|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 12/14/2005 : 21:22:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
By golly Dave, you're right! That's what I get for trusting Lockheed Martin! :)
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive18.html
Hey, they've got a nice explanation of what's seen in those images, per the gas-fusion model:The magnetic field (shown on the left, with approximate positions and scale only), reveals why this flare occured with this particular geometry: a white-polarity intrusion exists within an otherwise black polarity area. This creates an ``anemone''-shaped ring of loops that end on the bright ring seen by TRACE. What do you say to that?quote:
You'll note however that these images are still two and half MINUTES apart, even with the two second error on Lockheed's timestamping.
I know they're 2.5 minutes apart.quote:
I find that amusing. I suppose I should have check up on Lockheed, but you know how you want to trust the establishment where you can, and I don't want to be paranoid about it. :) I guess I should be more vigilant in the future. Thanks for noticing the two second error.
You're welcome, but you claim that those "gold" photos are raw satellite data. They aren't.quote:
They may have been cropped and colorized to highlight the detail and timestamped a few seconds off, but I didn't perform any of those functions personally. You can thank Lockheed Martin for that.
Doesn't matter what Lockheed says, your website says that they're raw satellite images, which is incorrect. You should fix that, also.quote:
Notice however that the fundamental arguement is unchanged by these issues. The "surface" hasn't changed much in that 2 and half minutes. Plasmas tend to be a lot more dynamic over a two and half minute timeframe, expecially in a closeup image such as this.
These are plasmas which are being shaped by magnetic fields. How quickly those fields change will dictate how quickly the images change.quote:
Actually Dave, I don't see any change...
I think you're blind, then.quote:
...and I see stramers coming OVER a the upper corner of it. Other than this interference, the crater looks to have exactly the same shape and depth and everything even several hours later.
Please tell me how you are measuring the crater's depth.quote:
You've convinced me I could put together a much better case with a greater duration set of images.
[Bangs head on desk.]quote:
In plasma terms, that is nearly an eternity. When we watch the behavior of the surface of the photosphere, we notice the convection processes that are visible in this layer over a relatively short time frame. You've shown us images over hours that show little or no change in the shape or structure of that crater IMO, and yet we see drastic change in the plasmas of the photosphere over the course of a just a few moments:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg
Apples and oranges, times two. The photosphere and the corona are at different temperatures and densities, and you're comparing a solar flare to a sunspot. |
- 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 - 12/14/2005 : 22:20:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Hey, they've got a nice explanation of what's seen in those images, per the gas-fusion model:The magnetic field (shown on the left, with approximate positions and scale only), reveals why this flare occured with this particular geometry: a white-polarity intrusion exists within an otherwise black polarity area. This creates an ``anemone''-shaped ring of loops that end on the bright ring seen by TRACE. What do you say to that?
I say it's a fairly weak explanation of the 3 dimensional crater shaped structure in that image. What holds these magnetic fields in 3D? The streamers surely have electromagnetic fields around them since the represent the flow of electricity, but that certainly won't explain a 3D structure that keeps the same shape over hours, and in fact days.
quote:
I know they're 2.5 minutes apart.
But in two and half minutes we can see all sorts of activity in images of the photosophere. Here we see changes only in the streamers and the crater remains intact. How? Why? What's holding that shape consistently in plasma? What's generating a magnetic field in such configurations in the first place?
quote:
You're welcome, but you claim that those "gold" photos are raw satellite data. They aren't.
Actually, they are simply colorized raw images. The use of "white" is arbitrary in the first place. I see nothing wrong with suggesting they are raw images. There are no running difference imaging techniques used to create these images or structures. They exist even in the raw images.
quote:
Doesn't matter what Lockheed says, your website says that they're raw satellite images, which is incorrect. You should fix that, also.
They are from raw EIT data Dave. I didn't misrepresent this issue. The fact they are colorized is not relevant, nor is it relevant that this represents a small subset of the original raw image. It still comes from a raw image.
quote:
These are plasmas which are being shaped by magnetic fields. How quickly those fields change will dictate how quickly the images change.
What kind of magnetic field holds its shape in plasma in 3D structures with sides and an indented center? That crater has an indented middle, and discernable sides with interesting angles as well. Care to explain how magnetic fields hold plasma in 3D shapes and acute angles? What is the light source in these images in your opinion Dave?
quote:
I think you're blind, then.
The only changes I see are related to the location of the streamers. The surface, particularly that crater looks completely intact. There is a streamer going over top of the right upper corner, but other than that, you can see exactly the same shapes and angles in the crater, even hours later.
quote:
Please tell me how you are measuring the crater's depth.
You can do that with shadows, but the light source isn't stationary. You can get a general idea from the shadowing, but it's premature IMO to talk vertical distances. STEREO should be able to tell us that with better accuracy.
quote:
[Bangs head on desk.]
Feeling better now? :)
quote:
Apples and oranges, times two. The photosphere and the corona are at different temperatures and densities, and you're comparing a solar flare to a sunspot.
If anything, according to NASA's placement of this layer in the lower corona, the density of this layer should be LESS THAN the density of the plasma of the photosophere and therefore MORE likely to MOVE over time. More interesting, it's supposed to be sitting on a layer where movement is rapid and easily discernable in a supposedly thicker plasma. Any movement below should affect the lighter layer above it, but here we have not movement in a three dimensional structure made of light plasma? Something doesn't add up here. What's creating the magnetic fields above the photosphere in the first place?
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/14/2005 22:22:36 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 22:36:26 [Permalink]
|
Micheal, after carefully looking at all of the info that you have presented, I can safely say it is pretty much just bull shit. You have presented the absurd conjecture of an iron {sorry iron alloy)shell that magically does not collapse into a neutron star, a silicon plasma that is somehow an insulator and invented new power sources such as neutron to neutron repulsion. You have also shown a surprising lack of understanding of current theories on astrophysics. For you to state that neutron stars break apart or that supernovas directly form meteors is just, well amazing.
Clearly there is no sense in me discussing this with you as you are dead set in your hypothesis and I am getting real tired of hearing about the stratified layers of the sun, and hearing what the sun looks like to you.
Knock yourself out, I'm going to go play with bigbrain, he is more fun.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 23:24:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Micheal, after carefully looking at all of the info that you have presented, I can safely say it is pretty much just bull shit. You have presented the absurd conjecture of an iron {sorry iron alloy)shell that magically does not collapse into a neutron star,
There is nothing "magical" about pressure and heat. Blow up a balloon once and you'll get the idea.
quote:
a silicon plasma that is somehow an insulator
Silicon is more resistant to current flow that iron. It's not really very complicated. Electricity always follows the path of least resistance.
quote:
and invented new power sources such as neutron to neutron repulsion.
I'm simply noting the implication of the work that's been done in the field of nuclear chemistry and trying to understand what keeps a neutron star cores from collapsing in upon themselves. There's nothing particularly unusual about this suggestion or this data.
quote:
You have also shown a surprising lack of understanding of current theories on astrophysics.
Sounds like a cheap shot if you ask me.
quote:
For you to state that neutron stars break apart or that supernovas directly form meteors is just, well amazing.
I'm suggesting that in events like galaxy collision and massive supernova explosions, neutron cores may in fact break apart or be sheared in half. The fact you can't even concieve of the idea shows bias IMO.
Where do meteors come from in your opinion? Why are they so high in iron and nickel content? How exactly did they get form iron dust particle atoms into heated, solidified iron ROCKS in your opinion?
quote:
Clearly there is no sense in me discussing this with you as you are dead set in your hypothesis and I am getting real tired of hearing about the stratified layers of the sun, and hearing what the sun looks like to you.
So you don't even much care that this stratified layer (confirmed by Stanford and UCLA, not by me) has never been predicted in any gas model theory on the planet? That seems totally normal to you and that lack of a prediction of a stratified layer sitting in the middle of the convection zone is just fine by you?
By the way, I'm also tired of not hearing much in the way of a serious attempt to explain this stratified layer, or anyone willing to stick their neck out and show how this stratified layer of a measured depth even relates to gas model theory. The problem is, the data simply doesn't jive with gas model theory.
quote:
Knock yourself out, I'm going to go play with bigbrain, he is more fun.
Whatever. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/14/2005 23:25:49 |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 01:44:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
... By the way, I'm also tired of not hearing much in the way of a serious attempt to explain this stratified layer, or anyone willing to stick their neck out and show how this stratified layer of a measured depth even relates to gas model theory. The problem is, the data simply doesn't jive with gas model theory.
These images are relatively new stuff... it doesn't happen overnight, and most of us aren't the folks to tackle it. It's more along the lines of nuclear and/or plasma physicists (I'd imagine) and they'll need time to kick this stuff around, publish papers, do the peer review bit, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if the optical curiosities you point out are indeed determined to be unexplained phenomenon (after all of the less-esoteric explanations have been ruled-out, like equipment-related, digital image processing [blah blah]... if they already haven't been by NASA, Lockheed etc. and it just hasn't been adequately discussed in public forums... meaning at a very basic level, I think things of the nature as DaveW's mention of colorization etc. are very pertinent... that's ALL pictures are, in fact- patterns of color!) a gas fusion explanation might emerge in a few years or so... but you could be right, too... yet it seems to me the integrity of this visual data just has to be better validated.
I think DaveW's suggestion of magnetic fields effecting the plasmas (he referred to the possibility in an earlier post, too) seems pretty reasonable in terms of evidence at this point... just because a mechanism hasn't been theorized, modeled, and empirically demonstrated doesn't diminish it's credibility, since your explanation hasn't been any better verified yet... maybe it will be in time... but maybe not. I mean, nobody here (or elsewhere, I doubt) claims to know the exact composition of these plasmas let alone specifics of their mass/energy levels/distributions, and from what little I recall of these things even little differences ("contaminants") in plasmas can have large effects on their inherently unstable states. In short, I think their are so many uncertainties here, as I see it, you shouldn't be any less open to Dave's suggestions or the possibility of fusion model explanations than anything else at this point. Regarding these electrical arcs and such, even in better understood (and common) conditions it was only in the last couple of decades we began to understand that lightning arcs don't behave at that level of energy like a "spark gap" (a very different phenomenon is involved- "electron avalanching" causing "runaway breakdown") my point being... who knows what might be going on in those plasmas and most extreme of conditions? You need an expert opinion.
This is an interesting thread, and I wish I could participate but been too short on time and sleep lately to do so meaningfully, but as my 2 cents worth, if I were in your shoes I'd want to run some of this by a few plasma or nuclear physicists and just hear their "quick opinions"... in my own experience, these guys are pretty good about that kind of thing, and some consensus in what you're told might lead you in a right direction. Of course, to really "sweat the details" they'd need a grant or funding, but alot of them don't mind someone casually running something of interest by them... until there's more data, that's all that's reasonable anyway. I'd personally be curious on what their "50-cent take" on this is.
And easiest of all, just to establish once-and-for-all there really is something to the geometries you observe and it's not an equipment/photonic etc. etc. issue, you could similarly bury these annoying questions "once and for all," I think, with a few conversations with the right people and a little more familiarity with the equipment and processes... you don't have to become an "expert" in every aspect of the data collection/assimilation/processing equipment and methods- just talk to a couple of folks who are, and I'd bet that in just a matter of minutes they could verify that you really are (or are not) "seeing what you think you see" and settle that matter. I know I'd want to... before anything else, in fact! |
Ron White |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 07:45:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Everything glows in that respect, including me.
Is that why we are called brights?  |
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 07:52:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Care to put any science on the table, or do you intend to do what creationists do, and just ridicule science from the sideline, and hope nobody notices you aren't offering any science of your own?
I'll refer you to the scientists at NASA.
This is an appeal to authority, but since NASA are experts in the field, it's a valid one. |
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 08:55:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
By the way, by my calculations that "crater" is over 25,000 Km across. Why is 2.5 minutes "virtually an eternity in solar terms" for something bigger than the Earth?
In plasma terms, that is nearly an eternity. When we watch the behavior of the surface of the photosphere, we notice the convection processes that are visible in this layer over a relatively short time frame.
The plasma is dynamic, yes, but the resolution of the image is poor.
Water is also dynamic, but the waves on a lake aren't visible on satellite photos.
When every pixel of the sun cover an area several hundred squere kilometres, you can't expect to pick up detatils.
And how can you tell 3D structures from images taken by satellites? What do you use for depth-reference? |
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. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 08:56:03 [Permalink]
|
| Gah! Dont call me a Bright, biggest mistake in skeptic history, right behind the Smithsonian SNAFU. |
"...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 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 08:57:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Gah! Dont call me a Bright, biggest mistake in skeptic history, right behind the Smithsonian SNAFU.
Congratulation on your 1000 posts! |
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. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 09:26:04 [Permalink]
|
1) Survive till 26 without being drafted, check.
2) 1000 posts on SFN, check.
3) Two hundred story golden palace from which I rule the globe with an iron fist, pending. |
"...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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 11:07:21 [Permalink]
|
You know, the more times I see Mozina use the phrase "stratified layer," the more I think he thinks it means "solid layer," when in reality it means "layered layer." Yes, "stratified" means "in layers," which is why I've found the redundant "stratified layer" so amusing.
The fact is, that helioseimology article assumed the presence of density stratifications under the surface. As such, it didn't confirm any layers, stratified or otherwise. The density stratitications are what the researchers used to measure the expansion and contraction of the Sun.
The fact is, solar scientists are very aware of density stratification throughout the Sun, from the wispy corona to the ultra-dense core. The idea that such an object would have a smoothly-changing density throughout is absurd, especially in light of the rather obvious stratification which exists at the surface, and also the convection currents swirling about. Examination of the atmosphere (or lithosphere) of any other planet is favorable to the idea that density stratifications abound within any significantly massive object. |
- 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 - 12/15/2005 : 14:24:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
These images are relatively new stuff... it doesn't happen overnight, and most of us aren't the folks to tackle it.
I agree that these are relatively new images, but why must it be that you aren't the folks to tackle it? Is the sun really that complicated, or is just reasurring to think it could be that complicated? When do we start applying the Occum's razor concept to competing theories?
quote:
It's more along the lines of nuclear and/or plasma physicists (I'd imagine) and they'll need time to kick this stuff around, publish papers, do the peer review bit, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if the optical curiosities you point out are indeed determined to be unexplained phenomenon (after all of the less-esoteric explanations have been ruled-out, like equipment-related, digital image processing [blah blah]...
I've already ruled that out, and so has NASA. The structures we see in running difference images can also be seen in RAW EIT video, albeit somewhat more "hazy" (think fog covering the valleys). These strurctures do exist, and this stratification layer has been seen at a very shallow depth *under* the photosphere. Again, the location here is the key, and it will be "testable" in just a few months. If STEREO shows that the transition region seen in SOHO and TRACE images is actually below the photosphere rather than above it as NASA believes, then will you consider this idea more seriously?
quote:
if they already haven't been by NASA, Lockheed etc. and it just hasn't been adequately discussed in public forums... meaning at a very basic level, I think things of the nature as DaveW's mention of colorization etc. are very pertinent... that's ALL pictures are, in fact- patterns of color!)
In this case we are working with black and white images. The choice of colors is arbitrary (even use of black and white). The raw images were simply given a false color as all EIT images are give an false color. When you go to SOHO's website, you see various wavelenghts shown in various colors. It's not as though these images have been highly processed like running difference images. They are simple raw images with a particular color selection, nothing fancy. The same strutures are certainly visible in the raw FITS files as well.
quote:
a gas fusion explanation might emerge in a few years or so... but you could be right, too... yet it seems to me the integrity of this visual data just has to be better validated.
On this issue, we are in full agreement. I also beleive we need to validate these models via STEREO data. There is an obvious difference between NASA's interpretation of these images and my interpretion. Each interpretation is predicated on the placement of the transitional region in relationship to the photosphere. NASA believes this layer sits above the photosphere. I believe this transitional region sits below the photosphere, right where we see it in heliosiesmology data. If my placement is accurate, then NASA's interpretations about this layer are clearly wrong. Likewise if NASA is correct about the placement, then this model isn't worth much either. Stereo launches in the Spring. Stay tuned! :)
quote:
I think DaveW's suggestion of magnetic fields effecting the plasmas (he referred to the possibility in an earlier post, too) seems pretty reasonable in terms of evidence at this point... just because a mechanism hasn't been theorized, modeled, and empirically demonstrated doesn't diminish it's credibility, since your explanation hasn't been any better verified yet... maybe it will be in time... but maybe not. I mean, nobody here (or elsewhere, I doubt) claims to know the exact composition of these plasmas let alone specifics of their mass/energy levels/distributions, and from what little I recall of these things even little differences ("contaminants") in plasmas can have large effects on their inherently unstable states.
There are two basic problems with that explanation as I expained them to Alexander Kosovichev in June. First that "structure" in the tsunami video exhibits clear characteristics of height and angular sides, complete with a top that slants downward toward the upper right. Plasma is very liquid like in its behavior under "normal" conditions. You can see that behavior as that wave propogates through the plasma of the photosphere. That structure underneath however is at a VERY shallow depth for any gas model layering scheme, and it's angular nature in 3D certainly defies typical behaviors of plasma. Any image of the photosphere will show that this layer is "gooey" in texture and changes rapidly, like the crust at the top of slowely boiling milk. That is the way that plasma behaves just a few kilometers above the stratified layer. What is so special about that particular plasma that it holds shapes in 3D like that?
Now I would of course point out that a solid surface would simply hold whatever shape it's currently in. There's nothing complicated about explained such structures with solids. Whether or not plasma can hold angular shapes like that remains to be seen, and what holds them so differently in that stratified layer than in the area directly above the stratified layer?
The other major problem with that explanation is that this layer now has a known depth. In other words, they disovered where the top was, but also where the bottom of it as well. It goes around the whole sun at a depth of .995R. What kind of magnetic field does that? What would cause a magnetic field to hold 3D structure in a stratified layer, all around the surface at that specific depth? These things are easily explained with a "crust" sitting under the photosphere. They aren't easily explained by any known magnetic fields. Even Alexander Kosovichev seemed to have backed away from this explantion in his paper since he suggested that a magnetic field explanation was highly problematic.
quote:
In short, I think their are so many uncertainties here, as I see it, you shouldn't be any less open to Dave's suggestions or the possibility of fusion model explanations than anything else at this point. Regarding these electrical arcs and such, even in better understood (and common) conditions it was only in the last couple of decades we began to understand that lightning arcs don't behave at that level of energy like a "spark gap" (a very different phenomenon is involved- "electron avalanching" causing "runaway breakdown") my point being... who knows what might be going on in those plasmas and most extreme of conditions? You need an expert opinion.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/15/2005 14:37:09 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 14:30:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
1) Survive till 26 without being drafted, check.
2) 1000 posts on SFN, check.
3) Two hundred story golden palace from which I rule the globe with an iron fist, pending.
LOL! I'll take the palace, but I don't want the headaches of ruling this joint! :) |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 14:48:38 [Permalink]
|
| Just to mention that this thread is past the 15 page limit. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
