|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 01/21/2006 : 01:07:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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).
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v557n1/53591/53591.text.html
Alright, I am ready now to deal with your questions, and to take a look at the evidence in this paper.
First of all, as I said in the last thread, I have a great deal of respect for the work of Alexander Kosovichev. I like him as a person, and I have a lot of faith in METHODS he is using as well.
There are several noteable bits of data in this paper to to consider, and a bit of missing information as well. We do not have any data in the 4-6Mm depths. That seems more than a little unfortunate, since the downward plasma flows tend to end at around 5mm. We also have thousands of kilometers being represented by a single "color", so we need to be a bit careful about making too many assumptions about depth based on a single color.
What is most noteworthy IMO, is that underneath the stratification layer, we see plasma rising upwards toward the surface and outward from the central column. In other words the plasma is acting as though it rises into something "dense" and then it "spreads out". Above the stratifaction layer, the plasma in the central column tends to flow DOWN and plasma is flowing generally inward toward the column. This is consistent with model I have presented. Underneath the surface the plasma in the core is heated and magma rises up until it reaches the underside of the shell. As it hits the shell, it spread outs and away from the rising column.
On the top side of the surface, we have a tornado like funnels that sucks in the cooler plasma from around the funnel the behavior of the plasma flow is exactly backwards from the underside layers.
I'm also quite puzzled why we would NOT have the 4000 to 6000km region, since this seems to be where all the "action is happening". Why is that data missing? The fact that many thousands of kilometers are represented by a single color makes it difficult to draw a lot of other conclusions here, but somewhere around 5000Km, these downward plasma flows end according to this paper.
I fail to see how any of this information is in any way inconsistent with his more current paper.
I'm ready for your questions about this paper whenever you are ready.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/21/2006 01:09:31 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2006 : 20:01:27 [Permalink]
|
Well, I'll be the first to admit I can't lay off a softball. Okay, really quickly:quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
We do not have any data in the 4-6Mm depths.
Yes we do, it's in figure three (which shows vertical cross-sections through the dataset). It's not nearly as much data as for depth bins 1, 4 and 5, but it's there. As is data for bins 6, 7 and 8. The only depths which aren't shown at all in that article is below 18,000 km (bins 9 and 10), which the authors didn't chart for us.quote:
Why is that data missing?
Perhaps it's because there's limited space in a journal to print diagrams, and the charts of data from bins 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 didn't add to the point the authors were making.quote:
We also have thousands of kilometers being represented by a single "color", so we need to be a bit careful about making too many assumptions about depth based on a single color.
Actually, the colors represent the vertical velocity (positive numbers meaning downflow), as the bar on the right-hand side of each chart in figure 2 shows. Each pixel, on the other hand, represents about 826x826 km (0.068°).
But we do have to be careful, since each color and pixel represents an average over 13 hours. Areas without up/downflow, as predominate in figure 2a, could be because there really was no up/downflow, or because the material there went up at 200 m/s for 6.5 hours, and then down at 200 m/s for 6.5 hours. The average would be zero. So yes, care is absolutely required.quote:
This is consistent with model I have presented. Underneath the surface the plasma in the core is heated and magma rises up until it reaches the underside of the shell. As it hits the shell, it spread outs and away from the rising column.
Except that you said in a previous post that the underside of your allegedly solid layer is marked by the 0.970R stratification layer found in that other paper. If you're going to switch now so the underside of the layer is at 0.991R (6,000 km deep), that's fine, but it means you layer is only 2,540 km thick (0.00367R), and figure 3 shows it still has flow through it.quote:
...but somewhere around 5000Km, these downward plasma flows end according to this paper.
Yes, figure 3 shows them turning into much wider horizontal outflows between 6km and 9km deep.quote:
I fail to see how any of this information is in any way inconsistent with his more current paper.
Nobody is claiming that this older paper is inconsistent with his more-recent paper, since the more-recent paper doesn't posit a solid shell at 0.995R. Instead, I asked you to explain how this older paper is consistent with your model, given that (A) your shell began at 0.970R and ended at 0.995R as you'd said, and (B) your shell was a certain density, which is moot. As I said above, if you want to make the shell in your model some 14,000 km thinner than it was, that's okay by me, but you've still got mass flows (upwards of 1,400 m/s) through the 2,540 km that's left according to figure 3.quote:
I'm ready for your questions about this paper whenever you are ready.
I'm not ready to ask questions until you explain the mass flows within whatever shell thickness you'd like to stipulate, using data that we can all verify ourselves and agree upon. Otherwise, questions are pointless. |
- 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 - 01/21/2006 : 20:47:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm not ready to ask questions until you explain the mass flows within whatever shell thickness you'd like to stipulate, using data that we can all verify ourselves and agree upon. Otherwise, questions are pointless.
Now Dave. You should at least do me the favor of listing your five golden questions so we can address them one by one. In the mean time, I think you should be taking a look at Dr. Manuel's work, and offering something scientifically meaningful in response.
I'm ready to tackle the *FIVE* and exactly five questions you want answered, but you have to at least specify them and put them in the order you wish to deal with them. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2006 : 22:10:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Now Dave. You should at least do me the favor of listing your five golden questions so we can address them one by one. In the mean time, I think you should be taking a look at Dr. Manuel's work, and offering something scientifically meaningful in response.
I'm ready to tackle the *FIVE* and exactly five questions you want answered, but you have to at least specify them and put them in the order you wish to deal with them.
All five questions, if I have that many, will be related to nothing but your explanation of how those mass flows through your allegedly-solid layer are consistent with your solid-layer model, using nothing but data that everyone can verify and agree upon. Since you have offered no such explanation, but instead have done little but made your layer smaller so that it "fits" inside a "data gap" in a single article, then I can't possibly have any questions about your explanation.
Flows of something inside your smaller layer still exist. You haven't explained them as being consistent with your model. How can I possibly have questions about a non-existent explanation? |
- 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 - 01/21/2006 : 22:21:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Now Dave. You should at least do me the favor of listing your five golden questions so we can address them one by one. In the mean time, I think you should be taking a look at Dr. Manuel's work, and offering something scientifically meaningful in response.
I'm ready to tackle the *FIVE* and exactly five questions you want answered, but you have to at least specify them and put them in the order you wish to deal with them.
All five questions, if I have that many, will be related to nothing but your explanation of how those mass flows through your allegedly-solid layer are consistent with your solid-layer model, using nothing but data that everyone can verify and agree upon. Since you have offered no such explanation, but instead have done little but made your layer smaller so that it "fits" inside a "data gap" in a single article, then I can't possibly have any questions about your explanation.
Flows of something inside your smaller layer still exist. You haven't explained them as being consistent with your model. How can I possibly have questions about a non-existent explanation?
Surely Dave, you have 5 questions here you can put in some order and we can go through them one by one. Otherwise this is really just YOUR game, where YOU make up the rules, and nothing really is gained other than me giving you the power to make me jump over hurdles of your choosing. I fail to see the point of that excersize. Like you pointed out, we're both busy men. I'd like you to to take a shot at explaining that image SOONER rather than 3 threads later. Just put your questions out there where we can all see them, and I'll tackle them one at a time. As we check each one off, I'll start giving you a list of my questions. That way we both get to play the same game and throw hurdles at one another. How is that? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2006 : 22:31:46 [Permalink]
|
| Dave, technically even asking me to explain the mass flow *IS* a question! :) You don't get any "freebies". ;) |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2006 : 22:49:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
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?
[...]
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.
[...]
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?
[...]
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.
[...]
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?
[...]
I'll start giving you a list of my questions. That way we both get to play the same game and throw hurdles at one another. How is that?
What is it about, "It's your claim, you prove it," that you don't understand? You've repeatedly shown that you go on the defensive like a little kid, so I don't expect you to understand what I'm about to say, but...
You are condescending. You do drag in unrelated issues to "support" your conjecture. You do whine and bitch when someone calls you on your credibility. You do continue to assert that your conjecture is truth because it just damned well looks like it in the pictures. You do continue to expect other people to prove you wrong, when in reality it's your job to prove yourself right. You do make excuses and sidestep and spew apologetics when someone brings in anything that legitimately questions your assertions.
If you would leave out all the unrelated components, leave out all the irrational assumptions about the support other people give your conjecture, knock off all the condescension, this thread might only be 15 pages long by now. If you'd leave out all your nagging incorrect assumption that everyone who doesn't believe you, who doesn't interpret the images the same way you do, must therefore be gas model sun faithful zealots, this thread might only be 10 pages long by now.
And I know you could give a good god dam about how poorly you present your conjecture to the world, because you're unwaveringly convinced that you are right. You think you're doing a good job, repeating and repeating and repeating. Whether you believe it or not, your presentation style does have a great deal to do with your credibility. You make yourself very hard to listen to by continuing to hammer away like you do, by continuing to imply that everyone else is just wrong because they don't see things the way you do.
We already know you reject criticism, both of your conjecture and of your method of presenting it. But for what it's worth, when you've run your course at this forum, when we all get tired of your incessant yammering and your lousy presentation style, when you move on to another forum to try to convince more people, probably more people who aren't part of the scientific world you need to convince, you'd do well to take some of these criticisms of your mode of presentation to heart. You'll either get your message across quicker and more effectively, or at least you'll get banned sooner, which will give you an opportunity to move on to yet another forum of people who aren't part of the scientific world you need to convince.
Now why is it you won't address the scientific concerns that Dave W. has just brought up about the movement of mass through your "solid" layer? Do you not have an answer? Do you get some kind of a charge out of batting this stuff back and forth instead of taking responsibility to actually answer the legitimate questions? Are you maybe just a troll, as has apparently been determined by the moderators of at least one other popular discussion forum?
Dave W. has raised a valid concern. I'm interested, too. Do you have an explanation or can we just discard what you claimed to be support for your conjecture in the Investigation of Mass Flows document and move along?
Edited for spelling. |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 01/21/2006 23:22:05 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2006 : 23:14:09 [Permalink]
|
No, Michael, I am using the exact same "skepticism" you asked us to apply to the standard solar model: if, after asking a major proponent of the solid-surface model to explain mass flows within that solid surface, he fails to do so to my personal satisfaction, then the solid-surface model can be rejected. Furthermore, since the solid-surface model doesn't seem to have predicted these very fast mass flows throughout the allegedly solid surface, then by your logic, the solid-surface model can be said to be "falsified."
Honestly, the solid-surface model's explanation of the mass flows can be question number one if you'd like it to be. I didn't expect to need all five questions I asked for, anyway. I figured I could come up with two or three questions about your explanation of the mass flows at most. The others (up to five) were just in case your answers to the first couple questions prompted still more questions.
So, again, I'm waiting to see your explanation. Whether that is question one or not is irrelevant to the fact that all other questions I might have are contigent upon what that explanation is. Again, I can't possibly ask scientific questions about an explanation which has not yet been offered. You asking me to do so is to ask me to read your mind, an ability I neither have nor desire.
(Similarly, by your standards, you should be able to articulate questions for me about my non-existent analysis of Dr. Manuel's isotope work. Can you do so? If so, there's a million-dollar prize available for a controlled demonstration of your accurate prediction of the future. If that's even in the future, since your stonewalling on the mass flows explanation just means I'm not even going to start reading the isotope stuff until even later than now.)
But, none of that really matters, since you never did explicitly accept my offer. Until you do, I have no obligation to abide by any agreement, expressed or implied. You can either say, "yes, I accept your offer," or you can quit wasting your precious time. The choice is yours. |
- 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 - 01/21/2006 : 23:40:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You are condescending.
That works both ways.
quote:
You do drag in unrelated issues to "support" your conjecture. You do whine and bitch when someone calls you on your credibility.
I whine and bitch when someone starts with terms like "liar". Even two honest people can have a disagreement about an idea without either being a "liar". It's the way you attack INDIVIDUALS that I have a tough time with.
quote:
You do continue to assert that your conjecture is truth because it just damned well looks like it in the pictures.
Well, I hate to be blunt, but observation is what science is all about. You have to look at the pictures to know reality from science fiction and myth. Theory is wonderful, but devoid of observational support, it's meaningless. Birkeland's model has strong observational support, and it's not about this individual, it's about REALITY.
quote:
You
You, you, you, you. That's all you do is attack the individual. I'm not relevant to this topic of conversation. You keep trying to make me so. Birkeland's solar model is all that is relevant to this conversation, but *you, you, you, keep dragging me, me, me into it. Why? Get on with the scientific rebutt and leave me the heck out of the conversation!
quote:
do continue to expect other people to prove you wrong, when in reality it's your job to prove yourself right.
There is an air here of creationism. It's not up to me to prove to you that isotope analysis works. You are supposed to repect that, or show me where it's flawed, and show me BETTER isotope analysis to support your own views, or that show where the evidence I presented is incorrect.
quote:
You do make excuses and sidestep and spew apologetics when someone brings in anything that legitimately questions your assertions.
Again however, I'm not the issue here. Birkeland's solar model is the issue. Remember?
quote:
If you would leave out all the unrelated components, leave out all the irrational assumptions about the support other people give your conjecture, knock off all the condescension, this thread might only be 15 pages long by now. If you'd leave out all your nagging incorrect assumption that everyone who doesn't believe you, who doesn't interpret the images the same way you do, must therefore be gas model sun faithful zealots, this thread might only be 10 pages long by now.
Well, here's the deal. Anyone can sit in the peanut gallery, hide their viewpoints and hurl accusations. It takes a bit more effort to bring scientific issues into the discussion to sepearate fact from fiction. Right now, you are WAY too concerned about this individidual and WAY too cavalier about the other evidence I have presented. Who cares about me anyway?
quote:
And I know you could give a good god dam about how poorly you present your conjecture to the world, because you're unwaveringly convinced that you are right. You think you're doing a good job, repeating and repeating and repeating. Whether you believe it or not, your presentation style does have a great deal to do with your credibility. You make yourself very hard to listen to by continuing to hammer away like you do, by continuing to imply that everyone else is just wrong because they don't see things the way you do.
Well, what WOULD you have me do here exactly. I do BELIEVE that I am correct, or I wouldn't be here at all. I can tap dance around that reality if you like, but that is how I "feel" about it. You seem to "feel" I am wrong, but you you can't seem to frame your arguement in a scientifically constructive manner. Dave to his credit is trying.
quote:
We already know you reject criticism, both of your conjecture and of your method of presenting it. But for what it's worth, when you've run your course at this forum, when we all get tired of your incessant yammering and your lousy presentation style, when you move on to another forum to try to convince more people, probably more people who aren't part of the scientific world you need to convince, you'd do well to take some of these criticisms of your mode of presentation to heart. You'll either get your message across quicker and more effectively, or at least you'll get banned sooner, which will give you an opportunity to move on to yet another forum of people who aren't part of the scientific world you need to convince.
Again, you are utterly ignoring the ISSUE, here, which is *BIRKELAND*'s model (it's not even my model for goodness sake). It's not about this indivual and the more you keep focusing on MY style and MY presentation and MY hair style, the more we drift off topic. Why don't you take a deep breath and forget about me and focus on *THE ISSUE* from a scientific perspective. It's not about my style. It's not about my personality. It's not about me at all. If you have to personalize it, why not show me why Birkeland was such an unbelievable SOB and stop worrying about me for awhile. I think you'd find it more effective frankly.
quote:
Now why is it you won't address the scientific concerns that Dave W.
I will. I'd like Dave to address some of my points as well. Why don't we see the kinds of differential rotation patterns in the RD images that we see in the images of the photosphere? What are those shadows? What are the "dust" particles? What is that process going on along the right side of the image? These are the things I'd like to discuss, not ME, ME, ME.
There are reasons why I believe as I do, and this image is key to addressing the reasons behind my beliefs. As long as everyone here including you ingores them, I cannot possibly properly convey to you why I believe as I do, and I will forever FEEL like folks here are avoiding the real issues.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/21/2006 23:53:02 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2006 : 23:46:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, Michael, I am using the exact same "skepticism" you asked us to apply to the standard solar model: if, after asking a major proponent of the solid-surface model to explain mass flows within that solid surface, he fails to do so to my personal satisfaction, then the solid-surface model can be rejected. Furthermore, since the solid-surface model doesn't seem to have predicted these very fast mass flows throughout the allegedly solid surface, then by your logic, the solid-surface model can be said to be "falsified."
Woah. Actually mass flows in the form of moving electrons *IS CERTAINLY* predicted in this model. That flow of electrity in the arcs is due to the electrons flowing through the crust. There certainly *IS* mass flow prediction in a solid surface model. In addition, just as here on earth, the crust of the sun does crack, and magma does flow. That happens more freqently on the sun. In at least two respects the Birkeland model of the sun predicts mass flow through the crust.
That is the answer to your FIRST question. :)
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/21/2006 23:48:45 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 00:01:05 [Permalink]
|
| I'm off to bed now gentlemen. I'll look for question number 2 in the morning. :) |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 00:20:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I actually do have an explanation. Do you have an explanation for Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis, or is that going to be the creationists gave of dance and dodge and avoid the other issues that are key to the debate?
Since it's been mentioned many times and you still can't get it through your skull, I don't expect you to understand this time either, but the fact that some of us don't have faith in your conjecture, like you obviously do because in fact you have outright admitted it, does not mean we have faith in any other particular model. Nobody has to prove anything else right. What is it about, "It's your claim, you prove it," that you don't understand?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 01:10:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Woah. Actually mass flows in the form of moving electrons *IS CERTAINLY* predicted in this model. That flow of electrity in the arcs is due to the electrons flowing through the crust. There certainly *IS* mass flow prediction in a solid surface model. In addition, just as here on earth, the crust of the sun does crack, and magma does flow. That happens more freqently on the sun. In at least two respects the Birkeland model of the sun predicts mass flow through the crust.
That is the answer to your FIRST question. :)
I'll ignore for the moment that your explanation relies upon "data" which cannot be verified by everyone (just how can we measure electron flow through your allegedly solid shell?), and I'll ignore the fact that you still haven't explicitly accepted my offer, and go on to question #2.
#2: Using standard helioseismology texts for reference, along with standard electrical axioms and atomic properties, and any images or other data you might find related to the sunspot in question, calculate the average electrical resistance (in ohms/meter) of the shell material (both solid and molten) and the current through it (in amperes) which, when coupled with the actual amount of "cracking" and "magma flow" throughout the sunspot area, would result in the overlying plasma necessarily registering sound waves such that through time-distance helioseismology, Kosovichev would determine that mass between 3,460 and 6,000 km below the visible photosphere was moving at speeds between about 600 and 1,200 m/sec when averaged over 13 hours. Show your work, including all references used. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 01:42:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
There is an air here of creationism. It's not up to me to prove to you that isotope analysis works. You are supposed to repect that, or show me where it's flawed, and show me BETTER isotope analysis to support your own views, or that show where the evidence I presented is incorrect.
The air of creationism is due to your assertions that unexamined data should be respected (I assume you made a typo in that argument from authority); that it's up to the critics of a theory to disprove it; that it's up to the critics of a theory to provide a better one, and that it's up to the critics of a single proponent to show him where he went wrong. Every one of your quoted assertions is an attempt to shift the burden of proof away from you, and make it a burden of disproof on us. That is classic creationism in the "prove that God doesn't exist" sense. Science, however, works because its proponents can demonstrate that what they say is true, to the point where it would be unreasonabel to doubt it. That's true of evolution, but you're trying to claim exemptions for your theory. Evolution, after all, doesn't depend at all upon criticisms of creationism: evolutionary theories rest upon nothing more than positive evidence for evolution. If creationism didn't exist, it would have no effect upon the strength of evolutionary arguments. No proponent of evolution who knows the subject would be caught dead saying anything like "evolutionary theory is a viable alternative to creationism because creationists can't explain HERVs," but that's precisely analogous to what you've been saying here.
Evolutionary scientists can show that evolution is a working theory. They don't demand that anyone else respect that. They don't demand to be considered correct unless others show them wrong, and they don't demand that scientific criticism of evolutionary theories be coupled with better alternative theories. Your situation is diametrically opposed to that of an evolutionary biologist, Michael. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
