It would be diffult to tell under such conditions. Forturnately I have explained arcs and the focus of heat concentrations in these images. I've explained the lighting source and structure seen in running difference images and why the sun has an eleven year sunspot cycle, and a host of other things you can check out on my website.

I have yet to hear anyone use the gas model to explain the lighting source, the structures or the shadows seen in that image, let alone why such structures last for days, crack and deflect shock waves.

I'm really doing my best to keep this conversation fair, scientific and simple. I'm open to suggestions about these structures and heat concentration patterns based on gas model explanations, but they've been in short supply to this point in time. I don't know how to compare my ideas to other ideas if those other ideas are never offered.

Ok Mister Mozina, it is obvious that, for an unknown reason, the elaborate explanations and refutations based upon a logical chain of reasoning provided to you on this board are beyond your comprehension. At first I was tempted to blame for this my poor oratoric and english language skills, but soon it has become clear to me that much more skilled intervenants have the same troubles as I do when they're trying to explain something to you.

So here is the deal: I'm gonna adress you only one question at the time. I won't proceed further until you'll give an unambiguos answer to that question. (I consider "I don't know" to be an acceptable and unambiguos answer)

First question:
Do you agree that any body having a temperature above 0° Kelvin is emitting photons, regardless of its chemical composition?
A simple YES or NO is enough as answer.

I agree. That is why I put together an entire website based on many different observations. It includes explanations for these observations that by necessity will match observations, because all I did was observe to begin with. Every observation must have a explanation, and I offered one for every observation I listed.

I'm not asking you to do that. I'm asking you to consider another model that can explain a whole host of things the gas model has yet to explain and even if it's only 90% there, it's far better at explaining recent satellite images than the gas model. I offer the fact no one has even tried as evidence there is a serious problem getting a gas model to explain these images.

Science is really competetive when it's at it's best IMO. I am simply pointing out to you that there has been more than a century's worth of work done on this model by a host of very dedicated and honest scientists that firmly believe in an electrical model of the sun. Now you can take that information and ignore it, or you can consider it carefully. I can't make you consider it, but these satellite images should make you consider it, particularly if you and no one here can explain these images.

Consider this. I'm just one guy. Dr. Manuel and I together are only two people. I've thrown in Dr. Birkeland's work and Dr. Bruce's work into the mix and between the 4 of us, I think we can cover a lot of bases here and explain a lot of solar phenomenon that directly relates electrical activity in the solar atmosphere.

Now the gas model crowd has the benefit of far more than 4 guys doing the work, but where oh where is the gas model explanation for these heat concentration patterns? How about that sturctures seen in running difference images or even an explanation fo the lighting source in running difference images using a gas model? If four of us can put our heads together and figure an explanation to offer for critique, then surely the gas model folks, with thousand upon thousand of highly decided and highly intelligent scientists can step forth and offer a alternative explanation so we can sit down and compare the two in minute detail. To date I've yet to hear an explanation for the lighting source or structure from anyone. I've not heard an explanation for the focus of heat in the arcs either for that matter.

Now science is supposed to work by comparing observation to theory and comparing possible ways of explaining these phenomenon so we can judge a range of options and pick the "best", most elegant solution. I've offered my explanation. So far no one here is willing to stick their neck out and offer one to compare it to. What can I say? I'm willing to compare, but I need something to compare my answer to before I can make a decision one way or the other. If you have some suggestions here, I'm all ears.

I'm getting a little tired of the belittling process that is being put upon DIRECT OBSERVATION. I specifically capitalized the words this time because we need to talk about this issue. Theory and math, used the right way are wonderful tools. If however you try to apply theory and a math forumula to something it doesn't fit, the results probably won't match with observation. There is no guarantee that a theory and a math formula actually relates to an idea unless you have "pretty little pictures" to look at and compare it to. Those "pretty little pictures" tell the truth. They don't lie. The are nuetral. They don't care what we think. They are just there because that's they the universe works. We can ignore those pretty little pictures, or we can analyse them in great detail. I choose the later. Some people to so far outside of science, they start to belittle the idea without cause. That is argument by ridicule. I am utterly unimpressed with arguement by riducule.

This is what I mean. Do you honestly think that is a fair debate tactic or a fair strawman here? Did I make any such claim? If all I was bringing to this discussion was pretty little pictures, you'd have a right to say things like this. I brought you the life's work of Dr. Birkeland, Dr. Bruce and Dr. Manuel to consider as well. Did you notice that part?

No, there is not. Then again these structures exist. Unlike clouds these 'strutures' rotate uniformly around the sun. The last for days, perhaps whole rotations cycles. You can't simply ignore the fact they are there altogether and close your eyes to their existence. How about explaining them scientifically?

Because? That is no better than me suggesting I have no reason to belive anyone but myself. Care to explain the error in any of their work, or tackle a single page from my website and explain it using the gas model?

I agree. I've spent months putting together a detailed explanation on my website with lots of visual confirmation from direct observation.

I think they are hills and valleys on an electrified surface. What do you think they are?

Beside the images themselves? Ok, let's start with Dr. Manuel. Show me the error in his method. I've stuck my neck out and show you where I think the error in the photon method exists. You tell me where Dr. Manuel method went wrong and how and why.

How can anyone here be wrong, when none of you will offer an explanation for the images? I seem to be the only one "risking my reputation" around here recently.

Dr. Manuel, Dr. Bruce and Dr. Birkeland have plenty of numbers for you to examine. I'm more of the 'picture guy'. They also offer you a lot of reasoned evidence if you'll consider it. I will too and I'll do it real time on the internet for you. I'm putting my explanation out there to critique. How about offering me a competitive theory.

No, that is not how science works. That is how religion works. Religions presume out outcome and work backworks. They belittle every peice of evidence put before them that might confict with the preconcieved idea. They ignore nuclear chemical analysis as well. I've seen that many time on religious based websites.

Science is different. It's "better" IMO in the sense that it is supposed to be able to 'learn' and adapt to new information from new technologies. It's suppose to remain open minded to all ideas to long as they offer meaningful explanations to real world observations. It works by competitition, and thrives on competition. That's what science is about.

Now I've stuck my neck out here, risked my reputation using my real name for all the world to see. I'm here on probably the single largest website for astronomy on the planet so I can logically and rationally discuss these ideas I've put forth with others.

What has been missing to this point in time is an alternative explanation for these observations using the gas model. If and when such an explanation is put on the table, then we can sit down and scientificallyd debate the two ideas based on the details we see in these observations. I'm willing to do that, but I need something to work with here from a scientifically competitive standpoint. If some amateur like me can offer a way to explain these images, then surely the scientific body as a whole can step forward and offer a competitive option. I really am open to suggestions, but if we are going to have more than a religious discussion, I'll need a competitive model to work with.

Sure, and I agree with you. If I was trying to tell you "Hey those structures are X tall", then you would need the scaling information to figure out if I am right or wrong. I'm not suggesting that. I'm simply noticing the structures themselves and the lighting effects and the heat distribution. These things can be "observed" without fully understanding the scaling. I don't really have to know a whole lot about the scaling or pixels sizes that Yohkoh uses to see that she picked out hard x-rays near the surface and soft x-rays that are conentrated in the arcs. If I wished to know how large the arc is, I'll need to know the scaling factors. It all depends on what kind of information we are trying to get from these images.


Exactly. On this point we fully agree.

I think you just violated the scientific prime directive. You presumed an outcome without know what KIND of data we might collect. You can't do that. You assume that all data collected with concur with previous theory. In this case, that did not happen. The reverse happened IMO. Now you have observation that conflicts with theory. Now what do we do? Ignore it? Sweep it under the carpet? That data is conflicted now. Where do we go from here? Which method of determining solar composition is 'better' from a scientific perpsective, Dr. Manuel's methods, or simply counting photons?

No one here, least of all me, is doubting the usefulness of good ol' Newtonian physics. It's just that everything and every movement is also "relative" to something else.

In and of itself? No. Based on heat transfers and energy exchanges with the outside world and universe, sure. That doesn't mean it will shoot my way, or not be blocked or absorbed by something else along the way, nor is there any guarantee I will have the technology to "see" every single photon. How about meeting me part way at least and acknolwedging that we can't yet see every kind of solar emmision (neutrinos) with any sort of precision. We certainly don't know what other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum might affect us that we know little or nothing about. What is that 22 year solar cycle all about?

The bottom line Baloo is that we can't just assume we are going to see each element represented equally. That is the assumption of any method that attempts to link the reception of some kinds of photons with the full composition of a solar body.

What do you mean by this?


I didn't said anything about spectrometry, solar cycle, absorption by other bodies or our capabilities to detect or not the emitted radiation. How about take one issue at a time, settle it and then proceed to the next one?
It is a simple question: Do you agree that any body from our solar system having a temperature above 0° Kelvin is emitting photons, regardless of its chemical composition?



Note: to be fair I don't know how and if the notion of temperature applies to everything that exists in the visible universe (one possible exception that comes to my mind being a black hole). So I'll restrain the adresability of my question to the bodies existing in our solar system.

I should qualify my answer since part of it is innaccurate. You used the term "body", while I was thinking in terms of "atom". A "body" might radiate for awhile until it's heat was gone, but without an external exchange of energy, it too would become cold eventually. Now things change if it's big enough to cause fission, but again, it will eventually run out of energy as well.

Mozina, you're a real piece of work.

You put far too much faith in pictures. Pictures don't lie, but when the subject in the image is sufficiently complex, interpretations are highly subjective.

Math, on the other hand, doesn't lie and is totally non-subjective. Math is the only science that thrives on absolute proof. And when you can create math models that predict the energy and particulate output of hydrogen fusion, and they match what we observe for the sun and its mass, we're far more likely right than anyone who says the sun is mostly iron.

Don't put so much faith in pictures. They tell a thousand words but it comes out different for each person who sees them.

I think the Birkeland photo looks only moderately similar to the pattern seen on the sun in the SOHO image. And I'm not saying that to be contrary, I mean it in the nicest way possible.

Can I get a "yea" for everyone who agrees with me on the following statement?

THE PICTURES YOU POST EXPLAIN NOTHING!

Absolutely nothing.

You still haven't explained how your model accounts for the sun's observed mass. We know how much mass it has by observing the gravitational effect on planetary motions, including Mercury! If it were mostly iron at its current size, we'd see a more powerful gravitational effect.

That's your biggest challenge. Not trying to explain some of the more complex solar phenomenon, just the simple basics which are well established!

__________________
My son is my universe.

okay, let me try it this way. "direct observation" in science is not merely looking at pictures. direct observation includes taking measurements. direct observation includes using spectroscopy (which you've still shown less understanding of than I!). direct observation includes using what the theory says is right to do things, and if they don't work, obviously there's something wrong with the theory. the current understanding of the sun has used all of that, though you may not know how or where. I don't, either. however, hundreds of people in the scientific community use those observations and theories every single day. maybe even thousands of people. if the current model didn't work, they'd know. in fact, I'm willing to bet that they know far more holes in the current model than you do. I'm further willing to bet that they're working on a daily basis to resolve all those holes.

in fact, what you're saying is that, because they're looking at the pictures differently than you are, they're obviously wrong. why are your observations that these things look like "structures" any more valid than my observations that they look kind of like bridges? why are your observations that it looks like a solid surface any more valid than everyone else's evidence that there couldn't be anything solid there, that the temperatures are too high?

and don't tell me to read Dr. Manuel. I'm not asking him; I'm asking you. can you explain it so that I can understand? if not, how do we know that you understand it? you are here to present a hypothesis, so present it. then and only then can we tell you the flaws in it.

and again, even I have, and you haven't acknowledged it. what I would like answered more than anything is why you persist in referring to spectroscopy as "counting photons" when that isn't what it is, and why you persist in referring to "different types of photons" when there's no such thing.

__________________
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!"

Lather, rinse, repeat as needed.

Can I get a "yea" for everyone who agrees with me on the following statement?

THE PICTURES YOU POST EXPLAIN NOTHING!

Absolutely nothing.

__________________
My son is my universe.

I was actually thinking in terms of an atom rather than a "body" to be honest. Sorry for any confusion on my part. You were clear, I just missed it.

[quote]I didn't said anything about spectrometry, solar cycle, absorption by other bodies or our capabilities to detect or not the emitted radiation. How about take one issue at a time, settle it and then proceed to the next one?
It is a simple question: Do you agree that any body from our solar system having a temperature above 0° Kelvin is emitting photons, regardless of its chemical composition?

Yes. In the sense you meant it, the answer is yes, it is. If not for interaction with the warm universe it will eventually freeze if it continues to release it's energy.

I had the concept of atom in my head rather than body when I first answered your question. A "body" would have more residual energy in it. Assuming it wasn't fissionable materials however, it would eventually cool to zero and stop emitting photons were it not for the presense of energy from the universe itself.

Again, I am sorry if my first answer was confusing. I didn't realize my mistake until after you responded.

Ok. Second question: What is, in your opinion, the temperature of the sun's photosphere?
One number expressing the temperature in Kelvin degrees is more than enough as answer.

Thanks. I think so. My wife of 15 years thinks so. My kids think so as well. So my friends. I would be much more comfortable if we could keep this discussion away from individuals and on the science itself. You need not attack this individual, simply show this individual the error in his scientific presentation.

Sure they are subjective. That's why we need to compare different explanations and see which one fits the pictures the best. I've given you my explanation. If you have an alternative one to offer me, please do. I'll be happy then to debate the merits of each model with you, but you'll first need to explain things your way so I know whether your explaination is scientifically valid.

When and where and how one tries to apply the math *is* entirely subjective. Unless you look at the pictures, how can you see if that math ever applied to begin with?

Unless you can demonstrate your consciousness exists, there is no such thing as "absolute proof" of anything, let alone something as esoteric as a thought about a math formula. The very first thing you are going to need to do here is demonstrate that the math applies in the first place. You are welcome to use math in your answer by the way, but I won't force you. I'm just trying to get the basics here, like the energy concentration patterns, the structures the lighting source. We can work into the details as we go.

Sorry, but that's not how science works. You are taking at math theory that may or may not apply and trying to INSIST that it applies. Show me in these images HOW it applies to an actual real world sun and then we'll discuss it. Until then, it's very nice theory, but I've not seen it applied to the real world in any way. Start with any observation from any satellite and show how it demonstrates fusion.

Don't put so little faith in what you see with your own eyes. You don't have to have a PhD to see that the energy is focused in the arcs. You don't have to have a PhD to see those "structures" or to notice those shadows. It probably helps if you have a PhD like Dr. Manuel and Dr. Bruce and Dr. Birkland, but even an amuteur like me can understand and explain these ideas from a theoretical and PRACTICAL perspective.

In your opinion is there any reason WHY that might be so?

Actually, I hear you. You seem to be sincere. If you see a similarity between Birkeland's experiments and Yohkoh's images, what "might" they have in common in your opinion?

By themselves? I'll even give you a "yea" on that one. That is why I have avoided posting any pictures for a while and I have tried to simply explain things the best I can in words. If you have other explainions and other words for me that you feel better explain the images, please offer them.

I have put some ideas on the table that "may" offer a way to do that. You cannot dismiss this model for a single reason, any more that the gas model could be dismissed when some thought the neutrino count was too low. One percieved flaw cannot exclude a model, or your model is in deep trouble on these energy concentrations and running difference images.

If we want to move outside the world of solar relativity, we will have to figure out how the outside universe affects the movements of the bodies in our solar system. When we figure that out, then come back and tell me the sun is too light. Until then, you can't exclude this model based on current notions of density that do not include an possible z movement in their calculations. Again, the math is "relative" at this point, and whether that can completely explain percieved density remains to be seen. I've also noted that there are electromangetic implications in this model that could affect a percieved density. Again, I think it is very premature to be jumping to conclusions based on ONE percieved weakness. Keep in mind, I've yet to hear that gas model explanation for even the lighting source in running difference images. How then can the gas model be better than mine only because of one other percieved inability for this single individual to explain that anomoly in this moment? You can't have this both ways. First demonstrate your model can and does explain these phenomenon "better" than my explanation and THEN you can discount my model based on a single pecieved flaw if you must.

Religion is also "well established". Heliocentric concepts of the universe we also for a time "well established" in some civilizations for some time. So what? Things change as our understanding of the universe changes and out technologies to see the universe improve. We can't ingore these satellite images. They tell us how our universe works. Only by debating these images can we really know how our universe works. I've stuck my neck out here. You do the same and we'll discuss it like scientists with competing ideas. That's all I'm asking for. I can't however know if there is a better option if on other options are even offered.

I fully agree with that.

5800 - 6000K give or take..