|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 01/15/2006 : 04:40:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Yes, but both models can be wrong, as has been pointed out to you ad nauseum. So attacking the gas model does absolutely nothing to bolster the iron sun theory. Continuing to do so even when it doesn't benefit your case in any way is indicative of an obsession. And, since no one here is arguing the validity of the gas model, your increasingly shrill cries that we are all faithful devotees of some prevailing dogma is beyond absurd. We're not focused on it, only you seem to be.
You are absolutely correct that both model could be wrong, but we know for a fact that contemporary gas model theory *IS* wrong and fails to predict anything related to that stratification layer at .995R. My model dos not fail this heliosiesmology evidence, in fact it is bolstered by it.
In the end, the difference here between the two models is simple and obvious. The gas model does not allow for mass separation or for a solid surface to exist under the photosphere. We see evidence of both of these things in satellite images. |
 |
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 04:50:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The gas model is not immune from scrutiny, and the fact it failed to predict that stratification layer at .995R speaks volumes to it's lack of usefulness.
I wonder how many things your model has failed to predict. A few things, of the top of my head, which it does not predict are:
The sun's luminosity
The sun's energy output
The sun's sunspot cycle's period
My theory does not deviate from standard theory in these measurements. In fact my theory explain WHY the sunspot cycle occurs, unlike the gas model.
Obviously not, a measurement is a measurement. The generally accepted model however can predict the energy output per second of a star knowing only it's mass and age. If one assumes the star is a Population III, only the current mass is needed!
quote:
Well, technically there isn't ONE energy source. The primary energy source is fision IMO, but magneto affects apply, not to mention the interaction the sun has with the universe itself.
In the currently accepted model, there is just one energy source. Nuclear fusion. Which is understood by physicists everywhere.
How elements like hydrogen, iron, silicon, or helium can produce energy through fission, in your model, is not understood by anyone. Since it requires a net energy expenditure to fissure silicon or iron, I would very much like for you to explain this.
Nor does anyone know what "magneto effects" are, nor how they produce energy. Would you mind eludicating how it works and what the mechanism behind it is? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 04:51:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
You application of these things to the density calculation is what is ad hoc.
No, it's a logical question to ask considering the fact that these are accepted phenomenon in astromony.
quote:
It has been pointed out to you that, in cosmic terms, the sun is too close to the Earth to affect density calculations to any substantial degree.
Who said that? How do they know that? What exactly is dark energy/matter and how is it different from normal energy and matter? How do you know it has no affect on density calculations?
quote:
Since the discovery of dark energy, no scientist has ever said we suddenly need to discard the density measurements of our own sun. You alone are suggesting that, and only because your model (I'm sorry, the model you impartially endorse) gives a wrong figure.
What figure did I give again? It's funny, but I really don't recall offering a density guestimate since I can't see inside the surface. You seem to THINK there is a density problem, but you've yet to account for 90+ percent of the mass of the universe in your calculations!
quote:
We don't, but we are moving relative to the sun, making your objection baseless.
We live in an ever accelerating universe. How is that factored in? We live in a universe that mostly made of matter we can't see. Where is that accounted for again? The notion you can take a heliocentric notion of solar movement and apply it to reality where most mass isn't even visible is itself an "ad hoc" idea. Trying to then apply this ad hoc, heliocentric concept to a theory that doesnt' even predict density is also "ad hoc".
quote:
So how in the world can the gas model be "dead and buried" for it's failure to account for a single feature when your model fails to account for a cartload of information?
I'm more than happy to account for more as I learn more. The gas model's death is more about what it DOES predict, and what it SUPPOSED to be at .985 to .995 (convection zone) vs. what actually exists at this level (stratification layer).
quote:
Why not give the gas model a pass on what it "doesn't suggest in the first place?" Oh, that's right, because you assume your conclusions. The layer must be solid.
The gas model DOES predict an open convection zone in that region. Unfortunately for gas model theory, that isn't what we found. Whether it's solid or not, it's certainly not an open convection zone like it's supposed to be. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/15/2006 05:21:54 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 05:04:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Let's compare frame 15 and frame 28.
Alright Dave, I think I'm caught up on the other posts for the time being. Before we start, I appreciate your efforts here, and I agree this is a "logical" and "scientific" method of looking for differential rotation.
Before we begin, can you explain to me why you picked two images 4 days apart? It would make a lot more sense to start "small", as in one frame, or 6 hours and move toward 12 hours, but over a period of days, the rotation of the sun will significantly change the lighting and angles we can observe, and erosion WILL be factor over a period of several days.
Again however, this is a valid "method" IMO, and we're on the same page now.
I also wonder why you didn't focus on the Trace RD image since it's a closeup image and gives us a 'clearer' view of the surface because of the zoom features and the 171 frequency used in that image? More importantly, that TRACE image gives us sharply defined edges and easily discrenable objects to compare with, frame by frame. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 05:19:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
Obviously not, a measurement is a measurement. The generally accepted model however can predict the energy output per second of a star knowing only it's mass and age. If one assumes the star is a population III, only the current mass is needed!
Well, that's really nice, but other than with our own sun, where exactly has this prediction of energy output based on mass alone actually been verified?
quote:
In the currently accepted model, there is just one energy source. Nuclear fusion. Which is understood by physicists everywhere.
I agree with you that it's a well understood theory. The question is whether or not that theory actually applies to reality. Can you show me any satellite images that verifies this energy source as being hydrogen fusion? All the high energy emissions I see come from the arcs.
quote:
How elements like hydrogen, iron, silicon, or helium can produce energy through fission, in your model, is not understood by anyone. Since it requires a net energy expenditure to fissure silicon or iron, I would very much like for you to explain this.
I would assume the core is essentially a breeder reactor of heavy elements.
quote:
Nor does anyone know what "magneto effects" are, nor how they produce energy. Would you mind eludicating how it works and what the mechanism behind it is?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question375.htm
The mechanism is the rotation of the magnetic core in relationship to the sun's spin axis. As the magnetic core rotates under the iron shell, it creates electrical energy.
To explain the sunspot cycle, all you have to do is envision the core as being shaped a bit like a bar magnet. When the magnetic poles point slightly north and south of the equator, the surfaces get polarized in opposite directions, and this creates increased electrical activity around the equator, as charges in the north are attracted by oppositely aligned charges in the south. Since the sun's magnetic field rotates once every 22 years, every 11 years, the north and south poles are pointed roughly north and south of the equator, sparking an increase in electrical activity and corresponding holes or sunspots in the neon layer of the photosphere. When the magnetic pole points roughly parallel to the spin axis, the sun enters a quiet phase.
According to gas model theory, what drives that eleven year cycle? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/15/2006 05:21:01 |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 05:48:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
Obviously not, a measurement is a measurement. The generally accepted model however can predict the energy output per second of a star knowing only it's mass and age. If one assumes the star is a population III, only the current mass is needed!
Well, that's really nice, but other than with our own sun, where exactly has this prediction of energy output based on mass alone actually been verified?
Every time a thermonuclear bomb is detonated, it is verfied. Such a device is an artifical Population III star.
quote:
quote:
In the currently accepted model, there is just one energy source. Nuclear fusion. Which is understood by physicists everywhere.
I agree with you that it's a well understood theory. The question is whether or not that theory actually applies to reality. Can you show me any satellite images that verifies this energy source as being hydrogen fusion? All the high energy emissions I see come from the arcs.
Really? I see high energy emissions just by looking at the sun, and seeing the huge amount of energy it radiates in the form of visible light, infa-red-, ultra-violet-, microwave-, x-ray- and gamma- radiation. And radio, I suppose. Then there is the constant neutrino emmissions, too.
The solar flares and arcs don't emit that much energy at all, compared to the rest.
quote:
quote:
How elements like hydrogen, iron, silicon, or helium can produce energy through fission, in your model, is not understood by anyone. Since it requires a net energy expenditure to fissure silicon or iron, I would very much like for you to explain this.
I would assume the core is essentially a breeder reactor of heavy elements.
How were these elements created without running into the iron limit?
quote:
quote:
Nor does anyone know what "magneto effects" are, nor how they produce energy. Would you mind eludicating how it works and what the mechanism behind it is?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question375.htm
The mechanism is the rotation of the magnetic core in relationship to the sun's spin axis. As the magnetic core rotates under the iron shell, it creates electrical energy.
Right, induction. It would help the debate if you used words and phrases the rest of the scientific community recognise, but as long as we can agree on a defenition, its no more than a minor nuisance.
However, that doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. The sun's magnetic field rotates around the sun's axis with the same velocity as the sun itself, so the conductive material (the sun) and the magnetic field are at relative rest. And while the magnetic field certinly shifts 180 degrees in 11 years, the average velocity of that is miniscule, and only enough to produce a negligable current. That means no (or very very little) electromagnetic induction, as far as I can tell.
quote:
To explain the sunspot cycle, all you have to do is envision the core as being shaped a bit like a bar magnet. When the magnetic poles point slightly north and south of the equator, the surfaces get polarized in opposite directions, and this creates increased electrical activity around the equator, as charges in the north are attracted by oppositely aligned charges in the south. Since the sun's magnetic field rotates once every 22 years, every 11 years, the north and south poles are pointed roughly north and south of the equator, sparking an increase in electrical activity and corresponding holes or sunspots in the neon layer of the photosphere. When the magnetic pole points roughly parallel to the spin axis, the sun enters a quiet phase.
According to gas model theory, what drives that eleven year cycle?
Good question. I don't know. As far as I know, no one (except you) professes to know.
Your explanation seems a bit circular though. It certainly provides a possible explanation as to the how, but not to why it is 22 years. To fully explain the sunspot cycle, you would have to explain why the magnetic field rotates over a 22 year period. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 09:07:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In over nine months of debate, that has NEVER occured, and I've debated the idea with the "experts" in the field like Alexander Kosovichev. Even he backed off his earlier explanation, and he offered no explanation for this layer AT ALL. That tells me that the "experts" aren't any better at explaining these images as anyone else.
No, it tells you that "experts" aren't answering you, or offer any explanations to you any longer. Their motives for doing so are unknown to you, unless you can quote them giving a specific reason why they don't care to communicate any longer.
It does not automatically mean that they think you're right.
|
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 - 01/15/2006 : 11:44:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Alright Dave, I think I'm caught up on the other posts for the time being. Before we start, I appreciate your efforts here, and I agree this is a "logical" and "scientific" method of looking for differential rotation.
Great!quote:
Before we begin, can you explain to me why you picked two images 4 days apart? It would make a lot more sense to start "small", as in one frame, or 6 hours and move toward 12 hours, but over a period of days, the rotation of the sun will significantly change the lighting and angles we can observe, and erosion WILL be factor over a period of several days.
Unfortunately, when looking for differential rotation, the longer the timebase, the better (more of a difference will be shown given more time between two images). If, over 102 hours, we see a differential rotation of 1.8°, then over 10.2 hours, we'd only see a difference of 0.18°, etc. While the errors inherent in converting from pixel position to degrees of longitude aren't all that large, they might swamp such a small difference. On the other hand, if you can quantify the changes we should see based on lighting effects and erosion, then we might be able to find a "balance" between those effects and differential rotation which will allow us to measure them both.quote:
Again however, this is a valid "method" IMO, and we're on the same page now.
Okay.quote:
I also wonder why you didn't focus on the Trace RD image since it's a closeup image and gives us a 'clearer' view of the surface because of the zoom features and the 171 frequency used in that image? More importantly, that TRACE image gives us sharply defined edges and easily discrenable objects to compare with, frame by frame.
I've already told you: I cannot find the specific raw data that Lockheed RD movie was created from (all of the individual frames), so we don't know the timebase. Plus, guessing that the movie is less than six hours allowed me to calculate that the amount of differential rotation we should see in it is tiny, given the small area (differential rotation will also be larger with a wider latitude difference as well as a larger time difference). Furthermore, there are no well-defined features along the top edge of the movie which we could compare to those on the bottom, further restricting the amount of distance, north-to-south, over which we might observe differential rotation. In short, the Lockheed "gold" movie is a poor data set if our goal is to observe a long-term, wide-area effect. |
- 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 - 01/15/2006 : 11:49:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Here is really the dead give away that you haven't really read a darn thing I've said or written. If you had actually done so, you'd already know that I don't think the sun is homogeneous and it contains a wealth of materials INCLUDING iron. It's clear you don't read what I write, so what are you doing here exactly?
What I'm doing here exactly is pointing out that the framework of your argument is flawed. I have read pretty much all of what you've written here. I have viewed most of your video and image evidence. And I've read much of the paperwork you've linked. But even if I wasn't aware of the specific evidence, that would not preclude me from being able to spot flaws in your method of trying to support your claim.
Your theory isn't proven by the fact that there are unknowns in the currently popular theory, as you continue to incorrectly assert. We don't know everything about evolution, but that doesn't make creationism correct. We don't know everything about the composition of the sun. That doesn't make your solid surface theory correct.
And I'm reminding you that this isn't the proper venue for presenting a scientific theory. There are actually accepted methods of going about your project. Hoping to convince a roomful of people on an online skeptic's forum is about as far from an accepted method as you can get. Let's just say you tossed in some evidence that brought us all to an epiphany and we all say, "Wow, you're right! The surface of the sun IS solid!" Then what? You got us, all twenty-three of us.
And I'm reminding you that your comments such as, "I will win debate sooner or later, even if it takes years to do so," only serve to show that you are every bit as closed minded about the idea that your theory is correct as you think other people are about the contemporary popular theory.
And I'm reminding you that your claims about the less understood components of this issue, for example dark matter/dark energy and how it could affect the sun's mass, are ad hoc apologetics, and are not any more support for your theory than they might be for any other conjecture that can be pulled out of a hat. "Well, we don't know for sure, but it could be dark energy."
But I know, you've looked at the pictures for a LONG LONG time, and it sure looks solid to you. Yeah, I know, there are some stratification anomalies in the helioseismology data that aren't currently well explained by mainstream science, therefore your theory becomes correct by default.
And yeah, we know, the interior of the sun could be just about anything, pressure, reverse gravity, or a bunch of little fireproof guys pushing out to keep the shell from collapsing in on itself. But as long as the surface is solid like you say it is, we don't have to really explain those little incidental concerns.quote:
So I'm better qualified to interpret these images than someone who's not put in that kind of time and effort.
No, the amount of time you spend looking at a picture of a grain of sand does not make you far better at interpreting the image than a person who hasn't spent as much time. That is only evidence showing that you've stared at the picture longer.quote:
No. The burden of proof is on EVERYONE and EVERY theory. No theory is RIGHT by default. What kind of skeptic are you again?
I'm a good skeptic who is clearly aware that the burden of proving your claim is on you. And the fact that you continue to believe it's everyone else's responsibility to prove that your claim is wrong is why I consider you lazy. Prove there aren't invisible pink unicorns in your kitchen. Oh, you can't? Then you must admit they are really there.quote:
If there is a "better" scientific explaination of these images based on gas model theory, someone should be able to offer it. In over nine months of debate, that has NEVER occured, and I've debated the idea with the "experts" in the field like Alexander Kosovichev. Even he backed off his earlier explanation, and he offered no explanation for this layer AT ALL. That tells me that the "experts" aren't any better at explaining these images as anyone else.
Yep, the experts aren't any better at explaining these things, therefore your own personal brand of logic says you are correct! Maybe Dr. Mabuse was onto something when he suggested that something other than lacking the answers may be the reason these experts stopped talking with you. Maybe they stopped talking with you because they just got tired of your incessant dogmatism.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 13:37:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
What figure did I give again? It's funny, but I really don't recall offering a density guestimate since I can't see inside the surface. You seem to THINK there is a density problem, but you've yet to account for 90+ percent of the mass of the universe in your calculations!
99.999+ percent of the universe is empty space. So what?
Within the solar system, the concentration of dark matter is irrelevant compared to ordinary matter. Otherwise it would show in the equations of satellite and probe trajectories throughout the solar system. In the space between galaxies, and galaxy clusters, is so much space that dark matter really becomes significant by comparison, but in our neighbourhood it's not.
Besides, since dark matter is hypothesised to be relatively evenly distributed, the net effect of all gravitation-vectors it causes is zero: they all cancel each-other out. The gravitational pull of the black hole in the center of Milkyway is partly countered by all the stars orbiting outside Sun's orbit, but also the Sun's trajectory, but when we calculate the orbits of the Earth, or even Mercury, we don't need to take into account the rest of the galaxy. It's the "Einstein Equivalence Principle".
That's why probe-trajectory equations don't have to include dark matter. That is also the reason why the dark matter or the Universal Constant is irrelevant to measuring the mass and average density of the sun. Invoking it is just a smokescreen or possibly a red herring.
Edited to add:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
You application of these things to the density calculation is what is ad hoc.
No, it's a logical question to ask considering the fact that these are accepted phenomenon in astromony.
Just because it is an accepted phenomenon in astronomy does not make it a relevant phenomenon in astronomy.
That H2 is the most common two-element molecule in the universe is an accepted phenomenon in astronomy, but that has no bearing what-so-ever on the average density of the sun.
Time dilation is an accepted phenomenon in relativity, but I don't have to make adjustments of my watch just because I've been driving my car on the freeway for two hours. |
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 01/15/2006 13:45:18 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 14:09:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Unfortunately, when looking for differential rotation, the longer the timebase, the better (more of a difference will be shown given more time between two images). If, over 102 hours, we see a differential rotation of 1.8°, then over 10.2 hours, we'd only see a difference of 0.18°, etc. While the errors inherent in converting from pixel position to degrees of longitude aren't all that large, they might swamp such a small difference. On the other hand, if you can quantify the changes we should see based on lighting effects and erosion, then we might be able to find a "balance" between those effects and differential rotation which will allow us to measure them both.
As much as I might like to, unfortunately I can't hand you a simple formula that defines surface erosion in a clean, mathematically precise way. Erosion tends to be concentrated in specific areas of the surface, specifically at the base of the arcs. You can see this erosion take place along the bottom right side of that Lockheed image. The surface along the right hand side is peeled away, revealing different patterns in the layers below. The structures in that video are not undergoing any sort of differential rotation, but the erosion in that specific area is transforming the solar surface, revealing unique structures. In other words the structures in the center are not moving in relationship to any of the other structures in that image. The only change that occurs in that image are caused by the peeling of the surface layer at the based of the electrical arcs.
The lighting changes are directly related to the changes in the electrical arcs that traverse the surface. The structures are visible because they reflect the light from the arcs, and the arcs tend to change positions over time. This causes lighting changes that are quite noticeable in that Lockheed video. The central mountain range in the movie experiences a great deal of lighting changes, but the structures do not move in relationship to one another. It is analogous to the concept of lightning reflecting off distant mountain ranges.
There is a certain amount of erosion that takes place however, and the longer we wait between images, the more likely this change will affect our results.
quote:
I've already told you: I cannot find the specific raw data that Lockheed RD movie was created from (all of the individual frames), so we don't know the timebase.
I believe I can help a bit on that front but unfortunately the LMSAL server doesn't seem to be up at the moment, but I'll locate the original FITS files for you:
quote:
Plus, guessing that the movie is less than six hours allowed me to calculate that the amount of differential rotation we should see in it is tiny, given the small area (differential rotation will also be larger with a wider latitude difference as well as a larger time difference).
I hear and appreciate the logic you are using here, but even a tiny amount of differential rotation should be quite obvious even over the course of half hour or so, particularly in a closeup image like this.
quote:
Furthermore, there are no well-defined features along the top edge of the movie which we could compare to those on the bottom, further restricting the amount of distance, north-to-south, over which we might observe differential rotation.
I urge you to spend a bit more time looking at this video. I've probably spent at least a couple of hours watching and reviewing that short movie. The more you watch it, the more it become possible to pick out even very subtle structures, particularly along the upper right side of that video. There are what look to be "ravines" (they are obvious huge), as well as smaller features. It's the subtle structures found in this image that are most convincing IMO. There are plenty of subtle surface features we might use as markers.
quote:
In short, the Lockheed "gold" movie is a poor data set if our goal is to observe a long-term, wide-area effect.
Here I'm going to have to disagree with you. There are several advantages to using Trace images, and this movie has some particularly compelling attributes. For one thing, these images are already centered and cropped for us, taking a lot of guess work out of the process. In addition, there are a wealth of structures we might use as markers, and it's a very "closeup" view of the surface, and uses the 171A filter. These features make this video an IDEAL candidate to test this differential rotation theory. Even relatively small changes in random directions should be quite obvious in such a closeup view of the surface.
SOHO images tend to be quite a bit harder to use for precise calculations because they are typically taken at 195A which tends to experience more atmospheric interference, and they typically are not "zoomed in" enough to make as accurate an assessment. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/15/2006 14:11:30 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 14:25:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
Every time a thermonuclear bomb is detonated, it is verfied. Such a device is an artifical Population III star.
The only thing a thermonuclear bomb demonstrates is that hydrogen fusion COULD be an energy source for suns. It does not PROVE that such a process actually takes place on the sun however.
quote:
Really? I see high energy emissions just by looking at the sun, and seeing the huge amount of energy it radiates in the form of visible light, infa-red-, ultra-violet-, microwave-, x-ray- and gamma- radiation. And radio, I suppose. Then there is the constant neutrino emmissions, too.
Yes, that is true, but the highest energy photons come from the arcs, and specifically from the base of the arcs.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002400/a002462/ar9906-zoom-rotate.mpg
quote:
The solar flares and arcs don't emit that much energy at all, compared to the rest.
That is simply not the case IMO. The RHESSI satellite allows us to isolate these high energy emissions in relationship to the arcs that TRACE is able to image. The neutron capture signatures are focused around the upper regions of the arcs, whereas the positron/electron anihilation takes place that base of the arcs.
quote:
How were these elements created without running into the iron limit?
I'm not sure what you mean about an "iron limit". My assumption is that the first radioactive elements came from the same supernova that released the iron that is in our sun.
quote:
Right, induction. It would help the debate if you used words and phrases the rest of the scientific community recognise, but as long as we can agree on a defenition, its no more than a minor nuisance.
Ok.
quote:
However, that doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. The sun's magnetic field rotates around the sun's axis with the same velocity as the sun itself, so the conductive material (the sun) and the magnetic field are at relative rest. And while the magnetic field certinly shifts 180 degrees in 11 years, the average velocity of that is miniscule, and only enough to produce a negligable current. That means no (or very very little) electromagnetic induction, as far as I can tell.
I would agree with that assesment actually. It is just noteworthy IMO that not every bit of energy comes from the sun's core reactions. In fact I suspect (though I cannot yet prove) that much of the sun's energy release is related to it's interaction with the external universe. The electrically active areas of that Lockheed image are tehe areas that face the "windward" side of the plasma flow. During the flare, we can see "particles" drift from the lower right toward the upper left side of the image indicating the direction of the plasma flow in that image. The sides of the mountain ranges that face the plasma flow are the most electrically active areas based on the shadowing effects we see in that video.
quote:
Good question. I don't know. As far as I know, no one (except you) professes to know.
That is just another example of another area of solar physics where Birkeland's model is superior to the gas model. :)
quote:
Your explanation seems a bit circular though. It certainly provides a possible explanation as to the how, but not to why it is 22 years. To fully explain the sunspot cycle, you would have to explain why the magnetic field rotates over a 22 year period.
My guess it the sun's magnetic field change is driven by Birkeland currents from the center of the galaxy. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/15/2006 14:26:08 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 16:11:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
What I'm doing here exactly is pointing out that the framework of your argument is flawed. I have read pretty much all of what you've written here. I have viewed most of your video and image evidence. And I've read much of the paperwork you've linked. But even if I wasn't aware of the specific evidence, that would not preclude me from being able to spot flaws in your method of trying to support your claim.
But you have attempted to use reasoning that does not relate to my model. My model (Birkelands model) predicts a non-homgenous surface. It is not simply made of iron. The SERTS spectral data shows a host of other elements, particularly metals that are also visible, including nickel,magnesium, manganeese, aluminum, ect. On the first page of my website you'll see two different meteorite fragments that I think represent a RANGE of surface features, including one with a high content of rocky materials. Just like the surface of earth, the sun's surface is not homogenous. It's a different composition in some places than in others. In every case, we are talking about a calcuim ferrite iron alloy, not simply iron.
quote:
Your theory isn't proven by the fact that there are unknowns in the currently popular theory, as you continue to incorrectly assert.
In a sense I agree with you on this point. It's not the "unknowns" that concern me, its the predictions that don't match observation that concern me. In other words, there isn't any definitive explanation for the 11 year solar cycle in gas model theory. That lack of an explanation in and of itself does not make the gas model "wrong", but it is an area where the Birkeland surface model is superior to gas model theory.
The issues that concern me directly relate to the gas model prediction of an open convection zone between .985R and .995R when in fact we OBSERVE a stratification layer in that region. In that case, the actual prediction made by contemporary gas models has been falsified by real data. Current gas model theory therefore cannot be "accurate" in any sense of the word. Most critically, this stratification layer certainly COULD be an indication of a surface, or even mass separation of plasmas, and no gas model will survive such a revelation, particulary if that layer is proven to be composed of solids.
It's not that a lack of a prediction makes a model false. It when prediction doesn't match observation that falsification takes place. In this case there is a prediction and it has been falsified. The current gas model theory has been falsified.
quote:
We don't know everything about evolution, but that doesn't make creationism correct. We don't know everything about the composition of the sun. That doesn't make your solid surface theory correct.
That is true. A lack of knowledge in and of itself neither disproves the gas model, nor does that lack of knowledge prove Birkeland's model is correct. If however Birkeland's model can predict things that are contrary to gas model theory, and these predictions hold up to scrutiny where gas model theory fails, THEN Birkeland's model is in fact proven to be more "accurate" than gas model theory.
quote:
And I'm reminding you that this isn't the proper venue for presenting a scientific theory. There are actually accepted methods of going about your project.
The proper venue is public debate!
quote:
Hoping to convince a roomful of people on an online skeptic's forum is about as far from an accepted method as you can get.
No it's not. With virtually every conversation I've had in cyberspace, I've learned from the experience. I've learned how to better articulate my points, and to focus on the key issues that distinguish Birkeland's model from contemporary gas model theory. I'm learning and growing through each conversation, regardless of where it takes place. I've also submitted a number of papers to the "official" channels as well. It's not like this is the ONLY thing I've been doing for the last 9 months.
quote:
Let's just say you tossed in some evidence that brought us all to an epiphany and we all say, "Wow, you're right! The surface of the sun IS solid!" Then what? You got us, all twenty-three of us.
23 down, 6-7 billion to go. :) It's a bit like the 100th monkey scenario. When enough people have been exposed to the idea and take up the cause, more evidence will emerge to convince others, and I won't be the only one doing the convincing. The more I talk about these issues publically, the more the public is informed. It's really that simple. Google however is a far superior forum if all I was looking for was pure numbers. Even were I to win over 23 "solar scientists" that is no guarantee they will be any more effective at communicating these ideas than any of you.
quote:
And I'm reminding you that your comments such as, "I will win debate sooner or later, even if it takes years to do so," only serve to show that you are every bit as closed minded about the idea that your theory is correct as you think other people are about the contemporary popular theory.
When I started this process back in April/June I half expected to get blown out of the water during public debate. I actively sought debate on several different forums, and about all I had were images from 3 satellite systems. I was pretty stoked I had 3 satellites to support me, but I was certainly open to someone offering me "better" scientific explanations for these images. What I experienced however was not the kind of open scientific debate that I expected. Instead of anyone offering me legitimate explanations of these images, folks focused on the individual, and focused on issues unrelated to the materials I had presented. That behavior probably should not have surprised me as much as it did since I could never explain these images with gas model theory, but I also fully realized that others MIGHT be able to do so. I half expected someone to do so. That didn't happen, not in 9 months of debate with all sorts of folks the world over.
Now keep in mind that even before I went "public" with my website, I sent links to everyone at NASA and Lockheed and Stanford and Cambridge, ect looking for feedback and looking for answers. What I found was that NASA's reasoning about the placement of this layer did not make logical sense, and Stein at NASA never even consi |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/15/2006 16:13:11 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 16:16:13 [Permalink]
|
| FYI, I revamped the first page of my website to add the content from RHESSI program and the University of Maryland, and I've removed much of the superfluous content from the first page. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 17:41:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
My guess it the sun's magnetic field change is driven by Birkeland currents from the center of the galaxy.
How come the Earth's magnetic field isn't affected by those same Birkeland Currents? |
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
