|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26025 Posts |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 12/07/2005 : 08:50:52 [Permalink]
|
I know that many of these comments have been addresed, I just wanted to add some of my thoughts to this debate.
quote:
Meteorites are typically associated with supernova remnants.
Meteorites and meteors are not ‘associated' with supernova remnants at all. Unless you mean that heavier atoms such as nickel were formed during supernovas. But then that would be like saying human beings are typically associated with novas and supernovas (because carbon is produced in stars), which is silly.
quote:
No, I personally think the energy source is neutron repulsion and/or possibly nuclear fission.
The energy produced from neutron repulsion hypothesis is new to physics. Does your hypothesis require another new hypothesis about physics.
The suns energy is from fission? You realize that you MUST be talking about elements such as uranium and plutonium since lighter element consume more energy than is released during fission.
quote:
Unfortunately for gas model theory, there is a solid iron "transitional region" sitting just under the visible photophere. Heliosiesmology has also recently confirmed the existence of this layer.
No, it has not. That is your interpretation of the data an interpretation that is not shared by the scientific community.
quote:
All images show "structure" unless they are utterly black or utterly white. The intriguing aspect of these structures is that they, unlike the structures in the photosphere, rotate uniformly from pole to equator, and do not "move around" like gas does.
The ‘structures' on the gas planets do not ‘move around' from pole to pole either.
quote:
Don't you find it odd that all the inner planets are rich in iron based on their overall composition, yet the sun is considered to be completely different in relative composition to every single one of it's closest neighbors?
No. The inner planets should not have atmospheres of hydrogen, due to the weak gravity and the high temperatures. The larger planets that are farther from the sun with higher gravity do have high concentrations of hydrogen.
quote:
I would say that is just one more reason to consider the inertial mass of photons to be that missing mass. The implication of this model is that electromagnetic forces may also play a large role in the acceleration of iron bodies.
Again we have a new hypothesis (#2); this is becoming quite a house of cards. Essentially you are saying “The dark matter is light”, amazing. You might be surprised to know that scientist have investigated photons as well as neutrinos as a candidate for the missing mass. Both were dismissed.
quote:
I guess so. Evidently you missed that words "formed on"? A supernova event is a very energetic event. The core itself |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 12/07/2005 08:56:12 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26025 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2005 : 22:46:26 [Permalink]
|
By the way, if the Sun's core comprised just 25% of the Sun's mass, then the pull of gravity on the 22,000 km shell would average about 71.4 m/s2 (about 7.29 times the gravity we feel on Earth's surface). Centrifugal effects would cut that by less than 0.1 m/s2, so they're negligible (and note that I've ignored the gravitational pull of the diametrically-opposed part of the shell). Can some sort of "pressure" exerted by the core overcome such a large force?
Sure! But it'll cost ya'...
Let's model the shell as a series of solid columns, one square meter each and 22,000 km tall (this works in Mozina's favor, as we're ignoring the fact that the tops of the columns would necessarily be larger than the bottoms, to curve the Sun into a sphere). At 51% of the Sun's mass, and a 71.4 m/s2 acceleration, we find that the protons and electrons streaming from the core would have to provide a momentum transfer of about 6,185,194,273,400 kg-m/s, each and every second to support a single column. Assuming that the protons and electrons stream from the core in pairs going 0.99c (insanely fast), we can calculate that their combined momentum would be on the order of 2.4959565×10-17 kg-m/s (including relativistic effects), so we need about 1.48×1048 pairs colliding with the entire shell every second to combat the core's gravity.
Since we know the mass of the core, and the relativistic mass which must leave the core every second, we can calculate that the core would emit all of its mass in proton/electron pairs at the above rate in about 48.8 days.
That is, of course, absurd. That model cannot be correct. Obviously, I've left out the effects that the structural integrity of the shell might have, but would they account for a discrepancy between model and observation of 3.37 trillion percent?
So what if, instead of protons and electrons transferring their momentum by being adsorbed by the shell, only the electrons get adsorbed (as required by Mozina's hypothesis regarding the "arcs"), and the protons stick around inside the shell, creating a sort of proton "gas," the pressure of which "inflates" the shell. Since the mass (and thus momentum) of the electrons is about 1/1,000th that of protons, let's ignore them for a moment.
The pressure of this proton "gas" would be about 6.2 trillion pascals, which is nearly 900 million psi (or 61 million atmospheres). While this is only 1/5,570th the common estimates for the pressure at the core of the Sun in the gas-fusion model, it's still quite a lot when it needs to push against a sphere over 1,440,000 km across (the core of the Sun in the gas-fusion model isn't nearly that large). If the temperature of this proton gas is about 1800 K (just below the melting point of iron), then the average (rms) velocity of the protons is about 6,680 m/s. Given we know the velocity of the "gas" and the pressure, we find the density required to maintain such a pressure to be 415,954.8 kg/m3, nearly 53 times the density of iron itself (and nearly 416 times the density of water - compare with our current density estimates for the Sun).
Of course, a proton "gas" wouldn't be "ideal." And perhaps there's something odd about proton-only "gasses" which allows the apparent temperature to be much higher, without actually being that hot. If this "gas" were at 10,000 K (without melting the shell), and proton-proton electrical repulsion accounted for a hundred-fold increase in apparent density, these fudge factors would drop the density to only 749 kg/m3, which is in the realm of sensibility.
Or is it? In this model, 51% of the Sun's mass is in the "shell," and another 25% is in a tiny neutron core less than 10 km in radius. This proton "gas" fills everything between the core and the shell, a total of 1.26277×1027 m3, which at that density, would mass a total of about 9.458×1029 kg, which is about 48% of the Sun's mass. This model therefore increases the Sun's mass by at least 24%, and that much of a difference would screw up everything about planetary and satellite orbits so badly that it can't be true.
Dropping the "gas" mass by a factor of 0.1% - the effect of electron adsorbtion momentum on the shell, won't save this model, either. Especially when it assumes a shell impervious to protons, which is ridiculous in light of the "ruptures" Mozina hypothesizes (without which, the pressure inside the shell would continuously increase as more and more protons get trapped in there while their accompanying electrons zip through the shell to make 50,000-km-high arcs of solar "lightning").
Now in this second case, the structural integrity of the shell might be able to cut the necessary pressure (and thus density) of the proton "gas" by a factor of two (which is all that's required to make the Sun's mass match what we have determined). But, Mozina hasn't offered nearly enough information (in this thread) to be able for us to determine whether or not that's true.
See, Michael, these are the kinds of things that are implied by your model, and some of the sort of predictions that it might make. I would want to see more such predictions come from your model, ones made by you which might agree with what we see. Large-scale effects which can be quantitatively verified through known physical laws. Your predictions about what STEREO will find are fine, but seeing a solid structure doesn't mean that's it's necessarily made mostly of iron (especially since some ceramics are far more temperature-tolerant, but much less dense). After all, the only evidence you've offered for any iron in the Sun is that we find highly-ionized iron existing at a temperature of over a million Kelvin, unable to make any sort of solid structures at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2005 : 14:59:37 [Permalink]
|
| ... yeah but it looks solid in this picture I have! |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2005 : 19:00:54 [Permalink]
|
I need to start working on my theory that Jupiter is really solid. I mean how else could the "structure" of the Great Red Spot stay in one place in all that gas? It has to be solid metal. Maybe rusted copper.
Any flaws in my theory can be explained away with the fact that we don't know everything yet.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26025 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2005 : 19:23:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Any flaws in my theory can be explained away with the fact that we don't know everything yet.
The biggest flaw being that copper rusts green, not red. But you're correct in that that may not be true in such a deep gravity well, or so far from the Sun, or on a planet whose name beings with J. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2005 : 20:46:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
... I've left out the effects that the structural integrity of the shell might have ...
Nice job of quantifying a "common sense" model illustrating some of the problems inherent to all of this, in terms of the physics as is classically assumed... I'll just throw in an intuitive comment on the part cited. Consider the tensile properties of iron and its related alloys as we understand it... at the temperatures involved, I first strongly suspect (if there's any doubt whatsoever) that whatever "solid" is hypothetically below the surface of the sun defies metallurgy in all of the the mechanical senses known (aside from the solid/liquid-state debate, consider the forces involved- unless they're all in incredibly perfect equilibrium, could this "solid" be a powder of properties unbeknownst to man?) and material science... to start with, a mechanism explaining the luminescence we observe in terms of particle interactions with a gas... resulting in a plasma above a "solid" surface... if the energy given off by fission interacts with a gas above a solid surface to give off light, a mechanism to explain the wavelengths we observe should be given... a sort of Cherenkov Radiation (I think I recall that name of the effect?) strange as it seems that this kind of secondary energy production on the magnitudes observed would be possible- along with the other energies... EXCEPT... we have the mysterious "gravity wave" relativistic effects which might be distorting the way we perceive the way things "really are"...
Now, just gut feeling- what are the chances that the mass/energy, temperature, neutrino, etc. measurements as previously blabbed about just entirely coincidently correlate so well with a completely different, well-understood subatomic phenomenon, in light of all of the "reaching" involved here?
I'm not trying to "shred" Mike's posts here... he may have uncovered some kind of solar phenomenon unbeknownst to modern science- beyond that, though- if that's the case, it would seem the wildest circumstantial case ever if all of the speculation were proved correct, as opposed to fusion.
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26025 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2005 : 21:47:16 [Permalink]
|
You know what, Ron? I didn't even think about the fact that iron becomes much more malleable long before it actually melts. That's why blacksmiths work as they do, instead of just pouring molten steel into molds. So, while hot iron isn't going to be nearly as flexible as the 1x1-meter columns "model" (which contains the implied assumption of zero friction between columns), at even just 1000° C, an iron shell - while a solid - certainly isn't going to act in precisely the same fashion, physically, as a room-temperature iron shell would. Deformation (by gravity or pressure) will take much less force.
Cherenkov radiation is the blue light given off by electrons in a water bath which exceed the speed of light in that water. But Mozina's explanation for the wavelengths we observe is simply that electrical arcs create the plasmas we see, much like electrical arcs create a plasma in a lightning strike.
Of course, all of this depends - absolutely - upon how the iron shell could form in the first place. I suspect the answer we might hear will involve the iron (and other elements) coating the surface of the neutron (or fissile) core until the coating is complete, and then a "pressure" building up underneath which "inflates" the shell to the point that the pressure and gravity are in equillibrium. Obviously, this requires the pressure to start at extremely high levels (gravitational forces being so much higher closer to the core), and drop as the shell expands.
These are all problems for the model to solve. Mozina asked why the Sun would be unique compared to the planets, and the reason is rather obvious in the model he offers - no planet is thought to consist of a solid "shell" over top of a gas or vacuum of any sort (even the gas-fusion model posits a Sun which is entirely plasma), but that's what Mozina's model requires in order for the average density of the Sun to be measured as it is when more than half of the mass is high-density iron.
Unless, of course, there's something unknown going on, but Mozina can't offer any details of what that "unknown" stuff might be (for obvious reasons - he doesn't know, either). And as has already been pointed out (and not successfully rebutted), a model based upon "we don't know everything" is as good as any other model based upon "we don't know everything."
And these criticisms aren't meant to "shred" Michael's model, either. They're intended to be constructive in that, if convincingly answered, his theory will that much stronger. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2005 : 23:52:19 [Permalink]
|
Right... thanks for correcting RE light source... it's been a few days since I've read the postings, and I was tired earlier when I commented on your most recent- thought about it, then recalled the electrical activity... comment RE radiation ionizing gas was sleepy a thought (I remembered there were a few types of light source from ionizing radiation- common misnomer is that radioactive things "glow"... they don't, of course... just the air, water, or other environmental media around them.) More awake now.
As for the iron model, and your clever integration by columns, interesting analysis, with as much unexplained as there is... assuming the images can't be accounted for by some kind of optical/instrumentation or other interference factors, Mike might be onto something novel with physical processes unexplained- my skepticism is applied to the overall picture. But something new and neat could very well come of his efforts, anyway. It would be good to see. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9692 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2005 : 03:11:02 [Permalink]
|
An examination of the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn, with such a high percentage of hydrogen and helium gives us vital clues as to how the solar system was born:
Juipter is larger and Saturn. There is a correlation between the the amount of hydrogen and helium in the atmospheres of these two planets: greater mass - higher percentage of the planet is hydrogen. This also applies on the rest of the planets.
The mass of the sun are hundreds of times as great as the rest of the planets together.
Given these two premises, the sun would have much much higher hydrogen ratio compared to other substances including non-volatiles like iron.
Another interesting thing is that there are new stars forming in many places throughout our part of the galaxy. In all cases, while the "dust clouds" from which they are forming contains supernova remnants, those clouds are made of mostly hydrogen. Why should our solar system be any different? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2005 : 13:22:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
[quote]Great. No sweat. Now we can move on and wait for the pictures. See how easy that was?
But I wasn't the one that claimed that this satellite system COULD NOT see the solar surface! I should not have to PROVE to anyone how a NASA satellite system is "designed" to work for goodness sake! |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2005 : 13:24:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
http://wwwsolar.nrl.navy.mil/STEREO/assets/secchi.pdf
http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/img/stdt.pdf
Thanks for the links. In my reading about STEREO, I had not found these. These have much more data than the stuff I found on my own, and show that the impression I got of STEREO's imaging capabilities to be incorrect.
Thanks for that acknowledgment. I think this is exactly the kind of system we need to settle this dispute. My "prediction" is that this technology will demonstrate that the "transitional region" is not located in the lower corona where it has always been "assumed" to be located. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2005 : 14:08:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
[quote]Great. No sweat. Now we can move on and wait for the pictures. See how easy that was?
But I wasn't the one that claimed that this satellite system COULD NOT see the solar surface! I should not have to PROVE to anyone how a NASA satellite system is "designed" to work for goodness sake!
Right. Your claim was that it could. You did have to demonstrate that much, and you did, so no worries. Just don't pretend the burden of proof wasn't on you when you were the one who brought STEREO into the discussion. Like I said earlier, doubting one of your claims is not the same thing as making a new claim.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/12/2005 14:09:50 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2005 : 18:07:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
An examination of the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn, with such a high percentage of hydrogen and helium gives us vital clues as to how the solar system was born:
Well, maybe. It depends on what kind of clues you are trying to derive from this information.
quote:
Juipter is larger and Saturn. There is a correlation between the the amount of hydrogen and helium in the atmospheres of these two planets: greater mass - higher percentage of the planet is hydrogen. This also applies on the rest of the planets.
The mass of the sun are hundreds of times as great as the rest of the planets together.
Given these two premises, the sun would have much much higher hydrogen ratio compared to other substances including non-volatiles like iron.
In the sense that a small body like the moon doesn't actually "hang onto" hydrogen very well, whereas larger bodies *MIGHT* hang onto more of it, I agree with what you are tying to suggest. The problem however is that even our own sun doesn't seem to be "hanging onto" it's hydrogen very well, and it could be that we are only looking at an outer atmosphere of lighter elements. Shoemaker Levy nine sure seemed to "slam" into something rather dense at a very shallow depth compared to the overall size of Jupiter.
quote:
Another interesting thing is that there are new stars forming in many places throughout our part of the galaxy. In all cases, while the "dust clouds" from which they are forming contains supernova remnants, those clouds are made of mostly hydrogen. Why should our solar system be any different?
The whole notion that hydrogen is the most abundant element is predictated on the believe that you can count photons and associate that with atomic abundance. If we were to apply that logic to the earth as it is viewed from space, we would be led to conclude that our earth is mostly made of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen, and has relatively few heavy metals.
As we look back into time we keep finding mature galaxies where none were expected, and we find that they are iron abundant as well. If these gas model theories were accurate, we would expect to see a rather significant change in the percentage of hydrogen compared to iron over the past several billion years. That is NOT what we see. Why not? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2005 : 18:10:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Right. Your claim was that it could. You did have to demonstrate that much, and you did, so no worries. Just don't pretend the burden of proof wasn't on you when you were the one who brought STEREO into the discussion. Like I said earlier, doubting one of your claims is not the same thing as making a new claim.
Your explanation would have been fine had you folks "asked" me to demonstrate that STEREO COULD help my case. It's quite another issue entirely to claim that STEREO CANNOT help my case and then expect me to disprove a false statement. Surely you can see that difference?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
