|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 08/17/2006 : 13:56:21
|
[This is a continuation of Surface of the Sun, Part 9]
Go on...
|
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 - 08/17/2006 : 14:02:02 [Permalink]
|
From the earlier thread:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Such filaments will also form across a sunspot as well. This is the way that plasma moves and flows. It's dynamic, and kinetic in nature. Tighly wound spirals form in the plasma. With enough current flow, they can wind so tightly that they ultimately z-pinch neutrons, and create fusion reactions and release excess energy as demonstrated by Sandia.
How much current flow, Michael, would be require to wind even a single plasma tornado so tighly that it begins the process of fusion?
P.S. Sorry I didn't mention it earlier, but thanks, Dave, for the time you took to explain the images to me. The "elementary" stuff you included was greatly appreciated. I haven't had much cause to think about electron orbits and whatnot since high school chemistry.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 14:23:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Cuniformist: Ugh. So here's my point: your argument is based largely on some fuzzy images that we can all agree are rather controversial. (Else there wouldn't be such disagreement.)
I think it's kinda cute how you attempt to relegate these million dollar solar satellite images to controversial fuzzy images. :)
These aren't just math formulas on a piece of paper, these are direct observations of solar phenomenon from multimillion dollar satellites. This is an areas of science, like any areas of science, and these aren't just "fuzzy images", they are direct observations.
quote:
But the implications of your arguments go far beyond discerning what some images are. You are arguing for things like a fundamental change in our understanding of the sun, but also gravity, density, and the early universe.
First of all, I did not try to change our fundamental understanding of gravity or density, I simply tried to suggest there may be movement (technically acceleration) in the Z axis of the solar system. Now that the voyager probes have started showing us where the solar sheath is located, there is actually evidence now to suggest this may be what's going on.
quote:
Despite this, though, it appears that you've done little to deal with any of those topics in any serious way.
Actually, I have spent a lot of time dealing with these things in a serious way.
quote:
When asked, you cut-and-paste links to articles from CNN, or hem and haw about how I'm too young to appreciate thise or that.
I'm ont hemming or hawing here. Newton used the analogy of a rock on string to describe the force of gravity. The only thing I'm adding to Newton's analogy is movement in the z-axis, or more specifically *acceleration* in the z-axis. Under these considitions, the string would have more tension, and the "density" computed without any allowances for movement in the z-axis would underrepresent the masses involved. I'm not changing any laws of physics here, simply movement patterns.
quote:
Without even starting to address these bigger questions in any serious way, no one is going to look at your fuzzy pictures and think "oh, there really is an iron surface to the sun."
I have addressed the "bigger questions" to the degree I know how do to that given the limited amount of data to work with. When I began these discussions I didn't even have voyager data to even help support the idea of movement in the z-axis. Now we know that the solar shealth is teardropped shaped, suggesting it's moving toward the south, or the cosmic wind is blowing from the south, or both. Since my information is quite limited however, I choose to focus on issues that have a lot more evidence to support them rather than focus on things for which there is limited data. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/17/2006 15:10:02 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 14:27:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Well, let's start here:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=s9ke93mf
[. . .]
quote:
Originally posted by me...
What on Earth does a photograph of a fire tornado which was created by a video special effects company have to do with providing evidence of a solid surface on the Sun?
It was meant to show Cune the kinetic energy "structures" that form in plasma. These structure are what I believe a coronal loop looks like if you looked at them up close. Tornados are a common feature in plasma. Such filaments will also form across a sunspot as well. This is the way that plasma moves and flows. It's dynamic, and kinetic in nature. Tighly wound spirals form in the plasma. With enough current flow, they can wind so tightly that they ultimately z-pinch neutrons, and create fusion reactions and release excess energy as demonstrated by Sandia.
Oh well, the fire tornado in the picture is made in a video production studio. It is about 10 feet tall and is made using ether as fuel which is subjected to a powerful vortex of moving air. It has absolutely nothing to do with solar science, filaments, plasma, z-pinch, or fusion reactions. But then again, understanding the relevance, or more often than not, as in this case, the irrelevance of any particular image, has never been your forte.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 15:00:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dave: No, I just misspoke, Michael. Running difference images highlight change, and only change. Movement is one source of change. Lighting can be another.
First off, I'm sorry that I missed this whole part of one of your posts Dave. My bad.
Indeed. We both seem to agree that change can be related to lighting changes and changes do to movement.
quote:
quote:
The reason we see the surface is not because it's "moving" but because the light source is "changing" and therefore the intensity of the relection in that areas of the surface "changes" from one frame to the next.
That's your theory, where is your evidence that Lockheed is wrong when it claims that the "gold" video shows nothing but temperature changes?
The consistent patterns, the changing lighting conditions, and the movements of the image itself.
quote:
quote:
We see the patterns because the surface does not move, but the lighting intensity shifts, and therefore any given area get's lighter *or darker* from one frame to the next.
So what does it mean when I see bright pixels next to dark pixels? I asked this before, but a single word in that long post got you all upset.
It can mean a lot of things, depending on what is happening in the coronal loops, and what specific "things" we're talking about in the image. For instance, if we're talking about a moving particle in the atmosphere that is reflecting light, the dark areas near the particle will represent a areas the particle is moving from, whereas the light area of the particle would represent the area it has now moved to since the last frame. If we're talking about a surface feature, it can show an area that reflects less light in that frame than in the frame before it. This can be due to a change in the light source.
quote:
quote:
We can see moving particles, but only because the lighting changes on these pixel areas too.
Why is it that we can't see them just because they're moving?
I'm not sure what you even meant by that comment. We see the "dust" blowing in the wind because the particles that reflect the light are moving, and where they have moved to will end up being brighter in the next frame, whereas the area it was in in the previous frame will appear darker in the next one.
quote:
It's not just movement that we see in this image, but also reflection/intensity *changes* over time.
Yeah, and?
Ya and this change in the lighting conditions from changes in the coronal loops during this timeline allow us to see changes in the reflection patterns of the surfaces the light comes off of. The rigid patterns of the surface become visible in this way.
quote:
No, I want to know why you think Lockheed is wrong.
I've never heard them explain a RD image. Dr. Hurlburt has put together many kinds of images, and I have no idea if he can explain a RD image.
quote:
quote:
If there were no surface to reflect the changing light, then we would not see the consistent patterns.
That's your theory, where is your evidence?
It's in the rigid fixed patterns Dave that are hardly effected at all by the force of the CME.
quote:
quote:
If you watch the patterns, the lighting changes up and down.
No, that's just the camera transients.
Camera transients that always occur in exactly the same patterns? How does that work?
quote:
quote:
Sometimes light areas are darker in the next frame and visa versa.
Camera transients again.
Same question. Why always in the same patterns?
quote:
quote:
The fact that the surface is there allows light to be reflected off the surface and the light changes from one frame to the next allow us to see the consistent patterns from the surface structures.
That's your theory, where is your evidence?
It's in the consistent patterns Dave. Plasma on the photosphere is in constant motion. The structures of the photosphere are transient and the come and go in very short timelines because there is motion in the plasma. There is no "motion" in the geometric shapes on the surface. If this was plasma reflecting these photons, that plasma would move, and the geometric shapes and patterns would more too. That's not what's happening.
[quote]I think if you answer my questions about the "wind," you'll better understand where I'm coming from. I predict, however, that you will avoid those questions, or reply with tautologies.
Again, I appologize for missing this earlier. The wind is what moves those particles in different directions in different areas of the image. If you look at the dust movements |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/17/2006 15:03:32 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 15:07:46 [Permalink]
|
This is all unbelievable.
Good grief.
Michael, you somehow expect me to see homologies between 20 mega-amp, 100 nanosecond pulses of electricity through 20 mm wires finer than a human hair and what you've described as huge electrical "arcs" that last for days across the "surface" of the Sun? I see no similarities between your alleged "arcs" and the Sandia Z accelerator whatsoever except for electricity. Yet an "arc" just 10,000 km long, lasting for a day, at the energies Sandia is using would require all the power of a hundred million Suns.
You also somehow except me to neglect the fact that you're pointing to fusion events recorded by RHESSI at arc "footpoints," which you claim are co-located with the surface, and now suggesting that those same fusion events are actually occuring in some sort of "tightly wound spiral" of plasma which can be seen above sunspots? Of course, the image you showed me has no 3-dimension cues in it at all (I have to remind myself that the sunspots shown aren't mountains, and the white blobs - including your "thread" - aren't clouds), so how you expect me to see something coming "out of" something else is beyond me.
You also expect me to neglect the fact that your source for the "vortex" stuff believes that sunspots are basically huge tornados, while you want me to think of them as huge upwellings of silicon plasma. Which one would you prefer I adhere to? Your version, or his? After all, he doesn't think that the coronal features aren't powered by anything internal to the Sun at all, while you do.
Perhaps you can keep these contradictory ideas in your head and consider them "true" at the same time - a brilliant form of cognitive dissonance - but I certainly cannot. Where is there any evidence of "tornados" in Kosovichev's mass-flow diagrams?
Actually, ignore all the above.
While you're trying to push me towards looking at days and days of SOHO data, without giving me any clues as to what you want me to look for, I'm still waiting for all of your evidence that the giant electrical arcs you see on the Sun can heat anything to million-plus Kelvin temperatures. Sandia's experiments certainly don't show that, since they only reach those temperatures with precision-manufactured, extremely tiny wires, and not a "non-homogenous" mixture of "metals" and "rock."
You want to be methodical? Then let's be methodical. Take a week or two - as long as you need - to put together your whole case for electrical resistive heating being responsible for the temperatures measured in coronal loops. The gamma-ray, X-ray, neutron and Sandia stuff don't present a case for that at all, all they say is, "well, these electrical events can cause effects like we see on the Sun," but they don't say anything about why I should think they really do cause those effects on the Sun.
Again, I'm tired of "could be" arguments, and want to see "must be" arguments. No more screwing around.quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
P.S. Sorry I didn't mention it earlier, but thanks, Dave, for the time you took to explain the images to me. The "elementary" stuff you included was greatly appreciated. I haven't had much cause to think about electron orbits and whatnot since high school chemistry.
Glad to be of service, H. |
- 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 - 08/17/2006 : 15:08:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Oh well, the fire tornado in the picture is made in a video production studio.
No kidding captian obvious.
quote:
It has absolutely nothing to do with solar science, filaments, plasma, z-pinch, or fusion reactions. But then again, understanding the relevance, or more often than not, as in this case, the irrelevance of any particular image, has never been your forte.
Whereas ignoring the pearls placed before you *is* evidently your only forte:
http://trace.lmsal.com/Public/Gallery/Images/movies/T171_991127.mov
Ya, tornados obviously have nothing to do with solar science.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 15:37:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And now you're just going backwards by lots of posts. So much for methodical.
I only meant to the "right" thing here Dave and answer some of your more relevant and important questions. I'm frankly a lot more interested in continuing our discussion of coronal loops and electricity, but since the RD issue is still "in debate". By all means let us move on. If Geemack wants to ask questions about RD images fine, but I'd rather that you and I continue discussing the electrical aspects of coronal loops since that is the area of this debate that I believe is the most likely to move us forward.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 15:40:06 [Permalink]
|
FYI Dave, I posted that image of a tightly wound tornado for your benefit as much as anyone else.
That is the "form" that I believe occurs in the coronal loop as electricity is running through a predominatly iron plasma. The kinetic energy that the tornado generates plays a major role in the neutron capture signature witnessed by Rhessi. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 16:27:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Cuniformist: Ugh. So here's my point: your argument is based largely on some fuzzy images that we can all agree are rather controversial. (Else there wouldn't be such disagreement.)
I think it's kinda cute how you attempt to relegate these million dollar solar satellite images to controversial fuzzy images. :)
Oh, so they're million dollar satellites? Well then, I guess I beleive you. Iron surface on the sun it is!
quote:
These aren't just math formulas on a piece of paper, these are direct observations of solar phenomenon from multimillion dollar satellites. This is an areas of science, like any areas of science, and these aren't just "fuzzy images", they are direct observations.
I think its cute that math is just some thing on a piece of paper, but when you look at pictures taken of an object 93 million miles away, you can see hills and valleys.
quote:
quote:
But the implications of your arguments go far beyond discerning what some images are. You are arguing for things like a fundamental change in our understanding of the sun, but also gravity, density, and the early universe.
First of all, I did not try to change our fundamental understanding of gravity or density, I simply tried to suggest there may be movement (technically acceleration) in the Z axis of the solar system. Now that the voyager probes have started showing us where the solar sheath is located, there is actually evidence now to suggest this may be what's going on.
I guess my high school physics class didn't cover this. Can you show a simple example-- using that math stuff that some scientists put on paper-- of how acceleration in the Z axis changes something's mass or density? Seriously-- I have no idea. Is there a formula?
quote:
quote:
Despite this, though, it appears that you've done little to deal with any of those topics in any serious way.
Actually, I have spent a lot of time dealing with these things in a serious way.
This apparently manifests itself in multiple ways of asking if anyone can explain an image using the gas model.
quote:
quote:
When asked, you cut-and-paste links to articles from CNN, or hem and haw about how I'm too young to appreciate thise or that.
I'm ont hemming or hawing here. Newton used the analogy of a rock on string to describe the force of gravity. The only thing I'm adding to Newton's analogy is movement in the z-axis, or more specifically *acceleration* in the z-axis. Under these considitions, the string would have more tension, and the "density" computed without any allowances for movement in the z-axis would underrepresent the masses involved. I'm not changing any laws of physics here, simply movement patterns.
So there's a formula that would allow us to calculate gravity or mass or density using this z-axis stuff. Right?
quote:
quote:
Without even starting to address these bigger questions in any serious way, no one is going to look at your fuzzy pictures and think "oh, there really is an iron surface to the sun."
I have addressed the "bigger questions" to the degree I know how do to that given the limited amount of data to work with. When I began these discussions I didn't even have voyager data to even help support the idea of movement in the z-axis. Now we know that the solar shealth is teardropped shaped, suggesting it's moving toward the south, or the cosmic wind is blowing from the south, or both. Since my information is quite limited however, I choose to focus on issues that have a lot more evidence to support them rather than focus on things for which there is limited data.
"From the south"?!? Like, Texas? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 19:46:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
FYI Dave, I posted that image of a tightly wound tornado for your benefit as much as anyone else.
That is the "form" that I believe occurs in the coronal loop as electricity is running through a predominatly iron plasma. The kinetic energy that the tornado generates plays a major role in the neutron capture signature witnessed by Rhessi.
Dammit, Michael, take the time to present a large, coherent argument about how all of your evidence ties together to show that (A) coronal loops are electric sparks, and (B) those electric sparks can generate million-plus Kelvin temperatures.
I'm not going to do this piece-by-piece anymore, since statements like the above will just make me ask for more evidence, and so we won't move anywhere. From now on, all I want to see is the scientific method: observations, hypotheses which logically follow from the observations, and possible experiments with which those hypotheses might be tested, and I want to see everything you've got to support the two tightly constrained theses, above. If you really think the vortex thing is important to neutron capture, then show me why it's necessary and how it's created, as a part of a large, overall summary of the above subjects.
I am sick of this "let me deliver my thesis in dribs and drabs, and when you object to one small piece, I'll introduce two more brand-new ideas to you instead of answer your objections" nonsense from you. Take the time to present the whole thing, or don't bother.
Hey, why not go ahead and put it all into a brand new page on your Website, titled "How We Know That Coronal Loops Must Be Electrical Arcs," or something like that? Then, you just have to post a link to it here, and we will all happily cut-and-paste from it, saving you lots of reformatting time, plus you'll finally have all your evidence for that one thing organized. That'd be a win-win solution, Michael, making everyone happy. Then you can do another page on how those electrical arcs are capable of heating the plasma to the extent measured. Again: everyone will be happy.
And I see you've got Cune all tied up with the "acceleration in the Z axis" thing, despite the fact that you're unable to explain (still!) how that should affect our measurements of the Sun in a non-Relativistic way, without resorting to the "force on a string" analogy which does nothing for you but confuse mass with angular momentum. Yes, I know I said "weight" before, but that's not true - although you didn't know to point that out, did you, Michael? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 20:54:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Dammit, Michael, take the time to present a large, coherent argument about how all of your evidence ties together to show that (A) coronal loops are electric sparks, and (B) those electric sparks can generate million-plus Kelvin temperatures.
You're probably right Dave, it probably is time for me to write a new paper on just this particular subject.
Just out of curiousity however, how much evidence is going to be "enough" evidence to convince you to the point that you won't want "more" evidence? 
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/17/2006 20:55:11 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 04:18:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Just out of curiousity however, how much evidence is going to be "enough" evidence to convince you to the point that you won't want "more" evidence?
Just like with every other scientist, Michael, your statements either need to be self-evident, matching the general consensus, or supported with evidence such that anyone should be able to agree that they are true. Your goal is to have every reasonable scientist say, "I can find no fault with Michael's premises or logic, so I agree that his proposed experiments will determine the truth of his model."
I mean, that is what you want, right? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 04:38:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Just out of curiousity however, how much evidence is going to be "enough" evidence to convince you to the point that you won't want "more" evidence?
Just like with every other scientist, Michael, your statements either need to be self-evident, matching the general consensus, or supported with evidence such that anyone should be able to agree that they are true. Your goal is to have every reasonable scientist say, "I can find no fault with Michael's premises or logic, so I agree that his proposed experiments will determine the truth of his model."
I mean, that is what you want, right?
No shit, Dave! I mean, what kind of question is "how much evidence do you want" anyway? How do you answer that? Quantitatively? "I want 2 megs worth!" Or what? Your answer should be obvious, and Michael should want to put enough out that that we have so say "enough already, we buy it!" |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 04:51:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Ya, tornados obviously have nothing to do with solar science.
Oh, again I forgot your communication skill level is below that of an average eleven year old. Each place where I referred to the irrelevant photo you posted I was, well, referring to that actual photo you posted. Allow me to repeat with clarification...
Oh well, the fire tornado in the picture is made in a video production studio. It [the fire tornado in the picture] is about 10 feet tall and is made using ether as fuel which is subjected to a powerful vortex of moving air. It [the fire tornado in the picture] has absolutely nothing to do with solar science, filaments, plasma, z-pinch, or fusion reactions. I'm sure you agree that the above comment is true. I'm sure you'll agree that the photo you posted has nothing to do with the Sun, with solar theory, nothing to do with astrophysics at all. I'm sure you'll also agree that tornadoes here on Earth, as a weather phenomenon or as a special effect created in a Hollywood studio, have absolutely nothing in common with any vortex type movements we might see on the Sun, other than perhaps a visual similarity and the simple fact that both are roughly tubular in shape and more or less spinning. So I'm sure you'll also now agree that the photo of the fire tornado is completely irrelevant to the current discussion, as I previously suggested.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
