KerrMetric said:
Do you know how the images you are getting are processed?
Yes, one image is subtracted from the previous image. They call this technique a "running difference" image. It can be done in photoshop, using IDL librarires or using custom software. All of the running difference images on my website were created by NASA or Lockheed so there would be no doubt as to it's authenticity.
It seems to me that you are taking "pictures" and looking at minutae in them and from this (photos I might add you were probably not involved in their creation) overturning the entire working edifice of stellar theory.
Creating them is really quite easy. The only reason I have resisted putting my own RD images online is that it would not be verifyable to the "average joe". By sticking with RD images that are already online, anyone can check it out for themselves and see that I have not manipulated the images in any way.
Overturning solar theory was really the last thing on my mind when I first ran into the SOHO RD images by the way. If stellar theory is going to change, it's not going to change overnight, or as a result of just one guy. Dr. Oliver Manuel has been trying to explain to the stellar community that the sun is mosly iron for nearly 3 decades. Birkeland first introduced the idea and experimented in his lab about 100 years ago. Nothing changes overnight.
The evidence however *is* growing, and I believe that the STEREO data will return irrefutable evidence of mass separated layers. That bit of info might start to change the tide, but a lot of other folks will have to get involved that just the 4 of us.
I am still not sure you understand what helioseismology is.
I assure you, I know more about the subject than your average guy off the street.
A standard stellar model agrees at the 0.1% level with the sound speed profile - from this info we also can calculate the helium stratification etc.
And with the exception of the surface itself, I would expect this model to show a series of increasingly dense plasma layers.
Your model would not tally with this data. Why can't you tell me the thickness and T and Rho of your layers?
First I can tell you the thicknesses of the outer layers, but their density remains in debate. On the other hand, I cant' see under the surface using satellite imagery. The only technique that could reveal such data is heliosiesmology, but that can't happen until others are actually looking for such changes using our model.
Why is there nothing to your model except an appeal from incredulity based upon some minutae in some probably highly processed images of the photosphere.
That is false. There is nuclear chemistry data to support my model as well. There is also heliosiesmology data to support my model, including that stratification subsurface sitting in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone. You've never even bothered to explain this phenomenon. Why not?
That said however, *observation* is in fact the key to determining whether a theory is accurate or it is not. It is the attention to detail that allows us to determine if some theory is viable, or whether it is not viable given these direct observations. Without direct observation to support it, all the gas model math in the world amounts to merely "pretty little math formulas" that may or may not apply.
To quote the old Wendy's commercial - where's the beef?
It's in the predictions, and the ramification of these predictions. The nuclear chemistry data that suggests mass separation has been ignored for decades. The observation evidence of mass separated layers has been ingored for years. STEREO however will remove most of the "interpretation" out of satellite image analysis and it will give us a true 3D view of the solar atmosphere. If I'm right, STEREO should show us a series of mass separated layers, and such information would have a dramatic impact on solar theory.
Why are you so dismissive of the marriage of obervation and stellar theory?
I was thinking just the same thing about you, since you seem to be minimizing the significance of direct satellite observations, isotope analysis, and plasma flow patterns revealed by heliosiesmology. It seems like you aren't very interested in the direct observations, whereas every aspect of the model I've presented is based on direct observation, and can be supported by direct observation.
My guess is that you don't know enough astronomy to realise the implications of changing the standard picture of stars.
Actually I do. That's why I find this task a bit daunting at the moment as you might imagine.
Your model really has no numbers attached to it.
I just handed you a bunch of numbers related to the thicknesses of plasma layers that should be able to be verified or falsified within a 6 month window. There is a lot of math in the nuclear chemistry side of this arguement, and I will continue to add numbers that I can directly verify in some way as I can do so.
The gas model theory has all kinds of "numbers" attached to it, but does it hold up to direct observation, or not? That's the real question here.
Let me point out to you, that I've talked to the experts at NASA and Lockheed and Stanford, and many folks from around that world. In all that time, not one individual has come up with a gas model explaination for RD images using gas model theory that is even remotely attentive to detail. Why is that? Why is it that you and everyone who puts their faith in gas model theory has such a tough time with the first page of images on my website? Why is it that nobody can explain the consistency of these patterns over these lengthy timelines, or explain the heat source of the corona or predict CME's? Exactly what can the numbers of gas model theory acurately predict in advance?
It seems just some made up fantasy based upon a couple of pretty pictures
No. I formed an opinion based on 15 years of studying satellite imaergy. There's a big difference. Since that time however I've also found isotope analysis that supports my model, heliosiesmology evidence that supports my model, and a many more images that directly support my model.
What gas model theory amounts to howver is a bunch of "pretty math formulas" that don't apply to anything that actually exists in reality. The fact that you and nobody else can't explain a single RD image using gas model theory that is even remotely attentive to detail, even after more than a year of debates says volumes IMO.
- that is not science and why it wont be treated as such by ApJ or MNRAS or Phys. Lett. or Phys. Rev. - as you already know I guess.
All I know for sure is that it's going to take time and effort and more data to be taken seriously by the mainstream. I'm not naive.
On the other hand, I have no idea how the ApJ might react a year from now when STEREO data comes online. I have not even submitted anything to the ApJ that they would seriously consider publishing, so I think it would be premature of me to judge them unfairly based on a single "made for the masses" paper that I submitted to them over a year ago. As I said, at some point I'll make a serious attempt to build a Birkeland solar model outline and I'll submit it to the ApJ. Until I do that much however, it would be irrational for me to judge them in advance.
I also think you put way to much "faith" in the mainstream to "get it right" with new ideas. Hannes Alfven won the Nobel prize for his work in MHD, but he could not even get his early work published in the mainsteam. It took *years* for the mainstream to recognize the value of his work. Getting published in specific journals is not a measure of the value of a theory.
I'll also point out again, that the Jounal of Fusion Energy *did* publish some of our material and they "count" too.
