|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 06/20/2006 : 15:52:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
When the gas model solar theories are overturned and they ask me about your contribution to the process, I'll tell them that you didn't really have anything useful to add, you just made up and hurled a constant stream of insults my way based on imaginary knowledge you simply didn't even posses.
When MM says stuff like this, and I see how much time he has put into this drivel, I really start to pity him, but then I realize that in his arrogant, deliusional mind he will always be right no matter what, so there is no need to pity him. He just knows that any day he will be proven right; and he will continue to believe he will be proven right to his dying day.
Oh crap, I'm starting to feel sorry for him again...
Well, Birkeland probably knew that one day that he would be proven right. It only took us another 60+ years to demonstrate that he was right about the current flowing between the sun and the earth. It may take another 60 year before folks like you wake up and smell the coffee as it relates to his solar model. That wouldn't surprise me one bit in fact. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2006 : 15:53:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Understatement alert: "... Dave is sometimes a bit gruff at times."
I was just graciously giving him the "benefit of the doubt". :) |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2006 : 17:54:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Dr. Mabuse....
I would like to thank you and John before I leave for providing a good, fair and skeptical look at the materials I have presented here. I very much appreciated your input as well as John's input. I did appreicate Dave's input at times as well, but we must be too similar at some level and our ego's seem to get in the way of good and honest dialog. On the other hand, I very much appreciated the fact that you kept a cool head and I appreciate that you and John helped keep things focused on the scientific issues. Thanks.
I appreciate the thanks, even though I'm unsure that any of us actually achieved a helluva lot. I mostly enjoyed the experience, and if nothing else I have learned some things about the sun that I didn't know before. I do not, however count a solid surface amongst this body of knowledge at this point in time.
My opinion is you'll run into similar issues on any science-oriented forums. Although SFN isn't particularly science-oriented, its mission is pretty well aligned with the scientific method. If you find the personal, emotive issues confronting however, you may be better off, as you have intimated, on forums where "protocol" is more formal and strict. This may prevent the name calling, but I don't think it will do your argument itself much good. For myself, the degree of latitude given to posters at SFN is one of it's major attractions. I appreciate that this is would not be the position of many.
Anyway, good luck battling the conspiracy that besets you. (I'm still waiting for my formal invitiation to join.) That's what you get for being a little fish I guess. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2006 : 20:04:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
I appreciate the thanks, even though I'm unsure that any of us actually achieved a helluva lot. I mostly enjoyed the experience, and if nothing else I have learned some things about the sun that I didn't know before. I do not, however count a solid surface amongst this body of knowledge at this point in time.
Well, I personally feel like I learned quite a bit through the experience, including some things I didn't know about current solar theory. I do not think that current solar theory is worth the paper it's printed on however. :)
quote:
My opinion is you'll run into similar issues on any science-oriented forums. Although SFN isn't particularly science-oriented, its mission is pretty well aligned with the scientific method. If you find the personal, emotive issues confronting however, you may be better off, as you have intimated, on forums where "protocol" is more formal and strict. This may prevent the name calling, but I don't think it will do your argument itself much good. For myself, the degree of latitude given to posters at SFN is one of it's major attractions. I appreciate that this is would not be the position of many.
Anyway, good luck battling the conspiracy that besets you. (I'm still waiting for my formal invitiation to join.) That's what you get for being a little fish I guess.
Actually I agree with you that the free speech aspects of this forum are attractive. Whatever my beef with this joint, it's been open and honest, and that is what I came here for. I don't however believe this is the "best" place to discuss this theory mainly because there are so many "distractions" from strawmen and willful ignorance and attitude. It was hard to stay focused and I appreciated your effort and Dr. Mabuse's efforts on that aspect of the discussion.
I see no giant "conspiracy" here since all the data I'm using comes right from NASA or Lockheed or some other freely available resource. I only see some "bad interpretation" of satellite images by a few individuals based on preconcieved misconceptions about where we should expect to find the "transitional region", and blind faith in the notion that plasmas stay mysteriously mixed in an environment that typically mass separates plasma right down to the isotope. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/20/2006 20:05:34 |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2006 : 20:58:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You'll have to explain what you mean by "function" since a Birkeland solar model is not predictated upon hydrogen fusion as it's only possible heat source.
OK. Whatever. IANASP (I am not a solar physicist). You still have not addressed the problem of your model actaully making predictions and fitting with current phenomena.
All you have done is assume you are correct. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2006 : 09:38:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You'll have to explain what you mean by "function" since a Birkeland solar model is not predictated upon hydrogen fusion as it's only possible heat source.
OK. Whatever. IANASP (I am not a solar physicist). You still have not addressed the problem of your model actaully making predictions and fitting with current phenomena.
All you have done is assume you are correct.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that statement since I made a number of very key and testable predictions in the very first paper I wrote. I spent time explaining each solar image that I used to support my theory, and I did note where my model jived and differred from current solar theory. I made a number of testable predictions at the end of that very first paper. Since that time, I've published additional papers to include the work in nuclear chemistry provided by Dr. Oliver Manuel that showed evidence of mass separation. I also included heliosiesmology data from Dr. Alexander Kosovichev which helped determine the actual depth of the surface beneath the photosphere. All of these are "testable", and in fact Kosovichev's paper came out *after* my first published paper that predicted a stratified layer existed at a shallow depth under the photosphere. Kosovichev's paper then confirmed this prediction and isolated the depth for us.
The most testable aspect of the Birkeland solar model using the STEREO data will be the question of mass separated plasma layers and the position of the base of the arcs relative to the surface of the photosphere. Dr. Manuel's work predicted mass separation of layers. I put together satellite evidence that also suggests that the sun's atmosphere is composed of mass separated layers, and suggest the coronal loops originate under the photosphere.
Current solar theory suggests the base of the coronal loops seen in 171A and 195A images originate in the the lower corona, far above the photosphere. In a Birkeland solar model they would begin at the surface, which appears to be located between .985-.995R (beneath the photosphere) according to the heliosismology data. Lockheed Martin contends that the base of the loops seen in these 171, 195 and 284A images is coming from the lower corona. STEREO which is scheduled to launch next month should be able to determine if the layers are in fact mass separated, and it should be able to assertain the location of the base of the coronal loops relative to the other layers. One of the two models should be falsified by the data from STEREO.
Currently all the SOHO, Yohkoh, Trace, Rhessi and other solar images are two dimensional images. The third dimension (depth) is "interpreted" from the data. Since these are two dimensional images, and relatively low resolution images, there is no way to currently determine the exact location of the layers in relationship to one another, or to analyse the travel path of the coronal loops through the solar atmosphere using satellite images. STEREO will change all of that, and remove these limitations. Stereo's images should remove any ambiguity and answer these questions in mathematically precise terms. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/21/2006 09:45:03 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2006 : 17:08:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I only see some "bad interpretation" of satellite images by a few individuals...
You don't think that's a little hyperbolic?
I think if "few" were going to be used to describe a group of participants in this discussion, it would be more appropriately applied to those who actually believe that lockheed's running difference imagery actually shows a solid surface. Perhaps you only "see" what you want to see.
Note, I'm not intending to argue that because there are more people who disagree with you than agree that this is necessarily correct, I'm just trying to point out that your statement was more than a little mis-representative of the true situation.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
based on preconcieved misconceptions about where we should expect to find the "transitional region", and blind faith in the notion that plasmas stay mysteriously mixed in an environment that typically mass separates plasma right down to the isotope.
What it's based on, Michael, is the existing body of scientific knowledge which is relevant to your claims. I understand that this body of knowledge needs constant refinement and, far less often, some major changes. In all honesty, with what you have presented to date, I see very little chance of the latter happening any time soon with respect to solar theory and solid surfaces.
As Dave had hinted, I'd actually love to be able to say I was discussing a major scientific breakthrough with one of it's primary founders. I know you like to direct attention towards Birkeland and others at times, but the fact is I've not seen anyone else (including those with whom you've published) explicitly agree with your solid surface theory and it's ramifications.
I'm not going to re-address the scientific issues again, the fact is we've done it ad nauseum in the "Surface of the sun" threads, however,
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I've been able to explain what I see in most every satellite image, whereas gas model theorists the world over can't even seem to get past the very first image on my website. To date, no one on any forum has offered up a comprehensive gas model explanation for that first Lockheed RD image that is even remotely attentive to detail.
I'm only addressing this again for those that haven't wandered into the original threads, as I think they may get the wrong idea otherwise. Many of us here have addressed the images in quite a bit of detail. However, I will concede that it's not "to your satisfaction", but it never will be, as there are fundamental issues with the interpretations running difference images that have never been resolved.
As to "gas model theory" not explaining things to your satisfaction, you might as well say "quantum theory doesn't explain every detail of the image, therefore quantum theory is bunk". It just doesn't work that way.
This is beside the fact that (which has been pointed out again and again) that picking issues with current solar theory, which is perfectly reasonable to do, does not in any way validate an alternative theory. It reminds me a little too much of the "evolution can't explain absolutely every detail of ..... therefore creation is correct." argument.
Damn, apologies again, to Robb for the hijack. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2006 : 10:07:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
...I've stuck it out here because I respect your scientific knowledge as well as the knowledge of Dr. Mabuse and John and several others along the way. It kept things "interesting". This skeptical review has made me learn quite a bit along the way and allowed me to focus in on the core issues...
Well, I don't see how that's at all consistent with your idea that you'd tell questioners that I "just made up and hurled a constant stream of insults [your] way based on imaginary knowledge [I] simply didn't even posses." And that's really the core issue here, Michael: your inconsistency. You claim that Kosovichev used unsupported assumptions in measuring the density of the photosphere, yet those same assumptions allowed him to accurately measure the "density stratifications" you claim as evidence that the gas theory is wrong. Or, you're sure that some light in 171A images is reflected off your alleged surface, but also claim that "there is no way to currently determine the exact location of the layers in relationship to one another, or to analyse the travel path of the coronal loops through the solar atmosphere using satellite images." Or, you claim that gas theories will be "overturned" while still claiming that you're interested in science. There are numerous other examples.
But, the fact that you can hold two contradictory assertions as "true" simultaneously does demonstrate to me that when I've accused you of lying, I was wrong. I apologize for that, since it's obvious that you really thought that what you were saying was true, even though - at least when it came to you describing my position on various issues - I know the polar opposite position was true.
I'm sure that you realize that the gas model is not "based on the concept of little or no mass separation of plasmas," and that mass separation isn't demonstrated by the photosphere, chromosphere and corona, and that the open convective zone underneath the photosphere must have density changes within it (that they're stratified is only surprising if you disregard that the differences are small), and that nobody has ever attempted to measure the elemental abundances of the whole Sun using "photon counts." I'm sure you know those things, but claim the opposite as true - and "know" that, too - when you feel a need to bash the gas model.
I think you know all these things, but just haven't bounced these "facts" off one another to check for consistency in your own head, and consistency with what actual scientists are actually saying. It's that which causes the most friction in these threads, Michael, and it's that which gets me so frustrated that I use the "F word." It's possible that there aren't any flaws in your theory, Michael, but the world will never know it until the flaws in your presentation (like your inconsistency) get worked out. |
- 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 - 06/22/2006 : 11:20:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
You don't think that's a little hyperbolic?
Not really. I'm simply noting the difference between a "conspiracy" and a difference in interpretation.
quote:
I think if "few" were going to be used to describe a group of participants in this discussion, it would be more appropriately applied to those who actually believe that lockheed's running difference imagery actually shows a solid surface.]
Something I've discovered during the past year John is that people tend to "specialize" in one "aspect" of astronomy. Not everyone is an "expert" on solar satellite image interpretation. Many astronomers do not even work on that issue as a part of their studies or their research. Few people have the "expertise" to explain Trace or SOHO images in even rudimentary ways, let alone have the expertise to explain a running difference image. There are only a few folks inside NASA and Lockheed that specialize in this kind of thing. I've talked to a number of these individuals over the past year. To date, none of them have offered up a comprehensive explanation of that first Lockheed RD image on my website that was even remotely attentive to detail. The best "attempt" I've seen came from you actually, and your explanation left out all of the pertinant details of the image IMO.
quote:
Perhaps you only "see" what you want to see.
Perhaps so, but then I didn't set out to "see" anything in particular in RD images on April 16th 2005. At the time I had "faith" in gas model theory in fact. The structures seen in the observations themselves are what convinced me that the Birkeland solar model has merit. If there is a gas model explanation for these images, then I would have expected someone to offer me one that was "complete" and attentive to detail. In over a year now of talking to people on various boards, that has never once happened. It's easy to "see what you want to see". It's another thing to explain what you see in some detail using the principles of science. I can explain the existence of the rigid patterns in this image, the light source of the image, the cause of the CME and the "peeling effect" we see on the right side. I can be attentive to detail, whereas gas model theoriests have "seen what they wish to see", but have never explained the image.
quote:
Note, I'm not intending to argue that because there are more people who disagree with you than agree that this is necessarily correct, I'm just trying to point out that your statement was more than a little mis-representative of the true situation.
I can see why you might take exception to my wording, but there is distinct difference between claiming that there is some giant conspiracy and recognizing that only a few people study these images professionally, and there is a natural "leaning" toward gas model theory. I see no giant conspiracy.
quote:
What it's based on, Michael, is the existing body of scientific knowledge which is relevant to your claims. I understand that this body of knowledge needs constant refinement and, far less often, some major changes. In all honesty, with what you have presented to date, I see very little chance of the latter happening any time soon with respect to solar theory and solid surfaces.
I don't expect to see much change until the STEREO data starts to come in. Then we should see mathematical evidence of plasma separation and we should see evidence of where the coronal loops originate in relationship to the surface of the photosphere. At that point, things might change, but even then they won't change overnight.
quote:
As Dave had hinted, I'd actually love to be able to say I was discussing a major scientific breakthrough with one of it's primary founders.
And likewise I would like to think this is a major scientific breakthrough thanks to the hard work of the people that design, build, launch and maintain these satellites.
quote:
I know you like to direct attention towards Birkeland and others at times, but the fact is I've not seen anyone else (including those with whom you've published) explicitly agree with your solid surface theory and it's ramifications.
Well, if you're asking me to credit for the idea, ok, but Birkeland did experiment with exactly this kind of solid surface model in his lab. Taking "credit" for the idea seems "wrong" since I was more than 100 years late to the party. On the other hand, I know for sure that Hilton Ratcliffe, Sumeet Kamat and Oliver Manuel all share my views about the plasma separation aspects of this model and "rigid" (not necessarily solid) solar surface. There are four of us that make that claim, not just one. Though I've not asked Kumeet or Hilton directly, I know for sure that Dr. Manuel was the instigator of the term "ridid" rather than solid mainly because it's more "flexible" and allows for both solids and plasma.
I'm not going to re-address the scientific issues again, the fact is we've done it ad nauseum in the "Surface of the sun" threads, however,
quote:
I'm only addressing this again for those that haven't wandered into the original threads, as I think they may get the wrong idea otherwise. Many of us here have addressed the images in quite a bit of detail. However, I will concede that it's not "to your satisfaction", but it never will be, as there are fundamental issues with the interpretations running difference images that have never been resolved.
I'll let folks make up their own mind about this after reading the threads assuming anyone is actually interested. I'll give you some credit for "trying", and frankly that was the "best" attempt I've seen, but I do not believe it was even remotely attentive to detail, praticularly when it comes to explain the rigidness of the patterns in the image.
quote:
As to "gas model theory" not explaining things to your satisfaction, you might as well say "quantum theory doesn't explain every detail of the image, therefore quantum theory is bunk". It just doesn't work that way.
This isn' |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/22/2006 11:21:09 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2006 : 11:22:23 [Permalink]
|
| I think your just full of shit, behavior like yours is a serious detriment to science. |
"...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 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2006 : 12:41:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, I don't see how that's at all consistent with your idea that you'd tell questioners that I "just made up and hurled a constant stream of insults [your] way based on imaginary knowledge [I] simply didn't even posses."
That was actually a cheap shot on my part based on a reaction to your "style". Frankly I owe you an apology. I have appreciated your input and the efforts you've made here Dave. I just have not appreciated the "attitude" that went along with it.
quote:
And that's really the core issue here, Michael: your inconsistency.
But gas model theory is terribly inconsistent. In fact it's so inconsistant it's painful, particularly when we get to the corona and the heat source of the corona. Plasmas tend to mass separate in magnetic and gravitational fields. Somehow, quite magically they don't mass separate on the sun according to gas model theory. That's the first big "inconsistancy" I see in gas model theory, and it only works if there is no mass separation of elements into layers.
quote:
You claim that Kosovichev used unsupported assumptions in measuring the density of the photosphere, yet those same assumptions allowed him to accurately measure the "density stratifications" you claim as evidence that the gas theory is wrong.
No. Kosovichev's work is completely "relative" to whatever "density" we assign to the surface of the photosphere. I content that this "baseline" density is assumed since I see no evidence it was directly measured, and you have provided no evidence to demonstate that it was directly measured. His work is "relative" to the photosphere density.
quote:
Or, you're sure that some light in 171A images is reflected off your alleged surface, but also claim that "there is no way to currently determine the exact location of the layers in relationship to one another,
How is that inconsistent? We do have Kosovichev's work which does isolate the "range" we should be looking at carefully, specifically the area between .985R and .995R. The surface is likely to be located where the sound changes are the greatest, specifically at about .993R. That's the best data we have right now regarding the location of the surface itself.
The reason I'm cetain that photons bounce off the surface is because I see the consistent structures of the surface in RD images. I also see similar structures at a shallow depth in Doppler images as well. I therefore have a good reason to believe that photons can and do reflect from the surface located at about .993R, where we see a significant change of sound speed according to the heliosiesmology data.
I don't really have any doubt as to the "depth" of the chromosphere and the photosphere. Where the uncertainly comes into play is underneath the photosphere. I do not know the depth of the calcium plasma layer, though I "suspect" it's relatively thin in comparison to the silicon layer. Most of the uncertainty as far as plasma depths are concerned are related to the depth of the silicon layer in relationship to the calcium layer. I just don't have that answer just yet, but I suspect that Kosovichevs work could help us determine this as well. I haven't figured out a "good" way to do that just yet however. Your expertise in this area is noteworthy and if you'd like to make an educated guess based on the heliosiesmology data, I'd be happy to listen to your explanation.
quote:
or to analyse the travel path of the coronal loops through the solar atmosphere using satellite images." Or, you claim that gas theories will be "overturned" while still claiming that you're interested in science. There are numerous other examples.
I am certainly interested in science Dave. That's what got me into this mess in the first place, and my interest in science is why I continue to put money and effort into this process. A year ago, I started this process with "faith" in a Birkeland solar model based on satellite imagery. Having debated solar models now now for a year with experts from around the world, I've gained more "faith" in the idea. I've also collected a lot more data to support a Birkeland solar model, including quite a bit of heliosiesmology data, nuclear chemical data, additional satellite images etc. It's therefore likely IMO that STEREO will return evidence of mass separated plasma layers and it provide evidence to demonstrate that the coronal loops originate under the photosphere, not in the lower corona. Once STEREO demonstrates these things, I'm quite confident that current solar theories will be "overturned".
I've been doing the scientific process by the book Dave. I've published a number of papers now with other scientists, including papers that have been published in a respected scientific jounal. I have put my theories to the test and I've made a number of very testable predictions about the STEREO data which should come online late this year. I've made a number of other testeable predictions with this solar model as well. There isn't much more I can do "scientifically" speaking at the moment, at least not until I get more comfortable with plasma physics. I'm working on that as well.
quote:
But, the fact that you can hold two contradictory assertions as "true" simultaneously does demonstrate to me that when I've accused you of lying, I was wrong. I apologize for that, since it's obvious that you really thought that what you were saying was true, even though - at least when it came to you describing my position on various issues - I know the polar opposite position was true.
Lot's of people have misconceptions about my ideas. Even after I explain my position carefully, some people continue to have misconceptions. I understand that, particularly with a technical topic. What I don't undersand is your need to interject the F work and L word into the conversation. I may not grasp where you're coming from at times Dave but I'm not a "liar". You may take exception to a single sentence I used, but I don't see how your outbursts are condusive to a scientific discussion. I'm not your enemy.
quote:
I'm sure that you realize that the gas model is not "based on the concept of little or no mass separation of plasmas,"
No I don't "realize" that at all. I "realize" that gas model theory is based on the "belief" or the "faith" the the sun's heavy metals and heaviest elements do |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2006 : 12:42:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
I think your just full of shit, behavior like yours is a serious detriment to science.
Thats ok. I don't think any better of you either. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2006 : 13:53:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But gas model theory is terribly inconsistent. In fact it's so inconsistant it's painful, particularly when we get to the corona and the heat source of the corona. Plasmas tend to mass separate in magnetic and gravitational fields.
Maybe plasmas in laboratories do tend to mass separate. But I can see an element that is missing from this equation: thermal energy transport.
Heat is rising through the plasma, from the sun's inner to the outer regions through convection. Just like stirring a pot, it has a kind of mixing effect. And a "stratification layer" at .995r looks like one of the transit zones where one convection cell end (vertically) and another is stacked above it. Even you must have the good sense to realise that the gas model does not suggest that a single convection cell stretch from .7r to 1r in height.
quote:
Somehow, quite magically they don't mass separate on the sun according to gas model theory. That's the first big "inconsistancy" I see in gas model theory, and it only works if there is no mass separation of elements into layers.
Like I said: convection is mixing elements of similar weights. The mix is not perfect. Hydrodynamics predict this mixing when there is a heat transfer. |
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. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2006 : 16:14:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Maybe plasmas in laboratories do tend to mass separate. But I can see an element that is missing from this equation: thermal energy transport.
Heat is rising through the plasma, from the sun's inner to the outer regions through convection. Just like stirring a pot, it has a kind of mixing effect. And a "stratification layer" at .995r looks like one of the transit zones where one convection cell end (vertically) and another is stacked above it. Even you must have the good sense to realise that the gas model does not suggest that a single convection cell stretch from .7r to 1r in height.
Sure Dr. Mabuse, but now you have yet *another* seemingly mass separated "layer" of the sun to explain. According to Kosovichev's data, the region between .985R and .995R is capable of blocking both the downdrafting plasma from above and also capable of blocking the upwelling plasma from below. Why? How? Why do the graphs of mass movement all go horizontal in that region? What's so different about that specific region in comparison to what's above it and what's below it? Why does it change size during the solar cycle and why are the stratication changes smaller on the underside of this startified layer at the bottom and greater at the top?
What gas model predicted this layer to exist at this location? Canb you even show me an updated gas model today that incorporates this heliosiesmology data?
quote:
Like I said: convection is mixing elements of similar weights. The mix is not perfect. Hydrodynamics predict this mixing when there is a heat transfer.
We're trying to explain how iron atoms overcome the forces of gravity. You'll need a whole lot of heat and movement to keep iron atoms from separating from hydrogen atoms in that kind of gravity well, let alone the affects of strong magnetic fields on this separation process.
The harsh environment of the sun, and it's strong gravitational and electromagnetic fields are going to continue to attempt to separate the plasmas right down to the isotope. We see coronal rain fall though the solar atmosphere even though there is presumably "mixing" by heat transfer in that region too. Since we have a known and imaged layer that blocks plasma flow in the regions between .970 and .985R, you're going to have a tough time convincing me that there is sufficient heat transfer, particularly in this region, to account for this any kind of "mixing" of element. You'll also have to offer up some plausible mechanism to explain why the different "layers" form, including the subsurface stratification layer, the photosphere, the chromosphere and the corona. What for instance separates the photosphere from chromosphere from the corona? Why doesn't the plasma chromosophere either blend with the photosophere or blend with the corona? What keeps them separate from one another? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2006 : 13:00:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That was actually a cheap shot on my part based on a reaction to your "style".
Ah.quote:
But gas model theory is terribly inconsistent. In fact it's so inconsistant it's painful, particularly when we get to the corona and the heat source of the corona. Plasmas tend to mass separate in magnetic and gravitational fields. Somehow, quite magically they don't mass separate on the sun according to gas model theory. That's the first big "inconsistancy" I see in gas model theory, and it only works if there is no mass separation of elements into layers.
It would only be inconsistent if the gas model predicted two different outcomes from the same data. It doesn't. You know as well as I do that there is no consensus on coronal heating, so its mechanism is hardly a part of the model right now. Secondly, the gas model predicts that elements are being mass separated due to gravity, it's just that the process is extremely slow and is countered by the massive amount of physical mixing due to convection and huge magnetic loops.
Of course, whether the gas model is inconsistent or not doesn't matter one whit to whether or not your statements are inconsistent.quote:
No. Kosovichev's work is completely "relative" to whatever "density" we assign to the surface of the photosphere.
Can you support that claim with data from Kosovichev's own work?quote:
I content that this "baseline" density is assumed since I see no evidence it was directly measured, and you have provided no evidence to demonstate that it was directly measured.
I provided you with a full paper of his in which he claims to have used helioseismology to measure the density of the photosphere. From my point of view, it's your word ("relative") against his ("measured"), and you haven't been able to provide any proper criticisms of his actual papers.quote:
His work is "relative" to the photosphere density.
Even if that is true, what would it mean? That's another reason I find your presentation of your theory, Michael, to be lacking: your claims have direct implications which you seem to avoid following. So let's say that Kosovichev's work is all relative, and he measured those density differences without any regard for the absolute values of the densities involved, just their relative values compared to some baseline. He told me that the density variations he measured were each less than 0.1%, and the paper in question says that the best resolution he could get was about 0.003Rsun. So, for the sake of argument, since a larger density difference helps your case, and more density stratifications help your case, let's go with 15 stratifications of 0.001Rsun each (going all the way down to 0.985Rsun) of exactly 0.1% each. So, the most the density could increase over those stratifications is 1.00115, or a factor of 1.01511.
So, if your allegedly solid surface were just 25% the density of pure iron, or 1968.5 kg/m3, then the density of the Sun at photosphere level could be no less than 1939.2 kg/m3 (24.63% of the density of pure iron, 194% of the density of water). And since you claim that the density measurements are all relative, then since this density for the photosphere is about 1.5 million times larger than the standard figure, then the entire Sun must mass, in actuality, 1.5 million times more than we think it does (since the "relative" density measurements go all the way to the core).
In fact, the only way for "relative" density measurements down to the core to match the measured mass of the Sun is for your allegedly solid surface to have a density matching the prediction from the standard solar models (a density less than air at STP). Unless, of course, you wish to claim that the density below your solid surface is less than the density of the solid surface, in which case you can't say that Kosovichev's density measurements are relative to the photosphere, but instead you'd have to say that Kosovichev's density measurements below 0.985Rsun or so are simply fiction. Are you ready to make such a claim?quote:
How is that inconsistent?
You're missing what I'm saying is inconsistent. You claim that satellite images show "arcs" extending up from your allegedly solid surface. But, since they're two-dimensional images, you also claim we've got no "altitude" information that would show that there are arcs extending up from a surface.quote:
We do have Kosovichev's work which does isolate the "range" we should be looking at carefully, specifically the area between .985R and .995R. The surface is likely to be located where the sound changes are the greatest, specifically at about .993R. That's the best data we have right now regarding the location of the surface itself.
No, because you're getting that data from the measurements of a single sunspot. You've been presented with other data from Kosovichev which show no "blockage" of flow anywhere near that region.quote:
The reason I'm cetain that photons bounce off the surface is because I see the consistent structures of the surface in RD images. I also see similar structures at a shallow depth in Doppler images as well. I therefore have a good reason to believe that photons can and do reflect from the surface located at about .993R, where we see a significant change of sound speed according to the heliosiesmology data.
But you cannot offer any objective method by which anyone else can determine which pixels in any satellite image are reflection, and which are direct from an "arc." Your method of seeing "consistent structures" is therefore unreplicatable by any other person.quote:
I don't really have any doubt as to the "depth" of the chromosphere and the photosphere. Where the uncertainly comes into play is underneath the photosphere. I do not know the depth of the calcium plasma layer, though I "suspect" it's relatively thin in comparison to the silicon layer. Most of the uncertainty as far as |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
