|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 04/03/2006 : 19:59:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
Here Dave, read section 2. These are just a few of the successful predictions of Dr. Bruce's Electrical Discharge theory that Mr. Holman seems to think "cannot" apply because some unnamed generic "investigators" concluded it could be written off decades ago.
Dr. Bruce discusses the breakdown voltages required for coronal events, thus obviously thinking that the only plasma which exists in the corona is within the discharges themselves. There isn't any evidence for that, however, and if the whole-corona temperatures are correct, then the whole corona is plasma, and no insulating materials exist there to breakdown ionically. Again, the lightning analogy is inept, unless you have evidence that the corona is less than 6,000 kelvin except for the arcs?
Why am I even asking? You refuse to even define an arc, and so you don't even have the first step of the scientific method - make an observation - down pat. How could you possibly have any temperature measurements of the corona, which depend on so many, many factors? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 20:01:57 [Permalink]
|
| Ah, crap. Now that we've flipped another page in this thread, I suspect the last posts on the previous page will get no reply at all. That's another pattern of yours, Michael. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 21:57:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Huh? That's really unfair of you John. I never claimed I never make mistakes. We *all* make mistakes, including the folks at Lockheed and NASA. No human being is immune. What kind of irks me is that I *immediately* came clean and yet you still condemn me for stepping up to the plate and admitting my mistake? Come on John, that is simply not fair.
I have no issue with you, or anyone, making mistakes. The issue I've been trying to make, repeatedly, was not that it was an accidental error, but rather that it was a mistake in your method/ability of analysing various types of imagery. As image analysis is a core part of your evidentirary material, this is rather relevant.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
As I meantioned however, my basic statement was true. We can see these "structure" in raw images. I've shown you such images and you can find such images on my website.
You can have all the "features" you want, and a partridge in a pear tree. When you say that said features are mountains and such, and that these mountains appear in both raw and calculated images, I will continue to have issues with your analysis. Nice redirect by the way. (Never mind what I said, this is what I meant...)
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
No one has to use any particular model to point out flaws in your arguments. No matter how many times people say it, you keep assuming that everything has to prove the gas model correct, otherwise, by default, your model is correct.
No, actually that is the logic you and Dave are using. You seem to be of the opinion that I am personally responsible for "proving" every aspect of every question put to me about a Birkeland model or gas model theory is correct. That's your game not mine.
Sorry, I thought you were presenting a model. You're right, you don't have to play any game. You can leave scientific issues with your model undealt with, as long as other models haven't dealt with them too, then your model is just fine. If you think you get a hard time here, try that argument out in a submission to any peer reviewed scientific publication.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
My arguments regarding the imaging, and your incorrect interpretations have nothing to do with the gas model. Nothing.
What "incorrect" interpretation do you refer to that I haven't already copped to?
That you can "see" solid mountains in running difference images.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
No one can give an explanation which will satisfy you unless they first agree that what you see in the images represent an actual picture (in the conventional, photographic sense) of solid surfaces and other features.
No, that's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is that if you believe that these images can be explained a "better" way, they you are obligated to put such an explantion on the table. It has to be attentive to all the minute details we see in the multimillion dollar images.
This has been done. You, however miss the point. Even in the absence of a "better" interpretation, an incorrect interpretation is still an incorrect interpretation.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Wrong. Wrong again.
Unless you take wavelength into account (and all the associated wavelength dependant properties of the observation system), this is meaningless. Brighter where Michael?
It's brighter *in the arc* John. That Trace/Yohkoh overlay is taking a LOT of wavelengths into account, and specifically the wavelengths that are associated with high temperature plasma.
You missed it again. By "where", I was hoping you'd be able to make the leap that I was talking about "where", spectrally. I'm not going to go into your specific errors regarding temperature and image intensity relationships, as it's already been done ad nauseum.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I have no trouble saying loud and clear that Lockheed blew it. They don't have the first clue about heat signatures in the corona.
Ah, but you, who have demonstrated a serious lack of understanding of black body radiation, believe in the rationale of adding intensities from images taken through different filters in different spectral ranges, and who can see mountains in running difference images, have all the clues to set us straight. Lucky us.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Ah, so I must prove a negative (and an impossible one at that, I certainly can't define "solar like conditions" to a sufficient level of accuracy and completeness to prove this negative) in order for your assumption not to be true.
You must offer a valid scientific alternative if you expect me to believe there is a valid scientific alternative that I have missed. If you don't have one, you can't wave your hand around and claim I can't be right. That isn't scientific.
That is truly superb reasoning, Michael. Unless |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 22:14:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
What part of "net" don't you understand?
Here, take these five twenty dollar bills. Now pass me twenty five dollar bills, really quickly. What was the net cash flow? But, but, but, giving me money is the very definition of cash flow. Talk about mind blowing. Hoy indeed.
But John, I could argue that from a surface perspective, that arc might transfers a "net" of "zero" electrons into space, and all electrons were conserved (for the most part), the arc simply moved the electrons from one place on the surface to another area of the sun. The electrons left the surface, and they came back to the surface, so the "net" is zero.
Indeed you could argue that, and pretend that you never made your original comments.
Could you explain to me what happens to electrons that are not "conserved (for the most part)"? Can you explain the process generating the potential difference which caused the current flow, and why the curved path through the atmosphere was the path taken?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The movement of the electrons through the atmosphere is what's driving these brightly lit and very hot arcs. That's the magic of magnetic fields. The tend to direct and channel the flow of electrons. The flow of electrons will create it's own magnetic fields as well. It's the current *flow* that is critical, not the "net".
I figured magic would enter into it sooner or later. It must, in order for the "Movement of electrons" (arcs? current?) to be driving these "brightly lit and very hot arcs". |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 22:32:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It's not difficult to explain this energy concentration with a magnetically arranged solid surface to work with
Can you please explain what a "magnetically arranged solid surface" is? Is it the same as a mass separated one?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The surface particles sustain this current flow, not the materials of the corona. The resistence of the corona is indeed very low as this author states, but the solids on the surface are quite different, as are the lower plasmas. In that movie, we see a part of the surface material, and heavier calcium plasma rise up from the surface in a cloud where it is promptly obliterated in the current flow.
OK, now I get it, the current flow, which begins by flowing through a low resistance plasma, "drags" some higher resistance material from the solid surface into the atmosphere, and then begins to flow through that higher resistance material rather than through the lower resistance plasma which it displaced. Have I understood you correctly? Now why didn't I think of that?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The corona does not meet the definition of a black body, and so the black body principles do not apply.
Boloney! The atoms in the corona will radiate according to the same thermodynamic laws that affect atoms of the photosophere. The vary only by *temperature* and density. Other than this, they are exactly the same, and the same laws of physics apply to all the atoms in the system.
Wrong again Michael. Atoms are not black bodies. It would be to your advantage to learn some physics before making scientific assumptions about physical systems. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 01:30:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
That is part of my concern you aren't discussing - you're ideas are getting DESTROYED at every turn, but you seem oblivious to this fact.
Pffft. Ya, evidently so.
quote:
Yes, 100 years ago many people thought that the sun was made of iron and gravity or burning of gases were the power source of the sun. Science has progressed and the current solar model answers questions that the earlier inferior models could not.
Ya right. The current gas model can't even explain a coronal loops, a CME or the heat source of the corona. It hasn't progressed very far evidently. Birkeland could have told you the answers to all those things 100 years ago.
quote:
Birkeland answered the mystery of the aurora. He did a fine job on that.
Yes, and he explained it with metal spheres.
quote:
But no, the rings of Saturn are not caused by electical discharges and the sun is not a big electrical sparking machine.
I don't anyone really knows what caused Saturns rings, but I can see the sun certainly "sparks" just fine.
quote:
Dr. Manuel is a scientist, but he is definately not an astrophysicist. He just reiterated recently that he believes the core of the sun is a neutron star, this is wrong on many levels that have already been discussed. And finally, no Michael you don't count either, you appear totally unable to even consider any point no matter how well evidenced that would jepordize your beliefs.
For crying out loud. The only people who are actually discussing this topic actively at this point are John, Dave and Dr. Mabuse (every so often). You only seem interested in the occassional personal attack (ala the handgranade variety). The "points" I've heard as it relates to the light source of these images amounts to magic invisible heat. Sorry but those aren't "points" at all.
quote:
I'll bet very few if any of those 'walks of life' are scientific in nature.
Ya right. Now you're a psychic as well.
quote:
But those guys are clowns and there endevors are doomed to fail. They have not taken dark matter/energy into acount when calculating the gravitational atraction of the different celestial bodies in our vicinity. Don't even get me started about them ignoring the acceleration in the Z axis.
Er, having fun?
quote:
HOLY FUCKING CRAP!! Haven't you been paying attention to last 80 or 90 pages?
Yes, I have.
quote:
I guess it is not possible to convince a lunatic he is crazy.
I guess it's not possible to convince an ignorant many he's ignorant either. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 01:31:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Considering that a solar prominence can have velocities from hundreds of thousands of km/hr to many millions of km/hr it seen ludicrous to pick the velocity of one prominence and say it proves your prediction.
Michael your evidence is not evidence, you wave your hands so much they are a freaking blur.
Um, how do they get to millions of km/hr again? Your handwaves aren't even making a lot of sense at this point. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 02:21:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
And I, like you, pick both because a combination of the two isn't a problem.
Halelujia! Maybe we'll get somewhere now. Ok, we now seem to all agree that the plasma inside the coronal loops is the hottest and most dense plasma in the corona.
quote:
In fact, I don't know why you're waiting on me when we're discussing your model.
I've been fixated on this point because we can't really discuss much in the way of solar satellite images unless we can agree on the light source and the heat concentration patterns in the images we see.
quote:
Baloney. But you weren't interested in the real answer, you're too busy building strawmen like "The vary only by *temperature* and density."
We are clearly talking past one another at this point somehow, since some of your answers are inconsistent from where I sit. The point I've been trying to make is that all atoms radiate energy provided they have the excess energy to radiate. We can image the corona and assign temperature ranges to the things we find in the corona based on these same laws of physics that affect all atoms. On thing we find in the corona, and I "guess" (I'm still not quite sure where you're at on this) we *finally* agree that coronal loops are more dense and hotter than the surrounding material as Nitta suggested.
quote:
Indeed, but the laws governing radiation from non-ionic matter are different from those governing ionic matter. Electrons shared by atoms in a molecule (like water or carbon monoxide, both of which exist in the photosphere) are free to radiate at any wavelength - they aren't constrained to radiate at only specific energy levels, like electrons firmly bound to atoms. That, Michael, even though you don't want to hear it, is what makes the photosphere different from the corona, and is why the photosphere can be modeled as a black body but the corona cannot.
Dave we *can* and we *do* see the hot zones of the corona. We can isolate the heat source of the corona based on the laws of physics and thermodnamics. Regardless of whether ions radiate exactly like molecules, we can still isolate the heat signatures of the corona using the same laws of thermodynamics. There is no mystery in resolving where the heat is concentrated. You're trying to make it more difficult that it really is. We can see which areas are hot and which are less so simply by looking at this region in a variety of wavelengths.
quote:
That's a new term for the corona: shadow. I don't know what it means relative to these images which show photons coming from everywhere.
They don't come from everywhere egually Dave. The loops emit the most light because they are more dense than the surrounding material. They also emit light because they are energized by electrical current and they are considerably hotter than the darker regions of the corona.
quote:
I never claimed they were immune to the laws of thermodynamics. Why don't you tell me which law(s) they'd be breaking if black body calculations were inappropriate (just as they are for lasers and lightbulbs and air and water and a host of other normal, everyday substances).
The issue here Dave is very simple. All atoms (even ions) will emit light if there is excess energy to be emitted. There is no great difference between locating the heat signature of the corona vs. locating the heat signature of anything. We simply have to look to see what "glows" in the hot wavelengths.
quote:
Duh, Michael. Not being a black body doesn't mean the ions don't emit light. What kind of crappy science teachers did you have, anyway? No wonder you're rebelling against what they taught you: it's all garbage.
You are incredible at times. You whine and threaten to not participate if I offend you even inadvertantly, and then you say *outrageous* crap like this. Ya, I did have a few crappy science teachers that taught me that the sun was a giant ball of gas, and the corona was somehow immune from radiating energy in a way that allows us to easily locate the heat source of the corona. All that stuff was just crap and garbage alright. Fortunately I had good teachers too.
I can see the heat source with my own eyes, and it's no great mystery why gas model theoriest can't figure out simple stuff like coronal loops and the heat source of the corona. They were all taught a bunch of garbage and they still believe in the garbage they were taught.
quote:
No, Michael, even the brightly lit regions of the corona aren't black bodies, because they don't meet the definition of a black body.
You're still playing word games with that term "black body" and trying to twist it's meaning into somehow excluding the corona from the laws of physics. That isn't reasonable. The brightly lit areas are brightly lit for the same reasons the brightly lit parts of any black body are lit, namely these areas are hot and therefore they radiate energy. The dark parts are dark for exactly the same reasons that any black body is dark, namely that areas is cooler and is not emitting photons of this wavelength. There's nothing about he corona that is so "special" that we can't isolate the heat signatures using the laws of physics! The light stuff is hot. The dark stuff isn't as hot. It's really that simple. Stop making it difficult.
quote:
But the farther one gets from perfect, the less likely black body calculations are to give correct answers.
Boloney. The atoms will still radiate energy Dave. They will still follow the laws of thermodynamics, and obey the laws of physics.
quote:
Since ions aborb and emit only a tiny percentage of the entire spectrum, they're about as far from the perfect black body as one can get - and the farther one gets from the ideal, the |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 02:30:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, actually, those spheres obey Archimedes' principles just fine, you're just confusing surface tension with buoyancy, just like people did before Archimedes had his eureka moment. It's clear that you've got a couple thousand years of scientific progress to catch up on, Michael.
You just had to get in a cheap shot with that strawman of yours even though I specifically didn't want to get sidetracked. I don't want to hear you whine anymore if I inadvertantly hurt your feelings Dave. You've been going out of your way to deliver below the belt shots today.
quote:
No, Michael, Birkeland's currents weren't from point to point across the face of the sphere. Yours are. Birkeland's sphere didn't have an insulator coating it so that it would act like Bruce's electrical discharges. Yours does. Birkeland's spheres weren't non-homogenous mixtures of rock and metals. Yours are. I don't need lab results to point out the areas in which your model fails to match Birkeland's, no more than I need lab results to help my five-year-old with his "which picture is different?" workbook pages. The differences are obvious, Michael, and just keep growing as you further describe your model.
The difference are only perceptial in your mind Dave. My model is no different that Birkeland's model in the final analysis since it does certainly intact with the unviverse around it, just as Birkeland's model interacted with it's environment. The fact you see these two models as somehow "different" in that regard simply demonstrates that you do *not* yet understand my model.
quote:
And the only reason I can think of that you're in utter denial about the differences between your model and Birkeland's would be that you need Birkeland's correct hypothesis about Earth's aurorae to buoy your own conjectures about the Sun, because such an argument from similarity (a bogus one, it seems) is the only way you can "prove" your model (with the added support of arguments from authority).
The only reason I'm in utter denial that my model is different from Birkelands is because it is *not* functionally different than Birkeland's model, no matter how much you might think otherwise. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 02:38:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Nobody else is trying to do so for the solar corona using black body calculations, Michael.
Sure they are Dave. Lockheed's method is still a variation on the same theme. They are just complicating the issue dramatically by trying to compare wavelengths rather than just adding them up. The whole notion of comparing them at all was to attempt to assertain the heat signature. Unfortuntately they failed to scientifically deal with any of the complications of their method and their results are skewed accordingly.
quote:
Except we don't all agree that all the pixels are lit.
We seem to agree that photons hit every pixel of the camera, but we don't seem to both deal with reflection issue equally.
quote:
You're completely missing Nitta's point, and mine as well.
No I'm not Dave. I accept his basic point, namely that an increase in density will *also* cause an increase in photon output. I have no problem accepting that issue. What I don't accept is that the method works as advertized, and evidently he did not either since in the final analysis, he put the hot 20 million degree plasma inside the loops just as I did.
quote:
I'm supposed to be impressed that you can disprove a strawman?
No Dave, you're supposed to look at the image and notice that the loops are the hottest and most energetic part of the corona. That's what these multimillion dollar satellites reveal to us. It's not just Trace and SOHO that reveal this to us, but also Yohkoh, Geos and Rhessi as well. All of these satellites show that the high energy discharges are associated with the coronal loops.
quote:
quote:
The whole basis of your error and their error is centered on the reflection/absortion/emission issues that you keep ignoring.
You haven't offered anything rational along those lines, either, Michael.
Oh come on! I offered you a "reasonable" way to filter out some of the reflection issues. You rejected it because it was "imperfect". What alternative did you come up with? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 02:42:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Dr. Bruce discusses the breakdown voltages required for coronal events, thus obviously thinking that the only plasma which exists in the corona is within the discharges themselves. There isn't any evidence for that, however, and if the whole-corona temperatures are correct, then the whole corona is plasma, and no insulating materials exist there to breakdown ionically. Again, the lightning analogy is inept, unless you have evidence that the corona is less than 6,000 kelvin except for the arcs?
I don't have to do that since that arcs do not originate in the corona in the first place and STEREO will demonstrate that for us later this year.
quote:
Why am I even asking? You refuse to even define an arc, and so you don't even have the first step of the scientific method - make an observation - down pat. How could you possibly have any temperature measurements of the corona, which depend on so many, many factors?
Huh? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 02:45:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Ah, crap. Now that we've flipped another page in this thread, I suspect the last posts on the previous page will get no reply at all. That's another pattern of yours, Michael.
I tried to respond to all of your last few posts. I've specifically kept my comments in this thread at least "somewhat" focused on the core issues, specifically the heat signature and layout of the corona, and the light source of the high energy solar satellite images.
If I'm understanding you properly, at this point as I understand things, you do now agree that the coronal loops are more dense and have a greater temperature than the darker regions of these satellite images. Is that correct? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 02:46:43 [Permalink]
|
Hi John...
I'm running out of steam tonight. I'll take up your posts tomorrow when I've had some sleep. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 03:46:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Hi John...
I'm running out of steam tonight. I'll take up your posts tomorrow when I've had some sleep.
No problem, it's not a race.
I would suggest however, that you spend a little more time thinking about things. By this I mean the physical aspects, theories, and the actual science. The emotional/personal stuff doesn't bother me much one way or the other in a forum like this, in fact it's even entertaining on occasion.
It used to seem that your arguments, while I didn't generally agree with them, were at least occasionally based on some sort of logic. Your last few pages of posts however, particularly in relation to the black body and current flow discussions seem to have degenerated badly from a scientific point of view. It could simply be that we've stumbled into an area where your basic knowledge is lacking, or it's just become too personal for you.
I am speculating here somewhat, but it honestly feels like you're grasping at ideas based on faith and principle rather than reason.
Before you start accusing me of defending the solar model, I'll say this: It's true I may not be entirely aware of all the biases that have resulted from my educational and other life experiences to this point, however, I have absolutely no vested interest in or desire to defend the "gas model". As a distinct body of knowledge, I was barely even aware of the "gas model"'s existence before getting into this discussion. You'll find it quite a common trait that scientists exhibit less loyalty to their particular institution/company/discipline than they do have to science itself.
A corollary of this tendency is, as one of my colleagues used to say "managing scientists is like trying to herd cats". |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 08:00:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, actually, those spheres obey Archimedes' principles just fine, you're just confusing surface tension with buoyancy, just like people did before Archimedes had his eureka moment. It's clear that you've got a couple thousand years of scientific progress to catch up on, Michael.
You just had to get in a cheap shot with that strawman of yours even though I specifically didn't want to get sidetracked.
That wasn't a strawman, but it was a cheap shot. When you put forth a barrel full of fish and hand Dave the shotgun, what do you expect?
That Water Bubble-video (though cool as it is) have no relevance what so ever with sun (especially your model of it), other than it demonstrates sound wave propagation through a relatively homogenous sphere of liquid. It actually demonstrates how sound-waves propagates through the sun if it was a ball of plasma, not a ping-pong ball. It demonstrates some principles of helioseismology. And have a close look: That blob of water in the video doesn't have a solid surface.
But gravitational forces are not at work in that video, only surface tension. As an example to support your argument, it fails miserable. In fact, it's not even in the same ball-park.
quote:
I don't want to hear you whine anymore if I inadvertantly hurt your feelings Dave. You've been going out of your way to deliver below the belt shots today.
The difference between your arguments and the targets at a shooting gallery at the amusement-park is that we get a prize at the amusement park. If you had acknowleged Dave's hits, he would have put you out of business long ago. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
