|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 02/08/2006 : 12:01:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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:
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.
I'm a bit puzzled here by a part of your comment, specifically because you believe the photosphere plasma to be as "thin" as you do. I concur that my model would include a "more dense" top layer, but we also observe a significant amount of electrical current in the sun's activities according to the University of Maryland. I'm therefor puzzled how you rule out the flow of electricity as potentially having an influence on thes figures, even with a plasma that is more dense than the one you propose. Keep in mind that in Birkeland's model the sun itself interacts as a whole with the universe itself and there is constant current flow.
In the model I've proposed the plasma near the surface will likely be quite a bit cooler than the plasma at the surface of the photosphere.
There could in fact be an oxygen plasma layer on top of the neon layer. In fact there could be other plasma layers as well. In each case additional plasma layers will be arranged by atomic weight.
I personally doubt there is a sulfur plasma layer. According to the SERTS data the presense of high amounts of sulfur are typically only found during the sun's active phases. This suggests to me that the sulfur emissions are more likely due to surface fractures and volcanic events. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/08/2006 12:03:51 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 12:26:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
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.
The irony meter is pegged again. :) Mass separation is not a "tangent", it's the topic I've been trying to get you to deal with for the better part of a month.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg
This clear delineation between layers is observational evidence of mass separation (that topic you keep avoiding). The evidence includes that flare pattern we see at the top of the penumbra, where the heated silicon plasma reaches the helium layer and then falls back into the penumbra and sinks back into the umbra. The fact the filaments end a specific depth and there is little if any visible light coming from UNDER the filaments is also an important detail. Why do the filaments all end at a very specific depth?
quote:
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.
It's directly relevant to the "mass separation" topic you keep avoiding like the plague. When you actually deal with that issue, *then* you can talk to me about "integrity". |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/08/2006 12:31:27 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 12:39:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
I'm sorry Dave, but that won't work. Archimede's Principle is not valid, because it doesn't take into account dark matter nor the Universal Acceleration. Besides, it will be a realtive, not absolute measurement anyway. |
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. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 12:40:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
According to the SERTS data the presense of high amounts of sulfur are typically only found during the sun's active phases. This suggests to me that the sulfur emissions are more likely due to surface fractures and volcanic events.
It is comments like this that are actually making me feel sorry for Dr. Manuel.
Clearly the model that Dr. Manuel has proposed is unsupportable, but to reduced to publishing a supposedly scientific paper and only finding someone like Micheal as a contributing author is embarrasing.
From the paper:
On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and
the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars
Authors:
Dr. Manuel - Phd in nuclear chemistry
Hilton Ratcliffe - A graduate (wow - he graduated!) of astrophysics
Micheal Mozina - Some guy Dr. Manuel met on the internet that looked at pictures of the sun and thought that it looked solid.
Jesus, UMR must be so proud, this is an example of the horror of tenure gone bad...
I know this proves nothing I just find it humorous and depressing at the same time.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 12:44:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
Michael, this is such a blatant strawman you should be ashamed of 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 - 02/08/2006 : 12:52:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
It is comments like this that are actually making me feel sorry for Dr. Manuel.
Clearly the model that Dr. Manuel has proposed is unsupportable, but to reduced to publishing a supposedly scientific paper and only finding someone like Micheal as a contributing author is embarrasing.
Evidently you didn't read many of Dr. Manuel's papers. He's worked with *many* indviduals over the past 30+ years. Since he's now done several papers with me, I guess that a Doctor of Nuclear chemistry seems to think I'm a credible individual, and the information I've provided is also credible. The fact you seem to think that Hilton's astrophysics degree isn't good enough for you personally only demonstrates the flawed nature of your logic. A Phd is no measure of a man, and no guarantee of accuracy on any specific scientific issue. The fact Hilton has a degree in a specifically related field "should" give him credibility. The fact you blow him off with a handwave, just like you blow me off with a handwave, is indicative of the irrational nature of your arguement. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/08/2006 13:08:16 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 12:54:37 [Permalink]
|
Michael the mass separation that you are talking about I think is wrong. Dr. Manuel has stated alot about mass separation but I have not seen the data presented where his ideas can be tested.
Dave found the following:
quote:
"Manuel and Hwaung [78] took a different approach. They assumed that the Sun is a mix of the components seen in meteorites and used isotope abundances in the solar wind to estimate the fraction of each primitive component in the Sun."
(Emphasis as in original.)
If this is that starting point of mass separation then the hole concept is horribly flawed.
Lets see, there are no hydrogen/helium meteorites found on earth because the sun is mostly iron. That is funnier than you saying you can't find the density (or mass) of a material without knowing what the material is.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 12:58:06 [Permalink]
|
Michael,
quote:
A Phd is no measure of a man, and no guarantee of accuracy on any specific scientific issue.
I site Dr. Manuel as evidence. I stand corrected.
Come on Michael - volcanos on the sun?!
You're killing me...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 13:00:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
The irony meter is beeping again. :) Mass separation is not a "tangent", it's the topic I've been trying to get you to deal with for the better part of a month.
Let me explain one more time for you, Michael, because you do show a propensity for misunderstanding even the simplest of details. Recall I said...quote:
Originally posted by me...
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.
See? I've dealt with it, the same way as everyone else, even Oliver Manuel, the author of the material. Everyone so far, including Dr. Manuel, has rejected it as evidence of your conjecture of the Sun having a solid surface. Now please address the issues from my previous posting, you know, from a perspective of scientific integrity. 
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 13:11:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Michael,
quote:
A Phd is no measure of a man, and no guarantee of accuracy on any specific scientific issue.
I site Dr. Manuel as evidence. I stand corrected.
Come on Michael - volcanos on the sun?!
You're killing me...
Both of those comments are essentially cheap shots. Do you have any scientific evidence that either comment is scientifically meaningful or accurate, or are you just baiting and trolling today. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 13:26:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
I've dealt with it exactly the same way as everyone else.
That is false. You're the only one suggesting that mass separation is not relevant to this discussion. You're the only one living in denial. Everyone else has been at least been in integrity with this issue and are at least looking into the issue, whereas you are trying to weasel out of the issue and clearly have no intention of dealing with this issue in integrity. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 13:30:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
Michael, this is such a blatant strawman you should be ashamed of yourself.
I can see how and why you feel that way, but Dave asked me to show a "simple fluid" that violates the ideal gas laws *without* mentioning or considering any external influences. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 14:14:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Both of those comments are essentially cheap shots. Do you have any scientific evidence that either comment is scientifically meaningful or accurate, or are you just baiting and trolling today.
Actually, they were cheap shots and I suppose I am baiting you.
It ticks me off how you wiggle out of answering specific questions or purposely misunderstand sound scientific principals and then say crap like this.
quote:
In the model I've proposed the plasma near the surface will likely be quite a bit cooler than the plasma at the surface of the photosphere.
There could in fact be an oxygen plasma layer on top of the neon layer. In fact there could be other plasma layers as well. In each case additional plasma layers will be arranged by atomic weight.
I personally doubt there is a sulfur plasma layer. According to the SERTS data the presense of high amounts of sulfur are typically only found during the sun's active phases. This suggests to me that the sulfur emissions are more likely due to surface fractures and volcanic events.
Emphasis is mine.
Jesus Christ shutup! No data, no math, no mechanism, no nothing. Just a bunch of wild conjectures.
I have read many scientific papers and spoken with many scientist NONE of them make wild stupid conjectures like this. NOBODY has a 'model' that has as many maybe, could be, or likely comments as you. That is why I dismiss you. It is not with a handwave, but based on your pages and pages of baseless, unscientific, inane conjecture. This is also why I find it odd that you are an author on a paper with Dr. Manuel. You see generally a scholarly paper is written by well... scholars.
PS. I don't know diddly about Ratcliffe - other than he doesn't believe that the big bang occured.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 14:17:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'm a bit puzzled here by a part of your comment, specifically because you believe the photosphere plasma to be as "thin" as you do. I concur that my model would include a "more dense" top layer, but we also observe a significant amount of electrical current in the sun's activities according to the University of Maryland.
Yeah, way up in the corona and crashing down on the chromosphere. The UoM paper said nothing about the presence of or amount of electrical activity down in the photosphere, it was all about coronal loops.quote:
I'm therefor puzzled how you rule out the flow of electricity as potentially having an influence on thes figures, even with a plasma that is more dense than the one you propose.
I specifically asked you what the differences are between a plasma without current running through it (a bunch of ions and electrons bouncing around randomly) and one with a current running through it (in which the electrons - mostly - will be going in one direction), and how that difference would affect the use of the ideal gas laws in describing the plasma. In other words, I asked you to rule the effects in. Your lack of an answer, since you are claiming that such differences must be considered or the assumption is wrong, is unscientific and evasive. Just like how you continue to refuse to answer when asked with what units "absolute density" is measured, even though you've been crystal clear that you think "absolute density" is different from "relative density" (which is measured as mass/volume).quote:
Keep in mind that in Birkeland's model the sun itself interacts as a whole with the universe itself and there is constant current flow.
If the current flow doesn't matter to the modeling of a plasma as an ideal gas, then this comment is irrelevant.quote:
In the model I've proposed the plasma near the surface will likely be quite a bit cooler than the plasma at the surface of the photosphere.
So what? We're discussing the ability of helioseismology to determine the density of the visible photosphere (oh, um, that would be the "penumbral filament layer," right?).quote:
There could in fact be an oxygen plasma layer on top of the neon layer. In fact there could be other plasma layers as well. In each case additional plasma layers will be arranged by atomic weight.
The question was, since their abundances are so high, why aren't you talking about those other layers? According to Dr. Manuel's numbers, there's about three times as much sulphur in the Sun as there is calcium, but diagrams of your model skip sulphur entirely. You claim calcium is the plasma next to the allegedly solid surface, but chromium - according to Dr. Manuel - is almost as abundant as calcium, and so should be the element right next to the mostly-iron surface in your model. Chromium even shows up in the SERTS quiet-Sun line list for 1993!quote:
I personally doubt there is a sulfur plasma layer. According to the SERTS data the presense of high amounts of sulfur are typically only found during the sun's active phases. This suggests to me that the sulfur emissions are more likely due to surface fractures and volcanic events.
The available evidence suggests that SERTS cannot see S I through S IX, nor S XV or S XVI, as it doesn't seem that sulphur at those ionizations radiates within SERTS' passband. Since you claim that plasmas near the surface would be cooler than plasmas at the top of the photosphere, a sulphur plasma in your model would necessarily be outside of SERTS' passband. In other words, your argument for the lack of a sulphur plasma layer relies on a lack of evidence from one measuring system. By analogy, I should be able to claim that any person that I can't see right now simply doesn't exist. But you never did respond to the analogy about the red cars, which was about bad generalizations when it is known that the measuring device is highly limited in scope.
From another post:quote:
...Dave asked me to show a "simple fluid" that violates the ideal gas laws *without* mentioning or considering any external influences.
You were perfectly free to show that a plasma in a large electrical, magnetic or gravitational field will definitely not be describable with the ideal gas laws, but you chose not to do so. I certainly didn't say you could not consider those things when making your choice, but you gave no indication of even trying to answer my question. You still haven't. |
- 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 : 14:25:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
That is false. You're the only one suggesting that mass separation is not relevant to this discussion. You're the only one living in denial. Everyone else has been at least been in integrity with this issue and are at least looking into the issue, whereas you are trying to weasel out of the issue and clearly have no intention of dealing with this issue in integrity.
You're a liar. There are two primary reasons I believe the mass separation issue is not relevant to this discussion. One, I've read the report, considered its validity as possible evidence to your nutty claim, and I've rejected it, just like everyone else including the author of the report. Two, you've admitted yourself, several times now, that the isotope analysis and its consequent concern about mass separation do not provide proof of your wildass guess.
The fact that other people are willing to entertain your silly fantasy and I'm not, does not in any way indicate that I haven't read, considered, and rejected that piece of useless "evidence". The fact that other people are willing to play your childish game, that one where you demand people humor you and pretend to believe you or you won't answer their next question, does not indicate in any way that they actually take your bullshit seriously either. Science isn't about indulging your fantasies. Science is about you backing up your claim with valid evidence, and you haven't even begun to do that.
You've claimed several times that the materials which make up the Sun are mass separated, "right down to the isotope". You've also claimed several times now that your allegedly solid surface is not pure iron. Well if the materials are mass separated right down to the isotope, that would require your allegedly solid surface to be composed of pure 100% elemental iron or one of its isotopes. There, I've dealt with your silly mass separation issue in the most simple, succinct, and conclusive way possible. It utterly fails to provide legitimate, scientifically acceptable evidence for your guess. Deal with that. Go ahead and build your apologetics. Go ahead and explain how such a glaring contradiction in your own explanation can exist. And do that with, you know, some kind of scientific integrity.
At any given point along this discussion you have the opportunity to ask for a show of hands. Hey, how about it everyone, Michael wants to know who believes the isotope analysis is legitimate valid scientific supportive evidence for the Mozina Crackpot Conjecture of a Solid Surface Sun. Raise your hands! Anybody?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
