|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 11/27/2005 : 16:14:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
For one thing, I can only see the surface and the atmosphere and I can only "guess" at what is uner the suface.
I dispute the idea that you have seen a surface.quote:
I cannot therefore KNOW with any sort of scientific certainty what the "density" of the sun might be in this model. If Dr. Manuel is correct about a neutron core, this would translate to a completely different "density" than the one I first proposed. I simply have no way to calculate this number at the moment.
So, your model is fairly worthless, then.quote:
The second major problem with this idea is that current density measurements are overly simplistic. They do NOT account for dark matter, or repulsive forces of any sort, or allow for any significant movement of the sun in the z axis. Unless and until we understand all these external variables, there is simply no way to begin to use such an overly simplistic notion of "density" to shed any light on the validity of ANY solar model, let alone be helpful on falsifying any solar model.
You're just wrong, here. All of these factors go into determining the mass and volume of the Sun, whether we know how large the factors are or not.quote:
Show me one density calculation that incorporates this force into the calculation!
It is up to you to defend your assertions, it isn't up to me to prove you wrong. The fact that you didn't immediately offer a citation to an article in which a solar scientist is bemoaning the fact that we can't accurately measure the density of the Sun makes me think that you're only assuming that such things haven't been considered.quote:
quote:
Upon what evidence do you base that assertion?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=00023144-9B65-1383-9A5083414B7FFE87
I was actually asking for evidence that dark energy effects could make our density measurements be off by orders of magnitude, not evidence that dark energy pervades the universe.quote:
quote:
It doesn't need to be, since the universe doesn't expand inside objects.
How do you know that dark matter has no affect in our solar system?
I didn't say that dark energy has no effect in our solar system, I said that the universe doesn't expand inside objects (like the Sun). Plus, if the universe does expand inside objects, it'll do so equally, so that our "rulers" will expand along with the Sun, and our density calculations will be unaffected.quote:
quote:
Nonsense. Not that you'll listen (since you didn't in at least one BAUT thread), but it's not up to me to disprove your model.
The bautforum is organized like a religious organization. They apply different rules to "ATM" threads than they do to threads they agree with. They ban people they disagree with, and close threads they disagree with. That behavior isn't scientific at all, it is psuedoscience.
You failed to answer my criticism at all, instead deciding to criticize others.quote:
I have answered these so called "criticisms" in quite a bit of detail. The fact you don't want to HEAR me does not mean I have not addressed them. The fact you have FAITH the sun doesn't move in the z axis and the solar system is unaffected by "dark matter" is not my fault.
No, you haven't answered my criticism that a difference image is not anything like a photograph at all. You've simply ignored that criticism, and continue to make the same false claims about a "light source."quote:
quote:
Why is it that so many solar scientists use data from the same three areas of science, and direct observation, and come up with the gas model?
Then surely you should have no problem explain what that stratified layer is that was found in heliosiesmology? Surely you should have no trouble explaining those satellite images as well. I'm not asking for the moon here, just take the first image and explain it with gas model theory.
Nice dodge which completely failed to address my question: why is it that the vast majority of solar scientists think that the gas model is correct?
quote:
Huh? That first running difference image shows LOTS of "structure". Even if you disagree with me about the CAUSE of such "structures", we can certainly still see them in several types of images, including the RAW EIT images, running difference images and even Doppler images. The fact you won't even accept that there is visible "structure" in these images shows how irrational your faith has become.
No, all I see are records of various amounts of photons from an environment so unlike that which I am used to that calling anything a "structure" is to imply characteristics which may not be present in reality.quote:
Even Alexander Kosovichev acknowledged "structure" in that tsunami video.
Well, I wouldn't fall for such an argument from authority.quote:
I'm not asking y |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 16:54:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I have technically never tried to calculate a "density" of the sun, therefore the current density calculations cannot "match" or not match my model. I have simply pointed out the dubious nature of using a heliocentric THEORY about solar movement and trying to apply it to "reality". In "reality", our sun moves, and accelerates and rides the waves of our galaxy. It is not my fault that current density model are "overly-simplistic" in their construction.
You have not shown that any of these effects would have a significant impact. In the same way that the force of gravity is undetectable on the quantum scale, the effects that you mention don't have a significant effect at the scale of the solar system.quote:
If it doesn't account for these forces, how do you know it's even CLOSE to accurate in non-relative terms?
Because given the scale and makeup of the solar system those factors are not significant.quote:
The fact you do not realize how significantly this number can be changed by external forces does not bode well IMO either!
Under certain conditions density calculations could indeed be thrown off. If the earth were travelling at %80 the speed of light relative to the sun then yes the sun would appear more massive,(as Dave pointed out this is opposite from the effect you are going for) but don't just ignore the fact that we are not travelling at %80 of the speed of light.
If the force of universal expansion were insanely greater than what it is then yes this would have an effect, but when you use a reasonable estimate for its value the effect is so small as to be insignificant.
If the sun were being yarded about like a puppy on a leash then again, yes this would affect our ability to correctly measure density. But when we observe the sun we see that this is not in fact the case.
The current density calculatoins are quite sound despite your need for them to be flawed.quote:
quote:
Density is not a heilocentric concept.
Yes it is! The current models consider the sun to be the center of the universe and calculate density as through there is NO movement in the z axis plane. That is a heliocentric concept! The moment we allow for external influences, dark energy or universal acceleration, this concept falls apart.
If you have evidence of significant acceleration on the z axis by all means factor it in to the equation, lets see what you come up with. Same with universal expansion. The fact that you haven't calculated them speaks volumes.quote:
quote:
It seems utterly decisive to me.
No, the satellite images and the heliosiesmology evidence and the nuclear chemical evidence is "decisive" evidence.
Decisive? In what way? Perhaps you've misunderstood it. It certainly seems open to interpretation.quote:
Your "theory" about a heliocentric density calculation is the weak piece of evidence here. Until you have accounted for something like dark matter, how could you ever hope to prove that this notion is even meaningful, let alone useful? We know that dark matter represents MORE mass than what we "see", and we know it's a powerful force in univeral acceleration. Where is this powerful and important force accounted for in heliocentric concepts of solar density?
Dark matter, dark energy and universal expansion are important concepts and affect the average density of the universe but they are not relevant to calculating the density of the sun.quote:
quote:
Large astronomical bodies tend to get denser with depth. I'm flabbergasted that you don't realize this.
What? I certainly realize this, especially since I learned to scuba dive at about age 15.
Then why is it so hard for you to understand that if the top layer of the sun is iron then the lower layers must be more dense than iron? Following this line of reasoning it is easy to see that your model of the sun suggeests that it must be much denser than what we measure it to be.quote:
Density calculations however are directly affected by MOVEMENT. I'm flabbergasted you don't realize this.
I think that it's time for you to put this tired old argument to bed. It's been refuted several times now.quote:
quote:
If you're really serious about this calculate it and show your work.
I don't really have enough information right now to "calculate" the affect of dark matter on solar density calculations. What exactly *IS* dark matter in your opinion, and how does it "push" about bodies of matter? When you can answer such questions, I'll be happy to take a shot at it.
Don't let that stop you from calculating the other effects that you mention.quote:
All this demonstrates to me is that you aren't what you claim to be (an expert on astrophysics) and you aren't really in a position to disprove or dismiss anything I've said here. If you don't know the answer according to gas model theory, what makes you think there even is one?
Leaping to conclusions seems to be your strong suit. I am not an expert on astrophysics, nor did I claim to be. I am however quite capable of pointing out glaring errors.
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 17:16:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
For one thing, I can only see the surface and the atmosphere and I can only "guess" at what is uner the suface. I cannot therefore KNOW with any sort of scientific certainty what the "density" of the sun might be in this model. If Dr. Manuel is correct about a neutron core, this would translate to a completely different "density" than the one I first proposed. I simply have no way to calculate this number at the moment.
The second major problem with this idea is that current density measurements are overly simplistic. They do NOT account for dark matter, or repulsive forces of any sort, or allow for any significant movement of the sun in the z axis. Unless and until we understand all these external variables, there is simply no way to begin to use such an overly simplistic notion of "density" to shed any light on the validity of ANY solar model, let alone be helpful on falsifying any solar model.
I'm no physics expert, but I can spot a feeble or unsupported argument as well as anyone. People obviously aren't quick to fall in behind you on this one. It might be partly because of what you've said above. In a nutshell, you've claimed that you don't have the slightest idea how any of this gas/solid sun stuff really works; you're just guessing. And since you don't fully understand all the ins and outs of the most widely accepted contemporary theory of a gaseous sun, you figure your guess is as good as any, better than some.
Now you're in the process of trying to convince lots of other people that your guess, even given your lack of understanding of the real physics involved, should be accepted as a valid theory. You keep asking people to use your observations to prove the currently accepted gas sun theory, and since they aren't readily able to do that, you believe that supports your guess. You continue to suggest the burden of proof is on those who scoff at your guess, yet your method of interpreting your evidence is, "It sure seems like it to me."
You might want to consider this, if people aren't willing to take you seriously, it's because you've presented the same foundation of support as is commonly used by the UFOlien believers and IDers. If you want your notions to be accepted as legitimate, you might consider developing a body of supporting evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny, and learning how to present that evidence in such a way as to support your guess, rather than relying on discrediting or looking for loopholes in the accepted theory.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 19:27:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
Mike:
Fission? Neutron repulsion? Now, this is getting interesting and I want to look into it... I can't at the moment, but off the top of my head I have to comment that Hans Bethe's Nobel Prize for figuring out that hydrogen fusion is the energy source has definately stood the test of time pretty well, so I can't say I'm overwhelmed with confidence in your theory.
Hi Ronny and welcome to the discussion.
By the way, I wouldn't think you much of a "skeptic" if you had a lot of "confidence" in my theory already. :)
You are correct that the gas model "theory" became quite the fad once we understood the potential power source of hydrogen fusion. In fact it was this fascination with the concept of hydrogen fusion gas balls that turned the tide against other competing models of the sun.
The real problem however is that while the theory is well established, we have no idea of the gas model theory actually applies to "reality". In other words, what observational data actually demonstrates that the sun does not have a surface as is a hydrogen gas ball with fusion at the core? What is that "stratified layer" (Alexander Kosovichev's lingo) that we see at .995R? What exactly is that stratified layer, and how does it correlate to gas model theory? What is that structure we see in running difference, Doppler and RAW EIT imagery? |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 19:27:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Density calculations however are directly affected by MOVEMENT. I'm flabbergasted you don't realize this.
It would not matter at all if the Sun had a velocity of 99% the speed of light relative to the galaxy. The earth and the sun are in the same intertial frame, in other words the velocity of the earth would also be 99% the speed of light relative to the galaxy. The RELATIVE velocity BETWEEN the earth and the sun is insignificant when calculating density.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 20:13:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I dispute the idea that you have seen a surface.
You are welcome to dispute it, but you have yet to explain these images using gas model theory. The data is certainly open to "interpretation", but we cannot really compare interpretations until you have offered one to compare mine with.
quote:
So, your model is fairly worthless, then.
Actually, no. I has predictive capabilities that gas model theory lacks, and it has explanative capabilities that the gas model lacks as well. It may not be particularly useful at predicting EVERYTHING about the sun right at the moment, but give it a few hundred years, and I think you'll see it will become "mature" over time.
quote:
You're just wrong, here. All of these factors go into determining the mass and volume of the Sun, whether we know how large the factors are or not.
Unless you know EXACTLY how large these factors are, you cannot possible use a heliocentric notion of reality and INSIST in falsifies *ANY* solar model. For instance, suppose it turnse out that light isn't really "massless" afterall, and "dark matter" is really "light matter" that composes most of the mass of the universe. How might such a revelation affect "density" in absolute terms?
You cannot insist that a very, very, very limited idea of "density" based on a static, motionless, light matterless model of the universe falsifies any particular solar model, not the current gas model, not my model, not any model.
quote:
M>Show me one density calculation that incorporates this force into the calculation!
>>It is up to you to defend your assertions, it isn't up to me to prove you wrong. The fact that you didn't immediately offer a citation to an article in which a solar scientist is bemoaning the fact that we can't accurately measure the density of the Sun makes me think that you're only assuming that such things haven't been considered.
No, actually, I've checked it out which is why I'm showing you just how limited it is. If you doubt me, pony up a density model that incorporate dark matter or universal acelleration.
It isn't up to me to "disprove" a single "theory" either. In effect, you "theorize" that a static, motionless, light matterless universe defines "reality". I say that is not just overly simplistic, it is clearly been falsified even as recently as this month.
quote:
Upon what evidence do you base that assertion?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=00023144-9B65-1383-9A5083414B7FFE87
I was actually asking for evidence that dark energy effects could make our density measurements be off by orders of magnitude, not evidence that dark energy pervades the universe.
:) They are one and the same problem Dave. You can't have one without considering the other. That is exactly what you are trying to do. You've got some mysterious "dark matter" that somehow "pushes" the universe apart, but it's never been factored into any solar density model. How much of the universe is "dark matter" according to current theory? If that 'dark matter' is really just the mass inside of photons, are you suggesting this could not affect the density calculations by orders of magnitude?
quote:
How do you know that dark matter has no affect in our solar system?
I didn't say that dark energy has no effect in our solar system, I said that the universe doesn't expand inside objects (like the Sun).
Woah! Where is your density measurement that accounts for dark energy? If you aren't claiming it has no effect, then where is it considered in density calculations?
quote:
Plus, if the universe does expand inside objects, it'll do so equally, so that our "rulers" will expand along with the Sun, and our density calculations will be unaffected.
I'm not sure you grasp the implications of mass within light particles, or mass that moves or mass that is not yet accounted for inside of solar systems. If we accept the concept of "mass that pushes against normal matter", then surely it is not a big stretch of the imagination to believe that light is that missing mass that pushes against other forms of matter. The rulers will not be nearly as simple as you suggest under such conditions.
quote:
No, you haven't answered my criticism that a difference image is not anything like a photograph at all.
It isn't nearly us UNLIKE a standard image as you seem to think. You can see these same "structures" in RAW EIT video. You also see this structure stand out in raw eit video during CME's. You can see this same structure in RAW and Running difference TRACE images as well. You can even see these same "structures" in doppler imaging systems on board of SOHO. You are trying to ingore the fact that these structures are not related to, nor limited to running difference imaging techniques. The techniques make the structures "stand out", or more accurely it clears the haze of the plasma that covers it, but the technique is not responsible for the structures themselves. Look at the 3rd and 4th images on my website and notice that the same "structure" is visible in RAW images, not just running difference images.
quote:
You've simply ignored that criticism, and continue to make the same false claims about a "light source."
I did not ignore you. I simply disagree with you're "belief" that these structures are related to any particular technique. The are related to a "transitional layer" of the sun, not an imaging technique.
There is in fact a light source in raw images, that is also the same exact light source in running difference images. In your opinion, what is that light source?
quote:
Why is it that so many so |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 11/27/2005 21:20:37 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 20:26:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
I'm no physics expert, but I can spot a feeble or unsupported argument as well as anyone.
More likely you mean you can toss out a word like "feeble" as well as anyone. :)
quote:
People obviously aren't quick to fall in behind you on this one. It might be partly because of what you've said above. In a nutshell, you've claimed that you don't have the slightest idea how any of this gas/solid sun stuff really works; you're just guessing.
That is not so. I KNOW some things based on what I can SEE and OBSERVE. I can GUESS or more actually THEORIZE how it MIGHT WORK ,just like gas model theoriest do, but that does not mean that I am as comfortable "guessing" about things I can't see, when there are plenty of things I CAN see and CAN observe.
quote:
And since you don't fully understand all the ins and outs of the most widely accepted contemporary theory of a gaseous sun, you figure your guess is as good as any, better than some.
I understand quite a bit about the ins and outs of gas model theory, starting with the fact that there aren't a lot of explantions for these images to be found in gas model theory. There aren't a lot of concepts in gas model theory to explain that stratified layer between .970 and .985R either. That much I do know about gas model theory. You have confused the difference between "theorizing" and "guessing". By your standards, the whole gas model is a "guess", not a theory, since one has ever shown that any of it relates to real satellite observations.
quote:
Now you're in the process of trying to convince lots of other people that your guess, even given your lack of understanding of the real physics involved,
What lack of understanding of the real physics involved? Be scientifically specific please.
The real PHYSICS here that I can truely observe, not GUESS AT, or THEORIZE about, involves what I can see in satellite images. You folks are avoiding the observational data, and ignoring the real physics involved. The only things you are talking about are THEORETICAL physics or GUESSIMATE physics as you would call it.
The burden of proof is on EVERYONE. I have every right to apply the same skepticism to contemporary gas model theory as you have a right to be skeptical of solid surface models of the sun. It should be noted however, that I am NOT the first person or scientists to favor a solid surface model of the sun. I would say the "father" of contemporary solid surface models was Dr. Kristian Birkeland, who studied the northern lights and experimented with an iron sun in his lab. He made guesses too, but now you can see that his lab results look very much like contemporary satellite images of the sun. His "guestimate" was proven to relate to "reality", where gas model theory has yet to explain any of these images.
quote:
You might want to consider this, if people aren't willing to take you seriously, it's because you've presented the same foundation of support as is commonly used by the UFOlien believers and IDers. If you want your notions to be accepted as legitimate, you might consider developing a body of supporting evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny, and learning how to present that evidence in such a way as to support your guess, rather than relying on discrediting or looking for loopholes in the accepted theory.
I can only assume that you have not read my website nor read the papers I have filed in the contemporary ways using the normal scientific channels. People skoffed at Newton and Einstein to at first yet their ideas stood the test of time. I'm quite sure that Birkeland's work and Dr. Manuels' work will stand the test of time. These are not "crackpot" scientists, these are people that have furthered the cause of science.
I am simply noting how poorly the gas model theory is capable of dealing with and explaining modern satellite imagery. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 11/27/2005 20:28:56 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 20:28:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
It would not matter at all if the Sun had a velocity of 99% the speed of light relative to the galaxy. The earth and the sun are in the same intertial frame, in other words the velocity of the earth would also be 99% the speed of light relative to the galaxy. The RELATIVE velocity BETWEEN the earth and the sun is insignificant when calculating density.
You are still confusing the concept of "speed" with the reality of "accelation". The speed isn't the problem, it's the acelleration I'm talking about. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 20:48:09 [Permalink]
|
| Michael have you heard of the great red spot? It is a persistent structure and yet it is not a solid. Are you now going to propose a solid iron Jupiter? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 20:57:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
quote:
You have not shown that any of these effects would have a significant impact.
How can you "accept" that dark matter has a significant impact on the universe as a whole yet reject it has any influence on solar density models? How much of the mass of the unviverse remains 'dark' to our sight at the moment? Define "significant" in terms of percentages for me. Is "dark matter" a potentially significant factor in our solar system? If not, why not?
quote:
In the same way that the force of gravity is undetectable on the quantum scale, the effects that you mention don't have a significant effect at the scale of the solar system.
How do you know that? What exactly *IS* "dark matter" in your opinion? How does it push other matter apart?
quote:
Because given the scale and makeup of the solar system those factors are not significant.
You do not KNOW this to be fact. You have "faith" in this "belief". What is dark matter? Be scientifically precise and make it a non "metaphysical" explanation please. What exactly makes dark matter "real" in your opinion?
quote:
Under certain conditions density calculations could indeed be thrown off. If the earth were travelling at %80 the speed of light relative to the sun then yes the sun would appear more massive,
*OR* if the universe itself is acellerating! I'm not talking about speed, I'm talking about accelleration itself. It's the difference between crusing in your car at 40MPH and feeling no acceleration and punching the gas pedal and feeling the acelleration. Speed isn't the issue, only the change in speed.
quote:
If the force of universal expansion were insanely greater than what it is then yes this would have an effect, but when you use a reasonable estimate for its value the effect is so small as to be insignificant.
I think you are looking at this issue only in terms of what you WISH to be true. People once "wished" the earth and then the sun were the center of the universe. In most circles we accept that we are not the center of the universe, not in a early sense, and not in a solar sense. That is true for everything *EXCEPT* for density calculations related to the sun. Why is that?
quote:
If the sun were being yarded about like a puppy on a leash then again, yes this would affect our ability to correctly measure density. But when we observe the sun we see that this is not in fact the case.
But just the opposite is true! We DO see that the universe continues to acellerate. What Einstein once described as his biggest blunder has yet again been proven true. There is a "force" that expands and accellerates our universe. We are being yarded around like a puppy on a leash!
quote:
The current density calculatoins are quite sound despite your need for them to be flawed.
No, they are quite limited. Since I didn't calculate density, I have no NEED here. It is you that has the NEED to believe that the sun can be seen as the center of the universe in density calculations or you cannot disprove my ideas. It's not ME that has needs here, but you. The theory you put before us both is hopelessly limited, and I think even you realize that about now. The only way for this measurement to be meaningful is if we ASSUME a heliocentric view of reality. You and I both know that this makes no sense and I refuse to be swayed by such a limited view of motion, particularly in light of recent findings.
quote:
If you have evidence of significant acceleration on the z axis by all means factor it in to the equation, lets see what you come up with.
I already did that. Why is the universe expanding and accelerating in your opinion? What is that force?
I'm going to skip some redundant parts...
[quote]Then why is it so hard for you to understand that if the top layer of the sun is iron then the lower layers must be more dense than iron?
When you blow up a balloon, is the air inside the balloon always more dense than the material that makes up the balloon?
Again, I think I'll stop here and avoid any uncessary posturing. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 21:01:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Michael have you heard of the great red spot? It is a persistent structure and yet it is not a solid. Are you now going to propose a solid iron Jupiter?
Unlike that moving sunspot, and unlike the moving sunspots on the sun's photosphere, the surface of the sun moves in a uniform way, and it much more mirrors the behaviors of looking at the surface of the earth vs. at the surface of a cloud layer above the earth.
Just as with normal images of earth, one can easily start to recognize a moving cloud pattern vs. a solid surface that rotates under the cloud layer. We use Doppler images to see beneath clouds to reveal surface features below. We have even seen structure under the visible photosphere using Doppler images as well. There is no great trick in distinguishing clouds from solids. They move and change quite differently over time. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 11/27/2005 21:07:34 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 21:39:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You can't say my analogy or my interpretation is flawed unless and until you can identify WHERE and HOW my interpretation is flawed.
I don't have much time for this tonight, except to say that I told you precisely where and how your analogy was flawed. A solid iron surface and an iron plasma are not the "same material" at all.quote:
We can't really get very far unless we at least agree to the light source in these images. It is iron plasma that emits the light seen in 171,195 and 284 images. This iron plasma is peeled off the surface via electrical current. The structures we see in ANY image (raw or RD) are created by the light from these arcs/loops bouncing off the surface features below the arc. It really is that simple.
Okay, then show your supporting evidence for these assertions. Show me the scientific data which demonstrates that solid iron is reflective at 171, 195 and 284 angstroms.
Plus, you claim that the same structures are visible in raw and differenced images. Yet I know that if I take two photos of the same room, milliseconds apart, and run a difference on them, the structures visible in the "raw" data will utterly vanish in the difference image (it will be black except for the small natural fluctuations in the CCD or film). So, please provide me with the details of the running difference algorithm used to make the images you present as evidence. I'd be very much interested in a difference algorithm which preserves the features of an unchanging structure.
I'll try to get back to the rest of your reply later. Oh, but regarding your false allegation that I have succumbed to an argument from authority, I've gotta say that all I did was ask you why you think that the majority solar scientists are wrong. I never once said that I think they're correct because they're scientists. You see arguments from authority where none exist. |
- 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 - 11/27/2005 : 21:57:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I don't have much time for this tonight, except to say that I told you precisely where and how your analogy was flawed. A solid iron surface and an iron plasma are not the "same material" at all.
Well, first of all, they are in fact the same elements, just in different states of ionization and temperatures. The iron doesn't become plasma until it is heated in the electrical arcs that peel material from the surface.
You argument is not only vague, it's also wrong. They certainly are the same atoms and elements.
quote:
Okay, then show your supporting evidence for these assertions.
You mean OTHER than my whole website?
quote:
Show me the scientific data which demonstrates that solid iron is reflective at 171, 195 and 284 angstroms.
We seem to be having a serious communication problem here Dave. I am not suggesting that the surface is made of solid iron, but only that it is composed of MOSTLY iron. I have meteorite "rocks" that represent a range of probably surface compositions.
It would be very helpful if you actually took some time to read my websites so we can avoid any unncessary confusion. I have appreciated the "fair" yet skeptical approach you have taken so far but I think you are missing some of the key points I was trying to make about the composition of the surface.
quote:
Plus, you claim that the same structures are visible in raw and differenced images. Yet I know that if I take two photos of the same room, milliseconds apart, and run a difference on them, the structures visible in the "raw" data will utterly vanish in the difference image (it will be black except for the small natural fluctuations in the CCD or film).
Likewise if you take a really quick image, you loose a lot of the surface features along with it. If you wait a bit however, you get an image that tends to emphasize a lot of the structures while removing a lot of the atmospheric interference.
quote:
So, please provide me with the details of the running difference algorithm used to make the images you present as evidence. I'd be very much interested in a difference algorithm which preserves the features of an unchanging structure.
Personally I've found the best results by subtracting three to five images about 20 minutes apart. You'll have to ask NASA and Lockheed how they achieve best results with their images. They seem reluctant to give me any direct answers to any direct questions about their running difference imaging technique. The results are still very similar by the way if you simply use a couple of image about 20 to 30 minutes apart. You can play with the FITS files directly yourself if you have Photoshop CS2. ESA has created an add on library to access FITS files directly. I still continue to use NASA and Lockheeds images since no one can accuse me of manipulating the technique in any way.
quote:
I'll try to get back to the rest of your reply later. Oh, but regarding your false allegation that I have succumbed to an argument from authority, I've gotta say that all I did was ask you why you think that the majority solar scientists are wrong. I never once said that I think they're correct because they're scientists. You see arguments from authority where none exist.
I think your question was a "loaded" question. It really doesn't matter why most of Europe in the middle ages thought the world was flat, they just did. I think the main problem has been that there has been no way to observationally corroborate or falsify any solar model until recently, and most astrophysicists are heavily invested, financially and professionally, in one specific solar model. I have no such allegiance nor any problem "letting go" of theories that don't jive with direct observation. Some scientists are not as "detached" from a particular outcome in terms of funding and prestige. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 22:15:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Of course it is. It's basic 3D geometry. Simply assume that the z-axis goes straight through the center of earth, breaks the earth's surface at the Equator at longitude 0° at Spring Equilibrium, to then continue through the center of the sun, where origo is. Y-axis basically is the sun's rotationan axis. How difficult was that?
I don't think we're all on the same page here Dr. Mabuse. Are you suggesting that the earth rotates around the sun's Z axis in some way, or are you simply describing shift in precession? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 22:50:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well, first of all, they are in fact the same elements, just in different states of ionization and temperatures. The iron doesn't become plasma until it is heated in the electrical arcs that peel material from the surface.
Sorry, you just shot that argument in the foot by asserting that the surface is riddled with impurities like iron meteorites. Obviously, since the ionization energies of different elements are different, you're not going to wind up with the "iron plasma" you asserted was lighting the scene.quote:
You argument is not only vague, it's also wrong. They certainly are the same atoms and elements.
It certainly wasn't vague - you specifically answered it, which shows you knew exactly what I meant. Plus, you're now equivocating on the term "material," since both you and I know that solids and plasmas are two wholly different states of matter. The idea that they're the same "material" is like saying that I should be able to ice-skate in July, since water and ice are the same "material."quote:
You mean OTHER than my whole website?
...
We seem to be having a serious communication problem here Dave. I am not suggesting that the surface is made of solid iron, but only that it is composed of MOSTLY iron. I have meteorite "rocks" that represent a range of probably surface compositions.
It would be very helpful if you actually took some time to read my websites so we can avoid any unncessary confusion. I have appreciated the "fair" yet skeptical approach you have taken so far but I think you are missing some of the key points I was trying to make about the composition of the surface.
Frankly, I found the page linked to in the OP of this thread to be poorly structured, and so a very tedious read. Plus, I find arguments of the "if you'd just read this" sort to be even more tedious.
What I'm really interested in is your evidence which shows that what you can see in those images is truly a solid surface, and not - like the ionosphere of the Earth to shortwave radio, or a salinity gradient to sonar - just a reflective (or emitting) "transitional layer."
Surely you, who've been investigating this idea (for how long?), can supply a link or a citation of some sort (to independent research) which demonstrates that the surface you propose is reflective to the frequencies of light used in those images.quote:
You'll have to ask NASA and Lockheed how they achieve best results with their images. They seem reluctant to give me any direct answers to any direct questions about their running difference imaging technique.
Ah, so you don't know what the pixels in those images actually represent. Thanks for that admission.quote:
I still continue to use NASA and Lockheeds images since no one can accuse me of manipulating the technique in any way.
Nobody should have to bother delving to that level.quote:
I think your question was a "loaded" question.
A loaded question is not an argument from authority.quote:
It really doesn't matter why most of Europe in the middle ages thought the world was flat, they just did.
Where is the evidence for that assertion? Really, it's been convincingly argued that the idea that most Europeans thought the Earth was flat is a myth.quote:
I think the main problem has been that there has been no way to observationally corroborate or falsify any solar model until recently...
Like with, say, neutrino counts?quote:
...and most astrophysicists are heavily invested, financially and professionally, in one specific solar model.
Except that disproving that model in favor of a better model will win them fame and fortune in the form of a Nobel Prize.quote:
I have no such allegiance nor any problem "letting go" of theories that don't jive with direct observation. Some scientists are not as "detached" from a particular outcome in terms of funding and prestige.
I don't give a rats' ass about your allegiances, I was interested in why you think the leaders in the field cling to a model which you imply is obviously incorrect. That all you can come up with is an alleged financial and professional inertia speaks volumes about how you think science is done. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
