematical details of how it works. This is particularly true of very complex systems and/or very distant systems such as a sun or a universe or human beings. I can get to know your tendencies a little bit without knowing all the physics, chemistry and biology that makes you tick. Useful "knowledge" isn't necessarily mathematical in nature or even quantifyable mathematically in every instance. You keep asserting that precise modeling of the physics involved is the only thing that constitutes useful astronomical knowledge. That idea however is purely a logical fallacy on your part. Observation is the key to knowledge, not mathematical modeling. A overly simplistic theory with a pretty math formula that is utterly lacking any supporting observational evidence is no more "right" than a complex theory without a precise mathematical model, simply by virtue of the existence of the pretty math representation in the overly simplified theory. Math isn't the key to knowledge, observation is the key to knowledge.
Absolutely everything about the model that I've put together is based *exclusively* on some sort of direct observation either via satellite imagery, isotope analysis, or observations from heliosiesmology. Because of the requirement that every idea in the model be backed up by observation, IMO there is actually very little "guessing" involved in putting this model together. No idea or concept exists or is allowed into this model unless it is based on some tangible direct observation, and logical extensions of these direct observations. That is typical of way human being acquire knowledge by the way. Even the placement of the silicon / calcium boundary will be determined by the mass flow observations in the final analysis.
In my opinion, the majoritity of the "guessing" that goes on in solar phyiscs today is done by those who have a very strong need to oversimply some a very complex system in an effort to make it easily mathematically quantifyable in some way for the purposes of a paper.
It's not really easy to explain where all the energy that radiating from the sun might come from. Nevertheless, we "presume" that the energy must all be internally created on the sun, and we "presume" that source of energy is hydrogen fusion.
Because the number of electron neutrinos did not jive with these mathematical models of hydrogen fusion in gas model theory, the gas model theorists began to presume that neutrinos somehow change flavor, nevermind the fact that no such thing has ever actually been observed.
Evidently the makeup of the universe isn't easily quantifyable if the plasmas in the solar atmospheres we see from a vast distance are mass separated by atomic weight, therefore astronomers *assume* the plasmas don't separate by the element. Hydrogen fusion won't work under these conditions either, so astromers presume that everything stays "stirred". It makes their job much "easier" from a mathematical perspective to assume everything is pretty much homogenously mixed together.
Astronomers evidently can't compute a solar output number without treating a very thin plasma layer as a "black body", so they treat what is supposedly a thinner than aerogel plasma like a black body and they ignore the density issues entirely because that would get messy. Again, it's just easier that way, and easier to mathematically quantify things that way, regardless of such an idea should even be applied to one thin layer of a thin plasma atmosphere in the first place.
Hopefully STEREO will finally allow us to start testing some of these suspiscious looking assumptions and predictions in no uncertain terms. Then we'll finally discover if these simplified mathematical models are actually meaningful and applicable, or if these were nothing more than mathematical mythologies that were just "easier" to conceptualize than the real, more complex explanations. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/17/2006 16:05:22 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2006 : 16:50:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Those aren't predictions, Michael, they're guesses, because the physics is all unknown.
I'll get to the rest of your post a bit later today, but this particular comment was worth responding to all on it's own, particularly since this comment is indicative of a serious and falacious bias that plagues astronomy today.
No, Michael, your response is indicative of your seriously fallacious biases. For examples:quote:
Humans can begin to understand how something works and aquire knowledge about something in a general sense without necessarily knowing all the mathematical details of how it works. This is particularly true of very complex systems and/or very distant systems such as a sun or a universe or human beings. I can get to know your tendencies a little bit without knowing all the physics, chemistry and biology that makes you tick. Useful "knowledge" isn't necessarily mathematical in nature or even quantifyable mathematically in every instance. You keep asserting that precise modeling of the physics involved is the only thing that constitutes useful astronomical knowledge. That idea however is purely a logical fallacy on your part. Observation is the key to knowledge, not mathematical modeling. A overly simplistic theory with a pretty math formula that is utterly lacking any supporting observational evidence is no more "right" than a complex theory without a precise mathematical model, simply by virtue of the existence of the pretty math representation in the overly simplified theory. Math isn't the key to knowledge, observation is the key to knowledge.
The logical fallacy, Michael, is the strawman you've created of my position. In reality, it is only a model which makes predictions which match observations that is a useful addition to our collective knowledge base. This is true even of human beings, since if you observe lots of traits and begin to think that a certain person will act in certain ways under certain conditions, but fails to do so, then you should say, "well, I guess I really didn't know her after all." Observations are key to making a model which will allow us to predict attributes of the thing modelled which we cannot yet measure. It just so happens that in physics, everything is highly quantized already, because lots of people have done lots of work to discover the appropriate equations. New theories about a particular set of phenomena must make equally good or better predictions as the old theories, or they won't be used. You claim to have a model about the Sun, but you cannot even quantify the Sun's mass.quote:
Absolutely everything about the model that I've put together is based *exclusively* on some sort of direct observation either via satellite imagery, isotope analysis, or observations from heliosiesmology. Because of the requirement that every idea in the model be backed up by observation, IMO there is actually very little "guessing" involved in putting this model together. No idea or concept exists or is allowed into this model unless it is based on some tangible direct observation, and logical extensions of these direct observations.
The guessing comes into play when you claim that the "flattening" of the mass flows under a single sunspot is indicative of a solid surface and/or layering of an atmosphere, because there are other explanations - with labratory support - which match the phenomena under examination. You guess that your interpretation is correct, but you have no evidence to support such a guess. Other guesses of yours will be provided upon request, this isn't the only example.quote:
In my opinion, the majoritity of the "guessing" that goes on in solar phyiscs today is done by those who have a very strong need to oversimply some a very complex system in an effort to make it easily mathematically quantifyable in some way for the purposes of a paper.
Irrelevant - that's not a defense of your model. It's a "they do it worse than I do it" argument which fails to address the point: guessing shouldn't be done at all.quote:
It's not really easy to explain where all the energy that radiating from the sun might come from. Nevertheless, we "presume" that the energy must all be internally created on the sun, and we "presume" that source of energy is hydrogen fusion.
No and no. That you think those are presumptions is where you go wrong, Michael.quote:
Because the number of electron neutrinos did not jive with these mathematical models of hydrogen fusion in gas model theory, the gas model theorists began to presume that neutrinos somehow change flavor, nevermind the fact that no such thing has ever actually been observed.
Now you're just talking nonsense, because I provided you with at least one article describing the measurement of neutrinos changing flavor right here on Earth - "in the lab" - in 2002. Before people tried to count neutrinos coming from the Sun, there were two possibilities: neutrinos have zero mass, and thus cannot change flavors, or neutrinos have non-zero mass, and thus can change flavors. Studies of the Sun, using the widely-held "zero mass" assumption, counted too few neutrinoes. It turns out that the neutrino physicists, those who promoted the zero-mass assumption - were the ones who were incorrect, and they were the ones who showed that they were wrong, and the solar model was actually right. There are even new experiments in the works to measure how quickly neutrinos change flavors, or haven't you read this month's Scientific American?quote:
Evidently the makeup of the universe isn't easily quantifyable if the plasmas in the solar atmospheres we see from a vast distance are mass separated by atomic weight, therefore astronomers *assume* the plasmas don't separate by the element.
What the heck? Did you just make a hypothetical argument, and then use it to dismiss what astronomers know as an assumption? Holy cow! Yes, if things are drastically different from the way we think they are, then yes, a whole lot of science is going to change. |
- 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 - 07/18/2006 : 10:34:00 [Permalink]
|
Your "flavor changing" neutrino experiments turned out to be a big shell game Dave. That particular paper describes an experiment where they transmitted X number of a certain type of neutrinos, and only recieved/detected (X-1) of that flavor of neutrino at the receiving end. They then literally "leaped" to the conclusion that the missing neutrino *must* have changed flavors, and we must absolutely forget about any sort of scattering effects between the transmitter and reciever. This missing neutrino somehow constitutes "strong evidence" that all missing neutrinos *absolutely* change flavor as an *intrinsic* property no less! It's all a big fat shell game Dave based on statements of faith. It's certainly possible that someone will one day transmit X number of electron neutrinos, and receive all X number of neutrinos in a variety of different flavors at the reveiving end. To date however, that has never happened. All the "hype" around this issue, and the brazen assumption that scattering is not a factor, only demonstrates how intent astronomers are to force the evidence to fit into the model in any way possible. The fact that neutrinos are now known to have mass, in no way constitutes evidence that they change flavors Dave. In fact to do so, they would need to violate the conservation of lepton laws of particle physics, whereas they were always "allowed" to have mass without violating any laws of particle physics. Worse yet, the "assumption" seems to be that neutrinos simply change flavor as an *intrinsic* property of neutrinos, not because of some kind of external QM interaction between the transmitter and reciever.
If and when someone actually *detects* a flavor change in neutrinos, and they further demonstrate it's an *internal oscillation* rather than being caused by an quantum interaction with something along the way, then you can talk to me about how they've demonstrated intrinsic neutrino flavor changing. Until then it's a lot of smoke and mirrors and pure hype. Their conclusion was completely based on the "assumption" that the missing item changed flavors rather than simply "scattered" somewhere between the transmitter and the receiver. There is no way to demonstrate this idea Dave, and to date, there is absolutely no evidence that neutrinos change flavors rather than scatter. Maybe someone will do the real work necessary to detect each flavor change, and actually determine it's an "intrinsic" change rather than a change due to a particle interaction along the way, but so far, that's never happened. In fact we aren't even in the ballpark yet.
We're right back to our old adversarial relationship again Dave, and frankly I'm just not interested in having this kind of discussion with you anymore. If and when the STEREO data gives us some new data to work with, then we can continue the discussion. Until then, we're just banging our heads into a brick wall. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 11:33:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
We're right back to our old adversarial relationship again Dave, and frankly I'm just not interested in having this kind of discussion with you anymore.
And the reason it went there is that you stopped talking about your theory, and instead started to spout nonsense as if it were fact about mainstream sciences which you clearly do not understand. Just as you continued to do in your latest pronouncements about neutrinos, since your characterization of how the measurements of muon, tau and electron neutrinos were made is just plain wrong. It is this carelessness with the facts that I believe is the source for your misconceptions about the standard solar models, Big Bang theory, helioseismology and coronal imaging, and as such it would simply be wrong of me not to point them out to you. You consider that to be "adversarial," but I'm certainly not going to ignore your misrepresentations of science on this forum in favor of having a "nice" but wholly unscientific discussion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 11:36:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Maybe someone will do the real work necessary to detect each flavor change, and actually determine it's an "intrinsic" change rather than a change due to a particle interaction along the way, but so far, that's never happened.
Huh? Why does it matter what the flavor change is due too?
Look at this info on neutrinos.
From that article:
quote:
The total flux of all neutrino flavours measured by SNO agrees well with the theoretical prediction. Further measurements carried out by the Observatory have since confirmed and improved the precision of the original result.
Notice how the science works - the observed flux of all neutrino flavors agrees with the theoretical predictions.
This is much more compelling than your guesses and conjectures based on faulty interpretations of videos......
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 13:08:32 [Permalink]
|
By the way, Michael, the neutrino issue actually does exemplify one of your charges against mainstream science, in that prominent subatomic physicists denied for years that their model of neutrinos was at fault in the "missing neutrinos" problem, because, they said, the successes of the model were "too dear" to them to make such an admission.
Of course, where this wonderful example of science's self-correction attributes differs from your account of institutional bias and career destruction for not toeing the line is that the particle physicists finally did admit that massless neutrinos were no longer a tenable position to hold, and that their model was therefore wrong, without losing massive amounts of funding or facing public ridicule. |
- 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 - 07/18/2006 : 14:53:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
By the way, Michael, the neutrino issue actually does exemplify one of your charges against mainstream science, in that prominent subatomic physicists denied for years that their model of neutrinos was at fault in the "missing neutrinos" problem, because, they said, the successes of the model were "too dear" to them to make such an admission.
That is simply inacurrate. There was simply no evidence until recently that demonstrated that neutrinos had mass. The fact they have mass was never a violation of any laws of particle physics. Intrinsic flavor changing on the other hand, does violate the laws of conservation of leptons. The mass aspect was never a serious problem, it's the claim of intrinsic flavor changing that's a problem. That *does* violate lepton conservation laws related to particle physics.
quote:
Of course, where this wonderful example of science's self-correction attributes differs from your account of institutional bias and career destruction for not toeing the line is that the particle physicists finally did admit that massless neutrinos were no longer a tenable position to hold, and that their model was therefore wrong, without losing massive amounts of funding or facing public ridicule.
I think you're confusing two different issues here Dave. It was never a problem for particle physics that neutrinos had mass. In fact their very existence was predicted on the fact that there is a missing amount of energy in some kinds of particle interactions. Neutrinos were thought to contain that missing energy. It's therefore hardly surprising from a particle physics perspective that they have mass. There was simply no direct observational evidence to support the belief they had measurable mass until recently.
There is however *no* evidence that they actually change flavor, and that idea *does* violate laws of particle physics. The gas model theory predicted nothing *but* electron neutrinos, whereas they found 3 different kinds of neutrinos, and only about a 1/3 as many electron neutrinos as a fusion model required. It's like "predicting" that we will recieve 100 baseballs, and ending up with 34 baseballs, 33 footballs, and 33 basketballs. We then claim our model was accurate based on the total number of balls. Since the total number is correct, we then "assume" that 100 baseballs were packed into the container at the factory, and we assueme that most of the baseballs turned into another ball somewhere during the shipping process after then left the factory. Some folks then created an experiment where they pitched 10 balls, and the catcher caught only 9 of them. They then claimed that this missing baseball is "strong evidence" to demonstrate that baseballs can turn into basketballs in mid-flight, even though no baseball or football was ever observed. None of the logic or evidence that folks claim is "strong" evidence to support neutrino flavor changing is actually exclusive evidence of anything of the sort. The only thing we know for sure is we do in fact have a 100 balls, and most of them are not the kind we expected to recieve. Could that mean that the solar model may be wrong? Of course not! The balls must change around at will, all on their own! |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/18/2006 14:57:59 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
