|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 01/17/2006 : 14:49:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It is specifically the texture of the plasma that allows for this drifting to occur. We have to agree on this point, or there is no way to continue.
Tell me how the "texture" of the plasma relates to the equation, and we can agree on it.quote:
This plasma is not rigid. That is what allows for movement to occur in the plasma. It's the texture of the plasma that the math relates to, not some "chunk" of a rigid surface.
Yes, I am aware of that. It's what makes you think that seeing differential rotation in a series of TRACE images will disprove your solid-surface theory, but as the math applies to those images, the data set you've chosen is simply too small and doesn't comprise enough time in order to see the effects we might expect to see.
The fact that you conflate the "boiling" of the photosphere - which can't be seen in TRACE images at all - with differential rotation simply shows you're unwilling to accept what the equation means, despite careful correction.quote:
You are also assuming that no iron in molten from exists beneath the surface. That is not an assumption I am making. The surface is not homogenously iron, so I would not necessarily expect this layer to have the density of iron.
What part of my discussion of how making the layer less dense than iron would make the layer thicker, and thus compounding the discrepancy between your model and observation did you not understand? In order to match observations, your layer (comprising 50%+ of the Sun's mass) must be at least 20% more dense than solid iron. Calcium ferrites won't even come close.quote:
The movement in and around this layer is going to be affected by surface terrains, both above and below, and surface ruptures which will result in movement of materials through this layer. There are a variety of ways to explain the movement of materials through ALL layers of the sun since matieral does move through all layers.
At 1,000 km/second, and on a regular enough basis that it was easily detectable within the first year of SOHO's operations? How quickly can molten iron move, anyway?quote:
You are trying to suggest that a virtually rigid surface sits on top of a boiling liquid and somehow shows virutally no change in a pixel by pixel level the way we see in images of the penumbral filament level of the photosphere.
Then you haven't been listening. I am trying to suggest no such thing, and find it highly insulting that after all your posturing about discussing science, and your condescending crap about how you "appreciate" the way I've been approaching this discussion of late, you don't have a fucking clue about what my position is. You are a hypocritical, dogmatic jerk who refuses to live up to the same standard of behaviour that you demand of others. Once you're willing to discuss the science of your model, we can do so. We may as well discuss your credibility, your personality and even the way you part your hair until then.quote:
You need to be able to offer a better explanation than you have offered so far.
No, I don't. You need to offer a positive explanation of why those TRACE images are from 0.995R and no place else. Until you do, nobody owes you any explanation whatsoever because you're not engaged in science, but instead in unfalsifiable dreaming.
Here's the question you need to answer: what sorts of evidence would you accept that your theory is false? This question has nothing to do with the SSM, so "evidence that the SSM is true" won't be acceptable as falsification of your theory. What independent evidence would cause you to agree that there is no solid surface within the Sun at all?
And to Mab you wrote:quote:
...I see no rational way to ignore the whole concept of acceleration as it relates to our solar system...
Please offer the equations which show how acceleration relates to any density calculation anywhere. I'm sure that someone here will be glad to apply those equations to the Sun's movement, since you seem unable to work a damned calculator. |
- 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 - 01/17/2006 : 14:59:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Tell me how the "texture" of the plasma relates to the equation, and we can agree on it.
I've already done that Dave. It's the movement within the plasma that allows for these formulas to work. It there were no movement between MOLECULES in the plasma, then the formulas would not work. The formulas relate directly to the "rate of movement" between individual molecules.
quote:
Yes, I am aware of that. It's what makes you think that seeing differential rotation in a series of TRACE images will disprove your solid-surface theory, but as the math applies to those images, the data set you've chosen is simply too small and doesn't comprise enough time in order to see the effects we might expect to see.
Over what timeline does that TRACE movie take place Dave? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 15:35:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Yes, but they are localized, around the poles Jupiter, and Earth.
Check out these references:
a.) On the cover of the 12 Jan 2006 issue of Nature,
"Magnetic recombination in space creates a 2.5 million-kilometre particle accelerator",
b.) In Dr. Paschmann's news story on pp. 144-145,
"Breaking through the lines", and
c.) In Dr. Phan et al.'s report on pp. 175-178
"A magnetic reconnection x-line extending more than 390 Earth radii in the solar wind".
These reconnection events take place between the sun and things WAY beyond our earth, and most likely extend to the solar sheath. There are currents EVERYWHERE in our universe, not just a "few" locations. The current flows all along the surface of the sun as well. Every corner of our universe is electric.
quote:
That is still in dispute. The "Orion Slinky" seems to be evidence of Birkeland currents of colossal magnitude, but how do you prove it comes from the galactic core?
You'd have to look to see where it starts and originates I presume, but the fluxuation process I meantioned speaks of the fluxuation from OUR OWN core. That would play out through the spiral arms of a unverse that has many metal spheres in relatively "dense" formations we call spiral arms. There is current running through everything.
quote:
You did assert that a galactic core current affect the sun: Thus it is you obligation to provide evidence for it. The face that there exist an "Orion slinky" is not evidence that a similar exist HERE.
Check out the c) reference in particular.
quote:
The fact that we have identified localized currents within the solar system proves that they are detectable. A current several orders of magnitude larger than that measured at Jupiter is required to affect the sun: such a current shouldn't be hard to find evidence of...
Are you talking inside the sheath, or outside the solar sheath?
quote:
That is a rhetoric question based on YOUR assumption that there is one.
Birkland proved they exist. Birkeland currents are well documented to exist both inside and outside the sheath.
quote:
Why don't you name a few?
The sun's magnetic fields, the arrangement of planets.
quote:
But you haven't shown one between our sun and any extrasolar object. That is the only type of Birkeland current which could concievably affect our sun's mangetic field to such an extend as you are proposing.
I have provided links to demonstrate that our own galactic core "fluxes". I've provided evidence the sun has an electrically active, predominantly iron shell. I've shown evidence of Birkeland currents both inside and outside the solar system. What more do you want?
quote:
Where and how?
I posted the link a few pages back.
quote:
How do you know that those are not the product of the sun, but from the galactic core? And why can't we trace them farther from the sun? At the heliopause there should be ample amount of matter for the current to interact with. Enough to be easily spotted from Earth even if it is inly a fraction of intensity compared to the Orion Slinky".
Assuming that the jets that streak off the sun are "pulled" as much as pushed, virtually every emission we see would be evidence of the sun interating with the universe through it's sheath. The emissions from the sun are always non-uniform, and often stream far into the solar system in JETS. This kind of activity could easily be related to the sun responding to external changes at the shealth level.
I seriously doubt that you will accept any information I might present, since you will automatically attribute all "intra-solar" activity to the sun itself without regard to anything outside of the solar system as it relates to the flow of energy and current from the sun to the universe itself even though some of these reconnection events go 390 times further than from the sun to the earth. That to me is evidence that the sun is connecting with currents which flow in the universe itself.
Somehow however, you've become convinced that Birkeland currents CANNOT be in play, even though we see them inside the solar system and outside the solar system as well. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/17/2006 15:35:55 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 17:43:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
a.) On the cover of the 12 Jan 2006 issue of Nature,
"Magnetic recombination in space creates a 2.5 million-kilometre particle accelerator",
b.) In Dr. Paschmann's news story on pp. 144-145,
"Breaking through the lines", and
c.) In Dr. Phan et al.'s report on pp. 175-178
"A magnetic reconnection x-line extending more than 390 Earth radii in the solar wind".
390 Earth radii, or 2.6 million kilometers equals ~1,7 AU
That is compared to 90-100 AU where the heliosphere begins, and then there are tenths of AUs more until the heliopause. All in all just a percent of the distance from the sun to the heliopause.
These articles referenced doesn't prove your assertion. |
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 19:36:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I've already done that Dave. It's the movement within the plasma that allows for these formulas to work. It there were no movement between MOLECULES in the plasma, then the formulas would not work. The formulas relate directly to the "rate of movement" between individual molecules.
In a scientific discussion, the answer to how the "texture" of the plasma creates differential rotation would be something like, "well, given a plasma consisting of these elements, at that density, this temperature, and a thickness of 3,460 km over a surface rotating once every 27.3 days, then considering this-and-that forces acting upon it, we should see sunspots rotate around the Sun in only 24.3 days at the equator, but in 29.5 days near the poles."
But you can't be bothered to offer a scientifically testable mechanism that we could compare against both reality and your model, because you're not at all interested in having a scientific discussion, here. Instead, what you want to do (and all that you have been doing) is tossing out conjecture after conjecture, and hoping that someone else will verify them scientifically for you, and praying that STEREO will offer up some nice, juicy images of something below the photosphere.quote:
Over what timeline does that TRACE movie take place Dave?
You're the one using the TRACE movie as evidence of your claims, you should know the answer to that question. But you don't. Because you don't care. You weren't even aware that each pixel in it is over 726 km across until I helped you out with simple trigonometry and a calculator. And now that you are aware of that little fact, you pointedly ignore it because that's a lot of "wiggle room" in which movement could be occuring, and you'd never know it. A scientist never would have used that video as evidence of a solid surface without knowing how long it is, for fear of making him/herself look like a fool, ranting without the proper data.
Just give up the pretense that you're engaged in a scientific endeavor, why don't you? People might consider you to be honest if you did. |
- 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 - 01/18/2006 : 12:58:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I've already done that Dave. It's the movement within the plasma that allows for these formulas to work. It there were no movement between MOLECULES in the plasma, then the formulas would not work. The formulas relate directly to the "rate of movement" between individual molecules.
In a scientific discussion, the answer to how the "texture" of the plasma creates differential rotation would be something like, "well, given a plasma consisting of these elements, at that density, this temperature, and a thickness of 3,460 km over a surface rotating once every 27.3 days, then considering this-and-that forces acting upon it, we should see sunspots rotate around the Sun in only 24.3 days at the equator, but in 29.5 days near the poles."
But you can't be bothered to offer a scientifically testable mechanism that we could compare against both reality and your model, because you're not at all interested in having a scientific discussion, here.
For crying out loud Dave, I've told you EXACTLY how to do it using the Lockheed RD images! Not only did I give you *A* mechanism, I've used SEVERAL, including Doppler images from SOHO as well. It is you that have offered exactly no alternative explanation for these images using gas model theory, and no way to test your non-explanation. I'm the only one that DID offer an explanation and ddid offer a mechanism to test that explanation.
quote:
Instead, what you want to do (and all that you have been doing) is tossing out conjecture after conjecture, and hoping that someone else will verify them scientifically for you, and praying that STEREO will offer up some nice, juicy images of something below the photosphere.
Oh Bull! I handed you images from several satellites, including Yohkoh, SOHO, Trace and Rhessi to support my assesments. I offered you heliosiesomology evidence that confirms the existence of a transitional region under the photosphere. I handed you isotope analysis, you handwaved away. I handed you several papers that talk about the energy states of these electrical arcs. Give me a break!
quote:
You're the one using the TRACE movie as evidence of your claims, you should know the answer to that question. But you don't. Because you don't care. You weren't even aware that each pixel in it is over 726 km across until I helped you out with simple trigonometry and a calculator. And now that you are aware of that little fact, you pointedly ignore it because that's a lot of "wiggle room" in which movement could be occuring, and you'd never know it. A scientist never would have used that video as evidence of a solid surface without knowing how long it is, for fear of making him/herself look like a fool, ranting without the proper data.
Actually Dave, I do care. In fact I care enough that I have asked several people at Lockheed Martin about the image repeatedly only to have them deny even knowing who created the image. They would offer me nothing as far as information goes. Instead I had to put together the RD images myself from the FITS FILES and figure out timelines manually. This sequence is more than 3 hours long Dave, turning your 2.5 pixel rotation into something along the order of 15 pixels, all of which should be at least a LITTLE random since we are talking about the movement of molecules of plasma. The issue here is randomness and plasma.
That "dust" you see blowing off to the left is the effect we see of particles in plasma differentially rotating in the plasma because of the MOVEMENT of the plasma. The surface however does NOT move, but stays utterly stationary. If it were sitting on TOP of a convection zone, we would certainly see differential rotation in this image over a 3+ hour window of time. We do not.
Even in a 1/2 hour window we see LOTS of change in photosphere images. There is no difficulty picking out all sorts of movement in the plasma in such timelines. Over a 3 hour window, we should see TONS of change in the at RD image. We see very little.
quote:
Just give up the pretense that you're engaged in a scientific endeavor, why don't you? People might consider you to be honest if you did.
You know Dave, it is completely disengenous of you to question my honesty when I've spent months preparing data, and gone through 25 pages of debate here on this issue. I've prepared satellite data, heliosiesmology data, chemistry data, and data on the power in the arcs. You've provided not a single legitimate way to explain how a virtually rigid surface sits on top of boling liquid-like plasma and somehow keeps it shape over HOURS of time when the whole underside of the photosphere is boiling like a pot of hot milk.
None of your explanations make the least bit of sense, and you totally ignore the fact the only reason we do see differential ratation in plasma is because ATOMS are moving in relationship to one another in relatively chaotic ways. We can see tthat behavior play out dramatically in the photsophere. That is RADICALLY (and I mean RADICALLY) different than what occurs on the transitional layer where structures hold their shape over many hours and do not differentially rotate like plasma.
We can even see the difference in density between the transitional region and the plasma above it, since the dust drifts off to the left in the moving plasma, while the surface features stay put. You are the very last person on the planet that should be questioning my honesty Dave. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/18/2006 13:15:07 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 13:43:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Actually Dave, I do care. In fact I care enough that I have asked several people at Lockheed Martin about the image repeatedly only to have them deny even knowing who created the image. They would offer me nothing as far as information goes.
Gee, they blew you off after you repeatedly asked them... imagine that. It is almost like they did not take you seriously. Almost like they thought you have no understanding of physics, math and science in general and are wasting there time. Almost like they have heard this type of thing time and time again - where some guy comes up with a half baked idea and won't stop bother them and refuses to listen to people who really know what they are talking about.
Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 13:45:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
390 Earth radii, or 2.6 million kilometers equals ~1,7 AU
That is compared to 90-100 AU where the heliosphere begins, and then there are tenths of AUs more until the heliopause. All in all just a percent of the distance from the sun to the heliopause.
These articles referenced doesn't prove your assertion.
Actually the distance is considerably less than 1 AU (149,597,871km).
In and of itself, I agree, this information cannot PROVE anything. The fact a reconnection event can take place over such a large distance however demonstrates the power of our sun and the electrical nature of the solar system interactions. When we look at LASCO images, we see very large "streamers" of energy coming off the surface is very specific directions. Again this is evidence that the sun interacts electrically with other bodies in the vicinity, and if it is electrical in nature, it would react with other CURRENTS in the system in which is sits. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 13:54:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
For crying out loud Dave, I've told you EXACTLY how to do it using the Lockheed RD images! Not only did I give you *A* mechanism, I've used SEVERAL, including Doppler images from SOHO as well.
Running difference and Doppler images are not mechanisms which make the plasma of the photosphere move faster than your allegedly solid surface.quote:
It you that have offered exactly no alternative explanation for these images using gas model theory.
I don't need to offer an alternative when you have presented no scientifically testable mechanism for the plasma's "texture" being responsible for differential rotation.quote:
I'm the only one that DID offer an explanation and ddid offer a mechanism to test that explanation.
I'm not asking for a mechanism to test differential rotation, I'm asking for the mechanism responsible for differential rotation in a solid-surface model of the Sun.quote:
Oh Bull! I handed you images from several satellites, including Yohkoh, SOHO, Trace and Rhessi to support my assesments. I offered you heliosiesomology evidence that confirms the existence of a transitional region under the photosphere. I handed you isotope analysis, you handwaved away. I handed you several papers that talk about the energy states of these electrical arcs. Give me a break!
Give you a break? Would a professional scientist give you a break, or would he/she continue to ask you questions when the previous questions weren't answered scientifically? Of course not. (And I never "handwaved" away the isotope analysis, I haven't gotten that far, yet. We've been busy here with these questions.)quote:
Actually Dave, I do care. In fact I care enough that I have asked several people at Lockheed Martin about the image repeatedly only to have them deny even knowing who created the image. They would offer me nothing as far as information goes. Instead I had to put together the RD images myself from the FITS FILES and figure out timelines manually. This sequence is more than 3 hours long Dave, turning your 2.5 pixel rotation into something along the order of 15 pixels, all of which should be at least a LITTLE random since we are talking about the movement of molecules of plasma. The issue here is randomness and plasma.
No, over that long a time we have to do the calculations over again. Going from a half-hour to 15 minutes is one thing, going the other way is quite another.
11.87°S = 1.7625+/-0.0463°/3hours, or 1.7162 to 1.8088 degrees.
30.52°S = 1.7086+/-0.0593°/3hours, or 1.6493 to 1.7679 degrees.
Once again, we see a minimum difference of zero pixels over three hours, and a maximum difference of 4.56 pixels, with an average of just 1.42 pixels.quote:
Even in a 1/2 hour window we see LOTS of change in photosphere images. There is no difficulty picking out all sorts of movement in the plasma in such timelines. Over a 3 hour window, we should see TONS of change in the at RD image. We see very little.
No, because your assumptions are wrong, and neither one of us is talking about the photosphere.quote:
You know Dave, it is completely disengenous of you to question my honesty when I've spent months preparing data, and gone through 25 pages of debate here on this issue. I've prepared satellite data, heliosiesmology data, chemistry data, and data on the power in the arcs.
We've had much longer discussions here without any mention of science by the proponents of strange ideas. The amount of work you've done is no indicator that you're doing anything scientific, as anyone who's spent years writing science fiction can attest to.quote:
You've provided not a single legitimate way to explain how a virtually rigid surface sits on top of boling liquid-like plasma and somehow keeps it shape over HOURS of time when the whole underside of the photosphere is boiling like a pot of hot milk.
I don't have to, because that's not what I said. You've built a strawman. It's another example of your unscientific attitude.
Besides which, why don't you explain to me how coronal loops can maintain their shape over the course of DAYS.quote:
None of your explanations make the least bit of sense...
That's because you're making the assumption that I'm using the same fucked-up "science" that you are. Of course it won't make sense to you, but you're not even trying to learn what I'm talking about, and instead just tell me, over and over, that I'm somehow wrong (without having pointed out a single flaw in any calculation that I've made).quote:
We can even see the difference in density between the transitional region and the plasma above it, since the dust drifts off to the left in the moving plasma, while the surface features stay put.
Since the photosphere moves from left to right, the dust should drift in the opposite direction if it were due to differential rotation.quote:
You are the very last person on the planet that should be questioning my honesty Dave.
I don't see why. You're the one who cannot provide a scientifically testable mechanism driving differential rotation. You're the one who now claims that differential rotation goes backwards from the observed direction. You're the one who thinks that the SOHO/MDI instrument can "see through clouds." You're the one who thinks that for anyone to be critical of your ideas, they have to support the current standard model. You may think you're being honest, Michael, but you're simply lying to yourself, and it's written across all your posts. |
- 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 - 01/18/2006 : 14:00:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Gee, they blew you off after you repeatedly asked them... imagine that. It is almost like they did not take you seriously.
Quite the contrary. Lockheed Martin was THE single biggest downloader of data from my website from June through August. They took me quite seriously once Dr. Kosovichev turned them onto my website. I did get several responses from them about OTHER images, but this one was not an image they wished to discuss. In fact they disavowed all knowledge of where the image came from, not just to me, but to Dr. Manuel as well.
quote:
Almost like they thought you have no understanding of physics, math and science in general and are wasting there time.
If that were so, then Lockheed Martin would not have been so active on my website over such an extended period of time, from 4 different website servers, and they would not have answered ANY of my questions.
quote:
Almost like they have heard this type of thing time and time again - where some guy comes up with a half baked idea and won't stop bother them and refuses to listen to people who really know what they are talking about. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
It only makes me wonder how you guys even dream up these rediculace ideas and weird insults. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 14:28:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Quite the contrary. Lockheed Martin was THE single biggest downloader of data from my website from June through August. They took me quite seriously once Dr. Kosovichev turned them onto my website. I did get several responses from them about OTHER images, but this one was not an image they wished to discuss. In fact they disavowed all knowledge of where the image came from, not just to me, but to Dr. Manuel as well.
The amount of downloading doesn't mean in any way that the people at Lockheed took the material seriously. It's certainly possible they were all downloading your material because they had a slow day and they all wanted a good laugh.
There are quite probably times when members of various skeptic, atheist, and evolution sciences organizations are the biggest downloaders of material from the ID and creationists' sites. That doesn't mean any of us take that crap seriously. So you have once again presented some absolutely bogus logic. You'd be a lot more credible with your other material if you could shake some of that silly blind faith that makes you leap to your ridiculous, unevidenced conclusions. 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 14:52:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
390 Earth radii, or 2.6 million kilometers equals ~1,7 AU
That is compared to 90-100 AU where the heliosphere begins, and then there are tenths of AUs more until the heliopause. All in all just a percent of the distance from the sun to the heliopause.
These articles referenced doesn't prove your assertion.
Actually the distance is considerably less than 1 AU (149,597,871km).
Oops, I made a mistake. The error was in your favour versus the point I was making. Sloppy work, but that's what happen when the time is 2am.
quote:
In and of itself, I agree, this information cannot PROVE anything.
I'm glad you agree.
quote:
The fact a reconnection event can take place over such a large distance however demonstrates the power of our sun and the electrical nature of the solar system interactions. When we look at LASCO images, we see very large "streamers" of energy coming off the surface is very specific directions. Again this is evidence that the sun interacts electrically with other bodies in the vicinity, and if it is electrical in nature, it would react with other CURRENTS in the system in which is sits.
But no one has identified currents in the outer skirts of the solar system, which should be there and easily recognizable once they hit the heliopause: there is more matter there to interact with than say a few AUs from the sun perpendicular to the planetary orbits.
Electrical currents and magnetic fields of the magnitude required to affect the sun must be so strong that it would easily ionize hydrogen and helium "out there". If a current a hundred(?) parsecs away in the Orion constellation is visible, then detecting one at 100 AUs would surely be a piece of cake? |
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 - 01/18/2006 : 15:03:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If that were so, then Lockheed Martin would not have been so active on my website over such an extended period of time, from 4 different website servers, and they would not have answered ANY of my questions.
Several of us have been visiting the Christian Fundamentalist site Rapture Ready, for amusement, during an extended time. That dosn't mean we buy into the crap they are selling. |
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 - 01/18/2006 : 16:35:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Running difference and Doppler images are not mechanisms which make the plasma of the photosphere move faster than your allegedly solid surface.
They are MECHANISMS and techniques that allow us to OBSERVE and TEST these ideas. The primary "mechanism" that allows for differential rotation is the fact it's made of PLASMA and plasma is not rigid. If plasma were rigid, we'd have no movement! It's really that simple. You are attempting to take a very simple concept and make it complicated. In fact you attempting to create some "mystery" here where none exists. There's no mystery here Dave. The plasma is not rigid. It rotates in a liguid-like way since it demonstrates liquid-like behaviors that we can see in Kosovichev's doppler images.
quote:
I don't need to offer an alternative when you have presented no scientifically testable mechanism for the plasma's "texture" being responsible for differential rotation.
Yes I have Dave. I showed you the TEXTURE of this plasma in the tsunami video. The plasma in that video behaves as if we dropped a pebble into a pond. The wave propogates over the surface of a the photosphere as a wave travels through a liquid.
I also showed you the TEXTURE in the photosophere movies. I showed you TEXTURE in the penumbral filament layer that is consistent with liquid-like movements. The penumbral filaments are not rigid. They move around throughout the movie because they are made of moving plasma. Plasma isn't rigid. This PROPERTY of PLASMA is what allows for movement at it is the PROPERTY that your math formulas relate to. It is not just that a SINGLE pixel is subject to multipixel movement, but EVERY SINGLE PIXEL may and should show sings of such movement. In fact we DO see movement in the plasma layer above the transitional layer in the form of dust that is literally blowing in the plasma wind. It's the VISCOSITY of the various plasmas that lead to various movements. The THICKER plasma like the photosphere moves in a "thicker" way as compared to the chromosphere above it. That movement of atoms within a non rigid plasma is the PROPERTY these math formulas relate to and describe.
quote:
I'm the only one that DID offer an explanation and ddid offer a mechanism to test that explanation.
quote:
I'm not asking for a mechanism to test differential rotation, I'm asking for the mechanism responsible for differential rotation in a solid-surface model of the Sun.
The mechanism is atomic movement in plasma. What are you suggesting is the mechanism Dave?
quote:
Give you a break? Would a professional scientist give you a break, or would he/she continue to ask you questions when the previous questions weren't answered scientifically?
I have offered you scientific explanations. You have offered me none of your own. You are welcome to offer me BETTER scientific explanations for these isotope results, but without such an explanation, you are essentially asking me to believe in creationism on faith IN SPITE OF isotope analysis that says otherwise. Can't you see this from my point of view at all?
quote:
Of course not. (And I never "handwaved" away the isotope analysis, I haven't gotten that far, yet.....We've been busy here with these questions.)
Well, I hear you. It is a lot of information to digest all at once. It's taken me 9 months to digest it all, even with 45 years of prep work and 15 years of satellite images analysis under my belt. Dr. Manuel and I both come to the conclusion that the sun was mass separated by atomic weight. While I was able to "observe" that the plasma was separated by atomic weight, Dr. Manual was able to explain the the plasma was further separated by isotope. That is the power of nuclear chemistry.
quote:
Once again, we see a minimum difference of zero pixels over three hours, and a maximum difference of 4.56 pixels, with an average of just 1.42 pixels.
Even if we assume every bit of your math is accurate, we would still expect to observe an AVERAGE movement of a pixel and a half, with some pixels moving up to 5 pixels away! That kind of randomized pixel movement of plasma is VERY easy to see in the photosphere. It's not happening here at all. The only "movement" we can see in any "structures" on the surface take place along the right hand side where the top surface layer is being eaten away by the electrical erosion. It's not moving, it's being "peeled away". Nothing else is moving in relationship to anything else, other than that dust in the plasma.
quote:
No, because your assumptions are wrong, and neither one of us is talking about the photosphere.
You are trying to suggest this is even a LIGHTER and HOTTER, more ENERGETIC form of plasma that is virtually RIGID, while sitting on top of what amounts to boiling liquid. That's not even logical.
I however suggest a model that is both logical and feasable. You can have a solid layer undernearth the plasma and see little surface change underneath the plasma, but lots of plasma changes in the penumbral filaments.
quote:
We've had much longer discussions here without any mention of science by the proponents of strange ideas. The amount of work you've done is no indicator that you're doing anything scientific, as anyone who's spent years writing science fiction can attest to.
It's these kinds of comments that make my jaw drop. I've provided TONS of scientific evidence here from 4 satellites, the the University of Maryland, the University of Missouri, UCLA, and Stanford. It is you that have provided exactly no evidence to support your case for a FALSIFIED model! Your attitude here is utterly unbelievable from my perspective. It's like listening to a creationists deny isotope analysis and science in favor of a faith in something they can't even explain!
quote:
I don't have to, because that's not what I said. You've built a strawman. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/18/2006 17:10:41 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
