|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 08/10/2006 : 00:13:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You've become painfully predictable. Yawn.
Ah, but if I'm so predictable, why do you keep lobbing me softballs? Come on, Michael, you were simply asking for it that time. (And I really, really do think you need help; and not the kind NASA can provide.)
|
"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 00:14:31 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 09:14:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You've become painfully predictable. Yawn.
Ah, but if I'm so predictable, why do you keep lobbing me softballs? Come on, Michael, you were simply asking for it that time. (And I really, really do think you need help; and not the kind NASA can provide.)
What big ego talk for a guy that's never taken a serious stab at fully explaining the very first image on my website.  |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 09:53:31 [Permalink]
|
http://www.informnauka.ru/eng/2005/2005-09-13-5_65_e.htm
http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/Gammarays.pdf
Dave, checkout the two links above that relate to recent discoveries about lightning and it's ability to emit gamma rays during heavy current flows. Keep in mind that high energy plasma z-pinches will certainly release neutrons according to Los Alamos. These free neutrons generate both CNO and hydrogen fusion reactions inside the coronal loops. Some of these free nuetrons decay into hydrogen atoms that flow off the sun in huge jets seen in Lasco images.
We can also see evidence of H-alpha emissions coming from inside of the coronal loops in high cadence BBSO images (Big Bear). In these BBSO images, we can even see the material "moving" around inside the small sized coronal loops near the surface. That process is being repeated all along the surface according to these high resolution, high cadence BBSO images.
Only the very largest of the coronal loops actually penentrate the surface of the photosphere. As you suggest, lightning leaders can and will do funny things and begin in unusual ways at times, depending on the charges in the plasma. But just like with Birkland's experiements in his lab, the surface itself if often times the source point and the termination point of the electrical discharges from the surface of a metallic sphere.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002400/a002462/ar9906-zoom-rotate.mpg
Watch the Rhessi movie we cited in our last CNO fusion paper again. Just as there are CNO fusion reactions seen in these RHESSI images which are due to the current flowing inside the loops, so too there are signs of gamma ray bursts nearer to the surface. The neutrons are being z-pinched from the plasma and then some of them are captured again in the upper atmosphere in fusion reactions inside the loops. Even the gamma ray emissions from these electrical discharges is clearly visible nearer to the surface. Just as Dr. Charles Bruce suggested nearly 50 years ago, these events are electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. We see clear signs of the results of these discharges, based on our experience with lightning here on earth and what we observe from these events, and have even observed in Rhessi images of lightning here on earth. This can't all be one giant coincidence.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/10/2006 10:01:25 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 12:26:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Because in Birkeland's lab experiments, the surface is where the discharges terminated.
Sure, if you're ready to claim that all of the loop activity is due to electrons falling into the Sun's surface - as was the case with Birkeland's setup. He had a cathode-ray generator outside the big box, that he beamed directly towards the terrella. That's where all of the power came from. If you want to claim that the Sun works analogously to Birkeland's setup, then the "arcs" are entirely "inbound" from an external source of electrons, and the Sun itself will have nothing more than a large magnetic field generator inside.quote:
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...
Again, these ideas show that your solar model is very different from Birkeland's experimental setup.quote:
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.
That wasn't at all my criticism. What you pick as a reference point doesn't matter at all.quote:
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.
But that's exactly what the standard solar models tell us. And our theories of planet formation tell us why the Earth is the size it is, and not twice as large or small. That's the point to a solar theory: it tells us why our observations are what they are.quote:
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.
Well, if this presentation is accurate, the EUVI will have a resolution some three times worse than TRACE (so your surface will be separated from the top surface of the photosphere by less than five pixels even when viewed edge-on). A more pressing problem is that the estimated response of the EUVI shows that it won't be imaging anything less than about 31,000 K, so the neon, silicon and calcium layers in your model will simply be invisible to the EUVI because they'll be too cold. Based on that, STEREO isn't going to be able to do anything to verify your mass separation hypothesis, and very little to verify the location of the footpoints.quote:
quote:
Furthermore, why is it that a silicon plasma, hotter than the neon plasma layer in your model, is darker than the neon?
I want to be clear that as a rule of thumb, the silicon is typically much "cooler" than the neon photosphere. Furthermore, inside a sunspot there is a combination of different temperature silicon plasmas involved. Some cool silicon plasma is carried around in the tornado like structures that form, and hot plasma is often seen rising and falling in these areas. That reduced amount of visible light in sunspot activity is related to a reduction of neon in this area. It has very little to do with the temperature in this region.
I mean that the coolest silicon plasma is still hotter than the temperatures found in the photosphere (the neon plasma in your model). Silicon requires more energy to ionize than does neon.quote:
The visible wavelengths of light that we see coming from the neon layer are due not just to the presense of neon, but also hydrogen and helium rising toward to the surface, and well as iron particles and calcium ions that are constantly kicked out and have to settle again back through the neon. There are many elements present, and separation is "incomplete" at best.
...The impurities that exist are pretty much everything we see in the SERTS spectral data. We can be pretty sure all these elements are flowing through the atmosphere.
Pick some ions, and show that they contribute enough emissions in the visible range to change predominantly red light (neon, hydrogen and helium) to yellow.quote:
Because the solar atmosphere is a very dynamic environment, "complete" separation is not likely to occur. We see coronal loops spew things of the lower atmosphere tha |
- 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 - 08/10/2006 : 15:13:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Sure, if you're ready to claim that all of the loop activity is due to electrons falling into the Sun's surface - as was the case with Birkeland's setup.
Since I'm a bit busy today, I'll probably "pick" at this post as I get time. Bear with me a bit.
Actually, as you noted, Birkeland's experiments utilized an electrically charged electromagnetic core, much like Dr. Manuel's concept of a spinning neutron core. A true Birkeland model would include electrical interactions with the universe itself, predominantly through the heliospheric current sheet.
quote:
He had a cathode-ray generator outside the big box, that he beamed directly towards the terrella.
Whereas in the real solar system, we have a positively charged outer layer of the sun made of preminantly hydrogen plasma interacting with a negatively charged heliosheath.
quote:
That's where all of the power came from. If you want to claim that the Sun works analogously to Birkeland's setup, then the "arcs" are entirely "inbound" from an external source of electrons, and the Sun itself will have nothing more than a large magnetic field generator inside.
Ya, but that *electromagnetic* field he created on the inside directs all the current flow to the outside world, and if Dr. Manuel is correct and there is a nueutron core providing this "field", then some internal induction may also play a role. There can be both internal and external energy sources involved, and even Birkelands model was composed of an electromagnetic core.
quote:
Again, these ideas show that your solar model is very different from Birkeland's experimental setup.
It does not need to be "that" different. The only real difference here relate to induction forces created by the spinning neutron core and the mostly matallic surface, and the induction energy caused by charged particles flowing past solid surface features. The inbound cosmic rays will also interact with the outer atmosphere. There are both internal and external components to the energy sources, just like Birkelands internal electromagnetic field. The difference here need not be anywhere near as dramatic as you seem to envision.
quote:
But that's exactly what the standard solar models tell us. And our theories of planet formation tell us why the Earth is the size it is, and not twice as large or small. That's the point to a solar theory: it tells us why our observations are what they are.
"Standard" solar models simply "tell us" what we already knew, specifically the size of the object. The models were put together *after the fact*, not before hand. Standard solar theory *attempts* to explain the size of the sun based on a number of other "assumptions" about how a sun is layed out. It's predictate upon thne assumption that very little mass separation occurs on the sun, and I have all kinds of direct evidence to refute that claim.
Standard solar theory seems to have a very tough time explaining any running difference images, or doppler images of "rigid" patterns that last for hours and days in what is supposed to be impossibly thin plasma. Standard theory simply posits a "possible" explanation for the size of the sun. Whether that expalnation actually applies to a real life sun is a whole different issue. The models may be robust, but the observations to directly support gas model theory are seriously lacking, including it's failed neutrino predictions.
I think at times what you expect of me is a "complete" replacement package for standard solar theory. You act as though I am personally obligated to explain every little detail of a Birkeland solar model, and do the work of thousands if not millions of scientists all by myself. No single individual, or small group of individuals came up with, and defined every aspect of gas model solar theory and gas model mathematical models, so it is unreasonable for you to expect me to have developed a completely detailed and refined Birkeland solar theory in just a 1ittle over a year. No other solar theory possibly could be as detailed as current gas model solar theory, because no other solar theory has enjoyed that kind of effort that gas model solar theory has enjoyed over the past 50 years.
I don't have to do have a more detailed solar theory. In fact I don't have to have an alternative solar theory at all to to demonstrate that current gas model solar theory is wrong. Running difference images show that gas model theory is wrong, and model should be rejected on that information alone.
I do happen to have a alternative explanation, though it's relatively "rough" at this point and it remains and will remain "work in progress" for quite some time yet. To make sure we can all test how viable this new model might be, I have put a number of testable predictions on the table that should separate the men from the boys as it relates to satellite image interpretation.
If I'm correct about the placement of the transitional region and mass separated layers, then all the mathematical models of current gas model solar theory will not mean very much, elegant as they might look on paper. The key here determing whether these mathematical models of standard solar theory accurately or inacurrately describe what really goes on at the solar surface. I don't see any evidence in satellite images over the past 15 years to suggest that these refined mathematical models actually apply to real life suns. In fact I see evidnece to refute the whole concept of a non mass separated ball of mostly hydrogen plasma. IMO, gas model solar theory, even with all it's elegant mathematical modeling is going to sound about as viable as a flat earth in about another year or so.
Stereo is going to confirm or deny the validity of these placement issues, and even just 5 pixels is plenty enough resolution to determine placement with even a few pixels to spare. :) |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/10/2006 15:41:55 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 17:09:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, if this presentation is accurate, the EUVI will have a resolution some three times worse than TRACE (so your surface will be separated from the top surface of the photosphere by less than five pixels even when viewed edge-on).
Well then, I suppose that will have to due. I'll take that 5 pixels in 3D any day. Based on the overall cost of the program, I guess that works out to around 100 million dollars per critical pixel. I'm just tickled pink that I'm not footing the bill all by myself just to verify my solar theory. :) |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 18:24:16 [Permalink]
|
Michael, let's not confuse people by using contemporary language in a scientific context.
You have at most a hypothesis, not a theory. |
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 20:01:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Standard solar theory seems to have a very tough time explaining any running difference images...
And we're back to this unscientific nonsense, now. I thought we had a deal. I guess not. I won't be wasting much more time on this. |
- 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 - 08/10/2006 : 20:45:09 [Permalink]
|
Then by your own logic Dr. Mabuse, the current gas model that is taught in college must by necessity also be labeled a "hypothesis" since that hypothesis still can't explain something as rudimentary as the heat source of the corona. It certainly can't explain the cause of a sunspot in a way that is consistent with energy temperature observations here on earth. The sunspots aren't dark due to such a drastic drop in surface temperatures or we see lower temperature here on earth during sunspot activity, not higher temperatures.
Gas model hypothesis seems to be utterly incapable of explaining a running difference image at 171 or 195A. It can't explain that stratification subsurface that's blocking plasma flow. It hasn't much of an explanation for solar moss or solar rain. CME's are still a giant enigma, and nobody seems able to predict them, explain what causes them using actual satellite images. That 1/4 light speed emission of protons 18 months ago caught everyone off guard, and blew every contenporary idea of gas model "hypothesis" out of the water. Now as Dave notes, "magnetic reconnection" is all the rage. Never mind the fact gas model hypothesists are ignoring the need for electricity to pull off this sort of massive acceleration.
Bruce even demonstrated 50 years ago that these solar events are simply electrical discharges that occur at electrical discharge speeds. Alfven even layed out the math in terms of plasma physics. If it looks like electricity, emits gamma rays like electricity, creates loops like electricity, spits out x-rays like electricity, and releases free neutrons like electricity, and accelerates particles like elecricity, do you think maybe, just maybe that electricity might be involved in the process?
Of course not! If gas model hypothesists admitted to that one, the math forumulas currently in use would become immediately obsolete and creating new one would require a lot more complicated math to model it, and it would take a long time to do so. Nothing would soothly fit back together again. That is something they just won't do!
Anyone studying even a little bit about plasma physics can see that electricity, plasmas, and EM fields all go hand in hand. It is obvious that contemporary astronomers should be taking a lot more classes on plasma physics, and more classes on electricity and studying the affects that electricity has on plasma. Most astronomers today seem oblivious to Alfven's later work. They don't seem to have even the slightest clue how MHD theory works in light plasma yet, even though Alfven explained it to them more than two decades ago using electicity. They gave the guy a Nobel Prize for his work, and then they utterly ignored the implications of his work. Only a few of his immediate students even seem "get it" or seem interested in studying Alfven's later work in plasma physics. None of Alfven's later work on light plasmas has ever actually been applied to the gas model hypothesis, or folks could simply not even try to deny the need for electrical flow to make all this work. If they grasped the implications of his work, they certainly would not still be making lame claims about magnetic fields being "frozen" in very thin plasma. Alfven explained all of these issues very clearly, and hardly anyone actually listened to him or applied his ideas to the gas model hypothesis.
By your own logic then, gas model concepts are merely "hypothesis" as well. This hypothesis can't even explain a RD image, or predict CME's or explain solar moss, or any number of phenomenon seen in real life satellite images. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/10/2006 21:27:45 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 21:00:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Standard solar theory seems to have a very tough time explaining any running difference images...
And we're back to this unscientific nonsense, now. I thought we had a deal. I guess not. I won't be wasting much more time on this.
Now I'm simply confused Dave. I'm not trying to irritate you, and this is not unscientific nonsense, this is simply fact. In all the instances, and websites where I have debated these ideas, not once have I heard a comprehensive explanation for even the very first image on my website based on gas model theory. In fact in all this time, only a handful of individuals have even attempted to explain that first image in even a rudimentary way. It has been attempted seriously only once by Van at the bautforum and once here when John also took a reasonable shot at it. In neither instance did I hear much in the way of a compehensive explanation of the light source in the image, the cause of the CME as revealed by the image, the consistent patterns on the surface, the pealing on the right side, the dust in the wind, etc, etc, etc. Van was the only one to take shot at it at the Bad Astronomy forum, and he immediately stuck his own foot in his mouth and started espousing his own private ATM theory that was physically impossible, not to mention it being in complete disagreement with NASA and Lockheed *and* me.
The images are what first convinced me of the validity of a Birkeland solar model Dave. If there are "better" scientific explanation for these images, I've yet to hear them. Until I do hear such comprehensive explainations, I can't simply ignore what I see, or ingore the validity or usefulness of a Birkeland model explanation for such images.
We're really stuck here as it relates to satellite image interpretation mainly because the instruments are all calibrated to show high temperature plasma that far and away exceeds the temperatures of the photosphere and chromosphere. This instruments all insists that plasma must reach increadible temperature inside the loops. The laws of physics and the effects of scattering can explain a few stray photons in the darker areas of these satellite images, expecially since these images are created by leaving the shutter open for a relatively *long* period of time (seconds).
All these satellite images are pretty easily explained by a Birkeland solar model, but in all this time I've been debating these ideas, I've yet to hear a comprehensive explaination of the very first image on my website based on gas model theory. Why not? Why is it that you won't offer an explaination for that "dust in the wind", or the consistent patterns in the image over over an hour long timeline? That CME should have blown those patterns all to hell if they were created by light plasma yet they remain intact and remain in the same geometric configurations throughout the image.
It's the images that got me into this mess, and without a comprehensive gas model explaination for such images, its tough for me to put much faith in gas model theory. I can't explain these image using gas model theory, but I can easily explain them using a Birkeland solar model. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/10/2006 21:05:23 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 21:19:02 [Permalink]
|
Here's what just do not understand about our discussions Dave.
I would like to go back to the satellite images, but you seem to have a whole lote of resistance to accepting the notion that the coronal loops are "hot". However, even the graph from the link you provided about STEREO's temperature sensitivity clearly lays out the high temperatures that are required. All of these temperatures are far and away higher than anything we see in the photosphere and chromosphere. Furthermore, we can't simply "assume" that the whole corona reaches such temperatures. That's why we need these images in the first place, so we can see where the high temperture plasma is located. The exposure time for such images is measured in terms of "seconds", leaving plenty of time for various forms of scattering to be observed in such images. Even still, for some reason you continue to resist accepting the idea that the loops are hotter than the surrounding material. How can you look at a Yohkoh, Rhessi or Geos image an not notice that the high temperature plasmas seen in these satellites images are also directly related to the loops? The sensitivity range of the filters themselves, particularly the iron filters, requires that the plasma inside the loops is very hot. However, when we look at these images, we observe that the rest of the corona is typically much darker than the loops, particularly at the highest energy ends of the spectrum. There is no way to look at that Yohkoh/Trace overlay on the first page of my website and logically come to the conclusion that the loops are somehow "cooler" than the rest of the corona. There is no evidence these lit areas are actually any more "dense" in any way. These filters involved can't even see cooler plasma to begin with. Your footdragging then on this issue in particular seems very illogical from my perspective. I see no way to defend any position that does not acknowledge the higher temperurates plasma that sits inside the loops at temperatures that far and away exceed other solar atmospheric plasma. In all the high energy images, the light is always concentrated inside and directly around the loops. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 21:31:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Now I'm simply confused Dave. I'm not trying to irritate you, and this is not unscientific nonsense, this is simply fact. In all the instances, and websites where I have debated these ideas, not once have I heard a comprehensive explanation for even the very first image on my website based on gas model theory.
As has been patiently explained to you a zillion times already, that standard solar models as they currently exist don't go into the level of detail that you're demanding of them. A "comprehensive explanation" of any satellite image of the Sun is outside the scope of the standard solar models. Criticizing the models for being unable to answer questions that are outside their scope is as scientific and logical as criticizing the theory of gravity for being unable to explain the texture of Cheerios.quote:
The images are what first convinced me of the validity of a Birkeland solar model Dave.
So what? Your interpretation of the images is what people have been criticizing, Michael. You just refuse to listen, and go about your unscientific business as if your interpretation is necessarily correct. You are in denial.quote:
That CME should have blown those patterns all to hell if they were created by light plasma yet they remain intact and remain in the same geometric configurations throughout the image.
More unscientific nonsense, since it's nothing but an argument from incredulity, supported by exactly no evidence.quote:
It's the images that got me into this mess, and without a comprehensive gas model explaination for such images, its tough for me to put much faith in gas model theory.
Nobody is asking you to put faith in anything, Michael. You simply have to stop using unscientific arguments to criticize the current theories. Your entire world, due to your faith in your "model," is nothing but a black-and-white "you're either with me or you're against me" simpleton's universe, in which not criticizing the standard models is the same thing as accepting them wholeheartedly, and not agreeing with your ideas is the same as arguing in favor of their polar opposites. You've massively oversimplified the whole "debate," Michael, and in doing so have made it impossible to have a scientific discussion with you.quote:
I can't explain these image using gas model theory, but I can easily explain them using a Birkeland solar model.
Birkeland never offered a solar model, Michael. And you don't have a solar model, either. All you've got is a handful of observations, a few unquantifiable guesses about them, and a couple of predictions which cannot possibly be verified by the satellite that you've gone on record as saying will verify them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 21:35:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Your footdragging then on this issue in particular seems very illogical from my perspective. I see no way to defend any position that does not acknowledge the higher temperurates plasma that sits inside the loops at temperatures that far and away exceed other solar atmospheric plasma. In all the high energy images, the light is always concentrated inside and directly around the loops.
And since electrical discharges can occur without any solid surface nearby, this is all utterly irrelevant to the question of the Sun having a solid surface. I'm not footdragging, Michael, I'm trying to get to the central premise of your alleged "model." That you refuse to try to get there, and instead want to dilly-dally with the coronal loop "heat source" nonsense, is not my problem, it's yours. |
- 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 - 08/10/2006 : 22:15:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
As has been patiently explained to you a zillion times already, that standard solar models as they currently exist don't go into the level of detail that you're demanding of them. A "comprehensive explanation" of any satellite image of the Sun is outside the scope of the standard solar models. Criticizing the models for being unable to answer questions that are outside their scope is as scientific and logical as criticizing the theory of gravity for being unable to explain the texture of Cheerios.
How can explaining a direct solar observation be "outside the scope" of a solar theory? What good is a solar theory if it can't explain direct observations from the best technology we have to study the sun?
You can't simply "except" the gas model from needing to be able to explain such images. These are real life observations that require real life explanations. They aren't or at least they shouldn't be outside the scope of any solar model. In fact the value of any solar model is going to be predicated on how well it does actually jive with and explain direct observations. It is not logical for you to give the gas model a "free pass". These are important images that tell us important things about the sun. We can't simply ignore the observations that don't fit our preconscieved mindset or can't be explained by a particular solar theory.
quote:
So what? Your interpretation of the images is what people have been criticizing, Michael. You just refuse to listen, and go about your unscientific business as if your interpretation is necessarily correct.
That is simply not true. I've listened, and I've even responded. If you want confirmation of my ideas by a third party, these are two areas where we can put our money where our mouths are, and see how things shake out. My interpretations are not "unscientific" in any way, even if they turn out to be proven false. They are no more "unscientific" than a theory that can't explain the heat source of the corona. You can't slap labels like "unscientific" on things you simply disagree with. Birkeland's lab work was not "unscientific". Bruce's work on solar discharge theory was not "unscientific". Manuel's work on mass separation is not "unscientific", and evidently Yad Fiz and the Journal of Fusion energy don't think our ideas are "unscientific". It's not up to you to decide what is "scientific" and what is not.
quote:
You are in denial.
I am not in denial Dave. I put up two very testable predictions that we both seem to agree are within scope of the Secchi instrument to study. The whole goal of the mission is to learn more about CME's and the iron filters show us where they start. If I was "in denial", I wouldn't be putting my ideas to the test, or making public predictions that can be falsified within a six month window. I simply don't share your belief that only one solar model is viable.
quote:
quote:
That CME should have blown those patterns all to hell if they were created by light plasma yet they remain intact and remain in the same geometric configurations throughout the image.
More unscientific nonsense, since it's nothing but an argument from incredulity, supported by exactly no evidence.
You're simply inserting your own labels here (specifically "unscientific nonsense), and ignoring the primary issues entirely. The surface of the photosphere moves around rapidly because it's presumably made of *very* thin plasma. The chromosphere is made of lighter materials, and the corona is so thin they drop it from black body output calculations altogether. A CME typically kicks out millions of tons of material, sometimes it even kicks out materials at a significant percentage of light speed. Such an "action" would necessarily have an equal and opposite "reaction" on the surface. If you have the energy explosions of million of hydrogen bomb happening in thin plasma, it should blow all the plasma patterns in the corona to kindom come. In fact we do see chaos spewing in Lasco images from these CME's. There is no way that such structures in light plasma would survive an explosion that pours a million tons of material into the solar system. It's not even logical to believe that all these patterns would survive something like that and still retain all their same geometric relationships to one another over the course of more than an hour and half.
quote:
Nobody is asking you to put faith in anything, Michael. You simply have to stop using unscientific arguments to criticize the current theories.
How is it "unscientific" to expect a "reaction" to be seen in light plasma?
quote:
Your entire world, due to your faith in your "model," is nothing but a black-and-white "you're either with me or you're against me" simpleton's universe, in which not criticizing the standard models is the same thing as accepting them wholeheartedly, and not agreeing with your ideas is the same as arguing in favor of their polar opposites. You've massively oversimplified the whole "debate," Michael, and in doing so have made it impossible to have a scientific discussion with you.
I find that statement to be quite fascinating since I feel like you have a strong need to oversimplify everyting to fit into nice math formulas. I find it hard to have a scientific discusion with you because you seem unwilling to go at this process, step by step, one issue at a time, just as I did when I came to these conclusions. Instead you keep jumping all over the place and going off on tangents and ignoring the key aspects of the points I'm trying to make. I can't really get into satellite image analysis with you until we both agree on a light source for these images, and we're both on the same page as it relates to heat signatures and scattering issues. These are the methodical steps I went though as I began to analyse these images, yet I'm frustrated by your unwillingness to find agreement on what "seems" like a pretty cut and dry issue. The links you provided yourself on the STEREO filters talk about it temperatures sensitivity ranges. In each case, the minimum temperature required is far higher than the backrground temperature of the photosphere and chromosphere, and only these kinds of images could tell us which parts of the corona are actually hotter than the chromosphere.
I feel stifled |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/10/2006 22:30:34 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 22:27:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And since electrical discharges can occur without any solid surface nearby, this is all utterly irrelevant to the question of the Sun having a solid surface.
But I didn't *just* claim that the sun has a solid surface. I put a lot of other aspects of this model on the table. Electrical discharges are also a part of my "predictions". These were already "predicted" and verified by Birkeland and Bruce long before I was born. A Birkeland model would require that the coronal loops involve elecrical discarges that originate at the surface just as they appeared in his lab experiements. You can ignore all of his comprehensive lab work, and his comments about the importance of his work as it relates to solar theory, but you can't change history, and you can't change what he wrote. Birkeland was *way* ahead of his time. He certainly did put forth solar ideas that he felt were critical "discoveries" about the sun's energy patterns based on his lab experiements. He documented, described, sketched and photographed his results and explain their significance. He tinkered around with variables, changing the magnetic fields and the cathode strengths. He reversed polarities and made more observations. You can't minimize the signifance of his work.
quote:
I'm not footdragging, Michael, I'm trying to get to the central premise of your alleged "model." That you refuse to try to get there, and instead want to dilly-dally with the coronal loop "heat source" nonsense, is not my problem, it's yours.
I'm not dilly-dalling Dave. (hey that has a ring to it!)
This is a core and central issue, it's not a minor point. It's the light source in fact, so it's critical we get this part right before we go anywhere else. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
