|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 04/06/2006 : 21:16:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
Explain, using standard laws of physics, how a shell would form on the surface of a neutron star. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 07:06:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Explain, using standard laws of physics, how a shell would form on the surface of a neutron star.
Michael here are some ideas to help you. First you need to explain why the shell would not simply fall into the neutron star. You can determine the amount of force (from radiation I assume) on a particle that is needed to overcome the force gravity.
Since in your world the sun has a neutron star at it's center you can use the suns surface as the shells radius from the neutron star to balance the forces in your calculations. You can even use the rotational period of the sun to include the contribution from the orbital velocity of a particle in the shell.
I'm sorry I can't help you on determining how the disk of material will spread out into a shell. I'm afraid there may be no physical way that could happen.
On the brighter side physics has not gotten in the way of any of your other ideas.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 10:20:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
Explain, using standard laws of physics, how a shell would form on the surface of a neutron star.
:) That's worth a paper (or 50) in itself Dave. Here's one:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/nucl-th/pdf/0401/0401024.pdf
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 10:37:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
Explain, using standard laws of physics, how a shell would form on the surface of a neutron star.
:) That's worth a paper (or 50) in itself Dave. Here's one:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/nucl-th/pdf/0401/0401024.pdf
What, in that article, could possibly lend any credence what-so-ever to your solid surface idea, besides both of you using in your articles a combination of letters "c", "r", "u", "s", and "t".
To begin with, a neutron star cannot form unless it has a mass at least 40% higher than our Sub. Secondly, you've stated that you believe the inner core of the sun to most likely be fissionable material. Will you make up your mind already?
The article you linked to does not seem to support your argument, so I'm left to interpret it as just another red herring.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 11:14:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
What, in that article, could possibly lend any credence what-so-ever to your solid surface idea, besides both of you using in your articles a combination of letters "c", "r", "u", "s", and "t".
There are many papers on the theory of how and why neutron stars form a crust Dr. Mabuse. I just picked one. You'll find many. The fact they do form a crust makes this model attractive for a variety of reasons, most noteably because it does seem to fit what we *see* on our own star. It too has a "c-r-u-s-t"
quote:
To begin with, a neutron star cannot form unless it has a mass at least 40% higher than our Sub. Secondly, you've stated that you believe the inner core of the sun to most likely be fissionable material. Will you make up your mind already?
The article you linked to does not seem to support your argument, so I'm left to interpret it as just another red herring.
Well, since our first talk, I've done some of my own research. While it may be true that there is a minimum "size" requirement for them to *form* in the first place, there is no such 1.4 solar mass requirement as to minimum size over time. In fact I've discovered that the minimum size for them to be stable is much, much, much smaller than our own star, even *with* a "crust". In fact it is only .189 solar masses, with the crust according to this paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9707230
It is red herring on your part to talk *only* about the minimum *formation* size, yet not discuss the minimum *stable* size of a neutron star, especially since this solar system is at *least* a second generation solar system, and our sun may be a tenth generation star for all we know. A nuetron core may have formed and blown a dozen times by now and be many billions of years older than our planet. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/07/2006 11:23:18 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 11:23:52 [Permalink]
|
As Dr. Mabuse pointed out that article has nothing to do with what you were talking about. The paper was investigation the crust of the NEUTRON STAR itself.
So what, you googled shell and neutron star and then posted the first hit? I know this paper is clearly above your head but if you would have read the abstract or the conclusion you could have figured out it did not have anything to do with your point.
edited to say
Micheal you twit the crust is only KILOMETERS in diameter. Got it, KILOMETERS. On top of that the crust is not elemental. Got that, it is NOT made of any elements.
Know tell me again, how does this have ANYTHING to do with the Sun?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 04/07/2006 11:31:32 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 15:36:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
You just made a *completely* arbitrary choice Dave. Where does the chromosphere fall into this "on again, off again" definitions of yours? Why are you excluding some plasma, yet including other plasma expecially if you believe the plasma you include to be 15 *less* dense than aerogel in consistancy? What's the cutoff point in plasma in terms of density and temperature?
quote:
Just like certain parts of a car meet the definition of a "window" and others do not.
Yes, except in this case, these principles apply to real things, namely *atoms*, and all *atoms* will radiate energy, given the extra energy to spare. Why are you including *some* atoms and excluding other again?
quote:
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.
The fact that you dumbing this down and you are trying to include some atoms and excluding others is what results in "wrong" answers Dave.
quote:
You seem to be unable to demonstrate your understanding in such a way that it agrees with the physics.
Boloney. I am insisting we look at what *all atoms* do based on physics.
quote:
That's a strawman, since I never claimed that the corona doesn't meet the definition because it's less dense.
You mean you actually *assumed* the whole atmosphere above the photosphere is a far greater temperature as well? So why does the 6000 Kelvin plasma count, and say the chromosphere plasma doesn't count again?
quote:
No, it's applied to the coolest parts of a star, and the parts under that, throughout which the density increases.
So you arbitrarily picked one layer and excluded everything else? How do you *know* that the photosophere is the coolest part of the sun in the first place? Why do we find temperatures that are *cooler* than your photosphere material in the umbra, and how do you know there isn't a cooler layer under the photosphere?
quote:
Now you're moving the goalposts. We were talking about "black body principles," which most assuredly are not theoretical,
What? There is no such thing as a "perfect" black body! There are physics involved that ultimately relate back to real atoms in the body, but nothing is a perfect blackbody. No atom completely absorbs all energy or complete and perfectly emits all energy on every wavelength. It's not something that actually exists in reality Dave. It is an entirely *theoretical construct* to which we apply mathematical formulas.
quote:
but now you've switched to talking about actual black bodies.
The theory and the math are related to one another Dave. I can't help that. They are also related back to real objects, namely atoms. I can't help that either.
quote:
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.
We aren't talking about Earth's climate! You are trying to apply these principles to a *star* now, and claiming that these same principles apply to what you claim is a mostly hydrogen plasma ball! You now are trying to apply these principles not to anything solid, but to something you claim is mostly hydrogen and helium plasma. As it relates to the subject of astronomy, these concepts *are* being mostly applied to plasma! Man, you are amazing at times.
quote:
Yup, not the corona, which is external to a star.
External to the star? You really mean "external to the photospohere" don't you? Suddenly *some* atoms take on a magical quality of never emitting *any* pertinant energy? Are you claiming now that no energy of any sort is released in the chromosphere or the corona?
quote:
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.
What? How am I making anything up? You are trying to use blackbody principles and you are trying to relate these concepts to plasma. It will never be true that plasma will emit light as a perfect blackbody. In fact *no object* in the known world is known to operate as a "perfect" blackbody.
quote:
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.
You did not "demonstrate" anything of the sort. What you demonstrate *at best* is that more energy comes from the below the chromosphere than from above it, but you certainly didn't de |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/07/2006 15:41:39 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 17:24:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
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 some sort of middle ground on the heat concentration front shows that you aren't exactly bending over backwards to fascilitate a "scientific discussion".
Ah, this is more of the tu quoque I predicted. Besides which, I have little idea anymore of why the "heat concentration" even matters to your model.
I'll try to tackle some of the rest of your post now that work is winding down...
It matters to my model (and every solar model) because heat, and the flow of energy tells us a lot about what's going on, and without understanding the mechanics of the flow of energy on the sun, we'll never understand how the sun works. It matters to my model (and any solar model) because we have to identify the light source of all satellite images before we try to analyse what we're looking at. There is simply no way to proceed without understanding the light source and the heat concentration patterns.
quote:
Especially since you won't offer a resistance figure which might make sense for electrical discharge heating of the corona.
What is the "resistance" of those atoms that aren't plasma that are sitting in the photosphere? It's really the difference in resistance between these atoms and the atoms in the plasma that we're talking about.
quote:
Some plasmas are hotter than others, Michael, and some parts of the Sun aren't even plasma.
Sure Dave, I agree. Then again any cubic meter of material that we might select is going to hold atoms that behave according to the same principles of physics. Hot atoms will emit light, regardless of the density of material in the cube we select.
quote:
You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Ditto. The facts are that Nitta and I did place the material with the greatest temperature inside the arcs. That fact is, the coronal loops emit a lot more light compared to the majority of the cubes of material in the coronal atmosphere.
quote:
This whole sub-discussion has been about your assertions that the corona can be modeled using black body "principles."
Yes, and those "principles" are predicated upon the laws of physics. Nothing we are going to do is going to change the laws of physics, and all atoms (regardless of density or temperature) will obey these very same laws of physics and thermodynamics. These laws of physics allow us to get a pretty good idea of temperature of something based upon the photon output.
quote:
I've been pointing out that you're wrong, and I've been demonstrating why you are wrong.
You are so intent on insisting I am wrong that you are insisting on excluding some atoms from the laws of physics. Sorry, but I can't go there with you. All (and I mean) all cubic meters of the material we might select from the sun, will continue to obey the laws of physics and the laws that relate to blackbody theory. If we can use these blackbody theories to determine temperature of some cube of plasma, then we can do so for all. Hot areas will emit more energetic photons and a greater volume of photons according to blackbody principles. We see such behavior in the corona, where some material shines more brightly than others.
quote:
You've refused to even try to understand, and have progressed to the point that you're making up "facts" about blackbody laws and what they're "typically" applied to.
We are discussing stars Dave. As it relates to stars and blackbody concepts, they are typically applied to plasmas. Specifically they are applied to the plasma at the surface of the photosphere, plasmas that are aerogel thin at this depth in the solar atmosophere according to gas model theory.
quote:
Ah, so they're not actually "electrical arcs" or comparable to lightning strikes at all. Why has it taken so long to get this information from you?
They certainly are electrical arcs and these arcs move electrons. They also move surface material and ionize surface material as well. Have you ever used an arcwelder?
I'm headed home now. I'll finish the rest later. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/07/2006 17:38:17 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 18:04:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You are demonstrating, for everyone to see, that you're clueless when it comes to black body "principles" (and, in a two-fer, you're demonstrating your lack of knowledge about the standard solar model).
You are demontrating that you aren't willing to have an *honest* discussion here Dave. I've been fair. You've been unwilling to hear a damn thing I say. These principles apply to atoms. You don't have to apply the principles to one layer, and only one layer. We could create a more complex equations that factors in *all* the layers based on percentages of total output, but you refuse to even think in these terms. It's not even realistic in the real world to only consider the energy output of SOME of the sun and not consider the rest.
Wow.
Seriously Michael, I can't believe some of the rubbish I've seen in the last couple of pages. If you can't admit that you are just plain wrong about what black body principles are and how they can and cannot be applied, then it's about time we stopped considering this a scientific discussion, and move it to the religion folder.
I cannot see the point in debating with someone who either has insufficient knowledge of basic physics to do so, or who is willing to lie in order to hang onto their beliefs. I admit I don't know which of these two situtations is the major contributor, although I expect it's a bit of both.
If you can't recognise when you're wrong (on this issue Michael, pointing to some other admission isn't going to cut it), then I think it's only fair for people to stop donating time to an effort which is ultimately futile. We can just step back and wait for you to present some new (and actual) evidence supporting your case, or, heaven forbid, but together a coherent model/submission for proper review and analysis.
If you prefer, you can now whine about some major conspiracy aligning the evil forces of science against you, maybe we can move this to the "conspiracy theories" thread instead of "religion", who knows.
I for one, am getting tired of this, and would rather spend my time on an endeavour that may some day achieve something. My hat goes off again to Dave for maintaining such a discussion for so long. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 18:26:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Seriously Michael, I can't believe some of the rubbish I've seen in the last couple of pages. If you can't admit that you are just plain wrong about what black body principles are and how they can and cannot be applied, then it's about time we stopped considering this a scientific discussion, and move it to the religion folder.
Oh the irony of that comment from my perspective. You refuse to believe that brightly lit plasma is at a higher temperature than another darker region of the atmosphere even though this region glows more brightly and more energetically than all the plasma around it. Then you have the nerve to turn around and accuse *me* of acting in a religious manner and accuse *me* of not comphrending the physics behind the concepts of blackbody principles. Simply amazing.
quote:
I cannot see the point in debating with someone who either has insufficient knowledge of basic physics
Yes or no John, will the atoms in the corona (including the million degree plasma loops) emit photons containing energy that will eventually reach and heat the earth?
Why would you exclude these atoms from your total energy output calculations, particularly the lit areas we see in Yohkoh images?
I'm going to resist the urge to do a point by point retort until I've at least heard your answer to these simple questions. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/07/2006 18:28:22 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 18:43:44 [Permalink]
|
| John, why are the coronal loops more brightly lit in both the 195 and 171A images? Just explain it in your own words. What method would you suggest we use to determine the temperature of the loops, and the dark regions outside of the loops? |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 20:30:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Oh the irony of that comment from my perspective. You refuse to believe that brightly lit plasma is at a higher temperature than another darker region of the atmosphere even though this region glows more brightly and more energetically than all the plasma around it.
No, I refuse to believe that the temperatures are what you say they are just because pixels in one image or another are brighter or darker. Demonstrate that this is so using real physics and you may change my mind.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Then you have the nerve to turn around and accuse *me* of acting in a religious manner and accuse *me* of not comphrending the physics behind the concepts of blackbody principles. Simply amazing.
No, you got the black body physics wrong. A reasonably competent high school physics student could see this. Then you started handwaving about not using the words "black body" because it was confusing, but still using the principles as if that would fix things. It's not amazing, just either bad science and/or dishonesty.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Yes or no John, will the atoms in the corona (including the million degree plasma loops) emit photons containing energy that will eventually reach and heat the earth?
The atoms will emit photons. Some of these photons may reach the earth. If they do, they will "heat" it. What are you getting at?
By the way, if you're going to ask for a yes/no answer, I'd suggest asking a single question, or at least making your assumptions clear.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Why would you exclude these atoms from your total energy output calculations, particularly the lit areas we see in Yohkoh images?
I've no idea which "total energy output calculations" you are referring to. Please be specific. If you mean "temperature calculations" then please say so. If you mean "black body calculations" please say so. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 20:45:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
John, why are the coronal loops more brightly lit in both the 195 and 171A images? Just explain it in your own words.
Because the coronal loops emit more photons per unit area than the areas around them at these two wavelength ranges, when corrected for the filter responses in these ranges.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
What method would you suggest we use to determine the temperature of the loops, and the dark regions outside of the loops?
That's a difficult question. First some qualifications:
Are the "coronal loops" well defined and able to be isolated in the images in question?
Are you assuming that there must be a way to determine the temperatures by image analysis?
Is it my responsibility to provide a method to perform these calculations for you? If I fail to do so, does that somehow validate any method you might suggest?
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 21:12:28 [Permalink]
|
| If a blackbody process from the photosphere is completely capable of explaining the temperature of the corona, why all the mystery about the heat source of the corona John? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/07/2006 21:31:55 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 22:08:06 [Permalink]
|
So you completely ignore my responses to your questions, and ignore my related questions to you and just throw in another seemingly random question instead. Nice.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If a blackbody process from the photosphere is completely capable of explaining the temperature of the corona, why all the mystery about the heat source of the corona John?
Did I, or for that matter, anyone here, ever make that statement Michael?
Who has asserted that a black body "process" is completely capable of explaining the temperature of the corona? That doesn't even make sense. There is no black body process Michael, there is a scientific method called black body analysis which can be used very effectively provided the system being analysed meets the appropriate criteria. Dave has explained this quite succinctly, but seriously, do we have to teach you such basic science?
The only mystery appears to be the process by which you decide to answer questions or not or just go off on tangents without first addressing other issues you yourself brought up.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
