|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 02/05/2006 : 20:51:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Yada, yada, yada. If this wasn't such an *obvious* appeal to authority fallacy...
Where did I say that because you're not a scientist, you must be wrong? I didn't, and it wasn't even implied. The fact of the matter is that you called yourself a computer scientist, and I find the idea to be ridiculous, aside from your solar model.quote:
...followed by a lot of personal huffing and puffing, it wouldn't be so sad.
You're the one who detailed your work history as if it meant anything to the defense of your solar model, not I.quote:
Is this the best arguement you have Dave?
It wasn't an argument against your solar model at all. The fact that you're willing to post such straw men is ample evidence that you've forgotten almost everything you learned when you took debate.quote:
Somehow you've gone back to attacking the messenger and appeal to authority fallacies rather than answering any direct questions put to you.
Hardly the case. I answered the questions three or four times, you just refuse to even acknowledge the answers.quote:
You claimed that Kosovichev demonstrated that the gas model predictions were accurate to within 2%. That was your claim.
No, actually, Kosovichev and other independent helioseismologists all claim to have verified the standard solar model to within 2% for density, to within 0.4% for the speed of sound, and to within 0.3% for compressibility. I'm just citing their own claims.quote:
I asked you two very specific questions about this claim that you have avoided like the plague, just like you have avoided the mass separation issue entirely.
A lie followed by another lie doesn't make you correct. I've asked you very specific questions about the mass separation issue which you refuse to answer. For example, how would the helioseismology results be different if a mass-separated solar atmosphere were assumed? For another example, how can it be the case that the photosphere is mostly hydrogen according to you, and that the photosphere is not mostly hydrogen, according to you?quote:
I've even shown you how these two issues are directly related, and I asked you two very specific questions that demonstrate exactly *how* they are related.
And I corrected your questions for false assumptions, and then answered them.quote:
Specifically I asked you how Kosovichev determined what the material is made of, and how he determined this.
Utter nonsense, since you've been claiming that Kosovichev made some assumptions instead of measurements, and now that you've been asked six times to support your claim, you instead are backpedaling quickly to a less-ludicrous position. Your "questions" contained the same false assumptions you were accusing Kosovichev of making, but now you're trying to pin your bald mistakes on me.quote:
You have steadfastly refused to answer these two simple questions.
No, I answered those questions already, and posed a counter-question which you have steadfastly refused to answer, but now I'll make it even easier for you: name any substance other than a mostly-hydrogen plasma with acoustic properties (speed of sound, density, and compressibility) within 2% of a mostly-hydrogen plasma under the conditions found near the surface of the Sun.quote:
Why?
I don't know why you think I haven't answered your questions when I have done so.quote:
They are two very straight forward questions that related *directly* to the density issue.
No, your original questions were twisted caricatures of the actual science involved.quote:
You were the one making the claim that Kosovichev demonstrated all this. You now need to provide evidence of how he did that. Can you do this or not, yes or no?
Since you think it's fine to simply point to articles by Birkeland and Manuel to answer such questions, I'll simply point to the helioseismology verifications which I've already provided. Tit for tat, Michael. If you'd like to question me about specific quotes in those papers, I'll find an answer for 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 - 02/06/2006 : 06:03:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
We already answered the issue of the isotope analysis.
No, neither of you have even touched it. You're in a state of denial in fact. Let me demonstrate this for you....
quote:
You said it does not support your wild speculation about the sun having a solid surface.
No, that is *not* what I said. This is what you personally keep "hearing", or more specifically this is what you *wish* to hear rather than what I actually said. That way you can pretend it doesn't matter. I does matter. I explained exactly how it supports my case, but you refuse to acknowledge that aspect of what I actually said. That is denial, pure and simple.
quote:
Or were you lying when you said that?
Back to the childish nonsense and name calling I see. For a guy that hasn't even once accurately characterized what I actually said about mass separation, you sure are loose with the term "liar". Like I said GeeMack, the only liar here is you, and the only one you're lying to is yourself. I have repeatedly stated that a mass separated model *does* support my case in a very key way. You keep ignoring what I said. That is blatant denial, and pure BS. If you won't address the isotope analysis in an intellectually honest way GeeMack, nobody is going to take you seriously, certainly not me. The way I see it, you're just like any good creationist in denial of the isotope analysis. Yawn....
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/06/2006 06:21:42 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 06:19:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, actually, Kosovichev and other independent helioseismologists all claim to have verified the standard solar model to within 2% for density, to within 0.4% for the speed of sound, and to within 0.3% for compressibility. I'm just citing their own claims.
That's funny, I don't recall talking to Dr. Kosovichev in this thread Dave. You personally made this claim to me Dave, not Dr. Kosovichev, but you haven't even answered the most basic and most important question that must be asked. How do you (they - anyone) know what this material is made of and how "fast" sound is supposed to travel through that particular material? How did they verify that this is the actual material they believed it to be? These are the first and most basic questions that have to be asked, and you have yet to answer them. Why?
I have answered the application question Dave. I've explained now several times that the actual density of the surface of the photosphere and the lower layers will directly relate to the speed changes at the surface layer. If you are correct and the photosphere is as thin as you claim it to be, then a modest change in sound speed is unlikely to be indicative of a solid. If however your analysis of the density of this layer is innaccurate, and the layer is much more dense than you believe, then a modest sound change *could* be indicative of a transition between a dense plasma and a solid.
I've been specific about this aspect Dave, and how it directly relates to the issue of mass separation. I expect you to be equally specific about the questions I put to you based on *your* claims. If you can't even address how Kosovichev determined the material in question, I find it unlikely he "verified" anything, or that you have accurately portrayed his work in the first place. Something here doesn't add up. What is the material, and what is it's density, and how does Kosovichev know how fast sound travels in that material at that density at that temperature? These are not frivilous questions Dave. These are the core issues in a nutshell, and they directly relate back to the issue of mass separation. If you cannot and will not answer even the most basic question about the material in question, then how can we logically verify what you claim?
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/06/2006 06:23:46 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 07:01:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
As a company employed computer scientist, I can say that Mr. Mozina has studied mathematics, logic, and structured systems.
That is correct. I'm not going to lend this appeal to authority argument any credibility by getting into a detailed analysis of my "qualifications".
quote:
As part of my undergraduate work, I learned Touring machines, structured systems analysis and design, Calculus, basic logic, statistics, and structured programming in a number of different languages such as FORTRAN 77. Since I went to a liberal arts college, I was also exposed to biology and the history of science.
Yes, me too, including three semesters of calculus and several classes in physics as well.
quote:
The study of computer science is unrelated to the modeling of the sun.
That is not true. My studies in college included a healthy dose of math, including calculus, several classes in physics and 25 plus years of study BEYOND college. I've studied solar satellite images now for almost 15 years and that "does" relate directly to modeling the sun.
Mathematics is used to describe physics formulas, math in and of itself is unrelated to solar modeling. Likewise, your ability to analyze and design structured systems relates more to workflow and process rather than physics. Physics were electives which you chose to take to round out some interest you had and was not directly related to your computer science degree. Your status as a computer scientist (a term rarely, if ever used in the work day world) is immaterial to your analysis of a solar model. It is interesting that you list elective further study and comingle it with your degree. They are at best tangetally related.
Computers and computing systems are tools to help science get an answer. They are also tools to bill out services, render 3D virtual landscapes, provide entertainment, and do calculations really fast. However, a computer is nothing more than a very literal idiot child. If you tell it to do something, it will do it and very fast. If you tell it to do something just the slightest bit wrong, it will propagate that error consistantly.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 09:31:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Mathematics is used to describe physics formulas, math in and of itself is unrelated to solar modeling. Likewise, your ability to analyze and design structured systems relates more to workflow and process rather than physics. Physics were electives which you chose to take to round out some interest you had and was not directly related to your computer science degree. Your status as a computer scientist (a term rarely, if ever used in the work day world) is immaterial to your analysis of a solar model. It is interesting that you list elective further study and comingle it with your degree. They are at best tangetally related.
Computers and computing systems are tools to help science get an answer. They are also tools to bill out services, render 3D virtual landscapes, provide entertainment, and do calculations really fast. However, a computer is nothing more than a very literal idiot child. If you tell it to do something, it will do it and very fast. If you tell it to do something just the slightest bit wrong, it will propagate that error consistantly.
I can't really find much here to disagree with frankly. I would have to say however that none of this is particularly relevant IMO. The science behind these ideas is sound, and unrelated to a specific individual. Birkeland experimented with a solid surface model in his lab over 100 years ago. Bruce documented a number of solar atmosopheric events that are electrical in nature. The electrical nature of these events has since been confirmed by NASA as well. Manuel also has documented the evidence that suggests that the sun is mostly iron and mass separates the plasma in it's atmosphere. None of these things had anything at all to do with this particular individual. This particular individual simply has acquired visual satellite confirmation of a solar surface, and confirmation of mass separation of plasmas in the solar atmosphere. I'm really not even relevant to the discussion from a scientific point of view, other than what I might be able to provide in terms of visual confirmation of Birkeland's model. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/06/2006 09:33:32 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 10:11:11 [Permalink]
|
Michael I have been able to find this info in many places in Dr. Manuel's writings:quote:
Samples collected by the Apollo missions to the moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s revealed that lighter mass (mL) isotopes of helium (He), neon (Ne), argon (Ar), krypton (Kr), and xenon (Xe) are enriched in the solar wind (SW) relative to the heavier (mH) ones by a common mass-fractionation factor [See p. 281*]15, f, where
f = (mH/mL)^4.56
but I cannot find the references to the actual data that he used to come up with this factor. Could you tell me where this info is located? I assume it is something like the percentages of the elements in meteorites and percentages of elements in the solar wind, but not having the data he used I cannot know for sure or hope to understand how this fractionation factor was arrived at.
|
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 - 02/06/2006 : 11:27:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That's funny, I don't recall talking to Dr. Kosovichev in this thread Dave.
I don't recall talking to Birkeland in this thread, either, but you seem comfortable with saying "go read his work" in answer to questions posed to you.quote:
You personally made this claim to me Dave, not Dr. Kosovichev, but you haven't even answered the most basic and most important question that must be asked. How do you (they - anyone) know what this material is made of and how "fast" sound is supposed to travel through that particular material? How did they verify that this is the actual material they believed it to be? These are the first and most basic questions that have to be asked, and you have yet to answer them. Why?
Yes, I did answer them, it's your refusal to understand basic scientific methodology which is preventing you from realizing that I did. The speed of sound through any particular material can be calculated from its properties through simple physical laws. Working those laws in reverse, given a measured speed of sound, a measured density, and a measured compressibility, one can infer the material, or a possible set of materials. The measurements aren't based upon the assumption of any particular material, they're raw observations.
Look, you said it yourself, Michael: if the Sun had a solid shell within it, the transmission of pressure waves would be more efficient. The Sun wouldn't have a fundamental frequency of 104 microHertz if your solid shell existed, the frequency would be much higher due to the increased speed of sound through the shell. The measurements of sound speed, density and compressibility suggest materials very close to an ideal gas, which happens to be the prediction made by the standard solar model.quote:
I have answered the application question Dave. I've explained now several times that the actual density of the surface of the photosphere and the lower layers will directly relate to the speed changes at the surface layer.
No, you haven't explained how, or in what direction, such a relation exists - or if it exists. What "speed changes" are you referring to, anyway?quote:
If you are correct and the photosphere is as thin as you claim it to be, then a modest change in sound speed is unlikely to be indicative of a solid. If however your analysis of the density of this layer is innaccurate, and the layer is much more dense than you believe, then a modest sound change *could* be indicative of a transition between a dense plasma and a solid.
Once again, Michael, I will ask you to name any solid and any plasma, and show that their acoustic properties are such that such a "modest" change would be evident while matching the other observations of the actual Sun.quote:
I've been specific about this aspect Dave, and how it directly relates to the issue of mass separation.
Then why is it that you refuse to explain how the helioseismology results would be different if one "assumes" mass separation?quote:
I expect you to be equally specific about the questions I put to you based on *your* claims. If you can't even address how Kosovichev determined the material in question, I find it unlikely he "verified" anything, or that you have accurately portrayed his work in the first place. Something here doesn't add up. What is the material, and what is it's density, and how does Kosovichev know how fast sound travels in that material at that density at that temperature? These are not frivilous questions Dave. These are the core issues in a nutshell...
Yes, they are, and by claiming that Kosovichev (and every other helioseismologist on the planet) might have gotten the answers wrong, you're claiming that all of the results - including those that you cherry-pick to support your model - are unreliable. But the simply fact of the matter is that you refuse to acknowledge that Kosovichev claims that he measured the speed of sound, the density, and the compressibility of the Sun, from the photosphere all the way down to the core, and those measurements match the predictions of the standard solar model very well.quote:
...and they directly relate back to the issue of mass separation.
Until you describe how it's "directly" related, by providing an example of a possible set of materials which would result in identical helioseismology measurements, the "issue of mass separation" isn't even a concern from where I sit.
But, thinking about it, from your isotope paper:"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.) How is that a valid assumption? The rest of the analysis clearly rests upon it being a correct assumption, but it sure sounds like you're saying "if you assume the Sun has much the same composition as meteorites, then these 'corrections' make it look like the Sun has much the same composition as meteorites." But that's assuming the consequent, which you should know is invalid logic.quote:
If you cannot and will not answer even the most basic question about the material in question, then how can we logically verify what you claim?
You claimed that Kosovichev made assumptions which would bias his results toward a particular conclusion. Where is your evidence for that claim? If you cannot and will not answer even that most-simple question, then how will we ever be able to agree on anything? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 12:49:37 [Permalink]
|
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.)
Damnit Dave that was the point I was going to go after!
|
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 - 02/06/2006 : 13:06:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Damnit Dave that was the point I was going to go after!
Ah, sorry. I thought you were aiming at a lack of evidencial support, or were about to show that the actual data doesn't support the 4.56 exponent. My point was just that regardless of what the actual numbers are, or were, the basic assumption seems to be the conclusion. Well, carry on, either way. Don't let me stop 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 - 02/06/2006 : 13:37:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I don't recall talking to Birkeland in this thread, either, but you seem comfortable with saying "go read his work" in answer to questions posed to you.
But I'm not avoiding any questions related to his research Dave. If you have specific questions, I'll be glad to answer them as best as I can.
quote:
Yes, I did answer them, it's your refusal to understand basic scientific methodology which is preventing you from realizing that I did. The speed of sound through any particular material can be calculated from its properties through simple physical laws. Working those laws in reverse, given a measured speed of sound, a measured density, and a measured compressibility, one can infer the material, or a possible set of materials. The measurements aren't based upon the assumption of any particular material, they're raw observations.
No Dave, you aren't really answering this question unless you are trying to suggest that only one material, or one combination of materials is capable of transmitting sound at a particular speed. Is that really what you are trying to suggest here? Where did these experiments confirm what the material is made of? What is it made of? How do you know it cannot be *any* other material or combinations of materials?
quote:
Look, you said it yourself, Michael: if the Sun had a solid shell within it, the transmission of pressure waves would be more efficient.
I don't know this for a fact. You seem to be assuming this.
quote:
The Sun wouldn't have a fundamental frequency of 104 microHertz if your solid shell existed, the frequency would be much higher due to the increased speed of sound through the shell.
I'm trying to understand how you equate a particular frequency to the existence of a solid shell. I don't see a one to one correlation here between a particular frequency and a solid surface.
quote:
The measurements of sound speed, density and compressibility suggest materials very close to an ideal gas, which happens to be the prediction made by the standard solar model.
The chromosphere and photosphere are very close to an ideal gas in Birkeland's model as well. The question however is about "density" at the penumbral filament layer. The density and the elements that make up this layer will directly affect the travel of sound, and the sound transition at the surface will be directly related to the difference in sound travel between the plasma above the surface and the surface itself. A modest change between a relatively "thick" plasma and a solid surface isn't a likely to be as great as what I might expect from a relatively 'thin' penumbral filament layer. I still need to understand how you, Kosovichev or anyone else can do that without "assuming" the material in question, or without determining it's makeup in some way. How was the material at the penumbral filament layer determined so that we might compute how sound might travel through said material? This is a core, and basic issue.
quote:
No, you haven't explained how, or in what direction, such a relation exists - or if it exists. What "speed changes" are you referring to, anyway?
I'm talking about the speed changes in the sound waves that we see at the transitional layer at .995R. At this depth, the sound waves increase in speed, and the plasma flares out and moves parallel to the stratification layer.
quote:
Once again, Michael, I will ask you to name any solid and any plasma, and show that their acoustic properties are such that such a "modest" change would be evident while matching the other observations of the actual Sun.
The plasma I expect to see sitting directly on top of the surface is predominantly calcium, with a silicon plasma on top of that. The surface itself is most likely a rocky-metal material like the meteorite fragments on the first page of my website. In order for this sound change to even be in the ballpark of what we observe, the calcium plasma layer must be relatively "dense", certainly more dense than you suggest.
quote:
Then why is it that you refuse to explain how the helioseismology results would be different if one "assumes" mass separation?
I have not "refused" to explain how it would be different, I've been quite specific. Sound waves traveling in a relatively thin plasma that run into a solid surface are likely to result in a relatively large change in speed, whereas a transition from a more dense plasma to a solid will not be as great of a transition.
quote:
Yes, they are, and by claiming that Kosovichev (and every other helioseismologist on the planet) might have gotten the answers wrong, you're claiming that all of the results - including those that you cherry-pick to support your model - are unreliable.
No. In fact I have been very specific to point out exactly how and where these results might be interpreted differently in a mass separated model, but never have I once questioned the validity of any of Kosovichev's other work. In fact I'm anxious to tackle that last paper since it shows photosphere waves right above surface fractures that occurred on these same days. I explicity trust Kosovichev's other data, but I do see evidence of mass separation which could certainly affect the results of his ONE paper, specifically the one you believe supports gas model theory.
As it relates to mass movements, plasma flow patterns, etc., I see results that are highly consistent with Birkeland's model. I therefore have every reason to believe that his other work is entirely accurate and entirely trustworthy. It is the density of the penumbral filament layer I question based on the notion of mass separation.
quote:
But the simply fact of the matter is that you refuse to acknowledge that Kosovichev claims that he measured the speed of sound, the density, and the compressibility of the Sun, from th |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/06/2006 13:41:17 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 14:45:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But I'm not avoiding any questions related to his research Dave. If you have specific questions, I'll be glad to answer them as best as I can.
I asked one, and you failed to answer it in any substantive way. It doesn't matter that there was a "puzzle" over anomalous levels of certain isotopes, I asked if assuming that the Sun has the same composition as meteorites is a valid assumption at all.quote:
No Dave, you aren't really answering this question unless you are trying to suggest that only one material, or one combination of materials is capable of transmitting sound at a particular speed.
No, the important factors are the speed of sound in the material, its density and its compressibility. It isn't the speed of sound by itself which allows us to infer the material, it is all three measurements which do so. Very few solids have compressibility indices close to that of a gas. No solids have the measured density.quote:
Is that really what you are trying to suggest here?
Of course I'm not suggesting that your strawman is true.quote:
Where did these experiments confirm what the material is made of? What is it made of? How do you know it cannot be *any* other material or combinations of materials?
How many materials can match the speed of sound, density and compressibility measurements, Michael? A neon plasma could match the speed of sound and compressibility measures, but only if the density were lower than predicted by the standard model, or the temperature much higher.quote:
quote:
Look, you said it yourself, Michael: if the Sun had a solid shell within it, the transmission of pressure waves would be more efficient.
I don't know this for a fact. You seem to be assuming this.
You made the claim, but now you say you don't know it for a fact?quote:
quote:
The Sun wouldn't have a fundamental frequency of 104 microHertz if your solid shell existed, the frequency would be much higher due to the increased speed of sound through the shell.
I'm trying to understand how you equate a particular frequency to the existence of a solid shell. I don't see a one to one correlation here between a particular frequency and a solid surface.
You are confused. If the Sun had a solid shell as you describe, it would take less than 80 minutes for a sound wave to travel from one side of the Sun to the other. Unless, of course, that solid has the consistency of cork or rubber, but in your model, it does not.quote:
The chromosphere and photosphere are very close to an ideal gas in Birkeland's model as well. The question however is about "density" at the penumbral filament layer. The density and the elements that make up this layer will directly affect the travel of sound, and the sound transition at the surface will be directly related to the difference in sound travel between the plasma above the surface and the surface itself. A modest change between a relatively "thick" plasma and a solid surface isn't a likely to be as great as what I might expect from a relatively 'thin' penumbral filament layer. I still need to understand how you, Kosovichev or anyone else can do that without "assuming" the material in question, or without determining it's makeup in some way. How was the material at the penumbral filament layer determined so that we might compute how sound might travel through said material? This is a core, and basic issue.
How many times does it need to be said, Michael? The density of the photosphere has been measured, along with its compressibility and the speed of sound within it. That is "determining its makeup in some way," rather than assuming anything about it.quote:
quote:
No, you haven't explained how, or in what direction, such a relation exists - or if it exists. What "speed changes" are you referring to, anyway?
I'm talking about the speed changes in the sound waves that we see at the transitional layer at .995R. At this depth, the sound waves increase in speed, and the plasma flares out and moves parallel to the stratification layer.
No, you only have evidence that sound waves increase in speed at 0.991R underneath one particular sunspot. Ditto for the plasma "flaring out." These findings are not generalizable to the rest of the Sun's interior, they are only valid for that sunspot.quote:
quote:
Once again, Michael, I will ask you to name any solid and any plasma, and show that their acoustic properties are such that such a "modest" change would be evident while matching the other observations of the actual Sun.
The plasma I expect to see sitting directly on top of the surface is predominantly calcium, with a silicon plasma on top of that. The surface itself is most likely a rocky-metal material like the meteorite fragments on the first page of my website. In order for this sound change to even be in the ballpark of what we observe, the calcium plasma layer must be relatively "dense", certainly more dense than you suggest.
This utterly fails to answer my question, since the "relatively" more dense plasma would show up as more dense in the density measurements.quote:
|
- 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 - 02/06/2006 : 15:26:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I asked one, and you failed to answer it in any substantive way. It doesn't matter that there was a "puzzle" over anomalous levels of certain isotopes, I asked if assuming that the Sun has the same composition as meteorites is a valid assumption at all.
Since it is busy at work today, and this warrants a response all on it's own, I'll break my response to your last post up a bit today.
The assumption that the sun is most likely the same composition as meteorites is at least a valid as assuming it's a big gas ball. Let's start with the moon. It hasn't collected a lot of hydrogen gas over the last 4.6 billion years, certainly not for a lack of hydrogen flowing past it every day, but we can sure see a lot of meteorite hits on it's surface. There's not much satellite evidence to suggest that our own sun even hangs onto the hydrogen it's producing in fact.
Let's start logically at solar system formation. Why would the chaos of the universe favor the collection of the very *lightest* elements? Why would the sun be radically different in composition to it's three closest neighbors?
I believe Manuel's assumption here is at least as "practical" in terms of gravity and how planetary sized bodies tend to collect heavy elements. What kind of special pleeding shall we accept to believe that the sun would be mostly composed of hydrogen when this isn't close to the case to any of it's closest physical neighbors? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/06/2006 15:28:37 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 15:32:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I asked one, and you failed to answer it in any substantive way. It doesn't matter that there was a "puzzle" over anomalous levels of certain isotopes, I asked if assuming that the Sun has the same composition as meteorites is a valid assumption at all.
Since it is busy at work today, and this warrants a response all on it's own, I'll break my response to your last post up a bit today.
The assumption that the sun is most likely the same composition as meteorites is at least a valid as assuming it's a big gas ball. Let's start with the moon. It hasn't collected a lot of hydrogen gas over the last 4.6 billion years, certainly not for a lack of hydrogen flowing past it every day, but we can sure see a lot of meteorite hits on it's surface. There's not much satellite evidence to suggest that our own sun even hangs onto the hydrogen it's producing in fact.
Let's start logically at solar system formation. Why would the chaos of the universe favor the collection of the very *lightest* elements? Why would the sun be radically different in composition to it's three closest neighbors?
I believe Manuel's assumption here is at least as "practical" in terms of gravity and how planetary sized bodies tend to collect heavy elements. What kind of special pleeding shall we accept to believe that the sun would be mostly composed of hydrogen when this isn't close to the case to any of it's closest physical neighbors?
I believe it has to do with size. Why is Jupiter a giant gas planet when it's "neighbor" Mars is a small rocky planet? Why would you consider this a case of "special pleading?"
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 15:44:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
A neon plasma could match the speed of sound and compressibility measures, but only if the density were lower than predicted by the standard model, or the temperature much higher.
What specific formulas are you using when you suggest it's density must be lower than predicted, or a much higher temperature?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 15:47:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I believe it has to do with size. Why is Jupiter a giant gas planet when it's "neighbor" Mars is a small rocky planet? Why would you consider this a case of "special pleading?"
Actually, I would. I'm not convinced Jupiter is mostly hydrogen either. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
