|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 02/07/2006 : 18:26:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
First of all these techniques treat ionized plasma (a completely different state of matter than a gas) as an ideal gas and it is "assumed" that the adiabatic index is the same.
It's not assumed, Michael, it's been tested for decades, and nobody that I can find has yet found a plasma which varies from the norm so greatly that the ideal gas laws don't offer a very close estimate, just like they do for the noble gasses and every other gas with a relatively simple molecular structure.quote:
Nevermind the fact that there are electromagnetic fields galore at the surface.
Which, since those fields compress and cool the plasma, will reveal themselves as localized differences from the average density. This, along with your insistence that you can't provide a single figure for a non-homogenous shell makes me think that you simply don't grasp the idea of an average at all. But why even measure the density of the photosphere in a gauss-rich area like a sunspot? There's plenty of photosphere with a magnetic field only twice that of Earth's at sea level.quote:
Even the very premise that one can determine the density of a plasma in these conditions *without* knowing what the material is made of is itself an assumption.
No, it isn't. Name a simple fluid which has violated the ideal gas laws so significantly that they don't apply.
By the way, I'm pretty sure that Mab found your comment about density knee-slappingly funny (and I did, too) because all you need to do to measure the density of any unknown substance is to divide its mass by its volume. Works every time, regardless of the material. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 18:28:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
We need to be clear here, because usually I at least understand where you are coming from but at the moment I really don't follow your line of reasoning.
The very "assumption" that plasma can be "modeled" as an "ideal gas" is itself an assumption. That assumption has not been demonstrated, certainly not in these very specific conditions that involve huge flows of current and large electromagnetic fields.
No, the sun was modeled as an ideal gas. Then solar physicists said, "let's measure the acoustical properties of the sun and see how close to our model of an ideal gas it actually is." The result? The actual measurement was within 2% of the model. So you have two figures here: the predicted result and the measured result. You keep trying to conflate the first with the second. Your model must agree with the measured results.
quote:
In the sense that sounds speed is important and useful "collected data", yes, I concur, I will have to explain the sound speeds and transitions, just like gas model theoriests. In the sense that I am somehow "obligated" to simply accept a whole host of "assumptions" that may or may not be accurate, I disagree. I am certainly not obligated to try to explain this set of data using exactly these same sets of assumptions.
No, you must explain the data using a different set of assumptions, such as there exists a solid which has a density within 2% of an ideal gas (the measured results). We're still waiting for you to provide a material, any at all, that could possibly fulfill such a requirement.
|
"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 02/07/2006 18:34:47 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 18:39:14 [Permalink]
|
| H., it seems that Mozina is currently claiming that the idea that any plasma (be it solar or bench-top) would act like an ideal gas is an unsupported assumption, despite the fact that for the plasmas we're discussing (both his neon plasma and the SSM's mostly-hydrogen plasma) it is true. I don't think he's got a clue about how much work has gone into verifying and reverifying plasma physics, solar physics and helioseismology over the past four decades. He seemed genuinely surprised when I mentioned that helioseismology had a history going back much farther than Kosovichev's 2005 article that he was waving around so many posts ago. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 19:26:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Yes. GeeMack seems to have confused himself and others about this point. If you're looking to see my views spelled out clearly, I urge you to avoid GeeMacks portrayal of my ideas at all costs.
My portrayal of your idea is exactly the same as your portrayal, well usually, when you're not shrugging off the notion of a solid surface. Sometimes you waver and think the difference between "solid" and "plasma" (not solid) is quibbling. When I've been direct in pointing out that plasma is not solid, or when I've asked you to bring us up to current on your position, because you do waver, you get all bent out of shape and start accusing me of mischaracterizing your position. That's a false accusation, Michael. Dare I say it, another lie?
You seem to have a problem with being up against the wall when you can't actually prove your claim. It pisses you off because I've busted you at every turn of the corner. You bob and weave because I point out how you haven't provided any evidence that could be considered even remotely scientifically legitimate. You take issue with me because I keep trying to get you off your irrelevant tangents and back to answering direct questions about the specific issue of your solid surface Sun notion.
And you think I'm the one trying to get off on tangents. You go find anywhere in this discussion where I wasn't simply criticizing your feeble evidence, pointing out your lousy, non-credible methods of presenting (or avoiding presenting) your evidence, showing clearly how your claims of evidence aren't really evidence at all, or asking legitimate, pertinent, scientific questions directly related to your claim of a solid surface. The only reason you haven't been answering my questions is because you don't have the balls to simply say you don't know the answers. If you spent half as much effort gathering evidence as you do crying about being criticized, you might actually have some of those answers by now. 
Okay, back to the specific issue at hand, that of your far fetched claim that the Sun has a solid surface. Given that you've now admitted several times the isotope analysis and mass separation issue can not provide any proof of your conjecture, we can finally put that irrelevant material behind us. You see? I've agreed with you once again that it isn't evidence for your case. I've dealt with it once again. I've dealt with it exactly the same way as everyone else. I've read the material, I've applied my consideration to its possible validity in supporting your conjecture, and I've rejected it. If you suggest I haven't dealt with it you're simply lying. The fact that I didn't take it as proof of your wild guess doesn't mean I haven't dealt with it. In fact, from my observation, nobody else on Earth has accepted it as proof of a solid surface Sun either, not even Dr. Manuel. It looks like you're the only one who still hasn't actually dealt with it. And the sooner you stop bringing it into the discussion, the sooner you will have dealt with it, too.
So moving forward, what do we have left? We can leave out helioseismology, because you've made it abundantly clear that you consider it a wholly unreliable scientific tool. And we can leave out running difference images, because they don't in any way actually portray images of surfaces. And we can leave out the isotope analysis and consequent notion of the Sun being mass separated because we all agree that isn't evidence of a solid surface. Not much left to go on there, Michael. How about instead of continuing to beat those dead horses, why don't you do exactly what I've been doing ever since my very first comments in this thread, why don't you stick directly to the issue of your solid surface conjecture, get off the tangent issues, leave the pieces behind that aren't evidence, and move along with your case.
The deal here is, you've made a claim about the Sun and you claimed to be able to prove it, and you haven't proven it yet. The deal here is, nobody but nobody else has to prove it, or disprove it. It's all yours, Michael. So far you've got nothing.
Edited for spelling. |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 02/07/2006 21:13:22 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 20:30:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I think you're just confusing mass separation and mass fractionization. Gravity alone doesn't really explain fractionization.
I'll admit to confusing the two. I readily admit that I don't know the difference between mass separation and mass fractionization. In all the contexts I've seen, fractionization is just separation, the term not implying any particular underlying method. What am I missing here? Also, what does "really" mean in this sort of context?
(BTW, I'm Currently working my way through the first isotope paper, nothing concrete either for or against the solid shell hypothesis that I can see as yet).
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 05:26:27 [Permalink]
|
Unfortunatly your logic is faulty John, as you see there is no evedence against the Flying Spagetti Monster who created the Universe out of meatballs. Only evedence related to the claim is pertenent, a lack of evidence is not evidence for...etc.
Also if you havent seen anything concrete against the SSH, then you are not reading this very well, did you see the first 45+pages? |
"...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 - 02/08/2006 : 09:13:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
No, the sun was modeled as an ideal gas.
But it's not even a gas in the first place.
quote:
Then solar physicists said, "let's measure the acoustical properties of the sun and see how close to our model of an ideal gas it actually is." The result? The actual measurement was within 2% of the model.
Be specific here about two things. Which *EXACT* study are you refering to, and how was the density and the type of material at the penumbral filament layer determined?
quote:
So you have two figures here: the predicted result and the measured result. You keep trying to conflate the first with the second.
I'm only trying to separate raw data from data interpretation. In other words, the speed of sound in the penumbral filament layer is raw data. "Density" however is "interpreted" from the data. I've not even heard a logical explanation of how we determine what that material is made of, so how do you intend to determine it's density from the raw data?
quote:
Your model must agree with the measured results.
A agree that my model my agree with the speed of sound results, and the transition results. Density however is another matter. Before we determine density, I need to know how you intend to do that *without* even knowing what the material is made of.
quote:
No, you must explain the data using a different set of assumptions, such as there exists a solid which has a density within 2% of an ideal gas (the measured results). We're still waiting for you to provide a material, any at all, that could possibly fulfill such a requirement.
Which "ideal gas" are you refering to? How *exactly* was the density of the penumbral filament layer determined?
The issue here is how the density at the penumbral filament layer was determined, and what that material is made of. From 1.0 to .995R, even in a Birkeland model, gravity will create pressure that will increase the density of the plasma with depth in exactly the same way we would expect in a typical gas model. The question then is what is that material, and how dense is the top of that layer. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 09:27:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
H., it seems that Mozina is currently claiming that the idea that any plasma (be it solar or bench-top) would act like an ideal gas is an unsupported assumption,
No. I am questioning your suggestion that *all* plasma, in *every* circumstance, *regardless of environment* will *always* act as an ideal gas *without* respect to any external factors. The conditions of the sun are not "simple" in the sense that we have a significant amount of gravity involved, and a significant amount of electromagnetic activity to consider. To fully understand the influence of these factors we need to know what materials are involved, and how these specific materials are influence by such factors. I haven't seen anything in the links that you've sent me that would suggest these issues have been addressed, in fact I see nothing that tells me what the material is even made of.
quote:
He seemed genuinely surprised when I mentioned that helioseismology had a history going back much farther than Kosovichev's 2005 article that he was waving around so many posts ago.
Oh come on Dave. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 09:31:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Be specific here about two things. Which *EXACT* study are you refering to, and how was the density and the type of material at the penumbral filament layer determined?
Suppose you tell us, Michael. After all, you're the one who made up the term penumbral filament layer. quote:
I'm only trying to separate raw data from data interpretation. In other words, the speed of sound in the penumbral filament layer is raw data. "Density" however is "interpreted" from the data. I've not even heard a logical explanation of how we determine what that material is made of, so how do you intend to determine it's density from the raw data?
Well if there's no such thing as a penumbral filament layer, or if you just pulled the term out of your ass, then how about you provide all the details about its density. Fact is, until you invented the term penumbral filament layer, nobody had any idea what material it was made of. And until you can show scientifically that there even is such a thing as a penumbral filament layer, its pretty much a moot issue to this conversation, now isn't it? quote:
A agree that my model my agree with the speed of sound results, and the transition results. Density however is another matter. Before we determine density, I need to know how you intend to do that *without* even knowing what the material is made of.
Could be made of just about anything you decide it's made of, Michael. It came from your imagination. Just imagine a material! quote:
Which "ideal gas" are you refering to? How *exactly* was the density of the penumbral filament layer determined?
Good question there, Michael. Just exactly how would you determine the density of your penumbral filament layer?quote:
The issue here is how the density at the penumbral filament layer was determined, and what that material is made of. From 1.0 to .995R, even in a Birkeland model, gravity will create pressure that will increase the density of the plasma with depth in exactly the same way we would expect in a typical gas model.
And about that Birkeland solar model, where was it exactly he mentioned a penumbral filament layer? And while you're bringing Birkeland's experiments into the discussion, where was it exactly he said he believed the Sun had a solid iron surface? quote:
The question then is what is that material, and how dense is the top of that layer.
Then if that's the question, answer it, Michael.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 09:37:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It's not assumed, Michael, it's been tested for decades, and nobody that I can find has yet found a plasma which varies from the norm so greatly that the ideal gas laws don't offer a very close estimate, just like they do for the noble gasses and every other gas with a relatively simple molecular structure.
You mean to tell me that in *no* (absolutely none) circumstances will plasma behave differently from an ideal gas?
quote:
Which, since those fields compress and cool the plasma, will reveal themselves as localized differences from the average density.
You seem to be assuming that these electromagnetic fields could not and would not affect the whole system in any way. Assuming the sun is a cathode sphere that is electrically interacting with the universe itself as Birkeland suggests, this seems rather unlikely to be the case. In other words there is current flowing through the system at all times.
quote:
This, along with your insistence that you can't provide a single figure for a non-homogenous shell makes me think that you simply don't grasp the idea of an average at all.
Ya, in all my 46 years of life and my professional career, I've never had to "average" anything. :) Come on.
quote:
No, it isn't. Name a simple fluid which has violated the ideal gas laws so significantly that they don't apply.
You are now suggesting that all plasma, regardless of circumstance and environment will always behave exactly as an ideal gas.
quote:
By the way, I'm pretty sure that Mab found your comment about density knee-slappingly funny (and I did, too) because all you need to do to measure the density of any unknown substance is to divide its mass by its volume. Works every time, regardless of the material.
What's the mass of an unknown material? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 09:47:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
After all, you're the one who made up the term penumbral filament layer.
It's simply a mass separated label for the term "penumbra" as differentiated from the "umbra". There is a clear delineation between these two "layers" as you can see in any closeup view of a sunspot. At the end of the neon penumbral filaments, where the silicon plasma begins, the visible light decreases significantly. These are mass separated "layers" that are made of different materials. The penumbra (penumbral filaments) is made of neon, while the umbra is composed of silicon plasma.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/08/2006 09:51:05 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 09:57:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
It's simply a mass separated label for the term "penumbra" as differentiated from the "umbra". There is a clear delineation between these two "layers" as you can see in any closeup view of a sunspot. At the end of the neon filaments, where the silicon plasma begins, the light decreases significantly. These are mass separated "layers" of different materials. The penumbra is made of neon, while the umbra is a silicon plasma layer.
That is not correct. It's not a layer. The "umbra" of a sunspot is the darkest region within the center area. The "penumbra" of a sunspot is the area surrounding the umbra, the region where the sunspot is not as dark as the umbra, but is also not as bright as the ambient brightness of the rest of the solar surface. Simply, when used to describe characteristics of sunspots, the terms "umbra" and "penumbra" are distinctions in apparent brightness and have absolutely nothing to do with layers.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 10:12:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
That is not correct. It's not a layer. The "umbra" of a sunspot is the darkest region within the center area.
That is where the silicon plasma is rising up through the neon layer. That is also why we see flare patterns at the top of the penumbral filaments.
quote:
The "penumbra" of a sunspot is the area surrounding the umbra, the region where the sunspot is not as dark as the umbra, but is also not as bright as the ambient brightness of the rest of the solar surface. Simply, when used to describe characteristics of sunspots, the terms "umbra" and "penumbra" are distinctions in apparent brightness and have absolutely nothing to do with layers.
Yes they have everything to do with layers. In fact, you'll see a clear delineation at the bottom of the penumbral filaments where the light ends, right where the filaments end. There's no light along the sides that goes any deeper than the filaments themselves, and under the filaments it's also dark. If they aren't different layers, why does the light not shine underneath the filaments? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/08/2006 10:14:07 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 10:44:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No. I am questioning your suggestion that *all* plasma, in *every* circumstance, *regardless of environment* will *always* act as an ideal gas *without* respect to any external factors.
Well that's fine, because I'm only talking about the plasmas we can find on the Sun, which are dense enough and kinetic enough to make the electrical interactions between ions and electrons negligible.quote:
The conditions of the sun are not "simple" in the sense that we have a significant amount of gravity involved, and a significant amount of electromagnetic activity to consider. To fully understand the influence of these factors we need to know what materials are involved, and how these specific materials are influence by such factors.
How so? Please, explain to me how (for example) a neon plasma would behave differently from a hydrogen plasma within the gravity and electromagnetic conditions found at the Sun's surface.quote:
I haven't seen anything in the links that you've sent me that would suggest these issues have been addressed...
Since the issues you raise are not based upon any valid plasma science, but instead based on "facts" which you are pulling out of thin air, is it any wonder nobody is addressing them?quote:
...in fact I see nothing that tells me what the material is even made of.
What material(s) could it be made of, and have the measurements match your model?quote:
quote:
He seemed genuinely surprised when I mentioned that helioseismology had a history going back much farther than Kosovichev's 2005 article that he was waving around so many posts ago.
Oh come on Dave.
It was simply an observation.
From another post:quote:
You mean to tell me that in *no* (absolutely none) circumstances will plasma behave differently from an ideal gas?
No conditions which can be found on the Sun. The plasma has to either be extremely tenuous (the opposite of your model) or extremely cool (or both) in order to have the electrical interactions between the particles be more meaningful than their average kinetic energy.quote:
You seem to be assuming that these electromagnetic fields could not and would not affect the whole system in any way. Assuming the sun is a cathode sphere that is electrically interacting with the universe itself as Birkeland suggests, this seems rather unlikely to be the case. In other words there is current flowing through the system at all times.
Tell me how current flowing through a plasma would affect its kinetic properties such that it could not be modeled as an ideal gas.quote:
Ya, in all my 46 years of life and my professional career, I've never had to "average" anything. :) Come on.
Okay, then every time you're asked for the density of your allegedly solid shell, and you refuse because it's allegedly non-homogenous, I will conclude that you are simply stonewalling and/or afraid to say that you don't have any clue at all (either way, your refusal is non-scientific and evasive). After all, the density of the Earth's crust averages 2.5 g/cm3.quote:
You are now suggesting that all plasma, regardless of circumstance and environment will always behave exactly as an ideal gas.
No, I was asking you to name a simple fluid which is so far from ideal that the ideal gas laws don't apply. I'll take this non-answer as more evasiveness and an unwillingness to have a scientific discussion.quote:
What's the mass of an unknown material?
Send me a sample of it. I'll mass it, and I'll measure its volume, and then send it back to you with a slip of paper upon which will be its density. You can trust me not to have it analyzed for composition. Oh, make sure that whatever it is won't be damaged by being submerged.
From another post:quote:
It's simply a mass separated label for the term "penumbra" as differentiated from the "umbra". There is a clear delineation between these two "layers" as you can see in any closeup view of a sunspot. At the end of the neon penumbral filaments, where the silicon plasma begins, the visible light decreases significantly. These are mass separated "layers" that are made of different materials. The penumbra (penumbral filaments) is made of neon, while the umbra is composed of silicon plasma.
Hey, in a mass-separated model in which all of these low-numbered elements appear, why don't you have labels for the sodium, magnesium and aluminum layers between the neon and silicon layers? How about the phosphorous, sulphur, chlorine, argon, and potassium layers between the silicon and calcium layers? After all, looking at Dr. Manuel's abundances, it seems there's only about 1/7th the calcium there than silicon, but sulphur appears more than half as abundant as silicon. Why do you pick out the calcium layer, but not the much-more abundant sulphur layer? Similarly, there's 10 times more oxygen in the Sun (according to Manuel) as neon, but you haven't talked much (here) about the oxygen layer.
Oh, since it's only the atmosphere which is allegedly mass separated, I know not to ask about cobalt or any other elements higher in the periodic table than iron. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 11:31:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
That is where the silicon plasma is rising up through the neon layer. That is also why we see flare patterns at the top of the penumbral filaments.
If this has any relevance to your conjecture that the Sun has a solid surface, please demonstrate it to be true. If it has no relevance, please stay focused, for purposes of scientific integrity, and avoid wandering off on tangents. If it is relevant, provide as much of the following as you possibly can: A quantitative analysis that shows "silicon plasma is rising up through the neon layer" or that "we see flare patterns". Please include references, relevant links, page numbers, specific quotes, calculations, and any other citations you might have available. It is also acceptable for you to reply that it isn't relevant, and/or that you don't actually know this to be true.quote:
Yes they have everything to do with layers. In fact, you'll see a clear delineation at the bottom of the penumbral filaments where the light ends, right where the filaments end. There's no light along the sides that goes any deeper than the filaments themselves, and under the filaments it's also dark.
That is also not correct. There is no place within a sunspot where "the light ends" or where there is "no light", as you suggest. You haven't provided any quantitative data to indicate how deep the sunspot might be, how bright the penumbra might be, or how much less bright the umbra might be. You don't offer any more here than your interpretation of some images. For purposes of a scientific discussion, with integrity, more or less light in a particular area must be stated in quantitative terms. Without a quantitative analysis of the image(s), it can not be scientifically accepted as evidence of anything.quote:
If they aren't different layers, why does the light not shine underneath the filaments?
Apparently light does shine underneath the filaments. If your concern here is relevant to the discussion about your notion of the Sun having a solid surface, it's your question, you answer it. Indicate the amount of light coming through the filaments, or possibly being reflected from, generated by, or otherwise being emitted from the filaments. You need to quantitatively explain the light reflection, refraction, and/or absorption properties of the filaments. You need to provide the physical size, length, thickness, and angular orientation of the filaments. You need to explain their density as it relates to opacity or translucency. Explain how those filaments might interact with light to produce the effects you observe, for purposes of scientific integrity of course.
If this discussion of sunspots is not relevant towards providing evidence of your solid surfaced Sun conjecture, please avoid this tangent issue and get back to the subject of the discussion.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
