|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 02/12/2006 : 20:46:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Can you be a little more exact in how your concept of density differs from the universally accepted density=mass/volume
The primary difference between a Birkeland oriented sense of "absolute density" and a standard concept of density is the acceptance of Birkeland currents into the equations that affect the acceleration based on relative iron content.
quote:
Wooohaa... Earth is a metal sphere?
Not even half of the Earth's crust is metal, and then those metal atoms are bound in oxides, and they are not conductive...
It's not only your solar model that is unique.
Earth is a sphere that is composed of a great deal of metals. Such metals can and would be affected by Birkeland current running through the solar system. If the relative amounts of metals in the earth is different than the relative amounts of metals in the sun, then these two bodies may not be accelerated equally in the z axis.
quote:
Now, that is something to look forward to. It would certainly take the discussion forward (I hope).
I hope so as well, but somehow I doubt it. Even if you put a mathematical model on the table, that is not a guarantee that anyone will accept it. I've been down this road before. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 21:22:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
1. The model is entirely dependant on the premise that the sun's composition is well represented by the content of meteorites:
Actually, that's not entirely the case. The mass fractionization numbers are really *not* dependent upon this premise. In fact Dr. Manuel first noticed this pattern in lunar soil samples.
quote:
Regardless of how correct, or even intutitive this may "feel" to you, there is no evidence that this is a valid assumption.
In fact there is evidence that Manuel's assumption is a valid assumption starting with the fact that the moon (and all smaller bodies) gain weight from meteorite impacts far more than they do from hanging onto hydrogen gas. This is at least a valid an "assumption" as assuming from the outset that the sun is *not* mass separated or assuming that just because hydrogen is abundant in the universe, it automatically composes most of the mass of a star or a moon or a planet.
In fact however, the mass fractionization aspect has little if anything to do with this assumption.
quote:
You cannot use the results of a study based upon the assumption of a particular premise to validate that premise. (Begging the question)
That's exactly the same beef I have with "assuming" the sun is not mass separated, therefore we can use spectroscopy to determine it's composition. It's begging the question.
quote:
The facts (supported by a lot of evidence) is that the Earth, the Sun and all the other planets and their satellites do vary quite dramatically in composition.
The facts (supported by a lot of evidence) is that the Earth, the Sun and the other planets do vary in "relative density", but there is actually very little evidence that they are composed of "vastly" different materials.
quote:
In fact the composition of various metorites varies significantly. Which meterites do we choose to include in our results, or should it be an average? If the latter is it a uniformly weighted average or what scheme should be used?
I would think an average would be the most useful.
quote:
The assumption that the sun is a mix of the components seen in meteorites is not widely held,
That has no bearing on the discussion however.
quote:
nor supported by any evidence, empirical or otherwise.
Of course it is. That is why I got involved with Dr. Manuel in the first place. His conclusions were verified in satellite images. The mass fractionization aspect is empirical data that points toward mass separation, even if have a harder time with the overall composition being related to meteorites. In other words the data set that shows evidence of mass fractionization is not related to the assumption about meteorites being the "food source" of stars.
quote:
Secondly, even if it were true, there is no reason to believe that isotope analysis of the solar wind is a direct, quantitative sample of the composition of the sun. The solar wind is representative of material which leaves the sun, not an average of all it encompasses.
But the patterns of mass separation in these isotopes isn't dependent on us seeing "every" element present in the first place.
quote:
2. The author(s) have posited an alternative suggestion for the formation of our solar system. However, while it neatly explains some of their results (as it should, being designed for this purpose), the authors openly admit:
"Dr. Kiril Panov has correctly noted that a more radical evolutionary scheme may be required if our conclusions for the Sun are true for other stars in this galaxy and others."
In other words, this star system formation process only explains some measurements based on a single star (the sun). They admit it cannot explain the properties of many other star systems. The currently held model is far more widely applicable.
All it suggests is that such a model would be a radical departure from contemporary thinking. No one is hiding that fact.
quote:
Secondly, as it relates to your model:
3. Nowhere does the paper mention a solid iron (or iron compound, as I believe may be your current suggestion) surface. "Rigid" is as close as it gets.
The term "rigid" was a conscious compromise to not limit the possibilities to simply a 'solid' surface.
quote:
After following various references here and there all over the web, I found reference to a statement by Manuel himself. I admit I haven't personally verified it, but what is your stance on the following staement purportedly made by Manuel?
"I have not said the Sun has solids in it, including a layer of solid Iron-Silicate minerals. However, I understand that the inner 70% of the Sun rotates as a rigid body."
That is quite accurate. In fact until Dr. Manuel met me and saw the satellite evidence, I don't think that the concept of a solid or even "rigid" surface was ever mentioned in any of his work. It is the satellite evidence that demonstrates solids on the surface, not the mass fractionization.
quote:
4. The model repeatedly addresses a mixture of mass fractionation and other "mixing" processes which may have resulted in the samples being analysed. Nowehere does it suggest that the entire sun is mass fractionated from core to surface.
It does suggest that the sun undergoes the same separation process as our own planet. It actually suggests that from the iron core (whereever that might be) to the outermost layer, the sun is mass separated by the element and by the isotopes with |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/12/2006 23:31:07 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 21:44:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
TRACE Images
It's been brought up many times before by others, and never addressed properly in my (and I'm sure others' opinions, but correct me if I am wrong). What you describe as features you are "seeing" in the images cannot possibly be what you believe they are based on observation of the images. You really need to read the sections on the trace website and a few of the links associated with it.
A few points for you:
1. Spectral Resolution. The filters are tuned to see ions of iron which has been ionized 9, 12 and 15 times. (Not 9 and 10 as your website incorrectly claims).
Evidently there is a difference in the way ionization levels are expressed in nuclear circles vs. astronomical circles. I refered to these photons as coming from "Fe IX, FE X and FE XIV, because that is the same terminology that Lockheed and NASA use. I didn't talk about specific ionization states since I am aware they handle these states differently. I simply stuck to the terminology that is used in typical satellite image convention.
http://trace.lmsal.com/Science/ScientificResults/Publications/phillips_tr_resp_apj.pdf
quote:
To quote the TRACE site "TRACE lets us explore the fine details and the motions of the magnetic structures in the temperature range from 10,000 Kelvin up to several million Kelvin".
Do you understand what sort of temperature/pressure conditions are required to ionize iron to FE IX?
600,000 Kelvin is typically the temperatures cited for FE IX emissions. (Astronomy conventions).
quote:
How do you reconcile this with Solid Iron?
I don't. I assume these particular photons come from the electrical arcs that are not on the surface itself, but do heat up the solar atmosophere.
quote:
"Fine details" is of course a relative term, bringing me to the next point ....
I hear you.
quote:
2. Spatial resolution. Again, from the TRACE site:
"the TRACE telescope has an aperture of 30 cm, and observes an 8.5 x 8.5 arcminute field of view (about 10% of the solar disk)"
Let's do some maths.
The distance to the sun is an average of 150 million km.
The TRACE satellite is about 6000 km closer to the Sun than the earth.
The TRACE satellie to sun distance is therefore around 1.494 x 10^8 km
For an angulr view of 8.5 arcminutes, we have a field of view which is:
FOV = TraceToSun * TAN(8.5 arcminutes /2) * 2
= 369 400 km
There are 1024 x 1024 in the CCD array, so we have an effective pixel size of:
339 400 / 1024
= 360 km
I'm not sure why your numbers came out differently than the 748km (1 arc second) that is typically cited as the maximum resolution for Trace, but I'll grant you it's a very large area either way.
quote:
So you could have features, including holes, lakes mountains or pretty much anything else you care to imagine, with feature sizes of 10's to 100's of km in your "solid surface" and you wouldn't even know they were there. The entire continent of Australia would be about 10 x 8 pixels. The entire earth would be less than 18 pixels square. Do you really think you can resolve fine surface features?
No, I don't believe you can resolve 'fine' surface features in current satellite images. I do however think you can see large surface "areas" in these pixels however.
quote:
3. The filters don't allow you to "see" anything else (that is, ions of other materials for example), because they're designed not to! This does not mean that the images show that there is only Iron at the imaging depth, it just means that anything else is filtered out. It does not even mean that Iron is present in any specific concentration, it simply shows that for a given pixel region (as described above) there is an average of a particular amount of light corresponding to Iron ions coming from this region.
I agree with these last two points, but I'm not sure why you feel they are significant per se.
quote:
All of the above apply to the "Raw" filtered images. When you look at running difference images, things get even worse with repect to imaging surface features. Namely:
4. Fixed or non-moving areas do not corespond to non moving regions, they correspond to regions of uniform change.
No, that not exactly so. The lighting conditions within the regions themselves can change rather dramatically in fact. There is no 'uniform change' in these regions. If you watch that first Lockheed RD movie and notice the central mountain range, you will see it "lights up" and gets dimmer during the movie. It's the surface *shapes* that are reflected by these changing lighting conditions. The shapes do not change, even though the lighting changes wildly.
quote:
5. What you are looking at is no longer a 2D image of anything "real", it is a mathematical abstraction of an already filtered image. The fact that something "looks" solid in no way implies that it is so.
I more or less agree with you on these points, exept for the fact that these "shapes" do not change or move around or show *any* signs of differential rotation, unlike the photosphere.
quote:
All of this ignores the fact that large scale atmospheric (and non-solid) phenomenon here on earth can extend for 100's of kilometres and be relatively stable for days or weeks. Hurricanes are a reasonable example of this sort of phenomenon.
Hurricanes are quite easy to see from space. They take on a very specific shape for one thing, and they move in relationship to the surface. That is not unlike the behavior of the plasma of the photophere. It too moves in relationship to the surface, which is why the photosphere is constantly changing every 8 minutes or |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 21:57:29 [Permalink]
|
Michael, I did not have a chance to get to a computer for a day so I have not replied.
However after seeing your reply to my challenge to your assertion that the sun is mass separated to the point of it being mostly iron and your reply to JohnOAS it is clear you are not interested in scientific discussion.
I didn't really expect any but what the hey...
By the way I think Dave has been incredibly tolerent of you, and I would say he deserves a medal for only throwing out 2 - 3 "fuck yous".
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 21:58:04 [Permalink]
|
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/xmm_magnetic_starbirth.html
By the way Dr. Mabuse, here is some more evidence of Birkeland currents playing a part in solar formation theory. Gravity alone does not explain all the behaviors we see in solar formation processes. There is a high likelihood that what we are looking at here is a "z pinch" of electromagnetic currents causing the metallic elements to pinch together. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 22:08:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Michael, I did not have a chance to get to a computer for a day so I have not replied.
However after seeing your reply to my challenge to your assertion that the sun is mass separated to the point of it being mostly iron and your reply to JohnOAS it is clear you are not interested in scientific discussion.
I didn't really expect any but what the hey...
Since you never actually addressed the mass fractionization aspect of Manuel's work, I fail to see how you have anything to whine about.
quote:
By the way I think Dave has been incredibly tolerent of you, and I would say he deserves a medal for only throwing out 2 - 3 "fuck yous".
I think the fact that Dave feels the need to express himself in such terms only shows how far this conversation has deviated from any sense of a scientific discussion. I think it's probably time for me to post the math I promised and move along at this point. That is probably exactly what I'll do. Life is too short to argue with people that refuse to acknowledge the value and importance of isotope analysis and who are clearly stuck in a denial routine that requires a healthy dose of evasion tactics. To your credit and John's credit in particular, both of you put your cards on the table and expressed your opinions about Manuel's work. GeeMack and Dave and everyone else however have avoided this issue like the plague, and it's clear that they don't want to deal with it at all. I explained to you that you did not actually deal with the mass fractionization aspects of Manuels' work, in fact you "assumed" that the sun is not mass separated and then proceeded to beg the question with your first assumption since you then tried to apply specroscopy to the process and determine the sun's composition from a method that *only* works if there is no mass separation. Never mind the fact that Manuel's analsys of the solar wind shows that the sun *does* mass separate the plasmas in it's atmosphere.
As I said, I give you and John at least *some* credit for not evading the question, but you two are the exception around here, not the rule. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/12/2006 22:12:01 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 22:50:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I've waited through five threads and nearly three months for you to get serious about the brand-new physics of how acceleration changes our perception of mass;
That is pure BS. First of all, *I'm* the one that's been waiting around for you to get serious about the mass separation issue. In fact you wanted 5 questions answered before you'd deal with it and I gave you 30 pages worth of questions and answers.
Secondly, there's nothing new here under the sun. Birkeland defined Birkeland currents before both of us were born. There is no "new physics" involved, simply electromagnetic acceleration that is dependent on the percentage of metals involved.
quote:
I've written software to aid my understanding;
Yes, so have I.
quote:
learned the basics of helioseismology;
Ditto.
quote:
downloaded zillions of images,
Ditto.
quote:
and you have the gall to suggest that I haven't been trying to foster a scientific discussion? Fuck you all over again.
Dave, your emotional reaction is irrelavant. I've tried to keep things on a scientific level. You've gone emotional.
quote:
I've been more than patient with you,
BS. You've been hostile since day one and anything but patient.
quote:
and you returned the favor by failing to answer many questions,
Balony! You wanted five questions answered that relate to heliosiesmology before you would even get into Manuel's work. I spent 2 full threads on the heliosiesmology data and I even showed you how some of that data you handed me directly supports a Birkeland model.
quote:
or even to acknowledge that the questions were asked.
When did I not acknowledge you asked a question? I simply have not been prepared to "ballpark" an absolute density number to this point in time. I wanted to talk about things I *COULD* talk about based on actual data. I wanted to focus on the mass separation issue and I did my 5 questions and then some.
quote:
You, Michael, are morally bankrupt
You are not fit to judge me Dave. You have no right to make such statements in the first place and they have nothing to do with a scientific discussion about isotope analysis.
quote:
and scientifically inept.
I'm scientifically savy enough to notice when someone is directly avoiding every question put to them that relates to isotope analysis Dave.
quote:
Your theory is possibly correct, but we'll never know because you're such an ass that few sane people would want to converse with you long enough to drag the required data out of you, kicking and screaming.
*Birkeland's* theory *is* correct, but you won't get off your lazy butt to do the work yourself. Instead you insist that I (or someone else) do it for you. That is about the least scientific attitude I've ever seen. The fact you even predicated your addressing Manuel's work on my answering your 5 (five no less) questions, shows that you aren't approaching this question scientifically in the first place. Even when I did answer all your stupid questions to the best of my ability, you still not been in integrity and dealt with the isotope analysis. Keep in mind that I've also been after you for the last three months to deal with Manuel's data. I gotta tell you Dave, you and Dr. Mab and HH were the only reasons I was hanging out here, and after today I'm not sure it's really worth the effort. John to his credit has been civil and professional, and so has HH for the most part. You on the other hand resort to the F word and personal insults at the drop of a hat even *AFTER* I appologized to you for getting a little "testy" with my wording. At no time however have I called you an "ass" or a "liar" or a "prick" or said "Fuck you" to you. Your whole attitude is *anything but* scientific. Your the last person who should be lecturing me about science Mr. "five golden questions". |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/12/2006 22:52:07 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 23:18:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Are you suggesting that the net charge of the sun is particularly negatively charged, or that other large sections of the universe are positively charged? This is what would be required for that statement to make sense. I'm not discounting the possibility, but I've seen no model or evidence to support this propostion.
I'm suggesting that the sun is "relatively" negatively charged, yes. Birkeland produced radically different results when the sphere was positively charged.
quote:
Manuels work suggests that mass separation occurrs under some conditions and that it is a mechanism which explains some of the isotope abundances we see in meteorites. Nowhere does it imply that the entire sun is "mass separated", especially to the extent you seem to be suggesting.
Sure it does. Every kind of element shows evidence of mass separation. This isn't limited to "some" gasses.
quote:
Both your and Manuels' work depend to some degree upon mass separation. Really, that's about as far as the direct support goes.
Both of us "observed" mass separation. I did so via satellite technology. Manuel observed this in mass fractionization patterns of various elements. These are not simply "models", these are "observations" of mass separation, and I would be happy to show you evidence of mass separation at the chromosphere/penumbra/umbra delineation layers.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg
quote:
Apart from the fact that it works quite well,
It doesn't "work well" IMO. It is mostly a "theory" that has "some" very limited support, but is mostly based on special pleading and assumptions that go against the mass fractionization evidence, and the satellite images.
quote:
and explains the scientific, empirical measurements routinely made by astronomers/chemists/physicists.
Most of these "measurements" are predicated on "faith" in the "belief" that the sun is not mass separated. These mass fractionization patterns, and these satellite images suggest that this basic assumption was incorrect right from the start.
quote:
Would being a critical distinction here. The theory has not (by Manuel or yourself) been proven to an acceptable level of scientific validity. If we assume you're right, of course your cobservations will match your theory. That's begging the question yet again.
The notion of something being proven to an "acceptable level of scientific validity" is a misnomer. Even the "theory" of evolution is fought tooth and nail, community by community, state by state, and the evidence to support evolution is overwhelming at this point. Convincing a "majority" of any group is not a measure of the accuracy of a theory.
quote:
By the way, there is no reason why the current gas model cannot (and does not) describe some degree of stratification as described by "mass separation".
Then your spectroscopic percentages are wrong. You can't have it both ways.
There is also a basic problem here in the sense that all "theories" are possible when you don't consider the visual evidence. When we do look at the umbra penumbra delineation, and the mass fractionization aspects, not all models remain "possible". That is why I consider the satellite images to be so very critical to this debate. The represent real life observations, just like the mass fractionization patterns.
quote:
It simply doesn't work for the "complete" mass separation you (and you alone, as far as I have read) have described. Seeing some evidence of mass separation somewhere does not imply that the current model is flawed.
Yes it does. The current model is predictated upon an abundance calculation that is based on a non mass separated model. The moment you open it up to mass separation, there is no guarantee this is an accurate elemental abundance number to begin with.
quote:
Evidence that the entire sun is mass separated, according to atomic mass, right down to the isotope, from core to surface, would indicate some problems. There has been no proof of this demonstrated to date, however.
I can visually demonstrate that every element has it's own layer, and I'll begin with the helium/neon/silicon borders because these are the most visual borders between the elements. The mass fractionization numbers show that the layers themselves are further arranged by the isotope, which makes sense in an electromagnetic field and a high gravitational field. We already know that plasmas mass separate by the isotope in these environments. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/12/2006 23:38:35 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 06:15:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Can you be a little more exact in how your concept of density differs from the universally accepted density=mass/volume
The primary difference between a Birkeland oriented sense of "absolute density" and a standard concept of density is the acceptance of Birkeland currents into the equations that affect the acceleration based on relative iron content.
The mass of an object is made up of the matter in said object. The matter being a certain amount of atoms in said object, or rather, the collection of protons, neutrons, and electrons (since we're talking plasma) . Since the electron is less than 1/1800th of the proton (and less than 1/4000th of the average nucleus if the mass of the sun consists of mostly not-hydrogen, or more than 50% iron) the mass of the electron can be dismissed.
Kirchoff's First Law also states that the sum of all currents in any given point in an electric circuit is zero, which means that the mass that electrons contribute is constant over time.
The volume of the Sun is a function of the sun's average radius. Which is easily measurable. Just like in the case of the Earth, the centrifugal force of the rotation is slightly flattening out the sun, but this flattening is measurable and can be averaged. The only way to significantly affect the measured volume of the sun is to radically change the nature of 3-dimentional space. |
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 02/13/2006 06:17:51 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 06:51:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
1. The model is entirely dependant on the premise that the sun's composition is well represented by the content of meteorites:
Actually, that's not entirely the case. The mass fractionization numbers are really *not* dependent upon this premise. In fact Dr. Manuel first noticed this pattern in lunar soil samples.
The model is entirely dependant on the assumption. If you don't assume that the meteorites are reprasentative of solar material, you can't imply anything about the composition of the sun by analyzing the composition of meteorites. The fractionization numbers themselves might not be dependant on the premise, but any application of these meteroic numbers to the sun absolutely does require this assumption.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In fact there is evidence that Manuel's assumption is a valid assumption starting with the fact that the moon (and all smaller bodies) gain weight from meteorite impacts far more than they do from hanging onto hydrogen gas.
The two are entirely unrelated. How does the fact that bodies with a gravitational field too weak to hang onto solar hydrogen in any way support/refute mass separation? There is absolutely no causal link here, and therefore no evidentary support.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
This is at least a valid an "assumption" as assuming from the outset that the sun is *not* mass separated or assuming that just because hydrogen is abundant in the universe, it automatically composes most of the mass of a star or a moon or a planet.
Actually, the second assumption would be far more sensible if you think about it. If hydrogen were statistically very abundant, and, all the bodies in the solar system have similar structures/compositions (as posited by you), then it has to be somewhere, and statistically that would be in the bodies in question. No one is actually taking this line of argument by the way, but logically far more likely than the assumption that meteorites are reprasentitive of solar/planetary matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That's exactly the same beef I have with "assuming" the sun is not mass separated, therefore we can use spectroscopy to determine it's composition. It's begging the question.
No it's not. Spectroscopy works whether something is mass separated or not. The issue is whether or not light can "escape" to be measured. For the gas model, this is not at issue. You can argue (and I believe that you are) that there is a sold shell which could block light from within. Spectroscopy would still be perfectly valid as far as black body radiation studies are concerned. The problem with your model is, all the energy (including light) generated in the core has to get out somehow, otherwise the temperature of the core will increase infinitely. For your solid surface to exist, the temperature cannot be allowed to rise unchecked.
You also have to deal with the fact that the spectrum obtained by the sun would be very different if your model was correct. (We should see large iron absorption lines at the very least.) The current solar model explains the light output measured quite well. Please don't say that's because it "assumes" non-mass separated model, that's entirely false and irrelevant, spectroscopy doesn't care one way or the other whether or not anything is mass separated.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
The facts (supported by a lot of evidence) is that the Earth, the Sun and all the other planets and their satellites do vary quite dramatically in composition.
The facts (supported by a lot of evidence) is that the Earth, the Sun and the other planets do vary in "relative density", but there is actually very little evidence that they are composed of "vastly" different materials.
Here are some links to meteorite composition data.
Meteors1
Meteors2
Meteors3
Here are some links to planetary composition data.
Planets1
Planets2-Jupiter
Planets3-Mars
Planets4
Note, I certainly don't expect you to read every word of all those pages, I certainly didn't. However, a quick skim of the all the currently available data, obtained via a variety of methods, shows quite plainly that planetary composition does vary significantly.
You're "relative density" backdoor doesn't wash here. Different materials are different materials regardless of any new density properties you have invented. I've seen you talk very subjectively about birkland currents and universal accelleration in other threads. You've yet to demonstrate however, how zero relative accelleration in a given frame of reference (containing our solar system in this instance) can affect density, or "relative density" (your term). Relativity handles all of this quite well.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
The assumption that the sun is a mix of the components seen in meteorites is not widely held,
That has no bearing on the discussion however.
quote:
nor supported by any evidence, empirical or otherwise.
Of course it is. That is why I got involved with Dr. Manuel in the first place. His conclusions were verified in satellite images. The mass fractionization aspect is empirical data that points toward mass separation, even if have a harder time with the overall composition being rela |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 07:01:47 [Permalink]
|
Geeze Michael, what aspect of mass separation do you want to talk about?
You say you want to discuss mass separation but no matter what is presented to you, you reply with either:
1. You aren't addressing my specific point, or
2. It is too mass separated.
You have no data just the same old tired line.
Oh, and by the way Dr. Manuel's mass separation hypothesis rest firmly on his assumption that meteorites indicate the makeup of the sun, which is clearly preposterous.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 08:31:05 [Permalink]
|
My eyes be damned, I couldn't resist. I hope, Michael that you skim these posts before replying. If so, I strongly urge you to address the imaging system issues here before the mass separation issues I posted previously. I'm happy to continue dealing with the mass fractionization stuff, but these imaging issues are far more fundamental and damaging to your case.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
A few points for you:
1. Spectral Resolution. The filters are tuned to see ions of iron which has been ionized 9, 12 and 15 times. (Not 9 and 10 as your website incorrectly claims).
Evidently there is a difference in the way ionization levels are expressed in nuclear circles vs. astronomical circles. I refered to these photons as coming from "Fe IX, FE X
and FE XIV, because that is the same terminology that Lockheed and NASA use. I didn't talk about specific ionization states since I am aware they handle these states differently. I simply stuck to the terminology that is used in typical satellite image convention.
There is no difference in terminology between the circles in this instance. There are however some labels which are not entirely accurate for the sake of synchronizing TRACE and SOHO labels. Read the article in the link you posted to me. I did, it explains it quite well.
On this note, you really should proof read the material on and directly linked to from your own pages. It does nothing for your credibility to have obvious errors on your home page, especially when you're saying things like "LMSAL: For Goodness Sake, Fix Your Website!" in a large bold font.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Do you understand what sort of temperature/pressure conditions are required to ionize iron to FE IX?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
600,000 Kelvin is typically the temperatures cited for FE IX emissions. (Astronomy conventions).
How do you reconcile this with Solid Iron?
quote:
I don't. I assume these particular photons come from the electrical arcs that are not on the surface itself, but do heat up the solar atmosophere.
Do you realise how wrong this is? There are two likely scenarious for your flawed assumption:
1. If these photons come directly from the electrical arcs, then you would be "seeing" electrical arcs, and not a solid surface.
2. The photons from the arcs are reflected off the surface and back to the satellite. Apart from the fact that we would still see the arcs themselves, much brighter than the reflections, we should also see Iron absorbtion spectra everywhere except where the arcs are.
If there's a third option that actually matches any of the observed phenomena, now would be a great time to describe it.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
There are 1024 x 1024 in the CCD array, so we have an effective pixel size of:
339 400 / 1024
= 360 km
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'm not sure why your numbers came out differently than the 748km (1 arc second) that is typically cited as the maximum resolution for Trace, but I'll grant you it's a very large area either way.
My numbers were not intended to be perfect, I didn't attempt to factor in "exposure" time , pointing stability or CCD geometry so being a factor of 2 out is not entirely surprising. My result was the absolute best you could hope to achieve given the supplied system parameters and a "perfect" CCD. You're missing the point however; how can you claim to see a definite solid surface (even if the image was a conventional photograph, which it isn't) with such poor resolution? Your "solid" surface could have liquid whirlpools the size of the caspian sea, the largest lake on earth, and you would barely be able to resolve them as a single pixel on the image.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I do however think you can see large surface "areas" in these pixels however.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what you or I think is irrelevant, all that can be resolved is determined very specifically by the optical system parameters.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
3. The filters don't allow you to "see" anything else (that is, ions of other materials for example), because they're designed not to! This does not mean that the images show that there is only Iron at the imaging depth, it just means that anything else is filtered out. It does not even mean that Iron is present in any specific oncentration, it simply shows that for a given pixel region (as described above) there is an average of a particular amount of light corresponding to Iron ions coming from this region.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael MozinaI agree with these last two points, but I'm not sure why you feel they are significant per se.
For a start it means that you aren't "seeing" solid iron at all. All you can "see" is the average intensity of iron ions in a particular regions. As these ions are orders of magnitude too hot to be solid, what you are seeing is in no way a solid surface.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
When you look at running difference images, things get even worse with repect to imaging surface features. Namely:
4. Fixed or non-moving areas do not corespond to non moving regions, they correspond to regions of uniform change.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No, that not exactly so.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 08:33:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That is pure BS. First of all, *I'm* the one that's been waiting around for you to get serious about the mass separation issue.
I have been completely serious and honest about the mass separation issue in saying, repeatedly, that I don't understand how it is necessary for your solid-shell model, nor do I see how mass separation would necessarily mean a much-higher density of photospheric plasmas. I've been waiting for you to explain those issues with more than a repetition of what you've said before.quote:
In fact you wanted 5 questions answered before you'd deal with it and I gave you 30 pages worth of questions and answers.
No, the five questions I was going to ask were to be based upon your explanation of "the mass flows within whatever shell thickness you'd like to stipulate, using data that we can all verify ourselves and agree upon," but since you've refused to answer questions about how the flow of current would change the acoustic properties of a conductor, we never got off the ground with that. You can try to revise history all you like, but it'll hardly work when those older threads still exist to be examined.quote:
Secondly, there's nothing new here under the sun. Birkeland defined Birkeland currents before both of us were born. There is no "new physics" involved, simply electromagnetic acceleration that is dependent on the percentage of metals involved.
This is more evidence of your scientific ineptitude, since when I point out that there is no science going on today which relates a simple acceleration to our ability to measure mass, you consistently mistake that for some sort of discussion about Birkeland currents. I don't care about the mechanism which causes the acceleration, Michael, I'm waiting for you to show that any acceleration causes a deviation in mass measurements. Einstein showed that a relative velocity will cause our mass measurements to be off, and by how much, but you specifically disclaimed that you were talking about a relativistic effect, so your claim that an acceleration can cause our measurements of mass to differ from a rest value aside from relativity is a wholly new physics.
Frankly, I'm very interested to see it, though I predict that (A) you'll never get around to posting it, and (B) like your ball-on-a-string analogy in the first thread, it will be predicated upon the mistake that mass and force (weight) are equivalent.
But, until you do post it, and we can all agree upon the magnitude of the effects it would have upon our measurements of the Sun's mass, then ranting against our "heliocentric" views is nothing more than you faulting us for not knowing the secret physics which you refuse to tell us. Are we supposed to be able to read your mind, Michael? |
- 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 - 02/13/2006 : 09:22:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
On this note, you really should proof read the material on and directly linked to from your own pages. It does nothing for your credibility to have obvious errors on your home page, especially when you're saying things like "LMSAL: For Goodness Sake, Fix Your Website!" in a large bold font.
I think you need to be specific about the paragraph (or page or whatever) on my website that you feel I've misrepresented this issue. I've specifically stuck to the terminology LM and NASA use, and I've avoided mentioning how many ions are removed. Really John, I think you either misread something I said, or I did make an error somewhere. If you point out the place on the website where I misrepresented this, I'll be happy to fix it.
quote:
Do you realise how wrong this is?
Actually, I realize how "right" it is. :)
quote:
There are two likely scenarious for your flawed assumption:
1. If these photons come directly from the electrical arcs, then you would be "seeing" electrical arcs, and not a solid surface.
Well, I do see electrical arcs and the light from them does reflect off the surface. That is what makes running difference images possible.
quote:
2. The photons from the arcs are reflected off the surface and back to the satellite. Apart from the fact that we would still see the arcs themselves, much brighter than the reflections, we should also see Iron absorbtion spectra everywhere except where the arcs are.
We do see the arcs themselves:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/trace10.jpg
In fact in every TRACE or SOHO or Yohkoh image, we always see lots of these arcs. It's the arcs the emit most of the light in all these images.
quote:
If there's a third option that actually matches any of the observed phenomena, now would be a great time to describe it.
The observed phenomenon are quite consistent with the notion that the arcs release the light we see in these images.
quote:
My result was the absolute best you could hope to achieve given the supplied system parameters and a "perfect" CCD. You're missing the point however; how can you claim to see a definite solid surface (even if the image was a conventional photograph, which it isn't) with such poor resolution? Your "solid" surface could have liquid whirlpools the size of the caspian sea, the largest lake on earth, and you would barely be able to resolve them as a single pixel on the image.
I didn't miss the point, in fact I pointed out that these are indeed very large areas (more large than your calculations). If they were "whirlpools" we would still see them move, just like we see the photosphere change. The angular shapes we see are damning to such a premise in the first place. We certainly see all sorts of movement in the photosphere that is consistent with plasma movement. The pixel resolution isn't a problem as it relates to the photosphere and the movement of the structures on the photosphere. These structures come and go every 8 minutes or so.
quote:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what you or I think is irrelevant, all that can be resolved is determined very specifically by the optical system parameters.
I fail to see how. You'll need to be specific about why the structures on the RD images do not move in relationship to one another even over several hours, whereas the photosphere creates and destroys it's "structures" every 8 minutes.
quote:
For a start it means that you aren't "seeing" solid iron at all.
I realize that. In fact I've been clear that iron only makes up a majority of the surface, but that there are other materials present, including all the stuff we see in the SERTS data.
quote:
All you can "see" is the average intensity of iron ions in a particular regions. As these ions are orders of magnitude too hot to be solid, what you are seeing is in no way a solid surface.
The arcs themselves are "hot" as you suggest, so hot they emit light just like any arc welder. That light is emitted on many wavelengths. In fact most of the wavelengths that Yohkoh is sensitive to all show this light concentrated in the arc. Yohkoh and Trace even show how these satellites are sensitive to light in different regions of the atmosophere:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg
This composite images between Yohkoh(yellow) and Trace(blue) shows how that Trace satellite is able to image the arc further down in the atmosphere, whereas Yohkoh realy only sees the arc once it penetrates the photosphere. All the light in these higher energy frequencies comes from the arcs.
quote:
You can scale the results any way you want, but that's how it works. Read the material on the SOHO and TRACE sites, and do a little background reading. The concepts are quite straightforward.
I've read the material and I agree that the concepts are straight forward. In fact anyone can create RD images using Photoshop and I have done so. Interpreting what these images mean however is a horse of a different color. There is no "uniform change" in the raw images. In fact in the RD image, the lighting changes rather dramatically as the light in the arcs moves around during the timeframe in question. That fact the arcs move around in this timeline precludes you from suggesting there is "uniform change". That is simply not the case.
quote:
There are no lighting condtions.
Sure there are. The arcs are the light source and they move and cast shadows on surface features. You can even see shadows along the left side of most of these structures as that is the side that faces away from the cosmic wind.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/13/2006 09:40:21 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 09:30:44 [Permalink]
|
| I've got some work to complete today John, but I will reply to your other post after work today. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
