|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 02/28/2006 : 18:28:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Being "attentive to minute detail" would include knowledge of the materials involved to ensure that they behave as predicted. You have no such knowledge, so your demands that others be so detailed are, in fact, ironic.
You are comparing apples to oranges. I'm talking about paying attention to the details of solar satellite images in general. You are talking about paying attention to *every detail of every aspect* of an entire solar model.
Not at all. Nobody in their right mind would offer an "explanation" of a satellite image and claim that all of science will eventually acknowledge that explanation without having mounds of independent evidence to back up the explanation already. You've got nothing.quote:
I have in fact identified the materials in several of the various layers...
Since you can't identify the density of any of them, the material itself is irrelevant. You said it yourself, you don't have even enough knowledge about your own model to say whether the plasma layers should be transparent to EUV light.quote:
...and I've offered explanations for the layers we see in the chromosphere/umbra/penumbra region so my knowledge is more "detailed" than you have been.
Then I have been about what? You won't even define those terms as you use them (because your use is not the same as any solar scientist's use), so that's a presentation of zero detail to being with. You may as well say that you've explained the layers in the zanywhoop/humbuggly/yabbayabba regions, since it carries precisely the same amount of useful information.quote:
quote:
He's been absolutely serious, and has offered detailed and relevant criticisms of your interpretation of the images.
False. "Structures? What structures?" is not a detailed analysis of the image, nor is that any other than a handwave rebuttal to my "interpretation".
Utter bullshit, Michael, as you know as well as I that GeeMack has done quite a bit more than just ask "what structures?" This is more of your hypocrisy, as you're unable to lift yourself above the level you claim GeeMack has sunk to when you use such petty personal attacks. Shame on you.quote:
quote:
No, you are ignoring criticisms of the isotope analysis, just like creationists ignore criticisms of their "analyses" of radio-isotope dating techniques.
What criticism of the analysis were you refering to Dave? The only criticisms I've heard are more like a creationist might do. "We don't trust isotope analsys even though it's be verified by more than one nuclear chemist in more than one way". That's not a criticism Dave, that's a handwave.
No, you set the standard by which we should evaluate evidence by asking "if it doesn't hold true for Earth, why should we think it'll be true for the Sun?" (or words to that effect). So, since Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis most certainly fails to work for Earth and its atmosphere, why should we think it'll work for the Sun and its atmosphere, Michael?quote:
quote:
Similarity does not imply equality,
But it may show evidence of equality.
But all you've got is the comparison.quote:
quote:
but in this case, since the model is a conductor in a gas, there's no reason for a metal sphere and a huge ball of plasma to look different from each other.
Is should be easy to tell the difference. One would be a lot more opaque than the other.
The Sun is entirely opaque below 0.999R.quote:
One would tend to hold "structure" better than another.
Define "better" and define "structure."quote:
One could deliver current to a point, and keep it located around that point more efficiently than another.
Define "point," "located," "around" and "more efficiently."quote:
One might be expected to reflect light from relatively "rigid" shapes, whereas the gas concept wouldn't be a likely to do such things.
You've got zero evidence that any image of the Sun has any reflected light in it.quote:
The difference here are quite easy to test for and look for in these images.
Only after you define your terms. Taking your use of words at face value is - given the "photosphere" debacle - not recommended in a scientific discussion.quote:
quote:
Except that you cannot tell us the depth from which those images come.
Yes, I did. I stated several times that they are located around .995R where heliesmology shows a signi |
- 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 - 03/01/2006 : 12:26:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Not at all. Nobody in their right mind would offer an "explanation" of a satellite image and claim that all of science will eventually acknowledge that explanation without having mounds of independent evidence to back up the explanation already.
And I do have lab work from 100 years ago to demonstrate that Birkeland's solar modle is a viable model. I have thousands upon thousands of images to back up that/his explanation, as well as mass separation evidence from the field of nuclear chemistry to support his model. I have heliosiesmology data that is also consistent with this model.
Even after billions of dollars being spent on creating self sustaining fusion reactions, no one has ever created a working lab model of the gas model for goodness sake! You certainly have few if any solar images to support that model.
quote:
You've got nothing.
False. You've never even expained the rigid behavior of the structures in the very first image of my website Dave. You offered a "magnetic fields" handwave of an explanation that is inconsistent with the movement of the coronal loops during these timelines. I've got plenty of evidence to support my case, and we haven't even gotten past the very first image on my website before the denial dance began for some folks.
quote:
Since you can't identify the density of any of them, the material itself is irrelevant.
You can't identify the density of them either Dave! You have a blind math formula that has shown itself to be utterly useless at prediciting the density or the temperature of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. What is the density of the penumbra, what's it made of in your opinion and how was this density number you came up with directly verified?
quote:
You said it yourself, you don't have even enough knowledge about your own model to say whether the plasma layers should be transparent to EUV light.
Exacty 'which' kind of light are we talking about Dave? FeXX ions, or FEX ions, or FEXXIV or Calcium ions? They all come from that same arc. That one 171A filter picks up light from all sorts of ions and multiple elements Dave. You of course would oversimplify the whole process to some blind math formula that doesn't apply well in the real world. I can "see" that these layers *are* transparent to some types of light and block/absorb other types of light. I have thousand mile long arcs here and relatively thin plasma above it. I see nothing that would suggest that your concerns are relevant or reasonable in this particular case. You are literally handwaving in an arguement and then expecting me to respond to it. I'll respond it the same fashion as your handwave Dave. You think it's a problem, I don't. Have you got any evidence that some unknown (you never identified it yourself) plasma blocks all light from every kind of ion, regardless of intensity?
quote:
Then I have been about what? You won't even define those terms as you use them (because your use is not the same as any solar scientist's use), so that's a presentation of zero detail to being with. You may as well say that you've explained the layers in the zanywhoop/humbuggly/yabbayabba regions, since it carries precisely the same amount of useful information.
Bologna. I use the term chromosphere just as you are, and I'm using the term penumbra to represent the lit up parts of the photosphere just as you are. I'm using the term umbra to represent the dark regions, just as you are. That is another example of a pointless cheap shot. Even when I go out of my way to explain where I'm coming from, you ignore the explanation I have given you and you start talking gibberish. What's the point of having a conversation and explaining my opinions to you, if all you do is build strawmen of my statements and ridicule what I'm saying?
quote:
He's been absolutely serious, and has offered detailed and relevant criticisms of your interpretation of the images.
Bull. He's consistently acted like a spoiled little teenager on crusade. He's offered exactly NOTHING (not even your magnetic fields response) to explain the existence of the persistent structure in this specific image. He's never explained why this structure exists in the image, what causes it, why it remains persistent in the image, etc. I predicted he would not address *any* of the relevant details of the image, and that is exactly what he did: nothing:.
quote:
Utter bullshit, Michael, as you know as well as I that GeeMack has done quite a bit more than just ask "what structures?" This is more of your hypocrisy, as you're unable to lift yourself above the level you claim GeeMack has sunk to when you use such petty personal attacks. Shame on you.
Show me how GeeMack explained the existence of the structures in that image, and show me how explained it's persistence in the image Dave. The only BS is what passes around here as an "explanation" or an "analysis" of an image. All GeeMack has done is act like a spoiled little kid and hurl insults. He's never once addressed a single relevant detail of the image, not one.
quote:
No, you set the standard by which we should evaluate evidence by asking "if it doesn't hold true for Earth, why should we think it'll be true for the Sun?" (or words to that effect). So, since Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis most certainly fails to work for Earth and its atmosphere, why should we think it'll work for the Sun and its atmosphere, Michael?
Dave, it works just fine in earth's atmosophere and below the crust as well. You seem to think that some upwelling from the core is somehow evidence the earth isn't mass separated? Get real. Air is less dense than water, therefore water sinks, and air rises. It works just fine on earth.
This is another of those handwave things that passes for scientific arguement around here.
quote:
But all you've got is the comparison.
False. I've shown you the data that demonstrates that solar flares |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 17:23:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050105-1348.jpg
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050105-1524.jpg
Here is visual proof that the "structure" seen in the RD images is not limited *only* to RD images. Even a really good solar flare can release plenty of energy to "light up" the surface structures that are visible in the RD images as well.
Before I comment too seriously on these "raw" images, could you provide me with information on their origin. (A link would be OK)
Perhaps your response to the above will sort these out, but my initial thoughts and questions are:
1. Are these images of the same region 96 minutes apart?
2. How much of the sun are we seeing?
3. If the answer to 2 is "all of it" as it would seem intuitively, what is the sandy material filling the space around the sun? That's what it looks like to me, if this really is a "picture" of the whole sun. Are these images proof that the sun and earth aren't really moving around in a (near) vacuum, but actually some "galactic sand" which you've discovered. This really could be ground breaking.
4. The swirly shapes don't look to be the same solid features you're claiming they are evidence of. Have you re-defined "proof" somewhere that I've missed?
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 18:02:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
That is exactly my point. There are no cubes in any of the images!
You are correct. There are angular "structures" in these images.
Wrong. There may simply be regions of a flat surface (solid/fluid/plasma) which are emitting different intensities and wavelengths of light. I define structures as 3 dimensional features. Printed characters on a billboard aren't structures, a car tyre glued to the same billboad would constitute a "structure". Please let me know if I'm using the wrong definition of structure.
I just noticed the following in one of your posts to Dave:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Define "better" and define "structure."
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
"Structure" in this case is everything we see in the image.
This could be a bit of a problem, it sounds as if by "struture" you mean "any pixel that is different to adjacent pixels". By this definion, any image other than one of uniform colour/intensity contains "structure". This is not going to be a very good working definition.
I realise that "stucture" is occasionally applied to the 2D realm, but I'm not sure that this is the case here. I'm going to postpone addressing the rest of your points in this post until I'm sure we're talking about the same thing when we say "structures". |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 18:38:37 [Permalink]
|
.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
All of your responses quoted above come from this thread, so it's more than fair to say that a number of us have attempted to explain the gold RD video.
What *specifically* (as it relates to detail) have you explained about *this* running difference image? What are the structures? Why are they there? Why are they stationary?
How about:
1. The source of the photons. (a plasma "surface")
2. That there are no "structures" as I understand the term. Different regions of the plasma have different temperatures, pressures and even constitutents, all of which will result in different levels of photon emission intensity, and thus corresponding features in the RD image.
3. What is stationary is the emission difference between the photon source in some areas of consecutive images. Mind you, the whole image is far from completely stationary.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You need not explain these structures as solid mountains, but you will have to explain them in a way that is reasonably attentative to detail. A handwave of "Pay no attention to the structures in this image" simply isn't going to pass for any sort of "analysis" of the image.
Michael, you have to accept that not everyone (as far as I'm aware, no one but you) sees your "structures" (unless it's a definition problem as mentioned previously).
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If you were to explain the existence and persistance of these structures some other way, it may not be to my "satisfaction", but at least you will have offered a rational alternative.
I believe I have offered a rational explaination. I know it won't be to your satisfaction.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Unless however we get into the details of these images, there isn't really an adequate way for me to explain *why* I favor a Birkeland solar model. It was in fact the satellite images that convinced me personally that the sun has a crust. I can't adequately explain that without getting into the nitty-gritty details of these images.
If you're wrong about the interpretation of the RD images, no amount of "nitty gritty" is going to make it right. As far as I can tell, Birkland's model has nothing to do with how to interpret the TRACE RD imagery.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If you wish to offer a comprehensive explaination for the existence and persistence and behaviors of the structures on this image, I'm all ears. Your explanation will however have to relate to *this specific* image, and it will have to explain all the little visual details of the image. That's all I'm suggesting here. The *details* of these images is important.
Again, I believe my explaination is rational. If by comprehensive, you mean I have to be able to explain exactly why every region of the sun represented by a pixel is slightly more or less emissive at this wavelength range that it's neighbours, I'm afraid I must admit defeat. No modeling technique that I am aware of can truly predict such chaotic, noisy behaviour. Fluid dynamics can't tell you exactly where a wave peak on the ocean will be in an hour either, but that's no reason to discard fluid dynamics. Does your model enable you to predict exactly where the peaks and valleys of your solid mountains will be? |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 20:31:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Where does Birkeland's model predict the correct radius of the Sun?
I hereby predict that the sun's neon plasma layer sits at 696,000 miles from the center of the sun.
You're just mocking the entire scientific process, now. You want to have a scientific discussion, but just can't seem to rise above the strawmen and personal attacks you're so quick to point out from others. I'm done here until you choose to get serious again. |
- 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 - 03/02/2006 : 15:19:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You're just mocking the entire scientific process, now.
I did nothing of the sort. If I mocked anything, I mocked your suggestion that a few key "predictions", that are actually based on observation, somehow makes a particular theory valid to the exclusion of all other theories. It's not like the measured radius of the sun can only be true if the sun is made of gas. There are few if any key "predictions" made in the gas model that weren't based on observation, or adjusted based on observation. We observe the size. We therefore know it's size, regardless of the model.
quote:
You want to have a scientific discussion, but just can't seem to rise above the strawmen and personal attacks you're so quick to point out from others. I'm done here until you choose to get serious again.
Oh come now. I've "risen above" a lot of the mud slinging that goes on around here. I'm serious, and I will remain serious. You seriously need to address that physics issue I put to you about every action causing an equal and opposite reaction. You need to explain to me why the structures around the CME blowout didn't get blown out when the CME occured. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 17:01:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Before I comment too seriously on these "raw" images, could you provide me with information on their origin. (A link would be OK)
Here you go:
www.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mpeg/index.html" target="_blank">www.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mpeg/index.html" target="_blank">http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mpeg/index.htmlThis is the main page.[url]
If you click on Daily Images, it will take you to the archives at Lasco and you can look up the dates in question by date. These images come from the raw (non colorized) files (marked DIT) images. You can also download the date in question from my website:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/050105_dit_195.mpg
quote:
Perhaps your response to the above will sort these out, but my initial thoughts and questions are:
1. Are these images of the same region 96 minutes apart?
Yes. The facture you see forming in the first image continues to rupture in the following image.
quote:
2. How much of the sun are we seeing?
It's a full disk view 195A SOHO image in 512 by 512 resolution.
quote:
3. If the answer to 2 is "all of it" as it would seem intuitively, what is the sandy material filling the space around the sun?
Solar wind and cosmic wind driven by Birkeland currents.
quote:
That's what it looks like to me, if this really is a "picture" of the whole sun. Are these images proof that the sun and earth aren't really moving around in a (near) vacuum, but actually some "galactic sand" which you've discovered. This really could be ground breaking.
A comsic sort of aether was proposed long before I arrived on the scene. :) It's electromagnetically driven according to Birkeland, and I'm at least a few thousand years too late to claim credit for the cosmic and solar winds.
quote:
4. The swirly shapes don't look to be the same solid features you're claiming they are evidence of. Have you re-defined "proof" somewhere that I've missed?
I'm not sure what "swirly" shapes you are refering to exactly, but we aren't just looking at the surface, we're looking down on the atmosphere *and* the surface. You're like to see a whole lot of things in the atmosphere move around in these images. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/02/2006 17:42:14 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 18:44:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I did nothing of the sort. If I mocked anything, I mocked your suggestion that a few key "predictions", that are actually based on observation, somehow makes a particular theory valid to the exclusion of all other theories. It's not like the measured radius of the sun can only be true if the sun is made of gas. There are few if any key "predictions" made in the gas model that weren't based on observation, or adjusted based on observation. We observe the size. We therefore know it's size, regardless of the model.
No, Michael, you are mocking the scientific process by saying what you've said above. All of science is based upon observation. We start with measurements, find physical laws which explain the measurements, and then test and retest against observation. The standard solar model says that if you've got a blob of gas that weighs as much as the Sun does, then due to the laws of gravity, conservation, energy transportation, quantum and atomic and nuclear physics, and the equations of state, the radius of the blob of gas will be about 696 Mm in radius after 4.8 billion years. None of those equations are particular to the Sun itself, they're all general formulae which apply equally well anywhere in the universe.
So, given the mass of the Sun and a 4.8-billion year age, which set of physical laws explain the radius of the Sun in your model, Michael, while also (the same equations) explaining its temperature, energy output, and neutrino flux?quote:
Oh come now. I've "risen above" a lot of the mud slinging that goes on around here.
You preach against it, but you don't practice what you preach.quote:
I'm serious, and I will remain serious.
That appears to be complete nonsense given your mockery of scientific methodology and unwillingness to listen to my arguments (that ridiculous strawman you presented of my criticisms of Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis should make you ashamed of yourself, it was so bad).quote:
You seriously need to address that physics issue I put to you about every action causing an equal and opposite reaction. You need to explain to me why the structures around the CME blowout didn't get blown out when the CME occured.
Because an explosion would have little - if any - effect on magnetic fields. Besides which, the animation you're so fond of clearly shows a CME occuring many thousands of kilometers above the photosphere - higher even than the lower corona. They aren't called coronal mass ejections for nothing. |
- 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 - 03/03/2006 : 13:32:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
1. The source of the photons. (a plasma "surface")
The surface could certainly be a plasma, but then you need to explain the rigid-like nature of this plasma. In other words, the structures in this "surface" remain relatively fixed in relationship to the structures at the surface of the photosphere. Why?
quote:
2. That there are no "structures" as I understand the term. Different regions of the plasma have different temperatures, pressures and even constitutents, all of which will result in different levels of photon emission intensity, and thus corresponding features in the RD image.
The problem with that description is that while the lighting from these structures changes dramatically throughout the movie, (which could indicate a temperature change), the actual structures on the surface remain "rigid" in relationship to one another. In other words the mountain range looking object in the middle of the image has all the same ridges in every image, regardless of lighting conditions.
quote:
3. What is stationary is the emission difference between the photon source in some areas of consecutive images. Mind you, the whole image is far from completely stationary.
It's not just "some areas" where we see "structure" in the image, and the structures remain rigid even while the lighting goes up and down on that surface. If that is a plasma surface, it's 3D, and it holds it's shape, even if it does not hold the same temperature.
quote:
Michael, you have to accept that not everyone (as far as I'm aware, no one but you) sees your "structures" (unless it's a definition problem as mentioned previously).
Well, by "structure", I'm talking about all those consistent ribbed structures. If that was simply a "flat" surface that changed intensity, I'd be inclined to buy your explanation, but that isn't what we see. We see a very consistent set of structure in that image.
quote:
I believe I have offered a rational explaination. I know it won't be to your satisfaction.
I'm actually quite satisified with you suggesting this is a "surface". I agree it's a "surface" that reflects/emits light. The real problem I have with your explanation is that it really does not account for the actual structures we see in the image. In other words, the light intensity on these ridges goes up and down at various times in the image, but the ridges themselves remain "fixed" and in the same relationships to one another, from one frame to another. If there were just light and dark areas on a "flat" or a "changing" surface, I'd be more inclined to believe this was a plasma based surface. Since the structures remain rigid however, that seems highly unlikely. That is particularly true when the actual flare occurs. If this were a light plasma "surface", why aren't it's surface structures disturbed by the blowout? We certainly see plasma that gets blow up and to the left, but the structures on the surface show no sign of any equal but opposite reactions to the flare.
quote:
If you're wrong about the interpretation of the RD images, no amount of "nitty gritty" is going to make it right.
What part however am I wrong about, and why if I'm wrong do all the pieces and details fit together so well? This is only one type of image that shows the rigid nature of this layer. That tsunami video is actually a Nickel ion *doppler* image and we can see fixed structure in that image as well. Even in the raw images, it is possible to pick out "structure", particuarly on less "sandy" days. :)
quote:
As far as I can tell, Birkland's model has nothing to do with how to interpret the TRACE RD imagery.
I respectfully disagree. Using Birkeland's model I can explain just about every detail of the behaviors we see in this image, from the rigid structures, to the lighting changes, to the erosion we see on the right, to the plasma blowout we see to the upper right, to the cause of the arcs. All of these things fit perfectly with a Birkeland solar model.
quote:
Again, I believe my explaination is rational.
The idea of this being a plasma surface is a "rational" explanation, though you still need to address the existence and persistence of the structures in the images IMO. The lighting changes, but the structures themselves do not.
quote:
If by comprehensive, you mean I have to be able to explain exactly why every region of the sun represented by a pixel is slightly more or less emissive at this wavelength range that it's neighbours, I'm afraid I must admit defeat. No modeling technique that I am aware of can truly predict such chaotic, noisy behaviour.
No, I'm not looking for that, and I agree with your assesment. I'm simply asking you why the structures stay relatively "rigid" throughout the video.
quote:
Fluid dynamics can't tell you exactly where a wave peak on the ocean will be in an hour either, but that's no reason to discard fluid dynamics. Does your model enable you to predict exactly where the peaks and valleys of your solid mountains will be?
I'm totally satisfied with your notion of a plasma "surface" that emits different amounts of light at different times. I'm not satisfied with your epxlanation as to why the structures exist and persist on this surface in these images. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/03/2006 14:21:28 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 14:16:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, Michael, you are mocking the scientific process by saying what you've said above.
No I'm not. I'm simply noting the difference between true "observation" and theoretical math constructs that are not directly observed.
quote:
All of science is based upon observation.
I agree 100% which is why these satellite observations are so crucial IMO.
quote:
We start with measurements, find physical laws which explain the measurements, and then test and retest against observation.
Yes, but when I check the measurements between the structures on these images, I find they stay in a fixed relationship to one another. The physical laws of solids would explain the persistance of such structure just fine. What physical laws of plasma explain these persistent structures? How do magnetic fields create relatively flat surfaces?
quote:
The standard solar model says that if you've got a blob of gas that weighs as much as the Sun does, then due to the laws of gravity, conservation, energy transportation, quantum and atomic and nuclear physics, and the equations of state, the radius of the blob of gas will be about 696 Mm in radius after 4.8 billion years. None of those equations are particular to the Sun itself, they're all general formulae which apply equally well anywhere in the universe.
None of these "calculations" you speak of are based on direct observation. In other words your are "speculating" mathematically about "what if" scenarios that "presume" the gas model is correct. All you're doing is essentially "working backwards" from a known size and a known timeline and apply math to these known conditions. The calculations themselves however may not even apply, particularly if Birkeland's model is correct and Manuel is right about the mass separation issues. Those calculations are not observations. In fact, they really amount to "speculation" based on "theory". We've never even seen hydrogen produce self sustaining fusion reactions over several hours in very controlled conditions. What makes you think then that this is the power source of the sun in the first place, or that most of the "blob" is hydrogen?
quote:
So, given the mass of the Sun and a 4.8-billion year age, which set of physical laws explain the radius of the Sun in your model, Michael, while also (the same equations) explaining its temperature, energy output, and neutrino flux?
Unlike with gas model theory, there is no one to one correlation between physical size and time in a Birkeland model. You are trying to assert a set of conditions here that may or may not even apply to a Birkeland model in the first place. What makes you think that size and time are directly related in a Birkeland solar model?
quote:
You preach against it, but you don't practice what you preach.
As it relates to GeeMack, you are probably correct. I'm tired of his personal insults and denial routines and I've let him have it between the eyes a few times. That behavior (of mine) really isn't in my best interest and I know it. I guess it just shows that I'm human and I have faults as well.
Everyone else I've treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. I even went out of my way to compliment you as a moderator in another thread. I've tried very hard to keep my cool and to keep the discussion on topic.
quote:
That appears to be complete nonsense given your mockery of scientific methodology
I resent that you keep claiming that I'm mocking the scientific method. I am not mocking the scientific method. I'm simply noting which things are actually observed, and which things are theoretical math constructs.
quote:
and unwillingness to listen to my arguments (that ridiculous strawman you presented of my criticisms of Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis should make you ashamed of yourself, it was so bad).
Well Dave that works both ways. Your "criticism" of his work was equally "bad" IMO.
quote:
Because an explosion would have little - if any - effect on magnetic fields.
You have not demonstrated that these structures are caused by magnetic fields in the first place. The movement of the arcs shows that the magnetic fields are *not* consistent, whereas these structures remain consistent. Somehow magnetic fields create an "explosion" but never change? How is that even physically possible? What about the changes in the coronal loops during these timelines? How come the loops change if the magnetic field is constant?
quote:
Besides which, the animation you're so fond of clearly shows a CME occuring many thousands of kilometers above the photosphere - higher even than the lower corona. They aren't called coronal mass ejections for nothing.
Again, you "alledge" the arcs/loops originate from the corona, but that has not been demostrated or observed. Yes, mass is ejected from the solar atmosphere, including the corona but you have not demonstrated that the arcs/loop begin or end in the corona, or that light from 171A images is limited to the corona.
It has always been "assumed" (even before launch) that the 171A images would come from regions in the lower corona. That is the very "assumption" however that I question and that I take issue with in the first place. That has not been demonstrated as fact, it has only been "assumed" that these emission would be found in the corona based on the temperature range of these emissions. If however electrical current is the heat source, as the University of Maryland suggest, then there is no guarantee that these emissions come from or are limited to just the corona. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/03/2006 14:32:23 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 14:48:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
None of these "calculations" you speak of are based on direct observation.
Michael, the above sentence, in the context of what I wrote, says that you don't think the law of gravity or the laws of conservation of mass and energy are based upon direct observation. It is that attitude which shows you either don't understand science, you're purposefully making a mockery of it, or you simply don't care. You seem to fault science for working backwards (which is its primary mode of operation, even with your theory), but fail to offer any alternative way of knowing things about the universe.
Furthermore, when I pointed out that your description of my criticism to Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis was a ridiculously bad strawman, you didn't have the courage to say, "then what did you really mean?" Instead, you just continued to attack. It's simply far too painful to watch you make such a fool of yourself.
Finally, your idea that anyone else needs to explain anything about any image via the gas model in order to criticize your model remains as false as (for example) the idea that someone needs to know the actual square root of 6,893 before being able to criticize someone else who claims that the answer is 2. Any explanation I might make of the "gold" video has no effect whatsoever on how well (or poorly) supported your model is, and so is nothing more than a distraction from the discussion of your model of the Sun, and an obvious distraction at that.
And so, since you appear to be uninterested in having a truly scientific discussion about your model of the Sun without resorting to the repeated use of strawmen or shifting the burden of proof (see the three points above), I suddenly find myself without motivation to continue this. Have a nice life, and I hope your Nobel Prize for that "acceleration causes us to not measure mass correctly" thingie comes to you quickly. |
- 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 - 03/03/2006 : 17:49:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Michael, the above sentence, in the context of what I wrote, says that you don't think the law of gravity or the laws of conservation of mass and energy are based upon direct observation.
Of course Dave, but these laws and observations only apply *if* the sun is actually a hydrogen blob as you believe. What is not known however is whether the sun actually *is* a hydrogen blob or a predominantly iron, Birkeland sphere, sitting in the middle of Birkeland currents. If the latter is true (as observations now support), then trying to use these laws and observations to compute the size of a hydrogen blob of the past may simply be a futile mathematical excersize. First you're going to need so *show me* where you see a "hydrogen blob" in these satellite images, because I see a Birkeland sphere in these images.
quote:
It is that attitude which shows you either don't understand science, you're purposefully making a mockery of it,
You might accuse me of the former, but the latter is certainly not the case. I love science, and I respect science. I earn my living as a computer scientist. I certainly have no intention of making a mockery of science.
quote:
or you simply don't care.
Well, this is a key issue alright. If you expect me to "care" how big the hydrogen blob was 4.6 billion years ago, first you're going to need to convince me that it *is* a hydrogen blob now. If it's a Birkeland sphere, I really could care less about a futile mathematical excercise.
quote:
You seem to fault science for working backwards (which is its primary mode of operation, even with your theory), but fail to offer any alternative way of knowing things about the universe.
First of all, I certainly don't fault science for working backwards. I took these images and worked "backwards" as well. In a way, you have to start with observation and work logically backwards and forwards to a place of scientific understanding of this observation. It's not the working backwards part I have a problem with, it's blindly speculating that the sun is a ball of hydrogen that I'm having a tough time with.
quote:
Furthermore, when I pointed out that your description of my criticism to Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis was a ridiculously bad strawman, you didn't have the courage to say, "then what did you really mean?" Instead, you just continued to attack.
Fine Dave, I'll accept that criticism. What *did* you actually mean?
quote:
It's simply far too painful to watch you make such a fool of yourself.
If I was worried about making a fool of myself, I would never have started this project, I would never have put up a website or began debating these ideas in cyberspace with experts from all over the world. If I can watch it, so can you. :) I've even put some very testable predictions on the table as it relates to the STEREO program, and it's lauch date just got bumped up another month. Time will tell whether I was a fool, or just a good skeptic of gas model theories.
quote:
Finally, your idea that anyone else needs to explain anything about any image via the gas model in order to criticize your model remains as false as (for example) the idea that someone needs to know the actual square root of 6,893 before being able to criticize someone else who claims that the answer is 2. Any explanation I might make of the "gold" video has no effect whatsoever on how well (or poorly) supported your model is, and so is nothing more than a distraction from the discussion of your model of the Sun, and an obvious distraction at that.
You're going to have to put yourself in my shoes at some point. These satellite images are multimillion dollar images. They cost big bucks to acquire and produce. The minute details of each image is highly important, and highly useful from a scientific perspective. I see evidence in these images that supports Birkeland's solar model, from the energy concentrated in the arcs that originate at the surface of a sphere, to the x-ray emission patterns, to the structures in the images that all support Birkeland's model.
If you expect to convince me that there is a scientifically "better", more "precise" or more logical explanation for these images, you will have to explain these images in some other way, and be attentive to detail. What's the light source? Why are the structures there? What keeps them in rigid formation? Why does the light change while the structure remains fixed? These are all very logical and important scientific questions that must be asked and must be answered. Now it's possible that Birkeland's model isn't the only model that can explain them, but one thing I'm sure of, Birkeland's model *can* explain these images, right down the the minute details we see in these images. If you really expect me to believe there is a "better" solar model, you'll need to explain how that solar model accounts for the details in these images as Birkeland's model accounts for them.
quote:
And so, since you appear to be uninterested in having a truly scientific discussion about your model of the Sun without resorting to the repeated use of strawmen or shifting the burden of proof (see the three points above), I suddenly find myself without motivation to continue this. Have a nice life, and I hope your Nobel Prize for that "acceleration causes us to not measure mass correctly" thingie comes to you quickly.
That's too bad if you ask me. I thought we were finally getting to the interesting stuff, the observations themselves, the part that makes science tick. We've talked all about other aspects of this theory, but the one thing we've really not discussed in any detail are these direct observations. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/03/2006 17:52:31 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 19:25:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Of course Dave, but these laws and observations only apply *if* the sun is actually a hydrogen blob as you believe. What is not known however is whether the sun actually *is* a hydrogen blob or a predominantly iron, Birkeland sphere, sitting in the middle of Birkeland currents. If the latter is true (as observations now support), then trying to use these laws and observations to compute the size of a hydrogen blob of the past may simply be a futile mathematical excersize.
You really don't have a clue as to how badly you interpreted my last posts or solar science in general, do you? It's just amazing that you got to the place you did, above, from the place I started. Amazing!quote:
Fine Dave, I'll accept that criticism. What *did* you actually mean?
What I meant apparently doesn't matter, since you're more comfortable with strawmen of what I mean. Feel free to invent even more strawmen about these two sentences.quote:
If you expect to convince me that there is a scientifically "better", more "precise" or more logical explanation for these images, you will have to explain these images in some other way, and be attentive to detail... If you really expect me to believe there is a "better" solar model, you'll need to explain how that solar model accounts for the details in these images as Birkeland's model accounts for them.
There you go again. Criticism of your model only needs to demonstrate that your model has massive flaws in it. I don't actually expect you to believe there's a better model out there, since you're convinced already that in time, your model will be the model. It wouldn't even matter if you understood how scientific criticism works (you don't), since you're obviously immune to it.quote:
That's too bad if you ask me. I thought we were finally getting to the interesting stuff, the observations themselves, the part that makes science tick. We've talked all about other aspects of this theory, but the one thing we've really not discussed in any detail are these direct observations.
No, we have discussed those "direct observations" quite a bit already. The images are, indeed, a direct observation, but your interpretation of them is not. You choose to think that your interpretation of them is the only possible one, and criticism of your interpretation simply doesn't have any effect on you whatsoever. So what's the point? You've clearly demonstrated that there is no reason to discuss this stuff with you.
Again, good luck with the Nobel Prize, and your day-care software, too. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
