|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 08/11/2006 : 20:40:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, neither one is correct. The real answer is more analogous to rock-concert laser shows, but Michael has already shown that he's not interested in any actual coronal theories, nor the real meaning of running difference images.
Well, I'm interested. Lay it on me.
|
"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 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 21:07:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That hydrogen/heluim abundance claim is only true if suns are not mass separated by the element.
No, Michael, you're still in denial that the claim is based upon cosmological hydrogen and helium, and not the elements locked up inside stars.quote:
If however hydrogen and helium layers are simply the outside layers and therefore the hottest layers of the solar atmosphere, then your abundance numbers get stood on their head, and iron becomes the most abuandant material in the universe.
For your claim to be true, not only do all the stars need to be made of more than 50% iron, but all the stars taken togther need to contain nearly 100% of the mass in the universe. If J denotes the stellar abundance of iron, and S denotes the percentage of mass locked in stars (and planets, why not?), then for your claim to be true:J × S > 0.5 and it's then easy to see that if J is near 0.5, then S must be close to 1. Heck, if the stellar iron abundance is 0.6, then stars must still contain at least 83% of all the mass in the universe in order for the universe to be mostly iron - an outrageously high number. Do you have any evidence that stars and planets make up even 50% of the observable mass in the universe? If they don't, then the universal abundance of iron, by your argument, cannot even equal 50%, much less be "most abundant."quote:
According to nuclear chemical research on various isotopes, the sun is a mass separator of plasmas. That is hardly surprizing mind you, expecially since we use magnetic fields and centrifuges to separate elements and isotopes here on earth.
No, what would be surprising in such a case is a star with a predominantly iron shell at 0.995R, since the mass separation activities should have buried most of it deep inside the Sun.quote:
The obvious difference is that everything Einstein suggested was testable and falsfifyable, whereas noone has ever demonstrated the existence of inflaton fields, nor is there a way to falsify the idea.
You're simply in denial of what the theory states, then, since experiments are being done today which could falsify inflation.quote:
Expanding magic tensor fields that are evidently very picky about when and where they expand seems like an awfully flimsy way to explain an accelerating universe to me. Why isn't that picky expansion tensor field expanding between the sun and the earth, the earth and the moon, the various galaxies in different galaxy clusters, etc?
The fact that you were handed the answers to these questions several times in the other thread but now act like nobody's ever even tried to answer them demonstrates your inability to have an honest scientific discussion, Michael. Einstein answered your questions 80 years ago.quote:
Unfalsifyable scalar inflation fields and magic tensor expansion fields that are evidently shy around matter seem more metaphysical in decription than physicallly real. They certainly are not physically testable.
In the case of General Relativity, Michael, it's been tested. In the case of inflation, it's being tested. Your denial of these facts is simply absurd.quote:
I think it's just way too early to be pretending we underestand how it all began.
Yet another strawman from Michael. |
- 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 - 08/11/2006 : 23:02:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Well, I'm interested. Lay it on me.
Okay.
The 171-Angtrom and 195-Angstrom images from TRACE (which is where the Lockheed "gold" video comes from) are predominated by emissions of photons due to electrons orbiting iron ions becoming less energetic.
(Forgive me if this seems elementary - and pardon that pun - but I'm directing it at the largest possible audience.)
Just like a book held six feet above a floor has more potential energy than one held three feet above the floor (if you drop the books, their falls convert that potential energy into kinetic energy, and the six-foot book hits with a larger impact), electrons that orbit the nucleus of their atoms farther away from the nucleus than electrons in closer orbits have more potential energy than the closer electrons. Quantum theory shows that there are a limited number of different orbits for the electrons, however, so there are only so many different amounts of potential energy that any particular atom or ion might contain based on where its electrons are orbiting. There are only five possible orbits for hydrogen's single electron, for example, and you'll never find an electron orbiting a hydrogen nucleus (a proton) in between, say, orbits 3 and 4.
In order to jump from a low orbit to a higher orbit, a photon (with kinetic energy) must be absorbed by an electron, turning the photon's kinetic energy into potential energy (just as one would do by lifting a book from the floor to the three-foot level, you convert your arm's kinetic energy into potential energy in the book). Since a photon's kinetic energy is inversely proportional to its wavelength (longer wavelength - lower frequency - photons have less kinetic energy), and because the differences in orbital potential energies of electrons around an atomic nucleus come in only specific amounts, then only photons of a particular wavelength (energy) can boost an electron in a particular orbit into a higher orbit.
Similarly, to drop to a lower orbit, an electron in a high orbit around a nucleus must emit a photon as it drops to a lower orbit. The wavelength of the emitted photon is precisely coupled to the amount of potential energy lost by the electron, and is in fact exactly the same as the wavelength of photon required to boost the orbit of the electron from the same lower orbit to the same higher orbit.
Now, if an electron in its highest possible orbit around a nucleus gets hit by a photon of a particular energy (wavelength), the photon will "knock" the electron completely free of the nucleus, creating an ion. An ion is simply an atom which is (in the case of solar plasmas) missing one or more of its normal complement of electrons through this process. A plasma is nothing more than a collection of ions and "free" electrons (electrons which have so much energy that they won't stay in an orbit around an atomic nucleus). The electrons which remain bound to atomic nucleii are still subject to the "rules" of quantum physics, and will only shift their orbits up or down on the absorbtion or emission (respectively) of photon of particular energies (wavelengths).
Because of the filters on the TRACE cameras, we know that we're seeing photons that are in a very small range of wavelengths (energies). Our knowledge of ion behaviour here on Earth - by heating and cooling materials and studying the photons absorbed or released - tells us that the primary source of photons through both the 171-Angstrom and 195-Angstrom filters on the TRACE cameras is electrons that are bound to particular iron ions.
And since they are emitted photons, we know that electrons are losing energy, and so the ions themselves are losing that same amount of energy (the energy contained in an ion - or atom - is the total of the energies of all of its electrons, plus a bit wrapped up in the nucleus itself, and more if the ion is moving very, very fast).
Since the temperature of a substance is directly related to the average energies of all of its constituent atoms (or ions, in the case of a plasma), we know that when light is being emitted from a plasma, it's due to individual electrons in the constituent ions losing energy, and so we know that the plasma as a whole is cooling down.
This is what we see in original, unrefined TRACE images. The photons emitted by cooling plasmas are recorded by the camera as bright pixels. Where fewer photons of a small range of wavelengths (energies) are emitted, the pixels appear darker. As Michael knows, the brightness of any particular unprocessed pixel can be due to a combination of the density of ions (more ions undergoing cooling equal brighter pixels), and the temperature of the plasma (plasmas hotter or cooler won't have the right energies - on average - and so will appear darker than plasmas of just the right temperatures for the particular electron orbital jumps to happen).
So, what can cause the raw, unprocessed images of the coronal loops to look like they do? Since ions are electrically charged atoms - they're missing their normal, neutral, complement of electrons (they have more protons than electrons, leading to a positive elecrtical charge) - they are affected by magnetic fields.
The magnetic fields in coronal loops, as measured by solar magnetometers, are very strong. And since magnetic fields constrain the motion of ions in a plasma, they force them to shed energy (much like a brick wall constrains the motion of a car heading towards it). They do this by emitting photons, as described above.
Now, as should be obvious, if the individual ions in a plasma weren't moving around much, then once some of them were kinetically constained by a magnetic field and shed their energy in the form of photons that TRACE can see, then there wouldn't be more photons coming from that same area since there's nothing to heat the ions up again so they can be cooled again and emit more photons.
Instead, to see the same coronal loop more-or-less constantly glowing in the 171-Angstrom or 195-Angstrom filters, there needs to be a more-or-less constant influx of "hot" ions to be cooled by the magnetic field. Since RHESSI and other satellites have shown that even the most-tenuous portions of the corona can be at temperatures exceeding two million Kelvin, there really isn't any defecit to hot plasmas to "whack into" a giant magnetic field loop and cool down to emit photons. In fact, it's necessary for there to be lots of high-temperature plasma swishing around constantly to move through the magnetic fields and cool, emitting the light we see in TRACE's cameras.
So, like smoke particles "getting in the way of" laser light at a concert, or even like smog particles "getting in the way of" sunlight on a hazy day to make visible sunbeams through holes in cloud cover, the "patterns" we see in coronal images are nothing more than hot ions flowing into magnetic fields.
And since the magnetic fields aren't themselves affected by "wind" or get "blown around" by CMEs, there's no reason to think that we should see any affect on the images by violent "explosions." And we don't.
In other words, the "structures" are all a result of the geometry of the magnetic fields, with "thin plasma" flowing through them all constantly. If the plasma weren't flowing, everything would go dark, fast. Add to this the problems of trying to interpret running difference images as if they were regular photographs, and you've g |
- 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 - 08/12/2006 : 13:15:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Wow. I think there's a fundamental problem here-- perhaps enough that (again) I'll have to bow out of the "debate". Because oneof us is arguing from a rather ill-informed position.
At the start of this Big Bang debate, I was rather ignorant of the specifics and history of the theory. Since then, I've read a few books, search web pages, and spoken with a professor at a major university. This gave me (or so I thought) a rather clear picture of things. But your objections seen to be in complete discord with what I understand. That is, you're saying "but when two galaxies collide, this doesn't happen" but we're taking about what the Big Bang says during its earliest periods. It's not two galaxies, it's the whole universe!
I think again that this is probably an age related difference at how we view things. Whereas you are just getting started looking at these ideas, I've had more like 30 years to read about them, and think about them, and consider the implications of the assumptions they are based upon.
The best that Hubbles laws might tell you is the most if not all galaxies were once much closer in proximity to one another than they are today. That does not mean that they all intersected at the exact same moment in time, or that everything was condensed to a "singularity". These are "assumptions" made in BB theory.
Just as in galaxy collision scenarios, not all matter condenses into a single point. If therefore we chart all the galaxies backwards in tiem, whereas we might learn they were once closer together, we do not know if they ever came to a "point". That is the "assumption" of BB theory, but that theory also predicted a "quark soup" phase, followed by the eventual formation of mostly hydrogen atoms once things cooled off a bit. Then the theory goes, that light hydrogen atoms formed giant suns and started created heavier elements. I'm old enough to remember the early predictions of this theory. It was assumed that it took billions (plural) of years for galaxies to form, and billions more for them to form into the organized structures we see in our galaxy today.
Hubble and Spitzer have since blown those early theories out of the water. They show us galaxies that are 8 times the size of our own galaxy and just a s mature as our own galaxy existed within the first billion years. Equally surprizing, there seems to be very little difference in the iron abundance figures of these early galaxies compared to our own galaxy today. Therefore this notion of a "quark soup" phase is starting to look mighty suspiscious.
If you hadn't been exposed to the whole history of the theory, it's harder to understand the changes that have occured in the theory over the years, and it may create the illusion that the BB theory you see today "passed with flying colors".
The key point here is that BB theory did not pass with flying colors. Instead an eraser and pencil has been applied to the theory for the last 50 years, and the eraser end has been getting a workout recently, particularly since the launch of Hubble and now Spitzer. Between the two satellites, we are able to begin testing these ideas, and when you know the history as I do, you can see how poorly the theories held up to serious scrutiny. The predictions of when galaxy formed has been revised downward ever few years, and I suspect that trend will continue for quite some time to come.
quote:
This is pretty basic stuff, it seems. Alpher's work is based on it, and CMBR was predicted based on these assumptions. If you don't grasp that, then either a) the entire world of physics-- thousands ot researchers and grad students-- are all idiots, or b) you need to brush up on the Big Bang.
This fallacy is called a false dichotomy. I don't think anyone is an "idiot", nor can I ignore the last thirty years of research I've done into BB theory.
Like religious ideas, scientific ideas can take on a life of their own, irrespective of the "truth" of the matter. Because human beings like beginnings and endings, we "imagine" that our universe had one. We don't know this with absolute certainty, and in fact our very existence, and the first law of thermodnamics insists that some form of energy has existed eternally.
Maybe our universe had a "beginning". Maybe it's part of an eternal interplay of matter and energy. I have no idea at this point. Hubble finally *began* to open out eyes to the beauty and vastness of the cosmos. I have no idea yet how large that cosmos might be, or how it got there yet. I therefore remain open to all ideas, but these days I'm leaning more toward a static universe theory. The more I read of Arps work, and more I'm reading about MECO's, the more I'm leaning in that direction. That doesn't mean I've made up my mind at this stage, it simply means I keep an "open" mind at this stage.
Do inflaton fields exists? I don't know. I've never seen one, or seen any evidence of one in QM, particle physics or GR. The only place I've seen one meantioned is in relationship to a single creation myth called BB theory. I have no idea of that myth is true yet, and I have no other evidence to support an inflaton field, therefore I don't see any reason to commit to that concept.
Likewise I've never seen an expanding tensor field that's picky about where it expands demonstrated in a lab. Again, I see no need for it in GR, particle physics or QM. The only place I've seen a need for it is in the same BB theory that has already required one metaphysical entity to sustain it. Now it evidently needs two of them, not just one.
At this point, my position is "show me the evidence". I can explain universal acceleration in terms of an expanding universel EM wave and mostly iron suns. I don't need two metaphysical entities to explain the Hubble constant.
quote:
Even if you disagree, the idea of "know your enemy" applies in the world of academia. You can't disprove a theory until you're as familiar with it as its biggest proponents.
Since my early 20's, it's biggest proponents have been folks like Guth and his 'groupies'. I've never been impressed with Guth, and not his groupies either.
Dave presumably defended the theory that is most "popular" today, and it evidently still requires Guth's "inflation" stage even still. Therefore I don't see where much has really changed over the last 20 years of so, nor has anyone demonstrated evidence of inflaton particle/fields in that timeframe. Therefore I see very little movement, and very little change, and no reason to change my position as it relates to that particular theory.
If and when someone demonstrates inflaton fields, and can demonstrate magic, mystical explansion tensor fields, my opinions on the topic may change. At the moment however I see no reason to switch my position at this time. I do however keep an open mind, and perhaps some day, somoeone will come up with evidence to support these metaphyiscal concepts, but right now both of them are related to just one theory, and only one theory.
quote: |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2006 : 14:20:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I think it's quite telling, Michael, how you'll criticize me for going off on tangents and failing to address the central points, and then traipse off with Cune for a whirlwind tour of your misunderstandings of Big Bang theory while leaving my request for us to continue with those things that you feel are central to your "model" completely unanswered.
Oh come now Dave. I've gone off on your tangents a ton of times. Cune simply asked me about some unresolved side issues and I took the time to address them and explain my motives clearly. I've responded to your stuff for nearly 9 threads. I figure I can spare a few posts for someone who's asking honest questions in a mature and fair way.
quote:
I got it from the fact that you said that you'll ignore any explanations of any other kinds of direct observations of the Sun using the gas model.
I didn't say that, or if I did, I certainly didn't mean what your hearing from my statements. I'm not "ingoring" any evidence. I'm more than happy to discus direct evidence of the sun, and I've done so here for months and months and months. We've looked at and discussed heliosiesmology data, satellite images, neutrino emissions, etc. All I'm insisting is that satellite images be treated like all kinds of direct observations and that all theories need to explain them just like any other direct observation. You're the one that is trying to give the gas model a free pass on satellite imagery, not me.
quote:
And you said that because you said that without explanations of the satellite images, you see no evidence that the gas model is correct.
That's right. I see no other direct evidence from observation that is somehow exclusive to the gas model or that supports the gas model theory to the exclusion of a Birkeland model. What direct observation do you believe does such a thing?
quote:
I know you didn't use the word "only," but you made it abundantly clear that you consider satellite images to be the only evidence of solar theories which you will accept.
My "thing" is satellite imagery analysis. While I'm more than happy to discuss other direct observations, I don't see any that support gas model theory over any sort of mass separated plasma model, or a Birkeland model. In fact I would be more inclined to put 'faith' in mass separted plasma model than in contemporary gas model theory based on what I see in satellite imagery.
Any theory that I will consider *must* also explain direct satellite observations, just like I would expect every theory to explain and/or address other direct observations.
quote:
And now you're shifting the goalposts: first you said "direct" observations, and now you're switching to "visual measurements." Of course, this doesn't really matter, because if you don't understand the processing that the original "visual" data is put through, then your interpretation of the results will be wrong.
Ya, but when you know what process the orginal "visual" data is put through, then the results of your interpretation of the results will proably be right.
quote:
You'll assume, for example, that you see shadows and peaks and valleys where none exist.
No, I said I see reflections of light from peaks and valleys where they do exist. They stay in the same geometric relationships to one another even while the light source moves around and relfections off these surfaces from different angles and in different intensities over time. Those changes in lighting show us the consistent patterns as the light reflects of the surfaces below. That's what I said.
quote:
They cannot be, since they are also running difference images, which make their interpretation as "visual measurements" counterintuitive.
Somehow it's "counterintuitive" to expect to see physical things on th surface itself, but its perfectly acceptable to "see" the physical wave on the surface of the photosphere. You're playing both sides of the street now Dave. The wave is visible because it physically affects the flow of particles. Likewise the surface does the same thing. The same exactly processes that allow us to visually see the wave allow us to visually see the surface under the wave.
quote:
Yes, you do, since you need to reverse the direction of the electron flow as compared to Birkeland's terrella.
Not in *every* instance.
quote:
You said so yourself, Michael: you think that the arcs come from the surface of the Sun.
They "come" from the atmosphere too Dave, but they almost always terminate at the surface. In some cases they start at the surface too, but both ends connect to the surface, just like in Birkeland's model.
quote:
That is opposed to the direction of the "current" in Birkeland's experiments.
It doesn't have to be in each case. Assumming that Dr. Manuel is correct about the core, and that really is hydrogen gas jetting out toward the solar sheath then the sun has an overall positive charge and interacts with a "relatively" negatively charged cosmic wind. There are also strong magnetic fields to stear the interactions.
quote:
First you have to interpret the images properly, Michael. You have not done so.
Since you've never once tackled that first image on my website in earnest, I have no way to know I have not interpreted them "properly" Dave. You've given me no "better" scientific explantion for those "particles" we see blowing in the plasma wind, and no explaination for the rigid patterns in the image, and no explanation for the peeling effects we see on the right side of the image. You didn' |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/12/2006 14:33:45 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2006 : 14:49:10 [Permalink]
|
P.S.
After proof reading a bit, every place I used the term "dust" could also be replaced with "thicker plasma" from the surface. Don't get caught up in the idea it has to be solid. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2006 : 16:53:16 [Permalink]
|
Michael, it is difficult to see any rationality to some of your objections. One objection that I frequently see is that since, over time, certain particulars of the Big Bang have been revised, it must not be all that great a theory.
I tried to use an analogy with evolution (I assume you accept evolution, no?), but you twisted it on its head to the point where it was invalid. So let me try again. In the time since I was an undergrad and took some basic courses on human evolution, I've seen several publish reports (or rather, news accounts of such reports; I let me subscription to The Journal of Human Evolution run out) wherein new discoveries have pushed back such-and-such theory about when humans branched off or some other idea. Sometimes, these events have pushed back events by significant amounts. In no cases, however, have these new finds suggested that evolution is incorrect.
Similarly, when new equipment allows for superios astronomic abservations, obviously a more refined picutre of the universe emerges. Thus, earlier ideas about the age of the universe, or the time for X or Y to emerge, alters. But the Big Bang isn't founded on galazies forming in a certain number of years, is it? Any discussion of the Big Bang that I've read places its evidence at several key aspects of red shift, and at CMBR. The best objection to red shift appears to be that Arp has argued for quasars to be closer than traditional astronomy holds. But obviously there are legitimate reasons why most scientists reject Arp's ideas, and my guess is that with little searching I could find some of those.
Again: on a general level, the Big Bang isn't predicated on galaxies forming at X time-- just like evolution doesn't depend on which when humans appear. Of course, on a more specific level, if human appear before T. Rex, then yes there's a problem. Similarly, if iron exists early enough, then there is a problem. Certainly, from some of the articles you've linked, it's clear that heavy elements like iron have been pushed back much earlier than expected. But right now the mainstream seems not to be upset about this. My guess is that this isn't a problem.
And about iron-- obviously I'm in the dark here. The Big Bang model easily explains the abundance of hydrogen and helium in the universe, and similarly explains why heavier elements are so rare. But if you want to postulate that the sun has a solid iron surface-- and moreover that all stars are like this-- then iron has to be far more abundant than the Big Bang says. You argue that there's lots of iron on mars and earth, but Michael, the sun makes up 99% of the mass of the solar system! That earth and mars have some iron is irrelevant.
In fact, the brings me back to some more questions about your solid model theory. What percent of the sun in your model is iron? Does this apply to other stars? From what I can gather, the amount of iron in the sun is small-- less than 1%. How does this fit into your model?
Also (though this might have been addressed elsewhere in the pervious 8 threads), the sun is hot. The numbers I see are ca. 10,000o F. Iron boils at about half that temperature. What am I missing? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2006 : 21:01:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Oh come now Dave. I've gone off on your tangents a ton of times. Cune simply asked me about some unresolved side issues and I took the time to address them and explain my motives clearly. I've responded to your stuff for nearly 9 threads. I figure I can spare a few posts for someone who's asking honest questions in a mature and fair way.
Sure, but you complained about me going off on tangents, and then did so yourself, and now you excuse yourself, while you haven't excused me. That's a double-standard, Michael, which is normal for you. You refuse to apply the same criticisms you make of other people to yourself. I'm used to it, I'm just pointing it out (again), and will note further that you've neglected an entire post of mine. I'd really like you to take up the issues of the direct observations of the Earth, since you keep saying that solar theory must be comprehensive.quote:
I didn't say that, or if I did, I certainly didn't mean what your hearing from my statements. I'm not "ingoring" any evidence. I'm more than happy to discus direct evidence of the sun, and I've done so here for months and months and months. We've looked at and discussed heliosiesmology data, satellite images, neutrino emissions, etc. All I'm insisting is that satellite images be treated like all kinds of direct observations and that all theories need to explain them just like any other direct observation. You're the one that is trying to give the gas model a free pass on satellite imagery, not me.
No, Michael, I'm still not giving the standard solar model a "pass," I'm acknowledging the fact that there is no consensus theory on the generation of the Sun's magnetic field. And if that doesn't exist, then surely there's no theory on the details of how the magnetic fields look in satellite imagery. There is, indeed, a lot of work going on in the creation of a theory for coronal events (STEREO is a part of the data-gathering, step one of the scientific method), but no results yet. You seem to think that because these theories don't exist, it somehow invalidates the standard solar model. But, the standard solar models make no predictions whatsoever regarding the things you see in satellite images. It's not that the models make incorrect predictions, they don't make any predictions at all. The standard solar models can't be falsified by not predicting something. That's a non-sequitor, Michael, and doesn't substantially differ from saying, "since the law of gravity doesn't explain the color of Lucky Charms cereal, the law of gravity is false." The standard solar models explain why the Sun has the general characteristics that it does. If you want the details to be explained, you'll have to wait for the theories which are currently begin worked on to be fleshed out more (to the point that they're actually theories). Perhaps someday those new theories will be merged with the standard solar model, and we'll have a "complete" theory of the Sun. But such doesn't exist today, just like in 1920 the standard model of particle physics was very much incomplete. Youth doesn't mean we should throw away what works.quote:
That's right. I see no other direct evidence from observation that is somehow exclusive to the gas model or that supports the gas model theory to the exclusion of a Birkeland model. What direct observation do you believe does such a thing?
Well, since your model doesn't explain the size or temperature of the Sun, it can't even compete on a level playing field with the standard solar models. The standard solar models are built entirely upon observations, Michael. They're just observations that you can't view as if it were a photo. And the neutrino data... well, you ignore 5/6th of it in order to claim that the standard models are false.quote:
Any theory that I will consider *must* also explain direct satellite observations, just like I would expect every theory to explain and/or address other direct observations.
Great, then where does your theory address and/or explain the solar neutrinos, the Sun's surface temperature, the Sun's radius, the Sun's mass, the Sun's luminosity, or the Sun's opacity? That's right: your theory doesn't address or explain any of those things, except to say that it's "open" to numerous possibilities. You don't have a theory which can even compete with "we don't know" as an explanation.quote:
Ya, but when you know what process the orginal "visual" data is put through, then the results of your interpretation of the results will proably be right.
But you demonstrably do not know what process the original data is put through. You claim that the Lockheed "gold" video is a running difference video, but you failed completely to explain the algorithm so that I could create the same video from the same raw images. And I was able to demonstrate that the "solid surface" exists only because of a running average's effects on telescope transients. You've got no clue as to how those images were processed, otherwise you would have explained it when I asked you to.quote:
No, I said I see reflections of light from peaks and valleys where they do exist. They stay in the same geometric relationships to one another even while the light source moves around and relfections off these surfaces from different angles and in different intensities over time. Those changes in lighting show us the consistent patterns as the light reflects of the surfaces below. That's what I said.
And that all assumes that there are shadows and peaks and valleys and moving light sources. You have presented no evidence that those things exist. Your argument seems to be that if we assume they exist, then the images look like they would if they exist, but that's entirely circular. The images are also entirely consistent with the hypothesis that there are no solid surfaces in there at all.quote:
Somehow it's "counterintuitive" to expect to see physical things on th surface itself, but its perfectly acceptable to "see" the physical wave on the surface of the photosphere. You're playing both sides of the street now Dave. The wave is visible because it physically affects the flow of particles. Likewise the surface does the same thing. The same exactly processes that allow us to visually see the wave allow us to visually see the surface under the wave.
|
- 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 - 08/12/2006 : 21:44:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
All I'm insisting is that satellite images be treated like all kinds of direct observations and that all theories need to explain them just like any other direct observation. You're the one that is trying to give the gas model a free pass on satellite imagery, not me.
Bwahahahahahahaahah!
I'm laughing uproariously due to my just skimming a BAUT forum thread from last year, in which you said, Michael:It is NOT acceptable in science to suggest that a LACK of prediction falsifies the model.
- ATM site claims Sun's surface is solid And yet here you are, Michael, a year later and trying to claim that the standard solar models are false (or at least worthless, it amounts to the same thing) because they don't predict the things you want them to predict.
I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again later, but Michael, the best way for anyone to successfully win a debate with you is simply to let you keep talking. You are your own worst enemy. The more you describe your alleged "model," the more internal inconsistencies and outright contradictions appear. So please, Michael, I'll be happy to discuss any aspect of your model that you want to discuss. Just keep on talkin', man! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2006 : 22:36:38 [Permalink]
|
For anyone new to this conversation, anyone who isn't already aware of the grave error Michael makes when "analyzing" running difference images, this may help bring you up to speed. Running difference images simply do not show a solid surface, no matter how desperately Michael wants them to, and no matter how often or how vehemently he declares they do.
Running difference images are created by starting with two images of a particular area of the Sun taken at different times. A software program is then used to compare these images pixel by pixel. Each pixel in the first image is compared to the corresponding pixel in the second image. The result is a third image, the running difference image, where a new pixel is placed in each same space as the corresponding pixels from the original images. The new pixels have brightness values based on the difference between the brightness of the pixels compared from the two original images.
The running difference output becomes a graphic representation of the comparison, not an actual image of anything. There is no light source in a running difference image, no shadows, no mountains, valleys, or surfaces. The brighter pixels are created by the software, as are the darker pixels. This is done exclusively as a means of graphically showing the differences between two original images. And a running difference video is simply made up of a series of sequential running difference images, nothing more.
I have corresponded with Dr. Neal Hurlburt of Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory (LMSAL) regarding one specific image/video which Michael incorrectly believes shows a solid surface on the Sun. Dr. Hurlburt is the person responsible for the acquisition, assembly, and processing of image data from the TRACE satellite. I asked him directly if the results of the running difference processing showed a real surface of some sort, or if the apparent surface is in fact an optical illusion created by the process. He said it does not show a surface.
In March, 2006, I asked Dr. Hurlburt, "In this video (T171_000828.avi), and other 'running difference' images and videos, where there seems to be areas of light and shadow and often the appearance of some sort of surface, it is true that this effect is actually an optical illusion resulting from the process of creating a 'running difference' image?"
Dr. Hurlburt replied, "The answer is yes. A dark 'shadow' in the difference movie is a region that became darker while a bright region is one that became brighter. Places where nothing changes are grey. So the thing that looks like a surface is usually places where nothing is changing."
This has been discussed at great length several times in previous threads. Michael's continued claim that nobody has explained the running difference images is patently false, a lie. Nearly everyone involved in these discussions here, nearly everyone involved in similar conversations at the BAUT forums, and the experts at NASA and LMSAL responsible for implementing and analyzing the relevant satellite imaging programs have addressed the issue repeatedly and thoroughly. Everyone seems to understand except Michael, who is simply is not willing to acknowledge this truth, probably because, as Dave has mentioned, it would destroy Michael's crazy fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2006 : 04:36:31 [Permalink]
|
Thank you, GeeMack, for explaining this. I had been wondering for some time what this "running difference" thing was, but was too wrapped up in other areas of Michael's assertions-- like problems with a massive abundance of iron in the sun-- to consider that.
I have always thought that the "can you explain these images" argument was weak. This may or may not be related to your presentation, GeeMack, but since I haven't seen it addressed anywhere else, I think I'll being it up now. When I asked Michael what we would expect to see (since he claims what what we are seeing cannot be plasma), he at first said that he didn't know (a weak answer if there ever were one!), and then said that we should see more movement, etc.
However, given that we're looking at an object that's 93 million miles away, and nearly a million miles across, will a relatively tiny image like the ones he's looking at ever show the kind of movement he would "expect" to see? I mean, even from the moon, do images of the earth show the movements of the ocean? What about from Mars?
I could be wrong-- I know nothing about such imagry and the like-- but I'm curious about what we can expect an image to show given the distances and sizes involved.
Moreover, it seems to me like we don't have a lot of camparisons with which to judge the images. How many giant plasma balls are there that we can look at? Or for that matter, how many balls of unknown stuff covered with an iron crust which is itself covered with layers of xenon, silicon, and whatever else, do we have? Can we really say from these images that they are or are not in accords with what one would expect, given that there are no other confirmed samples by which to judge them? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2006 : 17:19:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Bwahahahahahahaahah!
Talk about childish responses Dave. Come on. I thought you wanted to have a serious scientific discussion?
quote:
I'm laughing uproariously due to my just skimming a BAUT forum thread from last year, in which you said, Michael:[bq]It is NOT acceptable in science to suggest that a LACK of prediction falsifies the model.
That's right Dave, that's what I said. I didn't blame gas model theory for lacking any sort of predictions about satellite images, I blame it for not have *explanations* for direct observations *from* these satellite images. These are two totally different issues.
quote:
And yet here you are, Michael, a year later and trying to claim that the standard solar models are false (or at least worthless, it amounts to the same thing) because they don't predict the things you want them to predict.
I'm not asking gas model theorists to "predict" anything, I'm asking them to *explain* satellite images. These are completely different issues.
quote:
I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again later, but Michael, the best way for anyone to successfully win a debate with you is simply to let you keep talking. You are your own worst enemy. The more you describe your alleged "model," the more internal inconsistencies and outright contradictions appear. So please, Michael, I'll be happy to discuss any aspect of your model that you want to discuss. Just keep on talkin', man!
You know Dave, when we "started over", I was sort of hoping there might be a way to do this "professionally" for a change. When you start off you posts however with:
quote:
Bwahahahahahahaahah!
It's pretty damn clear you aren't interested in having a reasonable and scientific discussion on a topic. You are evidently only interested in scoring ego points as far as I can tell. That isn't science. That isn't scientifically meaningful dialog. It's just your inner child acting out. Give me one good reason to even continue a discussion with someone who begins their posts like this Dave? From my perspective, it's like being back in high school trying to have an intelligent conversation with the class bully. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2006 : 17:57:30 [Permalink]
|
| I also want to thank GeeMack for that summary. I've had a hell of a hard time following this, since I tarted reading the first set of threads when they were already on something like page gazillion! That was a very nice explanation on what's going on with this. Much appreciated! |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2006 : 18:03:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Michael, it is difficult to see any rationality to some of your objections. One objection that I frequently see is that since, over time, certain particulars of the Big Bang have been revised, it must not be all that great a theory.
It certainly has not been that great at predicting anything. In fact it's never accurately predicted anything I'm aware of with the possible exception of the backround radiation. Everything else it missed by billions of years.
quote:
I tried to use an analogy with evolution (I assume you accept evolution, no?), but you twisted it on its head to the point where it was invalid. So let me try again. In the time since I was an undergrad and took some basic courses on human evolution, I've seen several publish reports (or rather, news accounts of such reports; I let me subscription to The Journal of Human Evolution run out) wherein new discoveries have pushed back such-and-such theory about when humans branched off or some other idea. Sometimes, these events have pushed back events by significant amounts. In no cases, however, have these new finds suggested that evolution is incorrect.
That is because at no time did anyone find a fully developed human being somewhere in the fossil record where it didn't belong. The difference here with BB theory is just such a discovery was made. In other words, early BB theory predicted more "primitive" galaxies would only have formed several billion years after the BB. Then it would take several billion more years for them to "smooth out" and form "mature" patterns and arms and grow into fully developed galaxies. Suddenly however we find mature and fully developed galaxies that are 8 times larger than our own galaxy and just as mature if not more mature than our own galaxy existed no later than 1 billion years after the BB. That is like finding a fully developed human being from 12.7 billion years ago. If that happened to the field of evolution, you can bet there would be a *huge* issue made of it. In astronomy however, it's simply swept under the carpet, like nothing ever happened. If you aren't old enough to the remember the old dirty predictions, you might actually think BB theory has "passed with flying colors" because you don't see the dirt today. I saw the dirt, and I know that dirt got swept under the carpet, so I know it's there.
quote:
Similarly, when new equipment allows for superios astronomic abservations, obviously a more refined picutre of the universe emerges. Thus, earlier ideas about the age of the universe, or the time for X or Y to emerge, alters. But the Big Bang isn't founded on galazies forming in a certain number of years, is it?
It *used* to be based on the physics of hydrogen atoms. In other words, there was a timeline put forth that was based on how long it would take for light hydrogen to be pulled together by gravity into galaxies. We were told it would take X amount of time for heavy elements to form. Mature galaxies like our own, with stable inner designs, and current contents of heavy metals would not form for many billions of years according to early BB theory.
When Hubble started returning image however, everyone was *surprised* at the images. Spitzer too is turning back the clock as to when "mature" galaxies first formed, and when heavy elements reach their current abundances.
quote:
Any discussion of the Big Bang that I've read places its evidence at several key aspects of red shift, and at CMBR.
That is because it's the only prediction that BB theory ever made that actually turned out to be correct. Now if you get them to explain that cosmic x-ray background and all the other wavelength backgrounds, that might actually count for something. It certainly doesn't rule out other options, and it certainly doesn't make up for the fact that BB theory blew all it's other predictions "big time".
quote:
The best objection to red shift appears to be that Arp has argued for quasars to be closer than traditional astronomy holds.
Yes, and the idea of math behind MECO's also adds weight to his arguements.
quote:
But obviously there are legitimate reasons why most scientists reject Arp's ideas, and my guess is that with little searching I could find some of those.
I think it would be worth your time to find them and understand them quite well. I think it would also be good to study MECO's and understand them as well. I think if you take the time to do this, you'll have a much better idea where I'm coming from.
quote:
Again: on a general level, the Big Bang isn't predicated on galaxies forming at X time-- just like evolution doesn't depend on which when humans appear. Of course, on a more specific level, if human appear before T. Rex, then yes there's a problem.
But that is exactly what's happened here Cune. They did find more mature galaxies than our own less than 1 billion years after the BB. In this case, the larger, more mature galaxies were found with very little differences in metal contents, and with fully formed arms and everything. The reason it's not predictated on when galaxies first formed is because BB theory blew that prediction big time. They can't very well claim now that this was a "victory" for BB theory so they down play it. If it had been right, *then* you'd hear about important it was that BB theory accurately predicted galaxy formation. Since it did not, that issue has been dropped like a hot potato in favor on one thing they actually got right.
quote:
Similarly, if iron exists early enough, then there is a problem.
Then you have another problem on your hands.
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/Highlights/pr20020708.html
quote:
Certainly, from some of the articles you've linked, it's clear that heavy elements like iron have been pushed back much earlier than expected. But right now the mainstream seems not to be upset about this. My guess is that this isn't a problem.
Ya, and it's evid |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/13/2006 19:05:15 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2006 : 18:42:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Running difference images are created by starting with two images of a particular area of the Sun taken at different times. A software program is then used to compare these images pixel by pixel. Each pixel in the first image is compared to the corresponding pixel in the second image. The result is a third image, the running difference image, where a new pixel is placed in each same space as the corresponding pixels from the original images. The new pixels have brightness values based on the difference between the brightness of the pixels compared from the two original images.
The short version is that one image is subtracted from another.
quote:
The running difference output becomes a graphic representation of the comparison, not an actual image of anything.
A graphic representation that shows consistent patterns in plasma over hour plus long timelines?
quote:
There is no light source in a running difference image,
That is totally false. Each of the original images has a "light source", specifically the coronal loops. When you subtract some photons form other photons, you end up with the number of leftover photons. The light source and all the photons of both of the original images as well as the processed image is directly related to the amount of the light coming from the coronal loops.
quote:
no shadows, no mountains, valleys, or surfaces.
Except for all the mountains, shadows, valleys and surfaces we see in the image of course.
quote:
The brighter pixels are created by the software, as are the darker pixels.
No, the bright pixels are caused by the increase of photons in that CCD pixel (area of the surface) between one image and the next. Likewise the dark region is a direct result of a decrease in photons in that CCD pixel between the two images. You're trying to overcomplicate an otherwise relatively straight forward process GeeMack. Anyone can create RD images in something like Photoshop. There's not great "software processing" mystery to it.
quote:
This is done exclusively as a means of graphically showing the differences between two original images. And a running difference video is simply made up of a series of sequential running difference images, nothing more.
Yes, but it also reveals a consistent set of pattern in the image, and those patterns certainly do reveal a lot more about the solar environment.
quote:
I have corresponded with Dr. Neal Hurlburt of Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory (LMSAL) regarding one specific image/video which Michael incorrectly believes shows a solid surface on the Sun. Dr. Hurlburt is the person responsible for the acquisition, assembly, and processing of image data from the TRACE satellite.
Wow! Neither Dr. Manuel nor I could get LMSAL or Carolus Shryver from LMSAL to even admit that anyone at LMSAL had anything to do with the image let alone tell us whos created the image. In fact Carolus Shryver told me personally via email that he didn't know who created the image and they (LMSAL) had nothing to do with it.
quote:
In March, 2006, I asked Dr. Hurlburt, "In this video (T171_000828.avi), and other 'running difference' images and videos, where there seems to be areas of light and shadow and often the appearance of some sort of surface, it is true that this effect is actually an optical illusion resulting from the process of creating a 'running difference' image?"
Dr. Hurlburt replied, "The answer is yes. A dark 'shadow' in the difference movie is a region that became darker while a bright region is one that became brighter. Places where nothing changes are grey. So the thing that looks like a surface is usually places where nothing is changing."
While Neal's explanation for dark and light areas of the image are technically accurate, I'd love to hear him actually explain the consistency of the patterns in the image, or the dust in the wind, or the peeling we see in the image. Since LMSAL seems more interested in talking to you about the image than talking with me about the image, how about getting them to answer some of the technical aspects of the image, like the duration, the shots used, etc?
Maybe you could also get him to answer a few of the direct questions I've asked about that image, like the cause of the consistent patterns in the image, the plasma dust, the peeling, the cause of the CME, etc?
quote:
This has been discussed at great length several times in previous threads. Michael's continued claim that nobody has explained the running difference images is patently false, a lie.
The only "lie" here is your suggesting that anyone has provided detailed explanations for the observations seen in this image, from the consistancy of the patterns in the image, to the cause of the CME as revealed in this image, the dust that is blow up during the CME, the peeling on the right, etc.
quote:
Nearly everyone involved in these discussions here, nearly everyone involved in similar conversations at the BAUT forums, and the experts at NASA and LMSAL responsible for implementing and analyzing the relevant satellite imaging programs have addressed the issue repeatedly and thoroughly.
What a bunch of nonsense. LMSAL wouldn't even tell me who created the image, even after repeated requests by numberous individuals. They provided ZIP in the way of details, and your quote certainly from Dr. Hurlburt wasn't a "detailed" analysis by any stretch of the imagination. All you posted was a simple explanation of why light areas are light and dark areas are dark. It did not address the consistency of patterns in the image. It did not address the CME itself, the dust from the CME, the peeling on the right, or any of the more relevant and important details surrounding this image. About all you posted from Neil's an |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/13/2006 19:11:49 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
