|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 11/30/2005 : 16:56:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Of course, an incorrect density prediction is not the only fatal flaw in your model that you fail to satisfactorily address.
The surface temperature of the sun is 5780 K and the melting point of iron is 1811 K. Bear in mind that at the surface of the sun pressure would be inconsequential.
This illustrates a second fatal flaw in your model.
Not only do density and temperature measurements disprove your model of the sun, they are also completely consistent with the gas model of the sun.
quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot
The sunspot itself can be divided into two parts :
* umbra (temperatures around 2200°C)
* penumbra (temperatures around 3000°C)
Quite the contrary! During sunspot activity we DO see an upwelling of plasma in a much lower temperature range, a temperature range that WOULD support the formation of solids. More importantly the work from Stanford also suggests that the plasma directly under the sunspot is actually HOTTER, than the surrounding plasma. This information would suggest that not only are temperatures that are condusive to the formations of solids "possible" underneath the photosphere, such an environment has actually already been confirmed.
http://soi.stanford.edu/press/ssu11-01/#movies
http://soi.stanford.edu/press/ssu11-01/Sasha/MPEG/sunssu2s.mpg
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 11/30/2005 16:57:39 |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 17:11:27 [Permalink]
|
Oh fer crying out loud. You are given clear and convincing evidence that supports the current theories about the makeup of stars and you say this:
quote:
These kinds of comments "disturb" me as a skeptic, not because you choose to put "faith" in one solar idea over another based on current evidence, but because you "believe" that there is A) any experimental evidence (as in lab experiments)
You sir have taken leave of your senses. You are not anything remotely close to a skeptic. You are so invested in the silly notion of a solid sun that nothing will ever convince you otherwise.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
trogdor
Skeptic Friend
198 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 21:14:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Of course, an incorrect density prediction is not the only fatal flaw in your model that you fail to satisfactorily address.
The surface temperature of the sun is 5780 K and the melting point of iron is 1811 K. Bear in mind that at the surface of the sun pressure would be inconsequential.
This illustrates a second fatal flaw in your model.
Not only do density and temperature measurements disprove your model of the sun, they are also completely consistent with the gas model of the sun.
quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot
The sunspot itself can be divided into two parts :
* umbra (temperatures around 2200°C)
* penumbra (temperatures around 3000°C)
but... if iron melts at 1811K and this sunspot's temp is more than 2000K then it would still not be solid!
|
all eyes were on Ford Prefect. some of them were on stalks.
-Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 21:23:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trogdor
but... if iron melts at 1811K and this sunspot's temp is more than 2000K then it would still not be solid!
Not if it has been infused with an alien alloy unknown to mankind, you ever think of that???? There are just too many variables to say for certain. Not to mention no one has ever accounted for the effects of dark energy on metallic solids in a deep space gravity well in a lab!
|
"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 |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 23:51:45 [Permalink]
|
Hi Mike,
First, if your suggestions were determined correct as opposed to the NASA interpretation of present, I'd certainly commend your perceptiveness, but as for how that relates to challenging the gas fusion model, I'd have to look into that a lot deeper before speculating or commenting as to what relevance this might have in light of other more plausible possibilities within the realms of conventionally accepted and empirically verified theories (if indeed, it has any practical relevance.) As mentioned, I'm not a PhD (let alone an astronomer) so I don't claim my assessment is other than that of a layman- that means my conclusions are probably the way the average guy/gal "pulled off the street" would see things if motivated to spend a few days seriously investigating and considering the issue, with maybe an unbiased advisor to answer miscellaneous questions (with a cash prize for therein "arguing it right.") Along those lines, I listed some of the major facts (all verifiable) and how I see things relating in the big picture, yet I claim no expertise (although I'm convinced) so "take it with a grain of salt" as one will. RE the nuclear chemistry issues being on your side, the same applies- I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment- but there's such a preponderance of overwhelming (and less-arcane) evidence that's understandable by the average arithmetic-capable adult who has a little "feel" for probabilities (at most with a little explaining) yielding implications of such gravity (another pun) that the conclusions seem indisputable... I don't think I need a PhD in astronomy or nuclear chemistry to call this one right. All it takes is a general understanding of physics and probability to appreciate how amazingly consistent and strong the conventional arguments are.
RE your criticism of experimental evidence (such as radiometric, spectral, thermal, and more recently neutrino experiments) and how it all ties-in so well with mainstream theory, I think it's all extremely solid and incredibly compelling- just because I haven't "seen" quantum tunneling or a DNA chain forming doesn't mean I should be skeptical of these things. If everyone demanded the kind of evidence you seem to demand, we never would have gotten beyond sailing the oceans, or "mold medicine" (as penicillin- if we even would have gotten that far.)
RE your suggestions that relativistic factors could somehow be distorting our perceptions, the gravity waves, etc. for fun, let me throw out a "crackpot" experimental way we could verify or refute your claim... tell me if you'd agree. Since validation of your theory would have such sweeping and far-reaching implications, I think the expense would be more-than-justified if you could provide enough theoretical and empirical evidence to raise doubts. This is easily doable with current facilities and technology, and wouldn't even be overly-expensive by NASA standards. Fission and thermonuclear detonations have well-understood energy emission patterns, and predictable neutrino emissions as well. We send a rocket with 3 nuclear devices and 3 sensor probes towards the Sun (long as we're doing the expensive initial sun-trajectory part, might as well get more data for the buck.) Enroute units are easily vectored-off with burns to coordinates (at time points months after launch) relative to a moving axis between earth and sun. For instance, one nuke might be planned to detonate N sun-radii adjacent to the sun relative to the moving axis, with probes strategically placed. We know precise Earth launch/detonation times/positions, and the probes spectral and neutrino sensor locations for telemetry (because the neutrino collection rates vary increase with inverse square of distance, small apparatus would suffice.) If the neutrino and spectral collection data from the sun, and the nukes, at the sensor probes (and what our sensors received here on Earth) were exactly as Special Relativity would predict, and spectral/neutrino evidence consistent with p-p fusion and beta decay from fission, would you acknowledge that (1) the fusion model is right, and (2) any relativistic effects you cite as speculatively distorting our perception either don't practically exist, or are somehow offset so they are essentially rendered moot?
Oh yea, I don't know if the frequency of big-enough asteroids would permit this considering allignment timing, but if pure-science wasn't enough cause, use one of the 3 nukes (or add a 4th) to attempt an asteroid trajectory adjustment experiment (I've seen enough movies to suggest there might be enough paranoia to make funding more likely... talk about bang for the buck! : ) |
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 12/01/2005 03:12:54 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 06:59:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
A supernova event is a very energetic event. The core itself may even split apart into framents from such events.
A supernova occurs when a massive star expends it nuclear and the core collapses under the force of gravity. The shock wave from the collapse throws off the outer layers of the star. The core does not split into fragments. You seem to think there is some sort of 'bomb' in the center of the star that explodes - this is not the case.
quote:
It probably took quite some time for any of the core fragments to form shells (assuming the core is neutron star material) or to form large structures with fissionable material at the core.
What possible mechanism could cause neutron star matterial (a teaspoon full has the mass of a large mountain) to form a shell?? Let me help you, there is no known mechanism or force that would do that, gravity would cause the neutron star material to form a very compact sphere.
I'm sorry but your ideas just don't hold water.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 10:49:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trogdor
quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot
The sunspot itself can be divided into two parts :
* umbra (temperatures around 2200°C)
* penumbra (temperatures around 3000°C)
but... if iron melts at 1811K and this sunspot's temp is more than 2000K then it would still not be solid!
You are only talking about iron, not any and every iron alloy. Consider what we already know about the temperature of the sun and it's layers. The chromosphere sits above the photosphere is his much hotter than the photosphere. The umbra sits below the penumbra, and it's also a lower temperature than both of the layers above. There is certainly a "pattern" here as it relates to heat, and heat distribution, and solids can and will form in these temperature ranges.
The temperature that iron melts is related to conditions here on earth, in this gravity field, with this magnetic field. I cannot be exactly sure of the melting point of every iron alloy in solar like conditions. I therefore selected a temperature that was "reasonable" based on the temperature ranges we see in sunspot activity. Maybe it's a couple hundred degrees cooler. There is no "set" temperature that MUST apply, and no way to be exactly precise about the temperature at the surface at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 10:58:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
You sir have taken leave of your senses. You are not anything remotely close to a skeptic. You are so invested in the silly notion of a solid sun that nothing will ever convince you otherwise.
That is simply not so. Up until April of this year, I shared your faith in the gas model. If you could explain these images using gas model theory, I'd surely listen. I am open to a full and complete disection of these images and using them to support or refute various "theories" about how the sun "might" work, and see which theories best fit the observations from real satellites around a real sun.
The problem here is that you refuse to apply the same skepticism toward "current" models as you do any new model of the sun. If you were applying the same kind of skepticism toward the gas model theory that you are applying to Dr. Birkeland's notion of a metal sun, you'd insist that everyone be able to drop a few explanations into the discussion and remove all scientific doubt. As it is, everyone (not just you) avoids the actual satellite images like the plague. That is most likely due to the fact that there simply is not a gas model explanation for these images.
Skepticism is best applied to ALL ideas, regardless of popularity. These are real life satellite images of a real sun and it shows how a sun really works. The theory is only useful if it can explain the images in minute detail. Otherwise it is simply a handwave of an arguement without substance. I can and have in fact explained even the minute details of these images and how the fit into Dr. Birkeland's solid surface model of the sun. This is not MY model, but rather is it a model that USED to be take a lot more seriously, and will again be taken a lot more seriously, but only when "skeptics" start showing some "skepticism" toward gas model theory, and insist that gas model theory offer explanations for real life images. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 11:43:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
Hi Mike,
First, if your suggestions were determined correct as opposed to the NASA interpretation of present, I'd certainly commend your perceptiveness, but as for how that relates to challenging the gas fusion model, I'd have to look into that a lot deeper before speculating or commenting as to what relevance this might have in light of other more plausible possibilities within the realms of conventionally accepted and empirically verified theories (if indeed, it has any practical relevance.)
So even if NASA is proven wrong on something this important, and has been wrong for nearly ten years (December 3rd is SOHO's 10 year anniversary), you will still not "seriously" consider this idea?
Hmmm.
quote:
As mentioned, I'm not a PhD (let alone an astronomer) so I don't claim my assessment is other than that of a layman- that means my conclusions are probably the way the average guy/gal "pulled off the street" would see things if motivated to spend a few days seriously investigating and considering the issue, with maybe an unbiased advisor to answer miscellaneous questions (with a cash prize for therein "arguing it right.")
Yes, or perhaps that is just what the PhD's of the world would like you to beleive. Some just might insist that you couldn't possibly be capable of understanding what you see without a bunch of paper on the wall. That is absolute nonsense.
I've studied satellite images since the Yohkoh program. I've tried to "comprehend" these images using gas model theory, and while I could understand "some" aspects of what I was seeing, I could not put it altogether into a cohesive "package" that worked logically and fit the visual evidence. The DAY, and I mean the DAY that I saw the raw SOHO data that showed rigid features rotating uniformly accross a surface, I understood ten times more of what I has seen, and suddenly everything started to make sense. It is electrical activity (which you can see in these raw images) that creates the CME's. The arc produce the million degree temps in on otherwise 6000K surface. The plasmas sit above the surface, etc.
For the next several weeks, I had breakthroughs nearly every day in understand another image that had not made sense using purely gas model concepts. That process of revelation on a day by day, image by image basis convinces me that this model has merit and value and predictive as well as explanative abilities.
When you realize that all solar bodies are just like earth and form a crust, and electrical activity is the source of the coronal loops, everything does and will fit together just perfectly into a very cohesive package, and every image on my website can be explained.
So far we had talked about everything EXCEPT the actual satellite images, the things that could actually falsify or corroborate various theories. Why?
IMO that is mostly because people resist change and have a hard time believeing that "scientists" could be wrong about anything, let alone something this important. The problem however is that sometimes scientists are wrong, and it takes a good skeptic to prove it. Call me a gas model skeptic. Let's talk images and I'll prove it to you.
It won't matter whether you have a PhD, I can and will show you how to "understand" what you are seeing from a solid surface perpective, and it will make perfect sense to you once you understand it. It's all based on the flow of electricity through a predominantly iron crust.
quote:
Along those lines, I listed some of the major facts (all verifiable) and how I see things relating in the big picture, yet I claim no expertise (although I'm convinced) so "take it with a grain of salt" as one will. RE the nuclear chemistry issues being on your side, the same applies- I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment- but there's such a preponderance of overwhelming (and less-arcane) evidence that's understandable by the average arithmetic-capable adult who has a little "feel" for probabilities (at most with a little explaining) yielding implications of such gravity (another pun) that the conclusions seem indisputable... I don't think I need a PhD in astronomy or nuclear chemistry to call this one right.
What less archane evidence shows *any* correlation between satellite images and gas model theory?
You certianly don't need a PhD to get on the popular theory bus, but you do have to have a Phd to do what Dr. Manuel has done and prove via chemistry that the popular ideas are not the right ideas.
You do need a pretty solid understanding of science to make useful and meaningful choices about various competing models and how they fit with scientificly verified "laws" and such, but the single most important thing is an open mind. Without an open mind, there's no hope.
quote:
All it takes is a general understanding of physics and probability to appreciate how amazingly consistent and strong the conventional arguments are.
I do not doubt that the THEORY is well understood and "makes sense" in a scientific way. Unfortunately however, the fact it is well understood and seems to make sense is no guarantee that this idea has anything at all to do with how a sun actually functions. The only way to know if the theory is "correct" is to try to use it to explain direct observation. I can explain the direct observations using my model. Can you explain them with a gas model? Can anyone here explain these images with a gas model theory? Is it really that difficult to understand, or is it really as simple as looks? If the gas model theory has no explanative capability as it relates to solar images, of what value is it?
quote:
RE your criticism of experimental evidence (such as radiometric, spectral,
Trying to use spectral analysis to determine solar composition is a HIGHLY dubious was of seeing what a stellar body is made of. If that was useful, then recent spectral analysis of the earth from distance satellites proves that earth is mostly made of carbon and oxygen and hydrogen and nitrogen and has few heavy metals. All we SEE in spectral analsis are the elements involved, specifically the "shiney" elements, but not EVERY element.
Radiomentric data supports MY model, not the gas model.
quote:
thermal,
No, actually, from a thermal perspective, NASA's explanation does not work. I can prove that based on WIKI statements of solar output that measure it to radiate at 6000K rather than the millions of degrees that would be necessary to explain it NASA's way.
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/01/2005 13:19:27 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 13:25:58 [Permalink]
|
Why waste your time wit us, we just normal science folks? Proving it to us will get you nowhere, but really you havent even come close to that.
You should be winning nobels for years with your total debunking of known physics. Really.
|
"...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 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 13:49:05 [Permalink]
|
How ironic, I saw this over on the astronomy picture of the day.
For those who have had their interest piqued by Mikes conjectures, I would suggest following the links for some clear, easily understandable science involving the sun.
edit to fix the link, punctuation, spelling... |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 12/01/2005 14:05:48 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 14:23:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Why waste your time wit us, we just normal science folks?
How am I any different than a "normal science folk" other than the ideas I put faith in?
quote:
Proving it to us will get you nowhere, but really you havent even come close to that.
It's not really my job to "prove" anything to anyone. I'm really only interested in discussing the ideas with fellow skeptics that are willing to entertain new ideas. IMO, you don't need superpowers to understand how the sun works. It's not that complicated actually.
quote:
You should be winning nobels for years with your total debunking of known physics. Really.
If I'm proven right, we'll talk Nobels, but frankly that's just a silly idea at the moment. I would expect that such a prize should go to Dr. Manuel who's been at this for over 3 decades. Unfortunately he didn't have any direct satellite or heliosiesmic evidence to support him way back then.
Science changes in leaps and bounds. Until just ten years ago, we had no ability to "see" underneath the photosophere or to put the *ASSUMPTION* that no solid surface exists under the photosphere to the test. We've had no ability to falsify or confirm this ASSUMPTION until SOHO and TRACE satellites were launched. Even Yohkoh was pretty much limited to what transpires OUTSIDE of the photosphere. In scientific terms, 10 years is but the blink of an eye. In another 10 years there will be data for a whole host of new satellites to confirm or refute the idea that no solids exist under the photosphere. So far however, we already know that SOHO and TRACE see "structure" under the photosphere as you can 'see' in the video on the tsunami page of my website. These are Doppler images. In any other case, if I told you we could use Doppler images to see under plasma to reveal rigid surfaces under the plasma, you wouldn't hesitate to accept this. We already know from Alexander Kosochev's work that a stratified layers exists and starts around .995R and decends to depth of about .985R with some areas decending up to .97R. These are very shallow depths and depths that are entirely consistent with the location of the surface we showed in the paper that Dr. Manuel and I did in early October. That information is only less than two months old. Again, these are increadibly short timelines, and I'm certainly not naive enough to believe that the whole of astronomy is going to shift gears in an instant, or that people are going to believe me just because I can provide evidence and explain images. It takes time to verify data in different ways. Dr. Manuel had to wait nearly 30 years of me to validate his work via satellite images, but it only took 2 weeks for our model of a stratified surface under the photosphere to be supported by heliosiesmology. That is now three unique and different areas of science that all provide evidence of Dr. Birkeland's iron terella model from the early 20th century. Birkleland had this stuff all figured out nearly 100 years ago. It's just taking us another hundred years to see his lab experiments corroborated by satellite images. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/01/2005 14:29:43 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 14:26:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
How ironic, I saw this over on the astronomy picture of the day.
For those who have had their interest piqued by Mikes conjectures, I would suggest following the links for some clear, easily understandable science involving the sun.
Yes, and I've talked to or emailed many of those same scientists to get a scientific explaination of these images, and they weren't any more able to do so than anyone else here. In fact Lockheed Martin wouldn't even tell me who created the image on their website so I could ask them questions about the way the image was put together.
If you doubt me on this point, email some of these folks and post their response. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 15:33:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It's not really my job to "prove" anything to anyone. I'm really only interested in discussing the ideas with fellow skeptics that are willing to entertain new ideas. IMO, you don't need superpowers to understand how the sun works. It's not that complicated actually.
Yes it is. You came up with it. It's your duty to prove your theory right and every other cosmologist and astrophysicist wrong - otherwise you're just ranting. And I'll tell ye, they won't be easily convinced. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 15:51:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Quite the contrary! During sunspot activity we DO see an upwelling of plasma in a much lower temperature range, a temperature range that WOULD support the formation of solids.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees! It's precisely this sort of illogic that makes you look like a crackpot.quote:
More importantly the work from Stanford also suggests that the plasma directly under the sunspot is actually HOTTER, than the surrounding plasma. This information would suggest that not only are temperatures that are condusive to the formations of solids "possible" underneath the photosphere, such an environment has actually already been confirmed.
No it wouldn't in fact Dave already addressed this point. He said: quote:
Temperature inversions can block air movement, and temperature gradients in the ocean can block water motion. That something can block plasma motion doesn't mean it's a solid.
You really do need to develop a basic understanding of what you're talking about if you expect to be taken seriously.quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot
The sunspot itself can be divided into two parts :
* umbra (temperatures around 2200°C)
* penumbra (temperatures around 3000°C)
Interestingly the introduction to this same article claims that sunspots are at roughly 5000 K. I'm not sure what accounts for this discrepancy.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
