|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 02/11/2006 : 19:01:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Explain that, please.
Let me show it to you in fact:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg
Notice how the visible light ends at the ends of the penumbral filaments and underneath the filaments (around all the sides) it's also relatively dark. That is because the neon layers ends, and the silicon layer begins at the end of the filament layer. The plasma flowing up from the center of the sunspot and then down back into the umbra along the right side, is due to the fact that the silicon plasma flowing from the umbra isn't heavy enough to remain suspended in the hydrogen or the neon layers indefinitely. It eventually falls back down into the umbra due to the force of gravity. Then of course there are the flared sides of the penumbral filaments where the plasma hits the lighter helium layer and has nowhere to go but out, pushing flared patterns outward at the top of the filament layer. Of course that same flare pattern occurs at the tops of each of the plasma layers.
quote:
Not when you can't show that they come from under the photosphere, they don't.
That is a total double standard. You can't prove they come from *above* the photosphere either. That is another of those things "taken on faith" even before the satellites were put into space. The whole concept of a "transitional region" comes from the assumption that this "transitional region" where plasma goes from thousands to millions of degrees would be located somewhere in the lower corona. You can't prove they *originate* above the photosophere either, and the fact we see "footprints' on them, and they come from beneath the photosphere, precludes coronal loops from originating in the corona.
quote:
Nononono. Dr. Manuel's data shows, at best, that the Sun's atmosphere is mass separated, not the whole Sun. In fact, your model simply doesn't have an entirely mass-separated Sun, since you're talking about compounds and "assimilation" in the solid shell.
But what is under that crust is most likely also mass separated by weight. It's still a fully mass sepratated model, just like the model of earth.
quote:
And, as another matter of fact, the Earth's atmosphere is only mass-separated above 100 km. Below that, turbulence ensures that the gasses remain mixed together for the most part.
But there are heavier elements under the surface and we don't have plasmas in our atmosophere. It would be a safe bet that the turbulance of the sun also "mixes" the elements to a certain degree, at least temporarily. The iron arcs come from the surface and extend far out into the corona in fact.
quote:
Not only that, but heavier ozone (O3) doesn't appear below about 15 km without help from automobile exhaust and lightning strikes, but "floats" on top of the less-massive O2. So, since 99.9% of the Earth's atmosphere is not mass separated, why should we assume that the Sun's atmosphere is mass separated?
We can start with that umbra/penumbra delineation if you like? Again, you're comparing apples to oranges, in this case "ideal gasses" to plasmas in totally electrified environments. Of course you also neglected to meantion that the heaviest elements of earth sink to it's core whereas according to gas model dogma, the heavy elements somehow remain "suspended".
quote:
Except that you lumped all the metals and whatever else SERTS didn't see into the shell, so "right down to the isotope" is plainly false.
Any and all plasmas above the surface will be mass separated down to the isotope. Any type of plasma below the surface is likely also to be mass separated. Only the crust itself is not mass separated.
quote:
We don't "know" any such thing. You haven't even begun to explain how the satellite images support the mass-separation hypothesis.
I'll be *happy* to do that Dave. Let's talk about that penumbra/umbra delineation since it is the most "visible" of these layer transformations. It's visible because the neon emits visible light and the silicon plasma doesn't.
quote:
Baloney. We're just beginning that very question.
You personally might be beginning to address that very question, but Dr. Manuel and other nuclear chemists already answered that question 30+ years ago. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/11/2006 19:08:50 |
 |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2006 : 19:45:13 [Permalink]
|
So, Michael, how are we supposed to take your not answering the many specific, pertinent, legitimate, scientifically based concerns posed over the past several pages? Maybe you've just decided to shit on Dave W. and ignore completely the questions and concerns that were put on the table on the first couple pages? Or maybe you're still working on the answers?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2006 : 20:25:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The dogma isn't mathematic.
You are showing your willful ignorance again, because physics is entirely mathematical, and that includes the standard solar model:The most firmly grounded laws used in modeling the evolution of the Sun from zero age to its current age are the conservation laws of physics, viz. the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy. These three laws along with the energy transport equation and the equations describing the nuclear reaction network constitute the complete set of equations which describe the evolution of a star.
- here Every physics model, Michael, is a set of equations which describe reality. Every last one. The standard solar model is no exception. Your assertion that the "dogma" is not mathematical is a damning strike against your claim that you wish to discuss science here.quote:
The dogma has *some* mathematical support, based on heliocentric concepts of reality...
And you are entirely unwiling to even agree that we can mass the Sun without knowing what it's made of. You're also entirely unwilling to describe the physics of how an acceleration can cause our measurements of mass to be incorrect. Since you refuse to describe the latter process (which must be entirely new physics), the rest of us have nothing to go on but your allegedly "heliocentric" version of reality. You're being a complete prick, Michael, by faulting us for using such a model when you refuse to divulge what you think the real model is. This is strike two against your claim that you wish to discuss science here.quote:
...and preconcieved and self fulfilling concepts of how spectroscopy can be used.
Except that it's not like that at all. Solar scientists took the spectroscopy measurements, fed them into a set of equations which model the Sun, and out popped the correct values for the Sun's radius, and its temperature, and the neutrino counts (among other things). That's strike three against the claim that you wish to discuss science here. The claim is wholly unsuported and without merit.quote:
That funny since you seem to think none of the heliosiesmology "expert" you cite could be wrong. :)
Fuck you and your hypocrisy, Michael. Not only did you strike out with regards to your claim to want to discuss science, but you're lucky you haven't been thrown out of the game for failure to follow your own stated moral code. You're not worth this crap any more. The shame of it all is that I have to keep reading your posts, since I'm the goddamned moderator of this folder.
Oh, one last thing: the idea that the bulk of the Earth is mass separated is ludicrous since there are convective cells in the mantle, and pockets of things like uranium in the crust. The iron core may be really dense, but heavier isotopes are present all throughout the Earth. The bulk of our planet, like the bulk of our atmosphere, is not mass separated. |
- 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 - 02/11/2006 : 23:06:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I hear you on that point. I've already stuck my neck *WAY* out on a limb with the STEREO program. I'm betting the farm that they'll "discover" that the 171A, 195A, and 284A image originate *underneath* the photosphere, not above it. That's a real falsification mechanism that I'll accept as a viable way to determine which "interpretation" is accurate, and there should not be much room for error. I'm going to pay close attention to that data, I assure you. I'm interesting in both proving my case and also in falsifying it as well.
Whatever portion of the farm you're willing to cut me in on, Michael, I'll take a piece of that bet. Consider the sum total of "evidence" presented so far: You've given us your grossly misinterpreted satellite images, your seriously misunderstood helioseismology research, your mass separation issue which you yourself have admitted can't prove your claim, and the irrelevance of electrical activity in CMEs. It can all be discarded as completely unsupportive for several reasons, not the least of which is that you've been thoroughly negligent in providing any quantitative substantiation whatsoever.
So, since nothing you've given us so far can even remotely prove your claim, and since you feel the clincher, the real evidence, will come from the STEREO satellite program, I decided to check a little further into that to see just how much new information we might expect.
The STEREO satellites are being deployed primarily to research solar wind and CMEs (coronal mass ejections). And although we may learn a little about their origins and some things about electrical and magnetic field conditions involved, it won't tell us anything relating to a possible solid surface at 0.995Rsun. The best visualizing instrumentation on board will still only be seeing at the 171Å wavelength, nearly equal to the best we've got right now. And right now we can only see photon emissions, at any wavelength, to about 500 km below the surface. Ultra violet like 171Å, 195Å, 284Å, infrared, X-rays, gamma rays, it doesn't matter, ~500 km is the bottom of the view, completely opaque to photon emission beyond that point. That's actually not even quite 0.999Rsun.
So there are no visible volcanoes, no visible surface fractures, no electrical erosion, no dust blowing from a "solid" surface, nothing we can see with any optical equipment at or near 0.995Rsun. None, not in any telescope or satellite image anywhere, no matter what it looks like, not with any filter, not at any wavelength. The 0.995Rsun depth is almost 3,000 km beyond the point of complete opacity. Even the umbra of a sunspot, with a mean depth in the neighborhood of 800 km, is still a couple thousand kilometers of 100% opaque plasma above 0.995Rsun.
The primary advantage of the STEREO program will be the ability to capture simultaneous, high quality images from separate points in space. That will give us more or less three dimensional views of the CMEs. It won't allow us to see any deeper into the photosphere than we already can.
In order for us to "see" to depths of 0.995Rsun, we are absolutely dependent on helioseismology. So Michael, until you find, and repair, the flaws in that field of technology, those "flaws" which cause it to show plasma cruising through the "solid" surface at >1200 m/s, even that can't help support the case for your solid surfaced Sun.
So is there some particular place I can come take a look at my new farm?
Continuing... All that addresses your possible future ability to prove your stupid guess. As to what you claim to be your prior attempts to prove it, you've shown your true self in these threads, Michael. You can't prove it. In fact you don't even want to. You've created an unwinnable challenge for yourself, and you badger, taunt, and belittle anyone who drops it back in your lap and shows how badly you've failed. You evade relevant issues and completely ignore important questions. When pressed, your strategy is to go into a stall and/or badmouth whoever presses you. You say you're working on answers, but you never get around to providing them. You aren't willing to apply any science or math to a strictly scientific mathematical issue. All you want to do is babble about irrelevant concerns. You use the tactic of making your nutty fantasy into a wildly moving target, and you think as long as nobody can hit it you can continue to happily live with your delusion. You've completely abandoned any integrity. So far all you've proven is that you are a dishonest, lying jerk.
You can't define your "model" mathematically, specifying quantitatively the "surface" density, thickness, temperature, and elemental composition. You can't describe Birkeland's "model", specifically, mathematically, citing original references to support it. You can't explain in detail how your mass separation issue specifically, scientifically, and mathematically shows how a solid surface must exist. You can't explain any details in quantitative terms regarding all those pictures you looked at for a long long time, the times, dates, locations, sizes, scales, processing algorithms, or original intent. You can't explain whether the running difference images show differences in temperature, direction of convection, magnetic polarity, direction of mass flow, or any of dozens of other possibilities. You can't explain how you specifically, mathematically, and quantitatively determine the depths you think you're seeing or the materials you think you're seeing in all those pictures. You can't quantitatively describe the pressure, density, gravity, or magnetic field issues that must be considered, according to the real laws of physics, which are required for a solid surface to exist. You can't explain anything about your bogus model in any quantitative, scientific terms, at all, period.
Now as long as all you want to do is talk about your crazy fantasy instead of actually trying to prove it, if you're not willing and able to answer to every single issue I've put forth in the above paragraph, legitimately, quantitatively, and scientifically, I'm happy to second Dave W.'s comment, fuck you and your hypocrisy. You'll probably be happier if you go find some place other than SFN to run your mouth. And here's what you can take with you: You can claim we were all part of that huge conspiracy to stifle your pursuit of "science". Put another poor-persecuted-Michael feather in your cap and move along.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 09:03:45 [Permalink]
|
| Michael, can we agree that a plasma of sufficiently low density can be approximated to an ideal gas, and that ideal-gas-laws and and their mathematical formulas will apply with a marigin of error that is less than an arbitrary number, say 2% or 5%? |
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 - 02/12/2006 : 14:54:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The dogma isn't mathematic.
You are showing your willful ignorance again, because physics is entirely mathematical, and that includes the standard solar model:
No Dave, you are not hearing what I'm saying. The problem has *never* been with the math. The math and the laws of physics are fine. The problem with gas model theory is that it is predicated upon an "assumption" that the sun isn't mass separated. It's not the math or the laws of physics that are the problem. The problem is in the original assumption that we can determine composition by spectroscopic means based on the "assumption" that the sun is not mass separated by the element.
Gas model theory is also predicated on a notion of "absolute density" that ignores any and all external influences as it relates to motion, and Birkeland currents. Since you were so kind as to work on a mathematical representation of "dark energy", I'm working on a mathematical ballpark model for you using Birkeland currents.
quote:
here[/bq]Every physics model, Michael, is a set of equations which describe reality. Every last one.
Again however, I am not questioning the value of math, of the laws of physics. I'm questioning two basic assumptions: 1) that the sun is not mass separated, and 2) that there are no Birkeland currents affecting the "absolute density" numbers we use to determine the concept of "density" that are currently associated with the gas model. Since Birkeland currents have been documented inside and outside of our solar system, and since there is evidence that our solar system is composed of metal spheres, and there is nuclear chemical data demonstrating that the sun is mass separated, this is not just an 'off the wall' concern. This is a valid concern, particularly since Birkeland's model included a metal cathode sphere, and Birkeland currents running throughout the universe, and we see exactly these things in satellite images, and nuclear chemical analysis.
quote:
The standard solar model is no exception. Your assertion that the "dogma" is not mathematical is a damning strike against your claim that you wish to discuss science here.
The math is simply used to support the dogma Dave. The math is based on the Dogma however. I.e: "The sun is not mass separated therefore we can mathematically deduce it's composition by spectroscopy". There's absolutely nothing wrong with the math associated with that statement. The problem is in the "assumption" that the sun is not mass separted. It *is* mass separated according to the isotope analysis. We can't simply *ignore* the data that doesn't mathematically jive with direct observation. In this case we have observed evidence of mass fractionation that needs to be addressed. It doesn't disprove the math of the spectroscopy, it disproves the assumption that was used. Do you see this distinction?
quote:
And you are entirely unwiling to even agree that we can mass the Sun without knowing what it's made of.
I'm am entirely unwilling to "assume" as you do that no external influences of the universe could interfere with our concept of "absolute density". I'm more than happy to accept these ideas in 'relative' terms. I also am not questioning our ability to determine the "relative mass" of the sun in a mathematical way using heliocentric concepts. I agree that these equations all work in a "relative way". What I was really asking you to do in the first place was not to determine the mass of the sun, but to demonstrate a method to determine what the penumbral filaments are made of, and *their* density. I didn't ask you anything related to determing the "relative density" of the sun. I specifically asked you how you know what the filaments are made of in light of the isotope analysis that shows evidence of mass separation. That isotope analysis is verified in solar satellite images that also show clear signs of mass separation.
quote:
You're also entirely unwilling to describe the physics of how an acceleration can cause our measurements of mass to be incorrect.
I'm tinkering around today with some mathematical models using Birkeland currents for you. When I've got something I like, I'll post it.
quote:
Since you refuse to describe the latter process (which must be entirely new physics), the rest of us have nothing to go on but your allegedly "heliocentric" version of reality. You're being a complete prick, Michael, by faulting us for using such a model when you refuse to divulge what you think the real model is.
I think it is disengenous of you to call me names when I have been very specific about the factors I think are involved, and the solar model I personally favor. Birkeland's model requires that we consider the implications of Birkeland currents in our universe. You might not appreciate the fact that I haven't handed you a mathematical model of this from my perspective, but our original deal was that I would address the heliosiesmology data, if you looked at the isotope analysis. This request is right out of left field, and just a distraction from our original discussion. Whether I ever *personally* represent this notion of "absolute density" to your personal satisfaction is irrelevant to the isotope analysis.
quote:
This is strike two against your claim that you wish to discuss science here.
IMO, your request for a mathematical model to describe absolute density is a reasonable one, particularly since you went through the math that describes "relative mass" and relative density. Like I said, I believe I owe that to you, and I'll eventually do that for you. I do however think you owe me a full response to the mass separation issue however since I spent a long time on your heliosiesmology data, and even used some of it to support my case.
quote:
Except that it's not like that at all. Solar scientists took the spectroscopy measurements, |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/12/2006 15:18:27 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 14:57:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Michael, can we agree that a plasma of sufficiently low density can be approximated to an ideal gas, and that ideal-gas-laws and and their mathematical formulas will apply with a marigin of error that is less than an arbitrary number, say 2% or 5%?
Under what conditions are we talking about? If you mean does plasma "tend" to behave in "similar and predictable" ways under "controlled" conditions that do not include huge electromagnetic fields, sure, I agree. If however you are suggesting that ideal gas and plasma *always* behave the same "regardless" of conditions, then I disagree. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 15:01:04 [Permalink]
|
| Let's talk hypocricy here for a moment Dave. I've paid careful attention to your "feelings" in this thread. In fact I went out of my way to appologize to you for what was really a "rash" response on my part. I came clean about it. I've never however called you a "prick" or said "Fuck you" to you. If you actually wish to foster a serious scientific discussion between us, this irrational behavior of yours isn't helping. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 15:57:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Whatever portion of the farm you're willing to cut me in on, Michael, I'll take a piece of that bet.
Great. The loser doesn't *ever* participate in any discussion related to this topic (solar theory) on this website or any website where the other participates. The loser also buys the winner a six pack of their favorite beer. Agreed?
171A is *plenty* good enough to produce the images that we see in that RD image of the surface, so I'm more than comfortable with the limits of STEREO as it relates to 'depth'.
|
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 16:14:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
So there really is no difference.
In this case, as it relates to Dr. Manuel's findings, not really, no.
Scientifically, what does "not really, no" mean? I believe you're a software developer of some sort, how would you code the condition "If (not really X) then Y" ?.
In what case "yes" , or "really, yes" ? How is it possible for (I think it was Dave) and/or myself to be confused (your terminolgy) over the two terms if they are identical or undefined?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well, I'm not trying to be vague. The sun is ultimately interacting with all the currents in space, and probably planetary bodies as well. It's a little hard to be more specific. Any area of space that is less negatively charged than the sun is a candidate to interact with.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
You should at least be able to describe which "parts" of the universe this "electrical activity" is interacting with.
It's interacting with the parts of space that are less negatively charged than it is. If you watch the flow patterns of the LASCO satellites, you'll notice these currents move, and they are not flowing in the same patterns from one day to the next. Any area of space that is less negatively charged than the surface of the sun is a viable candidate to interact with.
Are you suggesting that the net charge of the sun is particularly negatively charged, or that other large sections of the universe are positively charged? This is what would be required for that statement to make sense. I'm not discounting the possibility, but I've seen no model or evidence to support this propostion.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I didn't really try to use Manuel's work to demonstrate a solid surface. I used this data to show evidence of mass separation which *can* support a solid surface model as well as a mass separated plasma model as well.
Manuels work suggests that mass separation occurrs under some conditions and that it is a mechanism which explains some of the isotope abundances we see in meteorites. Nowhere does it imply that the entire sun is "mass separated", especially to the extent you seem to be suggesting.
If my alternative model for magnetism suggests that matter/antimatter annhialation is really the underlying cause of magnetic flux, a paper showing that this sort of anniahlation results in a change in measured magnetic flux is not proof of my idea, nor is it disproof of the current electromagnetic and quantum theory.
Both your and Manuels' work depend to some degree upon mass separation. Really, that's about as far as the direct support goes.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well, in essense I suppose I am attempting to disredit current non mass separated gas model theory based on isotope analysis. If this data is accurate, contemporary gas model theory cannot be accurate. It's a mutually exclusive issue. Either the sun is mass separated or not. Even it there were no solid surfaces to be seen in solar images, there would still be no reason to continue to put any faith in contemporary gas model theory.
Apart from the fact that it works quite well, and explains the scientific, empirical measurements routinely made by astronomers/chemists/physicists.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
This data would falsify non mass separated gas model theory in one fell swoop.
Would being a critical distinction here. The theory has not (by Manuel or yourself) been proven to an acceptable level of scientific validity. If we assume you're right, of course your cobservations will match your theory. That's begging the question yet again.
By the way, there is no reason why the current gas model cannot (and does not) describe some degree of stratification as described by "mass separation". It simply doesn't work for the "complete" mass separation you (and you alone, as far as I have read) have described. Seeing some evidence of mass separation somewhere does not imply that the current model is flawed. Evidence that the entire sun is mass separated, according to atomic mass, right down to the isotope, from core to surface, would indicate some problems. There has been no proof of this demonstrated to date, however.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 16:24:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If you actually wish to foster a serious scientific discussion between us...
I've waited through five threads and nearly three months for you to get serious about the brand-new physics of how acceleration changes our perception of mass; I've written software to aid my understanding; learned the basics of helioseismology; downloaded zillions of images, and you have the gall to suggest that I haven't been trying to foster a scientific discussion? Fuck you all over again. I've been more than patient with you, and you returned the favor by failing to answer many questions, or even to acknowledge that the questions were asked. You, Michael, are morally bankrupt and scientifically inept. Your theory is possibly correct, but we'll never know because you're such an ass that few sane people would want to converse with you long enough to drag the required data out of you, kicking and screaming. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 16:36:23 [Permalink]
|
I've finished reviewing the first Paper you cited me, namely "Isotopes Tell Sun's Origin and Operation". In referring to it I may say "Manuel has said", this is for simplicity only, there are three authors on the paper, yourself included, and I appreciate that the statement may have been made by any/all of the authors, and presume it to be understood and supported by all the authors.
Here is a brief summary of points a believe are relevent, firstly about the paper as a whole:
1. The model is entirely dependant on the premise that the sun's composition is well represented by the content of meteorites:
"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."
Regardless of how correct, or even intutitive this may "feel" to you, there is no evidence that this is a valid assumption. You cannot use the results of a study based upon the assumption of a particular premise to validate that premise. (Begging the question) The facts (supported by a lot of evidence) is that the Earth, the Sun and all the other planets and their satellites do vary quite dramatically in composition. In fact the composition of various metorites varies significantly. Which meterites do we choose to include in our results, or should it be an average? If the latter is it a uniformly weighted average or what scheme should be used?
The assumption that the sun is a mix of the components seen in meteorites is not widely held, nor supported by any evidence, empirical or otherwise. Secondly, even if it were true, there is no reason to believe that isotope analysis of the solar wind is a direct, quantitative sample of the composition of the sun. The solar wind is representative of material which leaves the sun, not an average of all it encompasses.
2. The author(s) have posited an alternative suggestion for the formation of our solar system. However, while it neatly explains some of their results (as it should, being designed for this purpose), the authors openly admit:
"Dr. Kiril Panov has correctly noted that a more radical evolutionary scheme may be required if our conclusions for the Sun are true for other stars in this galaxy and others."
In other words, this star system formation process only explains some measurements based on a single star (the sun). They admit it cannot explain the properties of many other star systems. The currently held model is far more widely applicable.
Secondly, as it relates to your model:
3. Nowhere does the paper mention a solid iron (or iron compound, as I believe may be your current suggestion) surface. "Rigid" is as close as it gets. After following various references here and there all over the web, I found reference to a statement by Manuel himself. I admit I haven't personally verified it, but what is your stance on the following staement purportedly made by Manuel?
"I have not said the Sun has solids in it, including a layer of solid Iron-Silicate minerals. However, I understand that the inner 70% of the Sun rotates as a rigid body."
4. The model repeatedly addresses a mixture of mass fractionation and other "mixing" processes which may have resulted in the samples being analysed. Nowehere does it suggest that the entire sun is mass fractionated from core to surface.
5. The model assumes that the solar wind is a good representation of the material in the sun. If there is indeed a solid core somewhere around 0.995R, this is certainly not going to be true. If the sun is truly mass separated as you suggest, all of the atoms with atomic masses larger than the surface will be trapped inside, and not be "seen".
6. Nowhere can I see how this model "falsifies contemporary gas model theory in one fell swoop". Model's dont falsify anything. If you assume the model is 100% correct th |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 17:14:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
2) that there are no Birkeland currents affecting the "absolute density" numbers we use to determine the concept of "density" that are currently associated with the gas model.
Can you be a little more exact in how your concept of density differs from the universally accepted density=mass/volume
quote:
Since Birkeland currents have been documented inside and outside of our solar system, and since there is evidence that our solar system is composed of metal spheres...
Wooohaa... Earth is a metal sphere?
Not even half of the Earth's crust is metal, and then those metal atoms are bound in oxides, and they are not conductive...
It's not only your solar model that is unique.
quote:
quote:
Dave_W:
You're also entirely unwilling to describe the physics of how an acceleration can cause our measurements of mass to be incorrect.
I'm tinkering around today with some mathematical models using Birkeland currents for you. When I've got something I like, I'll post it.
Now, that is something to look forward to. It would certainly take the discussion forward (I hope). |
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 - 02/12/2006 : 18:20:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Now, that is something to look forward to. It would certainly take the discussion forward (I hope).
Don't get your hopes up, Mab. Mozina doesn't even realize why his ideas represent a revolutionary new physics which could net him (not Birkeland) a Nobel Prize. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 19:57:53 [Permalink]
|
TRACE Images
It's been brought up many times before by others, and never addressed properly in my (and I'm sure others' opinions, but correct me if I am wrong). What you describe as features you are "seeing" in the images cannot possibly be what you believe they are based on observation of the images. You really need to read the sections on the trace website and a few of the links associated with it.
A few points for you:
1. Spectral Resolution. The filters are tuned to see ions of iron which has been ionized 9, 12 and 15 times. (Not 9 and 10 as your website incorrectly claims).
To quote the TRACE site "TRACE lets us explore the fine details and the motions of the magnetic structures in the temperature range from 10,000 Kelvin up to several million Kelvin".
Do you understand what sort of temperature/pressure conditions are required to ionize iron to FE IX? How do you reconcile this with Solid Iron? "Fine details" is of course a relative term, bringing me to the next point ....
2. Spatial resolution. Again, from the TRACE site:
"the TRACE telescope has an aperture of 30 cm, and observes an 8.5 x 8.5 arcminute field of view (about 10% of the solar disk)"
Let's do some maths.
The distance to the sun is an average of 150 million km.
The TRACE satellite is about 6000 km closer to the Sun than the earth.
The TRACE satellie to sun distance is therefore around 1.494 x 10^8 km
For an angulr view of 8.5 arcminutes, we have a field of view which is:
FOV = TraceToSun * TAN(8.5 arcminutes /2) * 2
= 369 400 km
There are 1024 x 1024 in the CCD array, so we have an effective pixel size of:
339 400 / 1024
= 360 km
So you could have features, including holes, lakes mountains or pretty much anything else you care to imagine, with feature sizes of 10's to 100's of km in your "solid surface" and you wouldn't even know they were there. The entire continent of Australia would be about 10 x 8 pixels. The entire earth would be less than 18 pixels square. Do you really think you can resolve fine surface features?
Below is a satellite image of the earth at the same resolution as the TRACE images. It's actually better in that it's an unfiltered grayscale image, so you can probably easily sea the major bodies of water on the contintents right? The Amazon river (the largest in the world I'm led to believe) really jumps out at your from it's solid surroundings doesn't it!
3. The filters don't allow you to "see" anything else (that is, ions of other materials for example), because they're designed not to! This does not mean that the images show that there is only Iron at the imaging depth, it just means that anything else is filtered out. It does not even mean that Iron is present in any specific concentration, it simply shows that for a given pixel region (as described above) there is an average of a particular amount of light corresponding to Iron ions coming from this region.
All of the above apply to the "Raw" filtered images. When you look at running difference images, things get even worse with repect to imaging surface features. Namely:
4. Fixed or non-moving areas do not corespond to non moving regions, they correspond to regions of uniform change.
5. What you are looking at is no longer a 2D image of anything "real", it is a mathematical abstraction of an already filtered image. The fact that something "looks" solid in no way implies that it is so.
All of this ignores the fact that large scale atmospheric (and non-solid) phenomenon here on earth can extend for 100's of kilometres and be relatively stable for days or weeks. Hurricanes are a reasonable example of this sort of phenomenon. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
