|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 02/07/2006 : 13:38:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
The issue, Michael, is "solid".
No GeeMack, the 'issue' Dr. Manuel speaks to, and the reason he rejected contemporary gas model theory long before he met me is "mass separation", not "solid". You're stuck in a denial oriented circular feedback loop. Manuel rejected gas model theory 30 years ago, and his reason for rejecting gas model theory had nothing to do with the sun having a "solid" anything.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/07/2006 13:40:05 |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 14:46:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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. 
GeeMack is asking legitimate questions. He's made several valid requests for information about your Sun model.
Including in is posts is language that is consistent with his annoyance and indignation about your constant avoidance of the details he's asking about.
Is his language flame-bait? I don't think so in the light of your skillful avoidance of the questions he's asking. But I do recognize that you, Michael might interpret it as such.
I've alerted you about it before, and you said you'd focus on... what?
Like a rabid pirhana you're snapping at anything remotly resembling bait, whoever it is tossing it your way.
Meanwhile, legitimate questions are ignored, and we are left wondering why you don't answer them.
It speaks more of you than the rest of the people here. You are doing a piss-poor job of defending your model, and the more you take baits to engage in flaming, the more ground will loose. Dave, GeeMack, and H. Humbert are the only ones interested in debating with you, even though there are several other SFN-members educated in physics, nuclear physics, and astronomy.
I'm no longer interesting in discussing the solar model. Your constant side-tracking has already convinced me that you're wrong, and that you are unlikely to provide evidence to change my mind. This is not a failing on my part, it is you Michael that is putting me off by you lack of communication skills. The only reason I'm still following this discussion is my morbid fascination of train-wrecks.
But there might still be readers who can be persuaded to give your model a second chance. Take it and start addressing the issues of your model, instead of boring us with information about how your irony-meter reads, while you still have an audience.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 14:49:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It is not irrelevant...
The composition of the photosphere per the standard solar model is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion of your model which denies the reality of the standard solar model.quote:
...and it doesn't matter is one individual can or cannot predict the desnity of those filaments.
It matters that the model cannot predict the density of the filaments, and it also matters that the main proponent of the model (to whom I am speaking) cannot predict the density of the filaments.quote:
That has nothing to do with the mass separation data, or the isotope analysis that suggest the sun is mass separated.
You're right, it doesn't have anything to do with those things, but it has everything to do with whether you can claim that helioseismology (which can measure density at various depths) supports or refutes your model.quote:
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.
Dr. Manuel seems to think that it's the energy from the neutron-neutron repulsion which drives the mass fractionization (and thus mass separation) process.quote:
I have no intention of misreprenting your position Dave...
Well, since you continue to misrepresent my position, I am forced to the conclusion that you're purposefully lying.quote:
...but the density figures you've been throwing around recently are all based on a non mass separated model...
Why do you keep saying this, without providing evidence for it?quote:
...and every other body in this solar system is mass separated.
So if I said that the average density of the Earth's atmosphere at sea level and 15°C is 0.001225 g/cm3, would you ask me whether that figure is based upon a mass-separated model of the Earth or not?quote:
He's not however claiming that the sun is the exception to the rule when it comes to mass separation.
If you claim that every planet is mass separated due to gravity, then he is.quote:
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.
Again, why should I explain something which I haven't claimed? Quote my writing from a post here which says, "the Sun is not mass separated." Go ahead. I'm waiting.quote:
That's a cop out. You've been buying into GeeMack's propoganda.
Where is your evidence that because I happen to agree with GeeMack, I must simply be "buying into" his "propaganda" rather than coming to the same conclusion on my own?quote:
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.
Whether or not the gas model is falsified is irrelevant to whether your model is correct or not. This isn't a cop-out, but a simple fact. If you want to say that the Sun is mass separated and that falsifies the gas model, I don't care. What I want to know is why you think the mass separation is evidence for your solid shell model, and not an "iron core" model of the Sun.quote:
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.
Because your model fails to make many quantifiable predictions, it is not falsifiable, and so therefore it is not scientific.quote:
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 can't be discussed in a scientific manner. What's the difference to us here between having an unscientific idea and not being able to discuss an idea scientifically? None at all, that I can see.quote:
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.
Every avenue of discussion we've gone down with you, Michael, has ended abruptly when you said something to the effect of "I can't give you the numbers you ask for." Every one. You can't offer a density figure for any layer of the Sun in your model; you can't offer a figure for the amperage of any particular "arc"; you can't offer a better estimate of your solid shell's composition than "mostly iron"; you can't calculate the abundance of any particular element in your model; you can't tell us the opacity o |
- 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 : 14:54:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
No GeeMack, the 'issue' Dr. Manuel speaks to, and the reason he rejected contemporary gas model theory long before he met me is "mass separation", not "solid". You're stuck in a denial oriented circular feedback loop. Manuel rejected gas model theory 30 years ago, and his reason for rejecting gas model theory had nothing to do with the sun having a "solid" anything.
Here's the topic of this conversation, Michael, and please get this through your head once and for all:Michael Mozina has claimed the Sun has a solid surface. Michael Mozina has claimed he can prove this by providing supporting evidence. This discussion has everything to do with the Sun having a "solid" something, a solid surface to be exact. It's not about proving or falsifying Dr. Manuel's ideas. It's not about proving or falsifying Kristian Birkeland's ideas. It's not about proving or falsifying Dr. Bruce's ideas. It's not about proving or falsifying the standard solar model. It's only about your claim and your responsibility to prove that claim. That's all.
If you wish to continue trying to support that claim, dragging in irrelevant material is only a distraction and does not help your case. The isotope analysis you speak of, which Dr. Manuel claims supports the notion of a mass separated Sun, does not, even by Dr. Manuel's own acknowledgment, demonstrate that the Sun has a solid surface. Understand?
If you have abandoned your claim that the Sun has a solid surface, and instead wish to discuss other notions about the composition of the Sun, open another thread. If you are trying to move the goal posts from your support of a solid surface Sun to your supporting a plasma surface, that is a completely dishonest tactic. If you're remaining with your attempt to prove the Sun has a solid surface, the mass separation issue is moot and may be simply discarded from the discussion. What's it going to be?- A. You've abandoned your claim that the surface of the Sun is solid?
- B. You're trying to move the goal posts and change the intent of your claim?
- C. Or we drop all this nonsense about isotope analysis and mass separation and you continue trying to prove your solid surface Sun conjecture with relevant material?
If you think you can prove the Sun has a solid surface, you have just one duty to this conversation, exclusively, singularly. Your job is to present your evidence to support that specific claim. And since this is a scientific claim you make, your evidence must be quantitative, explainable using known principles of physics (or you must explain any interjected unknown principles of physics in a clear, concise, quantitative, and scientific way), and preferably well referenced. If what you claim as support does not indeed conform to those scientific requirements of evidence, it may simply be rejected, discarded.
Our job here is to consider your evidence and accept it if it is verifiable, substantial, and relevant. Our job it not to prove or falsify your conjecture or any other theories. If we falsify anything here it will be your evidence, not your conjecture. Our job is not to teach you physics or explain to you how other theories or conjectures work. Our job is not to read material you present then explain to you how it does or does not support your guess. Our job is not to look at your pictures and hopefully see the same things in them that you do. Our job is not to explain to you the proper methods of interpreting data. Our job is exclusively to accept or reject your evidence based on the most rigorous scientific scrutiny. If you can't take that kind of heat, if your conjecture is not yet robust enough to be put through that kind of sieve, then you are clearly not prepared to present it as if it were a legitimate scientific issue.
There's no conspiracy here, Michael. The folks at Lockheed aren't trying to systematically deny you a position in mainstream science. The people at NASA aren't all victims of some mind numbing cognitive dissonance. It really is a case of you not presenting an acceptable, supportable, quantitative, valid, or even legitimately scientific case for your conjecture. Until you can do that, it simply will not be taken seriously by the scientific world. That's how science works and that's how skepticism works. It's your claim, you prove it. You haven't. Your guesses and opinions don't count.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 14:58:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You can't know the density of something unless you know what it's actually made of.
LMFAO.
I haven't laughed this good in a long while. You do have the weirdest sense of humor. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 15:07:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
GeeMack is asking legitimate questions. He's made several valid requests for information about your Sun model.
Sure they are legitimate questions, but then GeeMack himself hasn't been legitimate with the isotope analysis I've offered him. If he won't address the stronger and more important parts of my arguement what is the point of going off on other tangents with him?
quote:
Including in is posts is language that is consistent with his annoyance and indignation about your constant avoidance of the details he's asking about.
I find it easier to just ignore him altogether than to get baited into side issues with him and then have him ignore the other other issues altogether. I don't mind answering Dave's questions because Dave isn't skirting around the issues.
quote:
Is his language flame-bait?
You mean like the "liar, liar, pants on fire" routines? Ya, I'd say some of his posts are in fact pure flame-bait in fact.
quote:
I don't think so in the light of your skillful avoidance of the questions he's asking. But I do recognize that you, Michael might interpret it as such.
I will be happy to answer any and all questions that *you* or Dave, or HH, or any of the others that have participated in this thread, but GeeMack isn't even interested in a serious scientific discourse.
quote:
I've alerted you about it before, and you said you'd focus on... what?
I said I'd focus on the science and ignore GeeMack and that's pretty much what I'm doing. Like I said, if you have a legitimate question, I'll give it my best shot. When GeeMack addresses the isotope analysis in an intellectually honest manner, I'll be happy to address some more of his questions too. Until he deal with the mass separation issue however, I see no reason to think he's even interested in an honest discussion of the scientific facts.
quote:
Like a rabid pirhana you're snapping at anything remotly resembling bait, whoever it is tossing it your way.
I think this is a valid objection on your part, but at the moment I just don't have a lot a patience left for GeeMack. I'm just tired of having him build strawmen out of my statements and skirt the actual issues. Please don't take it personally, it has nothing to do with you. I realize however that there is validity in what you are suggesting since even outside observers will be influence by my "attitude" toward GeeMack, but frankly I'm tired of his antics, and I'm tired of wasting my breath on his account.
quote:
Meanwhile, legitimate questions are ignored, and we are left wondering why you don't answer them.
I would like GeeMack to step up to the plate and deal in integrity with the isotope analysis. If and when he actually does that (I'm not holding my breath mind you) then I'll be happy to resume a serious dialog with him. As it is now however, everything I say goes in one ear and out the other and he builds a strawman out of everything I say.
quote:
It speaks more of you than the rest of the people here. You are doing a piss-poor job of defending your model, and the more you take baits to engage in flaming, the more ground will loose. Dave, GeeMack, and H. Humbert are the only ones interested in debating with you, even though there are several other SFN-members educated in physics, nuclear physics, and astronomy.
I'm interested in anything Dave or you or HH might have to say because each of you has demonstrated a sincere attempt to have an honest discourse even if we don't agree on some points. GeeMack however has not behaved in this manner and frankly I'm not that interested in what he has to say. Again, I agree that being sucked into the flaming wars with him is not in my best interest, but personal attack and strawmen seems to be all GeeMack is truely interested in to begin with.
quote:
I'm no longer interesting in discussing the solar model. Your constant side-tracking has already convinced me that you're wrong, and that you are unlikely to provide evidence to change my mind. This is not a failing on my part, it is you Michael that is putting me off by you lack of communication skills.
Well, that's really the value of me having these conversations I suppose. I get to find out what my strengths and weaknesses are, and I'm trying to become a better communicator of these ideas. I realize I have a ways to go, but I'll only learn by participating in these types of discussions.
quote:
The only reason I'm still following this discussion is my morbid fascination of train-wrecks.
That's really the only reason I'm even still communication with GeeMack too, so I know what you mean. The moment he actually deals with the mass separation issue in integrity is the moment his whole show gets busted.
quote:
But there might still be readers who can be persuaded to give your model a second chance. Take it and start addressing the issues of your model, instead of boring us with information about how your irony-meter reads, while you still have an audience.
Your valid point is noted Dr. Mabuse. As I said, I'd be happy to answer your personal questions, Dave's questions or HH's questions. My unwillingness to answer GeeMack is due to a personal beef I have with GeeMack, not because of any desire to shy away from the scientific aspects of this discussion. As I said, I'll answer any of you questions, I'm just tired of having my words twisted by GeeMack. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/07/2006 15:12:03 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 15:10:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You can't know the density of something unless you know what it's actually made of.
LMFAO.
I haven't laughed this good in a long while. You do have the weirdest sense of humor.
Ok, I'll bite. Why do you find that funny, particularly in this instance? |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 15:48:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
That's really the only reason I'm even still communication with GeeMack too, so I know what you mean. The moment he actually deals with the mass separation issue in integrity is the moment his whole show gets busted.
Everyone's getting tired of your lying, Michael. Straight up question for you. Does the isotope analysis, which apparently confirms for you and Dr. Manuel that the Sun is in some state of mass separation, provide evidence that the Sun has a solid surface? Yes or no? You're so desperate about dealing with it, deal with it. Direct, impossible to misunderstand, clearly stated question here. And I'm not quibbling about the term "solid". When I say solid I mean solid, hard, like any dictionary definition of solid, like you defined solid, like the crust of the Earth solid. I'll repeat. Does the isotope analysis, which apparently confirms for you and Dr. Manuel that the Sun is in some state of mass separation, provide evidence that the Sun has a solid surface? Yes or no?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 16:30:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The composition of the photosphere per the standard solar model is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion of your model which denies the reality of the standard solar model.
Fine, I'll be happy to keep it that way as long as you aren't trying to claim that the density issue is KNOWN. Without knowing if the sun is mass separated, and knowing what that material is made of, you can't know any such thing.
quote:
It matters that the model cannot predict the density of the filaments,
At this time...... Of course current gas model theory can't explain a simple sunspot. I guess it's pretty incomplete too eh?
quote:
and it also matters that the main proponent of the model (to whom I am speaking) cannot predict the density of the filaments.
So shall I blame you personally for not being able to predict sunspots with the gas model?
quote:
You're right, it doesn't have anything to do with those things, but it has everything to do with whether you can claim that helioseismology (which can measure density at various depths) supports or refutes your model.
What is the material that makes up the penumbral filaments? What is it's density, and how do you know it's density?
quote:
Dr. Manuel seems to think that it's the energy from the neutron-neutron repulsion which drives the mass fractionization (and thus mass separation) process.
That's the beauty of being individuals. We can have differences of opinions. :)
quote:
Why do you keep saying this, without providing evidence for it?
Because you keep tossing out density figures without ever isolating the material in question. There's no other logical possiblity. Do you know what the penumbral filaments are made of? Yes or no? If not, now can you possibly know the density of the penumbral filaments?
quote:
So if I said that the average density of the Earth's atmosphere at sea level and 15°C is 0.001225 g/cm3, would you ask me whether that figure is based upon a mass-separated model of the Earth or not?
No, I would already know that your figure is based on a mass separated model, and I'd already have a pretty good idea of which materials are involved.
I'd know therefor that the sound transition changes I see at the surface relates to a solid surface, and I'd also be able to validate the
quote:
If you claim that every planet is mass separated due to gravity, then he is.
I think you're just confusing mass separation and mass fractionization. Gravity alone doesn't really explain fractionization.
quote:
Again, why should I explain something which I haven't claimed?
You seem to be playing both sides of the street here. First you toss out a density figure straight from gas model theory that assumes there is no mass separation, and then you suggest you aren't subscribing to gas model theory. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.
quote:
Quote my writing from a post here which says, "the Sun is not mass separated." Go ahead. I'm waiting.
Where did you get that density figure without identifing the material? I'm waiting?
quote:
Where is your evidence that because I happen to agree with GeeMack, I must simply be "buying into" his "propaganda" rather than coming to the same conclusion on my own?
I have a hard time believing that you actually think that the mass separation issue is a trivial issue. I haven't seen you dodge the isotope analysis, at least not yet. How do you figure that mass separation isn't a key issue here?
quote:
Whether or not the gas model is falsified is irrelevant to whether your model is correct or not. This isn't a cop-out, but a simple fact.
In a sense, I agree. In another sense I disagree. In the sense that both models can still be false I agree. In the sense that mass separation favors one explanation and exclude another, I disagree. The mass separation issue is a deciding issue between these two models. If there is mass separation, then the Birkeland/Manuel model is supported and gas model theory is falsified. Likewise if there is no mass separation, then a solid surface model is falisified, and gas model theory is supported by this finding. Either way, one model and only one made *MIGHT* be right, but the outcome of this issue determines which of the two mutually exclusive models is falsified by this information.
quote:
If you want to say that the Sun is mass separated and that falsifies the gas model, I don't care.
If it's falsified, then you can't use density figures based on non mass separated concepts. You can't have it both ways. If you intend to use gas model concepts of density as a refute to my model then you *must* care if there is mass separation.
quote:
What I want to know is why you think the mass separation is evidence for your solid shell model, and not an "iron core" model of the Sun.
The mass separation issue cannot and would not favor a solid surface vs. and iron plasma core model of the sun. Both would still be viable options based only on the knowledge of mass separation, bu |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/07/2006 16:38:39 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 17:01:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The only reason I'm still following this discussion is my morbid fascination of train-wrecks.
You too huh ? 
Actually, the actual science does interest me somewhat, regardless of how little of it there seems to be a lot of the time.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The moment he actually deals with the mass separation issue in integrity is the moment his whole show gets busted.
I've thus far been watching quietly. To be honest I think Dave and GeeMack have a much better handle on this discipline as a whole than I , but I'm willing to throw my hat into the ring and see what I can contribute. I'm mostly an engineer these days, but I still get to do some actual science once in a while. I've now read the entire discussion for all the various threads and feel I have a reasonable understanding as to where things are at the moment.
The isotope analysis as it relates to mass separation is obviously a contentious issue of some magnitude. Rather than listening to more raspberries I thought I'd put my hand up to have a look at it myself. In order to do so I'd appreciate the following:
1. A reference to the actual paper/results for said isotope analysis, to save me from having to search the whole thread(s) again.
2. Is there any specific result/aspect of the work I should be especially aware of which will comfirm that it supports that the sun has a solid shell?
3. Is the solid shell idea still your contention? I know GeeMack has asked this and I know you're (mostly) ignoring GeeMack, but it doesn't seem entirely clear at the moment, and it would seem pointless to me to start studying something in detail only to find out that the goalposts have shifted, and it's not a solid surface, but rather some sort of plasma layer that is now being posited.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 17:04:39 [Permalink]
|
Michael, the density measurements are not dependent upon any assumptions of the sun's composition. The measurements revealed the sun's composition, or at least gave a very narrow and specific range of options as to what that composition might be. When compared to a pure gas model, the measurements agreed to within 2%.
You now have 2 options. You can 1) explain what materials can form a solid shell and still agree with the acoustic measurements, or 2) show how those measurements are wrong. You haven't done either.
Don't you get it, man? There is no "normalizing" of the data. There is no "assumption" which can throw off the results. Your model must conform to the measured acoustical properties of the sun if it is to have a chance of existing in reality. This should be the prime concern of yours, as the entire feasibility of your idea depends upon it. You cannot hand-wave this away with a few ill-formed objections. If you doubt the validity of the data, you need to explain in detail how it is incorrect. The closest you've ever even come to this was when you decided the entire field of acoustics could be hand-waved away if it never verified its findings with direct observation, which of course it has. So that wasn't really a very strong attempt on your part.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/07/2006 17:17:17 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 17:26:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
I've thus far been watching quietly. To be honest I think Dave and GeeMack have a much better handle on this discipline as a whole than I , but I'm willing to throw my hat into the ring and see what I can contribute. I'm mostly an engineer these days, but I still get to do some actual science once in a while. I've now read the entire discussion for all the various threads and feel I have a reasonable understanding as to where things are at the moment.
Welcome to the discussion John.
quote:
The isotope analysis as it relates to mass separation is obviously a contentious issue of some magnitude. Rather than listening to more raspberries I thought I'd put my hand up to have a look at it myself. In order to do so I'd appreciate the following:
1. A reference to the actual paper/results for said isotope analysis, to save me from having to search the whole thread(s) again.
You might start here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510001
This is Dr. Manuel's website with a list of papers he's written over the past 30+ years.
http://web.umr.edu/~om/papers.html
One of the formulas was originally derived from this paper:
http://web.umr.edu/~om/archive/SolarAbundances.pdf
quote:
2. Is there any specific result/aspect of the work I should be especially aware of which will comfirm that it supports that the sun has a solid shell?
The mass separation issue alone does not favor a solid shell theory IMO, simply a mass separated one.
quote:
3. Is the solid shell idea still your contention?
Yes. GeeMack seems to have confused himself and others about this point. If you're looking to see my views spelled out clearly, I urge you to avoid GeeMacks portrayal of my ideas at all costs. :)
quote:
I know GeeMack has asked this and I know you're (mostly) ignoring GeeMack, but it doesn't seem entirely clear at the moment, and it would seem pointless to me to start studying something in detail only to find out that the goalposts have shifted, and it's not a solid surface, but rather some sort of plasma layer that is now being posited.
HH had originally mentioned that mass separation does not in and of itself guarantee the presense of a solid surface. I agreed with his assessment, but that doesn't change my opinion about the sun having a solid surface. My belief that the sun has a solid surface does not come JUST from the mass separation issue. Mass separation evidence only demonstrates that it is 'possible' for solids to exist under the photosphere, though such a revelation would falsify contemporary gas model theory. Mass separation is not a guarantee of the presense of solids however. That was all I was trying to convey to HH, and essentially I was simply agreeing with that aspect of his assesment. At no time however have I deviated from my position that the sun has a solid surface despite GeeMack's considerable and intentional mischaracterizations of my position on this matter. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/07/2006 17:47:36 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 17:38:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Michael, the density measurements are not dependent upon any assumptions of the sun's composition.
That is not so:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave
Both a hydrogen plasma and a neon plasma can be closely modeled as monotonic ideal gasses, as can every other plasma. Since the adiabatic index for a monotonic ideal gas is always the same, then the speed of sound will only be proportional to the temperature and the density, regardless of which atoms actually comprise the plasma.
First of all these techniques treat ionized plasma (a completely different state of matter than a gas) as an ideal gas and it is "assumed" that the adiabatic index is the same. Nevermind the fact that there are electromagnetic fields galore at the surface. Even the very premise that one can determine the density of a plasma in these conditions *without* knowing what the material is made of is itself an assumption. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/07/2006 17:40:43 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 17:52:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
First of all these techniques treat ionized plasma (a completely different state of matter than a gas) as an ideal gas and it is "assumed" that the adiabatic index is the same. Nevermind the fact that there are electromagnetic fields galore at the surface. Even the very premise that one can determine the density of a plasma in these conditions *without* knowing what the material is made of is itself an assumption.
Wrong. Again, you're speaking about how the results are interpreted against a solar model. But assumptions don't affect the acoustic results in their collection. You are encouraged to explain the composition of a solid surface model that would equally agree with the collected data, but the data themselves are not contingent upon any assumptions.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/07/2006 17:54:22 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 18:19:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Wrong. Again, you're speaking about how the results are interpreted against a solar model. But assumptions don't affect the acoustic results in their collection.
We need to be clear here, because usually I at least understand where you are coming from but at the moment I really don't follow your line of reasoning.
The very "assumption" that plasma can be "modeled" as an "ideal gas" is itself an assumption. That assumption has not been demonstrated, certainly not in these very specific conditions that involve huge flows of current and large electromagnetic fields.
quote:
You are encouraged to explain the composition of a solid surface model that would equally agree with the collected data, but the data themselves are not contingent upon any assumptions.
In the sense that sounds speed is important and useful "collected data", yes, I concur, I will have to explain the sound speeds and transitions, just like gas model theoriests. In the sense that I am somehow "obligated" to simply accept a whole host of "assumptions" that may or may not be accurate, I disagree. I am certainly not obligated to try to explain this set of data using exactly these same sets of assumptions. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/07/2006 18:20:41 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
