|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 08/11/2006 : 07:05:12 [Permalink]
|
I would like to jump in here and sort of start fresh. This "argument" (experiment in sadomasochism ?) has been going on for months and extended now for nine (!) threads. I haven't read through all nine and don't have the mental fortitude to do that now. Since little seems to have been resolved (again, nine pages), I'd like to start over. Sort of.
My question is this: Michael, can you explain your model for the surface of the sun? Can you do it in a few paragraphs, and in basic language so that a lay person could at least grasp the basic concepts? Could you also contrast it with the current solar model, noting where you think the data do not support that model?
Do not link your web page and ask me to read it. Do not link other web pages and ask me to read them. (Though supplementary links are OK.) What I'd like to know is a basic, concise presentation of this debate.
If no one's willing to do that, then fine. But it might be nice to let some people catch up without rummaging through thousands of posts on the topic... |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 07:42:38 [Permalink]
|
| Ugh. Never mind. I read your (page) again and it just doesn't make sense. All this seems to be based on is some pictures when seem to show something acting in a way that you think it shouldn't act. Or something. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 08/11/2006 07:54:08 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 09:29:03 [Permalink]
|
NOW I get it! I've been looking through some more of Michael's non-SFN posts and am starting to understand. The dislike of the Big Bang has nothing to do really with the actual model proposed. However, since Michael wants to abandon the notion of a solar gas model in favor of a solar iron model, he cannot also follow the current understanding of the universe. This is because the early universe does not allow for the kind of heavy metal abundance that is needed in his new solar model (Michael's exaggerated claim that this article proves much notwithstanding).
As Hoyle already demonstrated, elements heavier than helium can be explained in the Big Bang model (even though he never accepted the Big Bang-- talk about irony!), but Hoyle's work has heavier elements appearing only after several generations of starts have come and gone. But if you want to have all stars be made of heavier elements like iron, you have to do away with the Big Bang and postulate some other model for the universe-- one that has iron as always being there!
Unfortunately for Michael, the data available make a very compelling case for the Big Bang, and little evidence for a steady-state universe. So he's left creating a model that looks almost exacly like the Big Bang (though red shift is poorly explained), except that stars (replete with iron!) already existed from the start.
On the surface (no pun intended), he objects to the Big Bang because of inflation. But the objection is too much-- he doesn't seek alternate explanations, and it isn't interested in exploring it further. He seeks complete rejection of the model. I always thought that was rather drastic, but now I know why-- he has to have a model which puts iron in the early universe!!!
And all of this because there's some strange TRACE image that makes the sun look like it's got a solid surface of iron. Hmph. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 08/11/2006 09:29:48 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 10:13:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Ugh. Never mind. I read your (page) again and it just doesn't make sense. All this seems to be based on is some pictures when seem to show something acting in a way that you think it shouldn't act. Or something.
Which part didn't make sense to you?
These theories are in fact based on direct observations as opposed to some simplistic math formulas that someone scribbled on some paper.
I've been studying satellite images now for about 15 years. It's not a matter of how things "should" act, but rather how the sun *does* act. The reason I selected the Lockheed Running difference image as the first image on my website, is because I think that image is probably *the* single most important image of the solar surface that anyone has put together at Lockheed or NASA to date. It's certaily the best one I've found on the web.
NASA has 5 years worth of running difference images online in their archives, and I've downloaded all of them as well. They also show the surface, but not in as much detail as the TRACE images, but the SOHO images are what sold me, not the TRACE image. That image just blew my mind as far as clerity and sophistication.
The TRACE spacecraft has better zoom features, therefore we can get a clearer and more detailed look at the surface in TRACE images. The geometric relationships on the surface of these images remain consistent throughout the image, even during the CME itself. CME's blow out tons of material and these disrupt the layouts of plasmas. The event didn't however change the geometric relationships at all, not over more than an hour and half timeline. Plasma doesn't act like that, which is why we see the structures in the photosphere come and go in about 8 minute intervals.
It's not just a few pictures that convinced me, it's *every single satellite observation* that's out there, from every satellite eystem ever built. I've rounded up Doppler images of the surface for you on the tsunami page by the way, so the rigid features are not limited to only RD images. As you can see in the tsunami video, those rigid features are *underneath* not on top of the photosphere.
Lockheed simply "assumed" that any high temperature plasma it might observe in Trace images would be located in a "transition region" somewhere above the photosphere. The even named their satellite based on this "assumption". Because that was the expectation from the beginning, that's exactly how they started "interpreting" the images they gathered. Unfortunately the sun didn't work the way they *assumed* it would work, and the loops are direct result of electrical discharges and therefore the loops are not limited to only *one* area.
The heliosiesmology data is also quite compelling IMO, and it allows us to determine the distance from the photosphere to the surface.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111
Dr. Oliver Manuels work in nuclear chemistry is also extremely compelling, expecially when you note the fact that we use magnetic fields and centrufigues here on earth to *separate* plasmas right down to their isotopes. His work makes perfect sense, and it's also based on direct observation of various isotopes.
Birkeland even built a working lab model over 100 years ago. Bruce demonstrated that these events were electrical discharges as Birkeland predicted. Birkeland's currents were verified by satellite in the 70's.
When you start putting all the pieces of data together with a Birkeland solar model, all the pieces fit, and all the satellite observations are easily explainable. I can and have explained every single image on my website, and I can explain just about any image I've run into in over 15 years of satellite image analysis.
On the other hand, those that seem to start with gas model theory never get anywhere when it comes to explaining RD or Doppler images, or the heliosiesmology data that shows a giant subsurface stratification sitting in the middle of what is supposed to be on open convection zone. Not one single individual to date has ever once offered me a completely comprehensive and detailed explanation for even the very first image on my website.
For instance, let's start with the first image on my website that comes from Lockheed Martin. You'll find it's movie number 8 on their list of movies.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/T171_000828.avi
What is the light source? What causes the patterns in the image?
What caused the CME that occurs in this image? What is the "dust in wind" we see blowing from right to left? What's that peeling effect we see along the right side? Why are the patterns in the image retaining their geometric relationships to one another over more than an hour timeframe, when the structures of plasma in the photophere are created and destroyed in roughly 8 minute intervals?
I think if you try to sit down and seriously attempt to explain these RD and Doppler images using gas model theory, you'll end up as confused as I did, and as confused as everyone else I've ever seen attempt a serious explaination of this very first image using gas model theory. It doesn't jive with gas model expectations of the movement patterns of plasma, so it isn't easily explained using gas model theory.
If however you change your mindset of momement, and recognize these patterns as structures on the surface of Birkeland's sphere that reflect light from the coronal loops, all of these images make perfect sense. It's just a matter of mindset and how you go about trying to explain the image. The rigid nature of these patterns in the image are not at all consistent with the movement of plasma because these patterns are not made by plasma at all. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 10:21:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
How can explaining a direct solar observation be "outside the scope" of a solar theory?
Let's take a direct observation of planet Earth as an example. I see motorcycles, tents, lightposts, a parking lot, a hill, trees, a building, etc. No theory of planet formation can explain these features. By your logic, you would then consider our theory of how Earth came into being and aged in general terms to be wildly incomplete. In reality, biology, sociology and even plate tectonics are outside the scope of our theories of planetary formation. We have different theories to explain motorcycles and parking lots. Solar scientists are busy creating theories of coronal loops and other such "detail work," they only use the standard solar model to tell them what the Sun is in general terms.quote:
What good is a solar theory if it can't explain direct observations from the best technology we have to study the sun?
The standard solar model works excellently at describing the Sun in gross terms and explaining the interplay between matter and energy which goes into creating those large-scale characteristics. That you're not satisfied with that is not a fault of the models, but is symptomatic of your misunderstanding of science in general.quote:
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.
And there we have it: your criticisms of the standard model are based upon nothing more than your opinions about what you think it should do. You simply pay no attention to the people who have developed and refined the model when they explain its scope.quote:
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.
Exactly correct, and you unreasonably want the standard solar model to explain things which it doesn't even attempt to explain. It's like asking a pre-med student to perform cutting-edge neurosurgery.quote:
It is not logical for you to give the gas model a "free pass".
I don't give it a free pass on anything it addresses. You want to fail it for not explaining things which it doesn't address.quote:
These are important images that tell us important things about the sun.
I agree.quote:
We can't simply ignore the observations that don't fit our preconscieved mindset or can't be explained by a particular solar theory.
And right there is where you insult me, by suggesting that I'm trying to ignore your observations. Just like I don't ignore the motorcycles in the Earth photo and recognize that no Earth model can explain them, I see the things in your images, and I recognize that they are outside the scope of the standard solar model.quote:
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.
When you reject the realities of the difference image processes, when you reject the reality that the "gold" video is not a simple running difference video, when you reject the reality that Dr. Manuel's mass fractionization data depends upon having accurate photospheric composition data, when you reject the reality that the Journal of Fusion Energy has no expertise at evaluating the "solid surface" conjecture, when you reject the reality that Birkeland didn't present a solar model, then you've left science behind. Your ideas don't need to be proven false, you need to prove them to be true, and you've utterly failed to do so because your strongest arguments revolve around a lack of data.quote:
quote:
You are in denial.
I am not in denial Dave.
That's funny as hell, Michael.quote:
I put up two very testable predictions that we both seem to agree are within scope of the Secchi instrument to study.
No, I specifically told you why I think that your faith in STEREO is misplaced.quote:
The whole goal of the mission is to learn more about CME's and the iron filters show us where they start.
They have no ability to image the photosphere, Michael, and display a relative distance for us (those fixe precious pixels of yours).quote:
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.
You're in denial that STEREO won't tell us anything that will verify or falsify your "predictions."
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 10:32:45 [Permalink]
|
| Michael, how should those images look according to the gas model? I mean, if you say that they all don't look right, what is "right"? |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 10:54:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You also wrote:quote:
But I didn't *just* claim that the sun has a solid surface.
And? The solid surface is the most-drastic difference between your model and any other model of the Sun used in the last 100 years.
Sort of, Dave, but subtly tucked away in there is that nuclear fusion is not the main source of power for the sun. Remember: if the sun contains lots of iron and not hydrogen and helium, then the role of fusion is diminished (or doesn't exist?)... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 11:00:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Sort of, Dave, but subtly tucked away in there is that nuclear fusion is not the main source of power for the sun. Remember: if the sun contains lots of iron and not hydrogen and helium, then the role of fusion is diminished (or doesn't exist?)...
Nah. Michael asserts that there is a solid surface. He doesn't assert anything about the power source(s) of the Sun except that he doesn't know for sure what it (they) is (are). Since he also asserts that the alleged surface has cracks running through it in many places, then technically the Sun could still be fusion-powered inside. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 11:16:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Sort of, Dave, but subtly tucked away in there is that nuclear fusion is not the main source of power for the sun. Remember: if the sun contains lots of iron and not hydrogen and helium, then the role of fusion is diminished (or doesn't exist?)...
Nah. Michael asserts that there is a solid surface. He doesn't assert anything about the power source(s) of the Sun except that he doesn't know for sure what it (they) is (are). Since he also asserts that the alleged surface has cracks running through it in many places, then technically the Sun could still be fusion-powered inside.
But Dave: look! They argue:quote:
The finding of an unexpectedly large source of energy from repulsive interactions between neutrons in the 2,850 known nuclides has challenged the assumption that H-fusion is the main source of energy that powers the Sun and other stars.
 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 11:20:13 [Permalink]
|
Well thats all swell, but where is the new model which explains the universe, if the heavy elements were already there then what the hell are stars fusing.
|
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 11:36:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Well thats all swell, but where is the new model which explains the universe, if the heavy elements were already there then what the hell are stars fusing.
It all comes out (well, sort of...) in this thread and its follow-up. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 11:47:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
NOW I get it! I've been looking through some more of Michael's non-SFN posts and am starting to understand. The dislike of the Big Bang has nothing to do really with the actual model proposed.
Actually it does have everything to do with the actual model that is being presented. I've actually been skeptical of contemporary BB theory (post Guth theory) for almost 20 years, much longer than I've been skeptical of current gas model solar theory. My skepticism toward gas model theory didn't even begin until observations I made in April of 2005.
My dislike of current BB theory actually dates back to Guth. That is probably because I'm old enough to remember BB theory before Guth became "popular". I always thought Guth's personal fascination with an inflation stage was utterly "made up", right from the beginning. It smacked of a creation myth from my perspective. Worse however is that he kept piling on the "mystical" qualities he associated with the inflation stage, and violating light speed restrictions in the process.
Nevertheless, astromers doted all over him and cited his work repeatedly. I shudder to think how many times his original paper has now been refereneced. They even started teaching inflation theory as "gospel" for a long time. However, it's quite clear now that this stage of BB theory is based on some sort of *faith* in the existence of a "particle/field" that has never been evidenced in nature. Worse yet, it seems to be a completely unfasifyable hypothesis, since that particle/field doesn't exist anymore, and we can't test for it.
As a rule of thumb, I tend to be very unipressed with unfalsifyable positions. Though Guth has finally fallen out of favor, his "made up" inflation stage of BB theory remains entrenched into BB theory to this day.
It's all one big creation myth from my perspective and it's motivated on the human desire to have convenient "beginnings" and well defined "endings". I tend to have a problem with creation myths, especially creation myths that can't be tested or falsified. That's my problem with BB theory, and it relates primarily to the inflation aspect of BB theory, and the fact the "force" of expansion remains "unexplained" IMO.
I can substitute "MECO's" for infaltion particles, and I can substitute EM fields in place of expansion fields, and I can be relatively "happy" with that "type" of creation event, but frankly these days I'm learning toward a static universe model. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 11:51:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Well thats all swell, but where is the new model which explains the universe, if the heavy elements were already there then what the hell are stars fusing.
CNO and hydrogen fusion is occuring inside of the coronal loops.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633
That does not mean that fusion is the "only" energy source. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 12:37:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
I don't know who many times it has been written already, and explained to you in several different ways: You are demanding that a theory that explains the large scale structure of the sun, explain minute details in photos of a different aspect.
You could just as well be demanding that Boyle's Law explain the Brownian Motion of microscopic dust particles in a gas. Or you can claim that meteorology is bunk when the wind is blowing leafs in circles in you back yard when the weather prognosis said "breeze from the south".
Your demands that the solar model explain detailed features of the photosphere is unreasonable. Hydrodynamics seems more likely a discipline to explain the convection patterns of the photosphere.
quote:
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.
You are ignoring that Dave have already told you that the surface in the surrounding areas increase in temperature more than enough to compensate for the temp drop in the sunspot. Don't you read his posts?
Your constant ignoring of such facts and constant repetition of untruths as your statement above was shown to be, is what made me drop out of the discussion, and prompts Dave to call you a liar (to which I have to concede he's got a point). What's the point of talking to you, when you are just as likely to acknowledge facts as religious fanatics?
quote:
Gas model hypothesis seems to be utterly incapable of explaining a running difference image at 171 or 195A.
The gas model theory wasn't created to explain running difference images of any kind.
quote:
It can't explain that stratification subsurface that's blocking plasma flow.
Your interpretation is in dispute. You haven't shown any such thing.
This is symptomatic.
And I'm thinking that playing Guild Wars on-line is a much better use of my time.
I'll keep browsing the thread, and if some earth-shattering revelation is presented here, then I might address it. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 12:44:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Michael, how should those images look according to the gas model? I mean, if you say that they all don't look right, what is "right"?
I have no idea how things "should" look. I'm simply asking you to explain these direct observations using gas model theory. Can you do so, yes or no?
The point I am trying to make here is that I have personally never been able to explain these images using gas model solar theories or any extensions of gas model solar theories. More telling however is the fact that that neither has anyone else I've asked at NASA and Lockheed. In fact, nobody has explained this image in any detail using gas model theory in any of the conversations I've ever had on this subject. This includes months of conversations at the bautforum and months of conversations here and on the Lifesciences forums, as well as several other smaller forums. It's evidently not an easy image to explain using gas model theory. Since I can't do it myself, I certainly can't judge anyone for not being able to explain these images using gas model theory. On the other hand, if nobody can explain direct satellite observations with gas model theory, then I have no evidence to suggest that the sun works according to gas model theory. It's just that simple.
On the other hand, I have no trouble at all explaining these images in the context of a Birkeland solar model. According to a Birkeland theory, those rigid patterns are simply solid surface features that are reflecting the changing light from the coronal loops. We see the reflections of light from stationary hills and valleys. We see reflections of light from the "puffs" of material that have been ejected from the surface into the solar atmosphere as the CME takes place. The peeling effect we see on the right is due to surface erosion that is caused by the arcs/loops that are traversing the surface, and ripping particles off the surface as they go. The reason the CME doesn't change the geometric relationships of the patterns we see because the surface is solid and therefore it withstands that kind of energy release, unlike light plasma that would not. We can even observe the differential rotation occuring in the plasma, as the dust from the surface is carried by the plasma and drifts toward the upper right side of the image after the CME occurs. It's no big mystery explaining this image using a Birkeland solar model.
That first Lockheed image on my website is the image that gas model theorists tend to avoid like the plague. If you feel like taking a shot at explaining this image using gas model theory, be my guest. I'm all ears.
You can also note that the Doppler images on the tsunami page which were put together by Alexander Kosovichev from Stanford also reveal "rigid" features sitting at a shallow depth underneath the visible photopshere. That circled strucuture is utterly uneffected by the wave that propagates through the photosphere. That circled shape is exactly the same shape, size and distance from the epicenter after the wave passes over as it was at the beginning of the image.
Doppler images certainly work to reveal surface structure here on earth, and they clearly reveal the wave on the photosphere, as well as the structure under the photosphere. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
