|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 03/22/2006 : 10:34:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
Well furshur, it's all about where the base of the arcs are located. If they are located in the corona as Lockheed believes, that should be easily demonstratable via STEREO data in about 6 months or so.
As anybody who has been following this train wreck knows the STEREO will confirm (once again) that your silly ideas are, well, silly. You on the other hand, will somehow interpret the data as confirming the surface of the sun is solid, or has a shell or whatever.
Pitiful 
So what happens if Stereo verifies that the feet of coronal loops, and solar moss activity originates about 4800Km beneath the visible photosphere? Will the idea seem "silly" to you then? I'm giving you a very testable "prediction" of a Birkeland solar model that is distinctly different from contemporary thought. If it turns out that the loops do originate below the photosphere, then what? |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2006 : 11:55:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So what happens if Stereo verifies that the feet of coronal loops, and solar moss activity originates about 4800Km beneath the visible photosphere?
And this would prove, what? This still would not verify the Birkeland solar model, which as far as I can see doesn't exist anyway. It certainly would not verify that there is a solid surface on the sun.
I there any data from the STEREO mission or ANY data from ANY source that would cause you to abandon your position that the sun has a solid surface.
Didn't think so...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2006 : 12:30:50 [Permalink]
|
| Duplicate post.... |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/22/2006 12:39:22 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2006 : 12:34:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
And this would prove, what?
For one thing, it would prove I am right about the placement of the "transitional region", and it would demonstrate that the footprints of these arcs, and the location of solar moss activity is *underneath the photosphere*, not in the lower corona. That seems like an important next step, and a relatively easy thing to test using STEREO technology.
quote:
This still would not verify the Birkeland solar model, which as far as I can see doesn't exist anyway.
It would verify *an aspect* of Birkeland's solar model, and it would simultaneously falsify *an aspect* of contemporary gas model theory.
quote:
It certainly would not verify that there is a solid surface on the sun.
Well, we still have to explain how all the electricity gets focused to specific areas like this, and creates the discharge patterns that are created. We have running difference (and raw) images to explain, and many other issues to *reconsider* based on the placement of the transitional region.
quote:
I there any data from the STEREO mission or ANY data from ANY source that would cause you to abandon your position that the sun has a solid surface.
I would be inclined to abandon my position if it can be demonstrated that the arcs originate and terminate above the photosphere.
quote:
Didn't think so...
But you are absolutely wrong about that assessment of me. I have a significant financial incentive (in the form of a monthly Google bill) to abandon my position if I am wrong about the placement of the base of these arcs. I have no particular desire to throw good money after bad, or to keep plugging a solar concept I know to be in error.
I am therefore quite willing, and in fact I am rather eager, to "stick my neck out" and make some predictions that can be verified or falsified *this* year. I don't have any great emotional need to "be right", and I certainly don't have any incentive to spend money advertizing an idea that I know to be inaccurate.
Is there any data from the STEREO mission or any data from any source that would cause you to abandon your position? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/22/2006 12:37:45 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2006 : 14:16:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
For one thing, it would prove I am right about the placement of the "transitional region", and it would demonstrate that the footprints of these arcs, and the location of solar moss activity is *underneath the photosphere*, not in the lower corona.
It would verify *an aspect* of Birkeland's solar model, and it would simultaneously falsify *an aspect* of contemporary gas model theory.
What Birkeland solar model???
Why would that falsify the current solar model?
quote:
Is there any data from the STEREO mission or any data from any source that would cause you to abandon your position?
My position is that your idea of a solid surface is simplistic, has no evidence and is just plain silly.
ANY evidence from the STEREO mission or ANY other source would cause me to change my opinion.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2006 : 16:16:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Why would that falsify the current solar model?
Lockheed and NASA place the solar moss activity in the corona. If it's happening under the photosphere, the current solar model will need to be "revised" in some way.
quote:
My position is that your idea of a solid surface is simplistic, has no evidence and is just plain silly.
We aren't any different in that respect. I find the gas model/gravity only concepts of reality to be overly simplistic and just plain silly. I have the same amount of faith in the gas model as you have in a "flat earth" concept.
quote:
ANY evidence from the STEREO mission or ANY other source would cause me to change my opinion.
I've shown you plenty of "evidence" to support these views including Dr. Manuel's work that shows evidence of mass separation and coronal rain that demonstrates this process in no uncertain terms. It's all a matter of how one very subjectively "interprets" the "evidence". |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2006 : 17:22:42 [Permalink]
|
I appreciate that you put EVIDENCE in quotes, as massive flaws have clearly shown to you in all of the "evidence" that you have supplied so far.
I know this has been asked over and over.... but where is this Birkeland solar model you talk of?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2006 : 18:08:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I appreciate that you put EVIDENCE in quotes, as massive flaws have clearly shown to you in all of the "evidence" that you have supplied so far.
Well, that's all a matter of subjective opinion since the "flaws" you seem to be refering to sound more like handwaves from my perspective.
Even Lockheed Martin talks about rising and falling ejected material which directly supports Manuel's analsys that suggests the sun is mass separated. Coronal rain is another example of where we see this process in action. To say then that there are "flaws" in the evidence does not account for the solar rain, or explain the rising and falling of that ejected material. It's just a handwave of an accusation from where I sit.
quote:
I know this has been asked over and over.... but where is this Birkeland solar model you talk of?
There seems to be a rather strong denial component that goes along with this process.
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/birkeland-electric-solar-system.pdf
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2006 : 20:10:53 [Permalink]
|
I read some of the Birkeland stuff and I agree he did have if not a model, at least he had some theories about the sun and the planets. Most of what is said in the paper has of course been proven wrong but as it was written 100 years ago he can be forgiven. His real contribution was the realization that the auroras are caused by charged particles ejected from the sun and interacting with the earths magnetic field. Good for him.
quote:
Well, that's all a matter of subjective opinion since the "flaws" you seem to be refering to sound more like handwaves from my perspective.
Bullshit, the information was not handwaving and you know it. You are the one who prefaces most of your comments with IMO or I beleive.
quote:
Even Lockheed Martin talks about rising and falling ejected material which directly supports Manuel's analsys that suggests the sun is mass separated.
Ejected plasma or charged particles moving back to the sun in no way supports anything in your model.
Dr. Manuels analysis is flawed, as has been pointed out and it has nothing to do with a solid surface on the sun anyway.
My daughter just looked at this and asked if you are stupid. I said yes.
You are boring and I can take only so much of this crap, so bye.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2006 : 21:12:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I read some of the Birkeland stuff and I agree he did have if not a model, at least he had some theories about the sun and the planets. Most of what is said in the paper has of course been proven wrong but as it was written 100 years ago he can be forgiven.
Actually "little" of what he said has been "proven wrong", but you seem to have a real knack for skewing specific words to make your point.
quote:
His real contribution was the realization that the auroras are caused by charged particles ejected from the sun and interacting with the earths magnetic field. Good for him.
How you can use the words "charge particles from the sun" in your sentence and not make the electrical connection to what is going on in the solar atmosphere is frankly beyond me. What exactly do you figure "charges" and "ejects" these particles?
quote:
Bullshit, the information was not handwaving and you know it.
Quite the opposite is true, and I know it. The "arguements" aimed at Manuel's work amounted to nothing more than a handwave IMO. None of these arguements dealt with the mass separation evidence, and I can clear see material being lifted up and falling back down in that Lockheed RD image. Even Lockheed mentions it on their website for crying out loud. If you can't accept mass separation is happening, even when you can see it with your own eyes, what will you accept as evidence of anything? Now of course there is coronal rain to explain. Then there is that *little* matter of how plasmas here on earth tend to mass separate when in the presence of magnetic fields and gravity. None of the arguments presented touched on any of those things.
quote:
You are the one who prefaces most of your comments with IMO or I beleive.
I do that to be "fair".
quote:
Ejected plasma or charged particles moving back to the sun in no way supports anything in your model.
How can that be? Coronal rain is seen in tons of images. Where does it come from? Where does it go? How come plasma doesn't mass separate in this environment, when we have clear evidence that it mass separates in these environments on earth? How in the world do you explain the delineations between umbra, penumbra, chromosphere and corona without accepting *some kind* of mass separation? What delineates the photosphere from the chromosophere from the corona?
quote:
Dr. Manuels analysis is flawed, as has been pointed out and it has nothing to do with a solid surface on the sun anyway.
It certainly supports the mass separation aspects of my model. The fact you refuse to even acknowledge this point shows that you are biased.
quote:
My daughter just looked at this and asked if you are stupid. I said yes.
And all you did with this action was reinforce the creationist mentality and the social stereotypes that prevent people from daring to think differently and creatively and scientifically. 'If you can't make your points scientifically dear, just call your opponent "stupid".' |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 06:11:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How you can use the words "charge particles from the sun" in your sentence and not make the electrical connection to what is going on in the solar atmosphere is frankly beyond me.
Yes I know that it is beyond you, just like the rest of physics and science.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 11:19:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
How can that be? Coronal rain is seen in tons of images. Where does it come from? Where does it go? How come plasma doesn't mass separate in this environment, when we have clear evidence that it mass separates in these environments on earth? How in the world do you explain the delineations between umbra, penumbra, chromosphere and corona without accepting *some kind* of mass separation? What delineates the photosphere from the chromosophere from the corona?
(Emphasis above mine)
Experiments I have made in my bathtub, and in my toilet, has disproved the existance of the Coriolis-effect: when draining the tub or flushing the toilet the rotational direction of the swirl is completely random.
Ok, you're not stupid. You understand that the tub-experiments I've conducted cannot disprove the Coriolis effect, because there are a few criteria missing: the scale of the experiment, and the time factor involved. Similar problems occur when you compare experiments conducted on earth, then try to apply them to the sun.
For one thing, in the Birkeland experiments the gravitational vector wasn't toward the center of the sphere he used, but uniformely toward the center of the earth. The field-strength of the magnetic fields, and the electrical charges of the sphere and plasma compared to the physical size of the model used in the experiment, temperatures and ionization levels... and more.
|
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 - 03/23/2006 : 13:08:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Similar problems occur when you compare experiments conducted on earth, then try to apply them to the sun.
For one thing, in the Birkeland experiments the gravitational vector wasn't toward the center of the sphere he used, but uniformely toward the center of the earth. The field-strength of the magnetic fields, and the electrical charges of the sphere and plasma compared to the physical size of the model used in the experiment, temperatures and ionization levels... and more.
I hear where you are coming from as far as the limitations of models go, but the whole field of spectroscopy is predicated on the concept that we can mass separate ions using electromagnetic fields.
We know without any doubt that the sun has a large magnetic field around it. Somehow, despite the fact that we use magnetic fields to separate plasma by weight, the sun is presumably immune from and deviates from this very same simple principle of physics? How can that be Dr. Mabuse? We even see evidence of mass separation in coronal rain, and in the flotsum and jetsum that we can watch fall into the sun from time to time. We see material being ejected and falling back down again in the Lockheed RD image, and coronal rain in *lots* of images. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 14:53:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
the whole field of spectroscopy is predicated on the concept that we can mass separate ions using electromagnetic fields.
What to you take in order to dream up this rubbish Michael? The "whole field" of spectroscopy is predicated on no such thing. Spectroscopy is predicated on the fact that the wavelengths of light emitted/absorbed by various processes tells us something about the materials themselves. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 16:59:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
What to you take in order to dream up this rubbish Michael? The "whole field" of spectroscopy is predicated on no such thing. Spectroscopy is predicated on the fact that the wavelengths of light emitted/absorbed by various processes tells us something about the materials themselves.
Doh! I told you it was likely I would put my foot in my mouth from time to time. :) And it wasn't even that busy today....
I should have said "The whole design of a mass spectromoter is predicated on the concept that we can mass separate ions using electromagnetic fields."
http://www.post-gazette.com/downloads/20030324Mass_spectrometer.pdf
We have ample evidence that plasmas will mass separate in solar-like conditions. We have ample evidence that there is mass separation going on in the solar atmosphere based on isotope analysis and the presence of coronal rain.
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
