|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 01/18/2006 : 23:19:36 [Permalink]
|
http://www.space.com/news/sunspot_inside_011106.html
quote:
The study involved about a dozen sunspots but most of the data was collected on a single 1998 sunspot. NASA scientists have used the data to make a 3-D animation of a typical sunspot that shows a cluster of "magnetic flux tubes" held together by the downflows. About 3,000 miles down, the mechanism gives way and the tubes spread out.
The tubes spread out because the arc hits the surface again, and the plasma flowing through the arc has nowhere to go except to "spread out" across the surface. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 23:24:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You are a liar. You were the one who initially brought in the issue of the Lockheed people downloading from your server.
Oh for goodness sake! I only mentioned it *IN RESPONSE* to his comment to suggest they weren't *IGNORING* me altogether. You turned around and built a strawman about how *SERIOUSLY* they are taking me, and I'm the liar? You need to grow up, and practice some decent debate tactics while your at it. I did not LIE about anything. Of COURSE I mentioned it, but only to demonstrate that they weren't IGNORING me. Get it?
Geez!
Do you have any real science to offer here, or is this really a witch hunt from your perspective, and therefore "anything goes"? |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 09:02:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Oh for goodness sake! I only mentioned it *IN RESPONSE* to his comment to suggest they weren't *IGNORING* me altogether. You turned around and built a strawman about how *SERIOUSLY* they are taking me, and I'm the liar? You need to grow up, and practice some decent debate tactics while your at it. I did not LIE about anything. Of COURSE I mentioned it, but only to demonstrate that they weren't IGNORING me. Get it?
Let's rewind the tape a little, shall we?quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
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.
You're a liar. Get it? From the evidence that you've provided regarding their reason for downloading your material, none, they could have been looking at your website in order to have a good laugh at your expense. For several days you may have been the object of ridicule among the personnel at Lockheed. When I suggested that possibility you jumped into poor-persecuted-Mikey mode and you lied. Get it?quote:
Do you have any real science to offer here, or is this really a witch hunt from your perspective, and therefore "anything goes"?
Well let's see, you invented some "support" for your position, so I'm questioning your credibility, a completely valid concern in any discussion of supposed fact. You're the one who brought in the unrelated issue, simply guessing that the Lockheed people were taking you seriously, then lying about it when you got busted. Anything goes?
Now I repeat my question, the one that you've tried to dodge twice already. How can you expect any of us to take what you say with any amount of credibility now that you've demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're willing to lie to make your point?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 10:50:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You're a liar. Get it?
What I "get" is that you haven't got a decent scientific arguement, or even ability to put together a decent scientific argument, so you're now just making stuff up as you go, and you don't much care about truth or sequence or anything of the sort.
Yes, like I said I did meantion it *AFTER* the offending comment to show that Lockheed is NOT ignoring me, nor is Stanford, nor is anyone else. Get a life GeeMack. How about dealing with the nuclear chemistry, or is that too complicated for you personally to deal with?
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/19/2006 10:51:17 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 12:04:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No Dave, all the evidence fits together like a glove.
Like a glove with eight fingers and no thumb.quote:
I didn't make any of the data up, not one bit of it.
Nobody is claiming that you did. That's a typical creationist tactic, when your interpretations of data are questioned, insist that the criticisms are of the data itself, instead of the interpretations.quote:
The is all about interpretation...
You're right, and your interpretation of the data is definitely wrong in some aspects, and in others you can't explain why it's right.quote:
...you have a rigid, irregulared shaped surface...
No, I don't. But that's just another example of your creationist tactics, completely ignoring the plainly-stated position of your opponents.quote:
That is where the downward plasma flow stop, and where that stratified layer begins.
...
Yes I certainly have. Here is the link again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1641599.stm
Yes, and that BBC news article doesn't use the word "stop" on any of its synonyms in relation to the downward flow of plasma. This is a typical creationist tactic, assuming things which aren't in evidence.
Of course, one can find evidence that the plasma flows disapate by examining the original article, "Investigation of Mass Flows beneath a Sunspot by Time-Distance Helioseismology," but that also shows the movement of mass throughout the region, to depths far deeper than 4,800 km (which is 0.993R, anyway, not 0.995R). Especially figure 2, which unquestionably shows upwards and downwards and horizontal movement to depths up to 12,000 km (0.983R), and figure 3, which shows vertical and horizontal movements down to depths of 18,000 km (0.974R). Again, it's easy to see the vertical and horizontal motions within all of these depths. These are not isolated cracks with molten whatever-it-is flowing through them, and the downward flow of plasma continues to at least a depth of 7,000 km (0.990R), only to be replaced by an upward flow directly under the umbra at deeper depths. This is, of course, another creationist tactic, of simply ignoring evidence which is inconvenient.quote:
A solid will certainly conduct the sound waves FASTER than plasma and the speed of the waves would increase significantly.
Except that the sound waves only speed up by 10%. This is, of course, another creationist tactic, wherein a data point is exaggerated beyond reason to "support" a position.quote:
The fact the RD images don't DRIFT over the course of hours is also evidence of a solid under the plasma.
Except that you haven't shown any correlation whatsoever between the helioseismology data and the TRACE images. You haven't even demonstrated the plausibility of the idea that TRACE can image anything thousands of kilometers below the photosphere. When asked to do so, you were silent. Another creationist tactic.quote:
As much as I might like to hand you a nice math formula, it's not clear to me you would actually associate it with a MATERIAL of any sort. You haven't so far.
I've asked you what material you're talking about, and the only answer so far (Eklund's calcium ferrites) has melting points even lower than pure iron. When pressed for further details, all you said was "it's mostly iron." I cannot possibly associate anything with a material in your model unless you tell me what that material is. If I guess, you'll tell me I'm wrong. If I wait for you to tell me, I'll wait forever. Another creationist tactic.quote:
What are those shadows Dave?
Despite being asked to do so, you have not yet demonstrated that they are shadows. Once again, jumping to conclusions like that is a typical creationist tactic.quote:
Another creationist tactic I might add. Attack the evidence (or ignore it) and then provide none of your own evidence to support your positions. I see.
The standard solar model is not my position. You've demonstrated an inability to grasp what my position is. And I'm not attacking the evidence or ignoring the evidence, I'm criticizing your interpretation of the evidence. This is, of course, another example of the first typical creationist tactic I identified in this post.quote:
Pretty much the same forces that affect wind on our own planet, only I presume this is more of a cosmic wind than a solar wind driving the process.
Solar winds drive the Earth's winds. That's funny as hell, Mike.quote:
...you've never addressed the images or the chemistry...
Most of what I've been doing for the last eleven pages is addressing the images. And you seemed to agree that addressing the chemistry could come later as we do one point at a time. Apparently, you'll happily change your expectations to suit your character assassination needs, just like the creationists.quote:
Since you disagree with me on this point, HOW and WHY do these formulas work, and what exactly (in real life) do they apply to?
They apply to the observed rotation of sunspots and other visible-sur |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 13:53:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
What I "get" is that you haven't got a decent scientific arguement, or even ability to put together a decent scientific argument, so you're now just making stuff up as you go, and you don't much care about truth or sequence or anything of the sort.
Yes, like I said I did meantion it *AFTER* the offending comment to show that Lockheed is NOT ignoring me, nor is Stanford, nor is anyone else. Get a life GeeMack. How about dealing with the nuclear chemistry, or is that too complicated for you personally to deal with?
I'm not making anything up. Your credibility has been called into question, a concern that is supported by evidence. Sorry, but you, like the creationists, don't get the luxury of having people believe you just 'cause. I've shown where you lied. How about dealing with honesty and credibility, or is that too complicated for you personally to deal with?
You've dodged the question three times now, and I fully expect you to evade or ignore it again. But why should anyone take anything you say as being credible after you've provided evidence that you're willing to lie to make your point?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 16:38:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
]I'm not making anything up.
Yes you are. You are utterly ignoring the SEQUENCE OF EVENTS! You might as well be making up anything you wanna here, because that exactly what you're doing. You're talking a statement out of context to build a strawman so you can hurl pety insults. Enjoy yourself but don't expect me to be the least bit impressed with your selective listening skills.
quote:
Your credibility has been called into question,
You are acting just like a creationist. You've got no scienific refute for the isotope analysis. You can't explain any of these images, so what do you do? You take the cheap and dirty low road and go after the individual with false accusation.
quote:
a concern that is supported by evidence. Sorry, but you, like the creationists, don't get the luxury of having people believe you just 'cause.
What a crock! Not only have you provided NO evidence to support your case scientifically, you WON'T support your position scientifically. Instead you're acting just like a creationist and IGNORING the isotope analysis and ignoring the sequence of events here entirely to create a strawman argument that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any of the science I have presented over the last few months. Typical.....
quote:
I've shown where you lied. How about dealing with honesty and credibility, or is that too complicated for you personally to deal with?
You've shown how you will utterly ignore the sequence of events just to get in a cheap shot *AND* you've demonstated that you absolutely have no clue how to deal with the isotope analysis. THAT is all that you have "shown" here. You're just a gas model creationist in my book.
You've dodged the question three times now, and I fully expect you to evade or ignore it again. But why should anyone take anything you say as being credible after you've provided evidence that you're willing to lie to make your point?
[/quote] |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/19/2006 16:39:46 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 17:03:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
What a crock! Not only have you provided NO evidence to support your case scientifically, you WON'T support your position scientifically.
What on Earth are you talking about? You claimed to have not mentioned that the people at Lockheed took your material seriously. I posted the exact quotes from your comments where you said the people at Lockheed took you seriously. There is no more scientific basis required for making my case that you are a liar. The evidence is there in black and white. And I DID support it.
I've asked you this four times now, and I don't expect much more than the same kind of tantrum you've thrown before, but let's try it anyway. Why should anyone take anything you say as being credible after you've provided evidence that you're willing to lie to make your point?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 17:30:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Like a glove with eight fingers and no thumb.
Cute visual. :) I'll give you some bonus points for creativity, but you get absolutely nothing as it relates to a scientific refute of the items I presented and the way they fit together.
quote:
Nobody is claiming that you did. That's a typical creationist tactic, when your interpretations of data are questioned, insist that the criticisms are of the data itself, instead of the interpretations.
Until and unless you actually deal with the nuclear chemistry aspect of this debate, it is utterly IRONIC that you would be comparing ME to a creationist, since *I* (NOT YOU) am the one presenting ISOTOPE ANALYSIS to support my views, while you have yet to even touch the topic. From my perspective, until you touch that isotope analysis, you're no better than a creationist that hasn't addresed the isotope analysis and has not presented any of their isotope data to support their views. It's not JUST related to the isotope analysis by the way. You've not offered any sort of explanation for even that first image that is even remotely attentive to detail, nor have you explained that stratifcation layer at .995R.
quote:
You're right, and your interpretation of the data is definitely wrong in some aspects, and in others you can't explain why it's right.
If you believe I am wrong, then you must have a reason you believe I'm wrong, and you must be able to offer a "better" explanation for these images, right? What are those explanations? Pick any of the three things I listed and go for it Dave. Present your own evidence to support your view. You showed me exactly ZIP in terms of differential rotation in that image. You showed me nothing even remotely related to an explanation of how we see such rigidity on this surface if it's sitting on top of a boiling photosophere that recreates it filaments every 8 minutes and move all over the place in a very short timeline.
quote:
No, I don't. But that's just another example of your creationist tactics, completely ignoring the plainly-stated position of your opponents.
What exactly *IS* your "plainly stated position" Dave? Where is the differential rotation you were talking about in these RD images?
quote:
Yes, and that BBC news article doesn't use the word "stop" on any of its synonyms in relation to the downward flow of plasma.
Actually, you are right, I cited the wrong article at first which is why I posted the correct one separately. In retrospect, I should have edited the link.
quote:
Of course, one can find evidence that the plasma flows disapate by examining the original article, "Investigation of Mass Flows beneath a Sunspot by Time-Distance Helioseismology," but that also shows the movement of mass throughout the region, to depths far deeper than 4,800 km (which is 0.993R, anyway, not 0.995R). Especially figure 2, which unquestionably shows upwards and downwards and horizontal movement to depths up to 12,000 km (0.983R), and figure 3, which shows vertical and horizontal movements down to depths of 18,000 km (0.974R). Again, it's easy to see the vertical and horizontal motions within all of these depths. These are not isolated cracks with molten whatever-it-is flowing through them, and the downward flow of plasma continues to at least a depth of 7,000 km (0.990R), only to be replaced by an upward flow directly under the umbra at deeper depths. This is, of course, another creationist tactic, of simply ignoring evidence which is inconvenient.
I'll tell you what I'll do here.... You tackle the isotope analysis, and I'll go through the papers you mentioned and respond to them in full. Deal?
quote:
Except that the sound waves only speed up by 10%. This is, of course, another creationist tactic, wherein a data point is exaggerated beyond reason to "support" a position.
You of all people REALLY need to get off the "creationist" smear tactic campaign. When you deal with the isotope analysis, THEN you have a beef with me. Until then, you're just huffing and puffing and blowing smoke.
Where did you get the 10% figure by the way?
quote:
Except that you haven't shown any correlation whatsoever between the helioseismology data and the TRACE images. You haven't even demonstrated the plausibility of the idea that TRACE can image anything thousands of kilometers below the photosphere. When asked to do so, you were silent.
I'm not an expert in plasma physics, and we haven't even agreed what kinds of plasma are present, what density we are looking at, or any of the details that might actually allow us to answer stuff like that. Thre is nothing implausible about light from a large electrical arc passing through plasma. If I knew a little more about light propogation in specific plasmas at specific frequencies, and I knew more about the density of the layers involved, perhaps I could answer it. As it is, I'm still reading about the techniques used and trying to assertain densities within the various layers.
quote:
Another creationist tactic.
More ironic commentary from a guy who's denying the validity of isotope analysis by a Dr. of Nuclear chemistry from the University of Missouri at Rolla.
quote:
I've asked you what material you're talking about, and the only answer so far (Eklund's calcium ferrites) has melting points even lower than pure iron. When pressed for further details, all you said was "it's mostly iron." I cannot possibly associate anything with a material in your model unless you tell me what that material is. If I guess, you'll tell me I'm |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/19/2006 17:32:04 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 17:47:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
What on Earth are you talking about? You claimed to have not mentioned that the people at Lockheed took your material seriously.
I've been sitting here rereading these quotes and trying to figure out where the heck you are coming from GeeMack. I think I'm starting to understand the confusion here, and I think I now see your point of view here a bit.
When I responded to the comment I was responding to about sientists ignoging me, I did in fact use the term "seriously". In that respect, you DO have point, but IMO, you're blowing it WAY out of proportion for the context. If I had started a thread that said:
"I know I'm right about the surface of the sun, because I know LMSAL takes me seriously"
THEN maybe I could understand where you are coming from. As it is, I think you are going WAY overboard over a single word of a single sentence, and you are not paying the least bit of attention to the context in which it was said.
Technically I grant you that I used the term "seriously". In a legaleeze technical way, sure, I see your point. On the other hand, my INTENT was primarily intended to suggest that I have been in virtually constant communication with a LOT of different scientists from all over the planet in over the last 9 months. Some have in fact ignored me as well. I'm sure some laughed. I sure some have taken me seriously based on the emails they have sent me. In that sense, I do know there are employees of Lockheed Martin that do take me seriously, and I know that there are people in other major businesses and organizations that do take me seriously. I would not even attempt at this point to try to speak for EVERYONE at Lockheed Martin or Boeing, or NASA or any of the many people who have visited me from these various organizations. The best I can say now is that SOME scientists do in fact take me seriously, and SOME have even done some papers with me.
Now, I've been MORE than fair about this from my perspective at this point, in fact I've bent over backwards to see this from your point of view. Will you let this go now, and offer me some credible scientific refute of any of the materials I have presented? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/19/2006 18:54:00 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 17:56:17 [Permalink]
|
Dave,
Have you got a different link to the heliosiesmology paper you cited? For whatever reason, I can't read the article even though I'm accepting cookies and have the java scripts enabled. Either the link is bad, or I'm unable to read it for some reason.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 18:36:30 [Permalink]
|
| Never mind Dave. I was able to open the website in Explorer. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 19:04:56 [Permalink]
|
From that paper:
quote:
The origin of sunspots is not understood. Parker (1979) suggested a cluster model for sunspots. In order to hold together the loose cluster of magnetic flux tubes, a downdraft beneath the sunspot, in the convection zone, is needed. But so far this model lacks direct observational evidence. Although Duvall et al. (1996) have obtained evidence for downflows under the sunspot by use of the time-distance technique, some authors (e.g., Woodard 1997; Lindsey et al. 1996) are still suspicious of this conclusion.
In this paper, we apply the time-distance technique, based on measuring travel times of acoustic waves (p-modes) to one set of continuous Dopplergram observations by the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) on board the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO). These travel times are inverted to probe the plasma flows under and around the sunspot region. The clear flow picture, deep below and around the sunspot, presented in this paper provides strong support of the cluster sunspot model and the emergence of magnetic -loops.
I'm still reading the paper at this point, and I'll probably want to read some of the supporting literature before I respond fully, but this series of comments caught my eye. Not only can I explain WHY the sunspots form (upwelling silicon plasma from the umbra), I can explain the emergence of the "magnetic loops" which is ultimately a euphamism for electrical arcs.
If you read this paper from the University of Maryland, they even describe the current flow in terms of the density of the flow of electrons and talk about two distinctly different mechanisms to explain photon release, namely electricity and heat.
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~white/papers/03_norh_020723.pdf |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 19:41:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'll tell you what I'll do here.... You tackle the isotope analysis, and I'll go through the papers you mentioned and respond to them in full. Deal?
Nope. It took me all of 15 seconds to Google up the original Kosovichev paper on the mass flows in and under sunspots (it's the fifth result down if you Google 'kosovichev sunspot'), which means that you weren't even interested in the whole story, and instead were trying to make your points off a popular-press news tidbit (the BBC article, which is where I got the 10% number). You had your chance to "tackle" that single paper ages ago (it was published in 2000), but it seems you didn't care about the science.
IF you can explain the flows described and graphed in that paper - using data that everyone can verify and agree upon - as being not only consistent with a solid layer but a solid layer with an average density 20% greater than iron (which your model requires, given that you said that the shell carries more than 50% of the Sun's mass), and then answer five questions of mine about your explanation to my satisfaction, then I'll grant that you're actually interested in the science, and then I will look at, comment on, and allow you to ask me as many questions as you want to about the isotope analysis.
The fact that you were unaware of that Kosovichev paper, coupled with your previous attempts at explaining massive flows through your allegedly solid shell, gives me every reason to demand this show of "good faith" from you regarding your desire to discuss the actual science underlying your claims. If you don't take this counter-offered deal, it's no skin off my nose. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 19:44:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Let's recap now:
A) Current gas model theor has already been falisified.
Excellent. Pardon me if I don't take your word for it though. I'm still skeptical of the interpretation of the data you have submitted. I think I'll wait to change my opinion until my astronomy-teacher at my local University says the course litterature support you claim.
Otherwise I will most definitly fail the astro-physics course.
quote:
E) 5 solar satellites all provide evidence to support this model, and at least two of them provide evidence to blow large holes in contemporary gas model theory.
Now you lost me. Please recap...
|
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. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
