|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 12/28/2005 : 16:48:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
"Stratification" doesn't mean "solid."
It doesn't mean plasma either. Then again, even "stratification" of plasma by weight is going to sink the gas model, and blow the doors off conventional gas models that claim no mass separation in the plasma by atomic weight.
You're not listening. It's a density stratification. Nobody said anything about mass separation - except you. The fact is that the gas model predicts density stratifications between the core and the radiative zone, and between that and the convective zone, and that's precisely what helioseismology showed us. This stratification at 0.995R (and at least one more below that) only require adjustments to the gas model, not the wholesale demolition of it.
Besides which, I asked you how large the density differences are above and below 0.995R. You've yet to answer.quote:
The old gas model is now dead.
About as dead as Newtonian mechanics in light of the theory of relativity.quote:
Where is the new one that predicts this layer, and how and why is it predicted to exist at this depth based on gas model concepts?
I'll leave the creation of new solar models to the experts, of which you don't appear to be one.quote:
Either way you look at it, that stratification isn't predicted in current solar models. We need "better" ones now that explain these phenomenon.
Yours isn't it.quote:
quote:
You have presented no evidence that those images come from 0.995R.
On the contrary. The fact we see the at all, and so close to the surface in terms of that surface wave depth, does show it's very "shallow" under that photosphere. Their confirmation of the shallowness of that depth is a key issue. Dr. Manuel and I predicted a very shallow plasma shell with a relatively large surface crust. The fact Stanford verified this for us is all that more helpful to our case. If they had seen this stratification at .70R and nothing above that, you'd be jumping up and down claiming it's evidence to support the current gas model. Instead you are trying to ignore a stratified layer where none was EVER (IN THE WHOLE HISTORY OF GAS MODELS) predicted to exist.
How many times do we need to point out that nobody is ignoring it? Actually, it seems that your entire theory rests upon the existence of that stratification, but you seem to be unable to tell me the difference in density which was discovered prior to the Stanford work which shows that the layer moves (and that's all that Stanford demonstrated).quote:
quote:
Assumes facts not in evidence..
No, it assumes OBSERVATIONS presented as evidence which you have yet to explain using gas model theory. I'm all ears. What happened in your opinion on the dates in question and how does that relate to the stratification layer at .995R?
And now a nice shift of the burden of proof. Once again, your ideas about the electrical arcs originating from a solid surface assume that the surface is solid and conductive, and capable of creating giant "sparks" between surface points, which is what you are being asked to demonstrate. You're assuming that which you wish to conclude, a basic circular argument.quote:
quote:
Yes, it's illogical, which is why nobody here is doing it. You're the one positing "special" knowledge which few other people have, not anyone here.
You seem to think you are more qualified to interpret the images than I am. Why?
Because when I point out the fact that, for example, the tsunami video pixels don't represent light levels, you ignore that fact in favor of your own interpretation, contrary to what the actual experts state about that particular doppler imaging system.
This is vitally important, since you're stating, in no uncertain terms, that the expert that you rely upon for the helioseisomology data is wrong about what the doppler images mean. In other words, you are impeaching your own witnesses by claiming that their expert testimony about the data coming from the MDI on SOHO is valid in one instance but invalid in another. As such, I can't rely on anything they say, and both the tsunami video and the helioseismology paper must be ignored.quote:
quote:
You're the one offering a model which can't even predict its own internal pressures (an illogical alternative to the gas-fusion model).
That wouldn't sound so ironic to me if that statified layer wasn't sitting smack dab in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone. :)
It's not ironic at all if you don't incorrectly assume that a density stratitification means "mass separation." An "open" convective zone, as I've already discussed, cannot mean single convective cells over 200,000 km tall - that's just absurd.quote:
The pressures will be related to all sorts of unknowns that I cannot yet answer. I'd rather stick to what I can actually observe rather than what I would essentially have to "guess" at.
But you're asking us to throw away a model which matches many observations for one which can only answer those same questions with "I don't k |
- 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 - 12/28/2005 : 21:55:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You're not listening. It's a density stratification. Nobody said anything about mass separation - except you.
So exactly what causes this "density stratification" if not mass separation? You do realize this layer has a top and a bottom that grow and shrink differently during the solar cycle and they vary within different ranges of change at the top and the bottom?quote:
The fact is that the gas model predicts density stratifications between the core and the radiative zone, and between that and the convective zone, and that's precisely what helioseismology showed us.
Er, where? All it showed us in that paper was a stratfied layer with a particular thickness at a place no one expected such a thing to exist. Where did you see the radiative zone or the convection zone in that paper or any heliosiesmology paper for that matter?quote:
This stratification at 0.995R (and at least one more below that) only require adjustments to the gas model, not the wholesale demolition of it.
That completely depends on what that statification layer is, and what it's made of. It must have a boatload of iron it in to release all those iron ions. What are claiming is different about this layer again vs. the layers above it and below it?quote:
Besides which, I asked you how large the density differences are above and below 0.995R. You've yet to answer.
They didn't provide that data in that paper. I have no idea.quote:
About as dead as Newtonian mechanics in light of the theory of relativity.
No, I'm talking REAL dead. You have a stratied layer there to explain, and no gas model has one located ANYWHERE in that vicinity. You've got a MAJOR problem with current gas model theory.quote:
I'll leave the creation of new solar models to the experts, of which you don't appear to be one.
Gee, an appeal to authority fallacy combined with a cheap personal insult. Sort of a two for one fallacy experience eh?
The experts in this case offered NO explanation of any sort. Neither have you. I have. I'd say that makes me the reigning "expert" for the time being. I'm open to a rational scientific explaination, but so far all I'm hearing are logical fallacies and pety insults.quote:
Yours isn't it.
How do you know that? Guessing? Faith? What?quote:
How many times do we need to point out that nobody is ignoring it?
You are obviously ignoring it. You know it's there. You can't explain it. You won't offer an explanation of any sort. Somehow however you still have "faith" in the "establishment" as though some unknown "expert" is going to save all the falsified gas models of the past. Care to explain your faith in the gas model in absense of a rational scientific explanation of your own, and none from any "experts" you can offer me?quote:
Actually, it seems that your entire theory rests upon the existence of that stratification,
Ya, that's true.quote:
but you seem to be unable to tell me the difference in density which was discovered prior to the Stanford work which shows that the layer moves (and that's all that Stanford demonstrated).
Huh? They show a difference in density which is not predicted in any gas model. That's what they demonostrated. They show the depth of this layer mathematically as well. They show the ranges of change that occur in this layer over an 11 year cycle. The demonstrate the presense of this layer that completely encircles the entire sun, and who's backside can also be "heard" in heliosiesmology on the far side of the sun.quote:
And now a nice shift of the burden of proof.
There was no "shift" in a burden of proof. You have a THEORY to defend. Defend it. Burden of proof falls on ALL theories. If we were talking about a law, you could rest on your laurels. As it is, the gas model is not immune from falsification or immune from the same scrutiny as any solar model. If you can't explain these events, what good is your theory in the first place?quote:
Once again, your ideas about the electrical arcs originating from a solid surface assume that the surface is solid and conductive, and capable of creating giant "sparks" between surface points, which is what you are being asked to demonstrate.
Dr. Bruce already demonstrated the electrical discharges coming from the solids over 40 year ago. Don't expect me to repeat the efforts of others here.quote:
You're assuming that which you wish to conclude, a basic circular argument.
Excuse me? I'm not giving any sort of circular anything. It is you that offer no scientifc explanation of these images and yet you put faith in the assumption that your conclusion is right. Give me a break!quote:
Because when I point out the fact that, for example, the tsunami video pixels don't represent light levels, you ignore that fact in favor of your own interpretation, contrary to what the actual experts state about that particular doppler imaging system.
The "expert" you cite backed off his own explanation a number of months later after looking at ALL the evidence. He didn't offer us any "expert" explanations of this statification layer at all. He could n |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2005 : 21:59:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Forgive me for not wading through the million+ words of this topic and your website, but I have some questions.
1) Are you saying all stars are like this? If not which ones are not solid surface stars.
I would not assume that neutron stars are all necessarily just like our sun. I would suggest that most stars have a shell or a crust and mass separate the plasmas in it's atmosphere.
quote:
2) What happened in the early universe when there was no Iron or miniscule amounts of it? What changed to make the new stars have a solid surface?
I see no evidence that iron was ever in short supply. In fact the last Hubble and Spitzer studies show very mature galaxies that are many times the size of our galaxy within 700 million years of the presumed "big bang". They see little or no change in the iron content of these galaxies compared to our own, even many billions of years later. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2005 : 23:04:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
It is an appeal to authority I admit that, but the appeal is not fallacious when it is to experts in the field.
You have very arbitrarily defined who is an "expert" and set these mythical experts in opposition to my ideas. That is in fact nothing but an appeal to authority fallacy and more or less a strawman to boot. WHO are you refering to specifically that is an expert and has a "better" scientific answer than the one I presented?
quote:
If you manage to publish "the solid surface of the sun" in a peer-review journal, I'll gladly consider you an authority too.
So any paper that gets one published in any peer-reviewed journal suddenly makes one an "authority"? I'm confused here. What does publishing the work have to do with making one an authority?
quote:
'Til then, Astronomers at NASA and elsewhere don't seem impressed by you, and they are astronomers, not computer programmers.
That is actually a false statement and you cannot actually support it with any real numbers. I know astromers that work for many companies and organization that are impressed with the model I have presented. Many folks from Lockheed Martin have visited my website repeatedly over the span of many months. Folks at NASA have done the same. So have the folks at Stanford. I have no idea who might like my ideas and who does not. One thing I do know however is that not many of these so called "authorities" are willing to offer much of an explanation for any of those images. I've emailed most of the folks in charge of these programs and they have few insights to offer. Your authority figures seem very silent about both the satellite images and the heliosiesmology data, not to mention the nuclear chemistry.
quote:
If your speculations regarding a solid surface on the sun had enough substance, I would have heard something from elsewhere about it. I'm the president of the astronomy club where I live, and though I'm not as interested in solar physics as some of the other members, they would have alerted me of something as sensational as "a gas model in crisis", as they monitor both peer-reviewed publications and popular science magazines.
You've now heard of the idea. When that personal moment of enlightenment actually took place is irrelevant as it relates to being right or being wrong. In effect you are attempting to use your own ignorance of the idea to support some concept that it's wrong. That's a circular feedback loop I'm afraid. I respect that you share a love of astronomy with me, but I think it is unrealistic to think you "should have heard about it by now". Did you hear of Dr. Manuel's work before you met me? Dr. Bruce? Hans Bethe? Dr. Birkeland? I ask these questions because the day I put up my first few web pages, I had never heard of the first three at all and I only had a very vague idea about Birkelands work, even though I have studied solar astronomy for several decades.
quote:
There we have you using false dichotomy:
Just because they cannot explain the result in the current gas-model does not necessarily mean it is solid.
You didn't deal with my objection. If they haven't offered any explanation yet, how do you *KNOW* they disagree with me? Silence is not an automatic rejection.
quote:
If they had thought that the result indicated a solid layer, they would have said so in no such uncertain terms as "stratification" which does not mean "solid".
I don't get the impression they wanted to go out on any limbs in either direction. Statification does suggest SOMETHING is quite different about that layer. What is it? What makes it stratify at that depth with that specific thickness?
quote:
You are reminding me of an idiot who visited us some time back who insisted that black holes are liquid because Steven Hawking said that it "evaporates".
So how exactly does the word "idiot" help your argument here? IMO it just make you look like you've got no valid scientific objections so you're grasping at straws. What does this person have to do with anything I have talked about? The high school level insults are really getting quite boring.
quote:
But your solid model does not explain so many crucial things, that the gas model does: the neutrino output, the size, mass and average density.
What in the world does "size" of the sun have to do with anything? Explaing the size is certainly no big deal. The "average density" you are talking about is a number that ASSUMES a heliocentric universe. It has little bearing on reality where things move around, and the sun isn't stationary. The neutrino output is only "predicted" now because the model was CHANGED to fit the observation. This is like taking credit for 20/20 hindsight and basic observation.
quote:
That will be some interesting reading. I hope you won't accuse me of appeal to authority, if I refer to others the more heavy stuff of the readings. I know some physics, but I'm far from a master of it.
I'll send you a link in a few days. The paper is "in the works". It will certainly explain the neutrinos and where they come from.
quote:
But I know something about "neutrons repelling neutrons": They don't. They don't "care", since they electrically neutral.
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/inter_bet_nuc/interactions_full.html
They seem to "care".
quote:
Your model is seriously flawed if you need to rely on the sun having a neutron star core: the neutron star requires 1,4 sun masses to exist.
Actually I'm not personally attached to any particular model of the core to be honest. I personally lean a "little" to the fision core personally.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/28/2005 23:10:04 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2005 : 23:36:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I know astromers that work for many companies and organization that are impressed with the model I have presented.
Appeal to authority fallacy. Please present names and credentials. I know how much you dislike appeals to authority so you should really try to avoid using them.
Also by "impressed" do you mean "agree with"? I suspect not. So, not only is it a fallacy, it's a red-herring too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2005 : 06:12:47 [Permalink]
|
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/earliest_stars_found.html?1442005
You see this is what you call a PEER REVEIWED study, one that in fact shows that you are full of shit.
It no use being civil, you are not a proper scientist.
Edit: History of EMP star detection.(extremely-metal-poor)
http://www.ucolick.org/~bolte/empstars/emphistory.html |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 12/29/2005 06:21:54 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2005 : 14:03:18 [Permalink]
|
Mr. Mozina:
Perhaps you might feel that we're more "even" were I to point out every instance where I felt insulted by you. For example, your insistence that I'm "ignoring" things that I've actually been discussing. That you have little respect for me is more than clear from your own snide remarks, liberally sprinkled throughout your posts. I might get angry about that, and huff about like a primadonna if I had an ego that needed soothing. But I don't. Your suggestion that I do appears to be just so much psychological projection.
Anyway, I apologize for the "shoddy" comment, and will instead focus on why it is my opinion that your work (both on your website and as it is described by you here) needs improvement.
It is clear that you have becomed confused about who is claiming what and when, on several issues. I never once claimed that the density stratification at 0.995R could be explained by magnetic fields, and neither did anyone at Stanford. Kosovichev, at one point in time, suggested that magnetic fields could be responsible for the massive downflow of plasma which triggered the wave seen in the "tsunami" video, but later retracted that thought. His retraction, therefore, has nothing to do with Lockheed's explanation of the "crater" image as being the result of magnetic fields, and they show the magnetic "intrusion" they believe responsible for it.
Lockheed doesn't attempt to explain the magnetic field there, either. They simply measured it. Since they (and we) are well aware that a charged plasma can be guided and steered by a magnetic field (maintaining a plasma in a "magnetic bottle" here on Earth is done all the time), the "crater" image seems well-explained, even if we cannot yet say how, precisely, that magnetic field is generated.
And you're right, the standard solar model does not yet explain the generation of the magnetic field. But, because your model cannot explain the Sun's power source, it cannot make any magnetic field predictions, either. You claim that you've explained them by positing electrons flowing through the mostly-iron shell, but since you don't know how much power can be generated by your unknown power source, nor do you know how much "magnetic iron" is in the shell, then your model cannot predict how large the magnetic field should be. The standard solar model (SSM) doesn't even try to make such a prediction, yet.
And you seem to be unaware of just how scientific models work. Yes, the predictions made by the SSM are of things we can measure. If they weren't, how would we know they're correct? The SSM says that given a certain mass of mostly hydrogen, collapsing under its own gravity, will eventually generate fusion reactions which create a certain amount of outward pressure, thus the radius of a star with X kg of gas will be Y. There is hard math relating the two values. Given our measurements of the Sun's mass, our paper-and-pencil prediction of the radius matches our measurement of the Sun's radius. This means our model is correct in that respect.
You fault the model for changing in light of new observations, but obviously if the model didn't change in response to new evidence, the model would forever be wrong. Science, as you're well aware, makes progress by modifying the models created by previous scientists. For example, the "missing" solar neutrinos made us suspect that our neutrino theory was wrong, and so experts in that field went out and ran the experiments which showed that that model was incorrect, and how to correct it (and once the neutrino model was fixed, the missing solar neutrinos were found). Only very rarely is a model thrown out in its entirety, but that's what you're asking us to do with the SSM. It's a big step, and requires massive amounts of evidence.
What do you have? You've got this odd idea that Kosovichev's paper which measured the variations of a couple of density stratifications represents evidence that those stratifications are the edges of a solid surface. Helioseismology, however, only tells us that the speed of sound within the Sun changes at those boundaries.
Helioseismology, after all, has been with us since the 1960s. It was back then that the predictions made by the early SSM of layers deep inside the Sun - core, radiative zone and convective zone - were confirmed with helioseismology data.
While it is disappointing that the Kosovichev helioseismology paper doesn't tell us how large the density difference at 0.995R is. The authors may not have been able to get that information, or their analysis method may require the loss of that information. All they say is that there is a difference in the density above and below 0.995R, but not how large that difference is. Given that the density of the photosphere is on the order of micrograms per cubic centimeter, its bumping up against a solid surface much more dense than water should have caused a huge difference in the speed of pressure waves. Kosovichev doesn't remark on that, though, leading me to believe that he either doesn't have that data, or that the density difference is pretty small.
Besides which, you continue to act as though Kosovichev's paper marks the discovery of the density stratification at 0.995R. It does not, as I've already pointed out, since he references several papers talking about those same stratifications.
You also asked for references for the subsurface flows and shear layers. Kosovichev's website has lots of papers on those subjects, as that appears to be his area of interest. For example, "Detection of Zonal Shear Flows beneath the Sun's Surface from F-Mode Frequency Splitting" says (in the abstract),Using new helioseismic data from the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) on board SOHO, we have detected zonal flow bands with velocity variation of 5 m/s at a depth of 2-9 Mm beneath the surface. Now considering that your alleged solid surface exists at about 3.5 Mm below the visible surface (and extends a minimum of 22 Mm), the detection of zonal flows would appear to deal a death blow to your solid-surface model.
Also, I don't know precisely where you got the idea that there is a layer which "blocks" downward plasma flow, but Kosovichev proudly links to Stanford's SOI website, which includes all sorts of below-surface findings, including this image, displaying upwards and downwards plasma flow above, through, and below 0.995R. However, a higher-resolution view shows supergranule flow going around in ovals that are, perhaps unsurprisingly, about 3-4 Mm high, just below the surface. The "boundary" between those convective cells and the ones below could, indeed, represent a density stratification at 0.995R. (Both of the above images are from SOI/MDI After One Year, a presentation from 1997.)
Your continued grandstanding on how the gas model has a "stratified layer smack dab in the middle of the convection zone" is highly ironic in light of the fact that your solid layer of mostly iron has plasma flows not only "smack dab in the middle" of it, but right into it from above.
Sort of like it doesn't exist.
Far from supporting your model, the helioseismology data (all of it, not just a single cherry-picked paper) supports the idea that the Sun does not have large solid parts in it.
Should the gas model explain the stratifications? |
- 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 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2005 : 22:43:27 [Permalink]
|
Well, I think we can forget all the business about any changes which may or may not exist with Mozina's "crater." Instead, given the knowledge that this "crater," if it sits on Mozina's solid surface, should spin once every 27.3 days, we can use TRACE's images to test that hypothesis.
We've got hours of "crater" images, and one rotation of the surface every 27.3 days means a movement of 0.549451°/hour, so the motion of the "crater" over just a few hours ought to be measurable. How do we do this?
Step 1 - Measure the radius of the Sun as seen by TRACE. We select a nice big edge-of-the-Sun image, such as this one. We see that the outermost edge of the Sun sits about 2 pixels right of center. Since that web page says that the center of the image is at 952.330 arcseconds, and the resolution is 0.5 arcseconds per pixel, we can calculate that the radius of the Sun in visible light, from TRACE's point of view, is about 953.33 arcseconds.
As a double-check of this figure, a rule of thumb I learned from one of Carl Sagan's books is that the Sun takes up about half a degree of arc as seen from Earth (this changes seasonally, but it's close). Since there are 3,600 arcseconds in one degree of arc, and the Sun's diameter is twice its radius, TRACE sees the Sun as being about 0.53 degrees, which is damn close for a simple rule of thumb.
Now, Mozina claims that his surface sits at 0.995R, so multiplying we find his alleged surface to have a "TRACE radius" (Tr) of 948.56335 arcseconds.
Step 2 - We need to be able to "translate" TRACE arcsecond coordinates into polar coordinates from the center of the Sun. Vertically, this is simply(Eq 1) V = sin-1(NS/Tr)
Where Tr is the "TRACE radius" of the surface,
NS is the North/South (or "arc sec for FOV center y") from
the TRACE data,
and V will be the latitude in Sun-centered degrees
Horizontally, it depends upon the vertical calculation, above, since the "radius" of a horizontal circular slice through a sphere depends on how close to the "poles" one is. So this is a little more complex:(Eq 2) H = sin-1(EW/(Trcos V))
Where Tr is again the "TRACE radius" of the surface,
V is calculated in equation 1, above,
EW is the East/West (or "arc sec for FOV center x") from
the TRACE data,
and H will be the longitude in Sun-centered degrees (with
the center of the Sun in the images always 0°)
Step 3 - We need to precisely identify the TRACE position of the "crater" as early as possible. Now, I'm pretty sure it appears earlier than in this image, but it's the earliest one which is centered at the same coordinates as the images Mozina displays on his website, if I'm not mistaken. To identify the center of the "crater," I'm just going to try to estimate its vertical and horizontal extents (how high and wide it appears), and average them both to find the approximate center. Like in this image, where the green lines are my estimates, and the red cross shows the center I've calculated from those estimates.
I find the center of the "crater" at 06:56:47 on 18 August, 2003, to be at 626,526 in pixels. Since the center of this image (512,512) is at 605.318 EW and -282.904 NS in TRACE coordinates, and the resolution is again 0.5 arcseconds per pixel, the center of the "crater" would then be at 662.318 EW and -289.904 NS. Per equation 1, above, our V would then be -17.7957°, and per equation 2, our H would be 47.1655°.
Step 4 - How far should the "crater" move (and which direction)? Staying with images centered upon the same TRACE coordinates, I find the last image in which the "crater" is clearly visible is this one, taken at 12:51:39 on the same day as the first. That's a difference of 5 hours, 54 minutes and 52 seconds, or 5.914 hours. Per the 27.3-day rotation figure Mozina supplied, the "crater" should move 3.2497° in that time. If TRACE's coordinates for east/west motion are perfectly horizontal (the Sun's axis is tilted relative to the Earth's, but the TRACE satellite could easily compensate for this), then in that nearly-six-hour time, the H value we calculated for the "crater" should go from 47.1655° to an H' (H-prime) value of 50.4152° (since per Mozina's movie, features move from left to right across the Sun), with V not changing appreciably (if the "crater" is a solid structure on a solid surface rotating horizontally). So...
Step 5 - Translate back from Sun-polar coordinates back to TRACE coordinates. We only need to do this for our H value, so(Eq 3) EW' = (Trcos V)sin H'
Where V is once again from equation 1,
Tr is yet again the "TRACE radius" of
the surface,
H' is our new horizontal polar coordinate in degrees, and
EW' will be our new horizontal coordinate in TRACE
arcseconds
Using our H' value of 50.4152°, our new EW' value is 696.062 arcsecconds. This is where, given the data that Mozina and TRACE have provided, we predict the center of the "crater" should be after 5.914 hours.
Step 6 - Compare with observations. We take the second image (linked-to above), and go through the same procedure of finding the center of the "crater" as we went through in step 3. My results can be seen here, finding the center at 573,384 within the image (which is centered on 384,384 instead of 512,512 - it's smaller), and still centered on 605.318 EW and -282.904 NS, meaning the center of the "crater" (at 0.5 arcsecond/pixel resolution) has moved to...
699.818 EW and -282.904 NS.
This differs from our prediction by 3.756 EW and 7.000 NS.
Now, that might sound close, but each arcsecond as viewed by TRACE in that area is (on average) about 1,108.16 × 766.76 km of the Sun's surface (I'll spare you the details of the math from now on). So while we predicted a movement of the "crater" of about 37,394 km, but we observed a movement of about 41,901 km, then our prediction is only 89% of reality!
Rotating the movement away from horizontal (if TRACE's horizontal axis doesn't follow the Sun's equator) can't explain the discrepancy, since our EW movement should be less than predicted if TRACE is looking at the Sun at an angle, not more (as observed). An error in my math might explain the difference, but someone else is going to have to double-check that, obviously. An error in how I defined the center of the "crater" might also explain it, but that's why I "published" my work on my website, so someone could double-check that.
Where's the difference coming from? The Standard Solar Model (SSM) predicts that a surface feature (visible-light "surface") at -17.7957° will rotate between 0.54865°/hour and 0.61782°/hour. This, of course, is inclusive of Mozina's 0.549451°/hour figure ("smack dab in the middle" of the SSM's range). And in fact, it's inclusive of the actual observation, too. In short, these raw measurements of the "crater" cann |
- 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 - 01/02/2006 : 17:09:31 [Permalink]
|
No, I just can't leave this stuff alone.
Tracking the "crater" back in time, now. A time search revealed more 171-angstrom images nearby. For example, this one was taken just 88 seconds prior to the first image referenced in my last post. It's centered at 597.930 EW and -304.360 NS, which isn't far off from the previously-examined sequence. Finding the center reveals it's at 663.430, -290.360 in TRACE coordinates, which is hardly any different from 662.318, -289.904 (in the first image, prior post) when you take into account that I may not be precise with where the "edges" of the "crater" are. It's not easy identifying the "edges" of something so amorphous, which is why we want a loooong timebase to work with so that off-by-one pixel calculations don't have as much of an effect.
Anyway, we've now identified the same crater in an image centered at 597.930, -304.360, so how many more are there?
00:36:46 on the 18th
10:07:48 on the 17th
00:06:13 on the 17th
21:57:53 on the 16th
Before then, the "crater" isn't really cohesive enough to easily find the center. At 19:30:39 on the 16th (for example), the "crater" doesn't have a well-defined left edge. A half-hour before then it's only about half visible. And at 15:26:14 on the 16th, it's not really there at all.
How about later than the latest image in my prior post? Sure!
14:15:38 on the 18th (note than you can see the limb of the Sun in the lower right of the image)
17:30:10 on the 18th
20:01:27 on the 18th
00:07:13 on the 19th
06:00:19 on the 19th
07:37:08 on the 19th
And after the last, I just gave up. Images like this one, from 8:20 , just aren't usable, and I'm tired of looking for more "good" images of the alleged "crater."
Actually, over the last two days, I decided to go ahead and get images about every 2-4 hours of the "crater." Forget what's above, what I've got now is summarized below:ID Date/Time Sun-EW Sun-NS deltaT deltaEW deltaNS
-- --------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------
A: 16_215753 27.8883° -19.2250° n/a n/a n/a
B: 17_000821 29.0782° -19.1073° 02:10:28 1.1899° 0.1177°
C: 17_030017 30.7179° -19.0114° 05:02:24 2.8295° 0.2136°
D: 17_061115 32.6352° -18.8650° 08:13:22 4.7468° 0.3600°
E: 17_090010 34.3426° -18.8012° 11:02:17 6.4543° 0.4238°
F: 17_120030 36.1239° -18.6552° 14:02:37 8.2355° 0.5698°
G: 17_150023 37.7259° -18.5277° 17:02:30 9.8376° 0.6973°
H: 17_180145 39.4418° -18.3378° 20:03:52 11.5535° 0.8872°
I: 17_210045 41.4438° -18.1414° 23:02:52 13.5555° 1.0837°
J: 18_003820 43.5772° -17.9833° 26:40:27 15.6888° 1.2417°
K: 18_030056 45.0069° -18.0151° 29:03:03 17.1186° 1.2099°
L: 18_065731 47.1765° -17.8274° 32:59:38 19.2882° 1.3976°
M: 18_095354 48.9248° -17.5422° 35:56:01 21.0364° 1.6829°
N: 18_125139 50.5332° -17.2573° 38:53:46 22.6448° 1.9677°
O: 18_150111 52.0859° -17.2550° 41:03:18 24.1976° 1.9701°
P: 18_180143 53.8988° -17.0653° 44:03:50 26.0104° 2.1597°
Q: 18_210639 55.5812° -16.7812° 47:08:46 27.6928° 2.4438°
R: 19_000103 57.4539° -16.6570° 50:03:10 29.5655° 2.5681°
S: 19_030005 58.8267° -16.3524° 53:02:12 30.9384° 2.8727°
T: 19_060019 60.8586° -16.2740° 56:02:26 32.9703° 2.9510°
U: 19_073708 62.8665° -16.5259° 57:39:15 34.9782° 2.6992°
Therefore, in 57.6542 hours, the "crater" moved a total of 35.0822° by direct observation, whereas Mozina's model predicts it only should have moved 31.6782°. Once again, the "solid surface" model comes up short by about 11%.
More than that, however. Graphically, as the "crater" passes across the surface of the Sun, the above 21 data points look like this:
The red dots represent the center of the "crater," and the black ovals represent the size of the "crater," compared to the lower-right quadrant of the Sun. (That's data from image 'A' on the left, and from image 'U' on the right, in alphabetical |
- 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 - 01/03/2006 : 11:08:44 [Permalink]
|
Forgive me if this has been asked before...
Mr. Mozina what is your educational background?
Your avoidance of mathematics, your confusion on the conductivity of plasma and your confusion on scientific principles in general got me to wondering. When you said you were a going to a computer trade show I assumed you were a EE, but I now think that maybe you are a salesman. There of course is nothing wrong with that; it would just help me to be better able to get some ideas across to you if I knew your background.
Thanks
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2006 : 12:01:23 [Permalink]
|
One thing I've been a little sloppy about, with the above posts, is the error inherent in the method I've used to measure the movement of the alleged features on the Sun. I will remedy this oversight right now, and try to avoid the same mistake in future postings.
First, as many know, the images aren't made of infinitely small dots. When we speak of a pixel being "at" 700 arcseconds (for example) in the TRACE images, that pixel actually takes up a half-second of arc, meaning anything seen in that pixel could actually be located anywhere from 699.75 arcseconds to 700.25 arcseconds. Until we can store an infinite amount of data, we're stuck with this "pixelization" limit. (Higher resolution - wherein each pixel represents a smaller field of view, for example a tenth of an arcsecond instead of half of one - would make for more precise measurements, of course, but we don't have access to such. TRACE is, after all, a high-resolution sibling satellite to SOHO.)
So, when we take an arcsecond value and convert it to degrees, there's a certain amount of error inherent due to the pixel size. At worst, this occurs at the outside edge of the Sun (or any other sphere), because the angle between two neighboring pixels there is nearly inline with the camera. So, while a pixel at 953 arcseconds EW in the TRACE images would be at 90° relative to the Sun, a pixel at 952.5 arcseonds (right next to 953) is at 88.144°, so there's more than a whole degree of the Sun's surface imaged between those two pixels.
As I said, that's the worst possible case. The difference between 0 arcseconds and 0.5 arcseconds - the best possible case - is a mere 0.03°
In reality, with the data that I collected on Mozina's "crater," the positioning error for crater 'A' is at most +/-0.0522° horizontally and +/-0.0320° vertically (assuming that my green rectangles are correct), and the possible error for crater 'U' is at most +/-0.0663° horizontally and +/-0.0315° vertically (the errors for craters 'B' through 'T' are in-between).
Second, TRACE is in orbit around the Earth. This means that periodically, its point of view shifts. Specifically, it is in a 96-minute Sun-oriented orbit around Earth. The parallax due to its orbit can be seen, for example, in this composite image of Mercury transitting the Sun. We can easily see in that image that this "wobble" is less than the angle subtended by Mercury itself. Mercury's diameter... divided by its distance from Earth... take the arctangent, and we find the parallax of the TRACE satellite introduces another possible +/-0.0062° of error, at most.
So, take all these factors together, and we find that my calculation of the distance covered by the "crater" over the time period in question can be off by +/-0.1429°, meaning that Mozina's 27.3-day rotation period of the Sun can be off by as little as 10.29% (or as much as 11.20% if the errors happened to work against him). Errors in my measurements don't appear to be the source of the discrepancy.
Of course, Mozina doesn't offer any error range for his 27.3-day figure. But to match observation, the range would have to be 2.547 days, at a bare minimum.
I bring this up not only for the sake of completeness, but also because the next of Mozina's claims which I plan to adress in detail uses data of much lower resolution than the TRACE images, so the errors may play a larger role. |
- 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 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2006 : 14:59:08 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, Dave.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 19:14:03 [Permalink]
|
| Just a quick note that Mozina's new paper appears to be up (we won't be getting confirmation of that since Mozina is "done" here), and after a quick read-through it seems marked by misunderstandings of both the CNO cycle and the solar neutrino "problem," and it unfortunately doesn't propose any new testable hypotheses. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
