|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 02/15/2006 : 09:27:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
The concept of using data, math or evidence to support a claim is completely foreign to Michael.
That is false. Manuel has included lots of math to support the concept of mass separation. It's not my fault if you don't like that math. I provided math to prove that Lockheed Martin mislabeled a their images and doesn't know how to interpret heat signatures in the solar atmosphere. That math was also ingored outright. Math isn't the issue. The issue is whether people are open to listening to the math in the first place. I've seen no evidence that people are any more open to the math than they are to the observations, and these two things are what science (as it relates to astronomy) are all about. If the math and the observations aren't enough, I don't know what will be enough.
quote:
1. Dark matter interferes with our ability measure the mass of the sun.
This shows how much you really listen. What I said was that heliocentric concepts of "absolute density" are not necessarily accurate. I don't personally even put much faith in the whole idea of "dark matter". If such *missing mass* actually does exist, it's probably just light and subatomic matter that cruising the universe. More than likely however these ideas are all related back to Birkeland Currents flowing through a very electric universe.
quote:
2. The sun is accelerating and so we cannot measure it's mass
I actually said we can't measure it's "absolute mass" in "relative" terms and not include the force of acceleration into these equations.
quote:
3. Dark matter is photons
Guilty as charged (sorta). I said *if* dark energy really exists, that mass is likely to be the mass of the photon itself. A photon is capable of transfering it's kinetic energy to "normal mass", just fine. We don't need anything exotic to explain this behavior.
quote:
4. Electric arcs are going from one area of the sun to another.
Yes. The euphamism used in gas model theory is "coronal loops". Gas model theoriests also claim they go from one area of the sun to another.
quote:
5. The oceans are part of the earth atmosphere
I explained what I meant. As I said I was including everything above the crust and calling it an "atmosophere", since that is what spectroscopy will show us. It won't show us what is under the crust. I've been REALLY clear about why this is important as it relates to spectroscopy, but you just skipped that part entirely I see.
quote:
6. Most of the hydrogen and helium signature come form the chromosphere and corona of the sun
That is what I believe. Keep in mind that hydrogen |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 09:30:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Valiant Dancer said:
quote:
Mike seems to have some grasp of the subject he's talking about.
Please don't say Michael knows what he is talking about; he has no clue as to what he is talking about.
He has a "grasp" of the subject in so far as Bill's grasp of evolutionary theory/intent of a Creator is more the function of psychosis. Mike is not delusional. Unsubstantiated claims, drawing incorrect conclusions, presenting evidence which does not support his conjecture, true. But not delusional.
quote:
Here is a short list of his completely unsubstantiated conjectures. When I say unsubstantiated I mean his ‘evidence' is along the lines of; “I believe” or “IMO” or “maybe”. The concept of using data, math or evidence to support a claim is completely foreign to Michael. The list could be huge but I don't feel like wasting that much of my time. Almost every post he has shows a lack of knowledge about astronomy, physics, math, and science in general.
The short list.
1. Dark matter interferes with our ability measure the mass of the sun.
2. The sun is accelerating and so we cannot measure it's mass
3. Dark matter is photons
4. Electric arcs are going from one area of the sun to another.
5. The oceans are part of the earth atmosphere
6. Most of the hydrogen and helium signature come form the chromosphere and corona of the sun
7. He can ‘see' mass separation in satellite images of the sun.
8. If the relative amounts of metals in the earth is different than the relative amounts of metals in the sun, then these two bodies may not be accelerated equally in the z axis.
9. The sun is negatively charged
10. You cannot determine the density of an unknown material without touching it.
Michael can use terms like: heliosiesmology, plasma, spectroscopy, and chromosphere, however when he tries to use these words in a sentence it usually is nonsensical. Don't mistake the use of these terms with any level of understanding. He has been shown by many people on this site (and others) that his conjectures and guesses are wrong, yet he completely dismisses them and continues to repeat them without a shred of evidence.
A student with 1 semester of astronomy FAR surpasses the sum total knowledge that Michael has about this subject.
I believe his grasp of basic physics is fairly good. His solar modle is unreasonable as is his contention that one can observe a solid surface on Sol. His contentions and analysis seem to be mere conjecture. But he does have a modicum of logical structure (misused as it is) to his arguments that Bill lacks. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 09:42:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Then why didn't you say so?quote:
I did.
quote:
H. is correct: if you're going to redefine terms, you've got to let people know about it.
I explained it to you, and in fact I explained it even in my first few references to the subject. Never mind the point I was making in the first place eh?
quote:
Same thing with "penumbral filament layer," "umbra layer" and "solar moss layer." Along those lines, this sentence from your website:That visible layer we see with our eyes is more commonly known as penumbral filaments. is simply false, as the only person calling the great majority of the photosphere the "penumbral filament layer" is you, Michael. One out of six billion does not make something "more commonly known." Such redefinitions do little but confuse things.
I did NOT refer to the entire photosphere as penumbral filaments. I refered to the part of the photosophere that emits visible light as "penumbral filaments". I guess you aren't big on picking up the subtle aspects of a sentence. Notice that "visible layer" part?
quote:
Well, since you've got such strange ideas about what spectroscopy is capable of, I suppose it's obvious in your private universe that aliens would completely miss the huge "water" signal in their spectroscopy of the Earth.
Strawman! I guess we'd conclude then that the majority of the planet is made of water.
quote:
Which is why we don't rely on spectroscopy alone to tell us the contents of the Sun, just like we'd never rely on it alone to tell us the composition of the Earth.
But your theories about the composition of the penumbral filaments is a "wild guess" if you can't get a piece of it and even determine what it's made of! Jupiter's outer atmosphere turned out to be MUCH thicker and much warmer than theoretical predictions based on movements of bodies in the solar system. That mathematical "guestimation" turned out to be flat wrong in the case of Jupiter, so why in the world would you suggest it works in determining the density of the penumbral filaments?
quote:
You're quite wrong here with respect to Earth, and for evidence of your mistake I can provide several photos of the Earth taken from space and even the Moon which clearly show that light does, indeed, penetrate all the way down to the surface, interact with molecules there, and bounce all the way back through the atmosphere changed by what it's interacted with.
I guess the use of the term "upper" confused you. Fine, I'll accept responsibility on that one, though I've been *quite* clear about the interfernce of the crust itself.
[quote]Oh, good! Then because SERTS is a spectrometer ("Solar Extreme Ultraviolet Research Telescope Spectrograph"), you will agree that its readings of iron ions do not come from below the photosphere, and only comes from the "upper atmosphere" of the Sun.
I agree that the metals found in the SERTS data come from the surface itself, and that is located under the photosphere. We can't however use the abundance numbers in spectroscopy to determine it's actual composition (elemental abundances) this way!
[quote]You apparently missed the point, which is that spectroscopy is only one of many tools which, working together, allow us to find out anything about the interior of the Sun. But, since you've committed scientific sepuku by calling into question the statements in an article you co-wrote, and further by saying that SERTS can tell us nothing about what's below the photosphere, I'm more than happy to let you wallow in ignorance.
Man, you're in nitpick mode today I see. Fine. I'll *admit* that we can tell *something* about what is under the photosphere using spectroscopy alone, but *damn little* as it relates to actually elemental abundances. I've been clear about that since the beginning, but obviously you'd rather nitpick than focus on the issue itself.
We can't see what is under earth's crust using spectroscopy from space. It's really that simple. If we attempted to use spectroscopy alone to determine what a planet is made of, we'd fail miserably. Gas model theoriest however put "faith" in the notion that we can determine the sun's overall composition in this manner, even though we've never seen an instance where it really works like that. Talk about blind faith..... |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 09:57:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
By "atmosphere" in this case I meant everything from the crust up.
When I was little, my family used to vacation in this quaint hotel down by the atmosphere.
No, doesn't work, Michael. Sorry, you can't just make up new definitions of words and expect people to take you seriously.
I hear you HH. I've been clear however that things above the crust can be "seen" when the things below the crust cannot. That is the core issue, and that is what I'm trying to point out here. My verbage can be a bit sloppy at times, but I'm answering these emails at work between (and during) tech calls. You'll have to give me at least a "little" lattitude, especially since this issue has nothing at all to do with the point I was making, and no one has yet (maybe I've not read all the responses yet) has adddressed this issue directly.
Gas model theory is predicated on the *faith* that the sun is not mass separated and that it has no surface. If these assumptions are not true then the abundance of elements numbers that keep getting kicked around are utterly wrong and utterly useless. Since there is isotope analysis to suggest the sun is mass separated, and there are satellite images of the sun's surface, these "assumptions" look pretty silly at this point, at least to me. I certainly see no way to support the "assumption" that the sun is not mass separated based on nuclear chemistry or satellite images.
If you disagree, lets get into that chromosphere/penumbra/umbra delineation issue and I'll shows you visual evidence of mass separation by the element.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg
Here we see that the chromosphere is substancially more thin than the penumbral filaments. We also see that the umbra is heavier than the penumbral filaments since that material sinks back down through the penumbral filaments. We see flare patterns in the filaments as the material in the umbra hits the light chromosphere and pushes outward on the tops of the filaments. The filaments themselves end at a very specific depth. Under that depth, little if any visual light (in comparison to the filaments) can be seen, not along the sides, or underneath, or around the filaments. The filaments are shallow in comparison to the total distance of the photosophere, and whatever material is flowing up from the umbra is quite a bit more dense than the penumbra. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 10:13:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Then why didn't you say so?
I did.
No, you said, "The small bit of hydrogen in Earth's atmosphere is hydrogen that is bonded with a heavier element," and only later said that by "atmosphere" you meant "everything above the crust."quote:
I explained it to you, and in fact I explained it even in my first few references to the subject. Never mind the point I was making in the first place eh?
Indeed, what was the point? That spectroscopy is worthless in determining the content of the bulk Sun? We know that already, and have more a long time.quote:
quote:
Same thing with "penumbral filament layer," "umbra layer" and "solar moss layer." Along those lines, this sentence from your website:That visible layer we see with our eyes is more commonly known as penumbral filaments. is simply false, as the only person calling the great majority of the photosphere the "penumbral filament layer" is you, Michael. One out of six billion does not make something "more commonly known." Such redefinitions do little but confuse things.
I did NOT refer to the entire photosphere as penumbral filaments. I refered to the part of the photosophere that emits visible light as "penumbral filaments". I guess you aren't big on picking up the subtle aspects of a sentence. Notice that "visible layer" part?
Notice that the word "photosphere" means "sphere of light?" The photosphere is just the part of the Sun which emits visible light, Michael. You've renamed it "the penumbral filament layer" for no good reason at all, that I can see.quote:
quote:
Well, since you've got such strange ideas about what spectroscopy is capable of, I suppose it's obvious in your private universe that aliens would completely miss the huge "water" signal in their spectroscopy of the Earth.
Strawman! I guess we'd conclude then that the majority of the planet is made of water.
I guess we'd conclude that the aliens are complete morons for depending on just spectroscopy for determining the make-up of the Earth, then. Why can't you understand this point?quote:
But your theories about the composition of the penumbral filaments is a "wild guess" if you can't get a piece of it and even determine what it's made of!
Okay, then by that standard, your theory about the "penumbral filament layer" being made of neon and the "umbra layer" being silicon plasma are just wild guesses.quote:
Jupiter's outer atmosphere turned out to be MUCH thicker and much warmer than theoretical predictions based on movements of bodies in the solar system. That mathematical "guestimation" turned out to be flat wrong in the case of Jupiter, so why in the world would you suggest it works in determining the density of the penumbral filaments?
Since you provide no references, I've got no idea what "theoretical predictions" you're talking about.quote:
quote:
You're quite wrong here with respect to Earth, and for evidence of your mistake I can provide several photos of the Earth taken from space and even the Moon which clearly show that light does, indeed, penetrate all the way down to the surface, interact with molecules there, and bounce all the way back through the atmosphere changed by what it's interacted with.
I guess the use of the term "upper" confused you. Fine, I'll accept responsibility on that one, though I've been *quite* clear about the interfernce of the crust itself.
The term "upper atmosphere" has a specific meaning when applied to Earth. If you can't be bothered to use common terms the same way everyone else uses them, then any confusion is your fault.quote:
quote:
Oh, good! Then because SERTS is a spectrometer ("Solar Extreme Ultraviolet Research Telescope Spectrograph"), you will agree that its readings of iron ions do not come from below the photosphere, and only comes from the "upper atmosphere" of the Sun.
I agree that the metals found in the SERTS data come from the surface itself, and that is located under the photosphere.
Reading comprehension problems again, Michael? I never said anything about the ulitmate source of the atoms which are now a part of a million-Kelvin plasma. I asked if you would agree that the measurements made by SERTS have nothing to do with the composition of your allegedly solid shell underneath the photosphere.quote:
We can't however use the abundance numbers in spectroscopy to determine it's actual composition (elemental abundances) this way!
And you've even said that we can't rely on spectroscopy to measure just the photosphere.quote:
Man, you're in nitpick mode today I see. Fine. I'll *admit* that we can tell *something* about what is under the photosphere using spectroscopy alone, but *damn little* as it relates to actually elemental abundances. I've been clear about that since the beginning, but obviously you |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 10:42:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Gas model theory is predicated on the *faith* that the sun is not mass separated and that it has no surface.
Untrue.quote:
Since there is isotope analysis to suggest the sun is mass separated...
Isotope analysis based upon the faulty (according to you) assumption that one can measure the relative abundances of elements in the photosphere.quote:
...and there are satellite images of the sun's surface...
Unsupported by evidence.quote:
...these "assumptions" look pretty silly at this point, at least to me.
Your proclamations of what the gas model is or is not based on are quite silly, too.quote:
I certainly see no way to support the "assumption" that the sun is not mass separated based on nuclear chemistry or satellite images.
Since you've called the "nuclear chemistry" into question and refuse to provide evidence for your assertions about the satellite images, I see no way to support the assumption that mass separation deals a "death blow" to the gas model.quote:
If you disagree, lets get into that chromosphere/penumbra/umbra delineation issue...
Indeed, why don't you define those terms first?quote:
...and I'll shows you visual evidence of mass separation by the element.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg
Here we see that the chromosphere is substancially more thin than the penumbral filaments.
Since you haven't defined the terms, how should one differentiate between the chromosphere and the penumbral filaments? Of course, solar scientists would say that you can't even see the chromosphere in that image, since you're looking through it at every pixel and it simply isn't substantial enough to be visible.quote:
We also see that the umbra is heavier than the penumbral filaments since that material sinks back down through the penumbral filaments.
The same lack of definitions applies here, though per standard solar science, we can see penumbral filaments being pulled into the umbra (by the intense downflow within the umbra as shown by helioseismology), and since they cool as they travel, they stop glowing so brightly and sink.quote:
We see flare patterns in the filaments as the material in the umbra hits the light chromosphere and pushes outward on the tops of the filaments.
Same lack of definitions applies here, but solar scientists seem to think that all of the action seen in that movie is largely planar, the "tops" of the filaments being no higher than the "top" of the umbra or the "top" of the photosphere.quote:
The filaments themselves end at a very specific depth.
Prove it. The image looks planar to me.quote:
Under that depth, little if any visual light (in comparison to the filaments) can be seen, not along the sides, or underneath, or around the filaments.
Little light was captured by the camera from the umbra since if the exposure settings were such that its glow could be seen, the filaments and photosphere would be massively overexposed.quote:
The filaments are shallow in comparison to the total distance of the photosophere...
How much more shallow than the standard depth of the photosphere, about 500 km?quote:
...and whatever material is flowing up from the umbra is quite a bit more dense than the penumbra.
How can it be flowing up when the helioseismology flow diagrams show little but downflows around a sunspot? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 11:13:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Question is... Do you subscribe to this theory? How important is the neutron core to your model? If it isn't a neutron core, then what?
I think his theory is as good as any theory of what is inside the crust. Since I can't see inside the crust, and there is a "iron shell" around this "star", it could very well be a small neutron star with an iron shell.
In that case you are wrong. Here's why: Physicist Chandrasekhar has demonstrated that a neutron star cannot exist if it's mass is below 1,4 solar masses. This means that it is impossible for the interior of the sun to be a neutron star.
And while a white dwarf could easily fit into the center of the sun (radius of the same magnitude as the earth), the energy output of the white dwarf wouldn't be sustainable at the same level for 4 billion years since it's not active.
quote:
It certainly has a rotating magnetic core as one might expect in such a model, and there are many reasons to believe that is a valid option.
Rotating plasma certainly will generate a magnetic field, so the standard solar model can provide an explanation for the magetic field generated in the core of the sun.
quote:
Personally I'm not as emotionally attached to the idea as Dr. Manuel, and I began with (and still defend) a fission based core. If there isn't either such core at the middle of our star, maybe it has something to do with the odd behaviors we see in spheres in space...
Spheres in space? Where? This is news to me...
quote:
and maybe there's even a high pressure plasma of some kind that is very thin in comparison to the shell area:
You haven't forgotten the gas laws have you?
For there to be a high pressure in a very thing (=low desity) plasma you have to have a very high temperature.
quote:
http://pof.aip.org/pof/gallery/video/2005/911509phflong.mov
This kind of model has advantages in that you don't need much in the way of electromagnetic influences to explain "absolute density". :)
If you can't see how this water bubble experiment is totally inappropriate as an explanation of a star, then I don't see how we can ever come close to an agreement.
Don't get me wrong, it's a cool experiment, and the photage is awesome. But if you seriously think it can explain your idea of the sun, you're so far out in woo-woo-land I don't expect you to find your way back to reality. Ever.
|
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. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 11:40:35 [Permalink]
|
| I can barely stand to respond once to this drivel, I commend you folks on the endless smackdown, I just dont know how you can handle it though. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 11:53:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I said:
The concept of using data, math or evidence to support a claim is completely foreign to Michael.
Michael said:
That is false. Manuel has included lots of math to support the concept of mass separation.
I am sorry I did not realize you were Dr. Manuel!
quote:
quote:
I said:
1. Dark matter interferes with our ability measure the mass of the sun.
Michael said:
This shows how much you really listen. What I said was that heliocentric concepts of "absolute density" are not necessarily accurate.
Well gee, that certainly clears that up?? So you agree that since we CAN measure the relative mass we can say relative to the our frame of reference we can determine the density of the sun. Or is this just more giberish?
quote:
quote:
3. Dark matter is photons
Guilty as charged (sorta). I said *if* dark energy really exists, that mass is likely to be the mass of the photon itself. A photon is capable of transfering it's kinetic energy to "normal mass", just fine. We don't need anything exotic to explain this behavior.
You said dark MATTER not DARK ENERGY. Theorized dark energy if it exists has nothing to do with transfering KE to mass. By the way photons 'transfer' their energy to electrons not "normal mass". I can tell you are dense without touching you.
quote:
quote:
4. Electric arcs are going from one area of the sun to another.
Yes. The euphamism used in gas model theory is "coronal loops". Gas model theoriests also claim they go from one area of the sun to another.
Wrong - Gas model theorist (aka astrophysicists) don't talk about electrical arcs on the sun.
One of these days you are going to say something that is correct or at least something that makes sense and I am going to have heart failure....
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 12:08:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
I can barely stand to respond once to this drivel, I commend you folks on the endless smackdown, I just dont know how you can handle it though.
I take it you're not a big fan of "Whack-a-Mole?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 12:53:06 [Permalink]
|
| Just to clarify: the sun is that big ball of plasma and other really hot crap that goes around the earth, right? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 12:57:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
In that case you are wrong. Here's why: Physicist Chandrasekhar has demonstrated that a neutron star cannot exist if it's mass is below 1,4 solar masses. This means that it is impossible for the interior of the sun to be a neutron star.
Only if you do not consider the possible influence of Birkeland currents. We're right back to a density issue, but that will be true of a fission model as well IMO. It's no better, nor any worse than a fission model in that respect. It would still be a huge structure with a very powerful magnetic field. Nothing is different from that model vs a heavy core fission model IMO.
quote:
And while a white dwarf could easily fit into the center of the sun (radius of the same magnitude as the earth), the energy output of the white dwarf wouldn't be sustainable at the same level for 4 billion years since it's not active.
It looks rather "active" to me particularly at an electrical level. It interacts with the universe around it in very powerful ways. I don't personally think it's a one way flow of energy. Birkeland currents have really important relavancies as it relates to current flow and mass flow. Even in the mass flow data from heliosiesmology we see mass flows toward the surface from the outside universe. This is most likely in the form of electrons. How all this mass flow ties back into star longevity is way beyond me at this point.
quote:
Rotating plasma certainly will generate a magnetic field, so the standard solar model can provide an explanation for the magetic field generated in the core of the sun.
I would agree, but how strong of a magnetic field would it generate in material that isn't even aerogel density? It seems to me that gas model theory simply doesn't add up very well, particlarly when you consider the odd assortment of details in as a complete picture. Somehow we see material that has almost no "density" to speak of, producing temperatures in the millions of degrees. None of that really adds up.
quote:
Spheres in space? Where? This is news to me...
Really? You might read through the links page of my website. There's all sorts of interesting ideas related to gravity and density and various options related to Birkeland solar models.
quote:
You haven't forgotten the gas laws have you?
You mean *plasma* laws don't you?
quote:
For there to be a high pressure in a very thing (=low desity) plasma you have to have a very high temperature.
In that video that shows the gas bubble surrounded by a water shell, why in your opinion does the gas inside need to be a very high temperature?
quote:
If you can't see how this water bubble experiment is totally inappropriate as an explanation of a star, then I don't see how we can ever come close to an agreement.
Ok, I'll bite. Why is it "totally inappropriate"? Isn't the shell in that video more dense than the air bubble inside of it? Is there a large temperature difference between the two layers? How is this different in your opinion, and why would you assume such a model cannot possibly apply? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 13:11:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I am sorry I did not realize you were Dr. Manuel!
No, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you wouldn't accept math from anyone but me personally. Is that the way you investigate all science subjects by the way?
quote:
Well gee, that certainly clears that up?? So you agree that since we CAN measure the relative mass we can say relative to the our frame of reference we can determine the density of the sun. Or is this just more giberish?
You essentially said nothing I "disagree with", so I guess you got it. If you wish to know "absolute" concepts of density however, you'll have to know a lot more about how the universe influences our solar system.
quote:
You said dark MATTER not DARK ENERGY.
Just now, or in some other paragraph?
quote:
Theorized dark energy if it exists has nothing to do with transfering KE to mass. By the way photons 'transfer' their energy to electrons not "normal mass". I can tell you are dense without touching you.
I can tell your ego needs a "fix" everytime you resort to ad homenem in debate. Feel better now? Did you even TRY to understand what I said?
quote:
Wrong - Gas model theorist (aka astrophysicists) don't talk about electrical arcs on the sun.
I take it you never read that paper from the University of Maryland? They are finally starting to wake up to the flow of electrons that is associated with these events and that is responsible for the electromagetic fields around the arcs. They are finally starting to connect these events to the flow of electricity.
quote:
One of these days you are going to say something that is correct or at least something that makes sense and I am going to have heart failure....
One day you'll actually realize I've been right and you probably will have heart failure, or at least ego failure. All those "fixes" you needed along the way will look pretty damn foolish too. :) |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/15/2006 13:18:05 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 13:22:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You essentially said nothing I "disagree with", so I guess you got it. If you wish to know "absolute" concepts of density however, you'll have to know a lot more about how the universe influences our solar system.
So, since to have a neutron-star core, the Sun would have to be at least 1.4 times as massive as we relatively measure it, I guess we can eliminate a neutron-star core as a possibility, since you agree and all.quote:
I take it you never read that paper from the University of Maryland? They are finally starting to wake up to the flow of electrons that is associated with these events and that is responsible for the electromagetic fields around the arcs. They are finally starting to connect these events to the flow of electricity.
You seem to have things precisely backwards. For example, as soon as it was posited that the Sun was a ball of plasma, it was assumed that there would be current flows within it, to some extent or other. Plus, since you're saying that the core and/or the shell generates the Sun's magnetic field, then it is not the arcs which are doing so, but instead (just as the UofM scientists theorize) the magnetic fields which create a flow of electrons.
Speaking of which, you never did address the point that Birkeland's model was a conductor in a gas, and even in the standard model the Sun is a conductor, meaning Birkeland's model is incapable of distinguishing between your model and the standard model. |
- 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 - 02/15/2006 : 13:46:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Isotope analysis based upon the faulty (according to you) assumption that one can measure the relative abundances of elements in the photosphere.
You're mixing and matching your strawmen Dave. The term in that paper "photosphere" relates to all the plamsa in the atmosphere. We simply picked a point of reference to gas model theory for use in a single sentence. There is in fact hydrogen and helium in the photosphere and that was a useful point of reference for that particular sentence. You are now trying to build a federal case as I'm more fully explaining *all* of the issues involved. I think you're deliberately avoiding the issues by focusing on single words in single sentences.
quote:
Unsupported by evidence.
Until you come up with a better explaination to explain why none of the the structures moved in the RD image, even over such extended periods of time while somehow suspended over "thinner than aerogel" material that boiling and changing every 8 minutes, I'm going to have to simply ignore that statement. You'll have to at least offer something better than you have offer to date to explain the consistency of the structures in that image. You'll need to be a *lot* (and I mean *a lot*) more attentive to detail. A handwave isn't going to cut it.
quote:
Since you've called the "nuclear chemistry" into question and refuse to provide evidence for your assertions about the satellite images, I see no way to support the assumption that mass separation deals a "death blow" to the gas model.
You seem to enjoy strawmen as a denial mechanism of last resort. I didn't call anything into question with one word from one sentence. You're quite entertaining today Dave.
quote:
Since you haven't defined the terms, how should one differentiate between the chromosphere and the penumbral filaments? Of course, solar scientists would say that you can't even see the chromosphere in that image, since you're looking through it at every pixel and it simply isn't substantial enough to be visible.
You just defined one of the rules, right there. We all agree on that point. One thing we can tell about it however is that it's a lot less dense than the photosphere. The photosphere acts much like a boiling liquid passing heat to air. The density differential here is substancial enough to create a whole sphere at this point that doesn't deviate very much during "normal" activity.
quote:
Michael:We also see that the umbra is heavier than the penumbral filaments since that material sinks back down through the penumbral filaments.
quote:
The same lack of definitions applies here, though per standard solar science, we can see penumbral filaments being pulled into the umbra (by the intense downflow within the umbra as shown by helioseismology), and since they cool as they travel, they stop glowing so brightly and sink.
You just nailed two rules in a row. We see both up and down movement of umbra material in this region. Whatever the umbra is made of, it can rise and sink through the filaments. Now we have three density layers.
quote:
Michael:We see flare patterns in the filaments as the material in the umbra hits the light chromosphere and pushes outward on the tops of the filaments.
quote:
Same lack of definitions applies here, but solar scientists seem to think that all of the action seen in that movie is largely planar, the "tops" of the filaments being no higher than the "top" of the umbra or the "top" of the photosphere.
That's three things in a row that we all seem to agree on. The heavy umbra is heated, rises to the top of the photosphere and hits the chromosophere where gravity causes it to mover largely along the surface of the photosphere.
quote:
Michael:The filaments themselves end at a very specific depth.
quote:
Prove it. The image looks planar to me.
There is no light *underneath* *ANY* of the penumbral filaments, not one. Not along the left, not along the right, not at the top, and not at the bottom. At no angle does the light extend deeply into the sunspot. It all ends at very specific depth.
quote:
Michael:Under that depth, little if any visual light (in comparison to the filaments) can be seen, not along the sides, or underneath, or around the filaments.
quote:
Little light was captured by the camera from the umbra since if the exposure settings were such that its glow could be seen, the filaments and photosphere would be massively overexposed.
For whatever distance those filaments extend into the photosophere we see light. When the filaments end, we see no light. There is an x, a y, and a z, component to everything we are looking at. It's not a flat surface in any way. In very closeup images, you can even see this depth very well.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/24jul02_gcont_ai.jpg
quote:
The filaments are shallow in comparison to the total distance of the photosophere...How much more shallow than the standard depth of the photosphere, about 500 km?
How "deep" is the photosphere? In comparison to the .005R distance to the surface, it's very shallow.
quote:
How can it be flowing up when the helioseismology f |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/15/2006 13:48:47 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
