|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
 Posted - 03/04/2006 : 01:51:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Michael, the above sentence, in the context of what I wrote, says that you don't think the law of gravity or the laws of conservation of mass and energy are based upon direct observation.
Of course Dave, but these laws and observations only apply *if* the sun is actually a hydrogen blob as you believe. What is not known however is whether the sun actually *is* a hydrogen blob or a predominantly iron, Birkeland sphere, sitting in the middle of Birkeland currents. If the latter is true (as observations now support), then trying to use these laws and observations to compute the size of a hydrogen blob of the past may simply be a futile mathematical excersize.
Are you trying to say that F=Gm1m2/r2 has different values for G depending on whether the sun is a hydrogen blob or an iron sphere?
quote:
If the latter is true (as observations now support)
Emphasis mine.
Michael, you're obviously not living in the same universe as the rest of us. In our universe "observations" still does not support your model. Your interpretation of the observations supports your model, and your argumentation is circular in that respect. However, your interpretation in very much in dispute, we do not recognize them as valid because you have not given evidence that conclusively shows that your interpretation is correct.
How many times do we (I mean they, because I've grown tired of the senseless arguments that lead nowhere) have to make this dance? |
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. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 15:10:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You really don't have a clue as to how badly you interpreted my last posts or solar science in general, do you?
It's entirely possible I misinterpreted the point of you last few post. It was a hectic week afterall.
You seem to be overlooking the key point I've been trying to make however. Math and phyics when "properly applied" can do wonders. I've seen us put people on the moon. That was part of what inspired me toward science in the first place.
When however these same wonderful concepts are applied wrecklessly or inappropriately, they don't necessarily yield accurate results. The case in point that I made earlier, was that these same mathematical calculations based on gravity, etc, failed to give us an accurate picture of the temperature or pressure of the outer atmosphere of Jupiter. There is more to dealing with "reality" than simplistic mathematical representations. Before we start basing our whole notion of solar theory on some simplified math formulas, we need to see *exactly* what we are trying to apply these things to, and how they might be affected or calculated differently in other models.
The math related to density of a Birkeland model with metal spheres has yet to be "worked out", or if it has been worked out, I *personally* remain ignorant to it at the moment. I'll concede that point for the time being.
You can't however ignore the fact that these "calculations" you talk about don't always work out as expected. Sometimes the model is changed based on the difference between calculation and direct observation. That has occured many times in the past, and it will likely occur many times in the future, particularly as we go from a "gravity centric" concept of astronomy toward a more modern plasma cosmology model that includes Birkeland currents and electric universe awareness.
quote:
It's just amazing that you got to the place you did, above, from the place I started. Amazing!
So enlighten me on how you can be sure these calculations are properly applied if you can't tell me what the penumbra part of photosphere is made of, or what differentiates it from the umbra or the chromosphere?
quote:
What I meant apparently doesn't matter, since you're more comfortable with strawmen of what I mean. Feel free to invent even more strawmen about these two sentences.
So even when I climb down off my high and mighty ego and concede your point, I'm still not "worthy" of an explanation? :)
quote:
There you go again. Criticism of your model only needs to demonstrate that your model has massive flaws in it.
There's a serious problem with that logic. Creationists are the first to hurl "accusations" against the validity of isotope analysis. Rarely however do we hear one actually bring any credible isotope analysis of their own to the debate to make their point. They typically do the same thing with evidence of evolution. They point to the gaps in the macroevolutary evidence and suggest that this casts doubt on the whole process. I'm afraid I need more than a some percieved "flaws" to convince me here.
If you have evidence that there is a "better" explanation, you need to start by explaining some of the details of these images in some other way.
quote:
I don't actually expect you to believe there's a better model out there, since you're convinced already that in time, your model will be the model. It wouldn't even matter if you understood how scientific criticism works (you don't), since you're obviously immune to it.
That is simply not true Dave. I started debating these ideas in cyberspace back in June, half expecting to get blown out of the water by someone who understood something about these images that I didn't understand. Mind you, I had already talked to "experts" at Nasa and Lockheed, but really, I didn't know how things might go once I started debating these things with "experts" from all over planet earth. I'm not immune to scientific criticism. What I am immune to are simplistic handwaves.
I've noticed a pattern over the last nine months. A funny thing always happens when we start dissussing the actual images. Suddenly, according to my opponents, the details of the image are not important (to them). The nuances of the image aren't relevant or addressed. What happens instead is a lot of personal attack about how I don't understand what I'm looking at, with an utter failure on their part to explain the details of the image. That is really how things have gone for the last nine months as it relates to these key solar images.
Mind you, by the time I setup my website, I had not even yet run across this Lockheed Martin image, or if I had, I'd never noticed it's signifance before. When I found it again from my Birkeland model perspective, I was thrilled. I couldn't believe there was such a thing already sitting out there in cyberspace, right from the source. I had always assumed I would have to create them myself, and I realized that once done, I would still be scrutinized by others as to their authenticity. This way, no one could doubt of deny their authenticity. Like I said, I was thrilled, so thrilled I rearranged my website and put it as the first image on the website.
In nine months, not one expert I've run into in cyberspace has been able to explain it's details and nuances, even though I was able to do so 6 months ago with a Birkeland model.
I'm willing to listen to alternatives, but alternatives that are attentative to detail have been few and far between.
quote:
No, we have discussed those "direct observations" quite a bit already.
Not *nearly* enough in my opinion. These are million dollar images. They warrant a serious discussion IMO.
quote:
The images are, indeed, a direct observation, but your interpretation of them is not.
Then demonstrate that by explaining the image in a "better" way, and be attentative to detail as I have been. I'll believe you at that point, or believe you might be right at least. Unless however you can do that, I can't simply ignore the fact that I can explain this image with a Birkeland model, and I've yet to hear any expert explain the details of this image even after more than 6 months of debate on several different forums.
quote:
You |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 15:53:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The case in point that I made earlier, was that these same mathematical calculations based on gravity, etc, failed to give us an accurate picture of the temperature or pressure of the outer atmosphere of Jupiter.
How many times does it need to be pointed out that Jupiter's characteristics do not come from a solar model? The two are not the same.quote:
...and how they might be affected or calculated differently in other models.
And we've asked you, over and over and over again, to please show us how the physics would be affected or calculated differently in your model, and you've begged off every time, saying that you're not ready to do such calculations yet.quote:
You can't however ignore the fact that these "calculations" you talk about don't always work out as expected. Sometimes the model is changed based on the difference between calculation and direct observation. That has occured many times in the past, and it will likely occur many times in the future...
And at no time in the last 100 years or so has the prior model simply been tossed out when it is making decent predictions, as the solar model does. The models have always been modified to match reality. Once again, see Newton and Einstein for an example.quote:
So enlighten me on how you can be sure these calculations are properly applied if you can't tell me what the penumbra part of photosphere is made of, or what differentiates it from the umbra or the chromosphere?
For the umpteenth time, Michael, I don't have any idea what you mean by "the penumbra part of the photosphere," since solar scientists consider the penumbra to be a localized part of a sunspot, and not a "layer" as you seem to think it is. In your mind, how deep is the "penumbra" and where does it start (compared to 1.0 R)? Same for the umbra, it's not a layer, either. The only person who's put forth the term "umbra layer" is you, Michael. Just you.quote:
So even when I climb down off my high and mighty ego and concede your point, I'm still not "worthy" of an explanation? :)
No, because you can't stop building strawmen from what I've said.quote:
There's a serious problem with that logic. Creationists are the first to hurl "accusations" against the validity of isotope analysis. Rarely however do we hear one actually bring any credible isotope analysis of their own to the debate to make their point. They typically do the same thing with evidence of evolution. They point to the gaps in the macroevolutary evidence and suggest that this casts doubt on the whole process. I'm afraid I need more than a some percieved "flaws" to convince me here.
Unfortunately, the difference between what the creationists do and what we've been doing here is that the creationists cannot demonstrate that the flaws they point out are actual flaws. Biologists (and geologists and astronomers) can easily demonstrate why the "perceived" flaws aren't flaws at all. In these threads, however, you've simply blown off perfectly valid criticisms because a "better model" wasn't substituted. But like my analogy, it's a ridiculous standard to set:
MM: The square root of 6,893 is 2.
Us: But the square of 2 is only 4.
MM: Well, since you didn't specify a "better" answer, I'll keep using 2.
The same thing in real life:
MM: The structure in the "gold" video is easily explained by a Birkeland model.
Us: You clearly don't understand difference images, and here's why (long explanation)...
MM: Well, since you didn't offer a "better" explanation of the video, I'll continue to assume I'm right.quote:
If you have evidence that there is a "better" explanation, you need to start by explaining some of the details of these images in some other way.
No, all I need to do is demonstrate fatal flaws in your logic to show that there is, indeed, a better explanation than yours, even if I don't know what that explanation is.quote:
What happens instead is a lot of personal attack about how I don't understand what I'm looking at...
If dozens of people have told you that you don't understand what you're looking at, isn't that a big clue that you really don't understand what you're looking at?quote:
Not *nearly* enough in my opinion. These are million dollar images. They warrant a serious discussion IMO.
They are being discussed seriously by serious scientists who have published the results of their discussions in appropriate scientific journals for other scientists to comment on. Feel free to join in those discussions.quote:
quote:
The images are, indeed, a direct observation, but your interpretation of them is not.
Then demonstrate that by explaining the image in a "better" way...
You won't believe that your interpretation of an image isn't itself a direct observation until someone offers a "better" explanation? How unbelievably arrogant of you.quote:
...I can't simply ignore the fact that I can explain this image with a Birkeland model...
And I'm sure I could "explain" it with a cotton-candy-and-solid-gold model, if I put my mind to it, but that doesn't make such an explanation correct. Ever hear of Phlogiston? |
- 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
9696 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2006 : 15:52:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The case in point that I made earlier, was that these same mathematical calculations based on gravity, etc, failed to give us an accurate picture of the temperature or pressure of the outer atmosphere of Jupiter.
How many times does it need to be pointed out that Jupiter's characteristics do not come from a solar model? The two are not the same.
Not only that but Mozina misrepresented the content of the link he posted.
Yes, there were deviations in measurement from what was expected during a transitional stage in the descent (but far from as radical differences as Mozina would like us to believe), but the readings returned to what was expected as the craft descended deeper.
And it did not meet an untimely end embedded in a solid iron-rich crust slightly under the photosphere of Jupiter. (sorry, I just couldn't help myself. Feel free to disregard this straw-man)
|
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. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2006 : 16:45:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050105-1348.jpg
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050105-1524.jpg
Here is visual proof that the "structure" seen in the RD images is not limited *only* to RD images. Even a really good solar flare can release plenty of energy to "light up" the surface structures that are visible in the RD images as well.
[...]
If you click on Daily Images, it will take you to the archives at Lasco and you can look up the dates in question by date. These images come from the raw (non colorized) files (marked DIT) images.
That is not correct. In an exchange of correspondence with Dr. Therese Kucera, NASA's deputy project scientist for the STEREO and SOHO spacecraft, I asked if she could clarify the type of processing applied to the "dit" videos found in the archive directory from the Daily MPEGS link. One of my specific questions was, "[W]hat particular type of processing is done to create the ones with the "dit" (rather than "eit") in the file names?"
She replied, "Those are 'running difference' images. We subtract from each image the image that precedes it. This highlights changes that are not as obvious in the original images. The images that directory images labeled 'd2' and 'd3' (rather than 'c2' and 'c3') are also running differences." (Emphasis mine.)
To help explain the videos, Dr. Kucera also referred me to this page, showing a CME which occurred on April 7, 1997, and processed into exactly the same type of running difference graphs used to make the videos in the Daily MPEGS archive. And a description of what we see in the images...
Coronal activity moves from left to right with the Sun's rotation, so brighter areas of activity in each raw image are generally to the right of their previous locations, leaving dimmer areas to the left. Since the running difference output shows changes between one image and the next, the CME appears highlighted in the direction of movement, to the right, and appears darker from where the activity has moved, the left. The result often looks like it has hills and valleys, but this is just an optical illusion resulting from the processing.
This agrees with LMSAL's caption on the "Lockheed Gold" running difference video found on this page, "... where the image turns bright, the solar corona has become brighter after 16UT, and where it turns black it has dimmed." In other words, the video simply indicates changes between sequential raw images like this, this, and this. The ejections and flares in these successive images, and the several more used to make the running difference video, have shifted a few pixels to the right of each previous image. The output simply emphasizes, or highlights the changes, areas getting brighter mostly to the right of where they appeared before, leaving darkening areas behind them to the left.
This makes it easy to understand why there are no apparent "features" on days when there is minimal CME activity. (The vast majority of videos in the Daily MPEGS archive are rather bland and show very little surface activity at all.) This also makes it clear, and this is an extremely critical point, why nearly every "feature" seen in every single running difference image seems to be highlighted on the right and shaded on the left, no matter where it is on the Sun. Lacking a detailed, scientific, quantitative explanation for a heretofore unknown cause of such an extremely incredible lighting phenomenon, it's reasonable to conclude that any three dimensional looking "features" seen in running difference images are, exactly as LMSAL, NASA, and many others have explained, just optical illusions resulting from the processing.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 12:17:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Are you trying to say that F=Gm1m2/r2 has different values for G depending on whether the sun is a hydrogen blob or an iron sphere?
No, of course not. What I'm saying is that like the air bubble inside the water shell analogy, the presense of Birkeland current in our universe may produce some very strange effects as it relates to solar formation.
quote:
Michael, you're obviously not living in the same universe as the rest of us. In our universe "observations" still does not support your model. Your interpretation of the observations supports your model, and your argumentation is circular in that respect.
Well, if you disagree with my interpretation, then where is your interpretation of these images? We're all living in the same universe Dr. Mabuse. The only issue is what we observe, and how we explain that observation.
quote:
However, your interpretation in very much in dispute, we do not recognize them as valid because you have not given evidence that conclusively shows that your interpretation is correct.
When someone talks about evidence not being "conclusive", I start to get suspiscious, especially without an alternative "interpretation" to choose from that is even remotely attentive to detail for any of these solar image, including the RD images the doppler images and the Trace/Yohkoh image, the Rhessi images, etc. It's easy to dismiss stuff. It's quite another thing to attempt to explain all these images cohesively using a specific solar model.
quote:
How many times do we (I mean they, because I've grown tired of the senseless arguments that lead nowhere) have to make this dance?
Well, the way I see it Dr Mabuse, without a viable explanation to choose from, I can't simply ignore what I see in these images. If and when I actually hear a "better" scientific explanation for these images, one that is even moderately attentive to detail, I'll be happy to consider it. Until that happens however, I will continue to put faith in Birkeland's solar model since that solar model can easily explain these images, right down to the minute details of each image. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/06/2006 13:30:12 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 13:00:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
How many times does it need to be pointed out that Jupiter's characteristics do not come from a solar model? The two are not the same.
They may not be exactly the same, but according to contemporary thinking they are supposedly much closer in composition to one another than either is to earth. If Jupiter is mostly made of the same basic materials as the sun, and we can't accurately predict the atmosphere of Jupiter using these math formulas, how exactly do you verify they work at all?
quote:
And we've asked you, over and over and over again, to please show us how the physics would be affected or calculated differently in your model, and you've begged off every time, saying that you're not ready to do such calculations yet.
I'm not "begging off", I'm simply noting the limits of my abilities Dave. I don't know enough about all the movements of our solar system to adequately address this question. I'm not even sure what is under the crust at this point. Its simply premature to make such predictions IMO, but I do hear you, and I do believe it's a valid question. I personally believe that Birkeland currents play a role, but how exactly they affect our observations remains unclear, even to me.
quote:
And at no time in the last 100 years or so has the prior model simply been tossed out when it is making decent predictions, as the solar model does. The models have always been modified to match reality. Once again, see Newton and Einstein for an example.
Then the current solar model is going to need to be modified to include a crust. :)
quote:
For the umpteenth time, Michael, I don't have any idea what you mean by "the penumbra part of the photosphere," since solar scientists consider the penumbra to be a localized part of a sunspot, and not a "layer" as you seem to think it is.
They consider it to be the lit part of the photosphere, as opposed the the dark region (umbra).
quote:
In your mind, how deep is the "penumbra" and where does it start (compared to 1.0 R)?
It begins at 1.0R and extends about 500 to 700 km beneath the surface IMO.
quote:
Same for the umbra, it's not a layer, either.
Why then isn't the sunspot lit underneath where the umbra begins? In other words, why aren't the sides lit up, and why isn't the area undereath the penumbra lit up in images of a sunspot?
quote:
The only person who's put forth the term "umbra layer" is you, Michael. Just you.
No, Birkeland's original model had a layer of gas on top of the metal sphere. He even speculated about *other* elements that may also be involved and covering the surface of the sphere. The concept of layers is not unique to me, in fact Dr. Manuel was talking about this layout almost 30 years ago.
quote:
No, because you can't stop building strawmen from what I've said.
I'm not trying to do that Dave. You may feel that way at times, but I assure you that feeling works both ways.
quote:
Unfortunately, the difference between what the creationists do and what we've been doing here is that the creationists cannot demonstrate that the flaws they point out are actual flaws.
No one here has demonstrated that Dr. Manuel's (and others) isotope analysis has any serious flaws.
quote:
Biologists (and geologists and astronomers) can easily demonstrate why the "perceived" flaws aren't flaws at all. In these threads, however, you've simply blown off perfectly valid criticisms because a "better model" wasn't substituted.
As it relates to Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis, I simply haven't heard a ligitimate or valid criticism to begin with. As it relates to solar images, I've yet to hear a comprehensive explanation for these images using any theory *other than* a Birkeland solar model. I've not heard a legitimate "criticism" on this front either. Anyone can "aledge" anything. Exactly what "valid criticism" do you feel I've "blow off" exactly?
quote:
But like my analogy, it's a ridiculous standard to set:
MM: The square root of 6,893 is 2.
Us: But the square of 2 is only 4.
MM: Well, since you didn't specify a "better" answer, I'll keep using 2.
And to think you complain about *my* use of strawmen! :)
The real analogy would be:
MM: The square root of 4 is 2.
You: No it's not, you're an "ad homeninem de'jour' and you don't know what you're talking about.
MM: Well, unless you can give me a scientific reason to support your assertion, I'm afraid that arguement won't convince me that I'm wrong.
quote:
The same thing in real life:
MM: The structure in the "gold" video is easily explained by a Birkeland model.
Us: You clearly don't understand difference images, and here's why (long explanation)...
MM: Well, since you didn't offer a "better" explanation of the video, I'll continue to assume I'm right.
A "long winded" answer that isn't even the least bit attentative to detail, based on special pleading, and ignores every detail of the image in question is not a scientifically valid answer Dave.
quote:
No, all I need to do is demonstrate fatal flaws in your logic to show that there is, indeed, a better explanation than yours, even if I don't know what that explanation is.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/06/2006 14:01:32 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 14:55:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
1. The source of the photons. (a plasma "surface")
The surface could certainly be a plasma, but then you need to explain the rigid-like nature of this plasma. In other words, the structures in this "surface" remain relatively fixed in relationship to the structures at the surface of the photosphere. Why?
You seem to ignore me every single time when I say that in my explanation there are no structures. There is no "rigidity", just a similar relatively constant shift in emissivity in some regions of the image. Please do not reply saying "but you haven't explained the structures" when I have repeatedly explained that the 2 dimensional features (pixels) you are interpreting as structures are not so. This is not a hand wave, it is a part of the explaination I am giving you for why the images look like they do.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
That there are no "structures" as I understand the term. Different regions of the plasma have different temperatures, pressures and even constituents, all of which will result in different levels of photon emission intensity, and thus corresponding features in the RD image.
The problem with that description is that while the lighting from these structures changes dramatically throughout the movie, (which could indicate a temperature change), the actual structures on the surface remain "rigid" in relationship to one another. In other words the mountain range looking object in the middle of the image has all the same ridges in every image, regardless of lighting conditions.
Once again, I'm positing that there are no structures. What you are interpreting as shadows I believe are just dark pixels. That they happen to often be to the left of lighter pixels does not prove that there is any 3D mountain like structure. There are plenty of good reasons, described by others here as well as myself, as to why this is the case. The fact that some of your "mountain ridges" remain relatively "fixed" does not excuse those that do not. Remember, in my explanation there is no moving light source, the plasma itself is the source.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
What is stationary is the emission difference between the photon source in some areas of consecutive images. Mind you, the whole image is far from completely stationary.
It's not just "some areas" where we see "structure" in the image, and the structures remain rigid even while the lighting goes up and down on that surface. If that is a plasma surface, it's 3D, and it holds it's shape, even if it does not hold the same temperature.
Again, I don't see any structures because this is a running difference image which I believe shows something different to what you believe it does. I don't need any dynamic invisible light source for my explanation. The plasma surface is the source. I'm sure the plasma surface has some 3D structure. This imagery however is taken from a position almost perpendicular to the surface, and the effects of any 3D structure are unlikely to be significant relative to the actual emission changes of the surface itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Michael, you have to accept that not everyone (as far as I'm aware, no one but you) sees your "structures" (unless it's a definition problem as mentioned previously).
Well, by "structure", I'm talking about all those consistent ribbed structures. If that was simply a "flat" surface that changed intensity, I'd be inclined to buy your explanation, but that isn't what we see. We see a very consistent set of structure in that image.
What "we" see is just an interpretation. Without the correct context, observations alone are worthless. I can honestly look at those images, knowing what I know about how they were created, and not see any mountain structures. I, and others have posted lots of other examples of images which show things other than what would seem to be the case intuitively.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'm actually quite satisified with you suggesting this is a "surface". I agree it's a "surface" that reflects/emits light. The real problem I have with your explanation is that it really does not account for the actual structures we see in the image. In other words, the light intensity on these ridges goes up and down at various times in the image, but the ridges themselves remain "fixed" and in the same relationships to one another, from one frame to another. If there were just light and dark areas on a "flat" or a "changing" surface, I'd be more inclined to believe this was a plasma based surface. Since the structures remain rigid however, that seems highly unlikely. That is particularly true when the actual flare occurs. If this were a light plasma "surface", why aren't it's surface structures disturbed by the blowout? We certainly see plasma that gets blow up and to the left, but the structures on the surface show no sign of any equal but opposite reactions to the flare.
If you assume that light pixels next to dark pixels are proof of "tall" areas casting shadows, then you will continue to have a "real problem" with any alternative explaination. A plasma is a fluid, large perturbations in one area don't have to have far-reaching effects due to the "blow out".
Have you observed a submarine performing an emergency surfacing operation? The local effects can be quite spectacular, but the effect on the surrounding water can be completely unnoticeable on the ocean surface, especially when viewed from directly overhead.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
What part however am I wrong about,
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 15:38:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
That is not correct.
Well, when someone is right, they are right, and in this case you are certainly right GeeMack. More importantantly you managed to make your point without a single ad hominem or personal insult. Congrats.
quote:
Coronal activity moves from left to right with the Sun's rotation,
Well, technically coronal activity, like photospheric activity "generally" moves from left to right. The plasma of the corona also experiences differential rotation patterns seen in light plasma, just like the photosphere. I will however grant you that these particula images (wherever they are located) all move left to right, and to the degree that bright areas will leave darker areas in their wake, I'll even grant you that in many cases a bright area will "typically" have a shadow the left.
We are still however right back to the same issue of how all this "structure" (whatever you attribute it to) is consistent from one frame to the next, and does not show the same signs of movement as the structures of the photosphere that come and go every 8 minutes or so. You must still account for the lack of movement from one frame to the next. If this is light and dark plasma in the chromosophere, why isn't it moving around like the structures of the photosphere?
quote:
Lacking a detailed, scientific, quantitative explanation for a heretofore unknown cause of such an extremely incredible lighting phenomenon, it's reasonable to conclude that any three dimensional looking "features" seen in running difference images are, exactly as LMSAL, NASA, and many others have explained, just optical illusions resulting from the processing.
No, it is not. First of all, no one at Lockheed Martin or NASA has made such a claim publically to my knowledge, and the "shadow" aspect only begs the question of what keeps these lit areas in exactly the same relationships to one another. It is not reasonable for you to leave the rigid nature of these "structures" unaccounted for and simply *assume* these are all optical illusions of any kind. There is a logical reason why these structures remain rigid in relationship to one another, and there a logical reason why the lighting changes on the central structures, even while the structures remain in fixed relationships to one another. This issue remains unexplained, and you have not accounted for their rigid behavior in any way. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/06/2006 15:39:50 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 15:49:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
As it relates to Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis, I simply haven't heard a legitimate or valid criticism to begin with.
As I mentioned before, anything that doesn't agree with you is labelled as illegitimate or invalid. I've looked quite closely at Manuel's work. I simply fail to see how the isotope analysis supports your model in any way. Sometimes you say the entire sun is mass separated, "down to the isotope", yet at other times you talk about compound rather than elemental surfaces, and state that "I'm not even sure what is under the crust at this point".
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
As it relates to solar images, I've yet to hear a comprehensive explanation for these images using any theory *other than* a Birkeland solar model. I've not heard a legitimate "criticism" on this front either.
I've yet to see a comprehensive explanation for these images using a Birkeland model, or even a description of exactly what a Birkeland solar model is. Unless of course "see, it looks solid" counts for a comprehensive explanation.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Anyone can "aledge" anything.
Precisely. That's all you've done. Your support for your claim is no more comprehensive than many of those presented in these forums.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
MM: The structure in the "gold" video is easily explained by a Birkeland model.
Us: You clearly don't understand difference images, and here's why (long explanation)...
MM: Well, since you didn't offer a "better" explanation of the video, I'll continue to assume I'm right.
A "long winded" answer that isn't even the least bit attentative to detail, based on special pleading, and ignores every detail of the image in question is not a scientifically valid answer Dave.
The explanation hasn't ignored the detail you keep referring to, it explains it as something other than what you think it is. Therefore, you dismiss it and continue with your assumptions.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If I'm wrong about the isotope analysis, where is the isotope analysis that proves it?
Explain how you are "right" about the isotope analysis. It doesn't support your model in any constructive way, and would seem to be little more than a distraction at this point.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If I'm wrong about the interpretation of these images, where is the explanation that is attentive to detail that demonstrates this?
There have been numerous explanations of this Michael. However, any explanation that doesn't recognise solid mountain-like structures is dismissed by you, no matter how attentive to detail it is.
You claim that Birkeland's work/model supports yours, but then you say things like: "I personally believe that Birkeland currents play a role, but how exactly they affect our observations remains unclear, even to me." Is that what you mean by "attentive to detail" ?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
To this point in time, after nearly 9 months of debate, I've never heard anyone explains these images in detail using gas model theory. Until I do, I will not believe that gas model theory is a viable alternative to Birkeland's solar model. It's really that simple from my perpective.
I believe the honest translation of this is "Until someone agrees with me about the solid structures I see, I will deny that anyone has explained anything satisfactorily".
Understand Michael, that someone who puts forward an explanation of these images which does not include solid, mountainous structures, is not going to explain the solid mountainous structures you think you see as solid structures. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 03/06/2006 15:52:14 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 16:35:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well, the way I see it Dr Mabuse, without a viable explanation to choose from, I can't simply ignore what I see in these images.
An optical illusion is what you see. It's a viable explanation. An illusion that you seem unable to see through. As long as you choose to not acknowledge this option, we won't get anywhere. |
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. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 17:09:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
As I mentioned before, anything that doesn't agree with you is labelled as illegitimate or invalid. I've looked quite closely at Manuel's work. I simply fail to see how the isotope analysis supports your model in any way.
He pegged the mass separation in the solar atmosphere to a tee John. He did so without the aid of satellites as well. That aspect of his findings *directly* supports my model. How can you ignore that?
quote:
Sometimes you say the entire sun is mass separated, "down to the isotope",
The solar atmosophere is mass separated right down to the isotope. It's a volatile environment mind you, but all plasmas mass tend to separate by the isotope in the presence of large gravitational and electrical fields. That is well documented here on earth by the way. It's actually you that are suggesting that in the presence of electricity and gravitational fields the plasmas *will not* separate, even though we have plenty of evidence that plasma does mass separate in these conditions.
quote:
yet at other times you talk about compound rather than elemental surfaces,
The crust of the sun is much like the crust of the earth. It's molecularly bound into various compounds. It is not homogeneous. It's simply a compound surface, just like any surface on any planet.
quote:
and state that "I'm not even sure what is under the crust at this point".
I'm being honest John. I can only see to the surface in satellite iamges. Occasionally I can see magma from under the surface (seahorse flare), but really what is under the crust remains as much a mystery to me as to anyone. That's simply an honest statement on my part. I could "theorize" many scenarios. If I were to theorize, I would theorize a fission based plasma core that is pressurized and relatively light compared to the crust itself, much like the air bubble/water shell analogy. The reality however is that I really don't know what's under the crust other than Nickel and Sulfer and the things I see increase in SERTS data during "active phases".
quote:
I've yet to see a comprehensive explanation for these images using a Birkeland model, or even a description of exactly what a Birkeland solar model is. Unless of course "see, it looks solid" counts for a comprehensive explanation.
I suggest you study Birkeland's work from Birkeland. You would only resent my presentation, and he'll do a better job explaining his model to you himself. Here's a quick overviews of some of his experiments with a terella:
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/birkeland-electric-solar-system.pdf
quote:
Precisely. That's all you've done. Your support for your claim is no more comprehensive than many of those presented in these forums.
That is simply not so. I've been attentive to many of the details of this image that no one here has addressed. For instance, we see what looks to be "dust" that is "blowing in the wind" that drifts from right to left. How did you or anyone address this? The pealing? The rigid relationships of "items" in the image? We haven't even gotten past one image an I've been more attentative to detail. I however can tie each and every single one of these images together cohesively into a Birkeland solar model. I've not even hear the "dust in the wind" explained by gas model proponents.
quote:
The explanation hasn't ignored the detail you keep referring to, it explains it as something other than what you think it is. Therefore, you dismiss it and continue with your assumptions.
That isn't so. I'll be a *lot* more receptive once you addressed the fixed relationships in this "constant shift in emissivity" you talk about. The photosphere emits light too, but it's "structure" is created and destroyed every 8 minutes. What kind of special pleading are we doing to exempt this region from the same issues that relate to the photosphere's emissions?
quote:
Explain how you are "right" about the isotope analysis.
I agree with Dr. Manuel that the sun is mass separated. I can see that separation in satellite images.
quote:
It doesn't support your model in any constructive way, and would seem to be little more than a distraction at this point.
That is simply not the case John. His evidence of mass separation fully supports that satellite images that also show that the sun is mass separated. These entirely different kinds of technologies both led to a scenario that suggested mass separation.
quote:
There have been numerous explanations of this Michael. However, any explanation that doesn't recognise solid mountain-like structures is dismissed by you, no matter how attentive to detail it is.
I'm willing to "hear" anyone, and you are welcome to explain these images any way you wish. If however you expect me to hear such explanations, they also have to be attentive to detail, from the shading (somewhat addressed) to rigidity (not addressed) to the "dust-like particles" to the pealing we see along the right side. When that kind of attentiveness to detail has been presented, we'll all know it. That hasn't happened. The most that has been "addressed" so far is the shadows that are "typical" along the left side, but only because I happen to agree that this whole surface is rotating uniformly, unlike the structures of the photosophere.
quote:
You claim that Birkeland's work/model supports yours, but then you say things like: "I personally believe that Birkeland currents play a role, but how exactly they affect our observations remains unclear, even to me." Is that what you mean by "attentive to detail" ?
Some details I can actuall |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/06/2006 17:48:54 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 17:14:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
An optical illusion is what you see. It's a viable explanation. An illusion that you seem unable to see through. As long as you choose to not acknowledge this option, we won't get anywhere.
If this were all an optical illusion then it would move around accordingly. The emission patterns and structures in the emission patterns would move like the emission patterns of the photosophere, that is to say *a lot*. As long as you choose to not acknowledge that these "could be" solid surface structures, we may not get anywhere. At least I've "given" where I can give. Have you done that much? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 17:27:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
[quote]Originally posted by Michael Mozina
[quote]Originally posted by JohnOAS
You seem to ignore me every single time when I say that in my explanation there are no structures. There is no "rigidity", just a similar relatively constant shift in emissivity in some regions of the image.
Let me visually "show you" why I have a problem with that explanation.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg
We could also say that in the photosphere we see 'no "rigidity", just a similar relatively constant shift in emissivity in some regions of the image'.
Define "some". Define "constant shift" for me. Why are the structures of the photosphere moving rapidly like this and yet the RD image structures do not, particularly if the same principles apply to both regions? If the same principles don't apply, why don't they apply and what exactly does apply that might explain the rigid movement of this layer in comparison to the movement we see in the structures of the photosphere?
The photosphere is made of plasma and it too rotates over time. The light and dark areas and borders between structures changes dramatically in this 1/2 hour long video. Why aren't we seeing that kind of moment in the RD images from this region? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/06/2006 17:31:51 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 06:59:25 [Permalink]
|
Michael, I looked at the link to your Birkeland site - pretty interesting. He did some pretty good work considering it was 100 years ago. Science has come a long way and alot of what he was saying has been shown to be wrong, such as the magnetic field of Saturn must be stronger than the magnetic field of the Sun according to his model.
His work was certainly revolutionary in understanding that aurora's were caused by charged particle emissions from the sun interacting with the earths magnetic field.
However, trying to apply his theories across the board with what we now know about the physics makes about as much sense as assuming a meteorite is representative of the makeup of the matter in the universe.
You really are kind of a nut.
Creationist-
If science disagrees with the bible then science is wrong.
Michael-
If science disagrees with my model then science is wrong.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
