|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 08/20/2006 : 15:26:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
There should be no double standards applied to a Birkeland solar model, particularly at this stage of the game.
Excellent. Then show us the relationship between mass, volume, and energy output of the sun. And throw in colour spectrum of the light to, because in the gas model, there is a direct correlation between a main sequence star's mass and it's colour. |
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. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 15:28:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Why exactly has not knowing how large and how dense it is not troubled you?
Because Michael believes understanding the broad, fundamental characteristics of the sun is irrelevant to explaining it's details.
|
"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 08/20/2006 15:28:57 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 15:32:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
There should be no double standards applied to a Birkeland solar model, particularly at this stage of the game.
Excellent. Then show us the relationship between mass, volume, and energy output of the sun. And throw in colour spectrum of the light to, because in the gas model, there is a direct correlation between a main sequence star's mass and it's colour.
Just because gas model theory attempts to lump all these things together and it tries to correlate the colour spectrum of visible light to the energy output of the photosphere doesn't mean these are even related processes. How do you know that sunspot is actually 2000 degrees cooler in every area it's "darker" than the photosphere? If that is so, why does the increase in sunspot activity correlate to a *rise* in ocean temperature here on earth? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 15:41:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
So to sum up your 524 word post: "I don't have any"
No, I showed you the math on the images. If you've got a logical reason to reject that math, please explain it, otherwise you can't claim I haven't provided "any" math to support my case.
quote:
You say that the sun has a rotating neutron star in the center. There are very simple and fundamental questions that come up: how big is it and how dense is it.
As I said earlier, I beleive it makes up between 50-70 percent of the total mass of the sun.
quote:
It would take math to answer these questions.
It would take a lot better heliosiesmology models and data to answer these questions too.
quote:
As you said, you haven't done the math, and so you don't know the answers.
I've provided the math to demonstrate that the smallest possible size neutron core is substancially less than the mass of the sun, and I know that the crust need not even compose 10 percent of the total mass of the sun. I therefore know that it *can* work. I don't know enough about the internal structures (layers) of the sun yet to compute the thicknesses of layers and the densities of internal layers yet.
quote:
Why exactly has not knowing how large and how dense it is not troubled you?
Actually, it did trouble me a great deal. In fact one of the primary reasons I didn't "jump on board" with the concept of a neutron star core is because I was under the impression they *had* to have more mass than our sun. It was not until some time later that I ran across the paper I posted earlier about the minimum size of a neutron core that I was willing to entertain the idea of such a core.
The problem however is I don't have a crystal ball, and I cannot yet see *inside* the solar crust, at least not in any signficant way yet.
Does it trouble you that current gas model theory can't explain or model the heat signature of the corona? |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 15:54:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
I have no idea how I would even beging to explan loops or the corona or anything else in any sort of model-- gas or solid surface or twinkie cream filling or anything else.
Then educate yourself on these subjects, and don't take my word for anything. Your own curiousity should motivate you, not me. I certainly shouldn't be your only 'teacher' at this point.
This is a little absurd, don't you think? I mean, it's one thing to brush up on some stuff I learned in high school and try and apply that knowledge to your theories. It's another to essentially guide myself through a crash-course lesson in the half-dozen or so fields of chemistry and whatnot with not previous background. Especially when I have my own fields of study to work on! You aren't the only one publishing papers, Michael. And while SFN is fun and all, learning about Gauss fields isn't going to get me a job; publishing papers on the finer points of the Sumerian language probably won't either, but I've got a better chance with that than in the other.
The reason I wanted to get you to try and address the things I've been talking about isn't because I'm "latching on" to some "weakness"; it's because it's the stuff I understand and, I've been asusming, it's the stuff you understand, too. So it's a win-win. Or so I thought.
Moreover, I think there's a limit to keeping an open mind. I could keep my mind open to Professor A's argument that there's a fire-breathing clown on the dark side of the moon. But why waste time entertaining what-ifs if the esteemed professor can't explain things like how the clown can breath fire in an oxygen-free environment!
That's an expreme position, but perhaps it gets the point across. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 16:24:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
No, I showed you the math on the images. If you've got a logical reason to reject that math, please explain it, otherwise you can't claim I haven't provided "any" math to support my case.
The "math" you provided regarding the images was "A+B=C". The fact that your "math" is completely meaningless is a perfectly logical reason to reject it. So other than you, Michael, we are all in complete agreement here. You haven't provided any math to support your case.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 16:39:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
This is a little absurd, don't you think? I mean, it's one thing to brush up on some stuff I learned in high school and try and apply that knowledge to your theories. It's another to essentially guide myself through a crash-course lesson in the half-dozen or so fields of chemistry and whatnot with not previous background. Especially when I have my own fields of study to work on! You aren't the only one publishing papers, Michael.
Well, put yourself in my shoes then. It's not "good enough" that I can fully explain virtually any satellite image tossed my way, I now have to be an "expert" in every single field of science related to solar theory, including heliosiesmology, nuclear chemistry, plasma phyiscs, etc. I don't mind giving it the ol' college try here, but don't you think you're expecting a lot out of me too, especially when I have a day job?
quote:
And while SFN is fun and all, learning about Gauss fields isn't going to get me a job; publishing papers on the finer points of the Sumerian language probably won't either, but I've got a better chance with that than in the other.
Likewise, these lovely discussions don't pay my bills, and while there are some things that I can start to apply some math to, there is no way for me to be an expert on every single topic related to solar theory. I do know satellite imagery quite well, and I can explain SOHO and Trace and Yohkoh, and Rhessi and Geos images all you like, but I think it's a lot to expect on individual to be an expert on every topic.
quote:
The reason I wanted to get you to try and address the things I've been talking about isn't because I'm "latching on" to some "weakness"; it's because it's the stuff I understand and, I've been asusming, it's the stuff you understand, too. So it's a win-win. Or so I thought.
If we're looking for a win-win scenario and something you might accept scientifically, I think we should stay focused on the electrical aspect of the coronal loops. Once you understand this issue, the rest will make sense to you. Until you do understand and agree with this side of my arguement, you won't undestand what led me to conclude the sun has a surface in the first place.
quote:
Moreover, I think there's a limit to keeping an open mind. I could keep my mind open to Professor A's argument that there's a fire-breathing clown on the dark side of the moon. But why waste time entertaining what-ifs if the esteemed professor can't explain things like how the clown can breath fire in an oxygen-free environment!
Apples and oranges. I can show you multimillion dollar satellite images to support my case. I can't tell you every single thing there is to know about our sun based on a Birkeland solar model at this point in time. I continue to learn and to grow, but nobody knows everything on every topic.
quote:
That's an expreme position, but perhaps it gets the point across.
I totally understand and sympathize with your position, mainly because I've been there myself. I realize you aren't going to understand what you're looking in statellite images, but from our conversations, I'm quite confident you can learn and understand how I cam to these conclusions, but you'll have to want to do that, and you'll have to at least keep an open mind and allow me to explain things my way, rather than insisting I explain everything your way first.
It was the satellite images that led me to these theories, and I can explain myself in some detail using satellite images. Thanks to Dave, and Dr. Kosovichev, I've learned a bit about heliosiesmology too, but I'm quite confident I don't know that field of science as well as I understand satellite image analysis.
I'd therefore much rather we focus on the light source of SOHO and TRACE and Yohkoh and Geos and Rhessi images so that I can then explain to you how I came to these conclusions.
At that point, we can go anywhere you wish, but I assure you I won't be able to as thuroughly answer your questions about those issues nearly as well as I can thuroughly answer your questions about running difference and running average solar images. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/20/2006 16:56:21 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 16:47:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
The "math" you provided regarding the images was "A+B=C".
Yep. High energy photons + other even higher energy photons equals a "consensus" on the location of the bulk of the high energy photon output. Pretty simple stuff actually. It works for lightening storms too by the way.
quote:
The fact that your "math" is completely meaningless is a perfectly logical reason to reject it.
The fact you've never demonstrated it to be "completely meaningless" shows that your choice to reject the idea with a handwave isn't "logical" in the first place. This would certainly work for determing the high energy concentration areas of the atmosphere during a thunderstorm. The only way to even see light at these wavelengths is if there is plasma in this area that exceeds 160 thousand degrees Kelvin, and the brightest peaks are certainly over a million degrees Kelvin. How then do you know that the idea is "completely meaningless"?
quote:
So other than you, Michael, we are all in complete agreement here. You haven't provided any math to support your case.
I certainly did. It wasn't glitzy or fancy math mind you, but it's certainly an effective and logical use of math. You've never provided any math to demonstrate that my method is not effective in this case, nor have you provided any observational evidence to suggest this method is "completely meaningless".
I take it that Neal didn't answer my first few questions, or even the answer the basics about the routines he used to process the images and which images he actually used?
By the way, since I didn't get a response from Dr. Hurlburt, and Carolus Shryver told me that LSMAL didn't create or post that image, how do I go about verifying that Dr. Hurlburt actually created that image? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/20/2006 16:54:42 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 16:58:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Just because gas model theory attempts to lump all these things together and it tries to correlate the colour spectrum of visible light to the energy output of the photosphere doesn't mean these are even related processes.
Thanks to you, Michael, we know the reason why the photosphere is highly opaque in all frequencies, making it very close to being a blackbody. Your objection to the law of physics that you introduced was that it doesn't take other kinds of scattering into account, but would they make light scatter less than predicted by Thompson scattering?quote:
How do you know that sunspot is actually 2000 degrees cooler in every area it's "darker" than the photosphere?
Because you proved that the photosphere is very close to a blackbody.quote:
If that is so, why does the increase in sunspot activity correlate to a *rise* in ocean temperature here on earth?
Because the photosphere outside sunspots gets much hotter (the temperature rise more than compensates for the one percent or so of the surface that gets 2,000 Kelvin cooler). You knew that, you just reject it and act like nobody's ever told you before. |
- 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 - 08/20/2006 : 17:05:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No, I showed you the math on the images. If you've got a logical reason to reject that math, please explain it, otherwise you can't claim I haven't provided "any" math to support my case.
The logical reason to reject your math is your outright refusal to apply the same math to objects for which the temperature is known without argument, and so haven't bothered to verify that your math works as you claim it does. And I know it's a refusal because every time I've brought that up, you've chosen to not respond to that point at all.quote:
As I said earlier, I beleive it makes up between 50-70 percent of the total mass of the sun.
So if the "crust" is "thin," how could there possibly also be more than 50% iron in the Sun? We're all looking at "the Sun's mass is more than 100% of the Sun's mass," which is, of course, absurd. |
- 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 - 08/20/2006 : 17:12:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I certainly did. It wasn't glitzy or fancy math mind you, but it's certainly an effective and logical use of math. You've never provided any math to demonstrate that my method is not effective in this case, nor have you provided any observational evidence to suggest this method is "completely meaningless".
Of course you'll never find one professional mathematician or math instructor who would agree with you that your stating "A+B=C" and dangling a Photoshopped image in front of us is "an effective and logical use of math". So again you're wrong. But at least you're consistent.
quote:
I take it that Neal didn't answer my first few questions, or even the answer the basics about the routines he used to process the images and which images he actually used?
By the way, since I didn't get a response from Dr. Hurlburt, and Carolus Shryver told me that LSMAL didn't create or post that image, how do I go about verifying that Dr. Hurlburt actually created that image?
Damned shame you aren't capable of doing your own work. Maybe we should back up a few postings so we can explain once again how badly mistaken you are about running difference images...
quote:
No you pinhead, that is the process that creates the *lighter and darker pixels*, not the *consistent patterns* in the image. Get a clue!
The only thing that can create consistent patterns in the image is consistent *patterns* in the data output.
Of course even extreme changes between sequential input images can cause consistent patterns to appear through a series of running difference output images. Dave and others have already explained this. But for the slow learners, here's an example...
Let's say a particular pixel in original Image 1 is 90% bright. The same pixel in Image 2 is 65% bright. In Image 3 that pixel is 40% bright. And the pixel at that location in Image 4 is only 15% bright. Across those four images that pixel goes through an extreme change from very bright to very dim. But that same pixel would be exactly the same brightness in all three output images created from those originals, running difference images 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4. The video made from those running difference images would show no change at all in that spot.
quote:
Well Geemack, since you seem to get actual responses from Neal, and since he evidently doesn't seem interested in returning my emails, perhaps you could ask him the first questions I posed to him in my email, and see if you can get some answers.
Remember, I already asked Dr. Hurlburt if what you see as some kind of surface or solid features in your example running difference images, the "Lockheed gold" video, was due to some actual physical features or if it just appeared to be that due to an optical illusion resulting from the process of creating the images. He said what appears to be a surface is just an optical illusion. Running difference images don't show solid features or surfaces. We all already know your contention is false, and that has been verified by Dr. Hurlburt's comments. If at some point I have other questions which Dr. Hurlburt might be able to answer, I'll write him again.
quote:
I guess Dr. Hurlburt is either on vacation, doesn't like me, or just doesn't want to get involved.
Golly gee, when someone makes it clear to you that you've misunderstood something, or that your simple opinion doesn't constitute evidence, or when someone doesn't spoon feed you the answers you want to hear, you respond with comments like, "Fuck you asshole," or "No you pinhead," or "Only LMSAL has directly lied to me and been less than forthcoming with information," does anyone really wonder why?
quote:
To *understand* running difference (or running average) images however, you first have to understand the light source of the original two image, therefore we need to be discussing the nature of the electrical loops first, since they are the light source of these images. It is the changing light source that allows light to be reflected at various intensities from the surface features.
Running difference images don't show any surface features.
quote:
Before we can really discuss RD images, we must understand the nature of the light source, since it is impossible to explain the surface feature seen in these images without first understanding the light source. It's critical to understand how the light source and the image processing technique combined, can illuminate the surface features.
Running difference images don't show any surface features.
quote:
You can't get anywhere in satellite image analysis however until you grasp the light source.
There is no light source in a running difference image. The brightness of any pixel in the image is based exclusively on the difference between the two corresponding pixels compared from the input images.
So regarding running difference images, here's where we stand. Michael never has demonstrated that a running difference image even can show solid physical things like surfaces or other features. His response to that has always been that he believes it to be true because it looks like it in the images. He never has explained how a running difference image might show a surface hundreds of kilometers below the opaque photosphere when the image is created using input data obtained from the corona thousands of kilometers above, well, other than to say it looks like it to him therefore it must be true. He never has been able to present his claim about running difference images in a way that is convincing to a single professional astrophysicist.
Dr. Neal Hurlburt from LMSAL (Lockheed), one of the people responsible for acquisition and assembly of data received from their TRACE satellite, and Dr. Therese Kucera, holding a similar position with the SOHO satellite program at NASA, have both made their position clear. Both of these satellite programs provide raw data used to create the running difference images Michael regards as particularly substantial evidence of a solid surface on the Sun, and both of these experts agree that running difference images do not show any solid surface features, contrary to Michael's claim.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 17:18:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Thanks to you, Michael, we know the reason why the photosphere is highly opaque in all frequencies,
You really should refrain from sticking words in my mouth like that, expecially when you already that that I don't agree with what you just said.
quote:
making it very close to being a blackbody.
This is a pure oversimplification since it does not account for the excess heat you see in those coronal loops.
quote:
Your objection to the law of physics that you introduced was that it doesn't take other kinds of scattering into account, but would they make light scatter less than predicted by Thompson scattering?
I didn't suggest that either. There should be evidence of Thompson scattering as well as QM scattering in general. I'm not suggesting anything should be "less than" what would be logically predictable.
quote:
Because you proved that the photosphere is very close to a blackbody.
No, I did not Dave. I proved your blackbody calculation was a gross oversimplification from the very beginning, and your belief the sunspots are cooler on average than the rest of the photosphere flies directly in the fact of the increase of the surface temperature on earth.
quote:
Because the photosphere outside sunspots gets much hotter (the temperature rise more than compensates for the one percent or so of the surface that gets 2,000 Kelvin cooler). You knew that, you just reject it and act like nobody's ever told you before.
You've aledged this before to be sure, but you've never demonstrated that it is accurate. You've never demonstrated that every area that is dark in a sunspot is filled with plasma that is 2000 degrees less than the rest of the photosophere, now have you really adequately explained where such cool plasma should come from in the first place. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 17:29:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
]The logical reason to reject your math is your outright refusal to apply the same math to objects for which the temperature is known without argument, and so haven't bothered to verify that your math works as you claim it does.
Lockheed has already assigned the temperatures ranges Dave, and they've presumably tested their equipment as well.
quote:
And I know it's a refusal because every time I've brought that up, you've chosen to not respond to that point at all.
I have so. I've meantioned before that LMSAL built, tested and assigned temperatures to these filters. I've also shown you links to papers from Lockheed to substanciate the temperature minimums and maximums they use internally. I've shown you TRACE/Yohkoh overlay images to verify that no missing heat remains in the dark regions of Trace image or beyond the scope of Trace's view. I've pointed out to you now several times that the shutter speeds that are used to create such images are typically measured in seconds and therefore scattering is certain. You have never responded to these points Dave.
quote:
So if the "crust" is "thin," how could there possibly also be more than 50% iron in the Sun? We're all looking at "the Sun's mass is more than 100% of the Sun's mass," which is, of course, absurd.
Then you must be intentionally trying not to hear me, since I've already explained that the percentage of iron and nickel cited in our work would also include the total amount of iron and nickel in the neutron crust. I've also explained now that the mass of the neutron core that comes purely from nuetrons can't be factored into a an elemental "percentage" calculation. The mass of the nuetrons is therefore excluded from the figures listed in our work. I fail to see why you find that idea complicated. It's really pretty simple if you ask me. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 17:41:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well, put yourself in my shoes then. It's not "good enough" that I can fully explain virtually any satellite image tossed my way, I now have to be an "expert" in every single field of science related to solar theory, including heliosiesmology, nuclear chemistry, plasma phyiscs, etc. I don't mind giving it the ol' college try here, but don't you think you're expecting a lot out of me too, especially when I have a day job?
But I'm not asking you to become an expert! I'm looking at what I think is pretty basic stuff! At least, for a person who's followed astronomy and physics for a few decades, this should be rather basic, no?
quote:
Likewise, these lovely discussions don't pay my bills, and while there are some things that I can start to apply some math to, there is no way for me to be an expert on every single topic related to solar theory. I do know satellite imagery quite well, and I can explain SOHO and Trace and Yohkoh, and Rhessi and Geos images all you like, but I think it's a lot to expect on individual to be an expert on every topic.
Again, methinks thou doth protest too much! I'm not asking for stuff in advanced calculus! I'm trying to wrap my head around some pretty basic things. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this!
quote:
If we're looking for a win-win scenario and something you might accept scientifically, I think we should stay focused on the electrical aspect of the coronal loops. Once you understand this issue, the rest will make sense to you. Until you do understand and agree with this side of my arguement, you won't undestand what led me to conclude the sun has a surface in the first place.
Where the fuck would I start? While I can go and wiki things like "Big Bang" and "density" and "iron", "coronal loop" gives me nothing. The major book chains have wonderful books on the Big Bang and the solar system. I got nothing on coronal loops and their electrical aspect. Do I need a college text? Where do I start?
quote:
quote:
Moreover, I think there's a limit to keeping an open mind. I could keep my mind open to Professor A's argument that there's a fire-breathing clown on the dark side of the moon. But why waste time entertaining what-ifs if the esteemed professor can't explain things like how the clown can breath fire in an oxygen-free environment!
Apples and oranges. I can show you multimillion dollar satellite images to support my case. I can't tell you every single thing there is to know about our sun based on a Birkeland solar model at this point in time. I continue to learn and to grow, but nobody knows everything on every topic.
Hardly apples and oranges. Either, a) our entire understanding of mass, density, and gravity are wrong, or b) you, Michael aren't properly interpreting the images you're seeing. Occam's razor, man.
quote:
At that point, we can go anywhere you wish, but I assure you I won't be able to as thuroughly answer your questions about those issues nearly as well as I can thuroughly answer your questions about running difference and running average solar images.
Well, like I've said, I don't think I'm doing to be able to contribute much to questions about running difference images and coronal loops, etc. So perhaps you should just go back to trying to answer Dave's big questions (didn't he ask for a fuller treatment of some major issue?) and I'll just follow along.
Good luck!
[Edited to fix quote-hierarchy. //Dr. Mabuse] |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 08/21/2006 03:37:30 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
