|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 08/20/2006 : 18:31:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
How does saying "thank you" put words in your mouth? I certainly didn't imply that you agree with me.quote:
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.
Why should our measurements of the opacity of the photosphere account for anything about the coronal loops?quote:
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.
Great, there are reams of evidence for Thompson scattering in plasmas, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to say that it's a law of scattering, as you did.quote:
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...
No, Michael, you proved what everyone else already knew: that blackbody physics is an approximation in the real world. And you did provide the evidence and the law which shows that the photosphere is very close to a blackbody, you just don't agree with that conclusion (but you've never offered a coherent objection to it).quote:
...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.
Only if you myopically ignore the rest of the photosphere, Michael. Even if sunspots covered one percent of the Sun's surface, and there were no heating of the photosphere, the temperature drop would only average 20° C, or about 0.33%. The rest of the photosphere only has to heat up by 21° C to make the average temperature hotter.quote:
You've aledged this before to be sure, but you've never demonstrated that it is accurate.
Apparently you're so fixated upon those two mass flow diagrams that you've ignored the rest of Kosovichev's data in that one paper.quote:
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...
Your own evidence shows that the photosphere is close to being a blackbody, and on that basis researchers approximate the temperature drop as 2,000°. You certainly haven't demonstrated that the temperature stays the same or is increased in a sunspot.quote:
...now have you really adequately explained where such cool plasma should come from in the first place.
Absolutely I have. Numerous times. The fact that you don't "believe in" magnetic cooling doesn't make its reality vanish. |
- 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 - 08/20/2006 : 18:32:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
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...
Pfft. The moment you get around to actually explaining *anything other than* why light pixels are light and dark pixels are dark, and you actually explain the consistent geometric relationships in the images, and the movements we see in the images asked you to do, then you can lecture me about running difference images. It's quite clear that you don't know a damn thing about them other than what you parroted from Neal. You finally seem to be able to explain why a single pixel is light or dark in the image, so you seem to think that you're some sort of resident expert on the subject of RD images now. Sheesh.
quote:
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.
Oh for goodness sake! I didn't ask you about a single pixel intensity. Would you pull your head out of the one single pixel intensity routine and explain the rigidness of the patterns or the movements we see in the image like I asked you to do? Why do you keep parroting the same material about the cause of a single light or dark pixel when I have already agreed with that part of what Neal said? Move on to the patterns now and the movements now like I asked you to do. I can only assume you do that pixel song and dance routine over and over again because you can't explain anything else related to the rigid patterns or the movements of this image. This is the only logical reason why you would keep harping on single pixel intensities instead of what I actually asked you to explain.
quote:
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.
But you asked him about light and dark pixels, and that *is* in fact an effect of the RD technique, just as he stated. I never questioned the accuracy of what he said based on such a poorly worded question about light and darkness in the pixels. You never meantioned or asked him about the consistent patterns in the image or asked him to explain such stuff, so how can I fault him for giving you an honest answer to a poorly worded and malformed question.
quote:
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?
If you look back through these many threads, you will find that I have not called anyone but you an asshole or a pinhead or anything of the sort. That is because other than you, nobody I've met here falls into that category. You got exactly the response you deserved from me because of all the *personal insults* and *personal attacks* you have hurled my way for months. You of all people have absolutely nothing to complain about after your string of personal insults.
As for LMSAL and that image, either you personally are lying to me now about Dr. Hurlburt creating that image (which wouldn't be very logical), or Carolus Shryver lied to me and to Dr. Manuel, in which case I have the emails to prove it. Come to think of it however, I have no particular reason to trust that you're telling me the truth now, so maybe I am being premature in giving you the benefit of the doubt. All I really know for sure is one of you has lied to me. That's rather strange behavior for any institution, but frankly LMSAL has been less than helpful since the beginning, unlike NASA and Stanford.
How hard would it have been for Neal to have emailed me back with information about which images he used and which software routines he used? I would not have taken five minutes of his time.
quote:
Running difference images don't show any surface features.
Ya, in this case they do. Those of the "features" you see that are consistent in the image over the span of the whole hour and a half. If you look at helium RD images however, you'll notice no such consistency of patterns over anwhere near these timelines because it's all made of plasma, and plasma moves.
quote:
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.
But I did thuroughly explain how a running difference image might show a solid surface thousands of kilometers below a non-opaque photosphere. More importantly, you have not demonstrated that A) the photosphere is opaque to these wavelengths as you claimed, or that B) that these emission start above the photosphere, or C) how those rigid patterns remain rigid for an hour and a half in what is supposed to be very light, then and moving plasma right in the middle of a CME no less. Other than that your statement is perfectly accurate.
quote:
He never has been able to present his claim about running difference images in a way that is convincing to a single professional astrophysicist.
Baloney. Several have done papers with me already.
quote:
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.
And neither one has explained any of the relevant details in the image |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/20/2006 18:37:12 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 18:40:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
No, Michael, they "assigned the temperature ranges" to their telescopes, and you disagree with their conclusions about the actual temperatures in the corona. You cannot "prove" your method works by simply saying that your method agrees with your disagreement with Lockheed. Of course it will, but that doesn't make it correct.quote:
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.
None of those things makes any attempt to apply your method to something with known temperatures, Michael.quote:
You have never responded to these points Dave.
That's a load of crap, and you know it, Michael.quote:
The mass of the nuetrons is therefore excluded from the figures listed in our work.
Holy cow! Yes, I completely misunderstand you now, Michael, since with that above assertion, you're saying that when you say, "the mass of the neutron core of the Sun is 50-70% of the Sun's mass," you're saying that that's exclusive of the actual neutron mass, meaning the core is actually much more than 50-70% of the Sun's mass, you just don't know by how much.quote:
I fail to see why you find that idea complicated. It's really pretty simple if you ask me.
Because you've been saying that the Sun is more than 50% iron, by mass. 50% plus 50% is 100%, Michael, leaving no mass for your plasma layers or anything else. 50% plus 70% is even worse. Now, if you say that 10% of the neutron core is iron, then 40% plus 50% leaves room for other stuff, but 40% plus 70% is still 110%. |
- 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 : 19:06:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
But you asked him about light and dark pixels, and that *is* in fact an effect of the RD technique, just as he stated. I never questioned the accuracy of what he said based on such a poorly worded question about light and darkness in the pixels. You never meantioned or asked him about the consistent patterns in the image or asked him to explain such stuff, so how can I fault him for giving you an honest answer to a poorly worded and malformed question.
Read it again. My question to Neal Hurlburt was, "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, is it true that this effect is actually an optical illusion resulting from the process of creating a 'running difference' image?"
Dr. Hurlburt's response was, "The answer is yes."
There is nothing vague, poorly worded, malformed, or ambiguous about my question. It directly addressed the issue of the appearance of some sort of surface. I didn't ask about lightness and darkness of pixels. I asked directly about your concern about areas of light and shadow. I directly asked if these things that concern you and have you convinced of a solid surface were indeed that, a surface, or if it only looked like a surface due to an optical illusion. His reply was clear and unambiguous, too. He said that what appears to be light, shadows, and a surface are simply an optical effect. That's what his reply, "The answer is yes," means.
Nobody else misunderstood the exchange, Michael. You really should get some help with your reading comprehension skills, otherwise you're bound to continue to radically misinterpret extremely simple and obvious dialog. And when you do that you make yourself look like such a fool.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 21:30:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
]No, Michael, they "assigned the temperature ranges" to their telescopes, and you disagree with their conclusions about the actual temperatures in the corona.
These are two entirely different issues. I agree with LMSAL's assessment about the temperature ranges associated with these various filters and various spacecraft for that matter. I utterly disagree however with their *interpretion* of the images themselves, particularly as it relates to the concentration of high temperature plasma. These are entirely different topics and issues. My beef isn't with the guys and gals that designed and tested the gear, but rather with the folks that are interpreting the images that this gear generates. I trust the engineers that designed, built and tested this equipment Dave. I've got no beef with them at all. Quite the contrary. These folks are my hero's and I'm very impressed with their work. I trust that it is first rate, and that the gear operates as specified.
quote:
You cannot "prove" your method works by simply saying that your method agrees with your disagreement with Lockheed.
I can prove that the light in the loops far outshine the light in the darker areas of the corona in *both* images, and that is a key issue. If the 195A images showed more light coming from outside the loops than from inside the loops, then you might have some "beef" with my interpretation and my method.
Look at it this way: I could just have easily have "predicted" based on the 171A temperature sensitivity information and the average temperature of the the photosphere/chromosphere background temperatures that the 195A images would also confirm the presense of high temperature plasma in the coronal loops and therefore the 195A filter will show brighter arcs against a darker background. Low and behold that prediction works fine. The 195A image confirms that prediction. I can cross check it with Yohkoh images too. There's no great mystery here in my methods. We can verify that these methods work based on data from two or three different satellites if we have any doubts at all. Geos images also show that x-ray light is concentrated in the coronal loops as we would expect in my model. Any number of predictions we might make related to temperature ranges of the various filters of other satellites will show a direct correlation between the highest energy outputs we see and the coronal loops.
quote:
quote:
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.
None of those things makes any attempt to apply your method to something with known temperatures, Michael.
That's false Dave. These same teams assigned very different, yet somewhat overlapping temperature ranges to the Yohkoh filters too so we can verify this a number of different ways. The SXT filter on Yohkoh had a known minimum plasma sensitivity range that is far higher than Trace's peak sensitivity ranges. We can overlay the Trace and Yohkoh images and still the loops are brighter than the dark regions of the Trace images. We can verify our theory with completely different satellites systems. Rhessi and Trace overlays also show a direct correlation between higher energy output photons and coronal loops. There is therefore a demonstrateable correlation to high temperature plasma and coronal loops. It doesn't matter which high energy systems we select or which satellite we select, Goes will show just what Yohkoh shows, specifically that high temperature plasma is directly associated with coronal loops.
quote:
That's a load of crap, and you know it, Michael.
I disagree Dave. I haven't heard you really address these points comprehensively, particularly the shutter speeds and scattering issues. I've also never seen you substanciate any belief that I'm wrong using any math at all.
If I could not hand you many different images from multiple different satellite systems to support my case, I'd understand your reluctance on these points, but that Trace/Yohkoh image shows us absolutely everything we need to know to answer this question if we have any doubts at all. Geos and Yohkoh give us a logical and obvious way to test our hypothesis.
There is all the proof we need in a single image, particularly if we consider the temperature sensitivity specs of these two satellite filters. I know that you know their sensitivity ranges probably as well if not better than I do. Based on this data and these specifications the only logical conclusion is that the coronal loops are mde of muchhigher temperature plasma than the rest of the solar atmosphere.
quote:
Holy cow! Yes, I completely misunderstand you now, Michael, since with that above assertion, you're saying that when you say, "the mass of the neutron core of the Sun is 50-70% of the Sun's mass," you're saying that that's exclusive of the actual neutron mass, meaning the core is actually much more than 50-70% of the Sun's mass, you just don't know by how much.
The 50 to 70 percent figure that I quoted you earlier includes the mostly iron and nickel crust of the neutron star itself. Even before we start counting up the mass from other kinds of elements we might find in the sun, iron and nickel are already very abundant and accounted for in the crust of neutron star itself. That means that we don't even need the rest of the sun to be nearly as high in iron for most of the elements to be iron. I fail to see why you are still trying add back in the percentage of mass related to neutrons to any percentage of elements figure I've provided. The mass of neutrons doesn't even count in Manuel's calculations of elemental abundance figures of the sun. I really don't understand why you keep trying to include the mass related to neutrons in elemental abundance figures since this neutron mass has nothing to do with Manuel's elemental abundance figures or the figures I'm using.
I will accept responsibility here based on my loose use of terminology, but I've tried |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/20/2006 22:10:45 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 21:46:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
There is nothing vague, poorly worded, malformed, or ambiguous about my question.
Yes, it was both vague and ambiguous and it never addressed the two key issues I asked you about. I asked you to explain the rigid structures and the movements we see in the plasma. You attributed "patterns" to the RD method which was totally and utterly false, and you and Neal have never bothered to explain the consistent patterns in the image. Dispite your claims of superior knowledge of RD image analysis, you have never once accounted for these rigid patterns, or the movements of the plasma. All you've done so far is explain a pixel intensity level. That's it. That's all Neal did too. If and when Neal steps up to the plate and offers a legitimate scientific explanation for the rigid pattern and the movements we see in the image, then you can tell me that I'm wrong. Until then, about the best you've got is an appeal to authority fallacy.
quote:
I asked directly about your concern about areas of light and shadow.
But *I'm* not the least bit concerned about light and shadow in the images, and that's not what I asked you about! I'm concerned about the *patterns* and *movemments* in the image and the lack of movement in the geometric patterns in the image over extended periods of time.
quote:
I directly asked if these things that concern you and have you convinced of a solid surface were indeed that, a surface, or if it only looked like a surface due to an optical illusion.
But you did *not* even ask him to explain the rigid patterns as I have asked you to explain now repeatedly and for many months as well. You did not even ask him to explain the movements in this image as I have asked you to explain. You didn't ask him how the CME manifested itself in this image as I have asked you to explain. You didn't ask him any "hardball" questions at all, you threw him a softball pitch which he accurately answered based on the *single* thing you focused on, namely light and dark pixels.
quote:
His reply was clear and unambiguous, too.
And also uniformative as it relates to explaining the rigid patterns or the movements in the image.
quote:
He said that what appears to be light, shadows, and a surface are simply an optical effect. That's what his reply, "The answer is yes," means.
Yes, and the light and dark pixels are just as he said, an optical effect of the processing technique. The rigid patterns however are not an effect of the processing technique.
quote:
Nobody else misunderstood the exchange, Michael. You really should get some help with your reading comprehension skills, otherwise you're bound to continue to radically misinterpret extremely simple and obvious dialog. And when you do that you make yourself look like such a fool.
For a guy that can't explain a single thing about a RD image besides what makes a light pixel light and dark pixel dark, you sure have big mouth. You don't know what you're talking about Geemack because if you understand RD images you could easily explain these things just as I did with my model. There would be no mystery to you what creates these consistent patterns and you could explain it in detail. You can't. You aren't fooling me, and I doubt you're going to continue to fool anybody while you're actively dodging these direct questions in post after post after post after post.
All you've got Geemack is a parroted explanation for pixel intensities, and a bad attitude. You aren't going fool anyone when you keep dodging these direct questions Geemack, and an appeal to authority fallacy means absolutely nothing as it relates to science and the scientific method. If and when you and/or Dr. Hurlburt can explain these consistent patterns and the movements in the image, and the show how the CME manifests itself in these images, then you can talk to me about what you know and what you don't know about RD images. Right now, all you know is the one thing you actually parroted correctly from Neal, namely that pixel intensities change with time. Big deal. Try explaining the hard stuff now. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/20/2006 21:54:52 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 22:58:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
But I'm not asking you to become an expert!
Of course you are. :) You want me to tell you what is under a surface that I cannot see through. The only way I could even hope to do such a thing is through heliosiesmology techniques that are based on Birkeland solar models. I wouldn't have the first clue how to do that sort of thing on my own. Dr. Kosovichev, or one of his peers might be able to do that, but I would first have to convince him/them that I'm right about he placement of the transitional layer. I hope to be able to do that within the next 12 months. Maybe then I can get the help I would need to even begin to think about ways to determine the layering system inside the crust to provide you with comprehensive density figures.
quote:
I'm looking at what I think is pretty basic stuff!
Heliosiesmology is not "basic stuff" I'm afraid, at least not for me. I've learned a bit about it thanks to Dr. Kosovichev, Dave, and some of my own studying over the past year, but I'm a long way from being able to do that kind of work on my own, even if I wanted to try. I don't even want to try to do something like that by myself because it's too specialized a field to be going it alone IMO. There are too many things to consider, and many ways to interpret data. I'm simply nowhere skilled enough in that field of science to give you the kinds of answers you're looking for.
quote:
At least, for a person who's followed astronomy and physics for a few decades, this should be rather basic, no?
I find satellite imagery analysis to be somewhat "basic" at this point in time, at least for the simpler images like raw images. I find some areas of astronomy to be somewhat "basic", but I certainly don't find heliosiesmology to be a "basic" field of science. It seems highly specialized to me. I can tell you anything you want to know about satellite images, and satellite specifications, or I can look up what I don't know, but I'm not an expert in nuclear chemistry or heliosiesmology, and these are more important skills when talking about the interior of the sun, since photons don't penetrate the crust.
quote:
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!
My experience is that astronomers really like to have things wrapped up in neat little mathematical packages where everything is spelled out in math. Unfortunately I think this is leading to a lot of gross oversimplifications of solar processes, for instance the way a sunspot is explained, or the total energy output of the sun is calculated.
I know that I will need to eventually put some detailed math on the table sooner or later. It might be rewarding to actually use some of the calculus I learned back in college, but now those classes aren't necessarily helping me to conceptually understand what I'm looking at in these images. Once I "get it", I might be able to figure out a way to apply some math to some parts of the model without oversimplifying the process just to make it fit into a nice math formula. The first place I intend to apply some math is to the topic of coronal loops. Once I can do that, and once STEREO images can help me convert some heliosiesmologiest to the cause, then talk to me about the internal structure of the interior of the sun. Right now, my x-ray vision just doesn't go that deep. :)
quote:
I got nothing on coronal loops and their electrical aspect. Do I need a college text? Where do I start?
Hans Alfven is probably your best bet. I also started by buying a cheap plasma ball at Walmart since Alfven was definitely a hands on kinda guy, and I think you need to "see" plasma in action to understand what Alfven was talking about. That's how I would suggest you get started.
Hopefully Dave and I will have some interesting discussions on this topic over the next few months as well. Stay tuned.
quote:
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.
Hmmm. I'm struggling to get through to you at this point. First of all, this is what is known as a false dichotomy. There isn't an "either/or" proposition before us.
In other words, the overall mass of my model can still be exactly the same figure that is used in gas model theory, but the interior arrangement in my model would have to be radically different than you image right now. If we go back to a real world analogy, you might pick up a basketball, remove a small piece of the surface and weigh it on a scale. You would note that the outside surface is relatively dense. You might then do some quick mathematical calculations and determine that the ball cannot be solid. You'd be right.
That's all you've determined about a Birkeland model. It can't be solid all the way through. It can have pressurized and heated plasma inside however, much like the air in a basketball.
There isn't necessarily anything wrong with our understanding or gravity, simply a problem with our understanding of the makeup of the interior of the sun. IMO, the later is true.
quote:
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!
That's probably a good plan. Don't feel bad, since I feel about the same way on the topic of heliosiesmology and nuclear chemistry. Fortunately I have some help on the nuclear chemistry side. Maybe in a few years I'll have some help on the heliosiesmology side of life and I'll be better able to answer your questions about the interior of the sun. Like I said, I don't claim to be an expert at everything, and I'm certainly learning and growing like everyone else. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/20/2006 23:10:35 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 05:46:15 [Permalink]
|
Last time. (I know I've said that before, but what the hell, right?)
OK, Michael, under the current ill-informed model, the entire sun is mostly hydrogen and helium. Those people get that idea from spectography, but it is in accords with what we get when we work out the sun's density. The earth-- made up of heavier elements, according to the conventional understanding-- is much more dense than the sun. So far, so good.
Now, what you are proposing is that ths sun-- and I can only assume that you mean the whole thing, including whatever is inside the "crust"-- is made up of mostly iron. (If I'm wrong on this point, please correct me; I'd need to reconsider my objections.) In addition to the iron, the sun-- again, the whole sun-- has layers of silicon and other relatively heavy elements.
Do you've replaced the solar model that has the sun made up of light elements with a model that has the sun made up of heavy elements. Yet the density is the same!
Arguing for different arrangements or whatnot doesn't matter, since we're talking about average density.
Anyhow, this is my understanding of your model, and one of the reasons why I'm having trouble with it. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 06:01:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...quote:
Originally posted by me...
[Dr. Hurlburt of LMSAL] said that what appears to be light, shadows, and a surface are simply an optical effect. That's what his reply, "The answer is yes," means.
Yes, and the light and dark pixels are just as he said, an optical effect of the processing technique. The rigid patterns however are not an effect of the processing technique.
I say, "what appears to be light, shadows, and a surface," and you read that as, "light and dark pixels". When I mentioned "areas of light and shadow and often the appearance of some sort of surface" to Neal Hurlburt, he and I both understood that to mean your "rigid patterns". Your question has been answered. For you to not see that indicates that for some reason you aren't able to understand plain written English. If you really are that poor of a reader, get help. If you're mentally ill, get help, really. If you're actually just troll, shut up.
Now if you really do want anyone to believe you're correct in your assessment of those running difference images, why don't you go get a direct quote from any professional astrophysicist who agrees with your mistaken notion that they actually show a solid surface. Get their explanation about light sources, intensities and angles, about altitudes of the mountains and depths of the valleys. Get their explanation of how data gathered by TRACE from the corona results in images from thousands of kilometers below that. Get their explanation about how images of those particular wavelengths show anything a few thousands kilometers below the photosphere, when current scientific consensus is that the photosphere is opaque beyond a few hundred kilometers at any wavelength.
Then bring those explanations on in here. You see, Michael, you have utterly failed to convince a singe person here that running difference images show your solid surface. Be it your stupidity, lousy reading skills, poor communication skills, mental illness, or whatever other reason, you just don't have what it takes to make your case. If anybody else on Earth accepts your interpretation, maybe they have the ability to explain it in a way that is understandable to other people.
And as to your claims that other people might think I don't know what I'm talking about, why don't we leave that up to them? How about we ask? Anyone else misunderstand my explanations of running difference images? Anyone have any questions about them which I haven't addressed fully? Anyone here believe they show solid features or a surface on the Sun as Michael asserts? There, now we can wait and see what we get for replies. 
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 07:28:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The 50 to 70 percent figure that I quoted you earlier includes the mostly iron and nickel crust of the neutron star itself. Even before we start counting up the mass from other kinds of elements we might find in the sun, iron and nickel are already very abundant and accounted for in the crust of neutron star itself. That means that we don't even need the rest of the sun to be nearly as high in iron for most of the elements to be iron. I fail to see why you are still trying add back in the percentage of mass related to neutrons to any percentage of elements figure I've provided. The mass of neutrons doesn't even count in Manuel's calculations of elemental abundance figures of the sun. I really don't understand why you keep trying to include the mass related to neutrons in elemental abundance figures since this neutron mass has nothing to do with Manuel's elemental abundance figures or the figures I'm using.
What? Are you saying Michael, using rough numbers:
Neutron star (average of 50 - 70%) = 60% of the suns mass
Neutron star crust (esitmated) = 5% of the neutron stars mass
Neutron star % iron in the crust (esitmated) = 75%
Iron shell of the sun (esitmated)= 30% of the mass
Iron composition of the shell (esitmated)= 75%
lighter elements (esitmated)= 10% of the mass of the sun
Therefore
55% of the mass of the sun is the neutron star
Elemental abundance:
Iron in neutron star crust = 3.75%
Other heavy elements in the crust = 1.25%
Iron in the suns shell = 22.5%
Other heavy elements in the suns shell = 7.5%
Light elements = 10%
So
Neutron Star = 55%
Iron = 26.25%
Other heavy elements = 8.75%
Light elements = 10%
Total = 100%
So the the neutron core of the neutron star accounts for the majority of the mass of the sun but iron is the major ELEMENT in the sun.
Is this what you are saying?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 08:16:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
What? Are you saying Michael, using rough numbers:
Neutron star (average of 50 - 70%) = 60% of the suns mass
Neutron star crust (esitmated) = 5% of the neutron stars mass
Neutron star % iron in the crust (esitmated) = 75%
Iron shell of the sun (esitmated)= 30% of the mass
Iron composition of the shell (esitmated)= 75%
lighter elements (esitmated)= 10% of the mass of the sun
Therefore
55% of the mass of the sun is the neutron star
Elemental abundance:
Iron in neutron star crust = 3.75%
Other heavy elements in the crust = 1.25%
Iron in the suns shell = 22.5%
Other heavy elements in the suns shell = 7.5%
Light elements = 10%
So
Neutron Star = 55%
Iron = 26.25%
Other heavy elements = 8.75%
Light elements = 10%
Total = 100%
So the the neutron core of the neutron star accounts for the majority of the mass of the sun but iron is the major ELEMENT in the sun.
Is this what you are saying?
Thanks for breaking that down, furshur. And as an add-on, I'll ask about the neutron star-- since all stars are mostly iron, shouldn't we imagine that the overall iron percent of the sun is higher? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 08:38:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
When I mentioned "areas of light and shadow and often the appearance of some sort of surface" to Neal Hurlburt, he and I both understood that to mean your "rigid patterns". Your question has been answered.
Oh for crying out loud... Earth to Geemack, come in Geemack! It's hardly news to me that some "experts" in the field are not in agreement with me about the sun having a solid surface. In fact I have Dr. Kosovichev's quote posted on my website pointing out his opposition to the idea. I also publicly thanked Stein from NASA/ESA and he certainly didn't agree with me either.
I didn't ask you if LMSAL or NASA or Neal agreed with me about the existence of a surface. I asked you or Neal (or anyone) to explain the persistent patterns in the image, and the movements we see in the image, and to provide some explanation of how the CME manifests itself in this image. You didn't address any of that!
What you have evidently latched onto is an appeal to authority fallacy, appeals to popularity fallacies, and for some odd reason you actually seem to think that kind of arguement is going to mean something to me. Get a clue Geemack. I don't really care if Neal agrees with me or not about the existence of a solid surface, especially if he can't explain the patterns in the image and doesn't have the professional coutesy to even return my emails.
Now answer the actual questions I asked you about for a change and demonstrate that you really understand what you're looking at in a RD image or just shut up. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/21/2006 09:01:26 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 08:55:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
What? Are you saying Michael, using rough numbers:
Ok, I'm going to stop right now and simply cop to my role in any confusion on this topic. If you're not happy with my answers, and Dave's not happy with my statements and Cune is confused as well, then obviously this is a communication failure on my part, and I might as well just start there.
At it relates to elemental composition, what I am *trying* to say is the following:
The core itself contains mass in the form of pure neutron material which by itself may constitute up to half of to *total* mass of sun. That material is covered by a predominantly iron and nickel crust. There is also a large outer shell (my surface) around this core which also is predominately made of iron.
The elemental abundance figures derived by Manuel's methods do not relate to the neutron portion of the mass of the sun. His methods relate only to the remaining materials of the sun. It relates only to the atoms that would be recognizeable as actual elements, which would include the iron and nickel in the nuetron crust.
Of that remaining material on the sun, most of that material will be iron and nickel. Some of these heavy elements will be sitting in the inner nuetron crust around the neutron material, and some of these heavy elements will form into an outer shell that we can view in satellite images.
If you are trying to determine elemental abundance numbers from Manuel's work, his abundace figures relate only to the mass of the sun that can be quantifyable as actual elements, it does not apply to the mass from the neutron material itself.
Is than any more clear?
The implication is the following: A "fair" amount of the iron and nickel found in the sun is located in the inner crust of the neutron core. Some of the remaining iron and nickel is located in the outer shell or surface. There is also plenty of room for other kinds of elements inside the sun, some of which need not be nearly as dense as iron or nickel, and some of which may be heated and highly pressurized.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/21/2006 10:22:53 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 10:22:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Is than any more clear?
The implication is the following: A "fair" amount of the iron and nickel found in the sun is located in the inner crust of the neutron core. Some of the remaining iron and nickel is located in the outer shell or surface.
Yes.
The numbers I used were not meant to be 'real' numbers I just picked those numbers based on 'hints' you have given so that I could get an idea of what you were saying. I now understand what you are saying.
I (and the overwhelming majority of the scientific community) however, believe these ideas so outlandish as to not even warrent comment, but I appreciate your clarification, Michael.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 08/21/2006 10:23:25 |
|
|
|
upriver
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 11:16:35 [Permalink]
|
Hello everyone.
I have to put my 2 cents in since I've been following this discussion with some interest.
A difference image is just that. An image that shows the difference between two time periods.
The image is a representation of the light that is transmitted from a subject.
The difference image is what has changed in that time period.
If a line of 50 pixels is lit in the first image and in the second image that line is shifted 4 pixels to the right, that represents a movement of that feature on the object of interest.
It's that simple. If that feature is recognizable over several images, it's not a processing error.
They really are images of features on the sun. And the lifetime of these features is really reflected by the RD images.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
