|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 01/19/2006 : 20:09:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
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.
Do me a favor. Take that heliosiesmology paper from UCLA and Stanford and ask your favorite teacher to explain that stratification layer at .995R. Have her/him explain the thickness of the layer and why it exists at that location, and why it's about that thick. Show them how and where it was predicted in previous gas model theory, and how it's now explained in current theory. See what they say.
quote:
Otherwise I will most definitly fail the astro-physics course.
I'd personally rather be right and fail some old guys opinion of what's going on in reality than to remain ignorant of reality for all time just to get some guys apporoval. Then again, I'm sort of a rebel. :)
You'll find however the you can often accomplish more simply by asking question rather than making any direct statements. (I.E. "Have you seen these websites on plasma cosmology and this Birkeland solar model of the sun? What do you think of these ideas?") :)
Sometimes a "B" *and* enlightenment is an acceptable compromise. :)
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.
quote:
Now you lost me. Please recap...
Sure. Would you like to start with images, or results from from the University of Maryland that show that there is a huge flow of electricity associated with the x-ray discharges, as well as temperatures at the surface that are over 1 US Billion degrees Kelvin. We're talking about enough heat and electrical activity to drive fusion, and we actually see evidence of neutron capture and positron/electron anihilation in Rhessi satellite images. The highest energy releases come from the base of the arcs.
If you want to talk about images, you might start with the very first image on the website, because contemporary gas model theory offer little insight in how to explain it. Birkeland on the other hand actually experimented with plasma around a sphere in his lab. Birkeland was really an amazing guy, but my favorite scientist of all time is Dr. Manuel. :) He's still alive and kicking and can answer my questions. :) |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 20:50:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Nope.
"Nope" as in you won't EVER deal with the isotope analysis? How were you not acting like a creationist on this front if you NEVER deal with it?
quote:
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.
Your attitude at times really sucks Dave. For goodness sakes Dave, I've read many papers and exchanged dozens of emails with Dr. Kosovichev back in June. I simply didn't recall the percentage off the top of my head. I was curious where you got it. It's sort of funny that it came from the article I cited, but that wasn't the article I meant to cite in the first place, and it's been awhile since I've been through all these papers and links.
All you have here is sound traveling in thin hot plasma that moves into a cooler solid. I would bet that if we had better resolution and better technology, we would see the sounds progressively change they reached deeper, thicker, mass separated plasmas, until the sound waves hit the surface. We don't yet have that kind of resolution yet, but I'll predict when we do have that precision, we will be able to see the waves transition uniquely through each stratied plasma.
quote:
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),
Actually, what I said was that iron makes up fifty percent or more of the mass of the sun. Let's be specific about what I said. The shell need not carry but a small percentage of the mass of the sun, or for that matter, parts of the shell need not have iron in them at all. I specifically said went by Dr. Manual's representation of overall content without a lot of other expectations as it relates to the composition of the crust. I would have to "assume" however the the crust is MOSTLY iron, but there are other elements in the SERTS data to consider, and some of the iron is certainly under the crust. SERTS tells us what atoms exist on the crust and obviously it's a wide assortment of elements.
Specifically however I did NOT say that the surface shell had to be 51% of the mass of the sun. It may only represent a tiny fraction of the mass of the sun. Whatever other elements are lighter than iron will be pushed to the surface. Again, the sun does mass separate itself.
quote:
and then answer five questions of mine about your explanation to my satisfaction,
:) Five? :)
I see. You get to set all the rules, and I get to jump through all the hoops, then MAYBE you'll actually let your curiousity get the better of you and actually THINK about looking at the isotope analysis, or checking out Birkeland's work or Bruce? Again Dave, the parallels here with creationist arguments are getting eerie.
Why did you pick 5 by the way? Were you afraid I might actually nail a couple of them? :) There is safety in numbers I guess. :)
quote:
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.
Oh, I see. Only when I personally have passed your personal set of 5 tests will curiousity even interest you in finding out if there really is something to Manuel's work? How about Birkeland? Dr. Birkeland's life work isn't worth a look see until you're sure I'm "serious" I've personally passed all your "tests"? Dr. Bruce? None of these people's life's work matters unless I'm serious and can answer the five golden questions?
Are you serious? Do you know how this sounds from my point of view? We're already been through 30 pages of questions and answers Dave. You've been doing all the questioning and I've been doing all the answering. Birkeland could have explained those pesky sunspots 100 years ago and told you how those "magnetic loops" form, even though the gas model theoriests are still baffled to this day. What does it take to make you curious Dave?
quote:
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.
I was not "unaware" of the other papers, I couldn't open the link in Firefox. I can't say I've been through any of these paper in over 6 months however and I'm sure you'll want to explore every little detail again.
I've already been over some of this with Kosovichev himself Dave. I'll be happy to jump through few more hoops for you, but it's no skin off my nose if you won't check out Birkeland or Bruce or Manuel. Their life's work is simply amazing, and they figured out how it works long before you or me. This is about enlightenment Dave. Do yourself a favor and read some of Dr. Manuels work. Start with the first paper we did together since that recaps 30+ years of isotope analysis and cites all the links to the previous work. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/19/2006 20:51:35 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 21:22:18 [Permalink]
|
I see that they got tired of Michaels brand of psuedo science at Bad Astronomy and banned him. Great, now he can spend all of his time over here repeating his mantra of 'stratification at .995r' like some deranged energizer bunny.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 21:51:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
None of these people's life's work matters unless I'm serious and can answer the five golden questions?
I never said that. I said I don't have time for this "discussion" any longer. If you want me to be serious about it (and given the math and computer programs I've written already, it should be obvious that I'm willing to be serious about it), I need a good-faith gesture from you that you are serious about it. This has nothing to do with the quality of anyone's "life's work," and everything to do with how much you'd like to have a serious scientific discussion here on these forums, with me. That's it. I may go read more about these fine scientists more on my own time, or I may not. If you would have liked to force me to, then you could have taken my offer. I'm not unreasonable, the questions I would have asked would have been scientific and answerable (and note, I offered you as many questions as you wanted from me regarding the isotope analysis, versus just five for you on the mass flows).
And to show that I'm not unreasonable, I'll express my sincere apologies for having remembered your posts - 20-something pages ago - incorrectly regarding the amount of mass in the shell. You're correct that you didn't say.
Unfortunately, we now need to step way backwards and talk about that. Unless we can come up with some of the basic mechanical properties of the alleged "layer" (for example, its strength, rigidity, average density, etc.) this discussion can go absolutely nowhere scientifically. Without knowing numbers like that, we can make no predictions whatsoever about how it should behave, and so no observations of how it does behave will support or falsify any predictions. Since all you can say is that the layer is "mostly iron" and that it is "solid," then we really know next to nothing about it.
After all, ferrous oxide (FeO) readily ignites, while ferric oxide (Fe2O3) is hematite, and used as a magnetic coating for audio and computer storage media. They're both "mostly iron" and "solid," as would be an iron dowel stuck in a balsa wood block (satisfying your non-homogenity requirement), but all three behave in drastically different ways. Those two bits of data are simply too little to work with.
So, my offer is formally rescinded. Nothing the Kosovichev article on mass flow shows can either confirm or disconfirm your model until some more of those all-important numbers become available. Therefore, your analysis of the article and any questions I might have would be a waste of both our time. As has been most of the preceeding 30-something pages of this thread. Feel free to come back when the general physical properties of your alleged shell are better known. |
- 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 - 01/19/2006 : 22:06:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I see that they got tired of Michaels brand of psuedo science at Bad Astronomy and banned him. Great, now he can spend all of his time over here repeating his mantra of 'stratification at .995r' like some deranged energizer bunny.
I see that some websites that claim to be devoted to science are run more like a religion than a science forum. I've never witnessed a more repressive board in my whole life. If you don't like the topic, why not just choose to not participate in the topic?
Instead I'm supposed to pull out light penetration formulas out of my backside and bark on command - OR ELSE! Whatever. I'd say the named that forum appropriately. I'll miss Tim and upriver and Vermoter, but there wasn't a lot of science happening there anyway. Life goes on. I did create a "blog" page on my website and posted my "response", including that paper from Lockheed Martin that demonstrates that Trace can see 4 million and 10 million degree plasmas, and completely destroys the argument that the black areas are "hotter" than the lit areas.
I think my mantra will be "Birkeland, Bruce, Manuel" however. :) |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 22:38:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I never said that.
That is certainly what you implied however. This isn't personal Dave. It's not about me or you, it's about truth and fact and observation and enlightenment. Birkeland could have told you everything I have told you 100 years ago, most of it even without the satellite images or the benefit of the work of Dr. Bruce or Dr. Manuel. I've had the advantage of all three, and the satellite images, but only because I took the time to research it all quite thuroughly. I get the impression you won't lift a finger to do any of that if you can isolate some personal failing in a single individual (in this case me). That is scientifically illogical. It's not about an individual. It's about MANY individuals, and their life's work on a variety of models. Now we can choose which models fit with the observations. It's really not about individuals, it's about pure science and pure scientific curiosity.
quote:
I said I don't have time for this "discussion" any longer. If you want me to be serious about it (and given the math and computer programs I've written already, it should be obvious that I'm willing to be serious about it),
Yes Dave, you have been serious about it "sort of". Sure you took the time to apply the math, but IMO, you didn't take the time to OBSERVE with the math applies to, in this case "plasma". Plasma has properties, one of which is the ability move around like a boiling liquid in a pot.
quote:
I need a good-faith gesture from you that you are serious about it.
Dave, I've literally spent THOUSANDS of dollars now on my little "hobby". I'm financially serious about it.
I've spent months of my life compiling all sorts of evidence to support the ideas I have presented. I'm scientifically serious.
The least you could do however is notice that this has absolutely nothing to do with my seriousness, or my conviction, or me for that matter. Birkeland was the guy that started this model rolling. Even if a single individual could not adequately represent Birkelands model in EVERY scenario, the fact that this individual can explain simple things like sunspots when the gas model theoriest of earth seem to find it difficult should show you that Birkeland's model is worth considering. Manuel provides isotope analysis that confirms Birkeland's theories. I have nothing to do with either of these two individuals other than the fact that I can point their work out to you. Wether or not you choose to educate yourself is really no skin off my nose (as you put it). It's not about me. It's never been about me.
quote:
This has nothing to do with the quality of anyone's "life's work," and everything to do with how much you'd like to have a serious scientific discussion here on these forums, with me. That's it. I may go read more about these fine scientists more on my own time, or I may not. If you would have liked to force me to, then you could have taken my offer.
I actually MADE a similar offer to you earlier, only I didn't try to load it up with conditions. While you my "feel" like I have not presented evidence to support my views, I've not even heard a detailed expanation of that very first image on my website from you Dave. You are all take and no give. It's getting old. If you don't even care enough to read their work for yourself, then maybe you'll miss something important, something that changes your mind. I'm only one individual that supports Birkelands' model. There are many others out there. Even if you find me lacking in some specific field of science, so what? I'm only one guy. Oliver and Hilton and I are only three guys. I can however explain just about any satellite image of the sun in general terms with just a little info about it, and show you how that relates back to Birkelands model, because that is my field of expertise. I'm not a plasma physicist by trade. Whether or not a single individual can answer every question is irrelevant.
The only thing that is relevant is enlightenment, and you won't find that unless you actively seek it. I can't shove it down your throat.
quote:
I'm not unreasonable, the questions I would have asked would have been scientific and answerable (and note, I offered you as many questions as you wanted from me regarding the isotope analysis, versus just five for you on the mass flows).
Let's do a tit for tat here Dave. I'll answer ONE SPECIFIC question of yours, and you answer ONE SPECIFIC question of mine. How is that?
quote:
And to show that I'm not unreasonable, I'll express my sincere apologies for having remembered your posts - 20-something pages ago - incorrectly regarding the amount of mass in the shell. You're correct that you didn't say.
I didn't think you intended to misrepresent me, I just figured it was an honest misunderstanding. I just wanted to be clear about it since I didn't want you to have any false impressions.
quote:
Unfortunately, we now need to step way backwards and talk about that. Unless we can come up with some of the basic mechanical properties of the alleged "layer" (for example, its strength, rigidity, average density, etc.) this discussion can go absolutely nowhere scientifically.
I agree. These are all relevant and important aspect. We're on the same page here in general terms and that is where I have tried to steer the conversation.
quote:
Without knowing numbers like that, we can make no predictions whatsoever about how it should behave, and so no observations of how it does behave will support or falsify any predictions.
Me thinks you're a bit trigger happy with that calculator of yours. :)
I think we need to first understand the CONCEPTS (so there are no misunderstandings) and then make sure we OBSERVE enough actual behavior to be sure we even can make mathematical predictions. Somethings are mathematically predictable because we know all the variables. Other things are so easily squeezed into a math formula, nor do you have to know a math formula to have "knowledge" about many things. Math can and will be useful, but only if we apply it logically and it jives with OBSERVATION.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/19/2006 22:39:24 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 00:11:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The way material flows around a sunspot is an interesting topic that has been studied for decades. Measurement of subsurface flow could help us understand how sunspots form, grow, evolve, and decay. The Evershed effect is a well-known phenomenon, observed as a prominent outflow from the inner sunspot penumbra to its surrounding photosphere (Evershed 1909). With the development of new technology to achieve better spatial and temporal resolution, more details about the Evershed effect have been disclosed. Recent results show that Evershed outflows are concentrated mainly in narrow and elongated radial penumbral channels (Rimmele 1995; Stanchfield, Thomas, & Lites 1997). This suggests that the Evershed effect is a superficial phenomenon, existing only near the solar surface. More recent studies of vertical flows have found hot upflows in the inner penumbra that feed the horizontal Evershed flow and cool downflows surrounding the outer penumbra, where the horizontal Evershed flow terminates (Schlichenmaier & Schmidt 1999).
Let's talk about some of the observations that Birkeland's model can help us explain. The upflowing UMBRA (not penumbra) comes out in hot, tornado like "structures" near the surface at times.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041015solar-tornado.htm
The umbra itself is typically cooler, but the heat from the arcs transfers to the silicon plasma and causes these tornados to form in the plasma atmosphere. Notice that the heat howwever is being carried away at the top by the tornado like structures. Here's a good video of the heat distribution in the umbra region by Alexander Kosovichev.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/sunssu2s.mpg
The surface action is superficial phenomen of what is ultimately being initiated far below by the increased electrical activity near the surface. As that plasma heats up, it rises up, sometimes in tight spirals, sometimes in massive hurricane sized events, and sometimes as just as a gentle flow of plasma. The beveling effect along the sides of the penumbral filaments is caused the by the silicon reaching the helium layer, and the forces of gravity cause it to "flare out".
I'll keep reading and commmenting as I have time.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/20/2006 00:12:55 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 01:27:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The studies mentioned above are conducted by direct spectral observations, which cannot determine how material flows beneath the surface. Time-distance helioseismology, pioneered by Duvall et al. (1993), provides a very useful technique to probe the structure and mass flows beneath the solar surface. Using the time-distance technique based on travel-time measurements of solar surface waves (f-modes), Gizon, Duvall, & Larson (2000) detected a radial outflow with an average velocity of about 1 km s-1 in the top 2 Mm directly below the photosphere, extending from the sunspot center up to 30 Mm outside the sunspot umbra. Since the inferred outflow speed is significantly smaller than the surface outflow speed measured by Doppler velocity, they suggested that the Evershed flow is very shallow, consistent with conclusions from direct spectral observations. Because of the surface nature of f-modes, these results can only reflect horizontal material motions in shallow layers, just beneath the surface (Duvall & Gizon 2000).
So the Evershed effect is "shallow", but somehow we've literally JUMPED to the the conclusion that these results can *ONLY* reflect horizontal material motions? How did we go from A to Z? How about even considering the possibility you have a solid surface at .995R? Now the obvious disproof of his statement is found in that Lockheed RD image. There isn't motion here at all. The motion on this layer is MUCH less obvious than the motion in the shallow plasma layer above it. We can tell that plasma is on top of this layer because we can see particles drift off in the plasma streams. We can also see the effect of these Evershed effects in these currents blow against the surface features and "light up" the side that faces the plasma wind. We can determine the direction of the local plasma by the way the particles drift after they lift off the surface. Those tornado videos show the very dynamic movements we see in the solar atmosphere, but whatever movements we see ends at this shallow layer that sits at a shallow depth under the surface of the photosophere. If it's MOVING as they claim, we should be able to see that movement as well. If it's moving like the plasma layer above it, we should be able to see signs of these movements.
In the Lockheed RD movie however, we see surface features that do not move in relationship to one another, though that layer is "changing" is some ways, particlarly along the right hand side.
I must say, this leap of faith makes me a little skeptical about the results one might achieve, especially without first determining if there really *IS* much movement at that layer. I don't see any signs of differential rotation on this surface the way I do on the plasma layer above it, in fact I see none of the signs of chaotic movement other than in the particles that come off the surface and drift around in the plasma. I see every sign here of a solid surface that sits under the photosphere, not a "moving" layer. Where do you see movement? How does that movement compare in terms of the movement in the shallow layer above it? What causes this difference in behavior, and how do you rule out mass separation as a factor in this behavior?
Other than these few questions, I'm making a bit of headway here, but I must say I don't feel like we're off to a promising start, particularly with the ASSUMPTION of movement and that giant leap of faith they took.
Dr. Kosovichev's own video suggests that there is little if any movement in the "structures" we see in the tsunami video.
Something here changes "drastically" a the bases of these hurricane funnels. They end at very a very obvious and clearly delineated level that is related to this "stratification layer" we see at 995R. No movement in this layer is obvious in those Lockheed RD image, nor in that Doppler image. You'll have to demonstrate some movement here and explain why it's different than the movement in the upper plasma, and explain how you rule out a density change due to mass separation. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 01:43:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Kosovichev (1996) applied an inversion technique used in geophysical seismic tomography to develop a new method of detecting mass flows and other inhomogeneities (e.g., speed-of-sound variation) beneath the visible surface of the Sun. Detailed descriptions of the method can be found in that paper. Equations relating flow speed and travel-time differences were solved by a regularized, damped least-squares technique (Paige & Saunders 1982).
In order to check the spatial resolution of our calculation code, we designed some artificial data that simulate the flows in the solar interior. The travel-time differences are calculated with a forward approach; then, inversion was done to obtain the flow speeds. We found that, generally, the flows in the upper layers can always be recovered well, but flows in the lowest layers may be smaller than the input values (see also Kosovichev & Duvall 1997). We also found that in some specific cases, because of a cross-talk between horizontal flows and vertical components of flow velocities, it may be impossible to recover the original data. But for localized strong flows such as those present in sunspots, the cross talk effects do not occur. Figure 1 shows a calculation result from a set of our artificial data, with relatively strong motion in the central region. It is evident that the flow pattern is well recovered, but the velocity magnitude in the lower layers is somewhat smaller than the input. Therefore, the inferred mass flow speeds in the upper layers of the sunspot region should be quite credible. In the lower layers these speeds are underestimated.
Before I go any further, I wish to point out that I have the utmost scientific respect for Dr. Kosovichev. I'm still tickled pink that he spent as much time with me as he did, answering all the tough questions I put to him to the best of his abilities. I absolutely and explicitiy have faith in the mathematical techniques that he employed and I absolutely agree with, and put faith in the basic data that he distilled from these techniques.
There are however a couple of leaps of faith that he made I am uncomfortable with based on his own results and the limitations of the techniques he used, and also based on the results we see in the RD images. By his own statements here we see that the upper layers of the plasma will show obvious signs of movement, but once we reach a certain level, the output values tend to get smaller, perhaps showing little if any movement once we hit a spectific depth, and perhaps ending at that stratification layer. His assumption of movement below the surface of the photosphere, particularly at the stratification layer is absolutely not verified in his Tsunami video. In fact it is quite a questionable assumption based on the relative lack of movement we see in structures on this layer, structures with very angular sides. Even in his own Doppler video, that assumption of movement is not demonstrated, and in fact signs of rigidity (in comparison to the plasma layers) are obvious.
The cross check here is the Lockheed RD image. We see little if any movement and lots of angular shapes on this layer. We see evidence of those same angular shapes in Dr. Kovichev's video as well. Both images show angular structures on this stratification layer where the tornado funnels end. There is obviously a gigantic density change that occurs at this point, and/or this is simply a solid surface just at it appears to be. To this point, both options are possible, but the notion here is movement here is quite suspect IMO.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/20/2006 01:51:20 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 08:46:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That is certainly what you implied however. This isn't personal Dave.
No, you're making it personal by attributing to me ideas like that I think Birkeland's "life's work" isn't "worth" examining. That's not at all true, and a conclusion you wildly jumped to based upon nothing more than my statement that I have other things to do right now. I've got SFN articles to edit, software to write, a family to spend time with, and books to read on subjects I find (personally) much more fascinating. That's no blanket judgement on the quality of your heroes' work, but instead a simple fact about how I need to manage my time better than I have been. Since you read it as a judgement, you're the one taking it personally, and then you lashed out in return with entirely fabricated allegations about my opinions.
This isn't my hobby, after all. For me to put in as much time, work and money as you have (contrary to your "I have no investment in this" claims), I would have to find your arguments compelling. I don't. I offered a way for you to compel me into further research, but that's moot because of all the unknowns. And your arguments get less compelling over time. For example,quote:
...but the notion here is movement here is quite suspect IMO.
In that case you'd better stop talking about how that article shows that the downward flow of plasma "stops," because you've called into question all of the findings of that article by claiming that the method used to measure the flows is unreliable (especially since you ignored the point that the deeper flow rates are underestimated by the method, and the fastest measured flows were below 5,000 km deep). In other words, you just said that we can't be sure of any of Kosovichev's numbers, even the ones which should be the easiest to measure.
After STEREO starts pumping out data, email me with something truly compelling. With luck, I'll have some time to spend on it, then. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 14:13:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How about dealing with the nuclear chemistry, or is that too complicated for you personally to deal with?
I have a question.
In Dr. Manuel paper Why the Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is Obsolete he states that the sun should not consist of hydrogen atoms because hydrogen atoms are unstable. His evidence for the instability of hydrogen atoms is that they have the highest Potential Energy of of all of the nuclides (7.289 MeV). This PE term is more commonly referred to as Mass Excess.
As I understand it Mass Excess is just another way of expressing Mass Defect or Binding Energy.
I agree that the Binding Energy is the highest for Hydrogen atoms, which is the reason so much energy is released from fusion.
I do not see where the Mass Excess of a Hydrogen atom can be used to determine its stability.
A hydrogen atom is nothing more than a proton with an 'orbiting' electron. A proton is one of the most stable substances in the universe. It is estimated that the half life of a proton is at least 10^32 years. That is a 10 followed by 32 zeros.
Am I misinterpreting what he wrote?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 18:24:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
How about dealing with the nuclear chemistry, or is that too complicated for you personally to deal with?
I have a question.
In Dr. Manuel paper Why the Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is Obsolete he states that the sun should not consist of hydrogen atoms because hydrogen atoms are unstable. His evidence for the instability of hydrogen atoms is that they have the highest Potential Energy of of all of the nuclides (7.289 MeV). This PE term is more commonly referred to as Mass Excess.
As I understand it Mass Excess is just another way of expressing Mass Defect or Binding Energy.
I agree that the Binding Energy is the highest for Hydrogen atoms, which is the reason so much energy is released from fusion.
I do not see where the Mass Excess of a Hydrogen atom can be used to determine its stability.
A hydrogen atom is nothing more than a proton with an 'orbiting' electron. A proton is one of the most stable substances in the universe. It is estimated that the half life of a proton is at least 10^32 years. That is a 10 followed by 32 zeros.
Am I misinterpreting what he wrote?
This was Oliver's response:
quote:
ANSWER: Somewhat.
Values of Mass/Nucleon, M/A, are inversely proportional to Binding Energy.
Hydrogen has the highest value of M/A, and the lowest binding energy of all known isotopes.
Element abundances in ordinary meteorites are linked with nuclear stability. Abundance decreases as as values of M/A increase: Abundant elements (Fe, Ni, Si, S, O, etc) have low vales of M/A. Rare elements (H, Li, Be, B) have high values of M/A.
Elements at the solar surface depend mostly on mass. The most abundant ones (H and He) are the lightest ones.
When surface abundances are corrected for the mass separation we SEE across isotopes (A = 3 - 136 mass units) and across s-products (A = 25 - 207 mass units), we find that material inside the is just like that in ordinary meteorites.
EXCEPT that there is still a large excess of hydrogen. This neutron-decay product is produced at the Sun's core and then follows magnetic field lines up to the solar surface, where it is accelerated out into space as the solar wind.
See Figure 2 here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0411255
With kind regards,
Oliver
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 18:41:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, you're making it personal by attributing to me ideas like that I think Birkeland's "life's work" isn't "worth" examining.
But that is exactly what you suggested as it relates to Dr. Manuel, and essentially everyone who agrees with Dr. Birkeland as well. You suggested that if I couldn't answer your *FIVE* golden questions, you would not even address the nuclear chemistry evidence presented by Dr. Oliver Manuel, a professor of nuclear chemistry from the University of Missiouri at Rolla. It's no longer about the SCIENCE, you've put conditions on an individual before you'll address this work.
quote:
That's not at all true, and a conclusion you wildly jumped to based upon nothing more than my statement that I have other things to do right now. I've got SFN articles to edit, software to write, a family to spend time with, and books to read on subjects I find (personally) much more fascinating. That's no blanket judgement on the quality of your heroes' work, but instead a simple fact about how I need to manage my time better than I have been. Since you read it as a judgement, you're the one taking it personally, and then you lashed out in return with entirely fabricated allegations about my opinions.
We all have lives and many of us have families Dave. My time is also valueable to me as well.
quote:
This isn't my hobby, after all. For me to put in as much time, work and money as you have (contrary to your "I have no investment in this" claims),
My investment in terms of risk to my career is zero, in fact less than zero. I'm SERIOUS enough about these ideas to put my money where my mouth is, and to debate these issues in cyberspace in public forums. I'm serious about it. That's all I was pointing out. Even if I can't personally jump through all the hoops you might wish me to jump through that will not change the facts one iota. If Dr. Manuel and Dr. Birkeland and Dr. Bruce are right, your opinions about me won't make one bit of difference.
quote:
I would have to find your arguments compelling. I don't.
You should not need to find MY arguements compelling to delve into the work of Dr. Manuel, or Dr. Birkeland. Their work is compelling enough on it's own merits. I'm a nobody in the final analysis Dave. I'm just a guy that can explain the satellite images in terms of Birkeland and Manuel's model.
quote:
I offered a way for you to compel me into further research, but that's moot because of all the unknowns. And your arguments get less compelling over time.
All you did essentially was dream up a way to "stump" the individual so you can rationalize away not educating yourself to these ideas on your own. I'm afraid I can't even motivate you if you don't want to be motivated. I'm happy to talk about the nuclear chemistry or satellite images, but you seem unwilling to tackle these issues head on.
quote:
For example,quote:
...but the notion here is movement here is quite suspect IMO.
In that case you'd better stop talking about how that article shows that the downward flow of plasma "stops," because you've called into question all of the findings of that article by claiming that the method used to measure the flows is unreliable (especially since you ignored the point that the deeper flow rates are underestimated by the method, and the fastest measured flows were below 5,000 km deep). In other words, you just said that we can't be sure of any of Kosovichev's numbers, even the ones which should be the easiest to measure.
Actually, I tend to agree with you on this point based on my response. That was certainly a confused response. It was way too late, and I didn't explain myself well, nor did I finish reading the paper fully to understand it properly. That was certainly my fault. I'll comment more on the paper later this evening and you can toss out those five golden questions for me. :) I certainly do trust his work, and I have confidence in his techniques.
quote:
After STEREO starts pumping out data, email me with something truly compelling. With luck, I'll have some time to spend on it, then.
I think I'll try to remain more proactive in my education between now and then. I'm simply amazed how much I have learned in the last nine months, and how much data I have found over the last nine months to support this model.
When I first put up my website, I only had a few SOHO images to support my case. Now I've added data from 4 additional solar satellite programs and heliosiesmology data. Dr. Manuel also turned me on to the nuclear chemistry that supports these ideas. I've found all sorts of materials about the flow of electricity in these coronal loops. I've found Birkeland's work, Bruce's work, etc. There is a lot to learn, and education takes effort. You seem to want the science to drop in your lap for you before you'll even consider looking into the isotope analysis. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/20/2006 18:47:54 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 19:40:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But that is exactly what you suggested as it relates to Dr. Manuel, and essentially everyone who agrees with Dr. Birkeland as well. You suggested that if I couldn't answer your *FIVE* golden questions, you would not even address the nuclear chemistry evidence presented by Dr. Oliver Manuel, a professor of nuclear chemistry from the University of Missiouri at Rolla. It's no longer about the SCIENCE, you've put conditions on an individual before you'll address this work.
Yes, on you. This had nothing to do with Dr. Manuel or Dr. Birkeland or Dr. Bruce, and everything to do with how enticing you could have made their research sound before I was going to spend more time on this subject. But it's too late for that now. I have more important (more important to me) stuff I must be doing.
As a favor, I'll go ahead and open up another thread, over here, so that you can continue this with whomever. But this particular thread, having reached its 15th page, needs to be closed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
