|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 02/14/2006 : 12:21:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
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.
Grrr. Twice I've responded to your post only to have something weird happen at the end that erased my response. I'm really busy today so I'll break this down a bit into manageable chunks so I don't lose my response again.
All I am trying to point out here is that there is a distinction between the mass fractionization evidence and composition issue. The evidence of mass separation is not related to the assumption that meteorites are the primary ingredient of stars.
quote:
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.
You are essentially "begging the question" and "assuming" that larger bodies *do* hang onto hydrogen more efficiently and effectively than moons or planets. There is evidentary support to conclude that all solar bodies begin as solid bodies, much like our moon. Whether or not hydrogen makes up most of any body in the solar system remains to be seen.
quote:
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.
Again however you are "assuming" that hydrogen "sticks" to anything. The small bit of hydrogen in Earth's atmosphere is hydrogen that is bonded with a heavier element. You can't begin with the premise that because hydrogen is abundant in our universe it automaticaly *must* be stuck to some body(ies) in the solar system. There isn't a one to one correlation here between the abundance of hydrogen in the universe and the makeup of heavy bodies.
quote:
No it's not. Spectroscopy works whether something is mass separated or not.
Perhaps in very controlled conditions where we know all the variables. In this case however we're talking about looking at something from millions of miles away when we know very little about what's under the photosphere. If we used spectroscopy to study the earth from a distance like this, we would be led to conclude it's mostly Carbon, oxygen, helium and nitrogen. We wouldn't see an adequate representation of what is under the crust. Only the "shiney" things are seen in spectroscopy, and the more they shine from a distance, the greater their assumed "abundance". That doesn't work with spectroscopy of earth from a distance, so what makes you think it works for a sun?
I'll come back to the rest of this a little later. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 12:28:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Michael, in your (scientific?) opinion: How does the 11 year sunspot cycle correlate to Birkeland Currents?
Perhaps they are involved in a round about way. Specifically they could be involved if such currents are responsible for the sun's rotating magnetic field. Ultimately I believe that the 11 year sunspot cycle is related to the inner (core) orientation of the sun's magnetic field. If you think of the core as somewhat like a bar magnet, when the north and south magnetic poles point slightly north and south of the equator, the charge flowing through these fields orientes the crust in opposite directions near the equator. The opposite alignment in the hemispheres supports the flow of electrical fields more readily over the equatorial regions. This creates more electrical activity near the equatorial regions at these times. When the sun's magnetic field is parallel to the sun's spin axis, we enter quiet phases. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/14/2006 13:20:09 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 13:17:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
No it's not. Spectroscopy works whether something is mass separated or not.
Perhaps in very controlled conditions where we know all the variables. In this case however we're talking about looking at something from millions of miles away when we know very little about what's under the photosphere. If we used spectroscopy to study the earth from a distance like this, we would be led to conclude it's mostly Carbon, oxygen, helium and nitrogen. We wouldn't see an adequate representation of what is under the crust. Only the "shiney" things are seen in spectroscopy, and the more they shine from a distance, the greater their assumed "abundance". That doesn't work with spectroscopy of earth from a distance, so what makes you think it works for a sun?
I'll come back to the rest of this a little later.
My knowledge of spectoscopy may be a little fuzzy, but if I remember correctly, distance has nothing to do with the equasion. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 13:35:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Michael, in your (scientific?) opinion: How does the 11 year sunspot cycle correlate to Birkeland Currents?
Perhaps they are involved in a round about way. Specifically they could be involved if such currents are responsible for the sun's rotating magnetic field. Ultimately I believe that the 11 year sunspot cycle is related to the inner (core) orientation of the sun's magnetic field. If you think of the core as somewhat like a bar magnet, when the north and south magnetic poles point slightly north and south of the equator, the charge flowing through these fields orientes the crust in opposite directions near the equator. The opposite alignment in the hemispheres supports the flow of electrical fields more readily over the equatorial regions. This creates more electrical activity near the equatorial regions at these times. When the sun's magnetic field is parallel to the sun's spin axis, we enter quiet phases.
Slick way to avoid my question.
What is the source of the magnetic field emenating from the Sun's core?
If the Sun's magnetic field deviates from it's spin axle, won't the Birkeland currents do so also? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 14:44:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The small bit of hydrogen in Earth's atmosphere is hydrogen that is bonded with a heavier element.
Patently false. Most of the tiny bit of hydrogen in Earth's atmosphere is H2, and the remainder is atomic hydrogen. There's quite a bit more tied up in water vapor, but H2O presents a different spectroscopic signature than either molecular or atomic hydrogen.quote:
Perhaps in very controlled conditions where we know all the variables. In this case however we're talking about looking at something from millions of miles away when we know very little about what's under the photosphere.
Would you agree that by using spectroscopy, we can learn the relative abundances of atoms within just the photosphere?quote:
If we used spectroscopy to study the earth from a distance like this, we would be led to conclude it's mostly Carbon, oxygen, helium and nitrogen.
False. In decreasing order of abundance, the four most-common gasses in Earth's atmosphere are nitrogen, oxygen, argon and carbon dioxide. Helium is less than a third as common as neon.quote:
Only the "shiney" things are seen in spectroscopy, and the more they shine from a distance, the greater their assumed "abundance".
False, since much of spectroscopy is in the measurement of absorbtion lines, just like SOHO's MDI works with, which are the result of atoms aborbing light, not emitting it. Sunlight reflected off Earth's surface would, indeed, possess aborbtion lines which offer clues about the composition of the surface itself, not just the atmosphere.quote:
That doesn't work with spectroscopy of earth from a distance, so what makes you think it works for a sun?
Few people assume that it does, which is why solar scientists still don't know how much helium is in the Sun. What they do, instead, is use photospheric abundances as a close approximation to the unknown interior, and see how close the model comes to other measurements (very close). |
- 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 - 02/14/2006 : 15:12:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Patently false. Most of the tiny bit of hydrogen in Earth's atmosphere is H2, and the remainder is atomic hydrogen. There's quite a bit more tied up in water vapor, but H2O presents a different spectroscopic signature than either molecular or atomic hydrogen.
All I was pointing out Dave is that most of the hydrogen on earth is molecularly bonded to a heavier element. By "atmosphere" in this case I meant everything from the crust up, and most of the hydrogen on earth is found in the ocean, bonded to oxygen molecules.
quote:
Would you agree that by using spectroscopy, we can learn the relative abundances of atoms within just the photosphere?
No, we see only what's in the upper atmosphere, and most of the hydrogen and helium signature come form the chromosophere and corona IMO, not the photosphere. We only see what shines, we don't know where it comes from "exactly", or in this case we don't know that the helium and hydrogen is located in the photosophere or above the photosphere. I believe the majority of these elements are above the photosophere and quite a bit hotter than the photosphere.
quote:
False. In decreasing order of abundance, the four most-common gasses in Earth's atmosphere are nitrogen, oxygen, argon and carbon dioxide. Helium is less than a third as common as neon.
You seemed to have missed my point entirely. All we see in relative abundance are the things in the atmosphere. If we tried to used spectroscopic measurements of earth from a distance, we would think it was composed of mostly the things we see in the atmosphere, and we would not know the abundance of elements that are located under the crust.
quote:
False, since much of spectroscopy is in the measurement of absorbtion lines, just like SOHO's MDI works with, which are the result of atoms aborbing light, not emitting it. Sunlight reflected off Earth's surface would, indeed, possess aborbtion lines which offer clues about the composition of the surface itself, not just the atmosphere.
All these emission and absortion lines tell us is what elements are present in the upper atmosphere. None of that tells us anything about what is underneath the photosphere.
quote:
Few people assume that it does, which is why solar scientists still don't know how much helium is in the Sun. What they do, instead, is use photospheric abundances as a close approximation to the unknown interior, and see how close the model comes to other measurements (very close).
But the problem here is still not addressed. You can't use spectroscopy from a distance to determine what the earth is actually made of, or it's relative abundance of elements (in total). It won't work to show the relative abundances of element because of the crust and the fact that nothing is going to shine from under the crust. If you can't determine the makeup of a planet using this technology, then it's quite a leap of faith to believe you can tell anything about the relative abundances of elements in a sun. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/14/2006 15:24:57 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 15:21:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Michael, in your (scientific?) opinion: How does the 11 year sunspot cycle correlate to Birkeland Currents?
Perhaps they are involved in a round about way. Specifically they could be involved if such currents are responsible for the sun's rotating magnetic field. Ultimately I believe that the 11 year sunspot cycle is related to the inner (core) orientation of the sun's magnetic field. If you think of the core as somewhat like a bar magnet, when the north and south magnetic poles point slightly north and south of the equator, the charge flowing through these fields orientes the crust in opposite directions near the equator. The opposite alignment in the hemispheres supports the flow of electrical fields more readily over the equatorial regions. This creates more electrical activity near the equatorial regions at these times. When the sun's magnetic field is parallel to the sun's spin axis, we enter quiet phases.
Slick way to avoid my question.
What do you mean "avoid your question"? I went out of my way to answer your question as thuroughly as possible.
quote:
What is the source of the magnetic field emenating from the Sun's core?
According to Dr. Manuel, the magnetic field is generated by the sun's nuetron core. It could also be caused by large quantities of metals in the presense of cosmic scale Birkeland currents.
quote:
If the Sun's magnetic field deviates from it's spin axle, won't the Birkeland currents do so also?
Possibly, in fact probably. It is also quite possible that there could be more than "one" current to consider in the first place. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 15:23:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
My knowledge of spectoscopy may be a little fuzzy, but if I remember correctly, distance has nothing to do with the equasion.
The distance in this case doesn't affect the results. It is mass separation that affects the results, and the fact we don't have any sort of "controlled" conditions that we can determine before hand. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 17:23:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
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".
Thanks, I appreciate that. It's always encouraging to hear that someone finds your input at least a little useful. Now, back to the recursive denials.  |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 17:39:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
His conclusions are not verified in satellite images.
Yes, they most certainly are confirmed by satellite observations. In fact I observed in satellite images that the sun's plasmas were mass separated (I had no idea about isotopes), and that the sun had a mostly iron and metal crust. I determined all this via satellite images alone. *Then* Dr. Manuel called me and I became acquainted with his work.
When we seriously get into the chromosphere/penumbra/umbra delineations, I'll show you very direct observational evidence of mass separation.
quote:
I'll have more to say about your interpretation of the images themselves later, however, there is no way that monochromatic two dimensional images can confirm that the partial mass fractionation observed in the material of meteorites is a result of the processes posited by Manuel. It's a non sequitur.
When you say "no way", I get the distinct impression you've made up your mind before hand. How can you know this without listening to my arguements first?
quote:
Mass fractionation is nothing special at any rate, it is simply separation by mass. You discuss it as some sort of holy grail but mass fractionation is purely a state of affairs brought about by some other process.
Actually it is a "special" form of "mass separation", a form of mass separation that involves even the isotopes of various elements.
quote:
It is primarily observed as the result of a gravitational and/or centrifugal forces.
The fact that mass separation occurs in gravitational wells, should be our first clue that there is a problem with a non mass separated model. When we talking about electrical currents *and* gravitational forces *then* it's quite likely we're going to see mass separation in plasmas since we see that behavior in those conditions here on earth.
quote:
You have previously mentioned mass fractionisation caused by currents of some sort, but I have seen no theory describing how this would work, or evidence that it actually occurs.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/S/UNREG/UNX0er8twGk3P038h0tYdA/abstract/0032-1028/20/11/007
You can google "mass separation plasma electricity" and find all sorts of references.
quote:
You still haven't addressed the difference between "Mass fractionization" and "mass separation" which some of us have purportedly confused.
By this I meant that I was able to determine that the sun was "mass separated" by the element based only on the visual evidence. Mass fractionization is a "special" form of mass separation that invloves istopes of elements. In other words, while I could tell the layers were separated visually, I could not hazzard a guess as to whether the actual plasma layers were further mass separated by the isotope. In a way, "mass fractionization" is a special, more "detailed" way of seeing this "mass separation".
quote:
I believe that last sentence of yours a case of either mis-direction or wishful thinking. I think it's quite obvious what Panov's note "suggests". It may be true that the theory would be a "radical departure from contemporary", but this is entirely secondary to the admission of the fact that a better theory is required in the first place! (Namely, one which can actually explain more than one subset of observations of more than our own star)
I'm not really sure why you reacted to this, or why you think I should react negatively to that comment. I agree with that comment actually. We do need a more generalized "Birkeland" model that can explain solar formation in light of these kinds of new findings:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/xmm_magnetic_starbirth.html
Gravity alone doesn't explain what we see in solar formation processess. Birkeland currents are the key to unlocking these mysteries IMO. That however will require quite a "radical" departure from present thinking and would favor metal spheres over hydrogen balls.
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?
My "guess" at this point is that he's pretty much in my camp as it relates to it being solid, but he specifically asked to use to the term "rigid" to leave open all options. I think that's a good idea as well. If you'd like to email him specifically about this issue, I'm sure he'd take the time to respond to you. That is really the fairest way I can characterize his opinion on this matter.
quote:
I was talking about your model, as represented by the solid shell concept. When did I mention Birkland's model?
Well, in reality, Birkeland experimented with "my model" (iron sphere with gas around it) about 100 years ago. It seems silly for me to try to take credit for something that a world renowned astrophysicist already experimented with 100 years ago in his lab. If you really *wish* me to take credit for it, fine, but this is ultimately a Birkeland model, right down to the cosmic scale Birkeland currents. You might think of it as "my model" (and I did too originally), but when I studied history a bit, I discovered I was quite late to the party.
quote:
The only "evidence" of mass separation is the partial mass separation as observed in meteorite samples. You are assuming that this will hold true for the sun. It is an assumption, not evidence. Do you have any evidence which doesn't rely on this assumption which indicates that the sun is entriely mass separated, right down to the isotope?
Yes. There was also evidence of this same process is the lunar soil samples that Dr. Manuel originally looked at.
quote:
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/14/2006 17:45:17 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 17:45:28 [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.
Could you please:
1. Change "acceptance of" into "mathematical inclusion of", and provide these equations?
2. Show how accelleration is affected by relative iron content.
3. Point us to the mathematical model demonstrating the relationship of density and accelleration.
4. Point us to any other work which has made explicit use of this "absolute density" concept?
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 18:27:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No, we see only what's in the upper atmosphere, and most of the hydrogen and helium signature come form the chromosophere and corona IMO, not the photosphere. We only see what shines, we don't know where it comes from "exactly", or in this case we don't know that the helium and hydrogen is located in the photosophere or above the photosphere. I believe the majority of these elements are above the photosophere and quite a bit hotter than the photosphere.
Well, thanks for that admission. Since Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis depends on having numbers for the photosphere and then correcting them, your admission that spectroscopy of the photosphere is not correct means that Dr. Manuel's entire analysis is based upon questionable data:When element abundances in the photosphere were corrected for this fractionation, the most abundant elements in the interior of the Sun were found to be Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg and Ca [78].
- "Isotopes Tell Sun's Origin and Operation," Manuel, Kamat and Mozina, emphasis mine. Furthermore, you previously suggested that what doesn't work for the Earth shouldn't be expected to work for the Sun. Since (for example) the ratio of light carbon isotopes to heavy carbon isotopes in the Earth's atmosphere was measurably changed due to above-ground nuclear explosions in the 1940s and 1950s, without significantly changing the total carbon content of the Earth, Dr. Manuel's analysis simply wouldn't be valid for the Earth at all. So, since it isn't valid for Earth, what makes you think it's valid for the Sun? |
- 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 - 02/14/2006 : 18:33:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Actually, if satellite images were *all* I had, it would still be enough...
Are you ever going to provide evidence that the "blue" in that one image comes from below the photosphere, while the yellow comes from above it, or any of those other claims you made without providing evidence? |
- 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 - 02/14/2006 : 18:40:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
(You have shown no evidence of this.)^6
Yes Dave, I did show evidence of these statements. I handed you visual evidence to support these statements fact.
quote:
Michael: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:
I never made any such claim. Your claim that the plasmas in your model are transparent to 171A light remains unsupported by evidence.
Yes, actually you did make this claim when you told me earlier that the RD layer was sitting in the lower corona. What evidence do you have that the solar moss layer has anything to do with the lower corona?
quote:
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?
I guess I just don't understand what more you want here. It is the flow of electrical current that provides these high temperatures, and it is the flow of electricity provides the magnetic fields to accelerate these particles.
quote:
The fact that the hottest temperatures in the corona are associated with coronal loops does nothing to support your solid-surface conjecture.
Perhaps not, but then it would demonstrate that Lockheed Martin and the folks at the Bautforum haven't a clue what they are talking about:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=33124
quote:
I predict that by the time you're ready, you will have forgotten the actual issue.[quote]
Like you'd let me get away with that. :)
[quote]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.
Yes, I have shown you evidence. I've shown you evidence from heliosiesmology that demonstrates where plasma turns at right angles and where the speeds of sounds change rather dramatically. I've shown you a satellite image the overlays what Trace can see under the photosphere vs. what Yohkhoh observes in the corona. I've shown you running difference images of fixed structures that don't move even over the span of many hours. I've shown you evidence of mass separation from the field of nuclear chemistry. I've shown you plenty of supporting evidence of these claims, including that composite image that shows a clear delineated level where Yohkoh picks up the arcs, far from their footprints on the surface below the photophere. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 19:05:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Yes Dave, I did show evidence of these statements. I handed you visual evidence to support these statements fact.
Where is the visual evidence that soft X-rays are absorbed by the photosphere? In that same picture? How nicely circular. "We don't see soft X-rays in this photo from below the photosphere because the photosphere is opaque to them. How do we know the photosphere is opaque to soft X-rays? Because they don't appear in this photo below the photosphere."
No, Michael, you need to provide hard evidence that the photosphere is opaque to soft X-rays and transparent to extreme UV light, independent of that image.quote:
quote:
Michael: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.
Yes, actually you did make this claim when you told me earlier that the RD layer was sitting in the lower corona. What evidence do you have that the solar moss layer has anything to do with the lower corona?
I know of no "solar moss layer." Once again, Google shows that it is a term you and only you are using. If you can somehow relate the "solar moss layer" to some term of standard solar science, perhaps I can answer your question accurately.
But, perhaps to answer it inaccurately, since the 171A light requires megaKelvin temperatures, and the only places we know of within the Sun with such temperatures are the corona and deep inside the Sun, and we can't visualize that deep in the Sun in either your model or the standard model, the only choice left is for temperatures of that extreme to be in the corona. If you could provide evidence of million-Kelvin temperatures at your allegedly solid surface, maybe you'd be on to something.quote:
quote:
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?
I guess I just don't understand what more you want here. It is the flow of electrical current that provides these high temperatures, and it is the flow of electricity provides the magnetic fields to accelerate these particles.
I want you to show me that a spark and its own self-generated magnetic field is capable of accelerating electrons to the energies described in the UofM paper. I know, of course, that we can build electron accelerators which match and even exceed those energies, but none of them use an electric arc and its own magnetic field as the mechanism of acceleration.quote:
quote:
The fact that the hottest temperatures in the corona are associated with coronal loops does nothing to support your solid-surface conjecture.
Perhaps not, but then it would demonstrate that Lockheed Martin and the folks at the Bautforum haven't a clue what they are talking about:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=33124
No, Michael, it is still you who are confused about blackbody radiation and how it does not apply to the tremendously ionized iron visible in the 171A images. Highly ionized iron doesn't emit a spectrum anything like what a black body would, so the assumption that it would act like a black body is simply false.quote:
Yes, I have shown you evidence. I've shown you evidence from heliosiesmology that demonstrates where plasma turns at right angles and where the speeds of sounds change rather dramatically.
All such evidence is invalid due to you calling the basic methods of helioseismology biased assumptions.quote:
I've shown you a satellite image the overlays what Trace can see under the photosphere vs. what Yohkhoh observes in the corona.
You have yet to demonstrate that TRACE can see under the photosphere.quote:
I've shown you running difference images of fixed structures that don't move even over the span of many hours.
Three hours, you said, but since coronal loops can last for days, I am unimpressed. And you also said that you would generate for me a movie of the coronal loops moving around at the same location over those same three hours, but when I asked again, you pointed me to the same old RD movie.quote:
I've shown you evidence of mass separation from the field of nuclear chemistry.
Evidence which you've said is invalid because it relies upon elemental abudance in the photosphere.quote:
I've shown you plenty of supporting evidence of these claims, including that composite image that shows a clear delineated level where Yohkoh picks up the arcs, far from their footprints on the surface below the photophere.
Again, that assumes that the surface is below the photosphere, but you haven't provided any evidence of that. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
