What ad hominem attack???

Hi all,
Firstly let me say as with all threads over 20 or 30 posts I havn't read the whole thing so this may have cropped up in a corner of another post.
My thinking goes like this - If GR indicates that as density increases the mass involved warps space and time accordingly then as the mass of the entire Universe (5*10^50Kg)
gets crammed into a smaller and smaller space so should time run slower (to an observer) and so it follows that time should be at a standstill at the Big Bang.
The idea is that the big bang is also when the clocks started albeit very slowly. Time for the "inhabitants" of the early universe would seem to be moving at the usual rate but only from the big bang onwards. I think that if we ran the universe backwards as a film we would see things slowing up but never getting to t=0 due to our frame of reference.
Sorry if this is a bit theological but most books on cosmology refer to St. Thomas Aquinus as having replied to the question of what was going on before the universe was created with the smarty pants answer - When god made the universe he made time too. This is a quote and not my own opinion! The idea about time and the big bang are however very similar.

__________________
<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:10pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Optima'>Yet another blind watcher of the sky.</span></span></span>

I'd like to point out (partly because it's a flaw in Michael Mozina's ideas as well) that this isn't actually true. The atmosphere of Earth doesn't separate out into neat layers with the light stuff on the top and the heavy stuff on the bottom, it's pretty well mixed throughout. The same is true of the oceans: there are plenty of minerals dissolved in the water that are heavier than the water molecules, but they don't all sink to the bottom of the ocean, they remain in solution. They probably would settle eventually (though it would take a really, really long time!), except that the ocean and the atmosphere are warm enough that all the molecules within them are moving quite fast, enough to keep them well mixed.

At the much higher temperatures of the Sun, things stay mixed even better, in spite of the higher gravity. There's no evidence that the component elements of the Sun separate out into separate layers, each composed of a single element, and there's no theoretical expectation that it should.

Yes and no. There are cold 'rivers' in the ocean depths just like there is the Gulf Stream to be fair. There is also the thermocline that subs like to hide in.

Just keep in mind that neither of these things have been PROVEN to be true, nor have either of these things even come close to be proven true. We do know hydrogen bombs work and we do know there is a lot of hydrogen on the sun. That's what we really know for sure. The rest is theory that may or may not even apply to the actual workings of the sun. The only way to tell is by comparing the theory to the observation and to see if they apply.

Since I have the experimental lab work of Dr. Birkeland to draw from, I can actually compare his lab results with the Yohkoh images. By comparing the two, I see they have a similar heat signature along the "surface". I see arcs in both images and I see energy concentrations in the arcs in both images.

We cannot even do that with a gas model because we can't even sustain a fusion reaction for more that a fraction of seconds in a lab even after spending millions if not billion of dollars in the effort. Birkeland's model was CHEAP in comarison and it worked 100 years ago.

Since we really can't compare a lab version of a gas model to what we see, how do you know that the lab gas model will look anything like what Yohkoh sees?

Using gas model principles, why is the heat concentrated in iron ion arcs?

Actually, stellar evolution models based on the gas model have been blown away in recent years. In order to achieve the collection of matter to points this fast in the early universe, the clouds that formed from the BB would have needed to be much more DENSE and much "thicker" than anyone thought possible. All the timelines related to gas model theories have been significantly modified in the past 10 to 20 years. They just keep changing the model to fit the results. Anyone can do that!

The only way to know which model is "better", we will need to compare theory with observation. Thanks to Birkeland, I can do more than just compare THEORY to observational data of the sun, I can actually compare lab results with observational data of the sun. I see enormous similaries.

I think if I work at this for a month or two and learn a bit from these debates I believe I can begin to put together a pretty convincing argument based on a lot of different observational aspects of the sun's behaviors.

First of all, it need not have worked that simplistic of a way in the first place. Second of all, the sun could be mostly made of iron but not have a neutron core at all. To sit there and label these ideas "ludicrous" is illogical. His work has to be taken seriously unless you can positvely exlude this from happening, and that is not possible. Even if some of his ideas are right, and some wrong, that does not make the idea "ludicrous" any more than early gas models that predicted galaxies didn't for for billions of years was "ludicrous". It turned out to be "naive" perhaps, but nobody paniced and tossed out the gas model did they? Instead they keep 'adjusting it' to make it fit with direct observation.

I've sent emails to people all over the world, starting with NASA and Stanford and Lockheed Martin and Cambridge and to folks all over the world who are involved in satellite imagery. Not one of them has stepped forth to explain those structure we see in running difference images using the gas model. Not once has that ever happened. What should that tell me about the gas model as it relates to direct observation? Can you explain these structures? If not, then how do you know I'm wrong?

Oh, but I beg to differ. First of all the sun's atmosphere is not like the earth's atmosphere. The sun's atmopshere is PLASMA, not simple gases. Plasmas tend to separate in the presense of large electromagnetic fields in a centrifuge. What makes you think they would not separate like that on the sun?

Dr. Manuel's work in nuclear chemistry DOES provide evidence of mass separation by atomic weight. The delineation between the chromosphere and the photosphere does show us evidence of separation by weight. Unless you intend to dispute the presense of the photopshere or chromosphere, you'll need to explain what makes them "separate" in the first place.

[nitpick]Just keep in mind that, in science, 'proof' is impossible; the best one can hope for is something like:
- internally consistent
- consistent with good theories whose domains of applicability overlap
- consistent with (all) good observational and experimental results.[/nitpick]Well, we also 'know for sure' the following (this is just some examples):
- the mass of the Sun is {X}
- the shape of the Sun is (an oblate spheroid)
- the radius of the Sun is {Y}
- the Sun emits electromagnetic radiation whose power is {Z}
- {Z} is constant, across {timescales}, to within {a%}
- the Sun 'rings' with the following frequencies and intensities {helioseismological spectrum}
- the density, temperature, and pressure of the photosphere are {list}
- the solar wind is comprised of {list of components}, and varies as follows {long list}
- the energy spectrum of neutrinos emitted by the Sun is {spectrum}
[nitpick]'hydrogen' is 'theory', 'the sun' is 'theory', 'x-rays' is 'theory', ... pursuing this line of thought will take us, very quickly, into the nature of science, knowledge, reality, and other areas in philosophy. If you wish, Michael, I will recommend that we cease discussion on your ideas until we all reach a common basis for discussion, built from a common acceptance of what science 'is', what theories 'are', and so on[/nitpick][quote]The only way to tell is by comparing the theory to the observation and to see if they apply.[nitpick]And what is 'observation'? In the threads that you are actively engaged in discussion on, perhaps we should stop all such discussions until we all have in front of us a set of 'observations' that we are all comfortable with?[/nitpick]Would you be kind enough to share your analyses? I'm quite interested to see how you derive a 'heat signature' from those images!'arcs' I can appreciate (though an objective, replicable definition would certainly help); I have no idea how you can 'see' 'energy concentrations' in the images!

Would you mind sharing with us the methods you used? In particular, what units do the 'energy concentrations' have, that you used in your analyses?I have no idea what 'that' refers to - please specify.That may be so.

However, I have no idea what relevance it has to this discussion.I think we are so far from having a common basis for holding a discussion of this material ('lab version', 'gas model', 'look like', 'what Yohkoh sees', 'compare') that I suggest we take some time out to work on a terminology, a language that we can work towards sharing, and then return to interesting matters such as this.

Congradulations. You just proved the earth is composed primarily of oxygen and hydrogen. By photon count standards, we can now assertain that these are the elements that make up the earth and these are the elements that are most abundant on the earth. There is nearly NO iron on the earth according to these measurements by the way.

Well, you have at least one person, here at BAUT, who would be very interested to discuss these 'structures'. However, I insist that you provide us with some very, very basic information about the images, before we start any such discussion. I have asked you, what, a dozen times for such information, over several months. Finally, earlier this week, you provided a very small subset of what I was asking for.

So, in the same vein: "Michael has not stepped forth to explain the key aspects of 'those structures' (size, temperature, source of illumination, etc) using any model at all. What should that tell me about Michael's model as it relates to these key observations? Can you explain the location and source of the 'illumination'? If not, then how do you know that it's not just a torch, running on AA batteries, inside TRACE?"

But there is no guarantee that I *PERSONALLY* would ever be able to single handedly answer every one of those questions, particularly *WITHOUT* the help of Lockheed Martin even after repeated requests for information. Since I did not personally create that movie, I cannot personally answer some of the aspects of how it was created as much as I might like to have that information. I do not however understand your reluctance to discuss them only because I do not know every detail.

I totally understand and respect the REASONS you wish to know all this information. That does not have to prevent us from discussing these images. In fact if you are truely interested in discussing them you could email Lockheed yourself and see if you have better luck. Perhaps they are simply reluctant to discuss the issue with me personally.

Wait a minute. I did explain the size in pixels and arcs and the exact things you asked for.

I'm not sure why you expect me to know this exactly, but can't we discuss it without knowing that? Assuming that the light is coming from the arcs, the surface itself could be almost any temperature, from about 4000K down to ????. The only requirement is that it be cool enough to allow solids to form.

I did answer that question. The source of the illumination is the photon emissions from the electrical arcs themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean by that statement Nereid. I even tried to use Birkelands early models into our discussion so everyone could readily understand the model. I've spent months developing a full "model" of how it all comes together, or I would not even be here trying to discuss it with you. I know your standard are high (In this case too high IMO). I would not try to explain this on this kind of website with this kind of scrutiny if I did not have a model I could explain.

Yes. The photons are emitted from the electrical arc.

Perhaps you would like to try explaining the source of the illumination from a gas model perspective? I have at least done that much. Perhaps if you emailed Lockheed Martin, they could shed some light on it for you.

I'll certainly grant you that it currently has the "appearance" of having X amount of mass using two dimensional models of gravity.

I prefer to think of it as an iron "terella".

Is that the radius of the photosphere, the chromosphere, the umbra layer or the layer in those running difference images?

Which is one of the reasons I think those are electrical arcs along the surface.

I won't bore you with an item by item response, but you can see that there are ways to deal with these issues using Birkeland's model. There is support for Birkeland's model in Dr. Bruce's work and Dr. Manuel's work as well. We can't simply assume that one model is right, even if some observation matches prediction. Likewise we cannot exclude a model simply because it doesn't conform to one or two current observations.
Sure, I'd be happy to explain it. It would be helpful here if I could introduce some images to help in the discussion but you will have to allow public domain images to be posted, particularly if I had nothing to do with producing them. I won't be able to explain every detail of every image. I don't expect you to do that either. I'd just like to be able to use our vision to help in this discussion.

If we disagree about methods, then having the image and my explanation should allow you to see any errors in my methodology anyway so I would think that would actually be helpful, even if I don't know every detail about the image.

The first way I would begin to define heat signatures is the wavelength of energies they emit. Things that emit soft x-rays must reach a specific temperature to do so. Things that emit hard x-rays require even greater concentrations of energy and heat. Yohkoh should see the hottest locations in the hard x-ray spectrum, and somewhat cooler temperatures in the soft x-ray spectrum. The hard x-rays tend to be concentrated at the base of large arcs, and the soft x-rays tend to be concentrated throughout the arc.

I did at one time post that composite image between Trace and Yohkoh that showed the relative heat signatures of the arc in lower and higher elevations of the sun's atmosphere. I'll be happy to post it again if you like, but only if you agree. I can also simply explain here that the 171A, 195A, 284A filters all relate to very specific ions of iron that release photons a very specific temperatures. This overlay then of Yohkoh and Trace becomes the key to seeing a "range" of temperatures from about a million degrees and up. Most areas of the sun's "surface" remain "dark" in such images, suggesting the surface is not millions of degrees, but certainly less than millions of degrees. The surface of the photosphere is in fact measured to be around 6K degrees Kelvin. I therefore am not surprised that Yohkoh sees little activity from the surface itself, but rather it sees activity within the arcs. These are iron ions that are being heated to millions of degrees by the electrical flow within the arc.

If you would like I will post a link to images that are public domain. If there is some way we can introduce images to the discussion without knowing all details, I think we would both find it helpful.

here's what I'm not getting, and I can't be the only one.

you don't understand (large list of things, any number of which you yourself have conceded that you don't understand). this includes certain things about the pictures that you're looking at to create your "model." many, many basic questions are asked of you--some so basic that I'm the one asking them--and you don't answer most of them in any more detail than "that's a good question and I'm working on it."

why on Earth do you think you know enough to overturn solar science? honestly? and now, you're trying to overturn the Big Bang, I can only assume because your "model" cannot fit into a Big Bang universe. (if I'm wrong, please explain in simple language how. for preference without CAPITALIZING for EMPHASIS. it's really unnecessary, and if you feel emphasis to be necessary, that's what italics and bolding are for. even in the non-internet world.) why should we believe you?

please understand that this is genuine confusion. this is not intended as an ad hom. really. I accept that certain people on this board know a great deal about certain fields because, when asked questions about them, they are generally able to answer said questions clearly, coherently, and so that even I can understand them. I mean, dear lord, look at Phil as an example! and while all of these people will also admit that there are things they don't know, they don't have hypotheses in these areas. I have yet to be sure that you even understand the model you're trying to overthrow any more than to say that it's flawed. well, duh--all science is imperfect; what you have failed to do is to show that your "model" is better.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Actually, that is not the case. I can explain every image I've used on my website and every aspect of my model. There is one aspect I am still working on, and that is the percieved density of the sun. I think it is off. I can't completely explain how far off, but I can explain in general terms why I think it is off. Other than than, I'm really quite comfortable explaining pretty much every aspect of this model in theoretical terms. I can pretty much explain every detail in fact. I've found a lot of information in the work of Dr. Manuel, and Dr. Bruce and Dr. Birkeland to help me demonstrate the model and support the model a variety of ways. I am actually quite comfortable explaining the theory, and vitually any image you want to toss my way. If I did not have such a comfort level, I certainly would not show up here on a forum like this, and open myself up to this kind of public scrutiny. I assure you I'm comfortable explaining the theory. I can't answer every detail and I'll bet no one here can explain every detail of the gas model and how it relates to every image from the sun. No one could hope to do that, but I am able to give you general information about the model and show how it is supported by other work and direct observation.

Which issue specifically are you talking about? If this is "so basic", how about explaining the source of the illumation in Lockheed's images or the structures, or the heat signatures in Yohkoh images. Come on!

I don't have to "overturn" anything. I simply have to build on the work of Dr. Birkeland, Dr. Bruce and Dr. Manuel. Solar science is not homogenous. We are not Borg. I am not overturning a darn thing. I'm explaining what I see based on the work of a lot of scientists I respect.

Actually it work either way. I just think that happens to be the problem with the gas model. It was build on that "assumption". Based on Hubble and Spitzer and Chandra images, I see no evidence a big "bang" ever occured. If not, then iron and neon and silicon may have always been what stars were made of. I'm simply pointing out some of the problems with the gas model along with showing how my model fits the observations.

I hear you, and I agree. I will try to change my ways, but old habits die hard.

You need not believe me. You can believe Birkeland if you prefer. You can believe Bruce. You can believe Dr. Manuel. Take your pick.

Then how about encouraging one of them to explain the structures and lighting source seen in running difference images. I didn't even create these images. Those structures were there whether Michael Mozina ever saw them or not. What are they? What is the source of the heat in Yohkoh's images? What holds a magnetic flux loop together? What makes it "light up" like that? How do they reach such extreme heights?

I have to hand it to you Michael, that has got to be close to the best ATM one-liner I've ever read!

I've never heard of such a thing as a 'two dimensional model of gravity'.

What are they?

Upon what experimental/observational foundations do they rest?

How do they relate to Newton's and Einstein's theories?

Oh? How about giving us the following image information (for each one; you can start with the most important, single image):
- image scale (km or arcsec)
- date and time and duration
- position on the Sun (e.g. relative to the centre)
- central wavelength and bandwidth
- (where relevant) position(s) (relative to some point on the image) of the source(s) of illumination
- (where relevant) scale of vertical relief (km)
- (where relevant) temperature(s) of each feature in each image
- methods used for any parameters that are derived (e.g. scale of vertical relief, temperatures).Quantitatively? With equations?