|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 02/08/2006 : 17:45:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Only because you "assumed" that there is no dark energy *inside* the solar system, even though suns would be a likely source of such energy, and/or great conductors of electricity as plasma cosmology and Birkeland insist.
Fine, Michael. Redo the calculations assuming there is dark energy inside the sun and produce new figures here. Stop bitching about what other people aren't accounting for and show how these things affect the results and to what degree. If you can't, then these complaints, as Dave has said, are science-free and can be ignored.
|
"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 |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 17:50:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
There is however a problem when you try to use "relative" ideas and attempt to apply them in "absolute" terms related to "density". The relative density is understood, but absolute density is less understood. Until we understand how Bireland current affect our solar system, it's a little premature to suggest that the sun has an "absolute" density of "x". It certainly has a "relative" density of "x", but in absolute terms we don't know what all factors are in play.
The dead give away to the oversimplification of the density issue is the fact that these density numbers are computed in a purely heliocentric manner, and we know that the universe keeps accelerating at a universal constant, and that has never been explained or factored into these equations. I've got no problem with density numbers in "relative" terms, but that relative number can't be used to declare "absolute" density.
And yet you've failed from the beginning to come up with a way to account for any of these thing, or to even suggest how these things might skew results. And so they remain your personal baseless concerns. A dodge. A handwave. A way for you to dismiss evidence without providing counter-evidence or even of suggesting how evidence might specifically be faulty. In short, it's nothing but a bunch of bullshit, Michael.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 18:07:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It ticks me off how the whole lot of you can simply ignore the isotope analysis that provides evidence that the sun is mass separated.
Liar. The isotope analysis and mass separation have been dealt with, numerous times, you just don't agree with our conclusions that they are incapable of providing evidence of a solid surface within the Sun. You said so yourself that they do not allow us to distinguish between a solid shell and a mostly iron core, and since there are an infinite number of possible solar models which have either (or both) a solid shell or an iron core, the idea that mass separation "blows away current gas model theory" does absolutely nothing to support your model of the Sun against other theories which might compete with your theory. Hell, Bahcall, et al, compared helioseismology results against nine different solar models, and solar neutrino measurements against 12 models. The fact that you think that by disproving the "current gas model theory" you provide evidence for your own model is simply laughable when the two aren't the only possible models. As I've said for many posts now, you are presenting us with a false dichotomy. A transparent one, at that.quote:
It also irks me no end that rather than dealing with that issue, or the RD images, or any of the things I can directly answer questions about, instead I get asked all sorts of off the wall stuff that no one could possibly answer at the moment.
Helioseismologists certainly seem to think they can answer all sorts of questions about the Sun which you cannot. "What is the density of the photosphere" is about as "off the wall" a question for solar scientists as "what's the score" is for someone watching a basketball game.
Besides, you can't answer even simple questions about the RD images, the isotope analysis, or the mass separation. "From how deep under the photosphere does the Lockheed 'gold' video come" is met with a resounding appeal to a completely unrelated data set which you have since strenuously objected to, anyway. "How much time does that video cover" was - at first - responded to with an "I don't know, but I think I can find out," and only later (many pages of thread later) did "three hours" become the answer, and you haven't demonstrated that to be fact at all.
Here's another simple question about the Lockheed "gold" video for you, Michael: using the center of the Sun's image from TRACE as a zero latitude, zero longitude reference point, at what location (in degrees of lat. and long.) is the center of the first frame, and at what location is the center of the last frame?quote:
Worse however is that when folks find a question I can't answer this is somehow seen as some sort of "proof" I'm wrong.
No, it's seen as evidence that you are incompetent to discuss these matters, regardless of whether you're right or wrong.quote:
The whole attitude is irrational and anything *but* scientific.
A scientific expert on the subject should be able to answer the questions which have been posed to you. Since you cannot do so, the obvious conclusion is that you are not an expert on your very own solar model.quote:
By the way, there have been a number of studies of sunspot activity that find umbra temperatures of less than 4000K. In addition, we already have evidence that thinner upper layers are hotter than the lower thicker plasma layers. The photosphere for instance is much cooler than the chromosophere. There is no leap of faith here at all!
The leap of faith is in the claim that the umbra of a sunspot is a bulging-up lower layer of the Sun's atmosphere. If you still consider Kosovichev's work to be "good" in determining plasma flows, then you have to admit that the umbra of a sunspot is a massive downflow of plasma, and not a surging upflow as you are expecting us to believe. I guess the "downflow" parts of Kosovichev's work will now also be discarded by you on the basis of some "assumption" you think he's making.quote:
Every bit of data and math I have presented has been utterly and completely ignored. No response, no scientific rebuttal, nothing.
Lies, and more lies. Won't anyone think of the children!?!quote:
The notion that hydrogen fusion is the heat source is pure speculation.
Since you agreed that that notion is supported by the neutrino counts (with a revised neutrino model), you were either lying back then, or you are lying now.quote:
It's never been about me to begin with.
No, it's been about your theory, and your current inability to support it with anything but attacks upon other theories.quote:
Never mind the Hubble an Spitzer data that show mature galaxies (many times the size of our own galaxy) less than 1 billion years after the presumed event. Nevermind the fact that originally it was believed that galaxies didn't form for billions (plural) of years after the BB.
Oh, yeah, it's a real damned shame that science is advancing over time, isn't it?  quote:
Every little bit of current gas model theory is based on utterly blind speculation and special pleading.
Which doesn't make one bit of difference to whether your model is correct or not. |
- 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 : 18:13:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
The depth of your delusions and denial at this point is really fascinating GeeMack. I've tried now for 4 threads to get you to deal with the mass separation issue, and you simply will not.
I've explained several times how I've dealt with your notion about the mass separation issue supporting your crackpot idea. Your claim that I haven't dealt with it is a flat out lie. You are a liar. The proof is on these pages. It hasn't gotten past me and it hasn't gotten past anyone else here either.quote:
You'd rather create an internal rationalization about how you "believe" it somehow doesn't support my arguements, even though I've explicitely explain HOW it supports my arguements.
Find anyone else who thinks the isotope analysis does support your nutty claim. Dr. Manuel doesn't, and he's the one who wrote it. You live under the delusion that anyone who doesn't believe your foolish idea hasn't given your "evidence" some consideration. You're beginning to act like a crazy man, Mozina. You're making less sense all the time.quote:
You of all people are the single most disengenous human being I've ever met in cyberspace. You don't know squat about what you're talking about from a scientific perspective, so all you do is play "kill the messenger" ad hominem games.
Science? You claim there's a solid surface on the sun. You don't know what it's made of. You don't know how thick it is. You don't know how dense it is. You don't know what temperature it is. You don't know what's under it. You don't know how much electricity it supposedly makes. You don't know how dark matter affects it, or gravity, or magnetic fields, or pressure, or the adjacent materials. You don't know how much it erodes. You don't know how the eroded material gets replaced. You don't know what Kristian Birkeland actually thought about the material composition of the sun. You can't calculate mass, density, weight, gravity, pressure, or temperature. You don't know a single solitary thing about your surface except that it's solid. And sometimes you even think it might be plasma! You come up with one straight honest quantitative answer to any of those concerns and this entire conversation just might take a positive turn. Until you do, you're nothing but a troll.
You've got nothing, Mozina, not a single solitary sliver of science. And it pisses you off so badly when I show you and the rest of the world exactly how badly you're failing. It's you who wants to kill the messenger. I'm the messenger, and the message is this: You can't support your claim if your life depended on it. If you actually had anything pertinent to say about your crazy solid surfaced Sun notion you'd say it. You've obviously run out of nonsense to babble about. Maybe it's time for you to pack up and go home.quote:
I'm really bored of you at this point. It's very clear that you aren't ever going to come clean within yourself about the mass separation issue. Until you do, I'll just pity you like I pity any creationist that ignores the isotope analysis entirely and instead goes for the personal attacks. Your fixation on spelling is another perfect examply of your need to focus on the irrelevant trivia instead of the scientific issues. The more you run away from the mass separation issue, the less respect I have for you GeeMack.
You and that incessant jabbering about the silly mass separation issue. Everyone except you knows I've dealt with it. My "fixation" on spelling was a singular comment. You sound a little paranoid there, Michael. You're a pathetic liar. And you haven't personally addressed any of the critical scientific issues since your very first posting here.quote:
You couldn't possibly have less respect for me than I have for you right now.
I'm not so sure I'd bet on that. I've been 100% honest, critical, analytical, focused, to the core, from the beginning. You're just a mouthy lying troll. Now, do you happen to have any evidence to support your crackpot notion that the Sun has a solid surface? No? I didn't think so. 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 18:14:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Only because you "assumed" that there is no dark energy *inside* the solar system, even though suns would be a likely source of such energy, and/or great conductors of electricity as plasma cosmology and Birkeland insist.
Liar. I did the calculations to favor your theory, Michael, and since every speck of dark energy outside the Sun would work to counteract the dark energy inside the Sun (which makes the Sun larger, and so less dense, than it would be without dark energy inside it), I left it out so that the results would be favorable to you. |
- 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 - 02/08/2006 : 18:15:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
But the coronal loops don't start or end in the chromosophere. In fact the third dimension that you claim relates to only the corona is actually "assumed" or "interpreted". These images are all two dimensional images. The third dimension is not there to work with in the first place. That is the reason that STEREO was designed and built.
I've got plenty of evidence to suggest that coronal loops originate as electrical arcs from the "solid" surface below the photosophere and rise up through the photosophere.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002700/a002713/Sunspots.mpg
quote:
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.
I'm not trying to be evasive at this point, I simply don't know all these answer yet. I didn't say it "must" be considered wrong by the way. You are the one "insisting" it MUST be considered right.
quote:
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).
Let's put this one to bed right now. Absolute density is still measured as mass/volume *AT REST*. In other words, it's still the same method, once the movement of acceleration is understood. If that acceleration is caused by Birkeland currents, it needs to be the mass/volume without any currents. If that acelleration is some sort of "dark energy" it's mass/volume factoring in the affect of dark energy.
quote:
If the current flow doesn't matter to the modeling of a plasma as an ideal gas, then this comment is irrelevant.
Plasma isn't simply an "ideal gas". It's also a plasma making it one of the most efficient conductors of electricity around.
quote:
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?).
And you still haven't explained how that is done. Your analogy to submersing something in a known material to compare it to doesn't work in this case. In this case you don't get to touch it at all, just look at it from a distance. In a case where you can't touch the object, determining it's density by volume isn't nearly as simple.
quote:
The question was, since their abundances are so high, why aren't you talking about those other layers?
I can explain the presense of most of the other materials without creating additional layers. In essense I'm trying to keep the model as simple as possible until I'm sure I have to complicate it. The presense of oxygen can also be explained as a surface component of calcium ferrite, something that I believe makes up most of the surface. I therefore didn't try to create a layer for these materials separately. You concern about the amount of oxygen however is scientifically valid IMO.
quote:
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.
There's plenty of sulfur under the crust of the earth. I would assume that is true of the sun as well. There could in fact be a sulfur layer, but again I didn't *need* it, so I didn't add it. I couldn't see any evidence of an actual sulfur or oxygen layer, so I didn't create them. If they exist as layers, they are mass separated and ordered accordingly.
I did essentially lump all the metals into the surface layer. That was in fact somewhat arbitrary on my part. Again however I used an occum's razor approach and anything I couldn't actually see, I lumped into the surface layer.
quote:
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.
But being a metal, I see no reason to think it's not going to be assimilated as part of the iron alloy. Chromium was also found in the SRERTS data, which was the primary data I used when creating this model.
quote:
Chromium even shows up in the SERTS quiet-Sun line list for 1993!
Indeed. I used this data in fact when constructing the model, and I've noted it's presense in the first paper. Again however, I 'assumed' that all the metals I saw in the SERTS data were part of the surface. It's concievable however that there are additional layer here, but if I couldn't see it, and didn't have evidence to suggest it was a separate plasma, I didn't create a separate plasma layer for it. I didn't for instance create an aluminum layer either.
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.
quote:
The available evidence suggests that SERTS cannot see S I through S IX, nor S XV or S XVI, as it doesn't s |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 18:20:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The dead give away to the oversimplification of the density issue is the fact that these density numbers are computed in a purely heliocentric manner, and we know that the universe keeps accelerating at a universal constant, and that has never been explained or factored into these equations. I've got no problem with density numbers in "relative" terms, but that relative number can't be used to declare "absolute" density.
But nobody has ever tried, in this thread or elsewhere, to declare any sort of "absolute" density. You are clearly suggesting that people have done so, which makes you a liar.
The dead giveaway is that you refuse to tell us in what units one would measure "absolute density," or how to calculate the effects of an "accelerating universe" on the Sun (since the effects of both dark matter and dark energy have been calculated already, and the "mass" of light within the Sun has been included in our mass calculations since 1797). |
- 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 - 02/08/2006 : 18:41:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Liar.
Dave, while I have no respect for GeeMack at this point, that is not the case with you. I would really prefer if you and I kept things at least modestly "professional". There are a lot of things you've said that I disagreed with, but I have resisted the need to call you a liar. Let's be civil.
quote:
The isotope analysis and mass separation have been dealt with, numerous times, you just don't agree with our conclusions that they are incapable of providing evidence of a solid surface within the Sun.
That simply isn't true. In fact I've admitted as much now *several* different times, most recently to John. I fully realize that mass separation alone does not in and of itself prove there is solid surface, but it does support my arguments in a general sense, and does provide the evidence that a solid surface is "possible". I've been VERY clear about this, starting with HH a long time ago. If you can't hear me, it's not my fault. I've been quite clear about that.
That doesn't however mean you can simply ignore that data and not note the significance of that data, and not consider that data as it relates to the density issue.
quote:
You said so yourself that they do not allow us to distinguish between a solid shell and a mostly iron core,
Yes. In fact I've said that several times now.
quote:
and since there are an infinite number of possible solar models which have either (or both) a solid shell or an iron core, the idea that mass separation "blows away current gas model theory" does absolutely nothing to support your model of the Sun against other theories which might compete with your theory.
True, but then the gas model isn't one of those competing models and my job is at least "half" done. That density figure that you toss around however is bases on a non mass separated model, and that part of Kosovichev's work becomes something that needs to be scrutinized a bit differently in light of the new understanding that the sun is mass separted. It has a direct impact on our conversation either way.
quote:
Hell, Bahcall, et al, compared helioseismology results against nine different solar models, and solar neutrino measurements against 12 models. The fact that you think that by disproving the "current gas model theory" you provide evidence for your own model is simply laughable when the two aren't the only possible models.
I never claimed there were two possible models, nor am I relying upon the isotope analysis to demonstrate the sun has a solid surface. I'm using satellite images to demonstrate the sun has a solid surface, not isotope analysis. That's where those RD images become very useful in determining which *mass separated* models we should choose from.
quote:
As I've said for many posts now, you are presenting us with a false dichotomy. A transparent one, at that.
I have not. I've been very honest about this issue from the beginning. The very first time HH meantioned it, I agreed with him. I didn't skirt that issue, and I've never tried to use isotope analysis to distinguish between various mass separated models. All the mass separation data proves is that gas model theory is useless and we need a new mass separated model to take it's place. Regardless of whether or not it has a solid surface it's not a giant ball of hygdrogen gas either!
quote:
Helioseismologists certainly seem to think they can answer all sorts of questions about the Sun which you cannot.
Ya, but even Kosovichev can't seem to explain the behaviors of that column above and below the surface. I don't seem to have any trouble doing that. I didn't hear much in the way of how or why that plasma turned at right angles either for that matter.
quote:
"What is the density of the photosphere" is about as "off the wall" a question for solar scientists as "what's the score" is for someone watching a basketball game.
No it's not. If you don't know the material in question, and you can't touch it, then it's not as simple as your dunking the object in a known fluid analogy, not by a long shot.
I'm going home to eat dinner. I'll respond to the rest of this later. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 18:51:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
[quote]I did the calculations to favor your theory, Michael, and since every speck of dark energy outside the Sun would work to counteract the dark energy inside the Sun (which makes the Sun larger, and so less dense, than it would be without dark energy inside it), I left it out so that the results would be favorable to you.
But Dave, we don't even seem to agree with the idea that dark energy would exist inside the sun in the first place! I'm of the opinion that *if* there really is anything like 'dark energy' it is simply the mass that is contained within light. I'm actually far more inclined to believe that acceleration and in fact all of these anomolous issues relate to cosmic scale Birkeland currents. If the sun does in fact have a iron shell, and Birkeland currents are creating the acceleration of our universe, this could "drastically" affect our sense of absolute (non accelerated) density.
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 18:55:01 [Permalink]
|
Thanks you, Dave and Michael for taking a detour to answer my question. I have read each as carefully as I could, given my knowledge.
Dave, thank you for trying to be clear to a layman observer. You seem to have confirmed what I'd suspected (with your addition of the Earth's mass thrown into the calculation, which I hadn't considered -- I guess I was thinking that ignoring the Earth's mass wouldn't make much difference). So the total mass of the Sun (regardless of whether that total includes neutronium, gas, plasma, an iron scaffolding, dark matter, dark energy or a burgeoning population of pixies), then, is a firm and fairly precise figure, derived from Newtonian orbital mechanics. You're also telling me that the Sun's average density is a bit harder to know with precision, due to a minor uncertainty in the Sun's measured diameter. Okay, did I get all that right?
Michael, thank you also for taking time to try to explain this point. There are some terms that confuse me, however.
quote:
if we use a heliocentric viewpoint
Don't we all, these days? Even the Church has apologized for their persecution of Galileo for having supported Copernicus' Heliocentric theory. Are you saying that Geocentrism's back in now? What new discoveries did I miss?
Then there's your mention of "relative" vs. "absolute" density, with the implication of the importance of this distinction. I can understand how a bowling ball and a basketball have densities that are "relatively" different compared to he other. But each also has a precise density (your "absolute" density?) as well. I guess I'm asking is: What is your "relative density" relative to?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 18:57:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
But nobody has ever tried, in this thread or elsewhere, to declare any sort of "absolute" density.
You are however trying to use "relative density" to disprove this model without respect to the source of acceleration. Since this is essentially a Birkeland model, and the sun has an iron shell, I say in for a penny, in for a pound. I'm inclined to think that acelleration is due to large scale currents running through our solar system.
quote:
You are clearly suggesting that people have done so, which makes you a liar.
You built a strawman from my words so you could call me a liar for the third time in three posts. I'm going home to eat. Why don't you cool off in the mean time and stick to science. I think we'll both enjoy that a lot more than the playing the GeeMack game.
quote:
The dead giveaway is that you refuse to tell us in what units one would measure "absolute density,"
The units are no different. The movement and or the dark energy must simply be factored into the equations.
quote:
or how to calculate the effects of an "accelerating universe" on the Sun (since the effects of both dark matter and dark energy have been calculated already, and the "mass" of light within the Sun has been included in our mass calculations since 1797).
But the mass that comes off that sun is not calculated into these measurements and has not been, not even in 2006 text books. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 19:04:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Don't we all, these days? Even the Church has apologized for their persecution of Galileo for having supported Copernicus' Heliocentric theory. Are you saying that Geocentrism's back in now? What new discoveries did I miss?
Just as Galileo demonstrated that the sun does not revolve around the earth, so too, the sun (and our entire solar system) does not stay in a single position, not ever. Our solar system isn't the center of the universe in other words. It is affected by a whole host of external influences.
quote:
Then there's your mention of "relative" vs. "absolute" density, with the implication of the importance of this distinction. I can understand how a bowling ball and a basketball have densities that are "relatively" different compared to he other. But each also has a precise density (your "absolute" density?) as well. I guess I'm asking is: What is your "relative density" relative to?
It's relative to all the external influences of the universe. Let's use that bowling ball analogy. If that ball happens to be in motion and has a velocity while we try to "weigh" it, that "weight" that we measure relative to our position may not accurately reflect the actual mass of the ball. It's the motion and external influences that complicate any sense of "absolute" mass. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 19:13:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But the coronal loops don't start or end in the chromosophere. In fact the third dimension that you claim relates to only the corona is actually "assumed" or "interpreted". These images are all two dimensional images. The third dimension is not there to work with in the first place. That is the reason that STEREO was designed and built.
Oh, holy crap! You have got to be kidding me. The pictures which show coronal loops climbing to over 50,000 km above the photosphere are right there on your own Web site! The UofM paper explicitly states (in several places) that its measurements dealt with the top of the coronal loops and the "footprints" where the elecrtons go crashing into the chromosphere.
So now, you're basically claiming that that piece of evidence for your theory is also "questionable" since those UofM scientists obviously assumed the locations of the electrons they were measuring, and are thus incompetent boobs because maybe the electrons were crashing into the chromosphere from underneath it.quote:
I've got plenty of evidence to suggest that coronal loops originate as electrical arcs from the "solid" surface below the photosophere and rise up through the photosophere.
Actually, the magnetic fields which give rise to coronal loops in the standard solar models originate at the tachocline, some 200,000 km below the photosphere.quote:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002700/a002713/Sunspots.mpg
Ah, yes, the animation again, in which, judging from the curvature of the surface of the Sun, the magnetic field loops rise up from well below 0.995R. This animation is evidence against your theory, Michael. That you can't see that is simply incredible.quote:
I'm not trying to be evasive at this point, I simply don't know all these answer yet. I didn't say it "must" be considered wrong by the way. You are the one "insisting" it MUST be considered right.
You're right, Michael, you didn't say it must be considered wrong, you just said that until all of the factors you mentioned were taken into account, it cannot be considered correct. A mighty fine hair to split, wouldn't you say?
And no, I'm not saying that it must be considered correct, since I've asked you for disconfirming evidence. I've got no good reason to believe that the actual experts on the subject are wrong until you can show me evidence that they really are wrong.quote:
Let's put this one to bed right now. Absolute density is still measured as mass/volume *AT REST*. In other words, it's still the same method, once the movement of acceleration is understood. If that acceleration is caused by Birkeland currents, it needs to be the mass/volume without any currents. If that acelleration is some sort of "dark energy" it's mass/volume factoring in the affect of dark energy.
Fine. Mass/volume. Since I've already factored in the effects of dark matter, dark energy, and light, and you specifically rejected factoring in Relativity as it effects the Sun's mass through motion, I'm still waiting for you to provide a mechanism through which this acceleration changes the mass (or volume) of the Sun. Does the acceleration makes the Sun appear more massive or less massive than it is "at rest?" Or does it make the Sun appear larger or smaller than it would "at rest?" Whatever it is, since you said it isn't relativity, the effects of this acceleration on our density calculations is an entirely new field of science, Michael - one for which you could get a Nobel Prize, seeing as how I don't know of anyone (especially not Birkeland or Manuel) who is working on it.quote:
Plasma isn't simply an "ideal gas". It's also a plasma making it one of the most efficient conductors of electricity around.
No, it's not an ideal gas, but for the purposes of helioseismology, it can be modeled as an ideal gas. And I am not aware of any way in which the presence or absence of a current through the plasma would change that.quote:
And you still haven't explained how that is done.
I explained how to measure the density of the photosphere point-by-point, you liar.quote:
Your analogy to submersing something in a known material to compare it to doesn't work in this case.
Sigh. Submersing an object in water, ans measuring the displacement of the water, is a method of measuring volume known since the ancient Greeks were on the scene. It was what I would to do a sample of material you sent me, and had nothing to do with measuring the photosphere.quote:
In this case you don't get to touch it at all, just look at it from a distance. In a case where you can't touch the object, determining it's density by volume isn't nearly as simple.
I already explained how to determine the mass, volume and density of the Sun without touching it, to a high degree of accuracy. And the effects of dark matter and dark energy are less than the effects of our measurement uncertainty.quote:
quote:
The question was, since their abundances are so high, why aren't you talking about those other layers?
I can explain the presense of most of the other materials without creating additional layers. In essense I'm trying to keep the model as simple as possible until I'm sure I have to complicate it.
But this is all ad hoc, since you're simply picking and choosing which elements you'd like to be plasmas and which ones you wouldn't like. Is there an independent determining factor other than "Michael wants to keep the model simple?"quote:
The pr |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 19:28:35 [Permalink]
|
Michael murmured: quote:
Just as Galileo demonstrated that the sun does not revolve around the earth, so too, the sun (and our entire solar system) does not stay in a single position, not ever. Our solar system isn't the center of the universe in other words. It is affected by a whole host of external influences.
Okay, good, I can accept that, and it seems clearly stated. My impression of modern Heliocentrism is that it does take into account that the Sun itself is in orbit within the Milky Way, etc.
Michael continues: quote:
It's relative to all the external influences of the universe. Let's use that bowling ball analogy. If that ball happens to be in motion and has a velocity while we try to "weigh" it, that "weight" that we measure relative to our position may not accurately reflect the actual mass of the ball. It's the motion and external influences that complicate any sense of "absolute" mass.
As a layman, I do know that mass is not weight. I also think that weight is as "easy" to measure as it is relative and changeable, while mass is an inherent property of matter, and is a bit harder to measure than mass. You seem to be confusing mass and weight above, but I may have misread you.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 19:34:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It's relative to all the external influences of the universe. Let's use that bowling ball analogy. If that ball happens to be in motion and has a velocity while we try to "weigh" it, that "weight" that we measure relative to our position may not accurately reflect the actual mass of the ball. It's the motion and external influences that complicate any sense of "absolute" mass.
Show with diagrams and mathematical/physical formulas that your postulation is true, that we may set up an experiment to verify it. If you want to convince us.
There is no evidence that a car running over a scale will have a different measurement of mass compared to a stationary one.
This is all smokescreen and misdirection.
HalfMooner, Einstein's Eqvivalence Principle nullifies the Univeral Acceleration's influence of any part of the solar system, including the Earth-Sun relationship. Any kind of electromagnetic influence that may accelerate the sun and not earth aren't strong enough to have any impact on Earth's orbit around the sun, and can consequently be discarded when we measure Sun's mass.
Also, if 90% the sun's mass was dark matter (just as the rest of the universe, as Michael claims), then there would only be 10% of ordinary matter (atoms) compared to what there should be according to the standard solar model. This leaves less matter to make up his solid surface. In fact, if the solid surface made of mostly iron had the same density as ordinary water, 1kg/litre, it could not possibly be even half as think as Michael claims it to be. And the volume inside the shell would be empty vacuum. |
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. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
