|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 07/29/2006 : 14:10:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Michael only a portion of that paper discussed mass separation. Manuel states:
quote:
The Sun is a plasma diffuser that selectively moves light elements like H and He and the lighter isotopes of each element to its surface.
This certainly sounds like he does not think that the sun is layered with different elemental layers and these layers are divided by isotope.
How else would you interpret a system that pushes lighter elements to rise while allowing heavier elements to sink?
quote:
The paper further states:
quote:
Further discussion of these startling images will be postponed until the experimental basis has been presented for concluding that the Sun acts as a magnetic plasma diffuser, hiding its iron-rich interior beneath a surface veneer of lightweight elements.
So it seems there is no experimental evidence for your view on mass separation.
I find it very interesting to see how people actually interpret what we write to see how it differs from our intent. I don't see how you got that from this sentence but the intent was to minimize the importance of the satellite images, to focus upon the mechanisms that drive plasma separation. Somehow you interpreted something very different into the intent of that sentence than was intended by it. I'm sure this is a typical human "issue" related to clear communication, but that was not the intent of that sentence. I'll be happy to take responsibility for any lack of clerity on our part however.
quote:
Michael I was hoping for a dialog about mass separation I don't want to read papers to try a gleen some information about your position. If you want to site a paper to back up a point that is fine but I am not going to have you just say read this paper or that paper.
Well, you said you wanted details. If you want to understand my position on this subject, you should at least read the paper I've been personally involved in that explains this particular aspect of our theory. I'll grant you this is an oversimplied explanation that is geared at a particle physics audience, and it's quiet different than what we might write for a plasma physics audience, but this does lay out the basis for the separation of elements.
Keep in mind that the coronal loops are tossing huge amounts of materials into the solar atmosphere and there is a certain amount of mixing in every layer. By and large however, the layers separate themselves by weight, with the lighter elements pushed higher in the atmosphere, while the heavier elements sink toward the surface. Gravity and the strong electromagnetic fields near the surface drive this separation process.
If you'd prefer a different approach, which approach would you like? I could try it from plasma physics perspective it you like, but I'll admit up front, that isn't my personal field of expertise. I could try a satellite image/heliosiesmology approach if you like as well. It's entirely up to you.
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2006 : 22:09:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
There are essentially two options here as it relates to these emissions, heat and electricity. Take your pick.
Electricity has to do with current flow, Michael. If electrons are moving around in all directions equally, then there is no net current flow, and so no electricity. The choice you present is hopelessly oversimplified.quote:
Your use of the term "non thermal" is a bit of a misnomer IMO. The fact that plasma is *not* a perfect conductor, means that any flow of current will generate heat.
You'll have to explain your opinion better than that, since it assumes that there is electrical current.quote:
I think you're being way to fixated on the notion of non-thermal and thermal emissions, since electrical emissions are also typically quite hot.
I think you're way too fixated on electrons meaning electricity.quote:
Have you ever used an arc welder before?
An arc welder's emissions are entirely thermal.quote:
There are likely to be what you would insist we label "non thermal" emissions going on in that process, but there are a lot of thermal emissions as well. The flow of elecricity drives the heating process.
That's your theory, where is your evidence?quote:
You are evidently confusing the authors description of two new types of non thermal emmissions that Rhessi can *also* image, with some notion about a limition about the satellite's overall capabilities. Rhessi is able to observe both types of emissions, *including* those two types of nonthermal emissions mechanisms the author mentions. That does not mean that Rhessi is limited to seeing *only* non thermal emissions.
No, the researchers were only interested in the non-thermal emissions, Michael. That is the only thing they discuss in that paper.quote:
Because of it's unique sensitivity to non thermal emissions, if we really want to get to get some handle on the amount of current flowing in the solar atmosphere, the Rhessi satellite is our best bet.
Unfortunately, you have used the UofM paper to suggest that there is current flow and billion-degree kinetic temperatures in the corona. The paper discusses neither, regardless of the capabilities of the satellite they used. You're just misrepresenting what the paper says.quote:
I think you have an unrealistic view of what "non thermal" emissions might represent as it relates to coronal loops and CME's and electrical discharges in general. Just as we might observe both thermal and nonthermal emissions from an electrical discharge on earth, so too, an electrical discharge in the solar atmosphere may release all sorts of photons, including gamma rays. It's still a very energetic process, and this discharge involves a lot of heat.
Who cares what my "view" is? A paper which says, in effect, "the emissions we measured can't be explained by heat," does not support your guess about the arcs being electrical.quote:
But even plasma seeks an equilibrium state Dave. Something however is creating and causing a huge *flow* of current to flow *through* the plasma.
Prove it. Quote the UofM paper where it says "current."quote:
quote:
The paper suggests electron densities as high as 1010 electrons per cm3.
That's an *increadible* number of electrons to be flowing though what is supposed to be *extremely* thinly dispersed atoms of the corona don't you think?
You could have done the math yourself, Michael. In what is mostly a hydrogen plasma, 1010 electrons per cubic centimeter, multiplied by two to generously allow for other, heavier, ions in there, gives a density about one ten-millionth that of the photosphere (on the order of 2×10-14g/cm3). Nothing "incredible" about it at all - that figure is completely credible for the lower corona.quote:
How many electrons per atom per second does that represent considering the corona is filled with such thin material?
What are you talking about, Michael? The paper is talking about free electrons in a plasma, not those bound to atoms (which don't emit either type of radiation the researchers measured).quote:
That sure sounds like a lot of amperage through extremely thinly dispersed plasma to me.
You appear to think that the electrons are hopping from atom to atom, so I understand your incredulity, but don't agree that it is logical.quote:
I think you're overlooking a significant density issue here Dave. Copper is a great conductor because the atoms are tightly packed and close together. *Thick* plasma might be a better conductor than copper, but the amount of electrons passing through the thinly dispersed corona would be orders of magnitude higher than the number of electrons flowing through every atom each second in the experiment you outlined.
Michael, the electrons flowing through a plasma experince less resistance than the electrons in a copper wire do, because they're just flying through space, mostly unimpeded by atoms at all. The electrons in a copper wire get passed from atom to atom, at about 1/10th the speed of ligh |
- 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 - 07/30/2006 : 15:21:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Because I didn't say that I agreed with him, you just made that up. One more time making up stuff about me, and I'm going to feel no guilt in calling you a liar again, Michael.
I think I'm about done now with this childish and ridiculous conversation. If someone misunderstands something I've said, that does not automatically make them a liar, nor does it give me the right to call them a liar. The fact you feel the need to resort to this kind of childish behavior even when I've asked you not to do so, and the fact you get so damn nasty about everything we discuss, from solar concepts to BB theory, shows me that you aren't interested in honest dialog Dave, just pety, childish, hypocritical ego posturing.
Enjoy your life Dave.
Anyone who wishes to continue an adult discussion on this topic is welcome to join the discussions at the Livesciences forums, you can find the same topic being discussed here, without all the inter-personal nonsense:
http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=468660&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/30/2006 15:24:22 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2006 : 18:44:00 [Permalink]
|
Through Dave's patience and effort, I think it is clear to everyone by now that Michael does not have a solar model. He doesn't even have a theory. What he has is merely an explanation that he has somehow managed to convince himself has merit. But since you have to first assume his explanation is correct in order for it to explain anything, it is indeed a tautology, as Dave labeled it.
If we assume the sun has a solid surface and is heated by electricity, then we can conclude the sun has a solid surface and is heated by electricity in order to "explain" certain images. That, in a nutshell, is the extent of Michael's "theory."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/30/2006 18:44:24 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 18:17:21 [Permalink]
|
Michael, I apologize for using the "L word." I've been giving this whole discussion some thought over the last week, and I have some new (and not-so-new) questions. I don't think that reviving the LiveSciences thread, which has been devoid of substantial disucssion for over two months now, is the place to ask them. And so, I promise to stick to the science in this thread, so long as you stick to the science. Deal?
If so, then about your predictions. First, you claim that it is a prediction of a Birkeland solar model that the footpoints of the coronal loops be colocated with the surface. Why is that? The Aurorae don't visibly meet the Earth's surface, and neither does cloud-to-cloud lightning. Speaking of which, "sprites" and "jets" going upwards from thunderheads don't have their base on the Earth's surface, either. What is it about your solar model which predicts that the footpoints of the arcs should be at (or even near) the surface, and not some distance away?
Second, why is it that you chose that as a prediction of your model, instead of the location of the surface itself? One of the basic properties of the standard solar models is that they tell us why the Sun's radius is 696,000 km, and not 750,000 km or 10,000 km or 1,000,000 km. Does your model not explain why the surface that you observe is at 4,800 km below the photosphere, instead of 2,400 km or 10,000 km or 200,000 km?
Third, what instruments aboard STEREO and which experimental protocols will the STEREO mission scientists be using to verify your predictions?
Fourth, regarding your blog post of 7/26/06, how does your solar model explain the increased temperatures outside a sunspot? The ones which directly correlate with increased ocean temperatures? Furthermore, why is it that a silicon plasma, hotter than the neon plasma layer in your model, is darker than the neon? After all, a silicon plasma has visible-light emissions, too, and requires more energy to ionize than neon. Besides, what are the "impurities" in the neon layer in your model which make a predominantly red emitter (ionized neon) emit predominantly yellow light, instead? |
- 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 - 08/08/2006 : 13:03:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Michael, I apologize for using the "L word." I've been giving this whole discussion some thought over the last week, and I have some new (and not-so-new) questions. I don't think that reviving the LiveSciences thread, which has been devoid of substantial disucssion for over two months now, is the place to ask them. And so, I promise to stick to the science in this thread, so long as you stick to the science. Deal?
I appreciate it. That works for me as well.
quote:
If so, then about your predictions. First, you claim that it is a prediction of a Birkeland solar model that the footpoints of the coronal loops be colocated with the surface. Why is that?
Because in Birkeland's lab experiments, the surface is where the discharges terminated.
quote:
The Aurorae don't visibly meet the Earth's surface, and neither does cloud-to-cloud lightning.
I don't believe that either of these analogies applies in this particular case, or at least it does not apply in *most* cases.
quote:
Speaking of which, "sprites" and "jets" going upwards from thunderheads don't have their base on the Earth's surface, either. What is it about your solar model which predicts that the footpoints of the arcs should be at (or even near) the surface, and not some distance away?
Let me be clear here. The location of the footprints is more of a rule of thumb rather than an absolute statement of fact in every single case of solar discharge. Coronal loops are more akin to lightening discharges and these solar discharge events move at lightening leader speeds. Aurorae are very different kinds of events than coronal loop discharges. Just a lightening often originates at the negatively charged surfaces of the earth, so too, these discharges "typically" start at a negatively charged area of the surface, in fact, most of these discharges happen entirely *under* the surface of the photosphere. Only the largest of the coronal loop events actually poke through the photosphere.
There are of course exceptions to every rule, but this rule describes the vast majority of these discharge events in general terms. The location of solar moss events is actually a more appropriate "test" of the "location" of the surface. In my model, solar moss is caused by actual surface peeling, where solids are literally being ripped from surface and are being ionized by the discharge event in the current stream that heats the loops.
quote:
Second, why is it that you chose that as a prediction of your model, instead of the location of the surface itself? One of the basic properties of the standard solar models is that they tell us why the Sun's radius is 696,000 km, and not 750,000 km or 10,000 km or 1,000,000 km. Does your model not explain why the surface that you observe is at 4,800 km below the photosphere, instead of 2,400 km or 10,000 km or 200,000 km?
I would say that it is a very valid criticism to suggest that I "should" be starting with the location of the solar surface, and describing the thicknesses of various plasma layers in the atmosphere relative to this surface, rather than starting with the top of the photosphere.
It has simply been convenient during online discussions of these ideas to use a "standard reference point" to describe these various features. Essentally that's how I got into the scenario of describing things relative to the surface of the photosphere. I will correct that in my next individual paper that I write.
The link I posted for furshur a bit earlier is a rough draft of a paper that Oliver, Sumeet and I started working on last year and that paper will be published in Physics of Atomic Nuclei, volume 69, number 11, pages 1-10 (2006) and the Russian translation will be published in Yad Fiz. My intent after that paper is published is to begin working on a new paper that I intend to submit to the APJ. I'll be sure to use the rigid surface as a primary reference point in that paper rather than the photosphere. I also intend to include everything I've learned over the course of the last year and a half. I have no idea if they'll actually publish such a paper, but I would like to give it a shot.
The "why" aspect of the size of the surface crust is simply a function of the amount of materials that compose our sun and the way these materials formed themselves in space. It's a bit like asking why is Earth is the size of the earth. It just is that size based on the amount of materials involved and the layout of these materials.
quote:
Third, what instruments aboard STEREO and which experimental protocols will the STEREO mission scientists be using to verify your predictions?
Secchi is the primary instrument that will have the capacity to verify or refute these predictions.
http://secchi.nrl.navy.mil/index.php?page=Specifics
quote:
Extreme Ultraviolet Imager (EUVI):
EUVI provides full Sun coverage with twice the spatial resolution and
dramatically improved cadence over EIT.
EUVI observes the photospheric magnetic field, chromosphere, and
innermost corona underlying the same portions of the corona and the
heliosphere observed by COR1, COR2, and HI.
quote:
Fourth, regarding your blog post of 7/26/06, how does your solar model explain the increased temperatures outside a sunspot? The ones which directly correlate with increased ocean temperatures?
The increase in overall temperature is a direct result of the increase in discharge activity going on along the surface. Not every heavy discharge forms a sunspot, but the increase in sunspot activity is a direct result of the increase in coronal loop activity. That discharge process is what is heating up the silicon plasma. The heaviest discharge areast typically release a lot of predominantly hydrogen jets that we see streaming off the sun in Lasco images. It's the increase in surface discharges that releases this excess heat into the solar atmosphere. The excess heat is released all along the surface, not *just* around sunspots.
quote:
Furthermore, why is it that a silicon plasma, hotter |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/08/2006 13:18:56 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2006 : 10:37:15 [Permalink]
|
http://www.rense.com/general66/expl.htm
FYI Dave, here's another very good reason to believe that electrical currents play a very powerful role in the CME process. What other force besides EM fields could possibly spew particles at a significant percentage of the speed of light?
In Birkeland's lab experiments, he discovered that any bumps on a the surface of the sphere would tend to be areas of concentrated electrical discharges. That's exactly what we see happening on the sun too. The higher elevations tend to see a lot of electrical action. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2006 : 12:48:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Second, why is it that you chose that as a prediction of your model, instead of the location of the surface itself?
The logic behind selecting these two predictions is pretty easy to explain.
I *seriously* doubt that anyone involved in the STEREO program is going to feel comfortable immediately "announcing" that they've discovered a new "surface" under the photosphere based on a couple of months of images. Even if they believe that they are looking at a another surface under the photosphere, I doubt that particular revelation is going to be one of the first "announcements" they make, or even get that much attention at first.
If I'm right, there should be a lot less controversial things, and many more obvious things to talk about at first. Even the announcement of the discovery of a "subsurface" layer at a shallow depth under the photosphere isn't going to immediately equate to them agreeing with me about this layer being a "solid" surface. Even if the folks at STEREO state that this is layer is more "rigid" than the photosphere, there is no guarantee they're going to announce it to be "solid". If I picked a "surface" location as one of my early "predictions", we would probably be waiting for a very long time to get any sort of direct comformation of these predictions from the folks running the STEREO program. By selecting some things that are far "less controversial", and perhaps even more important, I'm hoping to get quicker confirmation. If I am right, STEREO should "discover" all sorts of new and interesting things about the sun that the mainstream solar physicists will be interested in, and will embrace more readily. IMO, the single most important revelation of the STEREO program will be the discovery of mass separation of plasma layers, followed by the fact that the iron lines originate under the photosphere, not in the lower corona. Those are the two topics that are most likely receive the immediate attention of the folks running the STEREO program IMO. I simply selected two predictions that I think will be "hot topics" very early in the program so we aren't waiting around forever for some basic confirmation.
The discovery of mass separated layers and the discovery that iron line emissions originate under the photosophere, not above it, are two issues that should come to the forefront almost immediately. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2006 : 16:53:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I *seriously* doubt that anyone involved in the STEREO program is going to feel comfortable immediately "announcing" that they've discovered a new "surface" under the photosphere based on a couple of months of images. Even if they believe that they are looking at a another surface under the photosphere, I doubt that particular revelation is going to be one of the first "announcements" they make, or even get that much attention at first.
I would think the converse would be true. If a scientist who had access to all the relevant data as to what the imagery is showing felt that it showed a solid surface, or anything "unexpected" for that matter, they'd be falling over each other to be among the first to report/explain it.
Being scientists, they wouldn't put 100% confidence in the findings, but you can bet they'd be extremely keen to investigate further and put themselves on the map. There are always those that prefer to avoid change, but finding those that embrace it is generally not particularly hard amongst scientists.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2006 : 19:08:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Second, why is it that you chose that as a prediction of your model, instead of the location of the surface itself?
The logic behind selecting these two predictions is pretty easy to explain.
I've got more of a response written up, not yet completed, but I feel a need to respond to this.
It doesn't matter what STEREO discovers in particular, Michael. My question about your predictions is why are they about things which you have already observed, and not anything new? Your interpretation of the satellite imagery allows you to observe a solid surface. Your interpretation of Kosovichev's data allows you to observe how deep that surface is underneath the photosphere. Your interpretation of Birkeland's work allows you to observe that the footpoints of the arcs should be at the surface. Your interpretation of sunspots and Dr. Manuel's work allows you to observe mass-separated layers of plasma. These are all observations, and simply tying them together by saying that the footpoints of the arcs ought to be at the surface 4,800 km below the photosphere isn't really a prediction that is born of an explanation, but is instead just a verification of three different observations.
Your theory doesn't yet seem to explain why the solid surface would be 4,800 km below the surface (instead of at any other depth, just like our theories of planet formation really do tell us why the Earth is the size it is), nor does it explain the amount of mass separation (since you don't know the Sun's mass), nor does it explain the amount of electrical forces within the arcs (since you can't quantify the power source).
These are all unknowns, but in reality they're vitally important to demonstrating the value of your model. As I've said, if the current in the arcs and the resistance of the plasmas aren't high enough to generate the measured temperatures, then your model of resistive heating fails. If the amount of power through the arcs combined with the structural properties of whatever the shell is made of cannot explain the amount of erosion you observe to be taking place, then your electrical erosion hypothesis fails. Etc., etc.. These are the kinds of predictions a working theory makes. They tell us why we observe what we observe, they don't just verify that our observations are correct, which is all you seem to be expecting STEREO to do for you.
At a bare minimum, a solar model which seeks to include a solid shell should explain how the shell came into being, and why it is a particular size. The model should do this by combining known laws of physics with plausible (not exact) estimations of the materials and forces involved. It should explain these things because it says that there's a solid surface and it's 4,800 km beneath the photosphere. "How'd it get there?" and "why there in particular?" are the first questions which come to my mind, and all considerations of what the arcs are and how they heat the corona are, frankly, left behind in the dust. Really, so long as the presence of a solid surface remains in doubt, then any explanation of the arcs which depends upon a solid surface is only of academic interest. |
- 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 - 08/09/2006 : 21:20:25 [Permalink]
|
http://grav1.bravehost.com/thegrandpuzzle.html
FYI, while I'm thinking about it, you might want to take a gander at this website, and the ideas being presented. I think these ideas make a lot of sense for a variety of reasons, and since the topic is related to neutrinos and redshifting issues, it seemed appropriate to our discussions. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2006 : 22:28:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It doesn't matter what STEREO discovers in particular, Michael. My question about your predictions is why are they about things which you have already observed, and not anything new?
Well, for starters, my "interpretations" of satellite images have not yet been "verified" by a lot of other people. Four individuals that seem willing to write papers together is evidently not enough "confirmation" for most folks. The first and most obvious thing I would expect STEREO to return is confirmation of my interpretations of the existing satellite and helioseismolgy evidence. If I can't verify my interpretation through STEREO data, then what good is my model, and what good are my interpretations in the first place?
It's great that I *interpret* Kosovichev's data to infer the existence of a solid surface that sits under the photosphere, but Kosovichev himself would not likely agree to this interpretion of his data. Likewise, my "interpretation" of Lockheed's running difference images is no guarantee that the creators of these images agrees with my assessment of them. The first order of business needs to be centered on *verifying the interpretations* of either Lockheed Martin, or myself as it relates to the positioning of the surface seen in 171A images in relationship to the surface of the photosphere. If I'm correct about the location of the transitional region, then Kosovichev might not be as resistant to my "interpretation" of his heliosiesmolgoy data as he would be if he believes that Lockheed's positioning rationale for the transitional region is accurate.
The odds are that I can pick up a lot of momentum simply by first validating the things I've been talking about for the last year before I start conjuring up expalations for next year.
I'm simply keeping the horse before the cart here as I see things.
quote:
Your interpretation of the satellite imagery allows you to observe a solid surface. Your interpretation of Kosovichev's data allows you to observe how deep that surface is underneath the photosphere. Your interpretation of Birkeland's work allows you to observe that the footpoints of the arcs should be at the surface. Your interpretation of sunspots and Dr. Manuel's work allows you to observe mass-separated layers of plasma. These are all observations, and simply tying them together by saying that the footpoints of the arcs ought to be at the surface 4,800 km below the photosphere isn't really a prediction that is born of an explanation, but is instead just a verification of three different observations.
It also serves as a validation of the "interpretations" of all these different sets of data. As I said, Lockheed Martin employees, and Stanford professors of heliosiesmology might be a lot more receptive to my ideas if these ideas that I've put into the public domain are verified by NASA. Without such verification, how will you or anyone else ever know if my "interpretation" of these different data sets is accurate and valid in the first place?
quote:
Your theory doesn't yet seem to explain why the solid surface would be 4,800 km below the surface (instead of at any other depth, just like our theories of planet formation really do tell us why the Earth is the size it is),
But I'm not God, and satellite images only allow me to know *where* things are located in relationship to the surface. These images do not necessarily tell me *why* they are located and arranged as they are, they simply tell me *where* they are arranged. In other words I might be able to assertain the depths of the various plasma layers based on satellite images and heliosiesmology techniques, but I still don't know the exact density of every layer, nor can I be certain how the sun interacts with the universe itself, or what's under the crust. Based on percieved density concerns, Dr. Mabuse seems to favor a "hollow center" type explanation (not that he favors anything I've said), whereas I tend to lean toward a spinning neutron core inside a metal shell with a lot of pressurized plasma in between. I still also thin a fision core model is a valid option, but I'm leaning toward the spinning core. The neutron core theory is attractive because it can explain electro-magnetic energy through induction, and it can also be used to explain the constantly rotating magnetic axis of the sun.
To this day, I still remain open to a variety of "inner configurations", and IMO, we just don't have enough information yet to rule out any of these options prematurely.
quote:
nor does it explain the amount of mass separation (since you don't know the Sun's mass),
I believe that this is something that STEREO might help us understand. I can "see" for instance that hydrogen atoms are created in the coronal loops that traverse the surface. I can see this gas being ejected in Lasco images. It tends to be concentrated in the areas of highest electrical surface activity. That means that hydrogen should be being created inside the coronal loops near the surface, and this element should be somewhat "mixed" thoughout all the atmospheric layers. That element is being created in all the layers and it is flowing through all the layers. There is certainly "some" mixing of materials, but I really can only "guess" right now at how much mixing is occuring, and therefore "density" remains a bit of an enigma. STEREO may help answer some of these questions. I'd just like to first see some confirmation that the white light neon layer is in fact sitting above the calcium layer, and it sits underneath the helium layer. The we can talk about mixing and densities and the other "details". Until we have confirmation of the mass separated layers however, there is no way to really proceed IMO.
quote:
nor does it explain the amount of electrical forces within the arcs (since you can't quantify the power source).
I don't think there is a "single" power source frankly, and I also think there is a significant interaction occuring between the sun and it's solar sheath due to the fairly substancial changes in the way the sun is interacting with the plasma flow of the universe. I'd love to simplify everything for you, so everything fits into a nice math formulas, but unfortunately I don't think it's really that simple, or that we understand all the external influences well enough to answer these questions just yet.
quote:
These are all unknowns, but in reality they're vitally important to demonstrating the value of your model.
I hear you, but from my perspective, it's a matter of firs |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/10/2006 00:05:23 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2006 : 23:25:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
I would think the converse would be true. If a scientist who had access to all the relevant data as to what the imagery is showing felt that it showed a solid surface, or anything "unexpected" for that matter, they'd be falling over each other to be among the first to report/explain it.
You evidently haven't tried emailing people at NASA or Lockheed recently with the intent of trying to convince them to create and post some additional running difference TRACE images. You'd be surprised at how disinterested some people can be about creating unnecessary controversy.
quote:
Being scientists, they wouldn't put 100% confidence in the findings, but you can bet they'd be extremely keen to investigate further and put themselves on the map.
It seems that some professionals believe that they are already "on the map" as it relates to being employed in the industry, and they are quite comfortable with their position in the industry. Doing things to "rock the boat" isn't necessarily a healthy career move, and doing something like that requires a really "great" motive.
One would think after all the pestering I have done over the last 18 months that someone at NASA or Lockheed would have been interested in posting some additional TRACE running difference images, if only to "blow me out of the water" by demonstrating changes in the surface patterns over time. In over 18 months of exchanging emails, I can't even get that much interest happening at NASA and Lockheed. IMO, it's going to take something on the order of a STEREO confirmation of my ideas to turn the tide.
quote:
There are always those that prefer to avoid change, but finding those that embrace it is generally not particularly hard amongst scientists.
I've run into open minded scientists over the past year and half, and I do ultimately agree with you, and I have sypathy for what you're suggesting. However, as a person depending on their job for income, there simply isn't enough "evidence" to convince most people to risk their careers, and to go too far out on any limbs just yet. They have families to feed just like I do, but unlike me, they don't have the luxury of being financially immune from the conquenses and fallout of being wrong. An amateur astronomer like myself, that is self employed in a completely unrelated industry, has absolutely nothing to lose by being wrong about solar theory. That isn't the case for those that earn a living in the industry and are dependent upon funding, and for those who are expected to be "teachers" of "mainstream" astronomical ideas. I'm not condemning anyone here. I'm simply noting that there is a political aspect to this process that cannot be ignored or denied.
Sooner or later I do expect that others will join the cause, but first I think some folks would like to see some results, and they would like to see me make some testable predictions that can be verified by others. I realized from the start, that if I was right, I would be in this for a long haul. I'm simply taking the logical steps that I know how to take in order to get others interested in these ideas, and to put their efforts into these ideas. That's part of why I'm out still out here debating these ideas in cyberspace. I've been discussing these ideas long enough now to convince myself that these ideas have merit. I have learned a lot from these discussions, and it's important that I continually attempt to falsify my position, but I'd also like to believe that these conversations work both ways. I'd like to think that a year from now, when someone reads through these threads and sees the predictions I've made, and they can note that these predictions were later verified, that others will become interested in a Birkeland solar model, and will show more interest in electric universe theory.
If nothing else, the wonderful part of being a true "skeptic" is that I/we can be skeptical of all ideas, including mainstream scientific theories. There are few areas of science that I can think of that are more in need of careful skepticism than something as "hands off" as the field of astronomy. I'm hopeful that the predictions I've made here will be born out, and that others will note that fact as the data comes out. I'm hopeful that other "skeptics" will eventually start to put more effort into *my side* of this process rather than constantly putting their effort into trying to poke holes in my interpretations. I'm grateful for the skeptical review, but I'll be even more grateful for the help. :)
I'd like to think that skeptics of all people can appreciate where I'm coming from right now. I'm an optimist at heart. I'm hopeful that over time some of you will become more receptive to these ideas. Assuming I'm right, I do have faith that the industry will eventually change and embrace reality, but such change will take place one individual at a time, and that process of change will take a number of years.
I simply picked two important "predictions" that are both critical as it relates to solar theory, and satellite image interpretation, but I also picked predictions that will be obviously verified or falsified from the first few months of data. If STEREO launches and operates as expected, we should have answers to these two predictions in less than six months. Right or wrong, that's the best I can do right now. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 00:04:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I need help.
Sure thing. Here you go.
You can thank me later.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/10/2006 00:06:00 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 00:06:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I need help.
Sure thing. Here you go.
You can thank me later.
You've become painfully predictable. Yawn. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
