|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 08/15/2006 : 12:56:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
... we find that its temperature must be over 26 billion Kelvin...
 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 13:29:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Moreover, if you're going to postulate that the sun is ca. 50% iron, then the other 50% almost certainly has to have a negative density. If that's even possible. Perhaps someone more mathematically inclined can work out the numbers for me.
Not negative, just very low. If half the mass of the Sun is from iron (and let's say that hot iron has 75% of the density of room-temp iron), then if you were to glom all the Sun's iron into a single ball, it would have a volume of (mass of Sun) times 50% divided by (density of iron times 75%), or about 1.68×1017 km3. That's about 12% of the Sun's volume, so the other 88% of the Sun's volume contains the other 50% of the Sun's mass, making its average density about 0.705 g/cm3, or 70% of that of water at STP.
Anyway, if (as Michael said), the core is either neutrons or fissile material, then most of the iron must be found in the shell ('cause it's not in the core in either case). If 16% of the Sun's iron is not in the core (just flowing about with the rest of the plasmas), then the shell must be 10% of the Sun's total volume. If the shell's top layer is at 0.995Rsun, then 10% of the Sun's volume makes the shell 24,272 km thick (in good agreement with my prior analysis which went the "other way" through the math).
Unfortunately, that's pure iron, and not the non-homogenous mixture that Michael assures us makes up his shell. Including non-iron elements in there will only make the shell thicker, and further reduce the average density of all the "plasmas" (and thus increase the internal temperature required to keep the shell "inflated").
Again: I'm sure Michael will object to all these numbers as just being guesses, but he doesn't have any better numbers to use. His "theory" makes no predictions about these things, so one guess is as good as any other, and my guesses tell me that if the shell existed at some point in time, it necessarily melted away shortly afterwards by billion-plus Kelvin temperatures.
Hey, wait just a damn minute:quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
IMO, the core is most likely composed of a heavy neutron core composing about 50 to 70 percent of the total mass of the sun.
If the neutron core is 70% of the Sun's mass, then the Sun cannot be more than 30% iron, and Dr. Manuel's analysis is flat-out wrong. If the neutron core is 50% of the Sun's mass, then the other 50% must be iron, and so there must be hard vacuum between the core and the shell. You'd better change that assertion, Michael, so the alleged neutron core is more like 49% of the Sun's mass. Note that it doesn't matter what the Sun's mass actually is, if you want people to think that the Sun is "mostly iron," then clearly the core cannot have more than half of the Sun's mass. |
- 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 - 08/15/2006 : 14:14:17 [Permalink]
|
Ok Dave, you're way ahead of me at this point, so you need to give me some idea of what you want me to respond to next.
Because your posts are typically lengthy and in depth, and because this is our busy time of the years, for the past week I've been intentionally picking and choosing which things to respond to in your posts based on what *I* thought the order of importance was. Because I'm so behind at this point, I have no idea which issues you'd like to tackle first, and since you've been pretty patient about it thus far, it seems like you should pick the items you'd like me to respond to first. Is there any particular issue I've left hanging that you want to see addressed first?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 14:33:34 [Permalink]
|
| Sure, Michael. Many posts ago, I granted (for the sake of discussion) your assertions that the coronal loops are more hot than the corona itself. You then said that the next step is to see that the heat is due to electrical currents. I asked how we could check that, and you said something about RHESSI, but I asked for clarification about what you meant in the same post in which I used the "L word," so you didn't reply to that question. Now, two weeks later, you're badgering me for info about Lockheed's temperature analysis again, taking two steps backwards instead of moving things along. So, what is it about RHESSI that confirms that electrical currents are capable of generating million-plus Kelvin temperatures in the coronal plasmas? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 15:15:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...quote:
Originally posted by me...
Of course I never once suggested that some particular line of code produces the effects in running difference images.....
Baloney. Here is your quote:quote:
There aren't any physical features in a running difference image. The patterns you see are resultant of the process used to create the image. There, that's the cause. I've addressed it... again.
That's exaclty what you said big mouth, and it's utterly false. There is no way for the *process* itself to create any patterns, or anyone could isolate the code that created them. You obviously don't have even the first clue what you're talking about and now everyone can see that for themselves. Despite all the big talk, you don't know squat about RD images.
The process of creating running difference images doesn't create the patterns which you mistakenly believe to be solid surface features. Applying the process to the original images creates an output image which, in the case of the particular images under discussion, contains those patterns. It may seem a subtle difference, but these are two quite different concepts. And since nobody else had any trouble understanding what I meant, I'm willing to accept your misunderstanding as simply another example of your extremely poor reading comprehension skills.
quote:
Dave at least has a strong scientific background and the common sense to keep his mouth shut about something he doesn't understand. Evidently you aren't that "wise". You let your ego get in the way and you I just busted it for you.
Of course Dave also understands running difference images, understands my explanation of them, and understands that they don't show anything like physical features or a solid surface, and he has stated so many times. And as Dave has often pointed out, the only ego at stake in this conversation is yours, Michael, since you're the only one here attempting to substantiate a claim. The rest of us are simply asking you to provide evidence, asking you to clarify your often nearly incoherent comments, and criticizing your "evidence" and/or your shoddy methods of presenting it.
quote:
quote:
It seems that once again you've fallen back on your dishonest tactic of grossly misrepresenting what's been said.
I quoted you directly Sherlock. The patterns we see in the image have absolutely *nothing* to do with the processing method. They are caused by solar processes themselves. Duh! For a guy that claimed to know everything there was to know about RD images you made a completely bonehead mistake, and worse yet, you even repeat the same mistake later in this post.
No, you've just continued to make the same mistake of misunderstanding my comments.
quote:
quote:
Or maybe you're just a mouthy troll and you intentionally look stupid to try to get a rise out of people.
Because you don't have the scientific background that Dave has, and because you don't know what your actually talking about, insults are the only thing you've got, and it's the first thing you go for.
Again I'll remind you that I'm only suggesting possible reasons why you might appear so incapable of understanding what is quite obviously easily understood by others. Perhaps something about your ego causes you to consider my expression of curiosity as an insult.
quote:
I'm simply pointing out to everyone here that despite your boastful and rediculace claims, you obviously don't understand anything at all about RD image beyond what you parroted from Neal.
As to my understanding of running difference images, my several other thorough and detailed explanations from hundreds of postings ago didn't simply vanish just because you've forgotten them or chosen for them to disappear because they cause you some inconvenience. You've made it clear that you don't possess the intellectual skills necessary to understand, therefore there is no reason for me to repeat my explanations for you here now. If anyone else has any questions about running difference images, I'll be more than happy to go into greater detail with my explanations or link to those I've made in the past.
quote:
quote:
Maybe you're as seriously mentally ill as you appear and you actually believe you're reading things which aren't really there.
See, this is where your ego gets you in trouble. You say rediculace crap for a guy that just stuck his foot in his mouth in such a public way. Instead of admitting it was your mistake, you go out of your way to piss people off with stupid comments like this, and you act all condescending and claim you undersstand what you are talking. As everyone can see however, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Again, I've offered a simple expression of my concern for the possible reasons you appear so completely lost in your own world and so apparently incapable of discussing your position rationally and with some integrity. The only mistake I've made is assuming that you have the ability to understand a clear and simple explanation, and I'll readily admit that I may have overestimated your abilities here. And as to whether or not I have a clue, everyone other than you, Michael, seems to accept my explanations and understand my comments without any difficulty, thank you.
quote:
When we finally stripped away all your huffing and puffing, we discovered that you don't have the first clue what what causes the patterns in the image. Worse still, you don't even have the common sense, or common decency to admit it.
All you have left to defend your false statements with now are stupid, irrational and pety insults. Your supersized ego evidently bit off way more than it can actually chew on a scientific level, so you're left with nothing but childish insults. I guess you just hope that people aren't paying attention to how badly you've stuck your own foot in your mouth.
You're all hot air Geemack and everyone can see it for themselves.
Then prove my explanation wrong. Find a single professional astrophysicist who believes your claim that there is some kind of solid physical structure or surface showing in those running difference images. Bring someone else into this discussion who agrees with you and does have the intellect and communication skills to make a convincing argument for your position. Oh, what, there is no such other person? Bummer.
quote:
quote:
And maybe your communication skills are so poor that you simply don't understand what you read or how to write a rational response.
Maybe that true, but at least I understand running difference images a hell of a lot better than you do. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 15:44:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Then how about you finally work up the balls to admit that you're wrong in claiming to present Kristian Birkeland's solar model, since after all, he never presented one.
Oh! Thanks for bringing this up, GeeMack, because I've been wondering about it and felt a little too sheepish about asking a question. I googled and wikied (are these really verbs?) Birkeland and couldn't figure out why nothing about a solar model was said. I mean, there was stuff about solar wind and such, but that's not a solar model.
So am I wrong, or is Birkeland being tossed around to make it sound like the ideas of an iron sun has been around for awhile, or what? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 16:07:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Sure, Michael. Many posts ago, I granted (for the sake of discussion) your assertions that the coronal loops are more hot than the corona itself. You then said that the next step is to see that the heat is due to electrical currents. I asked how we could check that, and you said something about RHESSI, but I asked for clarification about what you meant in the same post in which I used the "L word," so you didn't reply to that question. Now, two weeks later, you're badgering me for info about Lockheed's temperature analysis again, taking two steps backwards instead of moving things along. So, what is it about RHESSI that confirms that electrical currents are capable of generating million-plus Kelvin temperatures in the coronal plasmas?
That sounds good Dave. Let me finish a progamming project I'm working on for a customer and think about the issues I want to focus on first, and I'll put together some links. I'll start with the Rhessi evidence, but I'll demonstrate what I mean through a number of satellites as we proceed. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 16:13:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
The patterns you see are resultant of the process used to create the image.
quote:
The process of creating running difference images doesn't create the patterns...
Which is it? You can't even keep your stories straight Geemack, and worse yet you can't even admit to blowing it when you stick your foot in your mouth. You don't really think everyone is really going to overlook that fact that you just did a complete about face do you? Let's cut to the chase now:
Tell me again now the cause of the persistent patterns we see, and why do they persist in the same geometric relationships to one another for more than an hour and a half? What causes the movements we see in the images?
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/15/2006 16:17:29 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 16:32:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
So am I wrong, or is Birkeland being tossed around to make it sound like the ideas of an iron sun has been around for awhile, or what?
You are wrong. I mention his work because Birkeland actually experimented with various metallic solid surface solar models in his lab about 100 years ago.
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/
This image from my website shows one of the images he came up with in his lab sitting beside an x-ray image from the Yohkoh satellite.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg
Considering he played with various voltages and magnetic fields and sphere sizes and textures in his lab over 100 years ago it would be down right rude to claim this was all my idea. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/15/2006 16:44:26 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 17:52:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Which is it? You can't even keep your stories straight Geemack, and worse yet you can't even admit to blowing it when you stick your foot in your mouth. You don't really think everyone is really going to overlook that fact that you just did a complete about face do you?
Although it's subtle, I think most people would understand the difference between those comments.
The process of creating running difference images doesn't create the patterns. Driving 35 miles per hour doesn't create the number 35 on your speedometer. Pressing "158 + 269" doesn't create the number 427 on the screen of your calculator.
The patterns you see are resultant of the process used to create the image. They are part of the output, the result of applying the process to the input files. The number 35 shows up on your speedometer as a result of the processes which calculate and feed the speed data to your speedometer. The number 427 shows up on your calculator screen as a result of the processes which do the calculation and send that information to the display.
Anyone other than Michael have any questions?
Now let's cut to the chase. Running difference images don't show any solid physical features, structure, or surfaces. They don't show anything beyond or through any opaque material. And you have yet to provide anything more than your unsubstantiated opinion that they do. So patterns or movements or even a bunch of pixels that happen to look like a little bunny are irrelevant to your claim that the Sun has a solid surface which can be seen in a running difference image.
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 18:01:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
So am I wrong, or is Birkeland being tossed around to make it sound like the ideas of an iron sun has been around for awhile, or what?
You are wrong. I mention his work because Birkeland actually experimented with various metallic solid surface solar models in his lab about 100 years ago.
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/
This image from my website shows one of the images he came up with in his lab sitting beside an x-ray image from the Yohkoh satellite.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg
Considering he played with various voltages and magnetic fields and sphere sizes and textures in his lab over 100 years ago it would be down right rude to claim this was all my idea.
I see, though it seems a bit disingenuous, since to the uninitiated, it sounds like Birkeland was suggesting an iron core. In fact, he's talking about things that the sun dicharges. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 18:11:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I see, though it seems a bit disingenuous, since to the uninitiated, it sounds like Birkeland was suggesting an iron core. In fact, he's talking about things that the sun dicharges.
I wasn't trying to be disingenuous in any way, I'm just giving credit where credit is due as I see it. I've actually had a hard time deciding what the "core" might look like. Birkland inserted a very strong elecromagnet in his core, which would very much resemble with we might achieve with a neutron star core surrounded by plasma layers and then a large outer iron shell.
You might note by the way that the crust/surface of a neutron star is thought to be composed of mostly iron atoms that are entirely stripped of their electrons, so Dave's comments about the sun's iron content depends entirely on which model you're considering. At the moment I am in fact leaning in Dr. Manuel's direction involving a neutron star core, though my website still describes my original idea of a fission core.
This is a really good primer on the theory behind neutron stars by the way:
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/nstar.html
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 18:18:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I wasn't trying to be disingenuous in any way, I'm just giving credit where credit is due as I see it.
To say your theory relies on many of Birkland's ideas and experiments is giving credit. To claim that the sun having an iron surface is Birkland's theory is entirely disingenuous. (Although to be honest, even claiming that you have a theory or model at all is disingenuous.)
|
"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 08/15/2006 18:20:02 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 19:14:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I see, though it seems a bit disingenuous, since to the uninitiated, it sounds like Birkeland was suggesting an iron core. In fact, he's talking about things that the sun dicharges.
I wasn't trying to be disingenuous in any way, I'm just giving credit where credit is due as I see it. I've actually had a hard time deciding what the "core" might look like. Birkland inserted a very strong elecromagnet in his core, which would very much resemble with we might achieve with a neutron star core surrounded by plasma layers and then a large outer iron shell.
Ok, so can you show me (sort of directly) where Birkeland talks about the sun having an electromagnetic core? You've obviously had years to look at this and I'm just skimming basic stuff on him and can't find references for how he imagined the sun might be composed, etc. Since I can't find them, I think that calling something related to the make up of the sun "Birkeland" to be misleading. But perhaps I'm missing some key article or some such that he wrote. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 20:33:34 [Permalink]
|
There is one very important aspect of Birkeland's experiment that sets it apart from conditions at the sun:
The vector of the gravitational force around the globe. |
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. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
