|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 12/12/2005 : 18:19:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
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.
This is a totally bogus arguement. We can see the sunspot rotating and moving and changing. This is like claiming we can't tell the difference between looking at clouds from space vs. looking at a solid surface from space. It's not a meaningful arguement, and it's easily disproven. The difference here is movement. You can see all sorts of movement in the sun's photosphere after just a single hour.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/dot_ar8704_20sep99_sunspot.mpeg
Notice all that change? See how we observe convection forces? That is the way non solids behave.
Notice now how little movement takes place in this image over the course of several hours.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi
THAT stationary lack of movement is how solids behave. Now it's one thing to suggest that not EVERY "structure" is necessarily solid, but it is false to suggest we cannot tell the difference. I can certainly see the movement in clouds that is distinctly different from the non-moving (but rotating) surface. The dead give away in this case is that the structures in the photosophere move around over time, whereas the structures on the transitional layer rotate uniformly and do not move around like plasmas move around. You can see the difference in how these two layers behave in that tsunami video on my website. Notice that the photosphere carries the wave right over a rigid "structure" underneath that has all sorts of accute angles in 3D.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi
|
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2005 : 18:21:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You know what, Ron? I didn't even think about the fact that iron becomes much more malleable long before it actually melts.
I have already addressed this issue Dave. I have repeatedly suggested that we are talking about iron ALLOYS, not pure iron, and we are talking about iron alloys that are MIXED with rocky materials as in the image on my website of the range of likely materials. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2005 : 18:49:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
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.
Actually, that isn't silly either. Presumably all heavier elements came from supernovas. In this case you have a rock that formed directly from a supernova explosion.
quote:
The energy produced from neutron repulsion hypothesis is new to physics. Does your hypothesis require another new hypothesis about physics.
Not at all. We know our own planet has a hot core. There's nothing "new" about it. Whatever processes keep in hot, could and would apply to any body made of such elements.
quote:
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.
We also have compression forces and possible breeder reactions to consider, but yes, I am suggesting that heavy materials are involved, though not necessarily "solids" in the conventional sense.
quote:
Michael: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.
quote:
No, it has not. That is your interpretation of the data an interpretation that is not shared by the scientific community.
Show me what this "stratified layer" corresponds to in a typical gas model theory. Better yet, point me to a gas model theory that predicts it to exists at such a shallow depth.
quote:
The ‘structures' on the gas planets do not ‘move around' from pole to pole either.
There is however noticeable movement in the giant spot on Jupiter that is quite easy to see. You don't see that kind of movement on this stratified layer.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi
Notice in the last movie that we can readily see the liquid-like behavior of the photosphere as the wave passes through it, and we can see angular structures under the photosphere that are not affected by the movement of the wave in any way.
quote:
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.
Only in their outer atmospheres since that is a |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2005 : 18:55:11 [Permalink]
|
Ok, lets cut to the chase here.
We'll leave me out this arguement entirely for a moment and look at Stanford's findings related to a stratified layer at .995R. Assuming the gas model is useful, surely it would have predicted such a "structure" that breathes with the solar cycle. Can anyone show me a gas model that predicts this stratification at this depth? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2005 : 19:36:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
What is the rate of outflow of hydrogen from the Sun?quote:
Shoemaker Levy nine sure seemed to "slam" into something rather dense at a very shallow depth compared to the overall size of Jupiter.
That's a classic mistake, ignoring the fact that momentum is mass times velocity. A person jumping off a tall bridge will sustain injuries that are incompatible with the idea that water is "soft." An object diving into even a thin atmosphere at high speeds will quickly find itself overwhelmed by drag forces and heat. Just watch a Shuttle re-entry sometime.quote:
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.
What utter nonsense. The notion that Hydrogen is the most abundant element is based on the fact that nothing else fits the density measurements in a scientifically-supportable fashion.quote:
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.
If we applied that logic to just the Earth's atmosphere, we'd think the planet is made of 77% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and even more scarce levels of water vapor and other elements. (Where you get the idea that hydrogen makes up a significant portion of Earth's atmosphere is beyond me.) But then we'd measure Earth's volume, and it's mass, and say "well, this combination of elements can't possibly make the Earth's average density 5,155 kg/m3," so we would know that our gas-only model for the Earth is wrong.
On the other hand, our density measurements for the Sun do support the gas-fusion model.quote:
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?
You're not arguing against the gas model now, you're arguing against Big Bang cosmology. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2005 : 20:04:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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?
On December 2nd, I asked:And just how will STEREO accomplish such things? I'm asking which instruments will be used to make such determinations? STEREO is flying SECCHI, SWAVES, IMPACT and PLASTIC instruments. As far as I can tell, none of them probe deeper into the Sun than the upper photosphere. Rather than answer my actual question, you replied with:The photons at 171A, 195A and 284A do not come from the upper photosphere. And another bit (later on) about what STEREO should be able to do, but still no answer to the main question.
It was four days and many posts later that you deigned to answer the question.
There are many other questions you've failed to answer in this thread. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2005 : 20:36:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
This is a totally bogus arguement. We can see the sunspot rotating and moving and changing. This is like claiming we can't tell the difference between looking at clouds from space vs. looking at a solid surface from space. It's not a meaningful arguement, and it's easily disproven. The difference here is movement. You can see all sorts of movement in the sun's photosphere after just a single hour.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/dot_ar8704_20sep99_sunspot.mpeg
Notice all that change? See how we observe convection forces? That is the way non solids behave.
Notice now how little movement takes place in this image over the course of several hours.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi
Unfortunately, comparing a running difference movie of uncertain scale to a normal video of a sunspot is apples and oranges. Talk about a poor argument!
quote:
THAT stationary lack of movement is how solids behave.
The bright spots in diffence images tend to indicate lots of change. That implies that in the raw footage, we'd see lots of movement everywhere that movie had bright spots in it. Just like if you created a difference movie of Jupiter's Red Spot, it would turn into a huge bright oval.quote:
Now it's one thing to suggest that not EVERY "structure" is necessarily solid, but it is false to suggest we cannot tell the difference.
It's false to suggest that a difference image is what it is not, too.quote:
I can certainly see the movement in clouds that is distinctly different from the non-moving (but rotating) surface. The dead give away in this case is that the structures in the photosophere move around over time, whereas the structures on the transitional layer rotate uniformly and do not move around like plasmas move around. You can see the difference in how these two layers behave in that tsunami video on my website. Notice that the photosphere carries the wave right over a rigid "structure" underneath that has all sorts of accute angles in 3D.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi
From the proverbial horse's mouth, we can read:These frames are enhanced images of the line-of-sight velocity on the solar surface. In other words, no solid structure is seen in that video, the brightness of the pixels is dependent on how fast the material being imaged is moving. Considering how violent that particular solar flare was, and that the scientists' model of a flare depends upon a huge down-blast of electrons heating the surface, it isn't surprising to see long-lasting bulk movement of material (which is what those "structures" really are).
Once again, your insistence that this 70-minute movie shows a solid structure is based upon a misinterpretation of what the "images" represent. In this case, the "light source" making the pixels brighter or darker is provided by the motion of material in the photosphere of the Sun, plus enhancement to show off the ripples (which, when compared to the original images, clearly has washed-out much of the brighter spots so that the variability is lost).
I asked you before what a bright spot in a Doppler image represents. That's another question you failed to answer. Now I know, and it's not to your benefit. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2005 : 20:42:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I have already addressed this issue Dave. I have repeatedly suggested that we are talking about iron ALLOYS, not pure iron, and we are talking about iron alloys that are MIXED with rocky materials as in the image on my website of the range of likely materials.
That image doesn't tell me squat. What are the constituents of the "shell" that you posit? Given such information, we can make a first-order estimate of its density, and that coupled with the fact that you claim the Sun is 51-75% iron will tell us the average thickness of the shell. From there, we can calculate the average gravitational pull on the shell from a core comprising somewhere between 25% and 49% of the Sun's mass, and from that we can calculate the pressure needed to keep the "shell" from shattering under its own weight.
After all, you have claimed that the shell can "rupture," so it certainly isn't immune to stress fractures and the like. You also claim that the shell "breathes" with the solar cycle, so it's not completely rigid, either. I suspect that whatever material you posit for the shell can be shown to be much less strong (pound for pound) when formed into a 1.3-million km hollow sphere than is a 1-kg rock here on Earth. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2005 : 20:52:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Ok, lets cut to the chase here.
We'll leave me out this arguement entirely for a moment and look at Stanford's findings related to a stratified layer at .995R. Assuming the gas model is useful, surely it would have predicted such a "structure" that breathes with the solar cycle. Can anyone show me a gas model that predicts this stratification at this depth?
A failure of the gas model to predict a "stratified layer" (teehee) anywhere is not a vindication of your model, and is not "cutting to the chase," but rather an attempt to divert attention from your own model, which is what some of us here are interested in. I'm not saying that the gas-fusion model is perfect, but I do want to know why your model is better, and so far you haven't shown me anything of the sort (quite the opposite since I would have to trade decent explanations matching observations for "we don't know").
After all, the Stanford findings (the link I got from your website) indicate that the layer at 0.995R shrinks when sunspot activity is at a maximum, and expands at solar minimums. Funny enough, but layers under that one do the opposite. How does the "unknown substances alloyed with iron and mixed with rock in a shell model" explain that particular data point? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 06:46:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
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.
Actually, that isn't silly either. Presumably all heavier elements came from supernovas. In this case you have a rock that formed directly from a supernova explosion.
No. You have elements (ie atoms) formed from from supernovas. Not rocks. The formation of 'rocks' from a supernova would be a new hypothesis in astrophysiscs.
quote:
quote:
The energy produced from neutron repulsion hypothesis is new to physics. Does your hypothesis require another new hypothesis about physics.
Not at all. We know our own planet has a hot core. There's nothing "new" about it. Whatever processes keep in hot, could and would apply to any body made of such elements.
Come on Micheal! Are you really saying the core of the earth is hot, therefore energy from neutron to neutron repulsion is viable? One has nothing to do with the other. Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker.
quote:
quote:
Michael: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.
Show me what this "stratified layer" corresponds to in a typical gas model theory. Better yet, point me to a gas model theory that predicts it to exists at such a shallow depth.
Just for the sake of argument lets assume that no gas model of the sun predicts the stratified layer. That does not mean your model is right by default. Your model has so many holes in it, it looks like swiss cheese.
You have given absolutely nothing that I can see to convince me that your model has any validity. You have talked about 'dark matter', oscilations of the sun, neutron to neutron energy production, 'some sort of fission process' and iron shells that can resist the collapsing into neutron stars by 'some repulsive force'.
You call this a theory???
It is going to take a hellofa lot more to abandon a model of the sun that actually describes what we see, has predictive power, and doesn't need to invent new physical process to work.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 14:08:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Unfortunately, comparing a running difference movie of uncertain scale to a normal video of a sunspot is apples and oranges. Talk about a poor argument!
There's no difference here Dave, and we can see these same "structures" in this "stratified layer" in raw images as well. In fact it was the structures in the RAW EIT images from SOHO that first caught my attention in the first place. The structures are easily visible in standard and even doppler images. We are comparing apples to apples. The doppler technique, or the running difference technique allows us to image the surface through the photosphere. We use doppler imaging here on earth to peer through cloud cover as well. It's not that unusual, nor is the running difference technique involved in "creating" any structure. These same structures can be seen in the raw TRACE images as the third and forth images on my first page demonstrate. That crater isn't moving, even though the lighting is changing.
quote:
The bright spots in diffence images tend to indicate lots of change. That implies that in the raw footage, we'd see lots of movement everywhere that movie had bright spots in it.
You are confusing lighting changes with structural changes. They aren't the same thing. The lighting changes in that TRACE movie, but the "structures" in the images do not move. There is no MOVEMENT of the STRUCTURE, just lighting changes reflecting from the same structure.
quote:
Just like if you created a difference movie of Jupiter's Red Spot, it would turn into a huge bright oval.
Show me any difference movie over several hours of Jupiter's red spot that doesn't show changes in the "structures".
quote:
It's false to suggest that a difference image is what it is not, too.
You are confusing a processing techinique here with some kind of optical trickery. These same structures can be imaged in doppler and raw images as well. It's not the technique that causes the structure, it's just that the technique *HIGHLIGHTS* these structures. You can see that by watching the 17 gigabytes of videos like I did, or you can just watch the shockwave and sunquake videos on my website. Even in the raw files, a lot of structure is clearly visible, and the fact that these same structures were highlighted in running difference images can be witnessed quite easily in the raw files where running difference images are embedded between raw footage. There are many such movies on SOHO's website.
quote:
I can certainly see the movement in clouds that is distinctly different from the non-moving (but rotating) surface. The dead give away in this case is that the structures in the photosophere move around over time, whereas the structures on the transitional layer rotate uniformly and do not move around like plasmas move around. You can see the difference in how these two layers behave in that tsunami video on my website. Notice that the photosphere carries the wave right over a rigid "structure" underneath that has all sorts of accute angles in 3D.
quote:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi
From the proverbial horse's mouth, we can read:These frames are enhanced images of the line-of-sight velocity on the solar surface. In other words, no solid structure is seen in that video, the brightness of the pixels is dependent on how fast the material being imaged is moving.
Its the CHANGE in the brightness that is "visible" in these doppler images. Doppler images certainly CAN isolate solid structures if they exist. If they don't exist, not much change should be visible. The same process that isolates the wave in that image is the same process that isolates the structures in the stratified layer. You see that wave because it interferes with and changes the flow of ions, and likewise you see the structures because they do the same. You seem to accept that we can see the wave in that image, but you wish to ignore the structure underneath? Talk about having your cake and trying to eat it too!
quote:
Considering how violent that particular solar flare was, and that the scientists' model of a flare depends upon a huge down-blast of electrons heating the surface, it isn't surprising to see long-lasting bulk movement of material (which is what those "structures" really are).
Those same structures exist for days and weeks. There is surface erosion, but the movement in that layer is nothing like the movement in the plasma layers. That tsunami video demonstrates this since the movement of the wave does not affect the structures under the wave. You'll note that in his recent paper, Alexander Kosovichev backed off from his earlier explanation about magnetic fields being the "cause" of this structure and he in fact pointed out the difficulty in trying to explain this "stratified layer" (with a particular thickness no less) with magnetic fields. In other words, he himself seems to be abandoning the explanation he offered me in June.
quote:
Once again, your insistence that this 70-minute movie shows a solid structure is based upon a misinterpretation of what the "images" represent.
What information lead you to suggest this is a 70 minute video? Did Lockheed update their website with an explanation I missed earlier?
quote:
In this case, the "light source" making the pixels brighter or darker is provided by the motion of material in the photosphere of the Sun, plus enhancement to show off the ripples (which, when compared to the original images, clearly has washed-out much of the brighter spots so that the variability is lost).
I asked you before what a bright spot in a Doppler image represents. That's another question you failed to answer. Now I know, and it's not to your benefit.
I'm afraid that your explanation leaves a lot to be desired Dave. The reason we see the ripples in the photosphere is because this movement interferes with the flow of the Nickel io |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/13/2005 14:09:47 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 14:20:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
No. You have elements (ie atoms) formed from from supernovas. Not rocks. The formation of 'rocks' from a supernova would be a new hypothesis in astrophysiscs.
Huh? Show me a paper about supernova explosions that suggest that no "rocks" are released in the explosion, only "atoms"?
quote:
Come on Micheal! Are you really saying the core of the earth is hot, therefore energy from neutron to neutron repulsion is viable? One has nothing to do with the other. Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker.
How do you *know* that one has absolutely nothing to do with the other?
quote:
No, it has not. That is your interpretation of the data an interpretation that is not shared by the scientific community.
So explain that stratified layer at .995R that we see in these satellite images. What gas model predicted this stratified layer at this depth?
quote:
Just for the sake of argument lets assume that no gas model of the sun predicts the stratified layer. That does not mean your model is right by default. Your model has so many holes in it, it looks like swiss cheese.
You have that backwards. Its the gas model theory that has so many holes it's starting to look like swiss cheese. You can't even explain the first few images on my website with gas model theory in fact. If you can't even explain a few rudimentary real life images with your theory, what value is there in that theory in the first place? That stratified layer exists according to Stanford, and they offered us no insights into what it's doing there, or what it represents in gas model theory. If they can't explain it, what makes you think you can either? Can you?
quote:
You have given absolutely nothing that I can see to convince me that your model has any validity. You have talked about 'dark matter', oscilations of the sun, neutron to neutron energy production, 'some sort of fission process' and iron shells that can resist the collapsing into neutron stars by 'some repulsive force'.
You call this a theory???
Yes, and a darn good one. You folks are the ones that are ignoring the images, and trying to use a heliocentric concept of reality to "prove" a silly model that has never been validated by real life observation. My explanation and theories include a full explanation of the details of all these images.
You call the gas model a theory even though it never predicted a stratified layer at a shallow depth, and never accounted for the possibility that something solid COULLD exist under the photosphere?
quote:
It is going to take a hellofa lot more to abandon a model of the sun that actually describes what we see, has predictive power, and doesn't need to invent new physical process to work.
I'm sure it will take more data to convince folks to abandon a beloved myth. Faith in the gas model is more like a "religion" than a "science", since it cannot even be used to explain a few rudimentary satellite observations. Current faith in the gas model is not based on direct observation so it's really more a statement of faith than a statement of fact. If you can't predict anything with it, what good is it? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 14:27:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
That image doesn't tell me squat. What are the constituents of the "shell" that you posit?
Check out the SERTS data listed in my first paper. That will tell you the ELEMENTS involved, but it won't tell us the exact composition of the specific alloys. In fact there could be quite a range of alloys mixed with a range of rocky materials. I'm quite sure it's not homogenous.
quote:
Given such information, we can make a first-order estimate of its density, and that coupled with the fact that you claim the Sun is 51-75% iron will tell us the average thickness of the shell. From there, we can calculate the average gravitational pull on the shell from a core comprising somewhere between 25% and 49% of the Sun's mass, and from that we can calculate the pressure needed to keep the "shell" from shattering under its own weight.
I'm not sure it's even a "shell" as you suggest in the first place. Perhaps it is, perhaps it's more like a planet with a very active core that is pressurized, but I really can't see anything under the surface, just the surface. I can speculate about the depth based on the heliosiesmology data, but I don't know what is underneath of this stratified layer.
quote:
After all, you have claimed that the shell can "rupture," so it certainly isn't immune to stress fractures and the like.
Yes, that is correct. I've seen the surface rupture and it's filled in with what looks to be a type of magma. It behaves very much like a planet in that respect.
quote:
You also claim that the shell "breathes" with the solar cycle, so it's not completely rigid, either.
That's a relative term here since we are talking about an 11 year cycle. There is in fact a great deal of surface erosion and the surface does change over time.
quote:
I suspect that whatever material you posit for the shell can be shown to be much less strong (pound for pound) when formed into a 1.3-million km hollow sphere than is a 1-kg rock here on Earth.
That may be the case, but I don't know that to be the case. Assuming it has the same sort of rocky materials we see here on earth, I fail to see why it would necessarily be a "weaker" surface than the surface of our own planet. It does however experience a lot of erosion, and in that respect the surface is much more dynamic than the surface of our planet. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 14:28:09 [Permalink]
|
RESPOSTED since nobody answered it the first time.....
quote:
Ok, lets cut to the chase here.
We'll leave me out this arguement entirely for a moment and look at Stanford's findings related to a stratified layer at .995R. Assuming the gas model is useful, surely it would have predicted such a "structure" that breathes with the solar cycle. Can anyone show me a gas model that predicts this stratification at this depth?
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 14:38:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Assuming it has the same sort of rocky materials we see here on earth, I fail to see why it would necessarily be a "weaker" surface than the surface of our own planet. It does however experience a lot of erosion, and in that respect the surface is much more dynamic than the surface of our planet.
Our planet doesn't glow, so I doubt the sun is made of "similar material." Even a planet with a surface that was completely molten wouldn't have the luminosity approaching anywhere near what the sun has. What the hell is producing all that light if there is a rocky-iron shell shielding the sun's innards? Electric arcs? Was that your hypothesis?
|
"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 12/13/2005 14:42:53 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
