|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 04/05/2006 : 17:29:28 [Permalink]
|
Well Michael, since I incorrectly thought the first prediction was actually a prediction lets look at the second prediction.
Agin some quotes from "Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution" or as I like to call this paper "Epiphanies Based on My Inability to Use Unit Conversion and Stuff I Wish Was True".
quote:
Since 1955 the discharge theory inevitably led to the tacit prediction that a surface of discontinuity must exist in any stellar atmosphere when that temperature is reached at which solids begin to form, i.e., at temperatures of around 4,000°K.
Oops! Solids form at 4000K!!! What solid could possible form at this temperature. Please by all mean direct me this astounding phase diagram. Well, I only need to read on I am sure to discover what solids he is talking about.
quote:
At these temperatures hydrogen is far below its dissociation temperature and still further below the temperature required for appreciable thermal ionization.
Please don't tell me the ‘solid' he is talking about is diatomic hydrogen!
quote:
A general background atmospheric temperature of around 4,000°K in which electric fields can be built up by asymmetrical impacts between solid particles, just as occurs in terrestrial sand and dust storms and in the ejectamenta above volcanoes.
Nope we are back to actual solid particles. Boy I can hardly wait to find out what these particles are made of. It must be something truly exotic considering the temperatures involved.
Here are some refractory melting points. As an aside I worked at a refractory plant for awhile and worked with this stuff. Alumina in the wet state is incredibly dilatent, very cool stuff, but I digress.
Alumina – 2040 C
Silica – 1723 C
Zirconium – 1852 C
What in the world is this amazing solid they are talking about? I'm sure we will find out soon.
Drat the paragraph ends there, with no mention of this material.
Wait maybe I am being unfair. Is this an *approximate* solid material? Was he just relating an epiphany of some sort? This is really tough, in my world science is based on facts, evidence and mathematics, you know stuff like that. The electric universe is so confusing. In the electric universe I see statements with no data, no math and no evidence at all. Typically, statements about the electric universe will be followed with IMO or I BELIEVE.
How exactly is this science. The funny thing is you will answer with some inane crap and you will think you made your point.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 17:50:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Oops! Solids form at 4000K!!! What solid could possible form at this temperature. Please by all mean direct me this astounding phase diagram. Well, I only need to read on I am sure to discover what solids he is talking about.
No doubt he's refering to carbon in some form.
http://invsee.asu.edu/nmodules/Carbonmod/point.html
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 17:55:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Oops! Solids form at 4000K!!! What solid could possible form at this temperature. Please by all mean direct me this astounding phase diagram. Well, I only need to read on I am sure to discover what solids he is talking about.
No doubt he's refering to carbon in some form.
http://invsee.asu.edu/nmodules/Carbonmod/point.html
Damn, he lied again. It was actually 3970.15 Kelvin. What a scumbag! :) |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 18:53:46 [Permalink]
|
Your're right Michael carbon can be in the solid form at 4000K. That is one amazing phase diagram (a better one is located here. I think it is pretty neat that graphite sublimates directly from a solid to a gas at the pressures at the surface of the sun.
Neither you or I actually think graphite particles are causing electrical discharges at the surface of the sun though. For me the reason is the analysis of the sun says there is no appreciable carbon and for you mass seperation means there would not be any carbon in that area.
But I stand corrected.
First prediction - was only an epiphany
Second prediction - no evidence, but at least one material can exist as a solid at the absolute coolest part of sunspots.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 04/05/2006 18:55:22 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 19:23:16 [Permalink]
|
[Not in order]
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I think it would be best if we simply dropped the term "blackbody" from this discussion entirely. That concept has *never* "perfectly" fit anything. It's a theoretical construct that now seems to be getting in the way of our clear communication at this point. I would suggest instead that we use terms like energy, electricity, heat, thermodynamics, emission, absorbtion, and very specific energy related concepts.
And to John you wrote:quote:
I see now that the use of the term "blackbody radiation" is simply confusing this conversation more than it is helping it. As I suggested to Dave, I think we need to focus on the thermodynamic laws and the physical laws that affect atoms, not theoretical constructs... I think once we get past the unnecessarily lingo, and look at the hard science of thermodynamics, my position will become clear and my position will be vindicated.
Michael, here's the real problem (and why the blackbody thing isn't a "side issue"):
The term "black body" has a very specific meaning in physics. Per your previous use of the term, and the contexts in which you used it, you implied that you knew what "black body radiation" is, as the term is used by physicists. You've even used Stephan's Law, implying you know how it relates the temperature and emissions of black bodies. You even went so far as to state (outright) that I was fabricating my definition of a black body, and to aver that what I was saying about black bodies was factually incorrect.
Now, however, by handwaving away the issues as "theoretical constructs" which you imply are not "hard science" (even though Wein's Law, Stephan's Law and other blackbody "principles" have tons and tons of observation and experimentation supporting them), and by failing to address what is obvious to some of us (that you don't actually know what blackbody radiation is and how it differs from non-blackbody radiation), and by seeming to be trying to also pass off the problems as being due to confusion among all of us, you offer the impression that you're uninterested in behaving ethically.
The confusion, Michael, about blackbody principles is entirely yours. Owning up to it and moving on would have been fine, but trying to spread the blame around while dismissing the problems as unimportant or semantic is nothing more than a transparent attempt to worm your way out of a tough situation of your own creation. Especially after you passed yourself off as knowledgable enough about the subject to tell me that I was making stuff up.
This failure of yours to meet this issue in a straightforward manner, apologize for your false characterizations of my statements (in particular), and maybe learn some physics is, from my point of view, just symptomatic of some larger problem that you have which severely limits your ability to carry on an actual scientific discussion. Other symptoms include the use of circular reasoning; attempts to synthesize the results of disparate scientific disciplines with no logical reason to do so; cherry-picking evidence; the insistence that a hypothesis can't be demonstrated to be false without a "better alternative" being offered; the inability or unwillingness to support premises; demands that others disprove your assertions; the use of double standards; arguments from authority; putting words in other people's mouths; deflection of criticism; numerous ad hoc explanations and/or rationalizations, and a general pseudo-scientific attitude (not a comprehensive list).
And I predict you'll dismiss all of the above, and/or provide a tu quoque argument in reply, but will still fail to address the issues head-on.quote:
First of all I don't think that "arcs" travel in the "singular" to begin with. It's more than likely a quantum "burst" or stream rather than a "singular" arc.
What do you mean by "quantum" there?quote:
If you insist on visualizing this transfer of energy as a "singular" thing, go to page 42 of this months Scientific American article and look at Gordon's drawings. The green arcs are "singular" "bursts" if you will. The bottom right hand corner has a nifty drawing of a magnetic field with a plasma coil wrapped around it. This image is exactly what you see when you find current running in a wire. The magnetic field lines flow in a helix shape around the current flow.
No, they don't. They flow around the current, yes (right-hand rule), but not in a helical shape, but instead a simple tube.quote:
The current flow is what creates the magnetic field lines around the wire.
Yes.quote:
The "singular" arc that you are trying to visualize is represented in that green arrow in the middle.
No, that's a magnetic field line, as you stated just a few sentences ago.quote:
In Birkeland's model, there is current flowing in that green wire. The plamsa winds around the current flow.
In Birkeland's model, only one end of the alleged wire touched the Sun, the other was always out in space. Not so in your model.quote:
Is that a sufficient "drawing" or do you need something more to understand the idea I'm trying to convey?
So what you're saying is that what Nitta refers to as "A loop" in his article, you actually consider it to be thousands (or millions) of individual "arcs" in a bunch. Is that correct? I ask because Nitta describes (and offers images which show) lighter and darker regions within what he calls a single loop. You, perhaps, might claim that each individual "arc" might be at a different temperature, and all the cooler and/or less-dense "arcs" all happen to be clustered together (and nearby are the hotter and/or more dense "arcs" in a different cluster). But I'll let you speak for yourself.quote:
quote:
Yet you refuse to show me a single arc. Why are you stonewalling?
I'm not stonewalling you Dave.
|
- 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 - 04/05/2006 : 20:35:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Your're right Michael carbon can be in the solid form at 4000K. That is one amazing phase diagram (a better one is located here. I think it is pretty neat that graphite sublimates directly from a solid to a gas at the pressures at the surface of the sun.
I liked your choice of reference material. It's much more complete. At least my version saved you some reading time, and the graph was in color. :) I've bookmarked your reference however for future reference. Thanks.
quote:
Neither you or I actually think graphite particles are causing electrical discharges at the surface of the sun though.
That isn't quite accurate. Carbon occurs quite regularly in association with electrical discharges. I even did a paper with Dr. Manual about evidence that suggests that CNO fusion occurs in the solar atmosphere. I certainly do think that carbon plays a vital role in solar discharges.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633
quote:
For me the reason is the analysis of the sun says there is no appreciable carbon and for you mass seperation means there would not be any carbon in that area.
Keep in mind that the reason you *think* that there is no appreciable amount of carbon is based on an interpretation of the spectral data based on the assumption of only minimial mass separation of plasmas. If you interpreted that same spectrum of energy using a Birkeland, mass separated model, you would not suggest there is a small amount of carbon present.
quote:
But I stand corrected.
Don't feel bad, I didn't believe him at first either. When I first read it, I had to look it up for myself before I believed him.
quote:
First prediction - was only an epiphany
Second prediction - no evidence, but at least one material can exist as a solid at the absolute coolest part of sunspots.
Actually, there is evidence of such temperatures being recorded in the umbra, and there is carbon in the spectral output. Also keep in mind that the suns plasmas get cooler as we go deeper into the sun's atmosphere. If the material we don't see in the umbra is not made of the same material as the photosphere, then it's probably much cooler than the photosphere, which is why we see lower temps in the umbra. Keep in mind that in my model, a sunspot is actually a very *hot* region of the umbra plasma and is probably sitting over an electrically active region of the surface. The silicon layer under the neon phototsphere is certainly condusive to the formation of some kinds of solids. If I recall Tim's links correctly, there were even some papers suggesting temperatures in the 2500K range during sunspot activity. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 21:32:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The term "black body" has a very specific meaning in physics.
I agree, let's look it up:
http://weather.cod.edu/sirvatka/blackbody.html
It definitely a term that is used in astronomy in association with stars that are presumably all made of heated plasma. For some reason however you would exclude *parts* of the atmosphere while including other parts.
quote:
Per your previous use of the term, and the contexts in which you used it, you implied that you knew what "black body radiation" is, as the term is used by physicists.
And indeed, I believe I do.
quote:
You've even used Stephan's Law, implying you know how it relates the temperature and emissions of black bodies. You even went so far as to state (outright) that I was fabricating my definition of a black body, and to aver that what I was saying about black bodies was factually incorrect.
The only thing I found "factually incorrect" in your presentation of blackbody principles was the notion that "less dense" plasma was somehow exempt from these principles. The term is typically applied to hot plasma that is presumably aerogel thin in first place!
quote:
Now, however, by handwaving away the issues as "theoretical constructs"
Waoh Dave. It certainly *is* a theoretical construct that doesn't actually exist. What reminded me of this fact was your point about nothing being a "perfect" absorber or emitter or energy. You're absolutely right about that. All plasmas (to which the term is typically applied) tend to emit light in specific wavelengths related to their internal structure. It's never a uniform process, though we can still use these laws to discrern some aspects of solar activity. Because it never applies "perfectly" to any plasma, it is a theoretical construct.
quote:
which you imply are not "hard science" (even though Wein's Law, Stephan's Law and other blackbody "principles" have tons and tons of observation and experimentation supporting them),
I agree that these "principles" work in a "general" way, but never perfectly as *you* pointed out in the first place.
quote:
and by failing to address what is obvious to some of us (that you don't actually know what blackbody radiation is and how it differs from non-blackbody radiation),
Dave, all radiation from plasma is simply radiation from plasma and black body principles are most commonly associated with presumably very light plasma. I simply reject your desire to exempt one part of the atmosphere from these same principles.
quote:
and by seeming to be trying to also pass off the problems as being due to confusion among all of us, you offer the impression that you're uninterested in behaving ethically.
That is totally unfair Dave. I'm simply trying to move away from a theoretical astronomical contructs that never fit "perfectly" and focus on the physics behind the construct itself so we can talk in more specific terms.
quote:
The confusion, Michael, about blackbody principles is entirely yours. Owning up to it and moving on would have been fine, but trying to spread the blame around while dismissing the problems as unimportant or semantic is nothing more than a transparent attempt to worm your way out of a tough situation of your own creation.
Woah! That is again purely a judgement call on your part. I still disagree with you notion that one part of the atmosphere counts, while another does not. That is why I want to get more specific. Your point about a "perfect" black body being a "perfect" *absorber* as well as transmitter of energy was valid, and I noted it. Then again no aerogel light plasma is likely to qualify as "perfect" in either category, and yet the term is always applied to stars anyway. I'm simply agreeing with your point that nothing is a "perfect" black body, certainly not hot plasma in the solar atmosphere. I'll even concede that the lighter plasma is a poorer absorber of energy and a poorer transmitter of energy, but it's *all* plasma Dave, and no plasma is a perfect black body.
quote:
This failure of yours to meet this issue in a straightforward manner,
What?!?!? I've have dealt with this issue in as straightforward a manner as I know how to deal with it Dave. I've been up front about the limitations of the theoretical contruct, but you have not owned up to the fact that this term is *always* used and applied to what is presumed to be very *thin* plasma. You've acted as though only the photosphere layer counts. That is not scientifically accurate. The chromosphere will also emit photons and behave consistent with BB principles as will the corona. If you are going to apply the term to *some* hot plasma, you must apply it to *all*. Your failure to acknowledge this issue is part of the problem too Dave.
quote:
apologize for your false characterizations of my statements (in particular),
You are one to talk. I *have* apologized to you for several of my comments. When did you *ever* return the favor? Are you telling me that you *never* mischaraterized anything I've ever said?
quote:
and maybe learn some physics
You are no judge of me on that front Dave. The past year has been a remarkable education from my perspective. I'm out here nearly every single day in cyberspace debating these ideas so that I will continue to learn and grow. I update my blog regularly to add new information that I've picked up along the way. I'm certainly learning and growing Dave, and you are not a fit judge of me or my process.
The fact you won't even cop to the fact that Nitta and I agreed on the placement of the hottest plasma and you won't move toward so |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/05/2006 21:49:55 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 22:20:16 [Permalink]
|
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/04/05/supernova.blast.ap/index.html
Here's yet another intersting article regarding Spitzer's view of solar system formation processes. It seems that when supernova's "blow" they blow their iron shell into the solar system. In this case, the core isn't totally desroyed, and undoubtedly the core that is left will form another iron shell as is often the case with neutron stars. Given enough silicon and neon and helium, it might even "shine" again, leaving heavy materials for planets to form and shedding a bit of weight in the process. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 22:37:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
.....or as I like to call this paper "Epiphanies Based on My Inability to Use Unit Conversion and Stuff I Wish Was True".
I have to admit, there are times when your brand of sarcasm really makes me laugh. :) I guess we are more alike than I would like to think. :)
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 23:02:24 [Permalink]
|
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/T171_990809_230034.gif
Here's an example of an image where we see very hot plasma flowing up into the arcs on one side, and a much darker endpoint. This is due to to primary issues. The electron "stream" coming off the surface is ionizing the surface solids as it flows up into the arcs. The arc tend to begin at the same point, but often will "spread out" at the other end. By the time the arc has reached the other side, all the iron has been pretty much ionized, and the flow is toward the surface, not up into the arc. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 05:16:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Here's yet another intersting article regarding Spitzer's view of solar system formation processes. It seems that when supernova's "blow" they blow their iron shell into the solar system. In this case, the core isn't totally desroyed, and undoubtedly the core that is left will form another iron shell as is often the case with neutron stars. Given enough silicon and neon and helium, it might even "shine" again, leaving heavy materials for planets to form and shedding a bit of weight in the process.
How in the hell you came to these conclusions based on the article cited, is a complete mystery.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 10:34:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
How in the hell you came to these conclusions based on the article cited, is a complete mystery.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/blog.htm?
Dr. Manuel has been suggesting that solar systems form from supernova remants for over a decade. This is pretty much "old news" from his perspective. The configuration of the arrangement of materials is exactly as he predicted a long time ago. We see heavy elements dispersed into the disk that forms the solar plane, and the leftover neutron core is likely to form a new shell around itself again. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 11:02:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dr. Manuel has been suggesting that solar systems form from supernova remants for over a decade. This is pretty much "old news" from his perspective. The configuration of the arrangement of materials is exactly as he predicted a long time ago. We see heavy elements dispersed into the disk that forms the solar plane, and the leftover neutron core is likely to form a new shell around itself again.
The article does not say that is how a solar system with a main sequence star forms. Dr. Manuel continues to be completely at odds with the astrophysics community.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 11:42:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
The article does not say that is how a solar system with a main sequence star forms. Dr. Manuel continues to be completely at odds with the astrophysics community.
Well, he may be at odds with the current majority viewpoint, but he is certainly not at odds with the visual evidence provided by Spitzer. His predictions are pretty much right on the money as it relates to the observational evidence. The debris disk is right where he said it would form, and the neutron core is sitting right in the middle, ready to form a new shell. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 21:14:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I agree, let's look it up:
http://weather.cod.edu/sirvatka/blackbody.html
It definitely a term that is used in astronomy in association with stars that are presumably all made of heated plasma. For some reason however you would exclude *parts* of the atmosphere while including other parts.
No, Michael, you're just introducing more definition problems. I specifically said that the bulk of the Sun meets the definition of a black body, and it does. The corona, on the other hand, does not. Just like certain parts of a car meet the definition of a "window" and others do not. You appear to be under the impression that the gas model stipulates a star with a single density throughout, and no differences between one part and another, but the fact is that trying to apply black body calculations to the corona only results in wrong answers.quote:
And indeed, I believe I do.
You seem to be unable to demonstrate your understanding in such a way that it agrees with the physics.quote:
The only thing I found "factually incorrect" in your presentation of blackbody principles was the notion that "less dense" plasma was somehow exempt from these principles.
That's a strawman, since I never claimed that the corona doesn't meet the definition because it's less dense.quote:
The term is typically applied to hot plasma that is presumably aerogel thin in first place!
No, it's applied to the coolest parts of a star, and the parts under that, throughout which the density increases.quote:
Waoh Dave. It certainly *is* a theoretical construct that doesn't actually exist. What reminded me of this fact was your point about nothing being a "perfect" absorber or emitter or energy. You're absolutely right about that.
Now you're moving the goalposts. We were talking about "black body principles," which most assuredly are not theoretical, but now you've switched to talking about actual black bodies.quote:
All plasmas (to which the term is typically applied)...
What?!? Now you're just making stuff up. That one link you provided is certainly not enough data to tell you to what the term "black body" is "typically applied." This PDF file has a lot of information about black body principles and the Earth's climate.quote:
...tend to emit light in specific wavelengths related to their internal structure.
Yup, not the corona, which is external to a star.quote:
It's never a uniform process, though we can still use these laws to discrern some aspects of solar activity. Because it never applies "perfectly" to any plasma, it is a theoretical construct.
More making stuff up.quote:
I agree that these "principles" work in a "general" way, but never perfectly as *you* pointed out in the first place.
More moving the goalposts. I did the math for you which demonstrated that the laws cannot apply to the solar corona. You worked the math yourself over at the BAUT forums and came up with an answer which showed that if the solar corona were a black body, the Earth would be fried.quote:
Dave, all radiation from plasma is simply radiation from plasma and black body principles are most commonly associated with presumably very light plasma.
Not true at all, since the blackbody laws were worked out in labs right here on Earth around 100 years ago.quote:
I simply reject your desire to exempt one part of the atmosphere from these same principles.
I only exempt it because the laws utterly fail to provide correct answers. If the chromosphere were 10,000 km thick and reached temperatures of 10,000 kelvin, and if it were a black body (or close), then the Earth would be bathed in almost 10 times the amount of solar radiation than it is. How could we miss all that in our measurements of how hot the Earth is?quote:
That is totally unfair Dave. I'm simply trying to move away from a theoretical astronomical contructs that never fit "perfectly" and focus on the physics behind the construct itself so we can talk in more specific terms.
But you haven't said anything about the physics underlying blackbody principles except that you'd like to talk about it. Nobody is standing in your way: let's hear about the vibrating (note that word) electrons which radiate the light (ooops, there aren't many).quote:
Woah! That is again purely a judgement call on your part. I still disagree with you notion that one part of the atmosphere counts, while another does not.
Well, that part isn't a judgement call, because we can all do the same math and get the same wrong answers for the solar corona. It's not an opinion that the corona fails to meet the definition of a black body and so those laws don't apply, it's a simple fact.quote:
That is why I want to get more specific. Your point about a "perfect" black body being a "perfect" *absorber* as well as transmitter of energy was valid, and I noted it.
But it's beside the point.
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
