|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 07/01/2006 : 10:56:50 [Permalink]
|
| Man you are *really* touchy Dave. It's been a long week and I'm going to take some time this weekend to be with my family. You need to "chill out" a bit. I'm simply asking you some basic questions so I'm sure not to stick any words in your mouth. Every time I ask for clerification from you about your stand on the temperature of the corona vs. the temperature of the coronal loops, it seems like I get a different answer, or a non-committed answer. From my perspective Dave, you're more than a little "vague" on certain issues. I just wanted to be sure we're all in agreement that the Model S is simply a *mathematical model* based on the *presumed* total density of the sun, and based on the "presumption" of a specific amount of "mass separation" in each layer. Correct? |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2006 : 13:07:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
From my perspective Dave, you're more than a little "vague" on certain issues.
How much more precise can I be than to say that the density values are predicted by the model, Michael?quote:
I just wanted to be sure we're all in agreement that the Model S is simply a *mathematical model* based on the *presumed* total density of the sun, and based on the "presumption" of a specific amount of "mass separation" in each layer. Correct?
Absolutely wrong, and that's not at all implied in the question you asked. Model S is a mathematical model which is not "based on" any presumption of the total density of the Sun (that data isn't an input parameter to any equation of state I've ever seen), nor is it based upon your ideas of "mass separation" in any amount in any layer(s) (it includes gravitational "settling" of heavy elements). Why would you think I would agree with your interpretation when your previous question was about whether or not I thought the density numbers from Model S were "measured?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2006 : 17:09:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Absolutely wrong, and that's not at all implied in the question you asked. Model S is a mathematical model which is not "based on" any presumption of the total density of the Sun (that data isn't an input parameter to any equation of state I've ever seen), nor is it based upon your ideas of "mass separation" in any amount in any layer(s) (it includes gravitational "settling" of heavy elements).
Then *what* exactly is the Model S based on?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2006 : 21:22:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Then *what* exactly is the Model S based on?
Not only have I already given you a brief overview, including a sample equation of state, but I've also given you links to explore Model S on your own, and over the last several months you've been given at least a half-dozen links to various descriptions of what a solar model is. With all that information, you should already know the basis for the model - a set of equations which relate several solar parameters together through generalized laws of physics (like the equation of state or the law of conservation of mass and energy) and which also predict some other values we've only been able to measure through inference. But how is the basis of Model S relevant to the question of whether or not Kosovichev used "relative" density figures? In other words, what is it, exactly, that you want to know? How will your question help to answer the "relative density" question? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2006 : 14:38:03 [Permalink]
|
From my blog page:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/blog.htm
07/14/06
Where's the Moss?
If you're old enough to remember the Wendy's commercial, "Where's the Beef?", and you are results oriented, you will probably appreciate this next "prediction" related to the STEREO satellite program. One of the most significant differences between a Birkeland solar model interpretation of these satellite images and current gas model interpretation, relates to the placement of the solar moss events in relationship to the surface of the photosphere. The 'Trace' spacecraft is an abbreviation for "Transition Region And Coronal Explorer". Even before the TRACE spacecraft was launched, there was an "assumption" made inside of Lockheed Martin about where we should expect to find these million degree plasmas. Specifically the expectation was that we should expect to see such activity begin somewhere above the photosphere. Since that time, LMSAL has consistently "interpreted" this solar moss activity as originating approximately 1000-1500 kilometers above the surface of the photosphere. The problem with satellite image interpretation is that all TRACE, Yohkoh and SOHO images are only two dimensional images. The depth aspect has thus far required human "interpretation", but all of that is about to change in a radical way thanks to the hard work and efforts by the folks involved in the STEREO satellite program.
STEREO will finally allow us to study the solar atmosphere in all three dimensions for the very first time. Three dimensional solar moss images will give us an extremely reliable way to determine if Lockheed's placement was a valid "assessment" on their part, or if their original assumptions and expectations regarding the location of the transition region have done more harm than good as it relates to satellite image interpretation. According to a Birkeland solar model, these emissions should begin at the solar surface. Based on data from the field of heliosiesmology the surface of the sun is located at about 4800km below the white light surface of the photosphere. Lockheed Martin however contends that these solar moss events occur far above the photosphere, and they label this region the "transition region". Determining the precise location of this solar moss activity in three dimensions then becomes a very useful way to determine the validity of LMSAL's early assumptions and expectations about the location of this region in relationship to the photosphere. It will also allow us to test their (and my) skills at satellite image "interpretation". Determining the precise location of these solar moss events in relationship to the surface of the photosphere will allow us to test the accuracy of both "interpretations". If Lockheed Martin's interpretation is correct, then this solar moss activity should take place between 1000 and 1500 kilometers above the visible photosphere. If a Birkeland interpretation of the satellite images is correct, then STEREO should "discover" that these solar moss events are in fact originating underneath of the surface of the photosphere, not above it. Only one of these two "interpretations" can be accurate and there is a 6000km difference in distance, and a 4000+ degree difference in temperature between these two "interpretations". The real question then to determining which interpretation is accurate is: "Where's the Moss"? STEREO should be able to answer that question for us, once and for all. Hopefully we should see some results from STEREO in a few months. Stay tuned!
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2006 : 14:46:50 [Permalink]
|
Having gone through the better part of 10 full threads on a couple of different subjects here, it's pretty clear that no one's opinion here is going to be changed based on a bunch of yacking in cyberspace.
As the saying goes, one test is worth a thousand expert opinions. I've put together some important and very testable predictions now that STEREO should be able to falsify or verify related to the Birkeland solar model. I've done my scientific duty and I've stuck my neck out with some very testable and very critical predictions. Until we know whether I'm right or wrong, it seems to me this is pretty much a dead horse right now.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2006 : 17:53:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Since that time, LMSAL has consistently "interpreted" this solar moss activity as originating approximately 1000-1500 kilometers above the surface of the photosphere. The problem with satellite image interpretation is that all TRACE, Yohkoh and SOHO images are only two dimensional images. The depth aspect has thus far required human "interpretation"...
Michael, apparently you've forgotten that you wrote this:Dave, any high energy satellite image that is taken along the "horizon" (of the stratification subsurface), shows taht coronal loops arch up from the surface and come back down to the surface. By virtue of the horizon, we can determine the loops are three dimensional. And I actually measured the height of loop "footpoints" above the visible-light photosphere for you in precisely the same way quite some time ago in this very thread.quote:
Based on data from the field of heliosiesmology the surface of the sun is located at about 4800km below the white light surface of the photosphere.
A generalization from a single data point - of a sunspot.quote:
Only one of these two "interpretations" can be accurate and there is a 6000km difference in distance, and a 4000+ degree difference in temperature between these two "interpretations".
Since you - despite what you said earlier - now claim that only 2-D information can be returned by these old satellites, then for all you know, solar moss is over 10,000 km "thick" and both "interpretations" will be correct. Since you don't address this problem by making predictions about the thickness (of anything, not just moss), this "prediction" is too vague to be diagnostic, and almost anything STEREO might report will be "interpreted" by you to be validation of your "theory."
The gutsy thing to do, which would have put your "theory" on the line, would have been to make your predictions - all of them - so rock-solidly quantitative that no "interpretation" would have been necessary to determine if you're right or wrong. That's what real scientists do, all the time.quote:
Having gone through the better part of 10 full threads on a couple of different subjects here, it's pretty clear that no one's opinion here is going to be changed based on a bunch of yacking in cyberspace.
Your arguments, being based upon a theory which you have yet to present in full, were uncompelling. Our objections were handwaved away with extreme prejudice.quote:
As the saying goes, one test is worth a thousand expert opinions. I've put together some important and very testable predictions now that STEREO should be able to falsify or verify related to the Birkeland solar model.
Not the way you've written them, they won't.quote:
I've done my scientific duty and I've stuck my neck out with some very testable and very critical predictions.
As one of the posters in the CMB thread (the one you pointed us all to) pointed out, testing theories like yours is backwards from the way science works. First, you should have done the work to show that your theory is, indeed, plausible. But you refuse to do even the simplest possible tests along those lines (for example, offering up some numbers with which we could test your resistance-heating idea for sheer feasibility).quote:
Until we know whether I'm right or wrong, it seems to me this is pretty much a dead horse right now.
No, it was a dead horse when you refused to describe for us a mechanism through which "acceleration" can affect our measurements of density (more than 900 of your posts ago). Most of the rest of this has been people telling you what you need to do in order to show that your ideas might be worth testing, and you failing to present anything of value. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2006 : 21:26:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Michael, apparently you've forgotten that you wrote this:Dave, any high energy satellite image that is taken along the "horizon" (of the stratification subsurface), shows taht coronal loops arch up from the surface and come back down to the surface. By virtue of the horizon, we can determine the loops are three dimensional. And I actually measured the height of loop "footpoints" above the visible-light photosphere for you in precisely the same way quite some time ago in this very thread.
Are you talking about one or two images Dave or all images?
quote:
A generalization from a single data point - of a sunspot.
No, it's based on the evidence of a "subsurface stratification layer" at around .993R as well.
quote:
Since you - despite what you said earlier - now claim that only 2-D information can be returned by these old satellites, then for all you know, solar moss is over 10,000 km "thick" and both "interpretations" will be correct. Since you don't address this problem by making predictions about the thickness (of anything, not just moss), this "prediction" is too vague to be diagnostic, and almost anything STEREO might report will be "interpreted" by you to be validation of your "theory."
You're trying to take a simple issue, and make it sound "complex" Dave. Either the solar moss activity originates 4800km *under* the photosphere as I suggested, or it originates 1000km above it. If it begins under the photosphere then Lockheed's interpretation of where it originates has been falsified. They'll have to go back to the drawing board if these solar moss events originate under the photosphere, just as I will have to rethink my position if the reverse is true.
quote:
The gutsy thing to do, which would have put your "theory" on the line, would have been to make your predictions - all of them - so rock-solidly quantitative that no "interpretation" would have been necessary to determine if you're right or wrong.
4800KM under the photosphere is a pretty "rock solid" figure Dave. Suggesting the layers are mass separated by weight is also a pretty "rock solid" prediction compared to current theory. These two issues should tells us which of us is correct, and which interpretation is false.
quote:
That's what real scientists do, all the time.
You're attitute really sucks Dave. Real scientists write real papers that really get published. I've done that. Real scientists go out on a limb and make predictions. I did that too. Real scientists don't refuse to explain the first image on my website, and hurl baseless accusations at people who *are* doing "real science".
quote:
Your arguments, being based upon a theory which you have yet to present in full, were uncompelling. Our objections were handwaved away with extreme prejudice.
Ya, I feel pretty much the same way Dave, particularly since you never once stuck out your neck to offer a complete explanation for even the first image on my website using any other solar theory of your choice.
quote:
Not the way you've written them, they won't.
Holy Cow Dave, why not? If I'm right, we wiil have discovered that the plasma layers are separated by weight and discovered that solar moss activity originates under the photosphere right where I said they would! What's it going to take to falsify gas model theory in your mind and open your mind to other possibilities?
quote:
As one of the posters in the CMB thread (the one you pointed us all to) pointed out, testing theories like yours is backwards from the way science works. First, you should have done the work to show that your theory is, indeed, plausible.
The Journal of Fusion Energy suggested it was "plasible" Dave. You don't get to personally decide what is "plausible' and what's not.
quote:
But you refuse to do even the simplest possible tests
Ya, like I didn't just offer you two valid tests?
quote:
along those lines (for example, offering up some numbers with which we could test your resistance-heating idea for sheer feasibility).
I don't have to know everything that can possibly be known Dave. I don't have to do all the work of three million scientists all by myself. All I have to do is understand what I'm looking at and make some accurate predictions that are then proven true. The rest will take care of itself over time Dave, and others won't be as closed minded as you are.
quote:
No, it was a dead horse when you refused to describe for us a mechanism through which "acceleration" can affect our measurements of density (more than 900 of your posts ago). Most of the rest of this has been people telling you what you need to do in order to show that your ideas might be worth testing, and you failing to present anything of value.
What a bunch of boloney. As I pointed out, there isn't even a certainty that the density *must* different than measured in a solid surface model. I even showed you the water bubble in space videos to demonstrate the concept for you. The fact that you refuse to acknoweldge this point, and the fact you wouldn't even take me seriously if I'm right about the placement of the solar moss activity *and* the mass separation of plasmas, simply demonstrates your closed minded attitude.
I'm really bored now of these back and forth exchanges of pety insults. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/14/2006 21:29:12 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2006 : 23:09:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'm really bored now of these back and forth exchanges of pety insults.
Nothing in my prior post (nor this one) was intended as an insult, petty or otherwise. If you're going to characterize all of my statements and questions as petty insults now, then you are absolutely correct that we are finished here, and I'll give you the last word. Until then...quote:
Are you talking about one or two images Dave or all images?
Would you like me to make more measurements from different images? I'd be happy to, if you'll address the results. You can even pick the limb images you'd like me to measure. Just let me know, and I'll be happy to help out.quote:
quote:
A generalization from a single data point - of a sunspot.
No, it's based on the evidence of a "subsurface stratification layer" at around .993R as well.
Oh? Where does that data come from? You can't be talking about the dozens of "density stratifications" Kosovichev measured, since they went from 0.970Rsun all the way up to nearly 1.0Rsun.quote:
You're trying to take a simple issue, and make it sound "complex" Dave. Either the solar moss activity originates 4800km *under* the photosphere as I suggested, or it originates 1000km above it.
And I'm pointing out that if it turns out that the moss "originates" 4,800 km below the photosphere, and extends over 1,000 km above it, then it doesn't make either you or Lockheed wrong, specifically.quote:
If it begins under the photosphere then Lockheed's interpretation of where it originates has been falsified.
Quote any statement of Lockheed's which uses the word "originates" in regard to the solar moss.quote:
They'll have to go back to the drawing board if these solar moss events originate under the photosphere, just as I will have to rethink my position if the reverse is true.
I don't see why. You're thinking in black-and-white when there exist numerous shades of grey which would simply require slight modifications to either theory.quote:
4800KM under the photosphere is a pretty "rock solid" figure Dave.
Okay. I guarantee that even if you're right, the "answer" provided by STEREO will be something like 4,780 km, in which case, since you provided no plus-or-minus estimates, your answer (quoted above) will be "wrong."quote:
Suggesting the layers are mass separated by weight is also a pretty "rock solid" prediction compared to current theory.
No, because the best current solar modeling includes settling, and so any evidence of any amount of "mass separation" won't really distinguish between your model and the standard ones. Just list the layers, their thicknesses, and what's in them. Make your best guess, and just say "to within 500 km" or something to approximate some amount of precision.quote:
These two issues should tells us which of us is correct, and which interpretation is false.
No, they won't, for the reasons I've provided.quote:
You're attitute really sucks Dave. Real scientists write real papers that really get published. I've done that.
More on that in a moment.quote:
Real scientists go out on a limb and make predictions. I did that too.
As I've shown, you haven't.quote:
Real scientists don't refuse to explain the first image on my website...
Yes, they do, because their ability or inability to explain some image doesn't demonstrate anything, Michael. It's only an experiment in whose "interpretation" agrees with your own subjective opinion, and not an experiement that anyone else can replicate.quote:
...and hurl baseless accusations at people who *are* doing "real science".
What baseless accusations?quote:
Ya, I feel pretty much the same way Dave, particularly since you never once stuck out your neck to offer a complete explanation for even the first image on my website using any other solar theory of your choice.
Again: why should I have done so? What would it have proven? Nothing at all, whether you agreed that my explanation "works" or you did not.quote:
quote:
Not the way you've written them, they won't.
Holy Cow Dave, why not?
I already told you, and I've told you again, above. Your "predictions" won't actually mean anything.quote:
If I'm right, we wiil have discovered that the plasma layers are separated by weight and discovered that solar moss activity originates under the photosphere right where I said they would!
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2006 : 14:16:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Nothing in my prior post (nor this one) was intended as an insult, petty or otherwise. If you're going to characterize all of my statements and questions as petty insults now, then you are absolutely correct that we are finished here, and I'll give you the last word. Until then...
I am most certainly done having a hostile and adversarial relationship with you Dave. It's not the least bit productive at this point and I'm tired of bashing heads like to rams banging into one another other again and again and again.
I happen to respect your grasp of heliosiesmology very much. You've stated on several occassions that you aren't trying to defend gas model theory. Great. I'd like you to switch gears now.
I've given you what I believe is the distance from the top of the photosphere, to the surface itself in terms of kilometers. I'm perfectly willing to use "standard" depth numbers and margins of error related to the sun's "chromosphere" and "photosphere" to define the depths of what I believe represents the neon and helium layers respectively. The real remaining "unknown" from my perspective is the depth of the silicon layer in relationship to the calcium layer. My "opinion" from looking at the satellite images and heliosiesmology data is that the calcium layer is relatively thin, and is probably only a few hundred kilometers in depth. The rest of the distance between the surface of the calcium layer and the bottom of the neon layer is filled with a silicon layer. The primary unknown relates to the ratio between calcium and silicon. If you are willing to change roles here for awhile and colaborate with me in determining the depth of this calcium layer and margins of error using the heliosiesmology data, I'm more than happy to continue to discuss things with you. If you are not interested in this kind of new approach between us, I'm really pretty much done here for the time being.
IMO, no opinions are going to change around here without some very convincing STEREO data. I have a lot of work to do over the next few months. If you aren't interested in working *with* me rather than against me at this point, I'm not really interested in going any further at the moment. We can talk about these ideas till we're blue in the face and nothing is going to change. Once the STEREO data becomes available, tangible evidence may change the tide, but I see little point in continuing this discussion in an adversarial relationship any further at the moment. It seems rather futile, at least for the time being.
It's really your call at this point Dave. As I said, I've met few people over the years that seem to understand and appreciate the heliosiesmology techniques and data as much as you do. I'd be happy to work with you to establish "better", more precise numbers for the silicon and calcium layers if you're interested. If not, well, as I said, I have a lot to do over the next few months.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/15/2006 14:19:38 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2006 : 18:44:40 [Permalink]
|
After reading again and again how no one will pay any attention to the images on your web site, I thought I'd go back and do some more analysis. I'll come back to the first one (the "Gold" RD image, here.), a little later, we've still got some bigger issues to look at before returning to that image, which is of a much smaller region.
Firstly, I'd like to address the second image, which shows much grosser features, here:
I have a few questions for you first however, to make sure we're on the same page and I'm not wasting my time or yours:
1. Do you believe the light/dark features are representative of actual 3D stuctures such as mountains and valleys?
2. If the answer to Q1 is yes, what does your model posit as the light source, and therefore, the source of the shadows?
3. Approximately what depth is the surface this image shows?
4. What is the composition of the surface shown in this image? I've heard you describe it as iron, ferrite, calcium ferrite and "iron ferrites" on various occasions. The word ferrite has different meanings depending on context. Could you please provide some idea as to what your model posits for the composition of this surface. I'm not looking for a precice stochiometric analysys (although that would be nice), but some ballpark figures would be very useful. Feel free to provide large tolerances, my aim is not to nitpick on the precision of the numbers.
5. How would you explain the sandy textured area around the disc?
A couple of other questions regarding your website and model generally:
6. "Where's the beef?" Specifically, is there an actual coherent document describing your model? Your website is essentially a collection of mostly self-contained diatribes on various topics, some related in obvious ways, some not, and pretty much impossible to analyse as a model in any conventional sense.
7. The title of your home page is:
The surface of the Sun: The sun has a rigid iron surface located under the photosphere that is revealed by satellite imagery. The solar surface sits beneath the sun's visible photosphere and is electrically active.
Apart from being ridiculously long for the title of a web page, (something you might want to fix) how does this relate to Q4 and your recent comments to Geemack's post beginning here?
8. On your web site, here you have an image titled "The four agreed upon layers of the sun". Followed by another view of four layers titled "NASA's "official" ordering system that defies the laws of physics. Since when did iron float on helium?". Could you please let me know what you believe these four layers are, and who is doing the "agreeing". |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2006 : 19:49:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It's really your call at this point Dave. As I said, I've met few people over the years that seem to understand and appreciate the heliosiesmology techniques and data as much as you do. I'd be happy to work with you to establish "better", more precise numbers for the silicon and calcium layers if you're interested. If not, well, as I said, I have a lot to do over the next few months.
Well, Michael, you know I'm up for a good calculation or two, but I can't possibly help you with the figures you want. I don't know anyone who can help you.
The numbers you want are going to depend on several factors, including the density, pressure and temperature of each layer, the absolute abundance of each isotope involved, and how much mixing goes on due to physical factors such as the violence of the erosion processes. The three most important factors, as far as the mass separation goes, are going to be the mass of the Sun, the current in any particular arc, and the general "density" of the arcs (in "arcs per square kilometer," for example).
Those three factors obviously work together to create a combinations of forces on the plasmas, which would be (at least) partially "countered" by mixing forces (including the "cosmic wind"). So, in the end, if I had any of the important data points which I could then run through the appropriate equations (which I'd have to go look up or invent), I could help you. But I don't know any of those numbers, and I don't know the physics, so I can be of no assistance. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2006 : 11:18:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
After reading again and again how no one will pay any attention to the images on your web site, I thought I'd go back and do some more analysis. I'll come back to the first one (the "Gold" RD image, here.), a little later, we've still got some bigger issues to look at before returning to that image, which is of a much smaller region.
It is however a *much* better running difference image to begin with since it's a more precise example of a running difference image.
quote:
1. Do you believe the light/dark features are representative of actual 3D stuctures such as mountains and valleys?
Yes and no. Not in the simplistic sense you are suggesting in your question. The "patterns" we see are indicative of, and caused by, three dimensional structures on the surface, but a dark region isn't *necessarily* indicative of a valley, and there is no way to get any sense of "depth" from these images due to resolution limitations with both the SOHO and even the TRACE system. Due to it's design, TRACE is capable of creating higher resolutions images, and therefore if we're interested in precision, the images from Trace are more useful.
quote:
2. If the answer to Q1 is yes, what does your model posit as the light source, and therefore, the source of the shadows?
Coronal loops.
quote:
3. Approximately what depth is the surface this image shows?
The actual solid part of the crust is likely to be less than .01R in depth.
quote:
4. What is the composition of the surface shown in this image?
It is a predominantly iron crust with many elements mixed in.
quote:
I've heard you describe it as iron, ferrite, calcium ferrite and "iron ferrites" on various occasions. The word ferrite has different meanings depending on context. Could you please provide some idea as to what your model posits for the composition of this surface.
I put some meteorite examples of what I think the crust looks like on the first page of my website. There are "veins" of metals running through other types of non ferrous materials. Because the crust has a lot of iron, parts of the crust are capable of holding a magnetic alignment.
quote:
I'm not looking for a precice stochiometric analysys (although that would be nice), but some ballpark figures would be very useful.
You'll need to start with something akin to the crust of the earth then, something roughly the density of olivine. Y
quote:
Feel free to provide large tolerances, my aim is not to nitpick on the precision of the numbers.
Ok.
quote:
5. How would you explain the sandy textured area around the disc?
The sandy textured areas around the sun in RD images is due to the motion of the plasma and the scattering effects of light in plasma. Sometimes an individual pixel in the atmosphere will be brighter in one pixel and darker in another. This sandy effect is more or less random noise due to plasma flow and scattering.
quote:
A couple of other questions regarding your website and model generally:
6. "Where's the beef?" Specifically, is there an actual coherent document describing your model?
http://www.thesurfaceofthensun.com/TheSurfaceOfTheSun.pdf
I would like to write a new "layman's version" to include some of the things I've learned over the last year, including some depth predictions related to plasma layers.
quote:
Your website is essentially a collection of mostly self-contained diatribes on various topics, some related in obvious ways, some not, and pretty much impossible to analyse as a model in any conventional sense.
Ok.
quote:
7. The title of your home page is:
The surface of the Sun: The sun has a rigid iron surface located under the photosphere that is revealed by satellite imagery. The solar surface sits beneath the sun's visible photosphere and is electrically active.
Apart from being ridiculously long for the title of a web page, (something you might want to fix) how does this relate to Q4 and your recent comments to Geemack's post beginning here?
I'm not sure how familiar you are with search engines and search engine "ranking" techniques, but the idea was to include as many related ideas while using specific keywords as often as possible. It's a "marketing" decision frankly.
quote:
8. On your web site, here you have an image titled "The four agreed upon layers of the sun". Followed by another view of four layers titled "NASA's "official" ordering system that defies the laws of physics. Since when did iron float on helium?". Could you please let me know what you believe these four layers are, and who is doing the "agreeing".
Even before Trace was launched, Lockheed Martin placed the "transition region" in the lower corona, or between the chromosphere and the corona. It continues to interpret images on this wavelength based on that original assumption. The problem with that interpretation is that the iron ions that release the photons is much heavier than the hydrogen plasma it traverses. That |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2006 : 11:34:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, Michael, you know I'm up for a good calculation or two, but I can't possibly help you with the figures you want. I don't know anyone who can help you.
Well then, as you note it's a very complicated issue dependent on a number of factors that remain "unknown" for the time being. I'm inclined for the moment to go with the figures we discussed earlier, with the calcium layer beginning at about .995, and the surface starting at around .993R. This would make the calcium layer about 1400km thick and the silicon layer would be roughly twice as thick. I suspect that I'm actually overestimating the thickness of the calcium layer relatively signifcantly, but without STEREO data, this is only a guestimate based on flow patterns around the sunspot data we looked at in an earlier thread. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2006 : 15:22:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well then, as you note it's a very complicated issue dependent on a number of factors that remain "unknown" for the time being. I'm inclined for the moment to go with the figures we discussed earlier, with the calcium layer beginning at about .995, and the surface starting at around .993R. This would make the calcium layer about 1400km thick and the silicon layer would be roughly twice as thick. I suspect that I'm actually overestimating the thickness of the calcium layer relatively signifcantly, but without STEREO data, this is only a guestimate based on flow patterns around the sunspot data we looked at in an earlier thread.
Why do you need STEREO data to find something which should be discoverable given the Sun's mass, the amount of electrical activity within the layers you posit, and the relative abundances of the various isotopes in them? In order to validate your theory, Michael, STEREO has to actually come up with measurements that match the numbers that your model produces, because matching guesses based on a subset of a single sunspot's flow diagrams doesn't validate anything, since those measurements would not match flow diagrams taken from areas away from sunspots. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
