|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 12/13/2005 : 15:01:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Our planet doesn't glow, so I doubt the sun is made of "similar material."
Actually, it does "glow", just not as brightly.
quote:
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?
Did you even read my paper yet?
quote:
Electric arcs? Was that your hypothesis?
No. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/13/2005 15:02:31 |
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 16:31:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
RESPOSTED since nobody answered it the first time.....
I suppose you ignored Dave's post then?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.
Your lack of clarity is a bit frustrating. Posting a link to the findings you're talking about here would go a long way. I'll assume that you're talking about the paper Dave linked to in his reply.quote:
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?
Let's cut to the chase here. It's pretty obvious that a "stratification" layer (if that is indeed what you're seeing) is only a problem for the gas model of the sun if it is, in fact, a solid surface. If the so called "stratification" layer is actually a plasma then the gas model of the sun may require refinement, but to say it is useless and should be discarded would be pretty pinheaded. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 16:32:05 [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.
Sorry, H. Humbert, you are so wrong. Some people know a whole lot, and can substantiate their knowledge by simple observation. If it looks like it, it is. Read on to be surprisingly enlightened.quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
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.
Actually even the Earth is made up of a solid shell or solid stratified layer surrounding an inner core of gas and plasma. I think you'll find the following article supports the idea that a planet can have a very active core that is pressurized...quote:
Gravity and Pressure and Why the Earth Doesn't Have a Molten Iron Core (84K .pdf)...
Now science says there's a core of liquid iron.
I say its gas and plasma.
Big difference. I must be wrong.
Ah... not according to science i'm not wrong. Only fuzzy science says I'm wrong, but let me explain.
If the Moho discontinuity is as I say, and well, geology says, a true break in material and it is super dense then isn't it really the super thick shell of Earth, a geodesic sphere.
Whether its liquid or plasma below it. Neither are very secure as a base to rest on, are they?
It's a solid self supported shell folks, dense as near solid iron and geometrically supported.
Quite interesting stuff here don't you think? And some of the best scientific evidence I've found yet to support the iron shell sun theory. 
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 16:56:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Quite interesting stuff here don't you think? And some of the best scientific evidence I've found yet to support the iron shell sun theory.
 It's amazing how simply invalidating all of known science (or even just the inconvenient bits) makes anything possible. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 17:20:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
I suppose you ignored Dave's post then?
No. I simply don't see where it addresses this issue directly.
quote:
Your lack of clarity is a bit frustrating. Posting a link to the findings you're talking about here would go a long way. I'll assume that you're talking about the paper Dave linked to in his reply.
I've already posted it here several times I believe, but here it is again:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111
quote:
Let's cut to the chase here. It's pretty obvious that a "stratification" layer (if that is indeed what you're seeing) is only a problem for the gas model of the sun if it is, in fact, a solid surface. If the so called "stratification" layer is actually a plasma then the gas model of the sun may require refinement, but to say it is useless and should be discarded would be pretty pinheaded.
No, actually either way, it's a significant problem for contemporary gas model theory, either way you look at it. Of course you'd have to first explain how electrical arcs go from one area of a plasma "surface" to another. Once you get over that hurdle, you'd need to explain why it's stratified and sitting where it's sitting and what makes it stratified. Either way you look at it, contemporary theory is going to out the window.
The problem here with the current theory is that NOWHERE, and I mean NOWHERE is this "stratification" predicted in current gas model theory. If you disagree, point it out for me. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/13/2005 17:24:29 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 17:31:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
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.
Sorry, H. Humbert, you are so wrong. Some people know a whole lot, and can substantiate their knowledge by simple observation. If it looks like it, it is. Read on to be surprisingly enlightened.quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
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.
Actually even the Earth is made up of a solid shell or solid stratified layer surrounding an inner core of gas and plasma. I think you'll find the following article supports the idea that a planet can have a very active core that is pressurized...quote:
Gravity and Pressure and Why the Earth Doesn't Have a Molten Iron Core (84K .pdf)...
Now science says there's a core of liquid iron.
I say its gas and plasma.
Big difference. I must be wrong.
Ah... not according to science i'm not wrong. Only fuzzy science says I'm wrong, but let me explain.
If the Moho discontinuity is as I say, and well, geology says, a true break in material and it is super dense then isn't it really the super thick shell of Earth, a geodesic sphere.
Whether its liquid or plasma below it. Neither are very secure as a base to rest on, are they?
It's a solid self supported shell folks, dense as near solid iron and geometrically supported.
Quite interesting stuff here don't you think? And some of the best scientific evidence I've found yet to support the iron shell sun theory.
What a great paper! :) |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 17:35:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Quite interesting stuff here don't you think? And some of the best scientific evidence I've found yet to support the iron shell sun theory.
It's amazing how simply invalidating all of known science (or even just the inconvenient bits) makes anything possible.
Actually, this is simply a fallacy. There are two kinds of science, "hands on" science like computer science (my field of professional expertise), and "hands off" sciences that are mostly "theory", like astronomy. Only in the past 10 years have we had the technology to test conventional gas model theory. That is the only piece of science that we are talking about here, not ALL science or anything of the sort.
We can't simply ignore what we see in satellite imagery and heliosiesmology only because it doesn't fit a "theory" that has never been "proven" by direct observation to even apply to reality. That is what this debate is about, one theory, nothing more. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 18:31:17 [Permalink]
|
Michael, you're now just redefining the word "theory" to suit some strange purpose. The whole of computer science is based upon mathematics and logic. As such, it is a definitional field, in which things can be "proven" absolutely.
The electronics used to build computers are all based upon the wildly-successful electron theory, and equally successful quantum theory, with some of the theory of relativity thrown in for good measure (in GPS units, for example). Nobody has ever taken a picture of a single electron, but that doesn't mean that electron theory is somehow questionable. Your own theory about the Sun is necessarily based upon atomic theory and electron theory, and some of us are attempting to apply other relevant theories to it, like the theory of gravity and Newton's laws of motion (another theory, if not in name).quote:
We can't simply ignore what we see in satellite imagery and heliosiesmology...
We're not ignoring it, we are criticizing your interpretation of those data. If you cannot distinguish between ignoring data and showing you that you're wrong about that data, then any further discussion here will definitely be fruitless, and your goals here will go unfulfilled.quote:
...only because it doesn't fit a "theory" that has never been "proven" by direct observation to even apply to reality.
Except that it correctly predicts the energy outflow from the Sun, as well as the neutrino data. You even admitted as much, but now you've backpedalled to the point that you must claim those correct predictions have no bearing on reality.quote:
That is what this debate is about, one theory, nothing more.
Yes, your theory. Not the gas-fusion model, but your "something alloyed with iron and mixed with rock in a fairlly solid shell with a surface at 0.995R within the Sun and creating electrical arcs across its surface which (now) aren't electrical arcs" theory.
You can try to change the subject to whatever shortcomings you think the gas-fusion model has, but the good folks here will see right through such a transparent attempt to direct attention away from the questions you're not answering about your theory.
If your theory can't stand up to the questioning, then it's not much good. Later on tonight, I hope to post a list of all the questions you've failed to answer satisfactorally to date here in this thread. Both those questions with an actual question mark, and questions which were obviously implied within statements.
Oh, by the way:quote:
What information lead you to suggest this is a 70 minute video? Did Lockheed update their website with an explanation I missed earlier?
No, I got the information straight from Alexander G. Kosovichev's website:The first frame starts at 9:00 UT, July 9, 1996, and the subsequent images are obtained with 1-min cadence (a couple of frame were missing due to telemetry problems). The total length of the movie is 70 min of the real time. What made you think it was other than 70 minutes in length? You didn't think it was real time, did you? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 18:36:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
I suppose you ignored Dave's post then?
No. I simply don't see where it addresses this issue directly.
Ahh, so you were being coy.quote:
quote:
Your lack of clarity is a bit frustrating. Posting a link to the findings you're talking about here would go a long way. I'll assume that you're talking about the paper Dave linked to in his reply.
I've already posted it here several times I believe, but here it is again:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111
I'm sure you have posted it previously. Wading through the thread checking links is unnessessary though if you simply repost relevant links when appropriate.quote:
quote:
Let's cut to the chase here. It's pretty obvious that a "stratification" layer (if that is indeed what you're seeing) is only a problem for the gas model of the sun if it is, in fact, a solid surface. If the so called "stratification" layer is actually a plasma then the gas model of the sun may require refinement, but to say it is useless and should be discarded would be pretty pinheaded.
No, actually either way, it's a significant problem for contemporary gas model theory, either way you look at it.
In one scenario the gas model is completely falsified whereas in the other it merely needs refinement. I hope this distinction is not too subtle for you to grasp.quote:
Of course you'd have to first explain how electrical arcs go from one area of a plasma "surface" to another.
Again, don't be coy. What are you talking about here? Either go into greater detail or provide a link.quote:
Once you get over that hurdle, you'd need to explain why it's stratified and sitting where it's sitting and what makes it stratified.
You're holding the gas model to a much higher standard than the solid surface model though. If this is a sufficient reason to discard the gas model then it is more than sufficient reason to discard the solid surface model as well.quote:
Either way you look at it, contemporary theory is going to out the window.
This statement demonstrates a telling ignorance of the difference between refining a theory and overturning it.quote:
The problem here with the current theory is that NOWHERE, and I mean NOWHERE is this "stratification" predicted in current gas model theory. If you disagree, point it out for me.
This is pure retoric. The idea that a theory must predict everything perfectly or be discarded is ridiculous. Although it is not perfect the gas model is currently the best appoximation of the way the sun and other main sequence stars work that we have. As the "stratification" at .995R is studied I expect the gas model of the sun will be refined and improved. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 21:16:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
Why don't you link to some of the raw stuff so we don't have to tweeze through your poorly-structured website?quote:
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.
No, we use doppler to get information on the velocity of air masses. If you can point to a single use of the "doppler technique" to get information about stationary objects, I'll be glad to admit my mistake.quote:
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.
Oh, that's a crater? Sure, it's vaguely circular, but all of the light in that image comes from million-Kelvin iron ions, not necessarily on any "surface" at all. Do you have any images of that same area at that same time in white light? How about doppler? Without such checks, I'd be very hesitant to call a circular pattern of extremely high-temperature iron ions a "crater" at all. Similarity in pattern does not establish reality.quote:
You are confusing lighting changes with structural changes.
No, I am not. I am saying that with every difference image I've ever seen, the difference in pixel brightness between two or more original images is what winds up in the final image. The brightest pixels in the final image are those which had the largest numerical change in the originals. Perhaps, since you claim that you can use photoshop on the raw images to recreate the final, you should just tell us precisely which Photoshop tools you use, and in what order, given which raw images. That way, we can all be on the same page.quote:
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.
I don't see any movement or lighting changes, I see big bright blobs which indicate large changes in pixel brightness in the original, raw images.quote:
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".
Here is a raw movie with frames taken about 10 hours apart. I suggest you use your PhotoShop skills to make the difference movie yourself, since you might not trust us to do so. This movie (also raw) comes courtesy of the Voyager cameras, and has more frames to work with (also shot once every 10 hours or so), but they'd need to be resized and cropped to match them up. Oooooh, HERE is a good set of raw images to work from. Try that out. Post the results here.quote:
You are confusing a processing techinique here with some kind of optical trickery.
I am doing no such thing.quote:
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.
Nothing you've said has shown that difference images are not used to highlight differences, or that doppler images depict velocities.quote:
You can see that by watching the 17 gigabytes of videos like I did...
It is abundantly clear that you think watching four DVDs worth of videos makes you more of an expert not only on the composition of the Sun, but on the imaging equipment and the processing techniques. However, you seem to be lacking much in all of those areas. You didn't even know that the "tsunami" video covered 70 minutes of time! (Did you know that the bright streak from center off to the right is over 50,000 Km in length?)quote:
...or you can just watch the shockwave and sunquake videos on my website.
This would be pointless. I disagree with you about what the pixels themselves mean in real terms. Watching the videos will not resolve that dispute.quote:
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.
Why don't you link to one (or more) of them? That way, you'd be sure that any remarks I might make would be on a specific video (or videos).quote:
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 |
- 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 - 12/13/2005 : 21:37:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
No, SERTS only measured the really hot stuff which was spewing UV radiation. You'll notice that it doesn't show hydrogen at all, or carbon, or oxygen, or any of a number of other elements lighter than iron. Is that because they don't exist on the Sun? Of course not, it's because their ionization levels don't toss off photons in SERTS' UV range. SERTS had quite a limited view of what elements are in the Sun.quote:
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.
You say that as if the helioseismology articles talked of just one layer. However, the graph on page 10 shows at least four different layers. The one at 1.0R (duh), the one at 0.995R, the one at 0.985R and whatever exists below 0.975R. I would argue that, since the data matches up so well, there is another layer at 0.990R which doesn't expand and contract with the solar cycle at all.
You might also note that nowhere do the authors of this paper talk about anything solid. They talk instead about "the subsurface density stratification," just like oceanographers would discuss changes in salinity and/or temperature making "layers" in the ocean. They also note that their method is only good down to about 15,000 Km. As I calculated earlier, the smallest average thickness a layer with 51% of the mass of the Sun could be is 22,000 Km, unless you want to go with something even more dense than iron. The helioseimology paper shoots that idea full of holes.quote:
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.
No planet of which we are aware has a solid crust overlaying a gaseous or vacuum interior. They all get more dense the deeper one goes.quote:
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.
How long a time? Where are the side-by-side comparison images that show this alleged "erosion?"quote:
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.
Our planet has a solid crust over a dense-but-hot "liquid" magma, not over a gaseous and hollow interior. The idea that the Earth's crust would survive intact were all that magma to be replaced with some (unknown) gas is laughable in light of the fact that the crust can rise and fall depending upon how much water is on top of it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 22:38:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Michael, you're now just redefining the word "theory" to suit some strange purpose.
Not me. It's you that seem to be confusing "theory" with "law". The gas model is a theory. As such it can be proven false by observational evidence.
quote:
The whole of computer science is based upon mathematics and logic. As such, it is a definitional field, in which things can be "proven" absolutely.
Agreed. We aren't in opposition in ALL area of science, simply solar theory. Computer science is vastly different however since we can look at it up close and personal. Sun's are a completely different matter. That's where satellites and satellite images become crucial in determining useful theories from theories that don't actually apply in reality.
quote:
The electronics used to build computers are all based upon the wildly-successful electron theory, and equally successful quantum theory, with some of the theory of relativity thrown in for good measure (in GPS units, for example). Nobody has ever taken a picture of a single electron, but that doesn't mean that electron theory is somehow questionable.
And no one is claiming that it is. You seem to be building strawmen here rather than focusing on the materials I have presented. You are certainly preaching to the choir. I make my living selling computer software.
quote:
Your own theory about the Sun is necessarily based upon atomic theory and electron theory, and some of us are attempting to apply other relevant theories to it, like the theory of gravity and Newton's laws of motion (another theory, if not in name).
That's fine Dave, but your use of terms like "laughable" and the adversarial attitude you put into it is really uncessary, and I'm not ever going to be impressed with such a tactic. You might really try toning it down a bit. I think we'd both enjoy the discussion more if you did.
quote:
We're not ignoring it, we are criticizing your interpretation of those data. If you cannot distinguish between ignoring data and showing you that you're wrong about that data, then any further discussion here will definitely be fruitless, and your goals here will go unfulfilled.
One thing I've learned about debating scientific issues with folks over the years is that it is INFINITELY easier to "criticise" than to put ideas and interpretations on the table. So far I'm not seeing much in the way of a viable alternative. Got one? What is that stratified layer Dave, and why is it that no gas model prior to today has *EVER* predicted it to be there at that depth?
quote:
Except that it correctly predicts the energy outflow from the Sun, as well as the neutrino data.
The first one is easily explained in my model as well since both models have outer plasma layers. I'll give you the netrino one, but then I haven't seen enough neutrino images with any sort of resolution to tell if they come from the core or the arcs. Your neutrino data may be the data that ultimately sinks the gas model as well.
quote:
You even admitted as much, but now you've backpedalled to the point that you must claim those correct predictions have no bearing on reality.
I'm just keeping the issues separate Dave. I've given you the neutrino issue for the time being, but you seem reluctant to accept the fact that no gas model in history ever predicted at stratified layer at .995R. Why not? Come on! Apply that same skepticism to BOTH theories! What is that stratified layer and what makes your answer scientifically "better" than the one I offered?
quote:
Yes, your theory. Not the gas-fusion model, but your "something alloyed with iron and mixed with rock in a fairlly solid shell with a surface at 0.995R within the Sun and creating electrical arcs across its surface which (now) aren't electrical arcs" theory.
What? Dave, it's really not helpful for you to make me explain each and every detail to you individually. You seem to be very confused. It is the electrical arcs that provide the light we see in the 171, 195 and 284A filters. What are you talking about?
quote:
You can try to change the subject to whatever shortcomings you think the gas-fusion model has, but the good folks here will see right through such a transparent attempt to direct attention away from the questions you're not answering about your theory.
Come on Dave. I've patiently answered 14 pages worth of questions and I'm having to repeat myself many times because some folks dont even want to read through the whole thread before accusing me of not providing information.
There is a basic assumption in the gas model that deserves scrutiny here Dave, particularly in light of these satellite images. The gas model ASSUMES that nothing solid exists under the photosphere, but we do see a stratified layer just under a thin veneer of plasma. That is not unlike the thin atmosphere we see over the earths surface.
Now some how the gas model scientific community failed to predict this stratification we see at this VERY shallow depth, and you aren't the least bit skeptical about why that might be?
quote:
If your theory can't stand up to the questioning, then it's not much good. Later on tonight, I hope to post a list of all the questions you've failed to answer satisfactorally to date here in this thread. Both those questions with an actual question mark, and questions which were obviously implied within statements.
I've provided you with an entire website to look at and learn from. It's not fair for you to accuse me of failing to provide information to you Dave. I have. You can easily educate yourself thuroughly if you'd like. Instead you'd rather hurl silly insults back and forth and ignore the work I've spen |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 22:56:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, SERTS only measured the really hot stuff which was spewing UV radiation. You'll notice that it doesn't show hydrogen at all, or carbon, or oxygen, or any of a number of other elements lighter than iron. Is that because they don't exist on the Sun? Of course not, it's because their ionization levels don't toss off photons in SERTS' UV range. SERTS had quite a limited view of what elements are in the Sun.
Yes Dave I know, but we were talking about alloys and I have specifically suggested it's a type of calcium ferrite alloy. There are other types of metals and elements present in the spectrum that may also be involved in the various alloys, and there is likely to be rocky materials as well. We seem to be going in circles here over trivia when I've already gone out of my way to be quite specific.
quote:
You say that as if the helioseismology articles talked of just one layer. However, the graph on page 10 shows at least four different layers. The one at 1.0R (duh), the one at 0.995R, the one at 0.985R and whatever exists below 0.975R.
You are "interpreting" in multiple layers. That isn't necessarily so. It may simply represent boundries within top, middle and bottom of the stratified surface. They specifically talked about the stratification acting oppositely during the solar cycle. One side grows while the other shrinks. Sounds more like a crust to me.
quote:
I would argue that, since the data matches up so well, there is another layer at 0.990R which doesn't expand and contract with the solar cycle at all.
I'm thinking that you are interpreting wave movement as "layers". That's not necessarily so Dave.
quote:
You might also note that nowhere do the authors of this paper talk about anything solid. They talk instead about "the subsurface density stratification," just like oceanographers would discuss changes in salinity and/or temperature making "layers" in the ocean.
Except these move around by 10K+ during a solar cycle, and do so differently at the top, than at the bottom. The authors did not ever suggest a gas model explanation either Dave, and I have shown you Alexander Kosovichev's work that shows how this stratified layer blocks plasma flow. I see no gas model that has ever predicted this, nor did the authors attempt to explain it. How come? Where's the gas model layer that this stratification layer relates to, and why in the world can't we accept the obvious possilbity that it's a surface?
quote:
They also note that their method is only good down to about 15,000 Km. As I calculated earlier, the smallest average thickness a layer with 51% of the mass of the Sun could be is 22,000 Km, unless you want to go with something even more dense than iron. The helioseimology paper shoots that idea full of holes.
No, it does not. You are selectively reading in what you wish to hear and ignoring the fact that no gas model on earth ever predicted this stratified layer that blocks plasma flow at .995R. It's like that part in the Wizard of Oz where the Wizard says pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Come on Dave. If the gas model doesn't predict this, and it COULD be a surface, and it holds structure like a surface and emits arcs like a surface, it just could be a surface as well. You are simply reading in a 'best case' scenario and ignoring the rigid nature of this surface and ingoring those little electrical arcs altogether IMO.
quote:
How long a time? Where are the side-by-side comparison images that show this alleged "erosion?"
That depends on whether that part of the surface is more electrically active or less electrically active. You can see surface erosion in that gold Lockheed video. That's the peeling affect we see along the right lower corner.
[quote]Our planet has a solid crust over a dense-but-hot "liquid" magma, not over a gaseous and hollow interior. The idea that the Earth's crust would survive intact were all that magma to be replaced with some (unknown) gas is laughable in light of the fact that the crust can rise and fall depending upon how much water is on top of it.
So? I really can't see under the crust Dave, so I'm open to a lot of ideas about what might be under the crust. The core may be a type of fisionable plasma for all I know. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 23:55:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Michael, you're now just redefining the word "theory" to suit some strange purpose.
Not me. It's you that seem to be confusing "theory" with "law". The gas model is a theory. As such it can be proven false by observational evidence.
That's just a load of crap, and you should know it. Wake up and smell the BS you're making.
Newton's Law of Gravity was proven false by observational evidence.
The orbit of the innermost planet, Mercury, did not conform to the standard gravitational "law". It wasn't until Einstein's Theory of Relativity that the modified "law" was finally made to fit observational data. And there was no need to discard Newton's Law of gravity, only adjust it.
The fact that you're a "computer scientist" and not a physicsist is rather telling. The parallels to the scientists at the Discovery Institute is rather blatant, now that you are finally revealing you area of expertese.
If you are unfamilliar with the Dicovery Institute, they are a bunch of self-proclaimed "scientists" who thinks that a PhD in mathematics or structural engineering makes it possible for them to speak with authority against the theory of evolution. 
Oh, before I forget:
I've hidden a spoiler in the post, in case you don't get what I'm hinting at regarding the law of gravity. |
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. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 00:40:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Actually, it does "glow", just not as brightly.
I don't mean reflected light.
quote:
Did you even read my paper yet?
No, and I probably never will because I have no experience decyphering technical papers. A laymans explanation from you will be fine.
|
"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 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
