|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 07/27/2006 : 15:32:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
One really interesting thing I saw on that last link is a graph that shows the relationship between the surface temperature of the earth's oceans and the number of sunspots.
http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/bmendez/ay10/2000/notes/1127.jpg
You'll notice that the temperature of the oceans rise as the number of sunspots increase, which would seem to stand in opposition of your belief that sunspots represent areas that are "cooler" on average than the surrounding materials of the photosphere. Some areas of the sunspote may be cooler, but areas of the sunspot may be much hotter as well.
Actually, if you look at the whole Sun, you'll see that areas outside sunspots get hotter when there are more sunspots. The total energy output of the Sun rises with sunspot activity.
Indeed it does Dave, and that would be the natural expectation of a Birkeland solar model too. The increased activity from the arcs from below are heating up the whole solar atmosphere. What *exactly* then is your real evidence for suggesting that the "average" temperature of a sunspot is 2000 degrees less than the rest of the photosphere?
|
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2006 : 20:07:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
When you get around to explaining how much pressure sits on the surface of the photosphere, then maybe we'll continue that conversation.
From this data set, for the r/R values over one,
Let's start with the basics here Dave. *Why* did you begin with this data set? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2006 : 20:13:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
or "Astronomers use blackbody principles to explain everything from the temperature of distance suns, to sunspots," you're simply telling everyone that you don't know what you're talking about.
Boloney Dave. Evidently you've never seen anyone explain sunspots uning blackbody principles, but you yourself said temperature was the issue too! Talk about not having credibility Dave.
Once again, you're trying to ignore the "explain... the temperature of distance suns" part and focus on the sunpots. You're using the words "explain" and "estimate" interchangably, but they have two very different meanings to science. A measurement (even an estimated one) is not a theory.quote:
Ya, you'll focus on the trivia, and ignore the main issues like those *brightly lit coronal loops*. Nevermind the fact you can't explain Lockheeds math, you're sure the loops aren't a greater temperature than the dark areas of the corona. Go figure.
Yeah, and you'll keep misrepresenting my position even after I explain it to you a zillion times. If you can't use the right words in the right order to describe your ideas, it's not a trivial problem.quote:
quote:
And if the Sun's photosphere were made of fondue, we'd also be hard-pressed to "explain" the temperature. So what?
This is why I'm about to bail out of this conversation. Instead of dealing with real issues, you're being flippent, difficult, and just plain evasive on all the core issue.
The core issue is that you haven't demonstrated the Sun's photosphere and other top "layers" to be as you describe them, but you still want to use your hypothesis as the premise for an argument about why estimating the temperature with blackbody principles is wrong - an argument you're making only in an attempt to bolster your argument that the Sun is constructed as you think it is. Your arguments are thus circular, assuming their conclusions as their premises. That's the real issue.
So the problem remains: if the Sun were constructed differently, our measurements would be different. That trivially true statement gets us nowhere, because you haven't shown that the Sun is constructed differently enough for blackbody estimates to fail.quote:
How do you expect to make any progress if you refuse to put up math to support Lockheed's interpretation...
Why do I need to do so? I've got nothing riding on Lockheed's interpretation. No matter what part of the corona is hotter than any other part of the corona, you still need to make a plausible temperature estimate and the make a plausible case that your model is capable of explaining that temperature estimate, just like you said it could. Until you do those things, which part of the corona is hotter than any other part really doesn't matter at all. I know you want to discuss that because (a) you think Lockheed is wrong, and (b) that's the order in which you arrived at your conclusions, but I don't care about Lockheed, and I think you went about constructing your theory backwards, anyway.quote:
...and you refuse to consider the math, images and logic I've presented related to the temperature of the coronal loops?
I never refused to consider it: I considered it, and found it to be without a testable basis, and you offered no laboratory experiments which might support your method of adding up images, which is your own "gold standard" for evidence. I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that your method of determining relative temperatures will actually determine relative temperatures. I've got some evidence which disproves it as a valid method, but would still like to see your positive evidence.quote:
quote:
Show that the blackbody estimates must be completely wrong, and scientists will stop using them.
They don't work on thin plasma Dave! Less than aerogel thin plasma is not going to act like perfect absorber or a perfect emitter.
It doesn't have to be perfect, only approximate. Thompson scattering says it'll be quite close to 100% when the layer is 550 km thick.quote:
It's not even certain what that plasma is made of!
You'd better tell that to Dr. Manuel, since his ideas about finding the abundances of elements in the bulk Sun are based upon having correct values for the abundances of elements in the photosphere.quote:
To then claim it's "Ok", to suggest it's "opaque" enough to be considered a "blackbody" is simply absurd.
But it is opaque enough. Or are Dr. Manuel's ideas about mass separation wrong, too?quote:
quote:
You won't be able to show that based upon your "thin layer" argument, since that's just an argument from incredulity which is demolished by your own use of Thompson scattering.
It is not Dave. You've not "demolished" anything. You're just winging it here when you claim it's "opaque". You have no idea if it's "opaque". You don't even know for sure what it's even made of, let alone know that it's "opaque". You certainly have no proof that this material acts like a "blackbody".
Using the same figures that Dr. Manuel relies on for his conclusions, along with the principles of Thompson scattering, I've already done the calculations which show that only one photon in 107 (about) will get through the entire photosphere without being absorbed. Your objections amount |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2006 : 20:46:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Great! Then oscillation is the more parsimonious explanation of all observed phenomena, and Occam's Razor says we should start looking with more parsimonious explanations.
That *might* be true *if* you already knew that gas model theory was a "law" Dave. Otherwise you're tyring to tie two "theories" together that are not necessarily even related in any way.
Nope, I'm not doing anything of the sort. The gas model clued researchers into some brand new physics, but the majority of the supporting evidence for oscillating neutrinos comes from sources right here on Earth, and have nothing to do with the Sun.quote:
Occum's razor arguments also would suggest we should be ruling out the more mundain options like scattering before we start creating frankenparticles that violate lepton conservation principles.
No, Occam's Razor states nothing more than if you're given two hypotheses which explain all of the evidence equally well, you should start looking at the one with the fewest assumptions. Your hypothesis - scattering - fails to explain all the evidence, and so doesn't even rise to the same level as oscillation.quote:
This is a particle physics question and the answer can be demonstrated *entirely* through particle physics *without* regard to solar models.
It already has been so demonstrated, Michael. As I said, you are ignoring the five-sixths of the evidence which doesn't involve the Sun at all.quote:
Since we do not know if the current solar model is accurate or inaccurate, there is nothing gained by trying to tie the two together, and there is the potential of being mislead by that "coincidence" or to "write off" the solar theory because it didn't predict the right type of neutrinos.
Absolutely correct, which is why the idea that neutrinos oscillate is firmly rooted in non-solar evidence.quote:
We don't know if these are related issues, and since it's a particle phyiscs question that can be entirely answered by particle physics, there is no need to worry about it.
Right, it's already been answered, and the particle physicists all agree that neutrinos oscillate between flavors as they travel.quote:
If neutrinos can oscillate, the tests should demonstrate that fact without making a bunch of *unnecessary assumptions* about the validity of gas model solar theory.
That's absolutely correct, and such tests have already shown it to be true.quote:
Occum's razor arguements also require that we keep things as simple as possible.
No, that's a common misunderstanding of Occam's words.quote:
There is no need to drag solar theory into this issue in any way.
Then why do you continue to do so?quote:
All of these ideas should be able to be demonstated though particle physics and the belong to the realm of particle phyiscs. Solar models are irrelevant.
Absolutely correct! It just so happens that our Earth-bound tests of neutrinos demonstrate that the solar model is correct when we take neutrino oscillation into account.quote:
The fact they have mass suggests they they can interact with Higgs Bosons inside the atom. A proximity to such a particle may have significant consequences for a particle with an unknown mass. We won't know until we check it out using *direct observation* to answer that question.
How is it that particles with only relativistic mass (like photons) have momentum and are affected by gravity, Michael? If interactions with the Higgs field is the only way for something to have mass, does sheer velocity cause Higgs interactions? If so, then neutrinos have always been thought to interact with the Higgs field, even when it was thought they had zero rest mass.quote:
quote:
How many weak nuclear force interactions are mediated by particle mass?
That isn't the issue to begin with!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
As it relates to scattering, this is the issue we need to be concerned about Dave, expecially now that we know they have mass.
The weak interaction, even though limited in range, is thirteen orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, Michael. Besides that, neither the Higgs Boson nor the graviton have ever been observed, Michael, so you are - by your own standards - saying that lots of tests should be done on the basis of "mythical" particle interactions.quote:
quote:
Right, you're just going to ignore all those atmospheric, reactor and accelerator studies with the correct total neutrino flux.
Absolutely not Dave. Those studies showed a high level of scattering on the far side on the earth. I think that's important data just like you.
Then you're handwaving the total flux being correct in those mostly Earth-bound experiments away as "coincidence."quote:
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2006 : 21:05:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
It's really funny how none of our measurements changed when someone said "neutrinos have mass!"
Why would that be "funny"? Who would expect the actual *measurements* to change only by changing our theories?
You have been saying just that, Michael, with your demands that all of our observations on neutrino scattering through the Earth need to be retested because our theory of neutrinos has changed, as if we'll get different results now than we did 20 years ago.quote:
What's "funny" is that the scattering *predictions* never changed as a result of us changing one of the key aspects of our *theory*. That's the part that is "funny" here.
You haven't been able to articulate why the predictions should have changed, Michael. You just keep saying "they have mass" as if neutrinos were predicted to be immune to gravity before they were discovered to have a non-zero rest mass.quote:
We observe there is a *lot* of scattering over the course of an entire planet.
No, we don't. Detectors which don't discriminate between the flavors measure the old model's predicted neutrino flux when a known amount of them are beamed at it, from any distance. It's only detectors which only measure one or two flavors of neutrino which come up with "missing" neutrinos, and as you've already agreed, scattering cannot explain that phenomenon.quote:
These "observations" have never changed, but our expectations about neutrino scattering never changed based on our discovery of mass, and that is precisely why the estimates don't jive with direct *observation". It's just that simple.
No, you've hugely oversimplified the situation by stating (wrongly) that neutrinos were once thought to be immune to the force of gravity.quote:
And now I've shown you eactly where to look to explain that observation of excess scattering that was never factored into early estimates of neutrino scattering interactions.
There is no observation of excess scattering, Michael. You are allowing your conclusion to become your premise in yet another argument. You can't assume that the observations show "excess scattering" until you demonstrate that the observations mean that there is "excess scattering." You haven't done so, you've just assumed it to be true.quote:
These predictions were based on a theory of a *massless* particle.
Yes, a particle with a rest mass of zero, yet still subject to gravity due to relativistic effects.quote:
There's no mystery here why "predictions" never jived with real life observation. Early predictions were based on belief that these are massless particles. We now know that original premise was false and they actually do have mass. There was a big change made to the core theory and absolutely *no* change was made to the scattering prediction. Therefore the "prediction" doesn't match "observation". What a big surprise.
The big surprise is that you clearly don't understand what the standard model of particle physics means when it says "particle X has zero mass." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2006 : 21:15:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Let's start with the basics here Dave. *Why* did you begin with this data set?
Because your data set is completely absent, and so I obviously couldn't start with that. If you had any density data to share, I could have started with it, as the whole process I described would largely be the same no matter what the actual numbers were to begin with. But you don't have any density data, so I couldn't use your data as an example set, no matter how much I would have actually preferred to have done so. Using your data and coming up with the right answer would have been much more convincing to you that the method works for estimating pressures.
But explanations of predicted values don't work in a data vacuum, so using anything but the standard solar model's data was literally a non-starter. |
- 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 - 07/28/2006 : 06:47:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Gravity and the magnetic fields created by the flow of electrity are the forces that separate the heavier isotopes.
I don't understand how in your model the electric field would result in mass separated layers. I can understand mass separation in terms of isotopes moving in an electric field or magnetic field, but I don't see how there could be mass separation in a static layer as it relates to an electric field.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 08:22:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Once again, you're trying to ignore the "explain... the temperature of distance suns" part and focus on the sunpots. You're using the words "explain" and "estimate" interchangably, but they have two very different meanings to science. A measurement (even an estimated one) is not a theory.
quote:
Indeed it does Dave, and that would be the natural expectation of a Birkeland solar model too. The increased activity from the arcs from below are heating up the whole solar atmosphere. What *exactly* then is your real evidence for suggesting that the "average" temperature of a sunspot is 2000 degrees less than the rest of the photosphere?
You never touched this question because it demonstrates the nature of your game. When I asked you to *explain* why a sunspot is darker than the surrounding material, you handed me dogma about the average temperature being lower than the surrounding material. I then showed you direct evidence that a prevelance of sunspots directly correlates to a *rise* in ocean temperature, not a drop in ocean temperature. I then asked you to offer me some direct evidence that the *average* temperature of a sunspot is 2000 degrees cooler than the surrounding materials, and you simply ignored the question altogether. Why?
Let me guess: You don't actually have any evidence that blackbody principles actually apply in these circumstance?
Likewise you have no evidence to suggest that color relates to temperature, or that blackbody principles are even applicable for "estimating" the temperature of distant stars. It's based on "faith" in a principle that by it's nature is unlikely to apply to something as thinly dispersed as light plasma.
And once again, you're trying to ignore the fact that you yourself attempted to *explain* the cause of a dark area of a sunspot in terms of temperature. You also are trying to ignore the fact that astronomers certainly do "teach" this dogma about estimating the temperature of different stars to their students irrespective of whether or not it's valid in the first place.
I ask you again then Dave. What *evidence* do you have that the average temperature of a sunspot is 2000 degrees cooler than the rest of the surface of the photosphere? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 08:53:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
How do you expect to make any progress if you refuse to put up math to support Lockheed's interpretation...
Why do I need to do so?
Because I based my model on satellite images Dave. Somewhere, sometime, I'd really like to discuss the actual satellite images in depth. If you refuse to explain the math that you are using to justify disagreeing with me on the subject of the temperature of the coronal loops vs. the rest of the corona, and you refuse to accept the information and math I've handed you, there is almost no way to begin to openly discuss 171A, 195A, and most other high energy satellite images.
quote:
I've got nothing riding on Lockheed's interpretation.
You can't even explain their interpretation but you cling to it none the less. Why?
quote:
No matter what part of the corona is hotter than any other part of the corona, you still need to make a plausible temperature estimate and the make a plausible case that your model is capable of explaining that temperature estimate, just like you said it could. Until you do those things, which part of the corona is hotter than any other part really doesn't matter at all.
That is false Dave. It certainly does matter. It matters if the loops are the heat source of the corona because it would explain how the corona gets hot. It would matter if the corona were the heat source of the loops, because it would explain how they reach temperatures of over million of degrees. Understanding the relationships here between coronal loops and the corona itself is *critically* important to satellite image analysis. You can't just ignore this relationship and claim it "doesn't matter at all" because I've not jumped though some hoops of your own design. What baloney.
quote:
I know you want to discuss that because (a) you think Lockheed is wrong, and (b) that's the order in which you arrived at your conclusions, but I don't care about Lockheed, and I think you went about constructing your theory backwards, anyway.
And to think you get upset at me when I misrepresent you.
No Dave, I did not arrive at my conclusion that Lockheed was wrong about this issue until long *after* I put up my website. I simply noticed that they are wrong about these things, because I wanted to understand their explanations for these images and in doing my research, that's what happened. At first I actually thought it was an innocent typo on their website and I politely emailed them about it.
I was literally shocked to discover that they actually tried to defend their position even after I sent them the Yohkoh/Trace overlay image. To be honest I was dumfounded. I'd been looking at Yohkoh images for 15 years as well as SOHO and Trace images for several years. It had never occured to me that anyone would actually think that the darker areas of all these images was *hotter* than the most brightly lit regions. That is irrational in the final analysis since all these high energy images show a direct correlation between light and the coronal loops. They could not justify their position any better than you can justify their position. That's when I decided they were wrong Dave, but not until long after my website was up and running.
This conversation is totally stuck in the mud at this point. You refuse to address any of the key issues directly. You won't address the consistant patterns and the details of that very first gold RD image on my website. You can't and won't justify the belief that coronal loops are cooler than the corona itself, but you defend Lockheed's interpretation of this issue anyway, even though you once agreed with me on this point. We're just going in circles now.
Even when I asked you why you chose the data set you chose to determine pressure on the photosphere, rather than explain how this data was created and verified, you immediately launched into an attack against me rather than defend your own position.
You utterly *refuse* to acknowledge the fact that the discovery of the presense of mass in neutrinos *could* influence the scattering rate. Instead you defend an old "prediction" that is A) proven to be wrong, and B) is based on old data and circumstances that no longer apply.
This conversation seems pretty pointless. About the only thing that's happening between us is mudslinging, pety insults and pointless aggravation. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 09:14:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You never touched this question because it demonstrates the nature of your game.
No, I didn't "touch" it because I had already answered it.quote:
When I asked you to *explain* why a sunspot is darker than the surrounding material, you handed me dogma about the average temperature being lower than the surrounding material. I then showed you direct evidence that a prevelance of sunspots directly correlates to a *rise* in ocean temperature, not a drop in ocean temperature. I then asked you to offer me some direct evidence that the *average* temperature of a sunspot is 2000 degrees cooler than the surrounding materials, and you simply ignored the question altogether. Why?
Why not? The total energy output of the Sun is barely affected by the number of sunspots on it. Your attempts at saying that because there are more sunpots the Sun should be cooler are simply contradictory to the evidence (including Kosovichev's structure of a sunspot) that the Sun, the whole Sun, becomes hotter when sunspot activity is at a maximum.quote:
Let me guess: You don't actually have any evidence that blackbody principles actually apply in these circumstance?
No, we've got all the Earthbound evidence for blackbody principles applying fairly well to highly opaque bodies like the Sun. You are making a plea for special treatment of the Sun and other stars, when we have no reason to do so.quote:
Likewise you have no evidence to suggest that color relates to temperature, or that blackbody principles are even applicable for "estimating" the temperature of distant stars. It's based on "faith" in a principle that by it's nature is unlikely to apply to something as thinly dispersed as light plasma.
Gee, what did I say?Thanks to your mention of Thompson scattering and your reliance upon Dr. Manuel's reliance on having good photosphere values, you've effectively debunked your own "thin layer of thin plasma" argument. I predict that you'll continue to insist that your complaints amount to a meaningful objection to well-established theory, though, because if you had a better argument you would have already presented it. My prediction was correct.quote:
And once again, you're trying to ignore the fact that you yourself attempted to *explain* the cause of a dark area of a sunspot in terms of temperature.
Utter nonsense, Michael. I never even attempted to explain the cause of a sunspot. You asked me to explain why a sunspot is darker than the surrounding photosphere. That's not the cause of one.quote:
You also are trying to ignore the fact that astronomers certainly do "teach" this dogma about estimating the temperature of different stars to their students irrespective of whether or not it's valid in the first place.
What makes you think that it's not valid, Michael?quote:
I ask you again then Dave. What *evidence* do you have that the average temperature of a sunspot is 2000 degrees cooler than the rest of the surface of the photosphere?
All the work that went into the formulation of the laws that make up what we call "blackbody principles," and all of their repeated successes over the intervening decades. Where have they failed us, Michael? I see no evidence that they ever have, so long as they are applied appropriately. And since you brought up Thompson scattering, and Dr. Manuel's "corrections" to photospheric abundance numbers, we know that the photospher is highly opaque to all wavelengths of light, making it a decent blackbody. |
- 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 - 07/28/2006 : 09:21:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
Gravity and the magnetic fields created by the flow of electrity are the forces that separate the heavier isotopes.
I don't understand how in your model the electric field would result in mass separated layers. I can understand mass separation in terms of isotopes moving in an electric field or magnetic field, but I don't see how there could be mass separation in a static layer as it relates to an electric field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_sheath
This is probably the best question I've been asked in months, and it warrants a long response. Based on my workload today, I probably won't have a chance to do it this morning, but I will give you a complete answer later today or tomorrow. For the time being, you might look at the link I provided as well as concepts about double layers in plasma. The sheath is what forms between the surface and the plasma. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 09:47:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
How do you expect to make any progress if you refuse to put up math to support Lockheed's interpretation...
Why do I need to do so?
Because I based my model on satellite images Dave. Somewhere, sometime, I'd really like to discuss the actual satellite images in depth. If you refuse to explain the math that you are using to justify disagreeing with me on the subject of the temperature of the coronal loops vs. the rest of the corona, and you refuse to accept the information and math I've handed you, there is almost no way to begin to openly discuss 171A, 195A, and most other high energy satellite images.
And that says nothing about why I should have to support Lockheed's interpretation of anything, Michael. You've got it stuck in your head that because I'm waiting for you to provide testable evidence that supports your own math, I must agree with Lockheed's. But I don't know what Lockheed's math is, nor do I care anymore. If you can support your position, do so. If not, too bad. Either way, Lockheed is irrelevant to your ideas.quote:
quote:
I've got nothing riding on Lockheed's interpretation.
You can't even explain their interpretation but you cling to it none the less. Why?
How am I clinging to it, Michael? Disagreement with you does not imply agreement with Lockheed. Your false dichotomy is rejected.quote:
That is false Dave. It certainly does matter. It matters if the loops are the heat source of the corona because it would explain how the corona gets hot. It would matter if the corona were the heat source of the loops, because it would explain how they reach temperatures of over million of degrees. Understanding the relationships here between coronal loops and the corona itself is *critically* important to satellite image analysis. You can't just ignore this relationship and claim it "doesn't matter at all" because I've not jumped though some hoops of your own design. What baloney.
No, Michael, you've already got a theory about what causes coronal heating. I'm waiting for you to support your theory either with hard evidence or plausibly testable estimates. It doesn't matter to me whether the loops heat the corona or if the corona heats the loops, you tell me which way you think it is, and then demonstrate your ideas to be correct.quote:
No Dave, I did not arrive at my conclusion that Lockheed was wrong about this issue until long *after* I put up my website.
Did I say otherwise? No, my comment was that you arrived at your conclusions about what's heating what backwards to the way that most scientists would go about it. That was independent of the Lockheed bit.quote:
This conversation is totally stuck in the mud at this point. You refuse to address any of the key issues directly.
I'm waiting for you to support your claims with testable evidence.quote:
You won't address the consistant patterns and the details of that very first gold RD image on my website.
The fact that you reject my explanations of that image don't mean I didn't address it, Michael.quote:
You can't and won't justify the belief that coronal loops are cooler than the corona itself, but you defend Lockheed's interpretation of this issue anyway, even though you once agreed with me on this point.
The problem there is still yours, Michael: I don't defend Lockheed's interpretation, I'm waiting for you to provide testable evidence in support of your interpretation.quote:
We're just going in circles now.
Yes, because you refuse to provide testable evidence in support of your claims, we can't go anywhere.quote:
Even when I asked you why you chose the data set you chose to determine pressure on the photosphere, rather than explain how this data was created and verified, you immediately launched into an attack against me rather than defend your own position.
What are you talking about, Michael. Is it or is it not a fact that you have no pressure or density data to share? Is it or is it not a fact that my explanation relies upon having data of some sort? Would you have been satisfied with my "explanation" that the pressure at the photosphere will be determined by P = sum from r=696,000km -> r=149,000,000km of Gmsunf(r)/r4, where f(r) is a function which results in the density of the solar "atmosphere" at distance r from the Sun's center? I doubt it, and I'm sure you would have asked me to define f(r), just as I attempted to do.
Besides, you didn't ask me to explain how the data was created and verified, you asked me why I picked it. I gave you a straightforward and truthful answer: I picked it because you have no data. So, regardless of the creation or validation methods of the Model S predictions, they exist.quote:
You utterly *refuse* to acknowledge the fact that the discovery of the presense of mass in neutrinos *could* influence the scattering rate.
You can't explain why it would "influence the scattering rate" (since neutrinos have always been subject to gravity), nor will you acknowledge that it hasn't influenced it at all, nor will you acknowledge that Earth-bound neutrino experiments having nothing to do with the Sun have provide |
- 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 - 07/28/2006 : 10:12:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why not? The total energy output of the Sun is barely affected by the number of sunspots on it. Your attempts at saying that because there are more sunpots the Sun should be cooler are simply contradictory to the evidence
Not according to this image Dave:
What specific "evidence" are you talking about?
quote:
(including Kosovichev's structure of a sunspot) that the Sun,
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/sunssu2s.mpg
Look at this image again Dave. We see a great deal of heat build up just under the sunspot. That heat is a direct result of the electrical activity going on at the surface in this region, and just under this region. The delineation between the red and the blue areas just under the sunpot shows us where the silicon layer ends and the neon layer typically begins. That heated plasma and electrical activity near the surface creates tornado like structures in the photosphere:
http://trace.lmsal.com/Public/Gallery/Images/movies/T171_991127.mov
Some of that heated plasma rises up through the neon layer producing all sorts of up and down flow patterns in the photosphere that you can see in these images:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg
The presense of sunspots is a direct result of the heating that is going on near the surface. That heat causes the silicon plasma to rise up though the photosphere, and when it reaches the chromosphere, the different between the density of the heated silicon plasma and the helium plasma becomes too great, so the material "flares out" leaving a noticeable pattern in the surface of the photosphere, and that material begins to cool off and it sinks back through the neon layer again.
The increase in sunspot activity is directly related to heating processes underneath the photosphere. That is why the ocean temperature rise, and why the increasing electrical activity creates sunpots. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/28/2006 10:13:45 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 10:43:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why not? The total energy output of the Sun is barely affected by the number of sunspots on it. Your attempts at saying that because there are more sunpots the Sun should be cooler are simply contradictory to the evidence
Not according to this image Dave:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/seaandsunspots.jpg
What are you talking about, Michael? That image correlates number of sunspots with ocean temperatures, and doesn't show total Sun temperature at all.quote:
What specific "evidence" are you talking about?
The helioseismology evidence Kosovichev talks about wherein the hotter plasma is pushed out around sunspots by the downwelling cool plasma in the middle.quote:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/sunssu2s.mpg
Look at this image again Dave. We see a great deal of heat build up just under the sunspot.
Yes.quote:
That heat is a direct result of the electrical activity going on at the surface in this region, and just under this region.
That's your theory. Where is your evidence to show this theory is correct?quote:
The delineation between the red and the blue areas just under the sunpot shows us where the silicon layer ends and the neon layer typically begins.
That is your theory again.quote:
That heated plasma and electrical activity near the surface creates tornado like structures in the photosphere:
http://trace.lmsal.com/Public/Gallery/Images/movies/T171_991127.mov
Considering that we can easily see the curvature of the Sun in that movie, it's ridiculous to think that those "tornadoes" are less than several tens of thousands of kilometers high, and thus cannot be "in the photosphere" under your model of the Sun. Actually, just knowing the spacial resolution of the TRACE cameras tells us that those features are very tall, indeed. If I remember the resolution correctly, I calculate those features to be somewhere close to 90,000 km tall, so everything in your model between the alleged surface and the top of the photosphere would be less than one-eighteenth as tall as one of those "tornadoes." I don't see how they could be "in the photosphere" unless you mean like a child playing after a storm can be jumping "in" a puddle.quote:
Some of that heated plasma rises up through the neon layer producing all sorts of up and down flow patterns in the photosphere that you can see in these images:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg
And how is it, amongst all that violent roiling, that your allegedly mass-separated layers remain mass separated?quote:
The presense of sunspots is a direct result of the heating that is going on near the surface. That heat causes the silicon plasma to rise up though the photosphere...
Of course, in Kosovichev's mass-flow maps of a sunspot, we don't see anything rising to the surface. It's all downflow in the sunspot itself. Where is your evidence that Kosovichev's mass-flow diagrams are wrong? And if they are wrong, then you will have successfully impeached your own witness for the mass flows "flattening out."quote:
...and when it reaches the chromosphere, the different between the density of the heated silicon plasma and the helium plasma becomes too great, so the material "flares out" leaving a noticeable pattern in the surface of the photosphere, and that material begins to cool off and it sinks back through the neon layer again.
That's your theory. Where is your evidence to support it?quote:
The increase in sunspot activity is directly related to heating processes underneath the photosphere. That is why the ocean temperature rise, and why the increasing electrical activity creates sunpots.
Still more theory, and nothing supporting it.
And since your assumptions are based on your unsupported theories, they don't amount to any sort of scientific objection against the "blackbody explanation" in which 4,000 G magnetic fields constrain (and thus cool) surface-level plasmas, which sink. Hey, there's another question: in that image you showed me which proved the "thickness" of the top layers, why is it that a sunspot has a lower elevation in your model, when you claim it's due to upwelling plasma? |
- 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 - 07/28/2006 : 11:27:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And that says nothing about why I should have to support Lockheed's interpretation of anything, Michael. You've got it stuck in your head that because I'm waiting for you to provide testable evidence that supports your own math, I must agree with Lockheed's. But I don't know what Lockheed's math is, nor do I care anymore. If you can support your position, do so. If not, too bad. Either way, Lockheed is irrelevant to your ideas.
Fine Dave. You've seen the evidence I've presented you. Give me one good reason to believe I'm wrong about the loops being hotter than the surrounding materials.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
