|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 02/07/2006 : 08:52:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The expression of acoustical laws in *what materials*? Under what conditions? In what gravity conditions specifically? In what temperature ranges specifically? In short, what lab results are you comparing any of this to?
These questions do little but show your complete ignorance of acoustics, and so demonstrate your arrogance in claiming anything about Kosovichev's alleged "assumptions" or his results. The blind stupidity of saying that some of his results support your model when you've got no clue why they might do so is simply undescribable. You clearly do have "faith" in his work, since you don't understand why it's right or wrong, thus any reference of yours to Kosovichev's work is nothing but an argument from authority.quote:
I seem to recall a while back that you were suggesting that in plasma, the sound speed was more affected by temperatures changes than by density changes. You seem to be suggesting just the opposite now.
Since I never suggested any such thing, and am not now suggesting the opposite, the above just further demonstrates your utter incompetence at this science.quote:
If I had a density number to whip out of my pocket at the moment, I'd be happy to do so. Unfortunately I don't know how dense this layer is just yet...
So since you're unwilling to even guess at a range of possible densities, any argument you have against a particular density figure (like that from the standard solar model and Kosovichev's work) is completely baseless. Thanks for admitting that, we can move on to some other topic now.quote:
...but Kosovichev's last paper may provide some insights. I'm still working my way through that paper and looking at raw 195A SOHO images and timestamps. The fact there is a correlation her between surface fractures and waves in the photosophere may allow us to compute "density" in a more sophisticated way. I'm not sure there is enough information in that last paper to help me, but I'm still working on a reliable method to determine density.
Since you don't understand the basis for Kosovichev's work, your examination of it will produce no useful information. It will only make your faith in his authority stronger or weaker, as the case may be.
I'll still be here, Michael, if you choose to go actually educate yourself on the subject, and come back with something substantive based upon the real science of the field. There is no reason for you to waste further time trying to defend your model here, as it is hopelessly shot through with gaping holes in your knowledge (no clue as to density of neon layer, no clue as to density or thickness of solid layer, no clue as to how to show that any image comes from 0.995R, no clue as to how to calculate the abundance of an element in the Sun, no clue as to the construction of Birkeland's cathode, no clue as to the transparency of the plasmas you posit, no clue as to the hydrogen make-up of real solar-system objects, etc). Your entire theory is based upon a willful ignorance of the details, in favor of a shallow understanding of a number of subjects which you patchwork together into a semiplausible-sounding whole which falls apart at the least probing. |
- 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 - 02/07/2006 : 09:48:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
These questions do little but show your complete ignorance of acoustics, and so demonstrate your arrogance in claiming anything about Kosovichev's alleged "assumptions" or his results.
Quite the opposite Dave. I know for a fact that the density model you keep refering to is based on gas model "theory", not direct measurement, and all of it is predictated on gas model theories involving a non mass separated hydrogen/helium photosphere.
quote:
The blind stupidity of saying that some of his results support your model when you've got no clue why they might do so is simply undescribable. You clearly do have "faith" in his work, since you don't understand why it's right or wrong, thus any reference of yours to Kosovichev's work is nothing but an argument from authority.
But I've been very specific here Dave about the exact nature of where I think the "interpretation" fails, and how that directly relates to the mass separation issue.
quote:
Since I never suggested any such thing, and am not now suggesting the opposite, the above just further demonstrates your utter incompetence at this science.
You just got through telling me that if the penumbral filaments were neon, they'd have to be thinner or hotter.
quote:
So since you're unwilling to even guess at a range of possible densities,
Why should I "guess" at stuff when there are many things I don't need to guess at.
quote:
any argument you have against a particular density figure (like that from the standard solar model and Kosovichev's work) is completely baseless.
No, it's not "baseless" at all. You seem to be overlooking that isotope analysis again.
quote:
Since you don't understand the basis for Kosovichev's work, your examination of it will produce no useful information. It will only make your faith in his authority stronger or weaker, as the case may be.
First of all, the first sentence is a false statement. I do understand the basis of his work, and I also understand where the limits of his actual work ends and speculation begins. For instance, we're speculating about the material based on a non mass separated "theory".
quote:
I'll still be here, Michael, if you choose to go actually educate yourself on the subject,
Get off it Dave.
quote:
and come back with something substantive based upon the real science of the field.
You mean like the isotope analysis?
quote:
There is no reason for you to waste further time trying to defend your model here, as it is hopelessly shot through with gaping holes in your knowledge (no clue as to density of neon layer,
You seem to be confusing individual limitations with being right and wrong. The fact you can demonstrate that an individual has limits to their knowledge does not discount the knowledge they do posess, or the information they can bring to the discussion. By this logic the gas model is hopelessly falsified since I've never met a single gas model theorist that can answer every mystery about the sun.
quote:
Your entire theory is based upon a willful ignorance of the details, in favor of a shallow understanding of a number of subjects which you patchwork together into a semiplausible-sounding whole which falls apart at the least probing.
The only thing that fell apart here is the fact you could not explain what the material is made of, or how the makeup of that material was determined. In fact these answers are not based on observation but upon gas model "theory". The moment you remove that single "assumption", and you consider the implications of a mass separated model, none of these assumptions can verified, and the density numbers you keep kicking around become *highly* questionable. That doesn't however discount one iota of the mass flow data.
You still have not dealt with the isotope analysis that suggest mass separation. You still never answered the materials issue, nor have you addressed that Lockheed RD image in a way that holds up to any sort of scrunity. You never explained how or why the sun should be a 'special case' and no be mass separated when every other body in the solar system *is* mass separated. The whole gas model theory is one big case of special pleading, from top to bottom.
Now you can act all pretentious, and uppity, and you can't pretend I didn't isolate my exact concerns about the density numbers you keep throwing around, but I did address these issues in a specific and open way, whether you agree with my assessment or not. That is distinctly different than the way you handled Manuel's work. Don't think I didn't notice that. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/07/2006 10:01:48 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 10:09:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
You still never answered the materials issue, nor have you addressed that Lockheed RD image in a way that holds up to any sort of scrunity.
You seem to forget that your claim of running difference images supporting your nutty fantasy has been shredded. Your completely mistaken interpretation that they show anything solid is as valid as if you believed there are giant bunnies gliding around in the sky because you saw a cloud that looked like a bunny. Leave it alone, Michael. You've had your whining ass severely kicked, trounced, on the running difference image thing. Have some personal integrity, get over it and move on.
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 10:20:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I know for a fact that the density model you keep refering to is based on gas model "theory", not direct measurement, and all of it is predictated on gas model theories involving a non mass separated hydrogen/helium photosphere.
Since you know this "for a fact", suppose you show some integrity and provide all the evidence you can possibly find to prove it. Explain, in detail, the methods used by Kosovichev and how it is that those methods rely on the standard solar model, and what it is about those methods that specifically makes them invalid relative to your silly guess. Describe in detail what Kosovichev should have done differently if he were not relying on the standard solar model, and how the helioseismology results might be different if he had started with the assumption of a solid surface sun as the basis for his research.
I predict another moronic tirade against my posing this question, or perhaps a simple refusal to even acknowledge this legitimate, scientific, and relevant issue. I predict absolutely no effort on the part of Mozina to put his money where his mouth is and demonstrate that what he knows "for a fact" might even be remotely true... again. Any bets?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 10:21:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You seem to forget that your claim of running difference images supporting your nutty fantasy has been shredded.
Only in your chicken clucking dreams GeeMack. We weren't even talking about sound waves by the way. If that last rediculace post is the best explanation you've got for Lockheed's RD image, all I can do is laugh.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 10:31:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Have some personal integrity, get over it and move on.
LOL! What an irony overload! 
Considering the fact you've avoided that mass separation issue for nearly 4 full threads now, the irony of you questioning *my* personal integrity is quite hysterical. You just pegged the irony meter big time with that goofy comment GeeMack.  |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 10:51:19 [Permalink]
|
Well Dave, here's where things seem to be sitting at the moment from my perspective. You can't seem to determine what the penumbral filaments are actually made of based on Kosovichev's work. You can't explain why no inner body in our solar system seems to hang onto any hydrogen, even with tons of it being dumped into the solar system every day. Even after 4.6 billion years, the inner bodies of the solar system are utterly devoid of any hydrogen gas ball formations around them, and every single body in the solar system is mass separated, from the largest planet to the smallest moon. Somehow, however, you believe that the sun is immune from the same physics that created every other mass separted body in the solar system. From my perspective, this is a giant case of special pleading.
Now unless you actually intend to address the isotope analysis in some scientific way, or can definitively show me what that penumbral filament material is made of, your density figures simply cannot be verified. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 10:54:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Only in your chicken clucking dreams GeeMack. We weren't even talking about sound waves by the way. If that last rediculace post is the best explanation you've got for Lockheed's RD image, all I can do is laugh.
There's only one person even remotely involved in this discussion who believes those running difference images actually show a three dimensional surface. And all you have to say about it, 100% of your belief, is that it looks like a surface to you. It's your claim of support, Michael. You tell us, exactly how did the good folks at Lockheed go about producing those running difference images? Bring us the pairs of images that were used to create them. Explain the scale. How big or how small of an area do they represent? What sort of filtering was used? What software, or what algorithm was applied? What size, in pixels, were the originals? How does one discern a particular topography, height, width, depth by observing those images? What was the intent of their developing those graphs?
You won't answer any of the above questions because you simply don't know the answers. And you don't have the balls to just admit that you don't know. You just believe. Clearly you have faith. But you don't know. If you knew the answers to those questions you'd give the answers. But instead of giving the answers, here's what you're going to do. You're going to badmouth me again, because you're pissed off that you've been so embarrassingly busted. What a sore loser you've turned out to be.
I'll say it again, Michael. You've got nothing. This is another case where you want other people to explain things that you absolutely can not explain for yourself. The running difference images, as I have clearly demonstrated, are not pictures of surfaces. And if you believe they are, you need to come back with more than your constant barking, "It sure looks like it to me." You need to do something that you have never once done in 4 or 5 months of your incessant mouthing off on this issue, you need to bring in some quantitative support. You're a guesser, Michael. That's all you've got. A lousy, unsupportable guess.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 10:55:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Quite the opposite Dave. I know for a fact that the density model you keep refering to is based on gas model "theory", not direct measurement, and all of it is predictated on gas model theories involving a non mass separated hydrogen/helium photosphere.
You claim to know the above for a fact, but you refuse to prove it with citations of the available literature.quote:
But I've been very specific here Dave about the exact nature of where I think the "interpretation" fails, and how that directly relates to the mass separation issue.
No, you've been completely nonspecific by refusing to back your allegations with actual evidence.quote:
You just got through telling me that if the penumbral filaments were neon, they'd have to be thinner or hotter.
They would have to be less dense or hotter than a hydrogen plasma in order to have the same measured speed of sound as the visible photosphere. It is this failure of yours to pay attention which is part of the problem here.quote:
Why should I "guess" at stuff when there are many things I don't need to guess at.
Because if your model cannot predict as simple as the density of the "penumbral filament layer," then what good is it?quote:
No, it's not "baseless" at all. You seem to be overlooking that isotope analysis again.
You have yet to explain how the isotope analysis would make the same helioseismic measurements reveal a different interpretation of those measurements.quote:
First of all, the first sentence is a false statement. I do understand the basis of his work...
Not if you don't understand the basic equations of acoustics, you don't.quote:
...and I also understand where the limits of his actual work ends and speculation begins. For instance, we're speculating about the material based on a non mass separated "theory".
No, we're not, because your theory is mass separated, but you can't describe how any of Kosovichev's measurements are wrong based on the switch in the models.quote:
Get off it Dave.
The fact that you'd rather tell me to "get off it" instead of actually demonstrate your ability to discuss science in these areas tells me that not only are you incompetent, but that you don't care that you're incompetent.quote:
You mean like the isotope analysis?
When you can explain how the isotope analysis will affect any of the helioseismological equations, please do so.quote:
You seem to be confusing individual limitations with being right and wrong. The fact you can demonstrate that an individual has limits to their knowledge does not discount the knowledge they do posess, or the information they can bring to the discussion.
Once again you are jumping to wild, unsupported conclusions, just like you have with the imagery, the isotope analysis and the helioseismology. The limits of your knowledge about the model you are proposing are directly relevant to the discussion of your model with you. It really doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, because at the moment, with the massive holes in your knowledge, you cannot demonstrate your theory to be correct. Even if you're correct, you can't show it.quote:
By this logic the gas model is hopelessly falsified since I've never met a single gas model theorist that can answer every mystery about the sun.
I never claimed that your theory was false, I only claimed that your defense of your theory, in light of your ignorance, is pointless.quote:
The only thing that fell apart here is the fact you could not explain what the material is made of, or how the makeup of that material was determined.
Lies don't help your case, here. Besides which, a test of my knowledge does not bolster the case for your model.quote:
In fact these answers are not based on observation but upon gas model "theory".
You keep saying that it's a fact, but you refuse to provide any evidence that it's a fact. I conclude, therefore, that you are lying.quote:
The moment you remove that single "assumption", and you consider the implications of a mass separated model, none of these assumptions can verified, and the density numbers you keep kicking around become *highly* questionable.
Since you haven't explained how a mass separation assumption would result in a different interpretation of the measurements (or in different measurements), your knowledge of "the implications of a mass separated model" is highly questionable.quote:
That doesn't however discount one iota of the mass flow data.
Since the mass flow data depends upon having accurate sound speeds, which depend upon accurate density and compressibility measurements, calling the density measurements into question absolutely means that the mass flow data cannot be trusted. That you fail to grasp this simply shows your ignorance of the field, all over again.
|
- 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 - 02/07/2006 : 11:17:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You claim to know the above for a fact, but you refuse to prove it with citations of the available literature.
The fact you can't even tell me what the penumbral filaments are made of discounts your whole density arguement. You can't know the density of something unless you know what it's actually made of.
quote:
No, you've been completely nonspecific by refusing to back your allegations with actual evidence.
I did provide evidence of mass separation based on isotope analysis.
quote:
They would have to be less dense or hotter than a hydrogen plasma in order to have the same measured speed of sound as the visible photosphere
But your whole arguement is completely predicated on the "belief" that this layer is hydrogen/helium in the first place! In essense I agree with your statement, but it tells us nothing about the *actual* density of a penumbral filament layer of neon in a mass separated model.
quote:
It is this failure of yours to pay attention which is part of the problem here.
I've paid attention to the fact that you have never explained what this material is made of, and that you've never explained what's wrong with the isotope analysis.
quote:
Because if your model cannot predict as simple as the density of the "penumbral filament layer," then what good is it?
The gas model can't even predict sunspots, so what good is it?
quote:
You have yet to explain how the isotope analysis would make the same helioseismic measurements reveal a different interpretation of those measurements.
Yes I did. If you don't want to hear me, I can't make you hear me, but the change in the speed of sound will be based on the composition and density of the photosphere material and how that differs from the sound travel behaviors of the surface. The greater the density of the photosphere, the less difference there will be between the speed of the soundwaves in these layers.
I'm going to skip a lot of the redundant comments.
quote:
Indeed, I find Manuel's work to be irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is a solid surface at 0.995R, since Manuel's work could just as easily support the idea of a solid iron core within the Sun, and you have not provided any evidence to distinguish one from the other.
From my perspective, this is nothing more than a handy self defense mechanism to keep you from dealing with the mass separation issue. Had I not handed you those TRACE and SOHO RD images (as well as a bunch of other ones as well) I might have some sympathy for your arguement. As it is, Manuel himself agrees with my assessment about the location of the iron layer so your point seems rather moot from my perspective. Even if it were a mass separated plasma body, current gas model theory would be falsified in an instant. This is a critical issue, not some "minor" point. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/07/2006 11:57:07 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 11:18:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well Dave, here's where things seem to be sitting at the moment from my perspective. You can't seem to determine what the penumbral filaments are actually made of based on Kosovichev's work.
Which is irrelevant to the discussion of your model, which cannot predict the density of those filaments.quote:
You can't explain why no inner body in our solar system seems to hang onto any hydrogen, even with tons of it being dumped into the solar system every day. Even after 4.6 billion years, the inner bodies of the solar system are utterly devoid of any hydrogen gas ball formations around them...
Which is irrelevant to the discussion of your model, even though you're just wrong, and all solar-system bodies seem to "hang onto hydrogen" relative to their masses.quote:
...and every single body in the solar system is mass separated, from the largest planet to the smallest moon.
Yet they're mass separated due to gravity, a mechanism which Dr. Manuel rejects as responsible for the mass fractionization process he hypothesizes is going on actively within the Sun.quote:
Somehow, however, you believe that the sun is immune from the same physics that created every other mass separted body in the solar system.
A lie. Lying does not help your case, Michael.quote:
From my perspective, this is a giant case of special pleading.
Take it up with Dr. Manuel, who rejects the idea that the Sun underwent the same processes as the planets.quote:
Now unless you actually intend to address the isotope analysis in some scientific way...
Which part would you like me to address, Michael? Obviously, the parts which I have addressed aren't what you want me to address. There's no need to "refute" the isotope analysis, since it is neither necessary nor sufficient to provide evidence for a solid shell within the Sun.quote:
...or can definitively show me what that penumbral filament material is made of, your density figures simply cannot be verified.
This discussion is about your model, which doesn't predict any density measurements at all, so the helioseismology can neither support it nor refute it, regards if what you think it "assumes." Your model isn't scientific, period. |
- 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 - 02/07/2006 : 11:51:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Which is irrelevant to the discussion of your model, which cannot predict the density of those filaments.
It is not irrelevant and it doesn't matter is one individual can or cannot predict the desnity of those filaments. That has nothing to do with the mass separation data, or the isotope analysis that suggest the sun is mass separated.
quote:
Yet they're mass separated due to gravity, a mechanism which Dr. Manuel rejects as responsible for the mass fractionization process he hypothesizes is going on actively within the Sun.
Gravity alone would give us good reason to suspect that the sun is also mass separated like every body in the solar system, even if gravity isn't the cause of mass fractionization. I'm *personally* of the impression that the flow of electricity between the sun and the universe is the process that drives mass fractionization.
quote:
A lie. Lying does not help your case, Michael.
I have no intention of misreprenting your position Dave, but the density figures you've been throwing around recently are all based on a non mass separated model, and every other body in this solar system is mass separated.
quote:
Take it up with Dr. Manuel, who rejects the idea that the Sun underwent the same processes as the planets.
He's not however claiming that the sun is the exception to the rule when it comes to mass separation.
quote:
Which part would you like me to address, Michael? Obviously, the parts which I have addressed aren't what you want me to address.
I'd like you to explain to me how you know the sun isn't mass separated since the nuclear chemical evidence suggests that it is mass separated.
quote:
There's no need to "refute" the isotope analysis, since it is neither necessary nor sufficient to provide evidence for a solid shell within the Sun.
That's a cop out. You've been buying into GeeMack's propoganda. Whether it's a solid core or a heavy plasma core, the concept of mass separation in and of itself utterly falsifies contemporary gas model theory. You can't just ignore it.
quote:
This discussion is about your model, which doesn't predict any density measurements at all, so the helioseismology can neither support it nor refute it, regards if what you think it "assumes." Your model isn't scientific, period.
That is false. I'm simply not personally capable of "guessing" at a reasonable figure for the density of the penumbral filament layer at *at this time*. That doesn't mean the idea isn't scientific. It simply means I can't give you that answer, much like gas model theory doesn't offer much in the way of a sunspot explanation. The fact that a theory isn't "complete", or more specifically not "completely yet", is not evidence that the parts that are known are somehow unscientific. There is no one to one correlation between stumping the individual and being right about which model is accurate. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/07/2006 11:53:44 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 12:07:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You claim to know the above for a fact, but you refuse to prove it with citations of the available literature.
The fact you can't even tell me what the penumbral filaments are made of discounts your whole density arguement. You can't know the density of something unless you know what it's actually made of.
You have still not provided any evidence that Kosovichev based any of his measurements upon the assumption of the standard solar model.quote:
quote:
No, you've been completely nonspecific by refusing to back your allegations with actual evidence.
I did provide evidence of mass separation based on isotope analysis.
Which is not evidence that the mass separation model would result in a different interpretation of helioseismology measurements.quote:
quote:
They would have to be less dense or hotter than a hydrogen plasma in order to have the same measured speed of sound as the visible photosphere
But your whole arguement is completely predicated on the "belief" that this layer is hydrogen/helium in the first place! In essense I agree with your statement, but it tells us nothing about the *actual* density of a penumbral filament layer of neon in a mass separated model.
And since your mass separated model does not predict the density of that "layer" (or any other), it is worthless to even try to compare it to helioseismology results.quote:
quote:
It is this failure of yours to pay attention which is part of the problem here.
I've paid attention to the fact that you have never explained what this material is made of...
Why do I need to do so, in a discussion of your model?quote:
...and that you've never explained what's wrong with the isotope analysis.
I never claimed that there was anything wrong with the isotope analysis, so why should I have to explain things I've never claimed?quote:
The gas model can't even predict sunspots, so what good is it?
Thank you for the admission that your model is just as worthless as you think the standard solar model is.quote:
quote:
You have yet to explain how the isotope analysis would make the same helioseismic measurements reveal a different interpretation of those measurements.
Yes I did. If you don't want to hear me, I can't make you hear me, but the change in the speed of sound will be based on the composition and density of the photosphere material and how that differs from the sound travel behaviors of the surface. The greater the density of the photosphere, the less difference there will be between the speed of the soundwaves in these layers.
Which fails to address the issue of how one can interpret the helioseismology measurements as describing this "much" denser photosphere. Focusing on just one measurement (a change in sound speed) ignores the rest of the data.quote:
From my perspective, this is nothing more than a handy self defense mechanism to keep you from dealing with the mass separation issue.
I don't even know what you want me to deal with, Michael. When I try to address it, you repeat your claims that I haven't addressed it. When I say that it also doesn't matter, you call it a "defense mechanism." I still don't see that the "mass separation issue" provides evidence for your claim of a solid shell.quote:
Had I not handed you those TRACE and SOHO RD images (as well as a bunch of other ones as well) I might have some sympathy for your arguement.
Well, since you cannot demonstrate that those images come from any particular depth within the Sun (nor can you demonstrate that your calcium, silicon and neon plasmas are transparent to EUV light), I don't see how those images support your ideas at all, especially in light of the fact that you don't know how to interpret an RD image.quote:
As it is, Manuel himself agrees with my assessment about the location of the iron layer so your point seems rather mute from my perspective.
Ah, an argument from authority. It's less than compelling.quote:
Even if it were a mass separated plasma body, current gas model theory would be falsified in an instant.
Well, since the standard solar model predicts mass separation will occur, though very slowly (and through gravitation, which Dr. Manuel rejects), I don't know why you think your version of mass separation would falsify the gas model.quote:
This is a critical issue, not some "minor" point.
But falsifying the gas model is not evidence for your model. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 12:19:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Even if it were a mass separated plasma body, current gas model theory would be falsified in an instant. This is a critical issue, not some "minor" point.
[...]
That's a cop out. You've been buying into GeeMack's propoganda. Whether it's a solid core or a heavy plasma core, the concept of mass separation in and of itself utterly falsifies contemporary gas model theory. You can't just ignore it.
Your task here is not to falsify the standard solar model, but to prove your claim that the sun has a solid, mostly iron surface. The issue, Michael, is "solid". So yes, it would not be a "minor" point, relative to your claim, "if it were a mass separated plasma body". If it were, it would not be solid, and you'd be exactly 100% wrong about your conjecture. You be just as wrong if it were plasma as you would be if it were made of honey or oobleck, or even if the sun were just a figment of everyone's mass consciousness. There's no "propaganda" here. It's raw, clear, unequivocal logic. If it is something other than solid, it is not solid. And if that's the case, you've failed to support your claim.
Now if you'd like, I'm sure we're all willing to agree there's no evidence to show the sun has a solid surface. So if you're prepared to discuss a different issue, perhaps Dr. Manuel's guess about mass separation, or the general composition of the sun, you really should open a new thread.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 13:14:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You have still not provided any evidence that Kosovichev based any of his measurements upon the assumption of the standard solar model.
I have no evidence that he identified the material in question so there is no way to know it's density. The figure you keep tossing around therefore cannot be measured but instead is an "assumed" density based on an unknown and unspecified material.
quote:
Which is not evidence that the mass separation model would result in a different interpretation of helioseismology measurements.
There is ample reason to believe that it "could" influence the "interpretation" of evidence, particularly if the penumbral filament layer is more dense than gas model (non mass separated) theory.
quote:
And since your mass separated model does not predict the density of that "layer" (or any other), it is worthless to even try to compare it to helioseismology results.
No, that's false. In fact I would say the heliosiesmology data is probably critical in determining the actual density, provided we know the exact composition of the layers in question and we do a bit of lab work with silicon, calcium and neon plasmas.
quote:
Why do I need to do so, in a discussion of your model?
Because you keep tossing out density figures that have nothing to do with *my* model and they have everything to do with a non mass separated model. You're trying to compare apples to oranges and you seem to insist that I agree with YOUR theoretical figures.
quote:
I never claimed that there was anything wrong with the isotope analysis, so why should I have to explain things I've never claimed?
If there is nothing wrong with the isotope analysis, then there is definitely a problem with *your* interpretation of the heliosiesmology data, particularly that first assumption about the density of the penumbral filament layer.
quote:
Thank you for the admission that your model is just as worthless as you think the standard solar model is.
Come now Dave. You might leave the strawmen and word manipulation to GeeMack. It's his favorite pasttime and you wouldn't want to deprive him of his one true gift and one real claim to fame. :)
quote:
Which fails to address the issue of how one can interpret the helioseismology measurements as describing this "much" denser photosphere. Focusing on just one measurement (a change in sound speed) ignores the rest of the data.
I'm specifically interested in the affect at the surface itself. What Kosovichev is "intepreting" as an increase in temperature, may not be an increase in temperature at all. If that is a solid surface, then it's a density transition that causes this change in the sound wave speed, not an increase in temperature. This is particularly relevant to the relatively thin layer of the crust itself.
quote:
I don't even know what you want me to deal with, Michael. When I try to address it, you repeat your claims that I haven't addressed it. When I say that it also doesn't matter, you call it a "defense mechanism." I still don't see that the "mass separation issue" provides evidence for your claim of a solid shell.
You really need to move beyond GeeMack's game of denial here Dave. I've respected your overall attitude here. Don't blow it now.
The issue of mass separation is a critical issue. It will directly relate to the data we attempt to gather from these heliosiesmology techniques, and it will have a profound impact on the viability of various solar theories. If there is mass separation, the current gas model theory is toast, and every assumption that was made that pertains to gas model theory and heliosiesmology will have to be reconsidered in light of this revelation. It's not "minor" issue as it relates to solar theories or to the heliosiesmology data. I've been honest about the fact that the mass separation doesn't in and of itself demonstrate the presense of a solid surface, but you need to come clean about what it does to contemporary theories that involve non mass separated premises.
quote:
Well, since you cannot demonstrate that those images come from any particular depth within the Sun
Nor can you demonstrate that those images come from above the photosphere. That relationship is currently "interpreted". STEREO will remove the interpretation aspect entirely.
quote:
(nor can you demonstrate that your calcium, silicon and neon plasmas are transparent to EUV light),
Nor can you demonstrate that they would block all light from thousand mile long electrical arcs of almost unimaginable power.
quote:
I don't see how those images support your ideas at all, especially in light of the fact that you don't know how to interpret an RD image.
Did you really say that? I certainly can and will be happy to interpret that Lockheed RD image in great detail, unlike what most gas model adherents seem to be able to do with this image.
quote:
Ah, an argument from authority. It's less than compelling.
I'm simply noting that the Dr. himself agrees with me. So somehow I'm supposed to accept Kosovichev as the authority when he can't even determine the materials he's looking at, but I can't cite my own authority that has a lot of evidence of mass separation? I'm afraid I don't quite follow how you get away with your appeals, and somehow I'm not supposed to do that.
quote:
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/07/2006 13:30:02 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
