|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 01/29/2006 : 18:50:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
I take it you're ceding the position that the sun has a solid iron surface.
I take it you're ceding the mass separated aspect to Manuel?
quote:
Ahhh, stop your whining.
I will, the moment you stop your stalling. Where's your rebuttal to the isotope analysis that suggests that the sun is mass separated by weight? |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 19:22:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
GeeMack, get a life. I'm not even going to respond to any of your personal questions until you start dealing with the mass separation issues. If and when you show that you are man enough and science oriented enough to stick your neck out a bit and address the isotope analysis, then I'll consider doing something more for you personally. Until then, get lost.
Michael Mozina, if you feel that GeeMack is baiting you, why do you insist on taking the bait and engage in feces-slinging? You know you shouldn't do it.
Not that I think GeeMack is actually doing so, but you obviously think so. GeeMack has pointed out valid questions about your (lack of) support for your model. Start doing something about it instead of playing the victim of unjust provocation. Stop wasting your energy on fruitless side-tracks.
This is just like a train wreck you're passing by. You don't want to look, but then you just can't help yourself. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 19:22:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Beats me. I don't know that Kosovichev assumes that the Sun's atmosphere isn't mass-separated.
Of course he does. That paper assumes that the density will be "thin" at the top of the penumbral filament layer based on a hydrogen gas ball theory. The moment you remove that "assumption" of no mass separation, there is no guarantee that the density at the penumbral filament layer will have anything at all to do with a predominantly hydrogen layer in the first place. The entire premise is based upon that key assumption.
If that boundary at the penumbral filament layer is neon, all bets to 'density' are off. We then need to know how this sound travel speed was "normalized" in the first place. In other words, how was it determined that sound will travel at speed x through material y? Now what happens if material y is actually a completely different material?
Mass separation is *the key* issue here since everything related to Kosovichev's measurements are relative to material y. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/29/2006 19:27:22 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 19:25:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Michael Mozina, if you feel that GeeMack is baiting you, why do you insist on taking the bait and engage in feces-slinging? You know you shouldn't do it.
You are absolutely right about that Dr. Mabuse. My appologies. I came here to talk about science and I think I'll just ignore GM for the time being. Thanks for the advice. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 19:31:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In other words, how was it determined that sound will travel at speed x through material y? Now what happens if material y is actually a completely different material?
If material y is actually a completely different material then results should be wildly different than what it was predicted to be and we would know that the initial assumptions were wrong. That didn't happen, though.
What is your explanation for that?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/29/2006 19:32:23 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 19:43:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In other words, how was it determined that sound will travel at speed x through material y? Now what happens if material y is actually a completely different material?
If material y is actually a completely different material then results should be wildly different than what it was predicted to be and we would know that the initial assumptions were wrong. That didn't happen, though.
What is your explanation for that?
My explanation for that is that everything in Kosovichev's paper is computed "relative" to the density of the penumbral filament layer. Everything is "normalized" to that point. From there it's really a simply question of density transition with depth, and it will all be plasma, even in Birkeland's model, though it would need to be much "thicker" than what gas model theory suggests. In fact in a mass separated model this cannot be a hydrogen layer at all. If it's a thicker layer of neon, covering a predominatly silicon plasma, the then the sound transition in the sound speed between the boundaries at the surface may be much smaller than if this layer is predominantly hydrogen. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/29/2006 19:45:14 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 19:56:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I will, the moment you stop your stalling. Where's your rebuttal to the isotope analysis that suggests that the sun is mass separated by weight?
Your premise for this discussion is your claim that the sun has a solid surface, composed of over 50% iron, beginning at 0.995R, with a thickness you can't specify, with a completely unknown temperature, with a density that you don't understand. We've already agreed that the isotope analysis does not provide support to your conjecture that the sun has a solid iron shell. There's no need to continue bringing irrelevant material into the discussion.
Now, if you've ceded your claim that the sun has a solid surface, then you're certainly welcome to open a new thread if you'd like to discuss other issues regarding the composition of the sun. But if you're still on the solid sun surface topic, then stop babbling about that completely irrelevant isotope analysis. Whatever it might have to do with mass separation is a completely different issue.
Again, change the subject on this forum by starting a new thread. The concern here is this: Does the sun have a solid surface, and can you prove it by way of legitimate evidence? Or doesn't it? If you think it's not solid, if you think it's plasma instead, we can close this discussion and open a new one. If I should decide to involve myself in a conversation about mass separation and whether the isotope analysis bears out that conjecture, I'll join in.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2006 : 03:14:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Beats me. I don't know that Kosovichev assumes that the Sun's atmosphere isn't mass-separated.
Of course he does.
Prove it.quote:
That paper assumes that the density will be "thin" at the top of the penumbral filament layer based on a hydrogen gas ball theory.
Provide a quote from "that paper" which demonstrates your assertion to be correct.quote:
The moment you remove that "assumption" of no mass separation, there is no guarantee that the density at the penumbral filament layer...
Define "penumbral filament layer" in terms everyone can agree on.quote:
...will have anything at all to do with a predominantly hydrogen layer in the first place.
Dr. Manuel states that the photosphere is predominately hydrogen, it's only what's under the photosphere which is "mostly iron."quote:
The entire premise is based upon that key assumption.
Prove it.quote:
If that boundary at the penumbral filament layer is neon, all bets to 'density' are off.
No, then we should see results which are vastly different from those obtained.quote:
We then need to know how this sound travel speed was "normalized" in the first place.
Provide evidence that it was "normalized" at all.quote:
In other words, how was it determined that sound will travel at speed x through material y?
Well, first you run tests measuring the speed of sound in lots and lots of different materials, and you eventually come up with a set of physical laws allowing sound speed to be calculated in any material so long as you know a few key properties of it.quote:
Now what happens if material y is actually a completely different material?
Then either the speed of sound will be different, or two or more of the key properties which determine the speed of sound will be different.quote:
Mass separation is *the key* issue here since everything related to Kosovichev's measurements are relative to material y.
Yes, and you never did answer the question of how mass separation would make the helioseismology results different. Perhaps you don't know. Perhaps you've got no clue as to how to find out. Either way, stonewalling doesn't make your case any stronger.
(You also didn't answer the question about how you might be thinking that sunspots are physical holes, but that can wait.) |
- 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 - 01/30/2006 : 13:19:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yes, and you never did answer the question of how mass separation would make the helioseismology results different. Perhaps you don't know. Perhaps you've got no clue as to how to find out. Either way, stonewalling doesn't make your case any stronger.
Yes I did. Virtually all of your last questions relate to exactly the same issue. The issue relates to the initial density of the penumbral filament layer, and determining what it is made of. What is it made of, and how do you know it is made of that material?
quote:
(You also didn't answer the question about how you might be thinking that sunspots are physical holes, but that can wait.)
I do not believe that sunspots are holes. I think they behave in clearly mass separated ways. In other words, the penumbral filament layer ends a very specific depth, and the sides of the filaments stop emitting light at the end of the filament layer. Those filaments are made of neon. The umbra region is silicon. When the neon layer ends, so does the light from the neon. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/30/2006 13:30:49 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2006 : 14:18:08 [Permalink]
|
The subject of this thread is Michael Mozina's claim that the sun has a solid surface made mostly of iron, and his claim that he can prove it. Now it seems he won't even discuss the solid surface. Although he hasn't made it clear, perhaps he has come to realize he can't prove it. But we are a patient lot here at the SFN, so we'll give him a chance to let us know his current position.
Michael, you're on. Give a direct answer to a simple question. The question requires a single, one word answer, either "yes" or "no". No babbling, no back talk, no asking questions, no dodging, no stalling, no excuses, no name calling, no waffling, and no changing the subject. Read the question carefully, then answer "yes" or "no".
Does the sun have a solid surface?
If you believe the sun has a solid surface, reply with the single word, "Yes."
The absence of a reply, or any reply other than the single word, "Yes," will be accepted as your acknowledgment that you do not believe the sun has a solid surface. Can't get much simpler than that! 
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2006 : 14:41:18 [Permalink]
|
| I'll be happy to start answering your questions again as soon as you give me an equally simple answer to the question: Is the sun mass separated, yes or no? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/30/2006 14:44:49 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2006 : 14:50:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by me...
Does the sun have a solid surface?
If you believe the sun has a solid surface, reply with the single word, "Yes."
The absence of a reply, or any reply other than the single word, "Yes," will be accepted as your acknowledgment that you do not believe the sun has a solid surface.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I'll be happy to start answering your questions again as soon as you give me an equally simple answer to the question: Is the sun mass separated, yes or no?
Thank you for acknowledging that you do not believe the sun has a solid surface. Looks like this discussion is complete. You're welcome to open a new thread on a new topic if you like, Michael.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2006 : 14:53:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Thank you for acknowledging that you do not believe the sun has a solid surface. Looks like this discussion is complete. You're welcome to open a new thread on a new topic if you like, Michael.
Thank you for demonstrating that you simply don't listen to a thing I say, and instead you build strawmen of your own design. This clearly demonstratates that there is little point in discussing anything with you.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/30/2006 14:54:11 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2006 : 14:55:33 [Permalink]
|
By the way....
I'll assume from your non answer that you agree with Manuel's assesment that the sun is mass separated. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2006 : 15:13:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I'll assume from your non answer that you agree with Manuel's assesment that the sun is mass separated.
Truth is, I currently have no opinion on that issue. If you'd like to open a new thread on that topic, I'll be glad to look it over and decide if I'm interested in participating. My focus in this discussion was your claim that the sun had a solid surface and your responsibility to prove that claim. Now that we have that subject resolved, we may put this thread behind us and move on to other things.
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
