KerrMetric said:
Michael, I'm afraid you haven't a clue about standard stellar physics.
I'm afraid I do understand solar physics, which is why this sort of "put down" routine isn't going to work with me.
I can prove I know a lot more about solar physics than you do, by asking you to explain just the very first running difference image on my website using gas model solar theory that is attentive to detail.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi
For instance, what is the light source of this running difference image? What creates the consistent patterns in the image, that hold the same geomentrical relationships to one another? What causes the "peeling" effect we see on the right? What is that "dust in the plasma wind" we see blowing around just after the CME? I'm betting you can't answer these questions using gas model theory whereas I can answer all of them using a Birkeland solar model.
You don't even understand how helioseismology is done it seems - never mind propose an alternative to the observations.
Actually, I've debated these ideas in cyberspace for over a year now. Many of the folks I've spoken with are quite versed in heliosiesmology data. It is in fact during these debates that I picked up much of the material you see on my website, particularly on the blog page. Why does the mass flow pattern go horizontal at about 3500 Km under the surface of sunspot? What is that stratification subsurface and what's it doing sitting in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone? Why do the mass flow patterns from underneath the surface "flare out" and move out and away from the upward travelling column of plasma?
I said it in a prior post - you seemingly have no experience in how to write a journal paper either.
That may have been true back then, but as you can see, I 've picked up some help along the way from folks that do understand the routine far better than I do, and we have already gotten some of our work published in a respected scientific journal.
Your so called "model" is extremely hand wavy in nature and is based on ad hoc explanations of some pictures you seem to find puzzling.
Likewise, gas model solar theory is extremely hand wavy in nature and cannot explain something as critical as the heat source of the corona, whereas I have no trouble isolating the heat source of the corona.
I also find it curious why you keep touting this Russian paper on a layer at 0.995 R which has absolutely nothing to do with your model in anyway shape or form.
Dr. Kosovichev works at Stanford University. His work has been published many times by the ApJ. I think you are underestimating the value of his work.
http://quake.stanford.edu/~sasha/sasha.html
This is almost unparsable. Have you any experience in stellar evolution codes at all? I doubt it.
Are we going to question each other back and forth?
I take it you didn't watch the entire video?
http://pof.aip.org/pof/gallery/video/2005/911509phflong.mov
Have you even calculated the dynamics of your structure? It surely cannot support itself and would be inherently unstable.
You will need to quantify and qualify your objection in some tangible matter for me to actually comment.
Do you know what the solar gravitational quadrupole moment is? Do you know what effects your structure would have?
Can you explain a running difference image? What is the light source? What causes the "patterns" we see in these images? Why do they remain so stable over such long periods of time? I can play this game too.
Again - have you ever studied physics or astronomy? I doubt it.
Then you would be wrong. I have been studying astronomy since about the age of 15, which is now over 30 years ago. I've been studying solar physics in particular, and satellite imagery specifically for almost 15 years since the first Yohkoh images.
Here you show a complete ignorance of 20th century astronomy. Galactic abundances are based upon no such thing, period.
You know if you are going to be rude, you should at least be acurate. Gas model theory is predictated on the notion that plasmas do not mass separate into layers, with heavier elements sinking to the bottom with lighter elements rising to the top. If that *assumption* is inaccurate, then all the elemental abundance numbers you speak of are completely inaccurate. The outer and hotter hydrogen and helium layers would simply be overrepresented in the spectral data.
What do you mean "who says it does?"
I mean who's actually been there to test to see if these temperature guestimates are actually accurate?
The observations say it does. When we look at stellar systems the types and numbers of stars present of differeing types are in the proportions we expect based upon their lifetimes. We see what we expect to see based upon standard stellar theory - to the point it is ludicrous to think this is coincidence.
I think it would be ludicrous to not expect mainstream theory to create theoretical predictions about various distant objects. I think it's naive to assume that these calculations always work properly:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Astronomers_Weigh_Adopted_Twin_Brown_Dwarfs.html
Carefully measuring the light spectrum coming from the pair enabled the researchers to determine their surface temperatures. Theory predicts the more massive of the two should be hotter, but the team found just the opposite: The heavier dwarf shows a temperature of 2,650 degrees Kelvin (4,310 degrees Fahrenheit), while the lighter one is 2,790 degrees K (4,562 degrees F). The Sun is 5,900 degrees K (9,980 degrees F) at its surface.
Emphasis mine.
Evidently current theory doesn't always jive with actual observation. In theory the bigger of the two should have been the hotter of the two, particularly since it is considerably larger than the other. The observations however revealed exactly the opposite is true. So much for batting 1000 based on theory.
You just don't know any astronomy or astrophysics Michael
That is simply not true which is exactly why these bulllying tactics won't work on me. When I hear you explain a running difference image, then you can lecture me about how much more you know about astrophysics than I do.
- and what you think you know you have woefully misunderstood.
Demonstrate it to me then. Explain that first running difference image and answer the questions I asked you. Then we'll discuss your ideas and my ideas and we'll see which ideas are better. I can't *know* I've misunderstood something until someone else can offer a "better" scientific explantion for these images. Lets hear it?
You'll never get published in ApJ with material so fringe and based upon misunderstanding as this.
First of all the "materials" I'm using are not "fringe" materials. All the images and data I'm using come straight from NASA, Lockheed or Stanford. The worst thing you might say is that my "interpretation" of these images is the "minority" viewpoint.
Secondly, getting published in the ApJ wasn't the main goal of this process and it never will be. I have already been published in a respected and peer reviewed science journal. That's all I was after.
I don't really even expect the ApJ to publish anything I write until/unless the STEREO data comes back and supports my
STEREO predictions, and I actually submit something to them that isn't "hostile" toward the whole gas model theory. I really didn't have any illusions about a hostice first paper getting published in the ApJ.
Then they may actually get interested in the idea. Until then, there is way too much funding money at risk, far too many reputations at stake, and far to much politics involved to think that the ApJ is going to publish something like that first paper I submitted. I will eventually get around to
