|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 12/15/2005 : 18:55:38
|
|
New thread. Same debate.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 19:55:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina over here
Take it up with Stanford and UCLA. I just used their verbage.
No, you didn't. Lefebvre and Kosovichev don't use the adjective 'stratified' even once in that paper. They use 'layer' (or its plural) 25 times, but never in conjunction with any form of the word 'stratified'. They do use 'stratification' fives times, total:Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle [title]
We report on the changes of the Sun's subsurface stratification inferred from helioseismology data. [abstract, first sentence]
We have found a variability of the "helioseismic" radius in antiphase with the solar activity, with the strongest variations of the stratification being just below the surface around 0.995R. [abstract, third sentence]
This, so-called "seismic" radius, is related to the subsurface density stratification and can be compared with the "photospheric" radius, as inferred by astrolabe ground-based measurements, for example, only by using solar models. [page 2]
Fig. 3 shows non-monotonic changes in the stratification with the inner layer (below 0.99R) moving up during the increase of activity (compression) and the outer layer (above 0.99R) moving down (relaxation). [page 5] That last part is interesting for two reasons: it's discussing the figure on page 10 that you claim I'm misinterpreting some unspecified "wave movement," and because it continues with:The precise localization of these layers is uncertain because have a characteristic width of about 0.005R. The test inversion in Fig.7 (middle panel) shows that this uncertainty can be about the half-width of the averaging kernels, about 0.003R. In other words, the 0.995R figure has a +/- 0.003R uncertainty, or about 4,196 Km. Wouldn't the seimic difference between a solid and a plasma above it be much easier to pinpoint, the density difference being much larger than it would be for some density clines in a plasma?quote:
In this case I do think that the "stratification" is a solid surface, since it exhibits all the same features of our own crust here on earth.
Please provide a reference that demonstrates that the Earth's crust gets thinner and shrinks, then gets thicker and expands, over a years-long cycle.quote:
You seem to interpret this "stratification" in some other way, but in WHAT way? WHAT causes this stratification? What is "stratifying"?
The plasma is stratifying in different densities. One big convective zone can be, in reality, multiple convective layers.quote:
Actually, they didn't assume anything. Their equipment simply revealed a stratification point in the data.
Then why do they cite a bunch of prior research on the changes in subsurface stratification radii with the solar cycle? You make it sound like they were just doing some random helioseimology study of the Sun and out popped this stratification nobody had ever seen before. The fact is, the article tells the story of how the authors specifically chose to measure what they already knew was there: a subsurface stratification which changes over time. The only thing that "surprised" them was that the deeper layers of the Sun change out of phase with the upper layers.quote:
They "confirmed" my prediction of a "stratification" at a relatively shallow depth under the photosphere, something no gas model has ever predicted. Why is that Dave? Where's the prediction in gas model theory that shows this stratification at this depth?
Where's the prediction of humans in evolutionary theory? Where's the prediction of Teflon-coated copper wire in electron theory? Where's the prediction of ming vases in atomic theory?
The point being that the failure of the gas-fusion theory to predict a shallow density stratification (if it is, indeed, a failure) doesn't take anything away from all the predictive power it already has. Besides, for it to be a failure, Michael, you need to demonstrate that the gas-fusion theory should have predicted a stratification (of any sort) at that level. I don't understand why you feel the model deficient for failing to predict something for which there was, prior to the ability to gather helioseismologic data, no evidence whatsoever.quote:
That is true. Then again, I never claimed gas model theory didn't include the notion of stratified layers. I'm simply noting that nowhere does it predict this one at this depth. This is supposed to be the convection zone where heat is rising to the surface of the photosophere. What's a strafied layer doing sitting smack dab in the middle of the convection zone?
What are you talking about? The convection zone goes down to about 0.700R. 0.995R is way near the top, only 3,480 Km down. Percentage-wise, I see bigger bubbles than that when I boil water.quote:
You also see a lot of solid surfaces on these bodies as well. :)
Not in their atmospheres, you don't. |
- 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 - 12/15/2005 : 22:17:14 [Permalink]
|
Going back in time a little...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".
When did I do that?quote:
The gas model is a theory. As such it can be proven false by observational evidence.
Same with Ohm's Law. Moreover, it can even be falsified by indirect evidence such as helioseismology. Your trouble is that the gas-fusion model hasn't been shown to be wrong, yet.quote:
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.
Only if you can interpret the satellite imagery correctly.quote:
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.
As do I, but you're missing the point. You're the one who started tossing the word "theory" around as if it meant "educated guess." It does not. A theory is a well-tested set of hypotheses which explain natural phenomena and predict others. The iron-sun theory was rejected over 100 years ago as being an insufficient explanation of reality.quote:
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.
I certainly am not trying to "impress" you, but if you'd prefer I use the word 'absurd' to the word 'laughable', I will. I don't know what kind of "tactic" you think it is, but I was only pointing out the absurdity of the idea that the Earth's crust is strong enough to remain intact over a gaseous interior, when it frequently cracks and shifts as it is now, resting on a much more dense medium.quote:
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...
I've made suggestions about that already.quote:
...and why is it that no gas model prior to today has *EVER* predicted it to be there at that depth?
Why should a gas model have made such a prediction?quote:
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.
That's gotta be a joke, since the gas-fusion model posits the majority of its energy generation as being deep in the core, not in the plasma. How hot does the plasma in the iron-alloy-shell model have to be in order to match the observed output of the Sun in watts?quote:
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.
Have you seen even one "neutrino image"?!? Whether you answer yes or no to that, what process, going on in the plasma, might release neutrinos?quote:
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2005 : 05:19:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You also say, on that same page, "The work of Nicklas Eckland promises to answer the question of this layer's surface composition. The presence of calcium in the chromosphere suggests that the surface ferrite is likely to be a type of calcium ferrite..." Unfortunately, the link of Eckland's name is broken, and I don't read Swedish, so can't navigate that whole website to try to figure out which work of his you might be talking about.
The link to Nicklas Eklund's paper is broken because LKAB, a Swedish mining company is reorganizing it's website. The paper in question can be found here: http://old.lkab.se/pdf/pdf_papers/271004/2004_Trials_with_mixed_burden_in_the.pdf
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2005 : 06:29:11 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, Mab. Isn't it interesting that the only occurrence of the word 'ferrite' in that paper is this:At temperatures above 1200°C calcium ferrites melt and develop a slag containing silicate bonds. [page 5] That's lower than the melting point of pure iron. What "impurities," Mr. Mozina, are going to raise that temperature to the 2,000-plus K you'd like it to be? |
- 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 - 12/16/2005 : 12:03:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
You have presented the absurd conjecture of an iron {sorry iron alloy)shell that magically does not collapse into a neutron star.
There is nothing "magical" about pressure and heat. Blow up a balloon once and you'll get the idea.
Sorry for not being more specific. I understand pressure and it is easy to see where the pressure comes from for you balloon analogy. The problem is, what is the source of the pressure that can overcome the gravity of a neutron star and keep an iron alloy, located ~ 870,000 miles from the star, from being pulled into it. You do realize that a neutron star must have a mass more than 1.4 solar masses to exist. Kind of odd that a neutron star at the center of the sun must weigh more than the sun itself, but that is a different point. Even at 1.4 solar masses the gravitational acceleration at the location of your iron alloy is approximately 245 m/s^2. The escape velocity of a neutron star is approximately 50% the speed of light. So what the heck is the source of this pressure? Please do not hesitate to get as technical as you want, I fear that using the simplistic analogies such as balloons may not be getting your point across.
quote:
quote:
a silicon plasma that is somehow an insulator
Silicon is more resistant to current flow that iron. It's not really very complicated. Electricity always follows the path of least resistance.
OK, lets start with some basics. There are 4 states of matter: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Each of these different phases have different properties. Plasma is the state where the atoms have had some or all of their electrons stripped away. So a plasma is a mixture of electrons and positively charged nuclei. Notice we are NOT talking about silicon in the solid phase, we are talking about silicon in the PLASMA phase. A plasma cloud is a cloud of charged particles, so the valance electrons no longer have any meaning. A plasma cloud of iron or silicon in an electric field will be equally conductive.
quote:
quote:
and invented new power sources such as neutron to neutron repulsion.
I'm simply noting the implication of the work that's been done in the field of nuclear chemistry and trying to understand what keeps a neutron star cores from collapsing in upon themselves. There's nothing particularly unusual about this suggestion or this data.
I guess there are 2 points here.
First when you say "work that's been done in the field of nuclear chemistry", you are actually talking about the work being done by Dr. Oliver Manuel. It is bad form to use your own groups papers to support your paper.
Secondly, I have some good new - I know why neutron stars do not collapse on themselves! It is called the Pauli exclusion principal.
Here is a web site that discusses it in relation to neutron stars.
I am glad I could help your team to uderstand this aspect of your theory, there is no need to include my name on any of your papers - in fact I would insist that you do not.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 21:20:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina over here
Take it up with Stanford and UCLA. I just used their verbage.
No, you didn't. Lefebvre and Kosovichev don't use the adjective 'stratified' even once in that paper. They use 'layer' (or its plural) 25 times, but never in conjunction with any form of the word 'stratified'. They do use 'stratification' fives times, total:[bq]Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle [title]
Man, you're tapdancing on the head of needle here and avoiding the obvious. It's a "layer" that is "stratified". It has a defined TOP, and a defined BOTTOM that has been measured with "some" precision. This data shows us that this stratification is at a very shallow depth that corresponds to exactly nothing found in contemporary gas model theory. That stratified layer changes 10 kilometers underneath and many times that amount of change along the top side over the course of the solar cycle.
What does that tell us exactly? What gas model predicts it to exist right there? What is "stratified" in the first place?
quote:
We report on the changes of the Sun's subsurface stratification inferred from helioseismology data. [abstract, first sentence]
So what exactly is this "stratification"? How is this "stratification" achieved, and how does it shrink and grow differently at the top and bottom layers over the solar cycle?
quote:
We have found a variability of the "helioseismic" radius in antiphase with the solar activity, with the strongest variations of the stratification being just below the surface around 0.995R. [abstract, third sentence]
So what gas model predicted this stratification? What gas model predicts it to exist at this depth? What gas model explains this "stratification" they are describing?
quote:
Fig. 3 shows non-monotonic changes in the stratification with the inner layer (below 0.99R) moving up during the increase of activity (compression) and the outer layer (above 0.99R) moving down (relaxation).
Really? How so? What gas model explanation would you offer to explain that behavior?
quote:
Wouldn't the seimic difference between a solid and a plasma above it be much easier to pinpoint, the density difference being much larger than it would be for some density clines in a plasma?
You seem to be confusing the imperfection of the technique itself with some notion that a solid surface would show up with more precision. That isn't the case here. The KERNEL they describe relates to the mathematic imprecision of the technique, not the materials in question.
quote:
Please provide a reference that demonstrates that the Earth's crust gets thinner and shrinks, then gets thicker and expands, over a years-long cycle.
I can show you that parts of it subduct while some mountain ranges form at the top. I can show you evidence of a crack in the solar surface on the sunquake page of my website as well. I can show evidence of volcanic eruptions on both crusts as well. (See the shockwave page).
quote:
The plasma is stratifying in different densities.
Really? Where is that predicted in gas model theory again? What gas model shows such a stratifcation in plasma at that depth?
quote:
One big convective zone can be, in reality, multiple convective layers.
Layers of what? Are you suggesting that plasma is mass separated inside the sun? Shouldn't all the iron sink to the core then? Explain exactly what is "stratfied" about this plasma.
quote:
Then why do they cite a bunch of prior research on the changes in subsurface stratification radii with the solar cycle? You make it sound like they were just doing some random helioseimology study of the Sun and out popped this stratification nobody had ever seen before. The fact is, the article tells the story of how the authors specifically chose to measure what they already knew was there: a subsurface stratification which changes over time. The only thing that "surprised" them was that the deeper layers of the Sun change out of phase with the upper layers.
Actually the cited work that gave conflicting results and they pointed out the assumptions made in that prior work and how that differed from their assumptions. They could have found A) nothing, B) antiphase stratification, or C) in phase stratification. They saw both B and C at a very specific depth. Alexander Kosovichev's work suggests that this stratification blocks the flow of plasma at about 4800km or 3000 miles. That's nothing compared to the distance of the presumed convection zone.
M>Where's the prediction in gas model theory that shows this stratification at this depth?
quote:
Where's the prediction of humans in evolutionary theory? Where's the prediction of Teflon-coated copper wire in electron theory? Where's the prediction of ming vases in atomic theory?
That is not a rational response Dave. This is a highly relevant question that cuts to the heart of the usefulness of the gas model. It does NOT predict there to be a stratified layer at this depth. The current gas model is dead. You need a "better one" even if you intend to hang onto the gas concept. Don't blame me for the scientific data that destroys current gas model theory. I didn't invent the data.
quote:
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/20/2005 21:32:34 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 21:30:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Sorry for not being more specific. I understand pressure and it is easy to see where the pressure comes from for you balloon analogy. The problem is, what is the source of the pressure that can overcome the gravity of a neutron star and keep an iron alloy, located ~ 870,000 miles from the star, from being pulled into it. You do realize that a neutron star must have a mass more than 1.4 solar masses to exist.
I understand the "theory" just fine, and I've already talked about problems with trying to define the sun's total mass.
quote:
Kind of odd that a neutron star at the center of the sun must weigh more than the sun itself, but that is a different point. Even at 1.4 solar masses the gravitational acceleration at the location of your iron alloy is approximately 245 m/s^2. The escape velocity of a neutron star is approximately 50% the speed of light. So what the heck is the source of this pressure? Please do not hesitate to get as technical as you want, I fear that using the simplistic analogies such as balloons may not be getting your point across.
Let me explain here that while I think it is a likely possibility is that a nuetron core powers the sun, I do not rule out fission cores and particularly plasma covered fission cores as well. There are many possibilities of what might be underneath that visible surface. While I entertain a range of INTERIOR models, I tend to believe what I see on the outside surface of the sun and in it's thin atmosphere.
quote:
OK, lets start with some basics. There are 4 states of matter: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Each of these different phases have different properties. Plasma is the state where the atoms have had some or all of their electrons stripped away. So a plasma is a mixture of electrons and positively charged nuclei. Notice we are NOT talking about silicon in the solid phase, we are talking about silicon in the PLASMA phase. A plasma cloud is a cloud of charged particles, so the valance electrons no longer have any meaning. A plasma cloud of iron or silicon in an electric field will be equally conductive.
Could you show me a paper that demonstrates that silicon and iron plasma are equally conductive? This seems like a valid arguement if it's true, but I need to know your source.
quote:
I guess there are 2 points here.
First when you say "work that's been done in the field of nuclear chemistry", you are actually talking about the work being done by Dr. Oliver Manuel. It is bad form to use your own groups papers to support your paper.
Actually, I was thinking more in astronomical/chemical terms since neutron stars are a well accepted part of astronomy and they are predicted to exist in the field of nuclear chemistry, not just by Dr. Oliver Manuel. I was not citing his work specifically. Something must keep neutron stars from collapsing. What is that force that does that if not neutron repulsion?
quote:
Secondly, I have some good new - I know why neutron stars do not collapse on themselves! It is called the Pauli exclusion principal.
Here is a web site that discusses it in relation to neutron stars.
I am glad I could help your team to uderstand this aspect of your theory, there is no need to include my name on any of your papers - in fact I would insist that you do not.
Ya, one reference and you're off to the races congradulating yourself. Care to explain what makes your idea "better"? What precise observation demonstrates this is a "better" scientific answer than the one I offered you? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 22:26:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
As do I, but you're missing the point. You're the one who started tossing the word "theory" around as if it meant "educated guess." It does not. A theory is a well-tested set of hypotheses which explain natural phenomena and predict others.
Yet somehow these folks overlook and fail to predict a stratification layer at .995R? What exactly do you mean by "well tested"? Well tested "theoretically", or well tested OBSERVATIONALLY?
quote:
The iron-sun theory was rejected over 100 years ago as being an insufficient explanation of reality.
Oh? Why? Rejection by a bunch of folks with limited technology from 100 years ago isn't exactly impressive to me as you might imagine. I'm seeing images in these satellites that nearly mirror Dr. Birkelands metal sphere experiments. I see lots of iron in the SERTS data, and iron surfaces in satellite images.
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).
As I noted earlier, there are THEORIES that relate to direct observation and hands on observation, and there are THEORIES that do not fall into that category. We can't put the sun under a microscope. The best we can do it image it with satellites. These satellites don't show a uniform plasma sun. They show a statified surface with a thin plasma atmosphere.
quote:
I certainly am not trying to "impress" you, but if you'd prefer I use the word 'absurd' to the word 'laughable', I will. I don't know what kind of "tactic" you think it is, but I was only pointing out the absurdity of the idea that the Earth's crust is strong enough to remain intact over a gaseous interior, when it frequently cracks and shifts as it is now, resting on a much more dense medium.
You seem to be confusing concepts here. I'm talking about a core that is in the millions of degrees. What kind of density do you expect to see at those temps, and what kind of material is it likely to be, solid, gas, liquid or plasma?
quote:
Why should a gas model have made such a prediction?
Because if it was "accurate", it would have. If it was INACURRATE, it would not. If it was not accurate, we would need to find a "better" model to work with in the future. Why WOULDN'T it predict this stratification layer at this depth?
quote:
That's gotta be a joke, since the gas-fusion model posits the majority of its energy generation as being deep in the core, not in the plasma.
So what? All that is required is an outer plasma layer at that distance at that temperature. It doesn't really matter how heat arrives at that distance at that temperature. Both models just have a plasma shell at that distance at that temperature. No big deal. It's what is UNDER that plasma that is the "big deal".
quote:
How hot does the plasma in the iron-alloy-shell model have to be in order to match the observed output of the Sun in watts?
Evidently you don't quite grasp the model here. The iron-alloy-shell sits under plasma. The plasma surface at the photosphere has to be 6000K. That says nothing about what is above or below that point.
quote:
Have you seen even one "neutrino image"?!? Whether you answer yes or no to that, what process, going on in the plasma, might release neutrinos?
I did see an image somewhere of the nuetrino patterns imaged by the Japanese program over the course of more than a year. I think it was a 64 by 64 pixel image of the entire sky. Suffice to say it wasn't high enough resolution or nor was it a short enough period of time to draw many conclusions from it. If I run accross the image, I'll post a link for you.
My guess is the neutrinos are released in the iron arcs since that is where we see the highest energy output in satellite images. It could come from the core as well, but I don't have anything like that sort of resolution to work with at the moment.
M>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:
My response is, "why does it matter?" Again, if you're going to fault gas-fusion models for not predicting a layer there, you're going to have to explain why you think such models should have predicted such a layer, there.
Either the model is "perfect" or it's "flawed" or "limited" in some way. It's just that simple. I expect that any model should predict everything, or it should give way to a "better" scientific model that can. Sometimes that might involve a "tweek". Sometimes that might require a whole new approach.
quote:
"Because there is one" certainly isn't a good enough explanation, since otherwise we'd have to toss out every theory which didn't make 100% of the predictions it could have made had 100% of the evidence been in hand (which will never, ever, happen in any science).
Um, actually that happens in EVERY field of science. When we find something doesn't work, we replace it with "better" models and 'better' theories that include this new knowledge. There is nothing mysterious here that doesn't also apply to every field of science.
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 surfac |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/20/2005 22:27:56 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 23:58:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Either the model is "perfect" or it's "flawed" or "limited" in some way. It's just that simple. I expect that any model should predict everything, or it should give way to a "better" scientific model that can. Sometimes that might involve a "tweek". Sometimes that might require a whole new approach.
The solid surface model doesn't predict very much. It doesn't predict the sun's density. It doesn't predict the sun's temperature. It can't even predict whether or not there is a neutron star inside the sun!
So by your own logic which model should give way to the other? |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2005 : 10:34:33 [Permalink]
|
| In good news, Mr Molina and the good Doctor M have just been awarded the Honorary Bovine Scatology Doctorates, congratulations. |
"...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 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2005 : 11:16:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
[quote]The solid surface model doesn't predict very much. It doesn't predict the sun's density. It doesn't predict the sun's temperature. It can't even predict whether or not there is a neutron star inside the sun!
So by your own logic which model should give way to the other?
There are any number of things the gas model fails to predict as well, starting with what causes something as basic as a CME, what causes increased sunspot activity every 11 years, what that stratification layer is doing at that depth, etc.
My current model should of course eventually give way to a more complete solid surface model of the sun.
The problem here in a nutshell is we found a surface under the photosphere where none was expected to be found. I can't help that fact, nor can I personally ignore that data the way some folks might like. I can clearly see a stratifcation layer in heliosiesmology data that doesn't fit contemporary gas model theory. I can see the structures in that stratification layer in satellite images as well.
Direct observation should always be the key in determining which model is the most ACCURATE model, and which model needs to be replaced. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2005 : 11:19:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
In good news, Mr Molina and the good Doctor M have just been awarded the Honorary Bovine Scatology Doctorates, congratulations.
Well, as long as you gave the award to Mr. "Molina", I guess I won't worry much about it. :)
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2005 : 13:13:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
...stratification layer...
...stratifcation layer...
...I can see the structures in that stratification layer in satellite images as well.
You keep repeating "stratification layer" as if it is some kind of mantra. Why not say "solid surface" instead? Because that's what you're implying, isn't it?
When the scientists you are referring to, and their reports, they mention "stratification" do they expleicitly mean "solid surface"? How do you know? Have you asked them?
Dave has pointed out that matter does not have to be solid in order to form layers, to "stratify". Just because the word "strata" is commonly used in geology does not mean that strata or stratify means solid layer, or forming a solid layer. Especially since we are not talking about earth anymore.
quote:
Direct observation should always be the key in determining which model is the most ACCURATE model, and which model needs to be replaced.
But you are constantly referring to your edited material, and the difference-calculated movies. All satellite images, digital of poor resolution anyway. I call that suspect, since neither are direct. A direct observation would be for you to point your telescope at the sun to study it. |
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2005 : 13:22:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That is not a rational response Dave. This is a highly relevant question that cuts to the heart of the usefulness of the gas model.
Now YOU are the one not being rational:
quote:
It does NOT predict there to be a stratified layer at this depth.
It doesn't necessarily have to, since the gas model isn't fully developed either.
On the other hand, had the Gas Model specifically predicted that there should be no layer there at all, then the Gas Model would have been in trouble since it would have a seriously flawed prediction.
I find the rest of your post mostly fluff. You need to go back and study more about the Gas Model, before making more attempts at shooting it down, because right now, your efforts are counter-productive to your cause. |
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2005 : 14:59:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Man, you're tapdancing on the head of needle here and avoiding the obvious. It's a "layer" that is "stratified".
Talk about avoiding the obvious: I was making the point that the phrase "stratified layer" is redundant, in that it means "layered layer." Rather than just admit your use poor terminology, you chose instead to claim that you were just using a phrase from "Stanford and UCLA." When called on the fact that that is just plain false (Lefebvre and Kosovichev never once used the phrase "stratified layer"), you tapdance back over to talking about how the stratification exists and isn't (according to you) explained by the gas-fusion model, without once bothering to admit your factual mistake. This is intellectually dishonest behaviour, pure and simple.quote:
Layers of what? Are you suggesting that plasma is mass separated inside the sun? Shouldn't all the iron sink to the core then? Explain exactly what is "stratfied" about this plasma.
It's density is stratified. The idea that a convection zone over 200,000 Km thick, with drastically different densities top and bottom, would contain convective cells 200,000 Km tall (by only a few tens of Km wide, per photospheric images) is absurd. In reality, the convective zone of the Sun is broken up into many different convective cell layers, each of which has a different plasma density.
Note that this isn't about mass separation of atoms, or anything else so mundane. The Sun is far too hot for atoms to sit still and "sink."quote:
Actually the cited work that gave conflicting results and they pointed out the assumptions made in that prior work and how that differed from their assumptions. They could have found A) nothing, B) antiphase stratification, or C) in phase stratification. They saw both B and C at a very specific depth.
You missed the point again. Lefebvre and Kosovichev cite papers which discuss the density stratification of the Sun below its surface. The "conflicting results" were in regard to the changes in radius of those subsurface stratifications, not whether or not they exist. Lefebvre and Kosovichev knew that there were subsurface density stratifications, finding "nothing" would have surprised them greatly (especially since you forgot "D) stratification which doesn't move over time").quote:
Alexander Kosovichev's work suggests that this stratification blocks the flow of plasma at about 4800km or 3000 miles. That's nothing compared to the distance of the presumed convection zone.
You're citing facts not in evidence on the SFN. Care to provide a link to this work?quote:
That is not a rational response Dave. This is a highly relevant question that cuts to the heart of the usefulness of the gas model. It does NOT predict there to be a stratified layer at this depth.
It only "cuts to the heart of the usefulness of the gas model" if the sole utility of the gas model is in predicting density stratifications. It is not.quote:
The current gas model is dead.
Because of a single density stratification of unspecified extent? That's absurd.quote:
You need a "better one" even if you intend to hang onto the gas concept. Don't blame me for the scientific data that destroys current gas model theory. I didn't invent the data.
No, you've just invented the idea that "density stratification" means "solid layer."quote:
Like what? What does the gas model "predict" better than my model?
For starters, we need to agree that the validity of a model doesn't depend upon the number of pedictions it makes, but on the number of correct predictions it makes. Let's see, what does your model predict (my notes in bold)?Predictions Of A 21st Century Solid Surface Electrical Model
1. We might predict visible light from the neon layer. Prediction matches evidence. Not until you validate the existence of a neon layer, it doesn't. This prediction is currently untested.
2. We might predict that an electrical arc from one surface point to another in a huge
gravitational field would form a visible arc. Prediction matches evidence. This prediction doesn't test your solar model, it tests whether electrical arcs in a gas are visible. We don't need a Sun to test this at all, so it's an invalid prediction.
3. We might predict and expect in a solid surface model that intense electrical activity
between oppositely charged points on a solid surface will cause huge electrical discharges
and cause electrical surface erosion which might be observed as areas of increased ferrite
ion emissions near the ferrite surface. The solar moss phenomenon validates this
prediction. No, you have not validated the solid surface at all, nor have you validated that the "arcs" are electrical discharges.
4. We might predict that this electrical activity would likely ionize particles off the ferrite
surface and become visible in emission patterns like we find in the SERTS output. Prediction matches the evidence. Except that SERTS doesn't say, one way or another, whether the ionized particles found came from a surface or not. All the SERTS data verifies is that a million-Kelvin plasma exists above the photosphere.
5. We might predict volcanic activity will result in sulfur and other emissions that might be
found in the spectral analysis from SERTS and be seen by SOHO and TRACE. Prediction matches the evidence. SERTS found elevated levels of sulfur and nickel in "active" cycles. Prediction does not differentiate between solid-surface and gas model, as heavy elements might get preferentially "stirred up" from the convective zone in an "active" cycle.
6. We might predict that these surface eruptions and electrically heated areas of the surface
would cause an upwelling in the plasma layer of the photosphere, punching holes in the
neon penumbral filaments above the hot spots as it crashes into the layer of the helium in
the chromosphere. Prediction unverified.
7. We might predict that once these thick rising columns of plasma |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
