|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 01/30/2006 : 18:23:28
|
|
Continues the discussion from this thread .
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2006 : 18:37:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Continues the discussion from this thread .
Thank you Kil.
Just to recap for you Dave:
The assumption issue relates to the initial density of the penumbral filament layer, and determining what it is made of. According to Kosovichev, what are the penumbral filaments made of, and how does he know that the penumbral filaments are composed of that specific material(s)? |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2006 : 23:40:06 [Permalink]
|
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0601/0601006.pdf
I guess this should be the next paper we discuss, eh? :)
I must say, the good Dr. seems to acknowledge that the flow of electricity is involved in solar flares. If we now assume these rising plasma arcs come off the surface and rise into and fall into the penumbral filament layer, we can pretty much begin to see how electrified mass flows of Nickel/Iron plasma from the stratification layer and ultimately the electric currents flowing through the stratification layer causes all the events we see in the upper atmosphere. Futhermore I know for sure that at least two of the date mentioned correspond quite nicely to simple surface eruptions that no doubt became quite visible on the surface of the photosophere. The one from Jan 15th in fact is already on my website. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/01/2006 00:26:50 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 00:45:54 [Permalink]
|
| Actually, make that three for three. All three of the events recorded in that paper correspond quite nicely to surface fractures, particularly the Jan 15th 2005 and the Oct 10th 2003 event. These events involved surface fractures that covered extremely large distances. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 07:09:41 [Permalink]
|
That you can read this paper and feel that it supports your silly iron sun conjecture speaks volumes.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 11:13:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yes, and you never did answer the question of how mass separation would make the helioseismology results different. Perhaps you don't know. Perhaps you've got no clue as to how to find out. Either way, stonewalling doesn't make your case any stronger.
Yes I did. Virtually all of your last questions relate to exactly the same issue. The issue relates to the initial density of the penumbral filament layer, and determining what it is made of. What is it made of, and how do you know it is made of that material?
It's your model, so you tell me.
Really, how hard is this to understand? Your model has something called the "penumbral filament layer" (this is amply demonstrated by Googling the term and finding only you using it). In your model, what is that layer made of, how thick is it, and at what altitude does it reside?
The question you want me to answer regarding Kosovichev's views is unanswerable, since the standard solar model doesn't include a "penumbral filament layer," those filaments just being a result of the way that the huge magnetic fields within a sunspot pull on the surrounding plasma of the photosphere.
Now, if your question were "what is the photosphere made of and how does Kosovichev know it," he "knows" that the photosphere is a mostly hydrogen plasma (just like Dr. Manuel does) because it behaves, in terms of density, compressibility, temperature (etc) just like a mostly hydrogen plasma would under those conditions, according to various physical laws (for which we haven't found any exceptions). It does not behave like a mostly neon plasma would, nor does it behave like it's much more dense than predicted, nor does it behave like it's got a solid layer under it.
Oh, and since you don't think sunspots are physical holes, then why the heck would you expect to see light at the bottom of the "bucket?" It sounds like in your model, that extra heat doesn't have 3,460 km of wispy hyodrgem plasma over top of it, but instead 3,460 km of much more dense silicon plasma over it, which would make the heat even more difficult to "see." |
- 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 - 02/01/2006 : 11:29:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
That you can read this paper and feel that it supports your silly iron sun conjecture speaks volumes.
On each of the three dates in question, there is a significant fracture on the surface itself. The January 15th date is one that you will see listed on my sunquake page in fact. It was the second major surface fracture in 10 days. The fact we would see a surface fracture create tsunami type waves in the photosophere is not unlike the way we see surface fractures of the earth spawn tsunami waves in the ocean. The physics is identical, even if the materials are slightly different. In fact, these waves are spawned in long "lines" that certainly do resemble surface fractures.
Each of these "events" involved large surface fractures that are clearly recorded in the 195A raw footage. In fact, I posted the January 15th video on my website the very first day I put up my website. That fracture event, along with the one that preceeded it on the 5th were some of the events that convinced me that the sun had a crust. The fact we would see these events play out in the photosphere above the surface would not surprise me at all. In fact I would expect to see exactly such an event play out above the fracture points as waves that propogate over the photosphere.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/01/2006 11:44:13 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 11:42:37 [Permalink]
|
Michael, it is interesting that the authors of the paper you cited did not see the fractures or even see any evidence of any sort of solid surface. I guess we cannot blame them too much, as I cannot see these fractures either. Are there some special glasses that are needed to see these features you so readily pick out. Perhaps rose colored glasses?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 11:51:06 [Permalink]
|
I looked at your MPG, Michael. Sorry, I did not see any fracture.
quote:
posted by Mozina:
How can you not see that giant surface fracture?
Don't blame me I can't even see the virgin Mary on the back of street signs or in grilled cheese sandwiches!
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 12:31:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It's your model, so you tell me.
I believe the Dr. Manuel is correct that the sun is mass separated and this is the neon layer. I see see visible light from the penumbral filaments, and no visible light from the umbra.
quote:
Really, how hard is this to understand? Your model has something called the "penumbral filament layer" (this is amply demonstrated by Googling the term and finding only you using it). In your model, what is that layer made of, how thick is it, and at what altitude does it reside?
I'm not really talking now about my model, I was asking you how Dr. Kosovichev determined what this photosphere surface is made of.
According to me it's neon about 700KM thick. I have no idea how Kosovichev arrived at the "materials" involved, or how he chose these materials. You asked me how I know that Dr. Kosovichev assumed gas model theory over a mass separated model. That issue directly relates to the MATERIAL that Kosovichev believes the photosphere to be made of.
quote:
The question you want me to answer regarding Kosovichev's views is unanswerable, since the standard solar model doesn't include a "penumbral filament layer," those filaments just being a result of the way that the huge magnetic fields within a sunspot pull on the surrounding plasma of the photosphere.
You've never heard of penumbral filaments? You can't find any information on the umbra and penumbra? These are known parts of the photosphere. What are they made of according to Kosovichev, and how does he know this?
quote:
Now, if your question were "what is the photosphere made of and how does Kosovichev know it," he "knows" that the photosphere is a mostly hydrogen plasma (just like Dr. Manuel does) because it behaves, in terms of density, compressibility, temperature (etc) just like a mostly hydrogen plasma would under those conditions, according to various physical laws (for which we haven't found any exceptions). It does not behave like a mostly neon plasma would, nor does it behave like it's much more dense than predicted, nor does it behave like it's got a solid layer under it.
How would it behave any differently if it's predominantly neon plasma rather than hydrogen/helium? How did Kosovichev determine that it bahaved "like hydrogen" in the first place? What exactly makes him sure that the sun is not mass separated as Birkeland suggested and Manuel suggested? If it's mass separated, how would Dr. Kosovichev know what that material is even made of?
quote:
Oh, and since you don't think sunspots are physical holes, then why the heck would you expect to see light at the bottom of the "bucket?"
Because according to Kosovichev's data, that area should be considerable hotter and brighter than anything above or below it, and it's presumable surrounded by whispy material.
quote:
It sounds like in your model, that extra heat doesn't have 3,460 km of wispy hyodrgem plasma over top of it, but instead 3,460 km of much more dense silicon plasma over it, which would make the heat even more difficult to "see."
I don't think that layer is "hot" as Kosovichev believes but DENSE because it's a surface of solids. I also don't subscribe to the notion that black body radiation has much to do with the visible light we see. I think most of the visible light comes from the neon layer and that neon is pushed out of the way by the rising silicon in sunspot activity. I therefore wouldn't expect it to "light up" at all in my model. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 13:09:46 [Permalink]
|
Micheal here is the problem:
First you make claims based on nothing and expect them to be accepted as fact-quote:
I believe the Dr. Manuel is correct that the sun...
According to me it's neon about...
I don't think that layer is "hot" as Kosovichev...
This is not a religion site, nobody cares what you think or believe or guess.
Then you boldly state that don't know what you are talking about in the field that you are making theories- quote:
I was asking you how Dr. Kosovichev determined what this photosphere...
I have no idea how Kosovichev arrived at the "materials" involved...
How would it behave any differently if it's predominantly neon plasma rather than...
You then deliberately misrepresent what people say-
Dave said: quote:
...something called the "penumbral filament layer"...
Then you replied with: quote:
You can't find any information on the umbra and penumbra? These are known parts of the photosphere.
Very true, but the penumbral filament layer is not.
Very dishonest.
You cannot be taken seriously.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 13:22:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I believe the Dr. Manuel is correct that the sun is mass separated and this is the neon layer. I see see visible light from the penumbral filaments, and no visible light from the umbra.
Yes, and because no stars are visible in photographs taken on the Moon, they were obviously faked, right? Wrong, of course. The reason the umbra looks dark, Michael, is because no camera can be set to get a nice exposure of the penumbral filaments and surrounding photosphere and also get an exposure of the umbra. If the cameras were set to show the light from the umbra, the surrounding area would be massively overexposed.quote:
I'm not really talking now about my model, I was asking you how Dr. Kosovichev determined what this photosphere surface is made of.
Yes, you're talking about your model, because your model is in conflict with Kosovichev's observations.quote:
According to me it's neon about 700KM thick.
Wow, thicker than the entire photosphere in the standard solar model.quote:
I have no idea how Kosovichev arrived at the "materials" involved, or how he chose these materials.
Yes, you seem very unwilling to explore the science of helioseismology at all, content instead to use its results when they fit your model, and dispute its results when they don't. A scientific theory, however, must fit all of the observations.quote:
You asked me how I know that Dr. Kosovichev assumed gas model theory over a mass separated model.
No, I asked you to provide quotes from Dr. Kosovichev which support the notion that he assumed that there is no mass separation. You have failed to do so.quote:
That issue directly relates to the MATERIAL that Kosovichev believes the photosphere to be made of.
Why does Dr. Manuel agree that the photosphere is mostly hydrogen?quote:
You've never heard of penumbral filaments? You can't find any information on the umbra and penumbra? These are known parts of the photosphere.
Your reading comprehension is very poor, Michael. I said that what you call the "penumbral filament layer" is not a part of the standard solar model. In it, the penumbral filaments are simply a different-looking part of the photosphere, along with the umbra, the granules and supergranules. These aren't different "layers" of the photosphere at all. The visible penumbral filaments around a sunspot are at 1.00R, just like the umbra and the rest of the photosphere.quote:
What are they made of according to Kosovichev, and how does he know this?
They're made of exactly the same stuff that makes up the rest of the photosphere, but look different because the magnetic field running through a sunspot is upwards of 4,000 times as strong as the magnetic field everywhere else at the Sun's surface.quote:
How would it behave any differently if it's predominantly neon plasma rather than hydrogen/helium?
Since neon atoms are more massive than hydrogen or helium atoms, sound would move more slowly through a predominatly neon plasma. Atomic mass gives the plasma intertia, a resistance to movement.quote:
How did Kosovichev determine that it bahaved "like hydrogen" in the first place?
You want me to teach you basic helioseismology, again? Once was enough for me, actually. You can read Dr. Kosovichev's papers to learn more about how this science works. You can also Google the term 'helioseismology' to learn what was known before Kosovichev started publishing.quote:
What exactly makes him sure that the sun is not mass separated as Birkeland suggested and Manuel suggested?
Once again, you are going to have to answer that by describing how a mass-separated atmosphere would "look" to helioseismologists. Since "mass separated" is such a vague term, and clearly the Sun's atmosphere isn't strictly mass separated, so I can't possibly begin to quantify your model for you.quote:
If it's mass separated, how would Dr. Kosovichev know what that material is even made of?
You tell me.quote:
Because according to Kosovichev's data, that area should be considerable hotter and brighter than anything above or below it, and it's presumable surrounded by whispy material.
Yes, wispy material which nevertheless blocks the passage of light. Did you know that the ozone layer is only about 50 km thick, and it's only about 10 parts-per-million ozone, but it blocks most of the near-UV wavelengths anyway? The idea that something has to be thick to block light is simply not founded upon good evidence.quote:
I don't think that layer is "hot" as Kosovichev believes but DENSE because it's a surface of solids.
In direct contradiction to helioseismic observations from all sources (not just Kosovichev).quote:
I also don't subscribe to the notion that black body radiation has much to do with the visible light we see. I think most of the visible light comes from the neon layer and that neon is pushed out of the way by the rising silicon in sunspot activity.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 13:47:10 [Permalink]
|
Man the scientists in 1900 could have refuted this easily. Do you know nothing of spectrography? Its a very accurate science and if all the light were generated by Neon it would be glaringly obvious in the data(besides the obvious direct visual obsevations.) Any amatuer astronomer could tell you that.
heres a nice site http://www.lowell.edu/users/jch/sss/index.php
A quick search of [Solar Spectrography neon]brought up the bad astronomy web site with (Michael Mozina: Banned) right at the top lol. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 14:41:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Micheal here is the problem:
First you make claims based on nothing and expect them to be accepted as fact-
Actually no. I expected you to look at the images, notice the lack of differential rotation in the Lockheed RD image, notice that isotope analysis I put before you and notice the other evidence I have presented. I then expected you to either offer a "better" scientific explanation than the one I have offered, or point out the flaw in the data I've provided.
quote:
I believe the Dr. Manuel is correct that the sun...
This is part of the data is IMPRERSONAL data. I didn't create it. This data was in the public domain long before I "discovered" there was a surface on the sun in fact. Dr. Manuel has been claiming the sun is mass separated for more than 3 decades now.
Care to address this isotope analsys that suggests the sun is mass separated.
quote:
According to me it's neon about...
This is technically MY part of the theory, and I've offered you some reasons for that assessment but I'd be happy to support it in SERTS data as well.
quote:
I don't think that layer is "hot" as Kosovichev...
Well, that technically is what the whole debate has been about. The data is INTERPRETED in this region. The increase is speed is INTERPRETED to be a change in temperature in plasma. The same increase in sound speed could be attributed to a density change in solids as well. Birkelands model cannot be falsified by a dataset that never considered his model and based upon math formulas related to "ideal gasses". It's not an ideal gas to begin with.
If it was an ideal gas at these temps, then there is no reason for it not to "glow" like the rest of heated photosophere. The fact that the plasma flow stops at this layer also suggests that there is far more than a .1 percent change in density at this point. The plasma literally turns at right angles in that region. The sound speed also changes in this region.
quote:
This is not a religion site, nobody cares what you think or believe or guess.
That is precisely why I offered you isotope analysis and satellite images to support my case.
quote:
Then you boldly state that don't know what you are talking about in the field that you are making theories-
I didn't say that. I said I don't read Kosovichev's mind on this issue, but I've said all along that Kosovichev evidently "assumed" a non mass separated model, and this is the key issue that relates to that statement. If there was no "assumption" as to material, what is it made of, and how does Kosovichev know this?
Spectral data is only useful *IF* the sun is not mass separated. If however the sun is mass separated, then simply eguating spectral output with element abundance is not going to yield accurate results.
quote:
Very true, but the penumbral filament layer is not.
Very dishonest.
It is *NOT* dishonest. The penumbral filaments are a know "structure" at the top of the convecting photosphere. They have a very specific depth associated with them in sunspot images. At about 700KM, the umbra begins. In that sense, the photosphere itself is "layered". The top of the penumbral filament layer is where the normalization begins. Whatever density we attempt to assign to this layer will affect whatever density change we would expect to see at a depth of 4800KM.
quote:
You cannot be taken seriously.
I can be taken seriously, and I have been taken seriously by many people. I get supportive emails every week, including one today from a 9th grade teacher that presented my material as an alternative solar theory to his class and had some general questions. Some folks are not as closed minded as you seem to be. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 14:52:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Man the scientists in 1900 could have refuted this easily.
Birkeland didn't refute this model in the 1900's, in fact he created this model in the first place. Which scientist are you refering to exactly?
quote:
Do you know nothing of spectrography?
Yes. I know for instance that it will not give us an accurate assesment of the makeup of the sun if the sun is mass separated, and we never acknowledge this fact.
quote:
Its a very accurate science and if all the light were generated by Neon it would be glaringly obvious in the data(besides the obvious direct visual obsevations.) Any amatuer astronomer could tell you that.
Yes, but any amatuer astronomer like me can also tell you that spectral analysis of a mass separated object isn't going to give you a full picture of what it's made of, particularly if you never recognize it's mass separated in the first place!
quote:
heres a nice site http://www.lowell.edu/users/jch/sss/index.php
A quick search of [Solar Spectrography neon]brought up the bad astronomy web site with (Michael Mozina: Banned) right at the top lol.
Since we discussed this very issue on the Bad Astronomy website, that is hardly surprising to me. The fact I was banned from that bad astronomy forum for not barking on command demonstrates that the forum is appropriately named. It certainly operates more like a religious website rather than a science forum. True skeptics don't need to burn their heretics at the virtual stake. If they disagreed with me, why not just stop participating in the threads? Some folks are just big time control freaks. Other folks are more into freedom and allow for dissenting opinions among their ranks. No one on this forum has in any way attempted to censor me. Why should that forum need to ban someone they disagree with? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
