quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
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.

---

quote:

---

When the sun is measured, there is no dark matter/energy detected.

---

quote:

---

When the mass of Earth is measured, the data fits the density proposed by seismology.

quote:

---

Ok.

quote:

---

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.

---

How convenient that we can't even see it, we're not sure what it is, but we already know with certainty that there's none of it in our solar system, and it has no effect on our solar system. This is some pretty fancy rationalizing if you ask me. Some folks (according to your link) seem to think we need to invent a whole different kind of 'matter' entirely to explain its behavior, but your already sure that it can't effect our solar system?

quote:

---

Having all that matter evenly distributed around us means that gravitational field from that matter has zero net impact.

---

That would not necessarily be true, particularly if the majority of the mass is in this undetectable form of matter in the first place!

quote:

---

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.

---

Again, that would depend on what dark energy/matter really are. In addition, your suggestion is only true if you believe that heliocentric concepts of density must be adhered to and explained. I don't share your views on this point.

quote:

---

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.

---

I'll grant you that it works perfectly well in RELATIVE terms, but I'm not convinced it works in terms of determining ABSOLUTE concept of density.

quote:

---

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.

---

The fact that most of the mass of our universe (90 percent) is in the "form" of dark matter precludes us from simply ASSUMING that it has "no" influence on density. You've literally ASSUMED that something that accounts for the vast majority of all matter, matter we can't even see in the first place, has exactly ZERO influence on our solar system as it relates to density calculations. That isn't even logical IMO. There is no smokescreen in simply noting that only a 50 percent influence in our own solar system would vastly skew any sense of absolute density we might try to look at when viewing only "visible" forms of matter.

quote:

---

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.

---

That depends *ENTIRELY* on the FORCE behind the acceleration. The fact the sun has an iron shell makes it entirely possible that this acceleration is due to large scale Birkland currents. Electromagnetic fields may not influence every body in the system in exactly the same way. You seem to be LEAPING to the conclusion that we already know the force of acceleration.

quote:

---

Besides, the acceleration only occur on an intergalactic scale, between galaxy cluster and not within galaxies or even planetary systems.

---

Well, that may be the only place we "observe" it's overt influence "so far".

[quote] The cosmic background radiation allows us to measure both speed and acceleration, so those "constants" are known.

---

While the constant is known, its underlying mechanical force is less understood.

[quote]And since we cannot agree on the interpretation of those images, what's the point of introducing more fluff?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Mozina...

There's no "fluff" in Dr. Birkeland's lab work, or in Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis. So far I've heard no other explanations for these satellite images based on any other theories. I've certainly not heard any explanations for these images that is even remotely attentive to any of the details in that first image. Until and unless you guys come up with a viable scientific alternative, I see no reason to believe you have a viable "interpretation" of these images in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Mozina

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.
No. That is not what you were asking me to support.

---

quote:

---

You were clearly asking for more journal articles which support the notion that the helioseismology density measurements match the standard solar model's figure of 0.00003 g/cm³ at just above 0.995R.

---

quote:

---

What you're doing here is a fallacy called "moving the goalposts." When I give you specifically what you asked for, you change what you're asking for, and then claim that I never gave you what you asked for. It's dishonest, Michael, to behave in such a manner.

---

quote:

---

I'll address the rest of your misunderstandings (like that an increase in density would mean an increase in the speed of sound in a gas, which is precisely backwards) later... maybe. If you can, once again, show that you're interested in a scientific discussion of these issues, instead of your current goalpost-shifting baloney.

---

quote:

---

Sound in solids

In solids, the velocity of sound depends on density of the material, not its temperature. Solid materials, such as steel, conduct sound much faster than air.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeeMack
Are you mentally retarded?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HalfMooner

Is it possible that one or more of you gentlepeople could take a moment to briefly summarize the discussion and points of dispute so far, in terms the layman might hope to grasp?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

In several cases data have been presented that contradicts the Iron Shell. From plasma currents within and below the shell

---

quote:

---

to the universal constant,

---

quote:

---

and expansion of the universe.

---

quote:

---

The most recent blatant pulled out of the butt, ad hoc Red Herring is electromagnetic acceleration that affects the sun and the earth differently.

---

quote:

---

But if such an acceleration was significant enough to make any difference then it would also show up on orbital trajectories as an unexplained discrepancy.

---

quote:

---

Indeed several physical principles has to be disregarded in order to explain the Iron Shell.

---

quote:

---

All evidence that falsifies the Iron Shell has effectively been munched up by a hungry Morton's Demon.

---

quote:

---

Since our arguments doesn't get through, I no longer see any point in actively engaging in the argument. It's like talking to a stone wall, it just bounces off. I've had enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Mozina...

You can prove me wrong and tackle Manuel's work, or just take a hike.

---

You don't know the combinations of materials that make up your alleged surface. You guess it's mostly iron. You guess it also contains carbon, oxygen, calcium, magnesium, maganeese (whatever the hell that is). You guess it's over 50% iron, but you won't venture a guess as to the specific proportions.

You don't have any idea how frequently magma moves through your alleged surface, but you guess it's more frequently than here on Earth. You don't know how frequently magma moves through the crust of the Earth. You guess the mechanics of the magma flow is the same as here on Earth. You don't know the mechanics of magma flow on Earth.

You don't know the proportions of materials that make up the magma. You guess it's just like magma here on Earth. You don't have any idea of the composition of magma here on Earth.

You guess no consideration can be given to anyone's calculations of density of the sun or your alleged surface because the effects of dark matter and/or dark energy haven't been applied to the calculations. You don't have any idea what dark matter or dark energy is.

You guess that your interpretation of helioseismology data is evidence for a solid surface. You believe your guess about density variations is not subject to the effects of dark matter or dark energy, whatever they are.

You don't know how dense your alleged surface is. You guess it's just like the Earth's crust. You don't know how dense the Earth's crust is.

You don't know what temperature your alleged surface is. You guess it's somewhere less than 4000°K. You guess it's just cool enough to not melt your alleged surface. You don't know how cool that might be because you don't know its material composition.

You're pretty sure the surface starts at 0.995R. You don't know how thick it is. You guess it ends at 0.990R... or 0.985R... or 0.971R. You guess it's somewhere in there.

You guess material gets "peeled" off your alleged surface by an electrical process identical to welding. You don't have any idea how those processes might scale up to the size of events you think you see. You don't have any idea how much material gets peeled off. You don't know how often. You don't know where it gets redeposited or how.

You guess electromagnetic acceleration might affect the speed of movement of the sun. You guess that renders all other calculations of its density useless. You guess your notion of density is still valid. You don't have any idea what that density is.

You guess some of the mass that flows through your alleged surface is electrons. You don't know how much flows through it. You don't know how fast it flows. You guess the mechanics of the electron flow are just like regular electricity. You don't know how regular electricity might flow through because you don't know how the unknown temperatures and unknown material composition might affect resistances.

You guess -- and I'll admit this one cracks me up because I can't imagine someone would claim to be postulating a scientific conjecture and actually say something like this -- you guess that solar winds are generated the same way as wind is generated here on Earth. And of course you don't have any idea how that happens.

You guess the interior of the sun might be made up of dark matter or dark energy or any combination of unknown materials or physical principles that might ultimately support your notion of a solid surface.

You guess, regularly, and usually incorrectly, that other people have some kind of religious faith in the contemporary gaseous sun theory.

You guess, often, and always incorrectly, that your conjecture of a solid surface sun should be accepted as fact until and unless other people prove you wrong.

You've looked at a lot of pictures for a really really long time.

To you, those pictures really really look like the sun has a solid surface.

quote:

---

This technique, known as helioseismology, works on the same principle as medical ultrasound, the process that allows doctors to "see" a foetus inside a pregnant woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Mozina

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

But if such an acceleration was significant enough to make any difference then it would also show up on orbital trajectories as an unexplained discrepancy.

---

Maybe. Probably. Particularly if we knew what we were looking for. Perhaps the location of the orbits relative to the sun's equator ARE effected and we haven't figure out how just yet. We've discovered new objects around the sun in strange orbits recently. There is a lot we have to learn about our own solar system at this point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

Birkland's model is highly flawed, because it doesn't include dark matter,

---

quote:

---

dark energy, electro-magnetic acceleration of the sun (different from the planets), or the universal acceleration, because it's obviously heloicentric.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Actually, since I've personally made no prediction about density yet, I can certainly demonstrate how Birkeland's model CAN include whatever external factors are found that may affect our solar system.

---