|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 02/06/2006 : 15:49:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
No, that is *not* what I said. This is what you personally keep "hearing", or more specifically this is what you *wish* to hear rather than what I actually said. That way you can pretend it doesn't matter. I does matter. I explained exactly how it supports my case, but you refuse to acknowledge that aspect of what I actually said. That is denial, pure and simple.
My suggestion that you might be lying is not an ad hominem attack. This has nothing to do with what I *wish* you said, and everything to do with what you actually said, exactly, to the word. I'm suggesting you might be lying because you've provided clear evidence, in black and white, which certainly demonstrates you might be lying.quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Originally posted by H. Humbert...
The isotope analysis cannot tell us whether or not the sun has a solid surface, which is your main conjecture.
That is quite correct.
So you've stated, and we've all agreed, that it is "quite correct" that "the isotope analysis cannot tell us whether or not the sun has a solid surface, which is your main conjecture". To reiterate, for the purposes of a discussion on the ridiculous possibility that the sun has a solid surface, we shall consider your incessant, irrelevant dragging in of the isotope analysis to have been dealt with... past tense... history. Or were you lying when you said that? Or are you now abandoning your claim that the sun has a solid surface? You can't have it all ways, Michael.quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I'm not hard to pin down.
Now, if you are going to insist that you aren't a liar, pin yourself down to providing your quantitative replies to the following direct questions, which are relevant, and in fact critical to your conjecture...
If the surface of the sun is solid it has describable properties. It has a thickness, a temperature, a material composition, and a density, among other characteristics. You have not locked in on even a broad range of specifications to describe these characteristics. If your allegedly solid surface is indeed solid...Specify the thickness of the surface within +/- 5000 km.
Specify the temperature of the surface within a range of +/- 2000°C.
Specify the density of the surface within +/- 0.01 g/cm3.
Describe a material composition, listing each element that makes up any more than 5% of the solid layer, and state each one's proportion of the whole within +/- 10%.
Create a solar model and present it here in this forum. quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
But I'm not avoiding any questions related to [Birkeland's] research Dave. If you have specific questions, I'll be glad to answer them as best as I can.
You are avoiding questions related to Birkeland's research, and you have been avoiding them for many pages now. Here's one specific question you've avoided several times already. Since you claim that you're only supporting Birkeland's conjecture, show where Birkeland postulated an iron shell surface on the sun. Provide specific relevant quotes, cite the reference source(s), and include page numbers so we may independently verify that Birkeland did, in fact, postulate such a solid surface.
And since you claim that Dr. Manuel supports your wild conjecture, provide direct quotes from his material where he states clearly that he also believes the sun has a solid surface. Give relevant links to specific references, and provide pages numbers, please. This is particularly important to know since it would directly contradict these places where Dr. Manuel was reasonably specific that he does not agree with your wild notion about a solid surfaced sun.
Dr. Oliver Manuel said, and I quote...07-July-2005, 03:00 PM: Mr. Mozina concludes there that the Sun has a rigid, iron-rich structure below its "liquid-like" photosphere. (He laid it back in your lap, Michael.)
11-July-2005, 03:30 AM: I certainly did not intend to say that the structure is solid. (He denied claiming that what you mistakenly interpret as structure is solid.)
31-July-2005, 03:11 PM: Michael Mozina and I are like two blind men trying to figure out the shape of an elephant. We do not necessarily agree on every point. (He admitted that you aren't in agreement on every issue.)
03-August-2005, 12:53 AM: As you know, I am not an astronomer. (He acknowledges here that astronomy is outside his field of expertise.)
05-August-2005, 01:36 PM: I agree that the observations show a "rigid" surface that rotates uniformily from pole to equator. I would prefer to use the term "rigid", but Michael has given his reasons for concluding that the surface is solid. (He specifically puts his term "rigid" in quote marks and clearly disavows any agreement with your conjecture of a solid surface.) We can certainly understand if you've abandoned your conjecture about the sun having a solid surface, and are instead claiming that it's actually plasma. If that's the case, please open a new thread. To change from "solid" to "plasma" in this discussion would be moving the goal posts. If you are continuing, however, to claim the sun has a solid surface, you need to prove it. You haven't.
|
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 16:50:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
My suggestion that you might be lying is not an ad hominem attack.
Get a life GeeMack and get real with the mass separation issue. Until you do, this pointless attack on the individual is evidence of your pathetic need to kill the messenger because you don't like the message. I won't take you seriously until you deal with the mass separation issue, and I'm just plain bored of you at this point. I'm certainly not going to bother answering any more questions for you until you deal with the mass separation issue with some intellectual integrity. Until then, you're just a screaming, ranting creationist in my book. "Kill the messenger!"
Gee GeeMack, you'd fit right in at the Bad Astronomy board (that *really* is an appropriate name for that forum) I hadn't realized they banned Oliver as well. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Ignorant people seem to have a strong need to kill the messenger and silence the opposition by any means necessary. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 17:17:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Michael I have been able to find this info in many places in Dr. Manuel's writings:quote:
Samples collected by the Apollo missions to the moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s revealed that lighter mass (mL) isotopes of helium (He), neon (Ne), argon (Ar), krypton (Kr), and xenon (Xe) are enriched in the solar wind (SW) relative to the heavier (mH) ones by a common mass-fractionation factor [See p. 281*]15, f, where
f = (mH/mL)^4.56
but I cannot find the references to the actual data that he used to come up with this factor. Could you tell me where this info is located? I assume it is something like the percentages of the elements in meteorites and percentages of elements in the solar wind, but not having the data he used I cannot know for sure or hope to understand how this fractionation factor was arrived at.
http://web.umr.edu/~om/papers.html
I believe this is the paper you are looking for:
http://web.umr.edu/~om/archive/SolarAbundances.pdf
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 17:37:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Get a life GeeMack and get real with the mass separation issue. Until you do, this pointless attack on the individual is evidence of your pathetic need to kill the messenger because you don't like the message. I won't take you seriously until you deal with the mass separation issue, and I'm just plain bored of you at this point. I'm certainly not going to bother answering any more questions for you until you deal with the mass separation issue with some intellectual integrity. Until then, you're just a screaming, ranting creationist in my book. "Kill the messenger!"
You claim to believe the sun has a solid surface. You have no evidence. None. You can't answer the simplest questions about it. All you've got is your misguided faith. You've radically misinterpreted some pictures you looked at for a long long time. You spent a wad of money trying to show the whole world how you had a stunning revelation. And now you're floundering in your embarrassment.
You make up your own terminology. You're full of apologetics and excuses. And you still have the ridiculous notion that it's up to other people to prove your case. It's not. It's your job, and instead of doing it you'd rather cry about how everyone is ganging up on you and persecuting you. If you really believed your isotope analysis could actually support your silly idea, you'd set about trying to explain it in clear, concise, understandable terms. But instead you badger and insult and complain because nobody else is doing the work to prove you wrong.
Dr. Manuel doesn't agree with you. You can't show that Birkeland believed the sun had a solid surface. You can't use the helioseismology as support for your wild guess because you can't explain how everyone else on Earth got it wrong or how it might actually work to support your silly idea. And your totally uneducated misinterpretation of all those images you looked at for a long long time doesn't hold a drop of water, either. You've got nothing so far.quote:
Gee GeeMack, you'd fit right in at the Bad Astronomy board (that *really* is an appropriate name for that forum) I hadn't realized they banned Oliver as well. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Ignorant people seem to have a strong need to kill the messenger and silence the opposition by any means necessary.
The only opposition is between your guess and your own lack of ability to support it. You've made a completely unsupportable claim, and you've embarrassed yourself in front of the whole world because you can't prove it, not even remotely. If you had a single shred of evidence you'd be typing it here instead of whining like a little kid. You can't answer a direct question to save your soul. And you've done a fine job of making yourself look like a liar to boot.
Now if you think you have anything left at all, you need to start supplying quantitative answers to the specific pertinent questions you've been asked. If you don't have it, admit it. Don't be such a sore loser.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 20:54:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
...this warrants a response all on it's own...
Well, at least it's a response, finally. How many times did I have to ask that question?quote:
...I'll break my response to your last post up a bit today.
Don't forget to respond to the rest of it.quote:
The assumption that the sun is most likely the same composition as meteorites is at least a valid as assuming it's a big gas ball. Let's start with the moon. It hasn't collected a lot of hydrogen gas over the last 4.6 billion years, certainly not for a lack of hydrogen flowing past it every day, but we can sure see a lot of meteorite hits on it's surface.
Well, the Moon's atmosphere is about three quadrillionths as thick as Earth's, but it's composed of 23% hydrogen (compared to Earth's 0.000055%). Why might that be? Certainly not because a different amount of hydrogen is "flowing past" Earth every day. Hell, even Dr. Manuel's "correction" of the hydrogen abundance of the Sun doesn't come close to 23%. Why the heck is the Moon collecting so much hydrogen compared to the other elements in its atmosphere?quote:
There's not much satellite evidence to suggest that our own sun even hangs onto the hydrogen it's producing in fact.
"In fact?" What satellite evidence is there that the Sun is "losing" almost as much hydrogen as it "produces?"quote:
Let's start logically at solar system formation. Why would the chaos of the universe favor the collection of the very *lightest* elements? Why would the sun be radically different in composition to it's three closest neighbors?
Because it's radically different in mass? Because its three closest neighbors are radically different from each other? Mercury's atmosphere is 3.2% hydrogen, and is 31.7% potassium. Venus' atmosphere has less than 0.0007% hydrogen, and is 96.5% carbon dioxide. Earth's atmosphere (again) is 0.000055% hydrogen, and 77% nitrogen.
But perhaps the atmospheric differences aren't compelling. Okay, Merucry's iron core fills 42% of the planet's volume (it has the highest iron content of any solar-system object), compared to Earth at 17%. And why is it that a trained geologist would be able to tell the source (be it Earth, Moon, Mercury, Venus or Mars) of a rock handed to him? Because the rocks from all these places are different.
The Sun's three nearest neighbors aren't nearly as similar as you'd like them to be, and any such argument ignores Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.quote:
I believe Manuel's assumption here is at least as "practical" in terms of gravity and how planetary sized bodies tend to collect heavy elements.
Actually, since Manuel specifically rejected gravitational effects as an explanation for his fractionization findings in his 1983 paper, you may want to rethink your assertion here. I'll take this as more evidence that you're not actually familiar with Manuel's work beyond a superficial grasp of what he's claiming, especially since you couldn't calculate the solar abundance of nickel using Manuel's equation when asked to do so, but instead hemmed and hawed about finding such a number. If I were Manuel, I'd cut you out of the loop from here on, since you are demonstrating yourself to be a poor spokesman for his theories.quote:
What kind of special pleeding shall we accept to believe that the sun would be mostly composed of hydrogen when this isn't close to the case to any of it's closest physical neighbors?
Nobody is going to plead that case, since we're talking about your model, so you're out of luck. Claiming that the Sun must be similar in composition to its neighbors is what you're doing, and it's pretty silly considering that Mars and Jupiter are neighbors of the asteroid belt. Uranus and Saturn (with its non-Birkelandian rings) are neighbors, but have vastly different atmospheres. Proximity does not equal similarity. |
- 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 - 02/06/2006 : 21:38:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
What specific formulas are you using when you suggest it's density must be lower than predicted, or a much higher temperature?
The laws regarding the speed of sound, as were linked to earlier in this thread (or the part previous).
Since neon has a higher atomic mass than hydrogen, its interia (resistance to movement) will be proportionally higher, resulting in a lower speed of sound if the neon plasma were at the same density as the hydrogen is alleged to be. A higher density will also retard the movement of pressure waves, resulting in a lower speed of sound, so the density cannot be higher than the standard solar model, unless the temperature is much higher to compensate (hotter gasses have a higher speed of sound compared to their cooler counterparts).
So, since neon in a plasma at the same temperature and density as ionized hydrogen has a speed of sound about 1/6th of hydrogen's, its temperature would need to be six times greater in order to get to the same sound velocity as the hydrogen plasma. Of course, since you say the neon is "much" denser than the standard model claims for the hydrogen, then the temperature will have to be six multiplied by "much" to maintain the same speed of sound. In other words, if "much" is a thousand, then the temperature of the neon plasma would have to be over 24,000,000 K (4,000K times 6,000), which is obviously absurd. But why don't you tell us how much "much" is for your model, Michael?
Speaking of temperature... You said (finally) that a predominatly calcium plasma overlays the solid surface. Singly-ionizing calcium, by my calculations, requires temperatures over 100,000 K, which presents a bit of a problem for your solid layer, doesn't it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 21:43:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, at least it's a response, finally. How many times did I have to ask that question?
Well, at least twice. I admit I didn't quite "get" what you were after the first time you asked. I'll be happy to deal with this issue, in fact I think you'll find this is where a non mass separated model starts to fall apart to begin with.
quote:
Don't forget to respond to the rest of it.
I will, but this week will be a bit sporatic. I would like to stay focused on a couple of key points, this part being one of them.
quote:
Well, the Moon's atmosphere is about three quadrillionths as thick as Earth's, but it's composed of 23% hydrogen (compared to Earth's 0.000055%). Why might that be?
Well, first of all, we're not talking about *just* the moon's atmosphere, but the moon itself. It's probably only because the moon has such a "thin" atmosphere that is mostly temporary in the first place, that makes it so disproportianately hydrogen. If you look however at the total mass of the moon, darn little of it is hydrogen. Now keep in mind that this solar system is quite abundant in hydrogen. It flows freely off the sun, day in and day out for 4.6 billion years, but no growing gas ball of hydrogen has formed around the core of the solid moon, not in all that time. The solids however, those things stick around just fine because they have enough mass to not get blown away at the first stiff wind. Even at a moon size scale, it's pretty clear there is mass separation going on, and a scheme that favors the formations of solid cores.
As we move up the scale, and select something the size of Mars or earth, we find an abundance of iron and silicon, and rocks composed of these elements. Even the earth, with all it's size hangs onto very little of the hydrogen gas being pumped out of the sun in every second. In over 4.6 billion years, its not managed to form a hydrogen gas ball around itself, even with the sun's output over 4.6 billion years.
The same is true of Mars and Venus and Mercury. Their outer atmospheres are thin and relatively devoid of hydrogen. Not one of them managed to form a hydrogen bubble around itself, even in close proximity to an excellent source for billions of years. All of these bodies are mass separated, and they all favor the formation of solids at the core, and only support a relatively thin shell of atmosphere.
When I look at the images of the sun, this is also exactly what I see. I see a relatively large crust covered by a relatively thin atmosphere.
quote:
Certainly not because a different amount of hydrogen is "flowing past" Earth every day. Hell, even Dr. Manuel's "correction" of the hydrogen abundance of the Sun doesn't come close to 23%.
You are comparing apples to oranges since he's looking a whole body, not simply it's atmosphere.
quote:
Why the heck is the Moon collecting so much hydrogen compared to the other elements in its atmosphere?
I don't see any evidence it's "collected" anything. In fact it looks to be made of the same basic composition as the solar wind. I'd say nothing at all was truely "collected", that is simply a background leftover affect of the solar wind itself. Again however there is no giant gas ball surrounding the core, and even it there were, it would be mass separated from the outset.
Before we go a lot further, let's see this part of the conversation out a bit. I need to understand what exactly makes you think any solar body hangs onto hydrogen if none of the inner planets or moons have managed this feat in over 4.6 billion years. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/06/2006 21:44:23 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 21:51:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Since neon has a higher atomic mass than hydrogen, its interia (resistance to movement) will be proportionally higher, resulting in a lower speed of sound if the neon plasma were at the same density as the hydrogen is alleged to be.
But now you are trying to compare "reality" with a theoretical value based on gas model theory. How do we know how fast sounds *actually* travel through a predominantly neon plasma in these gravity situations, in these electromagnetic conditions? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/06/2006 21:52:29 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 21:54:38 [Permalink]
|
Dave, where are you getting these numbers? No, I mean literally the symbolic references which you are substituting for their quantitative representations? Since all of your fancy equations assume this symbolic set has been normalized for human beings utilizing a limited capacity for abstract thought, how can I even say whether any of your figures are correct? There is possibly an alien species out there who holds a mathematical conceptual framework that would explain Michael's density issues quite easily. The point is we don't KNOW and you haven't yet done jack to prove to me this is NOT the case. Why you INSIST on using numbers created by an Earth-based bipedal species when it is absurd to think we are the only life-forms in the Universe is beyond me, but such ANTHROPOMORPHIC PRIDE smacks of creationism.
P.S. Talk to me when you are serious about doing real science.
|
"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 |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/06/2006 22:01:08 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 22:10:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Dave, where are you getting these numbers?
Actually HH, your sarcasm aside, this is in fact the 64 thousand dollar question. Where is he getting these numbers related to sound travel speeds and density? In fact he's whipping them out of a non mass separated gas model "theory" and then expecting me to agree to thess numbers without regard to any concept of mass separation. I can't and I won't do that.
If you or Dave can show me how someone actually "measured" the speed of these sounds in a lab in a predominantly neon layer, in these specific conditions, then we can talk. If however Dave or you is expecting me to simply accept a "theoretical value" rather than a direct observation based on these specific conditions, we won't get off the ground. It's a non starter to begin with gas model theory and work backwards. I need real life observation in controlled conditions that demonstrate the speed of sound in various plasmas. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/06/2006 22:15:16 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 22:32:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But now you are trying to compare "reality" with a theoretical value based on gas model theory.
No, I'm not. I'm comparing "reality" using a set of equations which are the expressions of acoustical laws. The standard solar model doesn't even enter into this, except as an example number. Again: how much is "much more dense" in your model, Michael? Why won't you answer such a simple question?quote:
How do we know how fast sounds *actually* travel through a predominantly neon plasma in these gravity situations, in these electromagnetic conditions?
Well, since the acoustical laws I'm applying aren't dependent upon gravity or electromagnetism (I asked you a long time ago to provide evidence that current flowing through a material will affect its acoustical properties, as you claimed, and you failed to answer), other than how they apply to density and/or temperature, then I'd have to say that those "conditions" and "situations" are encompassed by the equations already, and the answers will be perfectly valid.
Don't forget, Michael, that the equations are "laws" because nobody has ever found any exceptions to them. If you'd like to suggest that an exception is necessary for certain conditions, I'm sure we can find an acoustical physicist who'll be glad to hear your evidence, if you've got any. |
- 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 - 02/06/2006 : 22:46:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Dave, where are you getting these numbers?
Snort!quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Actually HH, your sarcasm aside, this is in fact the 64 thousand dollar question. Where is he getting these numbers related to sound travel speeds and density? In fact he's whipping them out of a non mass separated gas model "theory" and then expecting me to agree to thess numbers without regard to any concept of mass separation. I can't and I won't do that.
Utter nonsense. The speed of sound in a material is independent of the standard model or the mass separated model. The speed of sound in any material is not dependent upon any particular model of the Sun, but is calculatable from its basic properties, like density and temperature. It doesn't matter whether the plasma is on the Sun or within a magnetic bottle here on Earth, if the basic properties are the same, then the acoustic properties will be identical.quote:
If you or Dave can show me how someone actually "measured" the speed of these sounds in a lab in a predominantly neon layer, in these specific conditions, then we can talk. If however Dave or you is expecting me to simply accept a "theoretical value" rather than a direct observation based on these specific conditions, we won't get off the ground. It's a non starter to begin with gas model theory and work backwards. I need real life observation in controlled conditions that demonstrate the speed of sound in various plasmas.
The speed of sound in your alleged neon layer will depend upon what values you propose for its density and temperature, and nothing else. Since you claimed that it is "much" denser than the standard model's photospheric density, then the standard model is a logical starting point, with a multiplier for your "much" value. If you don't like that, then offer up some numbers so a real analysis of your model can begin. If you are unable to quantify your model, then it is untestable, unfalsifiable and unscientific with regard to the questions I'm asking about it, and deserves no more discussion as a scientific theory. |
- 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 - 02/06/2006 : 23:02:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, I'm not. I'm comparing "reality" using a set of equations which are the expressions of acoustical laws.
The expression of acoustical laws in *what materials*? Under what conditions? In what gravity conditions specifically? In what temperature ranges specifically? In short, what lab results are you comparing any of this to?
quote:
The standard solar model doesn't even enter into this, except as an example number.
Show me a lab result that speaks to the sound travel characteristics of neon and silicon plasma and show me how the sound travel relates to the density of these elements. I seem to recall a while back that you were suggesting that in plasma, the sound speed was more affected by temperatures changes than by density changes. You seem to be suggesting just the opposite now.
If I had a density number to whip out of my pocket at the moment, I'd be happy to do so. Unfortunately I don't know how dense this layer is just yet, but Kosovichev's last paper may provide some insights. I'm still working my way through that paper and looking at raw 195A SOHO images and timestamps. The fact there is a correlation her between surface fractures and waves in the photosophere may allow us to compute "density" in a more sophisticated way. I'm not sure there is enough information in that last paper to help me, but I'm still working on a reliable method to determine density.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 23:11:07 [Permalink]
|
| Let's get back to that hydrogen ball vs. meteorite debate, because that is where I think this whole debate really begins. I see virtually no evidence to suggest that any solar body is immume from mass separation, or that solar bodies hang onto their hydrogen. In fact I don't see any satellite evidence that leads me to believe that the sun even hangs onto it's hydrogen. No inner solar body has acquired a giant hydrogen ball around it, not in 4.6 billion years. What makes you think any solar body hangs onto hydrogen or make you think hydrogen ball theories are preferable to meteorite collision models? How is it that every body in the solar system seems to be mass separated *except* the sun? How did it manage to form in a non mass separated manner when every smaller body begins in a mass separated manner, and the process clearly favors solids over light gasses, at least in the early stages of mass formation? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/06/2006 23:13:04 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 00:05:45 [Permalink]
|
As Michael Mozina's case for a solid surface sun conjecture continues to crumble, a modicum of understanding allows us to discard even more of his supposed evidence. Now we can put yet another piece of his "evidence" behind us so it never has to enter the discussion again. The more of these useless pieces we can discard, the easier it will be to focus on the dwindling remnants.
For weeks now we've seen Michael demand that some of his best evidence is right there, plain for all to see, in those running difference images he's been staring at for such a long long time. Holy mackerel, how could we possibly doubt there's a solid surface when we look at those images, all three dimensional and solid looking like the ones on his web site? Well okay, let's take care of the issue of his misunderstood, misinterpreted running difference images once and for all.
For those who don't already know what a "running difference" image is, I'll try to give an understandable explanation. A running difference image is not a picture of anything. It is a graph, a simple representation of change. It is the result of taking two images, laying one over the other, and subtracting the pixels (or values of pixels) that are different. Some algorithms leave black where pixels from both images are identical, and varying shades of gray to show relative changes in the other pixels. Instead of black and grays some might use white and grays, or even various colors.
What looks like light and shadow in a running difference image is not light and shadow at all. What looks like solid material is simply an idiosyncrasy of the way the image is produced. In fact, any apparent "texture" seen in a running difference image actually substantiates a lack of solidity, because it proves there was a difference between one image and the next.
Here's a short article about how to make a "difference layer" using Photoshop. This probably does not use the same subtraction algorithm as those used to process the SOHO images for NASA. It should give you a general idea, however, that the results of this type of processing don't necessarily show anything relating to a real, discernable image.
So in order for a running difference image to make any quantitative sense, you need the context. In other words, you need to know which two images were used to create it and the intended results of the algorithm applied. A running difference image does not show something is solid any more than this "picture" proves the sound coming from a trumpet is solid...
From the Handbook for Acoustic Ecology
And the "picture" shown on this page does not prove the clucking sound of a chicken is solid. Sometimes the way we graph and chart things makes them appear three dimensional, but it would be a mistake to believe these images show "solid" sounds.
You'll find some more running difference images posted in this article in The Astrophysical Journal. Notice these particular images could "prove" that the sun is actually a nearly flat disk, space beyond the sun is a flat solid surface, and there are several stones and pebbles with obvious dimension, showing light and shadow, scattered all over the solid surface. And to think, we used to believe that beyond the sun was an ongoing continuum we called outer space!
Here's another running difference image that "proves" there are three dimensional structures sticking thousands of kilometers out into space on all sides of the sun, and again more "proof" that the sun is not spherical at all, but is in fact a flat disk, laying flat against, not space, but a solid background.
To go a step further, the SOHO running difference images are not meant to be viewed as pictures at all. They are more or less a graph of activity, a way to show the difference between one image and the next. And unless we have both of the real images to start with, the running difference images are almost without context. To consider them as showing some sort of three dimensional picture would be a glaring error on the part of the observer.
Here's a three panel image showing both of the components used, one subtracted from the other, and the running difference image result. Again you'll notice we can use this image to "prove" the sun is completely flat, just a solid flat surface like the space beyond it. There are huge massive chunky three dimensional growths protruding from the sun out either side here, too. Wow.
A running difference video is just a sequence of running difference images, image 1 and 2 make RD image A, image 2 and 3 make RD image B, image 3 and 4 make RD image C, and so on. Then the results, the A, B, C, etc., are shown in sequence to make a video. There is still no representation of any real, solid, tangible items in a running difference video any more than there is in an individual running difference image.
Any image, running difference or otherwise, is without substance as evidence unless it can be explained in full detail in a quantitative way. We'd need the time/date, scale, location on the sun's surface, method of gathering the image, method of filtering, original size and resolution, methods involved in processing it, and even a statement by the creators as to the specific intent for which the image was developed. Again, from even a rudimentary scientific perspective, it would be a serious mistake to consider as evidence any image unless we are armed with all available quantitative information.
So Michael Mozina's uninformed opinion that he "sees" a solid surface on the sun by looking at his running difference images is completely subjective, ultimately useless information, the results of a drastically uneducated guess. It does not in any way substantiate his conjecture. From this point forward, without every quantitative detail provided, and explanations of how to specifically verify its scientific validity, we can simply discard any running difference images that might be presented as evidence of the sun's surface being solid.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
