|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 02/23/2006 : 17:17:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Actually, the more I think about this statement, the more I realize how *wrong* it is. First of all, the bottom end is more sensitive than you give it credit for:
http://trace.lmsal.com/Project/Instrument/inspass.htm
Furthermore the top end temperature range of this filter is actually measured in the 10's of millions of degrees:
http://trace.lmsal.com/Science/ScientificResults/Publications/phillips_tr_resp_apj.pdf
So far I'd say that this part of your analysis it pitifully flawed and pitifully over simplified. You've missed the sensitivity range of this filter by a mile.
Actually the primary, optimum viewing range of the 171Å filter is ~1,000,000°K. In the TRACE images the brightest pixels are closest to that million degree optimum regardless of the total range of sensitivity. Temperatures moving away from ~1,000,000°K, either cooler or hotter, are going to show as successively darker pixels. So my analysis is still perfectly valid. The point is, the raw images used as the source for creating the running difference images show the million degree temperatures as the brightest pixels, and those varying either way as darker pixels.
Apparently you either didn't read, or maybe just didn't understand any of the detailed postings about running difference images. In those images the dark areas are places where the temperature has moved away from the optimum viewing temperature of the 171Å filters since the previous image. Those dark areas are not structure. They are places which were closer to 1,000,000°K in the previous image, and are now further away from that temperature, possibly cooler or possibly hotter. The light areas are also not structure, and only someone ignorant, stupid, or maybe both would think so. They are areas where the temperature has moved closer to 1,000,000°K than it was in the preceding image.
Let me repeat for the stupid person with the silly solid surface Sun fantasy: The things you're getting all wet about in the running difference images are not structures of any sort. A running difference image is a graph, a chart, a simple indicator of change from one image to the next. What's left isn't an image at all. It's a simple visual representation of changes in temperatures. Not light and shadow. Not brighter or dimmer surfaces. Not even hotter or cooler surfaces. They show change, one way or another, either from or to an optimum of ~1,000,000°K. That's all.
So it's been thoroughly discussed, again, and you've been shown clearly and demonstrably to be wrong about your interpretation, again. You're a dyed in the wool idiot, Michael. Running difference images are simply not what you think they are. Period. You're full of crap. You're stupid. And again I'll remind you that you're a liar. The fact that nobody agrees with your idiotic misinterpretations does not mean they haven't been addressed, thoroughly and completely. You keep forgetting the silly solid surfaced Sun fantasy is yours and yours alone. It's your job to explain it. It's not up to everyone else. Too bad you don't have what it takes to do so. It's a sad commentary on your total lack of ability to support your claim when you persist with your whining demands for everyone else to explain the simple things which you just can't grasp.
Obviously you have no desire and no intent to prove the Sun has a solid surface. You just want to talk about it. You've got nothing in the way of evidence, and your complete refusal to learn about running difference images only goes to show how willing you are to stay stupid and how unwilling you are to prove your silly fantasy. It's called willful ignorance. You're all about avoiding doing the necessary work and avoiding the actual subject. You might get somewhere if you stop working so hard at indulging your silly fantasy and start putting that effort into proving your claim. You've got a lot of work to do, dumbshit.
Oh, and other than the fact that you may just be too stupid to answer the simple questions, I wonder why you'd go dozens and dozens of postings and still ignore these trifling little annoying issues. Why don't you address some of these very basic concerns...Specify the thickness of your surface within a range of +/- 3000 km.
Specify the temperature of your surface within a range of +/- 2000°K.
Specify the density of your surface within a range of +/- 0.01 g/cm3.
Describe the material composition of your surface, listing each element that makes up any more than 5% of the solid layer, and state each one's proportion to the whole within a range of +/- 5%.
Calculate the density, composition, pressure, and thermal properties of the materials that must make up the interior of your Sun in order to support the solid surface you defined according to the above specifications.
Create a solar model and present it here in this forum.
Show where Birkeland postulated an iron shell surface on the Sun. In other words, present Birkeland's solar model as a mathematical scientific description. Provide specific relevant quotes, cite the reference source(s), and include page numbers. It looks a lot like you just don't have the answers and it also looks like you just don't have the balls to admit how little you actually know about your silly solid surfaced Sun fantasy. 
|
| Edited by - GeeMack on 02/23/2006 17:24:36 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 19:15:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Actually, the more I think about this statement, the more I realize how *wrong* it is. First of all, the bottom end is more sensitive than you give it credit for:
http://trace.lmsal.com/Project/Instrument/inspass.htm
Furthermore the top end temperature range of this filter is actually measured in the 10's of millions of degrees:
http://trace.lmsal.com/Science/ScientificResults/Publications/phillips_tr_resp_apj.pdf
So far I'd say that this part of your analysis it pitifully flawed and pitifully over simplified. You've missed the sensitivity range of this filter by a mile.
Actually the primary, optimum viewing range of the 171Å filter is ~1,000,000°K. In the TRACE images the brightest pixels are closest to that million degree optimum regardless of the total range of sensitivity.
What are you talking about? Did you even read either of the links I provided, particularly the last one? It turns out that FeXX peaks right in the same wavelenth range as other kinds of iron ions. The brightest areas of these image could easily be 20Million plus degrees, and the University of Maryland documented temperatures in the base of these events that exceeded 1 US billion degrees Kelvin. You have no idea where the light is peaking or coming from, and your comment about the light being limited to a narrow range is purely a figment of your imagination.
quote:
Temperatures moving away from ~1,000,000°K, either cooler or hotter, are going to show as successively darker pixels.
Not necessarily. A "hot" area a the base of the arc can be emitting million degree FE IX and four million degree Calcium and 20 million degre FE XX ion photons at the same time! You can't know that a "higher" temperature is *necessarily* going to be darker than a cooler one.
quote:
So my analysis is still perfectly valid.
Bull. Your analysis of temperature senstitivity of the 171A filter is rediculace. You said that the plasma has to be in a "narrow" range of temperature of around a million degrees when in fact the lit plasma could range from 160,000K up to 20 million K. You totally misrepresented the capabilities of that filter, and you did so on purpose. You're still doing it too. There is no "narrow" range here to work with, but rather that single filter is sensitive to a temperature *range* that far and away exceeds the backgound temperature of the photosphere and far and away exceeds a narrow little temperature range you claimed.
quote:
The point is, the raw images used as the source for creating the running difference images show the million degree temperatures as the brightest pixels, and those varying either way as darker pixels.
You've not demonstratrated the brightest areas of that image aren't brighter because they emit FeXX ions. You are simply asserting your own opinion here as "truth" without regard to any of the real capabilities of this filter.
quote:
Apparently you either didn't read, or maybe just didn't understand any of the detailed postings about running difference images. In those images the dark areas are places where the temperature has moved away from the optimum viewing temperature of the 171Å filters since the previous image.
Huh? What are you talking about? The lighting on the structures goes both up and down during the video. The dark areas are typically dark in both images and now you've got the whole surface "glowing"? Excuse me?
quote:
Those dark areas are not structure. They are places which were closer to 1,000,000°K in the previous image, and are now further away from that temperature, possibly cooler or possibly hotter.
Special pleading. You have no idea if the dark areas of the original images are anywhere near the temperature sensitivity range of this filter. All you know is that the lit areas are within that range. You have no idea if the dark areas are measured in the 6000K range or the 100,000K range. Of course none of that explains how all the structures stay in exactly the same relationships to one another throughout the video.
quote:
The light areas are also not structure, and only someone ignorant, stupid, or maybe both would think so. They are areas where the temperature has moved closer to 1,000,000°K than it was in the preceding image.
Man does your fragile little ego need a fix every hour or what? Again, you're special pleading. We don't see a lot fixed structure the original images, certainly not in the dark areas. All we see in the original images are plasma that fits the 171A temperature profile. What we see in RD images is another issue entirely. You haven't even expained the first thing about how these RD structures come to exist, or what they represent, or why they don't move in relationship to one another as do the structure in the photosophere. For a guy that so loose with the term "stupid", you sure have a tough time explaining even the basics of this RD image.
quote:
The things you're getting all wet about in the running difference images are not structures of any sort.
What a joke. Even a child can see the structures in these images. You can argue the don't represent what I think they represent, but you can't claim they don't exist! Get real!
quote:
A running difference image is a graph, a chart, a simple indicator of change from one image to the next.
So why aren't those structures moving around if they are all contained within plasma? What about the ridges in the middle? What causes them? Why does the light source shift around, while the structures themselves remain in a fixed relationship to each other?
quote:
What's left isn't an im |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/23/2006 19:31:13 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 19:21:13 [Permalink]
|
| Your whole arguement about there not being structure in that image sounds about as credible as that line from The Wizard Of OZ - "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain". The denial factor on that issue is simply off scale. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/23/2006 19:29:07 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 20:03:03 [Permalink]
|
You're an idiot Michael. Running difference images have been shown unequivocally and without a doubt to not show anything solid or structural in any way. They have been rejected as evidence of your silly solid surface sun fantasy. Nobody accepts them. Period. All the begging and whining you can possibly do will not bring them back into "evidence". You've lost that option. Shut the fuck up about it.
Continuing your futile effort to keep running difference images on the table shows two things. One, you don't have any scientific integrity whatsoever. Still, after all these times it's been explained, you stupidly believe it's other people's responsibility to explain your ridiculous fantasy, again. It's not. And two, you're just too stupid to understand simple, clear, concise explanations. Simple as that.
Now, instead of reveling in your desire for other people to indulge your flaky fantasy, instead of being such a dishonest jerk and expecting everyone else to do your work for you, instead of all your belligerent lying about how nobody is addressing your stupidity when it comes to running difference images, how about you get off your lazy ass and explain your own fantasy. That is, unless you truly are just too stupid. It's your nutty claim, Michael. It's your responsibility to prove it. You haven't even started yet.
Here are some issues you've been avoiding for most of 60 pages now. If the Sun has a solid surface, it has specific, clearly describable properties. It has a thickness, a temperature, a material composition, and a density, among other characteristics. Try answering these...Specify the thickness of your surface within a range of +/- 3000 km.
Specify the temperature of your surface within a range of +/- 2000°K.
Specify the density of your surface within a range of +/- 0.01 g/cm3.
Describe the material composition of your surface, listing each element that makes up any more than 5% of the solid layer, and state each one's proportion to the whole within a range of +/- 5%.
Calculate the density, composition, pressure, and thermal properties of the materials that must make up the interior of your Sun in order to support the solid surface you defined according to the above specifications.
Create a solar model and present it here in this forum.
Show where Birkeland postulated an iron shell surface on the Sun. In other words, present Birkeland's solar model as a mathematical scientific description. Provide specific relevant quotes, cite the reference source(s), and include page numbers. Maybe you are just too stupid. Or maybe you've just been lying about the solid surface fantasy from the very beginning and you just want people to stroke you and indulge your silliness. Either way, you're not getting any closer to proving your claim until you start providing some answers.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 20:15:54 [Permalink]
|
:)
Man, your supersized ego is really a piece of work GeeMack. I think you packed about every Ad Hominem and childish insult in the book into that post. Yawn.
Just like I figured, you didn't address any of the detail in that image, not even the existence of the structures in the image. While I can rationally understand how you might attempt to explain the existence of these structures in a different way than I would explain them, the fact you have a need to deny their existence altogether is really a classic example of denial in action. I'm flabergasted, fascinated and entertained, all at the same time. :) |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/23/2006 20:23:20 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 20:32:07 [Permalink]
|
I see you'd rather piss and moan than actually go to any effort to prove your silly fantasy. Knock off the crying and get back to the issue at hand. If the Sun has a solid surface, it has specific, clearly describable properties. It has a thickness, a temperature, a material composition, and a density, among other characteristics. It's time you address these concerns...Specify the thickness of your surface within a range of +/- 3000 km.
Specify the temperature of your surface within a range of +/- 2000°K.
Specify the density of your surface within a range of +/- 0.01 g/cm3.
Describe the material composition of your surface, listing each element that makes up any more than 5% of the solid layer, and state each one's proportion to the whole within a range of +/- 5%.
Calculate the density, composition, pressure, and thermal properties of the materials that must make up the interior of your Sun in order to support the solid surface you defined according to the above specifications.
Create a solar model and present it here in this forum.
Show where Birkeland postulated an iron shell surface on the Sun. In other words, present Birkeland's solar model as a mathematical scientific description. Provide specific relevant quotes, cite the reference source(s), and include page numbers. Of course if you're just too stupid to answer them, we'll understand.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 20:33:54 [Permalink]
|
Michael, running difference images reveal solid structures on the surface of the sun the same way this graph reveals a mountain range.
Which is to say it doesn't. It's a visual representation of measured data points. It tells you nothing about the physical shape of what you're measuring.
|
"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 02/23/2006 21:00:11 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 06:01:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Actually, the more I think about this statement, the more I realize how *wrong* it is. First of all, the bottom end is more sensitive than you give it credit for:
http://trace.lmsal.com/Project/Instrument/inspass.htm
Furthermore the top end temperature range of this filter is actually measured in the 10's of millions of degrees:
http://trace.lmsal.com/Science/ScientificResults/Publications/phillips_tr_resp_apj.pdf
So far I'd say that this part of your analysis it pitifully flawed and pitifully over simplified. You've missed the sensitivity range of this filter by a mile.
Actually the primary, optimum viewing range of the 171Å filter is ~1,000,000°K. In the TRACE images the brightest pixels are closest to that million degree optimum regardless of the total range of sensitivity.
What are you talking about? Did you even read either of the links I provided, particularly the last one? It turns out that FeXX peaks right in the same wavelenth range as other kinds of iron ions. The brightest areas of these image could easily be 20Million plus degrees, and the University of Maryland documented temperatures in the base of these events that exceeded 1 US billion degrees Kelvin.
If the acrs had a temperature of 3 million Kelvin there would be no Calcium peaks from the 4 million Kelvin range, nor any peaks from 1 or 1,5 million Kelvin Iron. It would be black. |
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/24/2006 06:01:51 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 09:21:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Michael, running difference images reveal solid structures on the surface of the sun the same way this graph reveals a mountain range.
....
Which is to say it doesn't. It's a visual representation of measured data points. It tells you nothing about the physical shape of what you're measuring.
That's simply a handwave HH. Regardless of how we might choose to explain these structures, we can't simply deny their existence entirely. If you don't believe these structures to be solid, you will still need to explain their consistent and continued existence in the image from start to finish in some other, presumeably "better" (from a scientific perspective) way. These structures are a visual representation of something that exists in the image in a very consistent way. That structure is still obviously there. We can't ignore it altogether, and I've yet to hear anyone explain their rigid behavior. They do not move in relationship to one another, even over very extended periods of time. The strucutures of the plasma of the photosphere come and go every 8 minutes or so, and the movement pattern in the photosphere is very "fluid" in consistency. Things move around constantly. There is nothing like that kind of movement happening in these structures. What are they? Why are they there? Why are these things not moving around like the plasma of the photosphere? These are very basic questions that must be asked and answered. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/24/2006 09:23:08 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 09:32:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
If the acrs had a temperature of 3 million Kelvin there would be no Calcium peaks from the 4 million Kelvin range, nor any peaks from 1 or 1,5 million Kelvin Iron. It would be black.
But every single pixel in this image represents a very wide surface area. All the arcs tend to emit light from a whole spectrum of temperatures and plasma ions. You'd need the "perfect" condition for something like that to happen and that is simply not a likely scenario based on the images of these coronal loops. They emit light in a whole variety of temperature ranges and the emit from many kinds of ions. The base of these arcs for instance are very hot, but they emit light in FEXX and FE IX as well. Even a single pixel could have light from three or four ions from three or four different temperature ranges.
In that second paper I cited, they show how Trace is able to image the same arcs in the Bastille Day Flare as Yohkoh captured as well. Again, these arcs put out light over a wide spectrum. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 10:29:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Here by the way is additional evidence of the existence of Birkeland currents inside our own solar system. Notice also that such influences are simply ignored in gravity only/heliocentric concept of "density".
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19103
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19070
Then why don't you produce some numbers on how much these currents are acceletating planets and the sun?
Unless you can show evidence of this actually happening, it is the skeptic's perogative to ignore the claim. |
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. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 10:31:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mixchael Mozina...
That's simply a handwave HH. Regardless of how we might choose to explain these structures, we can't simply deny their existence entirely. If you don't believe these structures to be solid, you will still need to explain their consistent and continued existence in the image from start to finish in some other, presumeably "better" (from a scientific perspective) way. These structures are a visual representation of something that exists in the image in a very consistent way. That structure is still obviously there. We can't ignore it altogether, and I've yet to hear anyone explain their rigid behavior. They do not move in relationship to one another, even over very extended periods of time. The strucutures of the plasma of the photosphere come and go every 8 minutes or so, and the movement pattern in the photosphere is very "fluid" in consistency. Things move around constantly. There is nothing like that kind of movement happening in these structures. What are they? Why are they there? Why are these things not moving around like the plasma of the photosphere? These are very basic questions that must be asked and answered.
Something about, "It's your claim, you prove it," just seems to be beyond your intellectual capacity. You look like an idiot every time you try to push the burden of proof back onto other people. If you can't prove your claim, it's false. And so far you can't. You don't appear to have the necessary brains or motivation.
If you do believe those "structures" are solid, you'll have to explain it. You explain specifically and quantitatively how those running difference images are created, and how, of all the running difference images of the Sun, those thousands that look a little like light and shadow but clearly aren't showing physical structure, you explain how those tiny few of yours are made differently. You explain exactly, in detail, the programs used to create those videos. You explain why hundreds of thousands of people understand running difference images, yet not a single one of them believes those graphs and charts actually show structure. That's your job, and until you do it, running difference images, every last one of them, can be simply discarded from your pool of "evidence".
Remember, your repetitive whining that it sure as hell looks solid therefore it must be solid, carries no weight. That only proves your lack of ability to understand and/or your sheer laziness in not doing the work necessary to explain them. But the simple fact is, you can't do it Michael. You don't know a thing about running difference images. If you did, you'd explain it. Instead you keep asking other people to prove you wrong. So far you're just lying to yourself and to the world by claiming those graphs and charts are actually pictures of something.quote:
But every single pixel in this image represents a very wide surface area. All the arcs tend to emit light from a whole spectrum of temperatures and plasma ions. You'd need the "perfect" condition for something like that to happen and that is simply not a likely scenario based on the images of these coronal loops. They emit light in a whole variety of temperature ranges and the emit from many kinds of ions. The base of these arcs for instance are very hot, but they emit light in FEXX and FE IX as well. Even a single pixel could have light from three or four ions from three or four different temperature ranges.
In that second paper I cited, they show how Trace is able to image the same arcs in the Bastille Day Flare as Yohkoh captured as well. Again, these arcs put out light over a wide spectrum.
You haven't explained which particular wavelengths are producing which particular amounts of brightness in those images, yet you insist that everyone else is wrong. It's not other people's job to do your work for you, although you never stop providing evidence of your laziness. You need to explain those things, specifically, scientifically, and quantitatively. You haven't even begun to do that. And until you do, all your wild guessing about any particular meaning to those varying amounts of brightness is completely unfounded. Your claim to know the meaning, without being able to explain it, or without demonstrating that you even understand it, is just more lying on your part.
So why don't you knock off the fishing for more indulgence of your nutty fantasy, and address these issues which are critically relevant if you have a shred of hope of proving your wild fantasy. If the Sun has a solid surface, it has specific, clearly describable properties. It has a thickness, a temperature, a material composition, and a density, among other characteristics.Specify the thickness of your surface within a range of +/- 3000 km.
Specify the temperature of your surface within a range of +/- 2000°K.
Specify the density of your surface within a range of +/- 0.01 g/cm3.
Describe the material composition of your surface, listing each element that makes up any more than 5% of the solid layer, and state each one's proportion to the whole within a range of +/- 5%.
Calculate the density, composition, pressure, and thermal properties of the materials that must make up the interior of your Sun in order to support the solid surface you defined according to the above specifications.
Create a solar model and present it here in this forum.
Show where Birkeland postulated an iron shell surface on the Sun. In other words, present Birkeland's solar model as a mathematical scientific description. Provide specific relevant quotes, cite the reference source(s), and include page numbers. And next time someone mentions how you're evasive and refuse to respond to legitimate issues about your silly fantasy, you just count up how many times you refused to answer these questions. And remember, you do have the option of simply admitting that you're too stupid to know the answers.
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 10:41:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mixchael Mozina...
Here by the way is additional evidence of the existence of Birkeland currents inside our own solar system. Notice also that such influences are simply ignored in gravity only/heliocentric concept of "density".
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19103
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19070
As suggested by Dr. Mabuse, without detailed explanations as to exactly how these currents might affect the calculations of solar densities, they are irrelevant to the discussion about whether the Sun has a solid surface. If you're abandoning your wild fantasy and wish to simply indulge your desire for general conversation about the Sun, the right thing to do is open a new thread.
On the other hand, here are some items that are relevant, items you've been neglecting for hundreds of postings now. You do realize of course, the longer you avoid answering these questions the stupider you make yourself look. If the Sun has a solid surface, it has specific, clearly describable properties. It has a thickness, a temperature, a material composition, and a density, among other characteristics.Specify the thickness of your surface within a range of +/- 3000 km.
Specify the temperature of your surface within a range of +/- 2000°K.
Specify the density of your surface within a range of +/- 0.01 g/cm3.
Describe the material composition of your surface, listing each element that makes up any more than 5% of the solid layer, and state each one's proportion to the whole within a range of +/- 5%.
Calculate the density, composition, pressure, and thermal properties of the materials that must make up the interior of your Sun in order to support the solid surface you defined according to the above specifications.
Create a solar model and present it here in this forum.
Show where Birkeland postulated an iron shell surface on the Sun. In other words, present Birkeland's solar model as a mathematical scientific description. Provide specific relevant quotes, cite the reference source(s), and include page numbers. Shall we start keeping a total of how many times you've refused to answer these issues?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 18:43:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Then why don't you produce some numbers on how much these currents are acceletating planets and the sun?
Well, technically these particular currents would tend to push or pull bodies against one another. I do however agree, I need to get busy with some balkpark OOM figures. It won't happen this weekend since I'm helping a friend move, but I will work on it for you. I'll most likely use the "air bubble/water shell" analogy since that's the one you prefer and it would likely require a much smaller current flow to explain it's acceleration.
quote:
Unless you can show evidence of this actually happening, it is the skeptic's perogative to ignore the claim.
Well, I'm frankly a little skeptical about the skeptic's perogative in this case. :) We already know that there are Birkeland currents we must account for, large and small, both inside and outside of our solar system. These forces remain uncounted for in simplistic concepts of "density". We can all clearly see that.
The problem here in a nutshell is that none of us have a clue how much current might flow through the sun and Jupiter and the smaller bodies of our solar system. About the only thing I can really do is "speculate" mathematically. Even still, I think I'm getting closer to finally understanding how I might represent these forces mathematically, even if it's really a "guestimate", no matter what figure I pull out my back pocket. :) |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/24/2006 18:45:23 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
