|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 03/07/2006 : 10:00:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
They [solar scientists] consider it [the penumbra part of the photosphere] to be the lit part of the photosphere, as opposed the the dark region (umbra).
No they do not. Solar scientists consider the "penumbra", by definition, when referring to a physical characteristic of the Sun, as the darker region surrounding the umbra of a sunspot. That's all it is. Period. The lit part of the photosphere is, well, the photosphere. And the "umbra" is, by definition, when used by solar scientists to describe a characteristic of the Sun, exclusively the darker central region within a sunspot. Nothing else. Nobody but you, Michael, considers the penumbra to be the lit part of the photosphere. Nobody but you considers the umbra to be a layer of any sort.quote:
It [the penumbra] begins at 1.0R and extends about 500 to 700 km beneath the surface IMO.
The photosphere, as commonly defined by astrophysicists, is the layer which begins where the surface ceases to be transparent, generally accepted as 1.0Rsun, and is typically described as being about 400 to 800 kilometers thick. That sounds almost exactly like what you're inappropriately calling the penumbra. It would certainly save everyone some confusion, and save you the trouble of having to explain your own made up definitions, if you'd simply stick with the commonly used terminology.quote:
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?
A sunspot is lit up within the umbra, just not as brightly lit as the penumbra, the region immediately surrounding the umbra, and significantly less brightly lit than the photosphere. Underneath the umbra, at the depth where it becomes opaque, it will not be lit, by definition, because opaqueness indicates no emission of photons.quote:
Originally posted by Dave W....
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.
Read again. Dave W.'s comment was in regards to your use of a particular term. You are the only person who uses the term "umbra layer". Within the field of astrophysics there is no such thing as an "umbra layer".
Perhaps one of the big problems you're having, perhaps one of the reasons you haven't been able to convince another living soul that the Sun has a solid surface, anyone who has a modicum of scientific understanding anyway, is that you seem quite unwilling to use the currently accepted terminology the same way everyone else in the world of astrophysics does.
|
 |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 12:56:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
They [solar scientists] consider it [the penumbra part of the photosphere] to be the lit part of the photosphere, as opposed the the dark region (umbra).
No they do not. Solar scientists consider the "penumbra", by definition, when referring to a physical characteristic of the Sun, as the darker region surrounding the umbra of a sunspot. That's all it is. Period.
quote:
1: literally, "dim light"; the outer filamentary region of a sunspot.
2. (ii) The lighter area surrounding a sunspot.
I just posted the first two. You get the idea.
quote:
The lit part of the photosphere is, well, the photosphere.
The filaments running down the sides of the sunspot are simply the sides of the neon layer of the photosphere. Where the neon part of the photosphere ends, so do the filaments.
quote:
And the "umbra" is, by definition, when used by solar scientists to describe a characteristic of the Sun, exclusively the darker central region within a sunspot. Nothing else.
But it is the presense of silicon plasma in this region that creates the dark umbra in the first place.
quote:
Nobody but you, Michael, considers the penumbra to be the lit part of the photosphere.
No, they talk euphamistically about filaments instead. It's still all part of the same neon layer, it's just that we are looking at it from the side with some amount of silicon plasma in the way.
quote:
Nobody but you considers the umbra to be a layer of any sort.
Well, I still have to pick reference points to explain this model GeeMack. Sooner or later you have to make some concessions as to how you present the model and compare it known "structures" of the sun. It's not always a perfect fit but evidence to support a mass separated plasma model is seen visually in sunspot activity. It's a natural place to start.
quote:
The photosphere, as commonly defined by astrophysicists, is the layer which begins where the surface ceases to be transparent,
Ceases to be transparent to what? Which wavelengths?
quote:
generally accepted as 1.0Rsun, and is typically described as being about 400 to 800 kilometers thick. That sounds almost exactly like what you're inappropriately calling the penumbra. It would certainly save everyone some confusion, and save you the trouble of having to explain your own made up definitions, if you'd simply stick with the commonly used terminology.
And indeed I do stick to standard terminology where possible. You belief however that the "photosphere" ceases to be transparent isn't a concept I share with you, so there will undoubtedly be limits as to how much we can agree upon, even with "agreed upon" terms. When I think photosphere, I'm simply talking about the neon plasma layer of the sun, whereas you are ascribing other properties to that word. There is never going to be a 100% agreement on terms.
quote:
A sunspot is lit up within the umbra, just not as brightly lit as the penumbra, the region immediately surrounding the umbra, and significantly less brightly lit than the photosphere. Underneath the umbra, at the depth where it becomes opaque, it will not be lit, by definition, because opaqueness indicates no emission of photons.
But even in a single rudimentary image of the behavior of this layer, we see evidence that the filaments extend much more deeply in some areas than in others. If opacity was the issue here, we wouldn't see such a clear delineation of emissions at the very end of the filaments. It would be a more gradual change, and there wouldn't be a clear end to the filaments.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg
Here we see stray filaments extending much deeper into the hole than other filaments, but all the filements end where they end, and there is a clear outline of the end of each and every individual filament. Also telling is the way the filaments all end at a very specific set of depths. That is due to the fact that the neon is only so thick. Some of the filaments along the sides get pulled down with the downdrafting silicon plasma and get pulled to deeper depths in those areas.
quote:
The only person who's put forth the term "umbra layer" is you, Michael. Just you.
So what? How would you propose I explain the existence, flow and effects of the silicon plasma in sunspot activity using any standard reference points?
quote:
Perhaps one of the big problems you're having, perhaps one of the reasons you haven't been able to convince another living soul that the Sun has a solid surface,
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I get supportive emails all the time and I've certainly convinced other living souls of the existence of a solar surface. You're posturing and misrepresenting facts.
quote:
anyone who has a modicum of scientific understanding anyway,
Gee, and you almost convinced me you'd turned over a new leaf.
quote:
is that you seem quite unwilling to use the |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/07/2006 12:58:09 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 14:53:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I just posted the first two. You get the idea.
Yes, I get the idea. When you said about what solar scientists mean when they say penumbra, "They consider it to be the lit part of the photosphere, as opposed the the dark region (umbra)," you were wrong.quote:
I'm perfectly willing to use standard terminology where possible (in fact I have), but at times there is simply no way to avoid introducing terms and making connections to these terms to other visual evidence that is typically conceptualized differently. The delineation of 3 different plasma layers is most noticeable in the chromosphere/photosphere/silicon plasma layers that are all represented in sunspot activity. The helium chromosphere is the lighter opaque layer that sits on the photosphere. The neon layer is what you call the photosphere and the silicon layer is the dark part we see under the penumbral filaments, and inside the sunspot itself. Certainly you now understand what I'm talking about, so if there was confusion about these things in the past, that confusion has been addressed. IMO, you're essentially blaming me for the fact that current terminology isn't well suited to explaining a mass separated Birkeland model.
No, I'm blaming you for creating confusion by hijacking terms with existing, perfectly good definitions, and redefining them, and still expecting anyone to have any idea what you're talking about. And as long as you expect everyone else to translate common, well known terminology into new meanings that you've invented, you're going to continue to be misunderstood. When you say "umbra", we aren't going to translate it into Michael-speak. It already has a specific meaning in astrophysics. When you say "photosphere", we're going to take it for its commonly used definition, which is clearly different from yours. When you say "penumbra", we aren't going to toss out what we already know it to mean and substitute your made up meaning. The right thing to do is to make up your own new words, avoiding any existing terminology in order to avoid the inevitable ambiguity, then clearly define your made up words and terms, then post your glossary.
And an appropriate response to my posting, from a position of scientific integrity, would have been to simply thank me for taking the time to point out the legitimate, valid, scientific definitions for those terms which you continue to misuse. Then, to avoid creating more unnecessary confusion, you'd stop misusing those terms. No excuses and no apologetics necessary.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 15:38:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Yes, I get the idea. When you said about what solar scientists mean when they say penumbra, "They consider it to be the lit part of the photosphere, as opposed the the dark region (umbra)," you were wrong.
I was not "wrong". The term penumbral filament is used to denote the entire filament from top to bottom. It denotes the sides of hole, the sides of the penumbral filaments. The penumbral filaments extend from the top of the photosphere to the bottom of the hole. The hole is filled with silicon plasma that typically sits underneath the neon layer but is now heated and is rising up and falling back down along the sides, flaring the neon plasma at the top where it meets up with the helium layer.
quote:
No, I'm blaming you for creating confusion by hijacking terms with existing, perfectly good definitions, and redefining them, and still expecting anyone to have any idea what you're talking about.
I'm simply explaining these things in terms of a Birkeland model GeeMack. IMO a sunspot is the very *best* place to see signs of mass separation of plasmas, because it's represented quite well and quite "visually" in these events. It's not my fault if your personal concepts of sunspot activity are ill prepared to conceptually see this from a Birkeland model perspective.
quote:
And as long as you expect everyone else to translate common, well known terminology into new meanings that you've invented, you're going to continue to be misunderstood.
Well, I'll just have to keep at it till everyone gets it. :)
quote:
When you say "umbra", we aren't going to translate it into Michael-speak.
I expect you convert it to a realization of mass separated layers made of different plasmas arranged by atomic weight.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/NewModel.JPG
quote:
It already has a specific meaning in astrophysics.
I'm not actually using the term any differently than you are. The penumbra is composed of penumbral filaments. You can see the sides of these penumbral filaments in the penumbra as they extend up to the top of the photosphere. You are simply refusing to see the connection between the top of the penumbral filaments and the sides of the penumbral filaments, even though we can see the entire filament from top to bottom during a sunspot. Sorry to disagree with you here GeeMack, but it's not me that is confusing terms. The penumbra is composed of penumbral filaments. I didn't make that up.
quote:
When you say "photosphere", we're going to take it for its commonly used definition, which is clearly different from yours.
Yes, and I can't help that. I must still find a reasonable starting point to begin a dialog, and the penumbral filaments are the logical starting point IMO. I'm simply suggesting these filaments are made of neon. It's an easy enough concept to grasp.
quote:
When you say "penumbra", we aren't going to toss out what we already know it to mean and substitute your made up meaning.
I'm not asking you to do that. I'm simply asking you to recognize that the penumbral filaments are made of neon, and recognize that we can see the sides of these neon filaments in sunspot activity.
quote:
The right thing to do is to make up your own new words, avoiding any existing terminology in order to avoid the inevitable ambiguity, then clearly define your made up words and terms, then post your glossary.
From here on I'll try to talk in terms of plasma layers made of particular materials which are arranged by atomic weight and sit on top of a solid surface. I'll simply note that the penumbral filaments are made of neon and extend from the top of the silicon plasma below to the helium layer above.
quote:
And an appropriate response to my posting, from a position of scientific integrity, would have been to simply thank me for taking the time to point out the legitimate, valid, scientific definitions for those terms which you continue to misuse.
But GeeMack, I don't have any problem with the term "penumbral filament". I simply note that it's a filament that is made of neon. There is nothing wrong with the term penumbral filament. It's simply a matter of how you conceptualize the term, and how you "see" the filament. I'm offering you a legitimate way to explain *why* we see the filament in the first place, what it's made of and why these filaments end at a particular depth.
quote:
Then, to avoid creating more unnecessary confusion, you'd stop misusing those terms. No excuses and no apologetics necessary.
I'm not missuing terms or making excuses or appologies for my use of terms, so I'm glad you don't expect any. :) |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 16:21:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Let me visually "show you" why I have a problem with that explanation.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg
Please Michael, if you're going to throw new pieces of evidence into the ring, please at least provide some context. What am I looking at here? I have no desire to wander aimlessly around your site looking for the relevant link, especially when your descriptions are often less than informative. A reference to the original source would also be useful, as the last image links you posted to me about some direct images providing evidence of solid features turned out to be more running difference images. Viz:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
So you can understand why I'd like a little more than your opinion as to what the images on your web site really are. The fact that you continued to defend/explain these images as raw (not RD images) after my questions is rather telling about your ability to distinguish between features in a "raw" image and an RD image, and even between the types of images themselves.
I'll address more of your points later, including the isotope analysis again and other posts after I've addressed Birkeland link you posted. I will however sort out a couple of the simple things for you now.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Define "some".
More than zero, less than total. "Total", depending on context is either infinity, or 100% as in this instance, when we're talking about a proportion.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Define "constant shift" for me
A change in intensity from one frame to the next which is of sufficient magnitude such that the pixel representing this magnitude change for a particular region remains itself constant.
To illustrate, imagine 3 successive frames A,B and C as the source for a running difference image. For a pixel representing the same million-or-so square km to remain unchanged, all we require is that B - A = C - B. What I'm getting at is that this does not imply at all that A=B=C. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 12:20:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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?
Okay, Michael, how exactly can we verify your model?quote:
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.
Yet you apparently know enough that those undefined "movements" can change our measurements of mass by a large enough factor to make your model feasible. You're a ball of self-contradiction.quote:
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).
Baloney. GeeMack has already tried to correct you on this, to no avail, but answer this question, Michael: what do you call the lit part of the Sun which doesn't have "filaments" visible? Do you call that the "penumbral filament layer" or something else?quote:
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.
That is (more or less) a description of the photosphere.quote:
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?
This has already been explained to you, more than once: the umbra is dark because it puts out less light than the rest of the photosphere. To image things like the penumbral filaments or photospheric granules, a camera needs to be set so that the umbra is massively underexposed (black). If you set the exposure so that you'd see a bright umbra, then the whole image would be washed out by the brighter light outside the umbra.quote:
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.
Quote Birkeland using the term "umbra layer," and I'll agree that you didn't invent it yourself.quote:
The concept of layers is not unique to me...
Nobody said it was, what I said was that you are the only person in the whole world using the term "umbra layer" to describe a part of the Sun (and you still refuse to tell us how deep and thick that "layer" is). People use "umbra" all the time to describe the central (horizontal) part of a sunspot, but you're the only person using "umbra layer" to describe a layer around the entire Sun.quote:
quote:
No, because you can't stop building strawmen from what I've said.
I'm not trying to do that Dave.
I know you're not trying to do it. I happen to think that you're incapable of not doing it.quote:
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.
Only because you (admittedly) missed my earlier description of the serious flaw. Here it is again:
Background - Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis depends on measuring the ratio of heavy isotopes of an element to light isotopes of an element in the solar atmosphere (I know you and he said "photosphere" in one of your joint papers, but you explained that you really meant "everything above the surface," and not really just the photosphere), and "correcting" that ratio through another factor deduced from lunar and meteorite measurements, to generate an absolute abundance for the bulk Sun. This method doesn't rely at all on absolute abundances in the solar atmosphere, just the ratio of abundances.
The Problem - the above method of measuring the bulk content of a solar-system body based upon its atmosphere does not work for the planet Earth. For example, above-ground atomic-bomb blasts in the 1940s and 1950s significantly altered the ratio of carbon isotopes within the Earth's atmosphere, without significantly changing the tot |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 14:39:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Originally posted by me...
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.
I have been exchanging correspondence with Dr. Neal Hurlburt, data scientist for the TRACE mission at the Lockheed-Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory (LMSAL). Among other things, Dr. Hurlburt is responsible for assembling, cataloging, and interpreting the data collected by the TRACE telescope. During our communication I asked him about the "Lockheed Gold" video. And although the construction, purpose, and appearance of running difference images was already quite clear to me, I wanted to avoid any ambiguity, so I asked him directly for clarification.
My specific question to Dr. Hurlburt was, "In this video (T171_000828.avi), and other 'running difference' images and videos, where there seems to be areas of light and shadow and often the appearance of some sort of surface, it is true that this effect is actually an optical illusion resulting from the process of creating a 'running difference' image?"
Dr. Hurlburt replied, "The answer is yes. A dark 'shadow' in the difference movie is a region that became darker while a bright region is one that became brighter. Places where nothing changes are grey." He also indicated that, because of the particular filters used, the TRACE imagery is from the coronal region, a significant distance above the photosphere, and several thousands of kilometers above 0.995Rsun.
The explanation given by LMSAL's Dr. Hurlburt is in complete agreement with that provided by the project scientist for NASA's SOHO program, Dr. Therese Kucera. As mentioned in a previous posting, she pointed out particular examples of running difference images in order to help demonstrate the nature of the illusion involved. So LMSAL and NASA both acknowledge, in no uncertain terms, that what might appear to be "solid surfaces" in running difference images are not surfaces at all, and are in actuality, simple optical illusions.
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 15:16:42 [Permalink]
|
If I may I would like to answer for MM concerning the post by GeeMack shown below.
quote:
My specific question to Dr. Hurlburt was, "In this video (T171_000828.avi), and other 'running difference' images and videos, where there seems to be areas of light and shadow and often the appearance of some sort of surface, it is true that this effect is actually an optical illusion resulting from the process of creating a 'running difference' image?"
Dr. Hurlburt replied, "The answer is yes. A dark 'shadow' in the difference movie is a region that became darker while a bright region is one that became brighter. Places where nothing changes are grey." He also indicated that, because of the particular filters used, the TRACE imagery is from the coronal region, a significant distance above the photosphere, and several thousands of kilometers above 0.995Rsun.
The explanation given by LMSAL's Dr. Hurlburt is in complete agreement with that provided by the project scientist for NASA's SOHO program, Dr. Therese Kucera. As mentioned in a previous posting, she pointed out particular examples of running difference images in order to help demonstrate the nature of the illusion involved. So LMSAL and NASA both acknowledge, in no uncertain terms, that what might appear to be "solid surfaces" in running difference images are not surfaces at all, and are in actuality, simple optical illusions.
Answer 1. Why won't anyone discuss the isotope analysis.
or
Answer 2. How do you explain the structures on the surface of the sun?
Bottom line is MM will NEVER change his mind, he will go to his grave believing that the sun is some big iron sphere, there is nothing that will change his mind.
But... everyone else is learning and growing - so keep on trying.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 11:20:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Please Michael, if you're going to throw new pieces of evidence into the ring, please at least provide some context. What am I looking at here?
You are looking at the photosphere in G-band. The G-band image of the photosphere was made at the Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope (SST) on the island of La Palma, Spain.
http://www.astro.su.se/groups/solar/solar.html
quote:
I have no desire to wander aimlessly around your site looking for the relevant link, especially when your descriptions are often less than informative. A reference to the original source would also be useful, as the last image links you posted to me about some direct images providing evidence of solid features turned out to be more running difference images. Viz:
I will try to provide some context to links I post from here forward.
quote:
More than zero, less than total.
Well, as we see from the structures on the photosphere, the movement is relatively dramatic. Structures in this plasma come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals. Why is it that the structures remains static throughout?
quote:
"Total", depending on context is either infinity, or 100% as in this instance, when we're talking about a proportion.
Compare "total" movement in the RD images to total movement in these photosphere. Why are the RD structures so fixed in relationship to the momevements we see in the photosphere?
quote:
A change in intensity from one frame to the next which is of sufficient magnitude such that the pixel representing this magnitude change for a particular region remains itself constant.
But every single one of these "structures" we see in the RD image moves at *exactly* the same speed evidently. We certainly don't see the chaotic movement in these RD structures that we see in photosphere structures. Everything rotates alright, but the rotation is not uniform in the photosphere. Some plasma moves left, some moves right, some moves up, some moves down. The whole thing changes it's surface structures 8 minute intervals, whereas that kind of movement is not occuring in the structures of the RD images. You have a euphamism going here that suggests constant, non varying movement, is responsible for these consistent structures, but you've not explained how they move so consistently one directly, and exactly the same way and in exactly the same relationships to one another. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/09/2006 11:24:16 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 11:49:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
My specific question to Dr. Hurlburt was, "In this video (T171_000828.avi), and other 'running difference' images and videos, where there seems to be areas of light and shadow and often the appearance of some sort of surface, it is true that this effect is actually an optical illusion resulting from the process of creating a 'running difference' image?"
Dr. Hurlburt replied, "The answer is yes. A dark 'shadow' in the difference movie is a region that became darker while a bright region is one that became brighter. Places where nothing changes are grey."
If you recall GeeMack, I even agreed with you that if we *assume* that the whole surface rotates *uniformly*, the light areas would have darker areas to the left. The basic question of the rigidity of these movements remains unaddressed.
quote:
He also indicated that, because of the particular filters used, the TRACE imagery is from the coronal region, a significant distance above the photosphere, and several thousands of kilometers above 0.995Rsun.
Drum roll please.....
So here's the 64K dollar question for you GeeMack, and please try to get a straight answer: Why does this particular filter *only* show imagery from the coronal region?
quote:
The explanation given by LMSAL's Dr. Hurlburt is in complete agreement with that provided by the project scientist for NASA's SOHO program, Dr. Therese Kucera. As mentioned in a previous posting, she pointed out particular examples of running difference images in order to help demonstrate the nature of the illusion involved. So LMSAL and NASA both acknowledge, in no uncertain terms, that what might appear to be "solid surfaces" in running difference images are not surfaces at all, and are in actuality, simple optical illusions.
The fixed distances between structures in these RD images is more than just an "optical illusion". The rigid relationships are quite *real* and quite *observeable*. If you had movement akin to the movement we see in the structures of the photosphere, I'd buy that explanation. As it is, no one from NASA, or Lockheed has explained *why these structures remain in fixed relationships to one another* over such long time frames?
I've got no problem with notion of rotational motion influencing what we see in these images. I've got no problem with the concept of light and dark being a function of movements of light and dark areas of the surface. What I've got a problem with is handwaving away the rigid relationships between all these structrures as "optical illusions". The rigid relationships between strctures is not an optical illusion at all. It is quite observable and quite measureable in fact.
The movement of plasma is relatively chaotic. We can see evidence of the chaotic movement of the photosphere in the video I provided. According to Wiki, these structures change every 8 minutes or so. That is the behavior we expect from thin plasma with a lot of heat. What we have in the RD images however represents even MORE heat, and is according to LMSAL sitting *on top* of the structures of the photosphere that come and go every 8 minutes. Now for whatever reason, the movement we see in this spectrum is *nothing* like the movements we see in photosphere plasma. Why? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 12:05:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Bottom line is MM will NEVER change his mind, he will go to his grave believing that the sun is some big iron sphere, there is nothing that will change his mind.
Why would you assume such a thing? I have already changed my mind at least once. At this time last year, I had no particular doubt in gas model theories of the sun. More importantly I've even given you a perfectly valid way for this issue to be resolved by means of stereoscoptic instrumentation that should come online this year. I assure you that I will pay very close attention to the data coming from the STEREO program.
LMSAL and NASA seem to think these images originate in the corona. I believe they originate under the photosphere and extend into the corona. That is a very obvious difference between us, and a very falsifyable prediction to verify or falsify based on STEREO technology. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 12:40:32 [Permalink]
|
When Hell is full this thread will walk the Earth! It's coming for you Barbra!
I find you enthusiasm strange for someone whos been on this kick for less than a year, considering that you've been trolling the net about the subject for at least six months, what research did you do exactly before you became a born-again sun modeler? |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 13:22:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
If you recall GeeMack, I even agreed with you that if we *assume* that the whole surface rotates *uniformly*, the light areas would have darker areas to the left. The basic question of the rigidity of these movements remains unaddressed.
If you'll recall, Michael, running difference images are not showing structure of any sort. What you mistakenly believe to be structure in those images is simply an optical illusion. Remember, you're the only one who questions the rigidity. The rest of us understand and therefore have no need to address it. It's your claim. It's not up to anyone else to prove it. You address it if you think it needs addressing.
But while we're at it, what remains unaddressed (among dozens of other questions you've refused to answer) is this: 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. If those images show light and shadow as you suggest, you've completely neglected your responsibility to provide a detailed, scientific, quantitative explanation for that heretofore unknown cause of such an extremely incredible lighting phenomenon. Explain that, in detail, scientifically, and quantitatively. And provide relevant references and calculations.quote:
So here's the 64K dollar question for you GeeMack, and please try to get a straight answer: Why does this particular filter *only* show imagery from the coronal region?
First, the general temperature range viewed through the 171Å filters is tens of thousands, up to perhaps millions of degrees hotter than the photosphere. But even if it was showing temperatures from -1,000°K to 100,000,000°K, it doesn't negate the fact that you completely misunderstand running difference images. And perhaps even more importantly, your question is simply another in your ever increasingly desperate attempt to distract from the real issue, that being your unsupportable notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface.quote:
The fixed distances between structures in these RD images is more than just an "optical illusion". The rigid relationships are quite *real* and quite *observeable*. If you had movement akin to the movement we see in the structures of the photosphere, I'd buy that explanation. As it is, no one from NASA, or Lockheed has explained *why these structures remain in fixed relationships to one another* over such long time frames?
Dave W., H. Humbert, JohnOAS, myself, as well as Dr. Hurlburt and Dr. Kucera, LMSAL and NASA respectively, and several others have indeed explained what you imagine you're seeing in running difference images is not structure, but is in fact a simple optical illusion. The reason nobody from NASA or LMSAL or here or BAUT has explained why those "structures" remain fixed is because they're not structures. That you continue to ignore this indicates you're either too stupid to get it, or you're just a lying piece of shit, or you actually do get it and you really are a troll wasting everyone's time.quote:
I've got no problem with notion of rotational motion influencing what we see in these images. I've got no problem with the concept of light and dark being a function of movements of light and dark areas of the surface. What I've got a problem with is handwaving away the rigid relationships between all these structrures as "optical illusions". The rigid relationships between strctures is not an optical illusion at all. It is quite observable and quite measureable in fact.
Light and dark pixels in a running difference image aren't a function of movement. They're indicators of where something has changed between one image and another. They could just as easily use pink and purple pixels.
If you think your typical inane claim, that being it sure looks like structure to you by god, is actually a scientific explanation, go convince NASA and LMSAL. Tell them you don't give a damn about quantitative analysis or measurements or the actual process and purpose of creating running difference images. Tell them the real data, and the acquisition and scientific interpretation of that data, is totally meaningless to you and should be scrapped in favor of your wild guess about what you think you're seeing in some images. You go convince them that based on nothing more than your simple faith in what you see, those things must be physical, solid things. You go try to get them to go along with you on that, then come back here and let us know how well you did. So far you've failed miserably at persuading anyone here. Get a little NASA and LMSAL behind you on this running difference image issue. So far their position is 100% diametrically opposed to yours.quote:
The movement of plasma is relatively chaotic. We can see evidence of the chaotic movement of the photosphere in the video I provided. According to Wiki, these structures change every 8 minutes or so.
According to Wiki, the Sun is a ball of plasma, too.quote:
That is the behavior we expect from thin plasma with a lot of heat. What we have in the RD images however represents even MORE heat, and is according to LMSAL sitting *on top* of the structures of the photosphere that come and go every 8 minutes. Now for whatever reason, the movement we see in this spectrum is *nothing* like the movements we see in photosphere plasma. Why?
Maybe because the movements of the plasmas in a CME are thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of kilometers above the photosphere? Maybe because the movement in a CME is caused by entirely different mechanics than that of the photosphere plasma? Duh. Oh, and if LMSAL indicates that running difference video is from above the photosphere, then you'd have to be stupider than a rock to use it as evidence of something solid thousands of kilometers below the photosphere, now wouldn't you? 
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 13:24:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Okay, Michael, how exactly can we verify your model?
As it relates to mass separation, and therefore density aspects, STEREO seems like a natural place to start. STEREO will enable us to analyse and determine the relationship between various layer. The mass separation aspect should be easy enough to verify in 3D.
quote:
Yet you apparently know enough that those undefined "movements" can change our measurements of mass by a large enough factor to make your model feasible. You're a ball of self-contradiction.
Actually I *don't* "know" this as you keep suggesting. In fact I've been quite forthcomming about the fact that the core of the sun may be less dense than the crust as with the air bubble with a water shell analogy. There isn't any way for me to "see" inside the sun with the same precision I can see the atmosphere of the sun.
quote:
Baloney. GeeMack has already tried to correct you on this, to no avail, but answer this question, Michael: what do you call the lit part of the Sun which doesn't have "filaments" visible?
There are no lit parts in these images that don't involve a filament. What you see at the top of the photosphere are the tops of these filaments. Period. Only in the sunspots can you see the sides of these neon filaments. The sunspot is literally a hole in the neon plasma layer caused by the rising and falling silicon plasma in that region.
The neon plasma forms a "layer", just like all the plasmas in the solar atmosphere form a layer.
quote:
Do you call that the "penumbral filament layer" or something else?
The penumbral filament layer is the neon layer. The filaments are made of neon. We see the filaments in sunspot activity because there is literally a hole in the filament layer in this region. It's really quite a simple concept to follow.
quote:
That is (more or less) a description of the photosphere.
Then what you are refering to as the "photosphere" is nothing more than the neon plasma layer of a Birkeland model.
quote:
This has already been explained to you, more than once: the umbra is dark because it puts out less light than the rest of the photosphere.
Why does it put out less light *under* the filaments? Why do all the filaments stop at a very specific depth, and why is it so much darker after just under the filaments? That part has *not* been explained.
[quote} To image things like the penumbral filaments or photospheric granules, a camera needs to be set so that the umbra is massively underexposed (black). If you set the exposure so that you'd see a bright umbra, then the whole image would be washed out by the brighter light outside the umbra.
That doesn't explain the dark areas just under the filaments. Why do the filaments all end at exactly the same depth?
quote:
Quote Birkeland using the term "umbra layer," and I'll agree that you didn't invent it yourself.
I don't even know of the terms "umbra and penumbra" were even being used back then. :) He certainly discusses other types of gases that "could" be present, including a couple that didn't even have names yet.
quote:
Nobody said it was, what I said was that you are the only person in the whole world using the term "umbra layer" to describe a part of the Sun (and you still refuse to tell us how deep and thick that "layer" is).
Well, I need a way to define the silicon plasma that we see rising up through the neon layer in sunspot images. Your model doesn't even recognize this layer exists. I have explained the thickness now several times. The neon is approximately 500-700KM, whereas the silicon plasma is approximately 2800KM-3000KM and the calcium plasma layer is approximately 1000KM thick.
quote:
People use "umbra" all the time to describe the central (horizontal) part of a sunspot, but you're the only person using "umbra layer" to describe a layer around the entire Sun.
That is because you can literally see in sunspot activity exactly where the neon filaments end, and you can see that underneath these filaments where the umbra begins, it is dark. There is a natural connection between the dark regions of the umbra and the silicon plasma that creates it. That silicon not only pokes holes in the neon layer, it's also the material that the filaments sit on top of.
quote:
I know you're not trying to do it. I happen to think that you're incapable of not doing it.
I'm trying to be fair. You certainly do you share of strawman building as well Dave. It happens, even when two people are honestly trying to communicate fairly.
quote:
The Problem - the above method of measuring the bulk content of a solar-system body based upon its atmosphere does not work for the planet Earth. For example, above-ground atomic-bomb blasts in the 1940s and 1950s significantly altered the ratio of carbon isotopes within the Earth's atmosphere, without significantly changing the total carbon content of the Earth. So, someone applying Dr. Manuel's method to the Earth in 1930 would get a different result (in terms of carbon content of the Bulk Earth) than a person making the same measurement in 1970, even though the carbon content of the bulk Earth had not appreciably changed in the intervening 40 years. One of the two answers might be correct, but given Dr. Manuel's methods, we cannot possibly know which one (if either).
We still use carbon dating practices, we simply incorporate these known changes into the equations to get a "better", more precise picture of the decay rates of carbon is |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
