|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 01/24/2006 : 14:50:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
The surface included MANY materials, including iron, carbon, oxygen, calcium, magnesium, maganeese, etc. What about the word "CRUST" do you find difficult to grasp?
The question was... So what is the composition of the material that makes up the solid surface, Michael? Please describe the material and the principles of physics that support its existence. Any references you can provide would be appreciated, too. Your temper tantrum doesn't describe your guess according to the principles of physics. Your hollering can not be accepted as references. I guess it's just one more in a long series of questions that you either can't or won't answer.
|
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 14:56:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
allowing for movement of mass within,
Electrically conductive materials can move mass in the form of electrons. This is standard physics.
Yes, that is standard physics, but you're not applying it to the "standard" physical situation.
Your claim will remain unevidenced until you can show that an electrical current will affect the propagation of sonic waves in a solid material as much to make the wave behave as if the material was moving.
That is what the helioseismology-paper Dave linked to showed. If you claim that those "movements of mass", (what we refer to plasma currents), are the effect of electrons moving through a solid, then you are proposing a brand new field of science within Acoustics and/or seismology. Before we can accept your explanation, you will need to show that you are right.
You have asserted that electrons can, in an acoustic/seismic analysis, make solid mass appear to move as if it was fluid. Now you have to provide some pretty convincing explanation and evidence if you want us to accept it.
I can help you set up an experiment that might (or might not) provide partial evidence.
|
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 - 01/24/2006 : 14:59:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In this particular instance, that is exactly the case. We have 90 percent of the mass, and all the acceleration of the unviverse being utterly ignored in current "density" calculations. You are now trying to claim they are representative of "absolute" density, when they can only reflect "relative" concepts of density since they are computed in "relative" terms to begin with.
Nobody is claiming anything "absolute," other than that the density of the solar material just above 0.995R is about 0.00003 relative to pure water at STP here on Earth. The SSM predicted it, and Kosovichev's measurements confirmed it to within 2%. You've been asked to describe how large the effects of dark matter and dark energy would be on those calculations, and you have steadfastly refused to do so. Of course, since you've got the properties of dark matter and dark energy reversed, it's unlikely you'll ever quantify the things you claim to be true. And the only data point you've suggested, the "Pioneer Anomaly," is millions of times too small an effect to be responsible for any measurement of the Sun's density being wrong by orders of magnitude (in the opposite direction). |
- 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 - 01/24/2006 : 14:59:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Dave W. suggested you don't know anything about the surface, and you replied that you know it's solid, and followed later with a claim that you never[/b] claimed that you were right. You somehow think of yourself as a competent researcher when you've proven beyond any doubt that can't even go back a couple pages and re-read part of a conversation.
You are quite the frustrating nitpicker when it comes to statements, and you intentially IGNORE the context of statements and the INTENT behind different parts of a VERY long discussion. I've not hidden my faith in Birkeland's model. What is your problem?
I'm willing to accept that there is SOME DOUBT as to my interpretation, and it would be foolish not to allow for the possibility of being wrong. On the other hand, I personally believe we already KNOW the surface is there, because we already have evidence the surface is there. My comment however was in direct response to the fact that we would KNOW many things by knowing there was a crust even if we didn't know all the details of what makes up the crust. It's a totally pointless nitpick so you don't have to address all that isotope analysis that you are avoiding like the plague! |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 15:12:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Yes, that is standard physics, but you're not applying it to the "standard" physical situation.
Of course I am. There's nothing mysterious here about the flow of electricity through solids.
quote:
Your claim will remain unevidenced until you can show that an electrical current will affect the propagation of sonic waves in a solid material as much to make the wave behave as if the material was moving.
I can already cite evidence of the flow of electricity through structures on the surface:
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~white/papers/03_norh_020723.pdf
quote:
That is what the helioseismology-paper Dave linked to showed. If you claim that those "movements of mass", (what we refer to plasma currents), are the effect of electrons moving through a solid, then you are proposing a brand new field of science within Acoustics and/or seismology. Before we can accept your explanation, you will need to show that you are right.
First of all, there is a noticeable difference in the behavior of the movement of mass in the layer in question, vs the movement of mass in the areas above this layer and below this layer.
Based on the first set of colorized images, we konow that under the surface in question, the movement is upwards and away from the column as though the column has risen into something dense and "spreads out". On the topside however, the movement is downward and toward the column, much like we would see in the tornado videos. In the central range however, the movement tends to more "horizontal" in direction, and we show an indication of faster movement in this region. That certainly COULD be construed as evidence of something different about these various layers and how they interact. I won't however be able to "prove" this to your personal satisfaction in all liklihood, but then you haven't tried to explain the different movement patterns so I can't say your answer is any better than the one I offered.
quote:
You have asserted that electrons can, in an acoustic/seismic analysis, make solid mass appear to move as if it was fluid. Now you have to provide some pretty convincing explanation and evidence if you want us to accept it.
First of all, I'm not certain whether ALL the movement is caused by electrical flow or whether some might be plasma flow in this instance. I only have raw SOHO images going back to 2000 on my machine at work, so I can't tell you what the surface "looked like" in that region at the moment. I will check it out however so I know what kind of movement we should see.
Secondly your technique is only showing mass flows. It doesn't specificy HOW these mass flows occur. If you believe these techniques CANNOT show mass flow in solids, then you need to at least specify why you think that is the case here.
quote:
I can help you set up an experiment that might (or might not) provide partial evidence.
I think before we do that, I'd first like to look at the FITS files on that day and see what the surface looked like under that particular sunspot. If there is an obvious rupture on the surface, it would be pointless trying to focus on electrical activity as the cause of this movement in this instance. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/24/2006 15:23:48 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 15:21:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Nobody is claiming anything "absolute," other than that the density of the solar material just above 0.995R is about 0.00003 relative to pure water at STP here on Earth.
Evidently this "claim" is based on ONE set of data from ONE paper. I'm not convinced it's accurate yet. You however are STATING IT AS FACT, while utterly ignoring the isotope analysis even though it's in paper form as well. The double standard here is obvious. You post ONE paper that you believe supports your case in some way, and that somehow is the "difinitive" paper, irregardless of other papers presented which show that the sun is mostly iron. You fixation on one paper from ONE individual is very suspect.
quote:
The SSM predicted it, and Kosovichev's measurements confirmed it to within 2%.
But our friend has yet to explain how he determines temperature changes from density changes. If we simply ASSUME temperature changes are involved, this ASSUMPTION could skew the results we see rather dramatically.
quote:
You've been asked to describe how large the effects of dark matter and dark energy would be on those calculations, and you have steadfastly refused to do so.
I don't even know what dark energy really is, and you have steadfastly refused to explain it or model it, or consider it in your density calculations. Even still we believe it makes up most of the matter in the universe. You can't ignore MOST of the matter in the universe, create a number in relative terms, and then claim it represents "absolute" density.
quote:
Of course, since you've got the properties of dark matter and dark energy reversed, it's unlikely you'll ever quantify the things you claim to be true.
What? What exactly ARE the properties of these things, and what exactly are they?
quote:
And the only data point you've suggested, the "Pioneer Anomaly," is millions of times too small an effect to be responsible for any measurement of the Sun's density being wrong by orders of magnitude (in the opposite direction).
I didn't say a peep about Pioneer on this forum that I recall. What conversation are you refering to? |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 15:48:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I don't even know what dark energy really is, and you have steadfastly refused to explain it or model it, or consider it in your density calculations. Even still we believe it makes up most of the matter in the universe. You can't ignore MOST of the matter in the universe, create a number in relative terms, and then claim it represents "absolute" density.
[...]
What? What exactly ARE the properties of these things, and what exactly are they?
What? You're the one who continues to state that dark matter and/or dark energy must be taken into account when making calculations that might refute your solid surface guess. Are you suggesting you don't need to take them into account when making your claims about the existence of the solid surface? And if they might be important to the calculations, wouldn't it behoove you to get out there and learn a little about them? And no, it's not someone else's responsibility to explain it to you. You're the one with the wild guess about the makeup of the surface of the sun. Remember those nagging little words that you hate to hear so much? It's your claim. It's your responsibility to prove it.
And hey, let's have that answer to the question about the frequency of magma moving through the crust of the sun. You did say it occurs more frequently there than it does on Earth. How frequently? If you didn't know it when you made that statement, you were just guessing. If you did know it when you made the claim, then please provide the answer. If you can't provide the answer, why don't you admit that you were just guessing?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 16:18:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
What? You're the one who continues to state that dark matter and/or dark energy must be taken into account when making calculations that might refute your solid surface guess.
I am saying that *IF* "dark matter" and "dark energy" make up most of the mass of the universe, *THEN* they must be calculated into any concept of "absolute" density. Othewise any sort of "density" calculation would only be "relative" to the "normal" matter in our solar system. If you refuse to let this conversation move beyond a heliocentric view of reality, I'm afraid I can't really help you. It's really that simple. Now you can keep acting as though a heliocentric model is "good enough", but considering the fact it only considers less than 10% of the presumed KIND of mass that exists in our known universe, I think it's quite a leap of faith on your part.
quote:
Are you suggesting you don't need to take them into account when making your claims about the existence of the solid surface?
Actually I think just the opposite. We MUST take these into account, or Birkeland's model won't make sense.
quote:
And if they might be important to the calculations, wouldn't it behoove you to get out there and learn a little about them?
I already have some theories of my own to explain them as a matter of fact. It's not relevant to this arguement how *I* view "dark energy", but this sort of influence is relevant, and important to our discussion, as is the acceleration of the universe. You can't just ignore "complications" because the don't jive with our comfort zone.
quote:
And no, it's not someone else's responsibility to explain it to you.
It's important that you explain to me why YOU think you can just ignore them altogether. I know what *I* think dark matter to be (light), but I don't know what YOU believe dark energy to be. I don't understand why you personally are so cavelier about it.
quote:
You're the one with the wild guess about the makeup of the surface of the sun.
No, actually, I'm the one with the observational evidence in the form of satellite images to confirm the theoretical framework and lab work already done by Dr. Kristian Birkland, Dr. Charles Bruce and Dr. Oliver Manuel. I'm just a guy with satellite evidence to confirm all their hard work.
You on the other hand are the one that seems to think there is a "better" scientific explaination for these images, WITHOUT ever explaining even the first image on my website using any other theory.
Essentially, your just a guy making a wild guess that I'm wrong for unspecified reasons.
quote:
Remember those nagging little words that you hate to hear so much? It's your claim. It's your responsibility to prove it.
I already have "proven it", using several fields of science. I have proven the sun is mostly iron and mass separates the plasma in it's atmosphere using isotope analysis. I have "proven" that plasma stops flowing downward at about .995R to 5000Km below the surface of the photosphere using heliosiesmology data. I have proven that the layer seen in RD images does not experience differential rotation in the same timelines as the plasma of the photosophere. I've already proven that CME are electrical events. I've already proven that RD SOHO images show conclusive evidence of a surface that rotates uniformly from pole to equator using only images produced by NASA. I've proven that Doppler images reveal rigid features beneath the plasma of the photosophere. There is a lot of proof if you wish to SEE it or address it in some way. If you ignore the isotope analysis, and ignore the images, you'll only see what you want to see.
quote:
And hey, let's have that answer to the question about the frequency of magma moving through the crust of the sun. You did say it occurs more frequently there than it does on Earth. How frequently?
I'd guess it's more or less a daily event. Every CME is ultimately a major electrical blowout, or a surface fracture of some sort.
quote:
If you didn't know it when you made that statement, you were just guessing. If you did know it when you made the claim, then please provide the answer. If you can't provide the answer, why don't you admit that you were just guessing?
When you say "guessing", you are literally ignoring the fact that I've been studying the sun for 30 years and have spent 15 years analysing solar satellite images. It ignores the effort I've put into trying to understand the workings of the sun for the past 30 or so years entirely and ignores the fact I've offered to EXPLAIN these solar events in a wholistic way, that explain little "details" like how sunspots form, unlike the gas model. Your word ignores the data from Maryland Univesity that shows the electrical nature of CME's and surface events. If you wish to call all this data and analysis "guessing", I can't stop you, but I certainly disagree with your assessment, expecially since you can't explain the isotope issue at all, and you can't explain even the first image on my website with any level of detail.
In my opinion, since you can't personally do these things you certainly MUST be "guessing" as you imply. Since I'm not suffering from any lack of ability as it relates to explaining these events, I don't consider my opinions to be "wild guesses". At worst case I might call them "educated guesses that fit the evidence", but that is far cry from your attitude. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/24/2006 16:21:21 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 18:37:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Evidently this "claim" is based on ONE set of data from ONE paper. I'm not convinced it's accurate yet. You however are STATING IT AS FACT, while utterly ignoring the isotope analysis even though it's in paper form as well.
How many citations would you like regarding the Sun's density? Here's another one: "How much do Helioseismological Inferences Depend on the Assumed Reference Model?" by Basu, Pinsonneault and Bahcall (The Astrophysical Journal, Feb 2000), who found that MDI data once again matches solar models (plural!) to within 2% (and the curve is even different from Kosovichev's). I'll try to find however many references you'd like by the end of the week, just give me a number (greater than two, of course).quote:
The double standard here is obvious.
Indeed, it is. You demand more than one paper which concludes a certain figure with regard to the density of the Sun at a particular depth, when you have presented precisely zero citations in which an independent researcher concludes that there is a solid surface at 0.995R. Kosovichev certainly didn't conclude any such thing in his 2005 paper, that was instead your conclusion.quote:
You post ONE paper that you believe supports your case in some way, and that somehow is the "difinitive" paper, irregardless of other papers presented which show that the sun is mostly iron. You fixation on one paper from ONE individual is very suspect.
I'm not fixated on anything. Again, how many more papers do you want which verify the standard model's density measurements?quote:
quote:
The SSM predicted it, and Kosovichev's measurements confirmed it to within 2%.
But our friend has yet to explain how he determines temperature changes from density changes. If we simply ASSUME temperature changes are involved, this ASSUMPTION could skew the results we see rather dramatically.
What, precisely, are you talking about? Who is trying to determine temperature changes from density changes? The two aren't necessarily related (look at, for example, water). Temperature and sound speed are related, however, as are density and sound speed, but in opposing fashions.quote:
I don't even know what dark energy really is, and you have steadfastly refused to explain it or model it, or consider it in your density calculations. Even still we believe it makes up most of the matter in the universe. You can't ignore MOST of the matter in the universe, create a number in relative terms, and then claim it represents "absolute" density.
Michael, the accusation that someone here is claiming anything about an "absolute" density is a lie, as has been demonstrated.
Besides which, we went through the explanation of, and effects of, dark matter and dark energy on density calculations back within the first 10 pages of discussion. Again: dark matter is only detectable by its gravity. If there's a significant amount of it within the Sun, then it's making the Sun appear more dense than it actually is, not less (which might be responsible for the Pioneer anomaly, which you mistakenly thought was being measured on the Voyager probes).
Dark energy has the opposite effect, in that it is thought to be responsible for some of the universe's acceleration in expansion. It's effects are very small at the "local" level. If the currently understood dark-energy densities are correct, then its effect on our measurements of the Sun would be on the order of 1 part in 1026.
Since neither effect would make a difference to the comparatively huge numbers we've been talking about for mass, volume and density (an error of 2% is many orders of magnitude a larger "effect" than is occuring to the Pioneer probes), they can be safely ignored. Hell, solar scientists can't agree to within 50 kilometers or so on the radius of the Sun, any effect a billion times smaller than the force of the Sun's gravity at 1 AU is in the noise.
But now that you've brought us full circle, would you care to answer the question from page two of the original thread, namely, how can acceleration affect our measurements except through relativity effects?quote:
What? What exactly ARE the properties of these things, and what exactly are they?
Great. You don't know what they are or their effects, but you think they might screw up our density measurements enough to make them unreliable. A wonderful argument from ignorance you've got there, Michael. |
- 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 - 01/24/2006 : 19:00:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Now you can keep acting as though a heliocentric model is "good enough", but considering the fact it only considers less than 10% of the presumed KIND of mass that exists in our known universe, I think it's quite a leap of faith on your part.
To put it another way, given the mass of the universe at critical density is 1053 kg, and the average distance to that mass is about 8.5×1025 m, and the Sun makes up 99% of the mass in our solar system, then F = G×1053×2×1030/(8.5×1025)2. The entire solar system feels a tug of (on average) 1.85×1021 Newtons, which when applied to the solar system's inertia results in an acceleration of just 9.24×10-10 m/s2, which is ten orders of magnitude smaller than the acceleration of Earth due to the Sun.
Of course, that'd be if all of the universe's mass were in a ball that far away from our solar system. In reality, that mass is spread out evenly around us, resulting in a net acceleration of zero.quote:
I know what *I* think dark matter to be (light)...
The mass of light is already accounted for in the mass of the Sun. |
- 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 - 01/24/2006 : 19:06:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
What? You're the one who continues to state that dark matter and/or dark energy must be taken into account when making calculations that might refute your solid surface guess.
I am saying that *IF* "dark matter" and "dark energy" make up most of the mass of the universe, *THEN* they must be calculated into any concept of "absolute" density. Othewise any sort of "density" calculation would only be "relative" to the "normal" matter in our solar system. If you refuse to let this conversation move beyond a heliocentric view of reality, I'm afraid I can't really help you. It's really that simple. Now you can keep acting as though a heliocentric model is "good enough", but considering the fact it only considers less than 10% of the presumed KIND of mass that exists in our known universe, I think it's quite a leap of faith on your part.
Start here:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101matter.html
It tells the story of how dark matter and energy is measured.
It also tells how weight measurements of the galaxy proves that only 10% of it's weight is ordinary matter. When the sun is measured, there is no dark matter/energy detected. When the mass of Earth is measured, the data fits the density proposed by seismology.
There measurements suggest that dark matter and energy responsible for 90% of the mass in the galaxy is evenly distributed throughout the galaxy (and intergalactical space) so that within the solar system it's negligible.
Having all that matter evenly distributed around us means that gravitational field from that matter has zero net impact.
quote:
quote:
Are you suggesting you don't need to take them into account when making your claims about the existence of the solid surface?
Actually I think just the opposite. We MUST take these into account, or Birkeland's model won't make sense.
If the mass of the sun is only 10% baryonic matter, then you couldn't possibly have a crust of iron as thick as you proposed because. If only 50% of the mass of the sun was baryonic, then everything below the crust would have to be hard vacuum.
However, elegant as the SSM is, Occam's Razor speaks in SSM's favour as no dark matter or energy or Universal Acceleration has to be taken into account. It works perfectly well anyway.
quote:
It's not relevant to this arguement how *I* view "dark energy", but this sort of influence is relevant, and important to our discussion,
If you think it's important to the discussion, you better damn well explain to us how you think the influence is relevant. Other wise we will dismiss it as fluff. Smokescreen. Red herring.
quote:
as is the acceleration of the universe. You can't just ignore "complications" because the don't jive with our comfort zone.
Say after me:
Ein-stein'-s E-qua-li-ty Prin-ci-ple.
It means that in a physical system, there is no difference between gravitation and acceleration.
Besides, the acceleration only occur on an intergalactic scale, between galaxy cluster and not within galaxies or even planetary systems. The cosmic background radiation allows us to measure both speed and acceleration, so those "constants" are known.
quote:
No, actually, I'm the one with the observational evidence in the form of satellite images to confirm the theoretical framework and lab work already done by Dr. Kristian Birkland, Dr. Charles Bruce and Dr. Oliver Manuel. I'm just a guy with satellite evidence to confirm all their hard work.
And since we cannot agree on the interpretation of those images, what's the point of introducing more fluff?
|
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 - 01/24/2006 : 19:19:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I have "proven" that plasma stops flowing downward at about .995R to 5000Km below the surface of the photosphere using heliosiesmology data.
But that wasn't the point. Your "proof" here is meaningless if there is plasma moving, in any direction, throughout your allegedly solid surface.quote:
I have proven that the layer seen in RD images does not experience differential rotation in the same timelines as the plasma of the photosophere.
No, all you've done is demonstrate that you don't understand what "differential solar rotation" means, and refuse to even try.quote:
I've already proven that RD SOHO images show conclusive evidence of a surface that rotates uniformly from pole to equator using only images produced by NASA.
So my measurements which contradict that "proof" don't matter at all? How come when you do the calculations (and you've never told us your methodology), "erosion" and "lighting changes" don't make a difference, but when I do the same calculations, they do?quote:
I've proven that Doppler images reveal rigid features beneath the plasma of the photosophere.
No, you've proven that you don't understand the functionality of the MDI, and refuse to even try to understand it, by comparing it to weather radar.quote:
There is a lot of proof if you wish to SEE it or address it in some way. If you ignore the isotope analysis, and ignore the images, you'll only see what you want to see.
The only thing that's been ignored so far is the isotope analysis. Most of the other things you claim to have "proven" are misunderstandings on your part, or misrespresentations on your part, likely due to ignorance. What I say here has been amply demonstrated over the last 30-something pages, but you just refuse to SEE it. The fact that you claim the MDI works just like weather radar, but offer not a single citation to support your view, is proof-positive that the double-standard is being applied by you, Michael.quote:
I'd guess it's more or less a daily event.
Hey, the movement of magma through the crust of the Earth is an daily event. I thought you said it happens on the Sun more frequently.quote:
Since I'm not suffering from any lack of ability as it relates to explaining these events, I don't consider my opinions to be "wild guesses".
Of course you wouldn't. But to someone for whom an "explanation" about the physics of the Sun would require equations and math and better descriptions that "more than half iron," you fail miserably to explain anything. It's not enough to say, "this is an image of the surface cracking open," you've got to demonstrate that the image is actually from where you claim the surface to be, and not 3,800 km above that layer. You haven't yet done that, instead banking upon the ambiuguousness of the term "density stratification" in ONE paper to claim it. Now, of course, the ambiguousness has been removed, and you haven't yet offered even a guess at what sort of solid might be only 0.1% more dense than some sort of plasma. |
- 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 - 01/24/2006 : 19:57:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Yes, that is standard physics, but you're not applying it to the "standard" physical situation.
Of course I am. There's nothing mysterious here about the flow of electricity through solids.
quote:
Your claim will remain unevidenced until you can show that an electrical current will affect the propagation of sonic waves in a solid material as much to make the wave behave as if the material was moving.
I can already cite evidence of the flow of electricity through structures on the surface:
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~white/papers/03_norh_020723.pdf
Red Herring. Read the part you quoted from me again (below):
quote:
That is what the helioseismology-paper Dave linked to showed. If you claim that those "movements of mass" [Edited to place in context: movements of mass withing the "crust"], (what we refer to plasma currents), are the effect of electrons moving through a solid, then you are proposing a brand new field of science within Acoustics and/or seismology. Before we can accept your explanation, you will need to show that you are right.
|
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. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 20:46:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I am saying that *IF* "dark matter" and "dark energy" make up most of the mass of the universe, *THEN* they must be calculated into any concept of "absolute" density. Othewise any sort of "density" calculation would only be "relative" to the "normal" matter in our solar system.
Okay, we understand now. You say dark matter and/or dark energy must be calculated into any concept of density, yet you don't give them the least bit of consideration when trying to support your own guess about variables in density. When legitimate questions arise regarding your guess about density, you hand wave those questions away demanding that other people must consider them in their calculations. And you freely acknowledge that you don't know the first thing about them. Yep, we understand.quote:
If you refuse to let this conversation move beyond a heliocentric view of reality, I'm afraid I can't really help you. It's really that simple. Now you can keep acting as though a heliocentric model is "good enough", but considering the fact it only considers less than 10% of the presumed KIND of mass that exists in our known universe, I think it's quite a leap of faith on your part.
Okay one more time I'll ask you to pull your head out of your ass long enough to understand this: The fact that you have clearly not been able to convince critical thinking people that your guess is correct does not in any way mean everyone else has faith in some other particular concept of the sun's construction. It means you have utterly failed at presenting your case in a credible, convincing manner. That's all.
quote:
Actually I think just the opposite. We MUST take these into account, or Birkeland's model won't make sense.
Then take them into account. Explain how, scientifically now, and not by your usual guessing method, explain how dark matter and/or dark energy factor into Birkeland's model and your interpretation of it. Please provide your relevant calculations and where possible, links to your reference sources.quote:
I already have some theories of my own to explain them as a matter of fact. It's not relevant to this arguement how *I* view "dark energy", but this sort of influence is relevant, and important to our discussion, as is the acceleration of the universe. You can't just ignore "complications" because the don't jive with our comfort zone.
Since you believe that considering dark energy is critical to making any accurate calculations regarding the surface of the sun, either gaseous or solid, how you view dark energy is absolutely relevant and important to the discussion. The fact that you know nothing at all about it is also relevant. It shows that you aren't prepared with all the elements necessary to even properly develop your guess, much less support it. You shouldn't just ignore "complications" because they don't jive with your comfort zone, but you sure do seem to make a habit of it.quote:
It's important that you explain to me why YOU think you can just ignore them altogether. I know what *I* think dark matter to be (light), but I don't know what YOU believe dark energy to be. I don't understand why you personally are so cavelier about it.
It doesn't matter what I think dark energy or dark matter is, not in the very least. If you think it's critical to the defense of your guess then it does matter what you think it is. Remember, it's your claim, you support it. I can be cavalier about it because I'm not the one who was completely unprepared in proposing a guess that was expected to be taken seriously by the scientific world. That would have been you.quote:
No, actually, I'm the one with the observational evidence in the form of satellite images to confirm the theoretical framework and lab work already done by Dr. Kristian Birkland, Dr. Charles Bruce and Dr. Oliver Manuel. I'm just a guy with satellite evidence to confirm all their hard work.
And yet your evidence hasn't been sufficiently complete or well enough explained to convince pretty much anyone else that it has any validity.quote:
You on the other hand are the one that seems to think there is a "better" scientific explaination for these images, WITHOUT ever explaining even the first image on my website using any other theory.
Okay Michael, take your head out of your ass again and listen up. Nobody has any responsibility to explain anything that you present as evidence. Nobody has to explain how it supports your guess. Nobody has to explain how it supports any other guess, theory, or fact. It's your claim. It's your responsibility to prove it. Okay, head back in ass if you want.quote:
Essentially, your just a guy making a wild guess that I'm wrong for unspecified reasons.
My reason for not accepting your guess as being right is the simple fact that you've provided a shoddy case. You rely on your interpretation of pictures as the mainstay of your belief. You guess at other related issues and you incorrectly think those guesses support your case. You don't provide straight answers for direct questions. You don't have any calculations. You apparently misunderstand the purpose and results of the satellite images you have looked at for a long long time. You display a feeble grasp on the physics that you guess at to try to support your conjecture.
No, I'm not making a wild guess that you're wrong for unspecified reasons at all. I'm pretty sure you've failed to make your case in a reasonably convincing way, and for very specified reasons.quote:
I already have "proven it", using several fields of science. I have proven the sun is mostly iron and mass separates the plasma in it's atmosphere using isotope analysis. I have "proven" that plasma stops flowing downward at about .995R to 5000Km below the surface of the photosphere using heliosiesmology data. I have proven that the layer seen in RD images does not experience differential rotation in the same timelines as the plasma of the photosophere. I've already proven that CME are electrical events. I've already proven that RD SOHO images show conclusive evidence of a surface that rotates uniformly from |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 21:02:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
How many citations would you like regarding the Sun's density? Here's another one: "How much do Helioseismological Inferences Depend on the Assumed Reference Model?" by Basu, Pinsonneault and Bahcall (The Astrophysical Journal, Feb 2000), who found that MDI data once again matches solar models (plural!) to within 2% (and the curve is even different from Kosovichev's). I'll try to find however many references you'd like by the end of the week, just give me a number (greater than two, of course).
You might just start with Dr. Kosovichev and see if you can get an explanation of how we tell a temperature variation from a density variation. I'm sure as long as we attribute EVERY sound change to a heat change, we can make the data fit about ANYTHING. The real issue here is using soundwaves alone, how does one tell if the speed increased because of temperature changes or because of density changes?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1641599.stm
quote:
When the sound waves reach a point about 4,800 km (3,000 miles) below the surface, however, their speed increases significantly, indicating that the roots of a sunspot are hotter than their surroundings.
This phenomenon of the speed of the sounds increasing "significantly" at this location can also be explained by the sound waves running into a more dense layer as well. I've asked Dr. Kosovichev to explain how he personally determined which kind of change was occuring and how he determined this. So far I've had only a short, but uniformative response and no clear answer as to how he determined this in his specific experiments.
If you always attibute this speed increase to a temperature variation, and are willing to 'increase the temperature' to anything that makes it fit the curve, it's no mystery why it would fit the curve. I need a satisfactory explanation as to how these authors determine a density change vs. a temperature change as it relates to the speed changes that are observed in the sound waves in this layer.
quote:
Indeed, it is. You demand more than one paper which concludes a certain figure with regard to the density of the Sun at a particular depth, when you have presented precisely zero citations in which an independent researcher concludes that there is a solid surface at 0.995R.
That is not true. Dr. Kosovichev's own paper shows a flow pattern in the column area that is absolutely consistant with my explanation, and not very consistant with the notion that we ONLY see temperature changes in this region. There is a distinct pattern here of plasma moving up and away from the column underneath the crust, and a distinct pattern of plasma moving toward the column and down on the top of the crust.
Dr. Manuel agrees with me by the way, so an independent researcher has in fact "agreed" with me, as has Hilton Radcliff.
There is one more point here that must be clerified. While the crust of the sun may vary quite a bit in thickness at it relates to the surface of the earth, the truly solid part of the earth's crust is actually quite thin, and is only about 40-70Km thick. It is unlikely that the ENTIRE stratification layer seen in these images is "solid" in the sense you are trying to think of it. It's quite possible that a great deal of the area between .985R and .995R is not solid at all, but composed of magma, and pockets of magma. The flow patterns however are quite consistent with the Birkland model, and neither you or Dr. Kosovichev have addressed this flow of material around the column being different underneath than at the top. Although Dr. Kosovichev called the phenomenon "interesting", he did not offer an explanation.
quote:
Kosovichev certainly didn't conclude any such thing in his 2005 paper, that was instead your conclusion.
Even on my website, I've made it abundantly clear that Dr. Kosovichev does NOT share my opinion about the sun having a solid surface. I don't know how I could even be more clear about it. It is of course MY opinion about his findings, and I've been quite clear about this point.
His work however DOES support the Birkland model. It shows a significant change of plasma flow at around .995R. Vertical motions of plasma flatten out, and follow a straight path for very long stretches of distances. Only in one tiny column do we seen any sign of plasma flow in the vertical direction at about .995R. Beyond that point, the plasma stops flowing downward, and no straight columns can be seen coming from below, directly into the filaments above. There is a distinct change of flow pattern happennig from figure 2A to figure 2B and you haven't addressed this issue at all.
quote:
I'm not fixated on anything. Again, how many more papers do you want which verify the standard model's density measurements?
It won't matter to me if you present a thousand of them if they all "assume" that every change of wave speed is caused by a temperature change and they exclude the possibility that this change of propogation speed may indicate a change in density. I'm still waiting to hear Dr. Kosovichev's full explanation of this process and how he determined which change affected the speed of the sounds. When I understand his methodology in determining density from temperature changes I'll be happy to continue, but without a method to determine which is the cause, it won't matter to me how many of these papers ASSUMED that speed changes can ONLY reflect temperature changes. I need some definitive way to differentiate temperature and density changes.
quote:
What, precisely, are you talking about? Who is trying to determine temperature changes from density changes? The two aren't necessarily related (look at, for example, water). Temperature and sound speed are related, however, as are density and sound speed, but in opposing fashions.
I'm talking about the quote in the first article and how we might determine the CAUSE of the increase in sound propogation speeed in this region. We know that plasma stops flowing in this region, and we know that the speed of these sounds increases "significantly" in these regions. Now it "could be" that a temperature variation is the cause of this change in speed *OR* it "could be" that the density has changed. How do we tell the CAUSE of this change?
quote:
Michael, the accusation that someone here is claiming anything about |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/24/2006 22:05:39 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
