|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 02/13/2006 : 09:37:28 [Permalink]
|
JohnOAS, I (and am sure many others) have found your posts very interesting and enlightening.
I just wanted you to know this because I am sure Michaels reply to your post will be along the lines of: Nuh-Uh.
Edited: Michael posted before I could but, the point is made that his idea of a scientific argument is 2 people saying -
is too
is not
is too
is not
If you bring in data or evidence to the discussion he will ignore it and reply with either "is too" or "is not".
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 02/13/2006 09:50:43 |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 09:59:47 [Permalink]
|
JohnOAS you asked:
quote:
So you have now convinced Manuel of your solid iron / iron compound layer! This is a good development, can you please point me to some joint/other publications explicitly addressing this issue and documenting the evidence for these conclusions?
Here is the paper you were wondering about.
This is the "evidence". Yes you are reading it correctly, the 'scientific evidence' is - gee it looks solid. Astounding isn't it?
quote:
This paper [9] includes a few examples of the rigid, iron-rich structures that Mozina [16] noticed below the Sun's fluid photosphere in images from the SOHO and TRACE satellites. These satellite images of the Sun provide visual scientific evidence that falsifies the popular belief that the interior of the Sun consists mostly of H and He, like the solar atmosphere [17, 18]. Recent helioseismology data have now confirmed stratification at a relatively shallow depth beneath the visible photosphere, at about 0.5% solar radii (about 0.005 Ro)
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 10:41:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
But you are assuming that the photosphere is transparent to 171A light (you must be assuming that, since you certainly haven't demonstrated it to be true, no more than you've demonstrated that your alleged surface is reflective to 171A light, neither of which you can do anyway, since you claim ignorance of the composition of the shell and the density of the atmosphere).quote:
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.
14 days later, the other side would be facing "away from the cosmic wind." From what direction does the "cosmic wind" come at the Sun, anyway?quote:
The Yohkoh images were the ones I cut my teeth on, and even with the Yohkoh program, it was clear that the light was always concentrated in and around the "coronal loops" or arcs.
Why wouldn't the light be "concentrated" there? That's where the hottest temperatures are in the corona, after all, and Yohkoh is an X-ray telescope, requiring more energy to image anything than TRACE's extreme-UV passbands (for example).quote:
All the high energy emission from the sun are concentrated in and around these electrical arcs.
I don't see anyone disagreeing with that. The question is, Michael, can you demonstrate the "arcs" to be actual electrical "sparks," or are they nothing more than loops of plasma confined by extremely high magnetic fields? How can a simple electric arc accelerate electrons to the energies reported by the University of Maryland, anyway? |
- 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 : 11:20:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
But you are assuming that the photosphere is transparent to 171A light (you must be assuming that, since you certainly haven't demonstrated it to be true,
No, Dave, I didn't "assume" anything at all. That image demonstrates that the 171A light is visible "below" the photosphere, since the arcs on the right clearly originate much lower in the atmosphere than Yohkoh is able to observe. Yohkoh only sees the light from these arcs *after* the arc comes up through the photosphere. On the right side of these arcs however, we can see that the 171A photons originate much 'deeper' in the solar atmosphere than the light that Yohkoh observes. This image *is* the evidence seek that you if only you choose to look at it.
quote:
How can a simple electric arc accelerate electrons to the energies reported by the University of Maryland, anyway?
The arcs have a lot of "current" running through them. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/13/2006 11:34:56 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 11:28:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why wouldn't the light be "concentrated" there? That's where the hottest temperatures are in the corona, after all, and Yohkoh is an X-ray telescope, requiring more energy to image anything than TRACE's extreme-UV passbands (for example).
The arcs are the source of heat for the corona in the first place. The arcs produce the light and the heat. The Yohkoh system absolutely shows that the high energy emissions are concentrated not in the 'corona' in a general sense (as in all over the corona), but rather the energy, light and heat is concentrated in the coronal loops that pass into the corona. It is the loops/arcs that emit the light and the heat that Yohkoh and Rhessi detect at the higher energy wavelengths, and it's the arcs that the iron ion filters on TRACE and SOHO image as well.
This paper even shows that the "high" temperatures that Trace can see that relate to Fe XX are also the same things seen in Rhessi images as well. There is a direct correlation between these electrical arcs and the light seen in high energy filters of *ALL* the major satellite systems.
http://trace.lmsal.com/Science/ScientificResults/Publications/phillips_tr_resp_apj.pdf |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/13/2006 11:36:01 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 11:50:22 [Permalink]
|
So, no progress on your work describing an acceleration's effects upon our ability to measure mass, Michael?quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No, Dave, I didn't "assume" anything at all. That image demonstrates that the 171A light is visible "below" the photosphere, since the arcs on the right clearly originate much lower in the atmosphere than Yohkoh is able to observe. Yohkoh only sees the light from these arcs *after* the arc comes up through the photosphere. On the right side of these arcs however, we can see that the 171A photons originate much 'deeper' in the solar atmosphere than the light that Yohkoh observes. This image *is* the evidence seek that you if only you choose to look at it.
I looked at the image, and I don't see the photosphere in it at all, so I can only conclude that your knowledge of what is "above" and "below" the photosphere comes from some other source, or is assumed. Plus, your claim that 171A light can penetrate the photosphere is unproven.
Hell, your claim that the photosphere is a neon plasma is unproven, especially since neon doesn't radiate nearly as much yellow light as the Sun does.quote:
quote:
How can a simple electric arc accelerate electrons to the energies reported by the University of Maryland, anyway?
The arcs have a lot of "current" running through them.
An inch-thick iron cable can have more current moving through it than a millimeter-thick copper wire, but the current will be moving slightly slower due to iron's higher electrical resistance. The idea that a large current necessarily means a fast-moving current is unsupported.quote:
There is a direct correlation between these electrical arcs and the light seen in high energy filters of *ALL* the major satellite systems.
Yes, Michael, which is why nobody is disputing that issue, as I said in my last post. Why are you wasting time talking about things on which nobody disagrees, instead of focusing your energies on developing your model for how accelerations affect our measurements of mass? |
- 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 : 12:54:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I looked at the image, and I don't see the photosphere in it at all, so I can only conclude that your knowledge of what is "above" and "below" the photosphere comes from some other source, or is assumed.
No, my knowledge is "observed" from the satellite images themselves including this one. The chromosphere and/or photosophere is the area underneath the yellow part of the arcs that Yohkoh observes. Yohkoh only sees the arcs when they come "outside" of the photosphere. All the x-rays are absorbed by the photosphere. The blue region that is underneath the yellow part of the arcs is in fact the photosphere. It is thicker and cooler than the chromosophere and corona. The reason that Yohkoh doesn't see this part of the arc is because the x-rays are absorbed by the photosphere, whereas once the arc reaches the chromosphere and corona, Yohkoh is able to observe the x-rays from the arc.
quote:
Plus, your claim that 171A light can penetrate the photosphere is unproven.
Plus your claim that this the blue area in this image has anthing at all to do with an area above the photosphere remains unproven.
quote:
Hell, your claim that the photosphere is a neon plasma is unproven, especially since neon doesn't radiate nearly as much yellow light as the Sun does.
Toss in some hydrogen gas, and you'll get a more "yellow" light, plus this is but one layer that radiates in the visible spectrum. The "hue" we see is a combo deal to begin with.
quote:
An inch-thick iron cable can have more current moving through it than a millimeter-thick copper wire, but the current will be moving slightly slower due to iron's higher electrical resistance. The idea that a large current necessarily means a fast-moving current is unsupported.
You have current running not just through the iron, but also through the plasma itself. Electricitity will always follow the path of least resistance, and sometimes that path involves plasma in the atmosphere as well as the rising column of iron/surface elements rising off the surface.
quote:
Yes, Michael, which is why nobody is disputing that issue, as I said in my last post. Why are you wasting time talking about things on which nobody disagrees, instead of focusing your energies on developing your model for how accelerations affect our measurements of mass?
These 'coronal loops' are not recognized as arcs from a solid surface which is why I'm showing you real life observations that relate to the topic in question instead of pulling numbers out of thin air at the moment. I'll return to the density issue when I'm ready, but these images are real life observations, not "guesses" that no one can actually validate with direct observations. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/13/2006 13:05:51 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 13:13:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
[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.
Every TRACE image I've ever posted to these threads has a resolution of half an arcsecond, so John's math is mostly right.
The part of his data I disagree with is that TRACE is in a polar, sun-synchronous orbit around the Earth (orbiting Earth's CoG in - more or less - a plane perpendicular to the Earth-to-Sun direction), so it cannot be 6,000 km closer to the Sun than the Earth, ever.
But, all this talk of resolution prompted me to recheck STEREO's EUV capabilities, and much to my surprise I find a resolution of only 1.6 arcseconds (a little more than three times fuzzier than TRACE), so each of STEREO's solar images will have pixels well over 1,000 km "wide." Given the typical methods of triangulation, "depth" measurements are probably going to have a resolution of no less than 1,500 km or so, meaning the difference between your allegedly-solid shell, Michael, and the top of the photosphere will be on the order of two or three pixels, depending on your mood at the time (since you've variously claimed 0.995R or 4,800 km).
Of course, since solar scientists think ("dogmatically?") that the "footprints" of coronal loops appear some 20,000 km above the photosphere, STEREO will still be able to easily resolve the issue of whether or not your alleged surface is below the photosphere or not. |
- 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 : 13:29:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Every TRACE image I've ever posted to these threads has a resolution of half an arcsecond, so John's math is mostly right.
http://sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov/smex/trace/
I agree actually, John was right the first time. I think I just had the 1 arc second number stuck in my head when I responded.
quote:
Of course, since solar scientists think ("dogmatically?") that the "footprints" of coronal loops appear some 20,000 km above the photosphere, STEREO will still be able to easily resolve the issue of whether or not your alleged surface is below the photosphere or not.
Yes indeed, which is why I'm so looking forward to STEREOS images. A 25,000 Km difference should be pretty easy to spot. :) |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/13/2006 13:32:37 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 13:30:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No, my knowledge is "observed" from the satellite images themselves including this one. The chromosphere and/or photosophere is the area underneath the yellow part of the arcs that Yohkoh observes.
You have shown no evidence of this.quote:
Yohkoh only sees the arcs when they come "outside" of the photosphere.
You have shown no evidence of this.quote:
All the x-rays are absorbed by the photosphere.
You have shown no evidence of this.quote:
The blue region that is underneath the yellow part of the arcs is in fact the photosphere.
You have shown no evidence of this.quote:
It is thicker and cooler than the chromosophere and corona.
Both the SSM and I agree with that.quote:
The reason that Yohkoh doesn't see this part of the arc is because the x-rays are absorbed by the photosphere, whereas once the arc reaches the chromosphere and corona, Yohkoh is able to observe the x-rays from the arc.
You have shown no evidence of this.quote:
quote:
Plus, your claim that 171A light can penetrate the photosphere is unproven.
Plus your claim that this the blue area in this image has anthing at all to do with an area above the photosphere remains unproven.
I never made any such claim. Your claim that the plasmas in your model are transparent to 171A light remains unsupported by evidence.quote:
quote:
Hell, your claim that the photosphere is a neon plasma is unproven, especially since neon doesn't radiate nearly as much yellow light as the Sun does.
Toss in some hydrogen gas, and you'll get a more "yellow" light, plus this is but one layer that radiates in the visible spectrum. The "hue" we see is a combo deal to begin with.
You have shown no evidence of this.quote:
quote:
An inch-thick iron cable can have more current moving through it than a millimeter-thick copper wire, but the current will be moving slightly slower due to iron's higher electrical resistance. The idea that a large current necessarily means a fast-moving current is unsupported.
You have current running not just through the iron, but also through the plasma itself. Electricitity will always follow the path of least resistance, and sometimes that path involves plasma in the atmosphere as well as the rising column of iron/surface elements rising off the surface.
Your assertion was that electrical arcs by themselves are capable of imparting extremely high energies to electrons. You "supported" this claim with the obviously false implication that high currents mean fast currents. My refutation of that idea had nothing to do with your allegedly solid surface or the plasmas in your model. So I ask again: through what mechanism do the electrical arcs in your model accelerate electrons to the extremely high energies reported in the UofM article?quote:
These 'coronal loops' are not recognized as arcs from a solid surface which is why I'm showing you real life observations that relate to the topic in question instead of pulling numbers out of thin air at the moment.
The fact that the hottest temperatures in the corona are associated with coronal loops does nothing to support your solid-surface conjecture.quote:
I'll return to the density issue when I'm ready...
I predict that by the time you're ready, you will have forgotten the actual issue.quote:
...but these images are real life observations, not "guesses" that no one can actually validate with direct observations.
Except that the interpretation of those "real life observations" depends upon the assumption that the images come from a certain depth underneath the photosphere, but you have shown no evidence that they do. |
- 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 - 02/13/2006 : 13:37:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Yes indeed, which is why I'm so looking forward to STEREOS images. A 25,000 Km difference should be pretty easy to spot. :)
NASA says the launch will be no earlier than May 26th. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 14:10:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Every TRACE image I've ever posted to these threads has a resolution of half an arcsecond, so John's math is mostly right.
The part of his data I disagree with is that TRACE is in a polar, sun-synchronous orbit around the Earth (orbiting Earth's CoG in - more or less - a plane perpendicular to the Earth-to-Sun direction), so it cannot be 6,000 km closer to the Sun than the Earth, ever.
You're absolutely correct on that point Dave, and I happily stand corrected. I was trying to err in favour of maximum resolution, of course 6000 in 150 million doesn't make much difference anyway. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 14:29:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
You're absolutely correct on that point Dave, and I happily stand corrected. I was trying to err in favour of maximum resolution, of course 6000 in 150 million doesn't make much difference anyway.
What's nifty is that TRACE's orbit can actually be seen, as it is in this composite image of Mercury transitting the face of the Sun. The sinuousness of Mercury's path is wholly due to TRACE's polar orbit. |
- 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 - 02/13/2006 : 14:38:10 [Permalink]
|
| And wow! Thanks, John! Talking about TRACE's orbit, I just realized why my measurements of the rotation of the Sun always came out just a little on the slow side compared to what the scientists claim it is. It's because I didn't take into account the Earth's own 0.99°/day motion around the Sun in the same direction as the Sun rotates. So, for the 57 hours of "crater" images I looked at, I needed to add 2.3°. For my measurement of the SOHO whole-Sun RD movie, I needed to add 4.3°. I wish I hadn't missed that. Oh, well, the measurements were pointless in this discussion, anyway. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 19:01:03 [Permalink]
|
| Michael, in your (scientific?) opinion: How does the 11 year sunspot cycle correlate to 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
