|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 08/20/2006 : 03:47:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You're the one who suggested that surface tension has something to do with your solid shell, Michael, so how would you suggest that you provide support for that idea?
It would have applied to any sort of "molten iron" that might have existed at the surface *prior* to it hardening. Such factors come into play even now when the surface cracks.
quote:
No, you've handed me a link to an article about the surface tension of molten iron with other elements contaminating it. You also haven't handed me a link to an article about the surface tension of any solid, so the link is entirely irrelevant in the first place.
Be reasonable. You know perfectly well now that there is "contamination" in the surface crust in the model I've presented, and that the crust in my model contains many elements. I even called it "Calcium Ferrite" a number of times during our discussions. This implies impurities Dave, as do the two meteorite images I put on the first page of my website that I am suggesting are indicative of the range of elements that form the surface.
quote:
I'm surprised that you - someone who found a single personal affront a few weeks ago so devestating that you were willing to give up this entire discussion -
I simply don't wish to participate in a personally hostile discussion with you Dave. It's not worth my time or yours. If you wish to discuss the issue professionally, I'm all for it, but our relationship shouldn't be "personal".
quote:
would find simple questions so important that you would feel compelled to reply, and thus try to lay the blame for any delay in our discussions on me.
Well, no, I'm not surprised. You've shown yourself to be quite willing to shift the blame for failures of your rhetoric to other people. This "I can't work on what you want while you ask me questions about something else" ludicrous defense is par for the course.
I'm not "blaming" you Dave, I'm simply noting I'm "busy" doing the very thing you asked for. The least you could do is accept I'm working on it, and give me a week or two to do what you asked before dreaming up some silly strawman out of what I said.
Sometimes I think you're way too interesting in "scoring points" through "put downs", and that sometimes you tend to overlook the big picture. Molten iron (with impurities) certainly has a "surface tension", as would virually any liquid before it hardens. Instead of trying to understand where I'm coming from, I think you're way to busy trying to build a strawman out of what I actually said. Frankly you don't seem the least bit interested in the answers I might give you, because it doesn't quite fit the strawman that *you* created. *Your* suggestion of "surface tension" in solids is a perfect example of you twisting my statements to suit your self. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/20/2006 04:48:17 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 04:15:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
He just knows that it all works somehow because he sees funny "structures" in pictures that no one at NASA has the time to explain to him, even though he feels he's important enough that they should.
You really aught to keep up with this conversation and at least *read* my website. Stein from NASA/ESA (Dr. SOHO) spent a great deal of time with me "explaining" running difference images. Dr. Kosovichev and I also exchanged many emails over his running difference Doppler images. Even though we don't agree, I appreciated his efforts and I like Dr. Kosovichev (and Stein) a great deal. I even went so far as to post a specific quote that Dr. Kosovichev asked me to post on my website and I posted my rebuttal to that quote on the tsunami page of my website. I also publicly thanked Stein for his patience and his efforts on the running difference page of my website. Have you even read my website yet?
Only LMSAL seems to be incapable of offering explanations of running difference or running average images. My contacts at NASA on the other hand have returned virtually every email I've ever sent them. NASA has never been aloof, or too good to be bothered by John Q public. Only LMSAL seems to think they're too important to be questioned by the public.
quote:
They're all too scared of rocking the establishment with his brilliant ideas, you see. (Don't laugh too hard, Michael seems to actually believe this.)
If there is one individual at LMSAL that should be able to explain the first running difference (or more likely running average) image on my website in great detail, it's Dr. Hurlburt. LMSAL however wouldn't even tell me who created the image and they wouldn't be bothered answering my questions. Based on Geemacks lack of a response from Neal, it's not just me they aren't talking to about the details of this image.
NASA isn't the problem, nor is Stanford. I respect both institutions, even if we disagree. Both these institutions were more than happy to attempt to answer all of my questions very patiently and in a highly professional manner. LMSAL however as an instition is evidently way too important and "special" to be "questioned" or bothered to answer any direct questions about their own images asked by outsiders. I know now it's not just me they treat like this since Geemack isn't getting any direct answers to the questions related which shots were used or the timeline of the image, let alone a comprehensive explanation for the rigid patterns in this image, or any explanation for the movement patterns in the image. I'm pretty certain at this point that LMSAL hasn't a clue what they're looking at in satellite images in general, since they can't even get the heat signature right. That heat signature is directly related to the light source of all the original images. If you don't understand the light source of the original images, you could never hope to interpret the running difference or running average images.
I've had no trouble getting direct and professional answers out of NASA and Stanford. Only LMSAL is evidently too aloof or too afraid to answer direct questions from the public about the images on their website. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/20/2006 05:01:48 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 07:33:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
What about the pressure ir air, etc., around the "shell"? How does that compare to the pressure around the iron crust of the sun? How does the sun's massive gravity play into the dynamics of its iron shell versus the gravity of the air bubble and how it plays into the dynamics of its water shell?
Great and relevant questions to be sure, but how we measure the "pressure" of the universe around us, including neutrinos with mass, dark energy, EM fields, etc?
Indeed how?
The standard gas model can explain the sun's volume, density, energy output, and neutrino emissions without resorting to dark matter, dark energy, EM-files and Birkeland currents.
It's such a more elegant model I can't for my life figure out why I would like to substitute it for Mozina's Black Box (made of mostly iron) which keep getting more and more unknowns that eludes detection.
quote:
You would look at the glass sphere "shell" of a plasma ball, and weight the plasma ball, and "rightfully" claim the ball cannot be made of "solid glass". It may be however that the glass in the plasma ball represents more than 50% of the weight of the total glass plasma ball.
But then there wouldn't be enough mass to sustain even a cold neutron star like the one you claimed should be in the sun.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 09:07:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky...
All the math? How about some of the math? Or any of the math? I don't remember the last time you posted a calculation, and I think that may be because you never posted any.
Oh, Ricky, how soon you forget. He posted "A+B=C". That was the math he did to show Dave that overlaying one satellite image on another would necessarily demonstrate that brighter equals hotter. But, since in all of Michael's over 1200 postings, that "A+B=C" was the only math he has ever presented, I can understand how you might have missed it. 
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 09:26:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
That isn't to suggest that all the details of this model are covered yet, or that all the math is done, or that all the "issues" have been dealt with.
All the math? How about some of the math? Or any of the math? I don't remember the last time you posted a calculation, and I think that may be because you never posted any.
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about, Ricky. I've only really followed this debate for the last 2 or 3 threads (!!!), but in all of it, Dave has posted much more math of the type I'm interested in. That is, if we're going to even think of entertaining radical new ideas of the make up of the sun and other stars, I'd like to know if it is allowed for using our understanding of basic physics.
And it seems to me to be a logical approach of anyone that after spending some time looking at images and reading Dr. Manuel's stuff that they'd stop and look at the physics of it all.
It doesn't seem that Michael has done that, yet. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 12:22:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky...
All the math? How about some of the math? Or any of the math? I don't remember the last time you posted a calculation, and I think that may be because you never posted any.
Oh, Ricky, how soon you forget. He posted "A+B=C". That was the math he did to show Dave that overlaying one satellite image on another would necessarily demonstrate that brighter equals hotter. But, since in all of Michael's over 1200 postings, that "A+B=C" was the only math he has ever presented, I can understand how you might have missed it.
Hey, can you go back over that A,B,C thingy again? I missed it, and I'm not too good with math. I don't want the calculations to leave me behind on this. Need that good foundation before we move on to the hard stuff. And what's the idea of using letters instead of numbers anyway? Geez!
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 12:45:40 [Permalink]
|
This ridicule for the math that I actually provided says volumes. You guys don't care about math or logic. Evidently you folks assume that if there isn't any complicated math involved, the answer can't be right, and it deserves ridicule. Complicated math has become your crutch.
None of you provided any math whatsoever to substanciate Lockheed's "interpretation" of the heat signatures of the corona. The hypocrisy is blatent. Evidently it's perfectly fine for you guys to provide zip in the way of math, and also to criticize any other method that *does* include the math, and a visual presentation of the math in black and white. Evidently you aren't bound by your own rules. You guys are totally transparent.
I showed you in black and white and mathematically why the loops have to be a greater temperature than the surrounding darker areas of the corona. You seem to disagree, but not one of you can provide any math to substanciate your position. You claim math is king, but in this case the math is quite simple, and it's a black and white issue, but you refuse to hear it anyway, and you refuse to provide any math to substanciate your ridicule.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/20/2006 12:47:01 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 13:20:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
This ridicule for the math that I actually provided says volumes. You guys don't care about math or logic. Evidently you folks assume that if there isn't any complicated math involved, the answer can't be right, and it deserves ridicule. Complicated math has become your crutch.
None of you provided any math whatsoever to substanciate Lockheed's "interpretation" of the heat signatures of the corona. The hypocrisy is blatent. Evidently it's perfectly fine for you guys to provide zip in the way of math, and also to criticize any other method that *does* include the math, and a visual presentation of the math in black and white. Evidently you aren't bound by your own rules. You guys are totally transparent.
I showed you in black and white and mathematically why the loops have to be a greater temperature than the surrounding darker areas of the corona. You seem to disagree, but not one of you can provide any math to substanciate your position. You claim math is king, but in this case the math is quite simple, and it's a black and white issue, but you refuse to hear it anyway, and you refuse to provide any math to substanciate your ridicule.
*Ugh* Talk about crutches! We're back to the "can anyone explain these images" refrain.
So here's the deal, Michael. I can't explain your images in any model, since I have no background in anything that would help me explain them. Indeed, when you start going into arcs and coronal loops and pixels and whatnot, I'm lost.
However, I am smart enough to work out basic math and physics, like calculating mass and density, and figuring precentages and the like. You argue that "complicated math has become your crutch" but in fact it's the opposite! This math-- which isn't too complicated-- is the only thing I am going to be able to understand, and the only way I can participate in the discussion.
Look back at my entire body of material related to this question. I've never gotten into any of the image debate except to ask the most basic questions. In general, I've had to take steps back and go to the general astronomy and physics to try and see what you're saying. And unfortunately, besides some links to NASA and CNN, you haven't been willing to engage me in those discussions.
I cannot explain your images, nor can I pretend to know what Lockheed is thinking with their explanations. Or whatever. You can claim a victory at this point, but winning a debate about Birkeland models and Gauss fields isn't much when you're talking to an Assyriologist.
So again, if you want to have a conversation about your ideas based on RD images and the like, then we've had it and we're done. If you want to talk about the basic physics of your model-- things I can understand-- then I'm happy. But it will require some basic math and such calculations, and you've been short of supplying those. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 13:23:54 [Permalink]
|
There is the sun's high end heat signature in black and white. The math is very simple. This is no more complicated or different than logically recognizing that the lightning discharges in the earth's atmosphere release heat into the atmosphere.
If there's some complicated math that you folks would like to provide to explain to me how those brightly lit loops rising from the surface are "cooler" than that darker background, I'm all ears. If not, your ridicule isn't going to change reality one iota. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/20/2006 13:27:27 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 13:42:05 [Permalink]
|
Cune, please checkout this image. This image is a composite image of both the 171A and 195A images of the sun's horizon by the Trace spacecraft.
I'm going to explain this image based on Lockheed's "interpretation" of the location of the photosphere and the "transitional region" so that there can be no doubt as to what I'm talking about.
The background of the sun is dark because we are looking down onto a photosphere that is only 6K degrees, with a chromosphere on top that is less than 20 thousand degrees Kelvin. Neither of these Trace filters can see anything less than about 160 thousand degrees Kelvin, and therefore it's only going to see plasma that far and away exceeds that backgound temperatures of the photosphere and chromosphere.
If you look at the horizon line, you'll see a very distinct line where the photosphere and chromosphere end and the corona begins. The lightest areas of these images are right at the base of the arcs, because this is where most of the heating takes place. The arc rise into the atmosphere and they "light up" the darker atmosphere. If you look at a plasma ball, you will see filaments inside the plasma when current is flowing. These "loops" are just such loops, only on a much more massive scale, and with a lot more current running through them. Note that if you increase the voltage of a common plasma ball to high enough voltages, they will release x-rays, just like the x-rays we see coming from these loops.
There's nothing really compolicated here. The darker areas are dark because the backround of the sun is relatively *cool* on average. The lit parts of the atmosphere are areas inside and directly around the loops.
Since each of these images uses a relatively long shutter speed, we do see "scattering" in the atmosphere, just as you would see scattering in the air molecules during a lightening strike.
There's nothing complicated about this image. It's very straight forward, and no math is even required to grasp what's going on here on a rudimentary level. Just as I would tell you that the lightening discharges are "hot" and something to be avoided if you're a human being, so too these coronal loops are much hotter and more energetic than the relatively dark corona. There's no mystery here. The sun is relatively dark because most of it is relatively cool. The coronal loops are the hot, million degree exception in the 10's of thousands of degree plasma rule. It that were not the case, we'd all but burned to crispy critters. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 13:47:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If there's some complicated math that you folks would like to provide to explain to me how those brightly lit loops rising from the surface are "cooler" than that darker background, I'm all ears. If not, your ridicule isn't going to change reality one iota.
Christ, you're dense. I have no idea how I would even beging to explan loops or the corona or anything else in any sort of model-- gas or solid surface or twinkie cream filling or anything else. Please-- take satisfaction in my not being able to explain your pictures.
But your victory is hollow if you can't even explain how the sun's density when explained in a model using almost exclusively hydrogen and helium is the same when you remove the hydrogen and helium (the two least dense elements known in the universe) and replace them with super-dense elements like iron. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 14:02:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Michael, you seem to have a misunderstanding of what a physics model is. When presented to a general audience, the math behind the formulation of the model is always almost excluded. That's what we want.
But Ricky, I think you are are expecting a lot more than any single human being could give you from only 16 months of effort. Most of my time has been spent simply trying to understand what I'm looking at in these satellite images, and trying to understand how the sun works internally so that I might eventually begin to put together a mathematical model that would adequately and accruately represent what's going on.
There seems to be a strong need in the field of astronomy today to *oversimplify* an idea in an effort to create some sort of quantifyable math formula, even though we don't know whether such an oversimplification even applies in the first place.
For instance, how do you know that the plasmas of the sun aren't mass separated by the element when you quote elemental abundance numbers? Why the delineation between the photosphere and the chromosphere and the chromosophere and the corona? How do you know that's not due to mass separation by the element? Where does that cooler plasma we see in sunspot activity come from?
quote:
Taking numbers which represent color intesity and adding them together is not the math we are looking for. We are looking for the math behind your model which describes how your model works.
The first place I'm going to attempt to apply any math is to the coronal loops themselves since that is the natural starting point. That probably won't change the fact you'd like to have a complete physical mathematical model for the *whole* model rather than one aspect. Like gas model theory however, it will take many years of effort by more than a handful of individuals to produce such a model. It certainly won't happen overnight, and I won't be the only one to do it.
If however you want to talk about math and how it applies to solar satellite images, these images are a perfect place to start. Those loops are the light source of all running difference and running average images, and if we are to understand those kinds of images, first we have to understand what the light source is. You're looking at it. Those loops, and those electrical discharges are the light source for all the running difference/average images we might look at. Before we can apply any math at all to the surface features, we all have to agree on a light source.
We have to learn to walk before we are going to run as it relates to mathematical modeling. If we can't even agree on the temperature signature of the solar atmosphere, and the light source of raw images, it's not likely we're going to get very far in satellite image interpretion.
I see no evidence on Lockheed Martin's website to suggest that they even accurately understand the heat signature of the corona, let alone the light source of these images. I see no evidence they have any experise at actually *explaining* running difference/running average images, other than perhaps to explain the mechanical details of how the software routines work.
I've never heard anyone mathematically model the heat source of the corona using gas model theory, and yet you overlook this lack of a mathematical model. There should be no double standards applied to a Birkeland solar model, particularly at this stage of the game. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/20/2006 14:35:51 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 14:29:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Christ, you're dense.
Come on Cune. We've had a great relationship thus far. Let's not go there.
quote:
I have no idea how I would even beging to explan loops or the corona or anything else in any sort of model-- gas or solid surface or twinkie cream filling or anything else.
Then educate yourself on these subjects, and don't take my word for anything. Your own curiousity should motivate you, not me. I certainly shouldn't be your only 'teacher' at this point.
quote:
Please-- take satisfaction in my not being able to explain your pictures.
I take no such satisfaction Cune. That is why I've been patiently trying to explain these images to you conceptually, step by step, so that you *will* understand them. I'm not trying to gloat. Up until April of 2005, I couldn't fully explain these images conceptually let alone in any detail. Why would I pick on you for being where I was 16-18 months ago?
quote:
But your victory is hollow if you can't even explain how the sun's density when explained in a model using almost exclusively hydrogen and helium is the same when you remove the hydrogen and helium (the two least dense elements known in the universe) and replace them with super-dense elements like iron.
You need to understand that I am not even seeking any sort of "victory" here between us. The only 'victory' I might even achieve at this point is convincing you to keep an open mind. I won't do that by alienating you and seeking some sort of ego gratification from this process.
My experience during these sorts of debates is that most folks would like to find a way (a good rationalization) to "blow me off". They will often try to look for some percieved weakness and "latch onto" a single issue and then expect me to explain that issue to them in great detail. If I can't do so on command, that inability on my part is then used as an internal excuse for them to then ignore the rest of the evidence that I have presented to support my case. It's a common human reaction I think, but it's not very scientific.
Even if I could do *no* math at all personally, my explanations are not necessarily "wrong" because of this lack of an ability to express these things mathematically. Fortunately math was my minor in college so that should not be a problem forever.
You also need to recognize that humans can grasp something in a general and conceptual sense without first understanding the mathematics or physics behind the processes. In other words, I can know that a lightening bolt is hot, without being able to express that lightening bolt in mathematical terms, complete with voltages and amperage information. There is no one to one correlation between "human knowledge" and math. Usually one has to conceptually understand what one is looking at *before* it's possible to come up with mathematical expressions of these ideas.
I am working toward eventually being able to express many of these ideas mathematically in some detail, but it will certainly take time for me to do so, and I will continue to resist the urge to oversimplify things here just to make one individual happy on one topic of conversation.
If gas model theory cannot mathematically model the heat source of the corona, you can hardly fault me for not being able to do so at the moment. I'll work on doing that much, but it may be a long time before you are personally satisfied over the density issue. In fact unless and until I can get some heliosiesmology experts to create some Birleland oriented models, I doubt we're really going to know *exactly* what's inside the shell well enough to answer all your questions. It seems to me that sort of information is several years down the road, even if the STEREO data looks exactly as I expect it look.
With satellite imagery, I can only see down to the surface itself. What you are expecting however is much more than what I, or anyone else can tell you at this point in time. Such information will come, but it will only come when others have "joined the party". I certainly won't be able to do it all by myself. If you are expecting me to do it all personally, you'll be very disappointed.
Keep in mind that it wouldn't even be fair for you to attempt to hold me to a different set of standards than you hold yourself. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/20/2006 15:07:43 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
