|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 09/04/2006 : 16:15:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Oh, I see what the problem is: you've fabricated some new "tensor field" and attributed expansion to its effects, just so that you can say that there's no evidence for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
No Dave, astronomers did that all by themselves.
Wait a minute, my bad. This would evidently represent two *scalar* fields that are unevidenced, not a scalar and a tensor field. My bad. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 16:19:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The word "tensor" doesn't appear in that article at all, Michael. A cosmological constant is a single scalar value, and quintessence would come from a scalar field.
You're absolutely right. I evidently noted my mistake about the same time you responded. In theory at least, "energy" would represent atype of particle/scalar field, not a tensor field.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 16:32:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
My "attitude" is due to months of dealing with your double-standard of demanding that we stick to the science, but then trotting out your strawman versions of the theories and "defeating" them.
That works both ways Dave.
quote:
No, it's ridicule of your obvious lack of knowledge.
So I should "ridicule" you for not knowing that an inflaton field was a scalar field?
quote:
You've been given numerous links through which you could learn about the actual standard solar model or the actual Big Bang theory, but you're so dead-set on remaining ignorant of them that
your "criticisms" are literally ridiculous.
Oh boloney. My criticism was of your ingorance of unevidenced "infaton" particles that are utterly unfalsifyable. That criticism remains exactly the same as it was when I started. The fact you didn't even know that Guth's "poof" theories were based on unevidence scalar fields isn't my fault, and they still remain unevidenced and worse yet, they are unfalsifyable as well.
quote:
No, the problem is that you don't want to wait for replication of the results, a necessary aspect of actual science. If those researchers turn out to be wrong, then the Big Bang theory hasn't failed.
You're the one not waiting for verification or falsification of these results *before* claiming BB theory is "valid". I'm just looking for simple parity, remember? You're the one who wants "exclusivity" as it relates to what we teach in college, not me.
quote:
Yes, Michael, it is your religious dogma. We've been telling you that it's not science for many months now, but you just dig your head in the sand even deeper every time you're shown that your caricatures of the theories in question are not reflected in what the scientists actually say.
Oh sure Dave, it's me that is teaching folks "religious dogma".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory
quote:
In 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest, independently derived the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae, that the universe began with the "explosion" of a "primeval atom"—what was later called the Big Bang.[4]
That sure sounds like a convenient creation event if you ask me. It even has it's own "primeval 'atom'" at the 'eve' of the unevidenced infation phase. Creation myth indeed.
quote:
There's more of your religious dogma again. You absolutely refuse to tell us to what degree the standard solar model uses settling of heavy elements, because you don't know.
I certainly do know that it does not allow for separation of plasmas by element Dave. You'ver personally provided tons of links. If I had any questions about standard theory and how "much" separation it allows for, I could certainly look it up.
You don't seem to have to even justify your belief that plasmas don't separate by the elements, you simply "assume" that convection forces keep everything in check, regardless of that subsurface stratification layer sitting smack dab in the middle of a presumably open convection zone.
I'm going to grab a cup of coffee, take a break and I'll respond to anything else interesting in your post a bit later.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/04/2006 16:37:40 |
|
|
|
upriver
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 16:56:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Oh, by the way, it's a real shame that upriver is continuing to undermine your whole theory by demanding lab tests without calculations before something will be considered "true."
Bull puckey. You can be an such an *ss.
I'm asking for lab proof of a BB spectrum from gas/plamsa, for 50 years of calculations, stellar observations, and refutations.
The highest temp BB source that I know of.
"Canada's Ultimate Light Ruler"
"In order to produce the required UV radiation, the graphite core is heated to approximately 3230 ºC, a temperature at which almost all metals melt – hence the name an ultra high-temperature blackbody."
http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/highlights/2006/0602blackbody_e.html |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 17:19:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
There is no "requirement" that a mostly iron sun must *automatically* exceed the average density of current theory. The internal arrangement of plasmas would have to be very different than you seem to imagine, but the density *could be* exactly the same as current theory. Just like the ton of feathers vs. the ton of iron, the only difference will be the materials used, and the arrangement of the materials, but the total mass would not change, and therefore the average density would not change.
Well this is where I'm lost. iron is dense. Helium and hydrogen aren't. If I'm wrong, please let me know! However, assuming I'm right, then a thing made mostly out of iron is going to be more dense than a thing made mostly out of hydrogen.
According to " target="_blank">this site, the earth, which is made up of about 36% iron, 29% oxygen, 15% silocon, and 12% magnesium, is one of the densest bodies in the solar system. Think about it-- a body made up of only a third of iron is really really dense. It's far more dense than the sun. Yet you're proposing that the sun is made up largely of a very dense element-- iron-- in percentages higher than the earth!!
I don't understand your feather-iron analogy. I mean, you're right that, say, kilogram of feathers and a kilogram of iron have the same mass. (Uh, one kilogram?) But then you say-- and I am a bit confused, I admit-- "total mass would not change, and therefore the average density would not change." Perhaps my physics teacher was an idiot, but m doesn't equal d, Michael. Indeed, d=m/v.
I won't rehash the argument because if you haven't gotten it by now, then you aren't going to get it. But the point is that we know the sun's mass and volume, and so we know its density. But that density is far too low for a body made up of 50%+ iron.
quote:
It *could be* true (and I think it is true) that he sun is actually more dense than we realize in "absolute" terms, but a mostly iron sun would not need to *necessarily* exceed the average density that is proposed by gas model theory.
This is where we insert the metaphysical stuff, right?
quote:
quote:
Thus, I reject your iron sun theory with not the tiniest bit of guilt. Yes, you're happy to talk images-- you can weave and dodge for weeks (as has been shown), but when asked to explain something that should be at the forefront of your model, you brush it off.
This is no better than me blowing off the gas model theory for failing to explain the sun's stable magnetic fields or the heat source of the corona. You are taking *one* "percieved" weakness, and assuming that this "weakness" gives you a valid reason for rejecting *every* aspect of the model that has been presented. If you are going to go that direction, then you should necessarily reject gas model theory for the fact it cannot explain the heat source of the corona.
Hardly, though it's clear that you think so. Here's the deal-- mass, gravity, volume, and density are all pretty basic things. The industrialized world functions because we know them pretty well. So any time you're going to suggest a radical change in, say, the chemical make-up of the largest object (by far) in the solar system, it should be able to account for these things.
Your argument, on the other hand, is based on looking at some images and saying that intuiatively, they cannot be what other people say they are. The images, mind you, are of an object 93 million miles away. Moreover, even though it's almost a million miles in diameter, you're looking at it on a tiny little computer screen. Thus, ever pixel represents some ridiculous amount of surface area.
You suggest that we should see movement and the like. But should we? To the degree you demand? I noted that a person on the moon would likely see no movement of water. Would he be correct in positing that the earth was made up of 70% laips?
It sounds like you want all weaknesses to be treated equally. But they aren't. I recently struggled with this in my own field of research. But no matter how badly I want my own cray idea that riaducally alters our understanding to be true, if it can't address basic questions, then it's probably not true.
[Edited to fix quote hierachy. //Dr. Mabuse] |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 09/04/2006 18:20:35 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 17:55:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yes? So what?
So what? Well, for starters, you're whole inflation stage of BB theory is predicated on the CMBR data from WMAP showing a relatively uniform microwave background. The one bit "prediction" this theory made that you latched onto was this tidbit of data. It turns out however that this theory fails not one, but two additional tests, namely the shadows and the lensing effects we should also observe but do not. If your whole basis for creating an unobserved and unfalsifyable hypothesis is based on CMBR data, then your whole premise just got shot in foot, in fact it got shot in *both* feet. I'd say that's important, wouldn't you?
quote:
Just how "critical" are these tests, Michael? That's right: you don't know that, either, since you don't know the Big Bang theory.
I knew enough to post the link to this article here Dave. I know it has significance the inflation stage of BB theory, even if you refuse to look at this data. There is evidently no evidence of lensing as we would expect to see in these meausurements, and there is no evidence of shadowing effects in this data either. If a CMBR is the whole basis for creating unevidenced and unfalsifyable particle/waves, then this data definely demonstrates how "ad hoc" it really was.
The "dark energy" *scalar* field is only the *second* ad hoc field created to prop up BB theory.
quote:
quote:
I'd say your faith in BB theory was "undermined" by these two failed predictions, but you go ahead and deny it if you like and insult me to boot if it makes you feel better.
You're saying that I have faith in Big Bang theory is what's insulting, Michael. Go ahead an pretend that you don't dish out insults. That's insulting, too.
Evidently you have a problem accepting that faith is a natural part of life. I don't.
You have been constantly advocating BB theory as being "the best" theory we have to explain how we got here, and have defended it being the only theory taught in college. You evidently have some "faith" in the idea scientifically. I do not. This is something I have to acknowledge, and you must as well. I am an "atheist" as it relates to BB theory. I lack faith in the idea of unevidenced and unfalsifyable particles and fields. You do not lack such faith, or you would not even attempt to defend these ideas from a scientific perspective.
From a scientific perspective however, you have no evidence of any sort to directly support the belief that inflaton fields ever existed, or that dark energy exists. At best you have observations that could be "interpreted"" to support this idea, but even such an "interpretation" takes "faith" in one's cognitive and scientific abilities. There's nothing wrong with "faith", and it's not a dirty word, it's a natural part of life IMO. I accept that I have "faith" in things that I can "observe", which is why I have faith in the surface of the sun. On the other hand I do not have faith in particles and fields that I cannot observe, and that are unfalsifyable to begin with.
quote:
It's the only theory with enough data supporting it to teach in colleges today. Would you prefer that nothing at all is taught?
You have the "belief" that it's the only theory with enough supporting evidence to teach in college. That is not fact, that is an "opinion" (if you don't like the term faith).
I would prefer that they teach a *variety* of different and competing ideas Dave. I am not trying to remove BB theory or gas model theory from the classroom, I'm simply trying to have other ideas added to the curriculum in case those first two theories don't pan out. I'd even be happy with "ranking" them a bit in order of "most likely" and "least likely", but I do not advocate teaching a *singular* viewpoint, even my own viewpoint!
quote:
quote:
...even while that theory continues to fail in every prediction it has ever made. How does that work?
It's obviously your faith getting in the way again, since you haven't presented evidence that the Big Bang has failed "in every prediction it has ever made."
Well, it failed to predict the formation timeline of galaxies, that is for sure. While it evidently predicted the *existence* of microwave radiation, it evidently didn't predict it's "layout" as we would expect to observe it, in terms of lensing or in terms of shadowing, so it's one claim to fame seems pretty damn flimsy. What exactly are you claiming that it accurately predicted *before* being "modified" to fit with direct observation?
quote:
Because we know the universe is not static, Michael.
You only assume this to be true, because you assume Arp's work is not valid. If Arp's observations are valid, then you don't *know* this to be "fact".
quote:
The "expansion oriented tensor field" is something of your own creation, Michael, so of course it'd be really hard for a dead guy to have proposed something that you just made up.
Actually, I'll give you that one. It was the acceleration via "dark energy" that got "made up" after the guy was "dead". It's two made up *scalar* fields that are the problem, not the dead guy's work.
quote:
Really? How did they get the two STEREO satellites millions of miles apart in order to test the theory that they can triangulate properly at such vast distances? That's right, they didn't.
So what? They tested the gear in some detail Dave. Triangulating over vast distances is simply one of those "math" processes you like so much.
quote:
upriver has said that calculations like that don't count, since the theory might be wrong.
These aren't the same kinds of " |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 18:23:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Well this is where I'm lost. iron is dense. Helium and hydrogen aren't. If I'm wrong, please let me know! However, assuming I'm right, then a thing made mostly out of iron is going to be more dense than a thing made mostly out of hydrogen.
Well, let's start with an example of where your assumptions about density might not work as well as you think. Suppose we took two one liter containers, and filled one up with cooled liquid hydrogen gas, and we filled the other liter with very hot, thin, iron plasma. Due to the increadible temperature of the iron plasma, the liter of iron plasma, may not contain many iron atoms, and therefore only be half as heavy as the cooled liter of liquid hydrogen. In that case temperature and density could make a big difference in total weight of the liter, and therefore the "average" density of the liter.
quote:
According to " target="_blank">this site, the earth, which is made up of about 36% iron, 29% oxygen, 15% silocon, and 12% magnesium, is one of the densest bodies in the solar system. Think about it-- a body made up of only a third of iron is really really dense. It's far more dense than the sun. Yet you're proposing that the sun is made up largely of a very dense element-- iron-- in percentages higher than the earth!!
This is true, but then the earth isn't filled with plasma. I've also proposed "charge repulsion" as a mechanism for holding up a mostly iron shell. These sorts of things also have to be included in an "average density" type scenario. The interior of a large object would necessarily have to be different than the interior of a smaller body.
quote:
I won't rehash the argument because if you haven't gotten it by now, then you aren't going to get it. But the point is that we know the sun's mass and volume, and so we know its density. But that density is far too low for a body made up of 50%+ iron.
It's really a configuration issue that goes back to the liquid hydrogen/iron plasma idea. As long as the "liter" is the same size, as long as the overall weight is the same, the "density" will be exactly the same. The only difference here is that the interior would have to be far lighter than the shell itself in terms of "average density", meaning the interior would have to be pretty pressurized or thre would have to be charge repulsion involved, or both.
quote:
This is where we insert the metaphysical stuff, right?
No. Actually, all I technically inserted was "acceleration" in the z-axis. You might call that movement "unevidenced", but you could not call that explanation "metaphyiscal". Since the solar sheath is not circular, there is actually some evidence that the sun may be moving and/or accelerating in toward the southern hemisphere. According to even contemporary theory, the universe is accelerating. I'm simply explaining that acceleration as a function of the EM fields we're surfing.
quote:
Hardly, though it's clear that you think so. Here's the deal-- mass, gravity, volume, and density are all pretty basic things.
Well, yes and know. They are "basic" things, but even "basic" things can be trickier than you might imagine, particularly when the number of "basic" things isn't well understood. "Electricity" is also a "basic" force and a "basic" idea, but it's role in astronomy is not very well understood. Even basic things are tricky at times, we should not take too much for granted.
quote:
The industrialized world functions because we know them pretty well. So any time you're going to suggest a radical change in, say, the chemical make-up of the largest object (by far) in the solar system, it should be able to account for these things.
I've tried very hard to make sure to account for these things which is why I subscribe to the notion that charge repulsion, and external EM forces on plasma most likely play a significant role in holding up the outer shell, and keeping the total weight of the sun quite reasonable, even with a dense outer shell.
quote:
Your argument, on the other hand, is based on looking at some images and saying that intuiatively, they cannot be what other people say they are.
I didn't say that. At first I half expected someone at NASA or LMSAL to offer me a better explanations for these images, but that did not happen. In fact most of these folks didn't have any explanation at all. Not many complete "explanations" have been offered that include any of the details of these images. Some people like Neal from Lockheed won't even offer me an explanation. The only way I can know if their explanation is plausible is to hear it. That hasn't happened.
quote:
The images, mind you, are of an object 93 million miles away. Moreover, even though it's almost a million miles in diameter, you're looking at it on a tiny little computer screen. Thus, ever pixel represents some ridiculous amount of surface area.
Yes, that is all true, but that changes nothing here as it relates to what I see and what I observe. I realize that each pixel represents a large area, but that is true on other wavelengths as well. Only in the 171, 195 and 284A image do we see evidence of "non moving" "structures". The helium filter difference movies show something quite different.
quote:
You suggest that we should see movement and the like. But should we? To the degree you demand? I noted that a person on the moon would likely see no movement of water. Would he be correct in positing that the earth was made up of 70% laips?
It's funny you should ask this, because techinically that's kind of exactly what gas model theory does. They point the spectrometer at the sun, notice most of the photons come from hydrogen and suppose that most of the sun is made of hydrogen.
quote:
It sounds like you want all weaknesses to be treated equally. But they aren't. I recently struggled with |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9692 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 18:53:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
This is true, but then the earth isn't filled with plasma. I've also proposed "charge repulsion" as a mechanism for holding up a mostly iron shell. These sorts of things also have to be included in an "average density" type scenario. The interior of a large object would necessarily have to be different than the interior of a smaller body.
I have a few questions regarding the charge repulsion:
1) Is the outer mostly-iron shell electrically conductive?
2) What electrostatic(?) charge does the neutron core have?
3) What electrostatic(?) charge does the outer shell have?
4) Give a rough estimate of the potential difference between outer shell and inner core. |
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. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 19:09:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Well this is where I'm lost. iron is dense. Helium and hydrogen aren't. If I'm wrong, please let me know! However, assuming I'm right, then a thing made mostly out of iron is going to be more dense than a thing made mostly out of hydrogen.
Well, let's start with an example of where your assumptions about density might not work as well as you think. Suppose we took two one liter containers, and filled one up with cooled liquid hydrogen gas, and we filled the other liter with very hot, thin, iron plasma. Due to the increadible temperature of the iron plasma, the liter of iron plasma, may not contain many iron atoms, and therefore only be half as heavy as the cooled liter of liquid hydrogen. In that case temperature and density could make a big difference in total weight of the liter, and therefore the "average" density of the liter.
And this is why I hate having this discussion with you. While there are certainly hard numbers that can be used to show me how this would work, you offer none. Instead, you make an appear to logic and leave it at that.
What is the density of iron plasma? How does it compare to plasma made up of hydrogen and helium? Is it more dense? Less dense? How much have you actually thought about it? Have you worked out numbers to show that this could actually still fit with the numbers we know for the sun's density? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26025 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 19:13:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
My "attitude" is due to months of dealing with your double-standard of demanding that we stick to the science, but then trotting out your strawman versions of the theories and "defeating" them.
That works both ways Dave.
When did I ever demand that you stick to the science, Michael?quote:
quote:
No, it's ridicule of your obvious lack of knowledge.
So I should "ridicule" you for not knowing that an inflaton field was a scalar field?
You already did, and then stuck your foot in your mouth by bragging about things you did which never actually happened. If you really want to ridicule me, you should find something less embarrassing to yourself.quote:
quote:
You've been given numerous links through which you could learn about the actual standard solar model or the actual Big Bang theory, but you're so dead-set on remaining ignorant of them that your "criticisms" are literally ridiculous.
Oh boloney. My criticism was of your ingorance of unevidenced "infaton" particles that are utterly unfalsifyable. That criticism remains exactly the same as it was when I started. The fact you didn't even know that Guth's "poof" theories were based on unevidence scalar fields isn't my fault, and they still remain unevidenced and worse yet, they are unfalsifyable as well.
Thanks for proving my point, which is that what's ridiculous is your dogmatic assertions that the theories are unevidenced and unfalsifiable.quote:
You're the one not waiting for verification or falsification of these results *before* claiming BB theory is "valid".
Big Bang theory was valid until these results came in, and now it's validity is in question. It hasn't been falsified. No single experiment has that kind of power, Michael.quote:
I'm just looking for simple parity, remember? You're the one who wants "exclusivity" as it relates to what we teach in college, not me.
If any other theory had the same amount of science going favoring it, then it should be taught in college. Name one.quote:
quote:
Yes, Michael, it is your religious dogma. We've been telling you that it's not science for many months now, but you just dig your head in the sand even deeper every time you're shown that your caricatures of the theories in question are not reflected in what the scientists actually say.
Oh sure Dave, it's me that is teaching folks "religious dogma".
Yes, it is, and as proof of your religious intolerance, I cite the fact that you didn't address the above point, but instead just went on the attack:quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theoryquote:
In 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest, independently derived the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae, that the universe began with the "explosion" of a "primeval atom"—what was later called the Big Bang.[4]
That sure sounds like a convenient creation event if you ask me. It even has it's own "primeval 'atom'" at the 'eve' of the unevidenced infation phase. Creation myth indeed.
So you're upset because this piece of science jives with some Christian ideas? With that sort of logic, we'd have to invalidate most scientific findings, since there's always someone out there claiming that some bit of science "proves God."
Of course, I don't imagine you ever tried to find out Friedmann's religious views, did you? How about Robertson and Walker?quote:
I certainly do know that it does not allow for separation of plasmas by element Dave. You'ver personally provided tons of links. If I had any questions about standard theory and how "much" separation it allows for, I could certainly look it up.
Yes, but you won't bother doing so.quote:
You don't seem to have to even justify your belief that plasmas don't separate by the elements, you simply "assume" that convection forces keep everything in check, regardless of that subsurface stratification layer sitting smack dab in the middle of a presumably open convection zone.
Apparently, you don't understand what a 0.1% density difference means. "Subsurface stratification layer." If Kosovichev were dead he'd be rolling in his grave right now. Just where did you find evidence of such a "layer" at a depth of 100,000 km, anyway? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26025 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 19:30:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by upriver
I'm asking for lab proof of a BB spectrum from gas/plamsa, for 50 years of calculations, stellar observations, and refutations.
Yet you can't provide a blackbody spectrum matching the Sun's from condensed matter, despite making the positive claim that that is the only possibility. If you're not going to meet the standards you set, I don't see why anyone else should have to jump through your hoops. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26025 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 19:46:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well, let's start with an example of where your assumptions about density might not work as well as you think. Suppose we took two one liter containers, and filled one up with cooled liquid hydrogen gas, and we filled the other liter with very hot, thin, iron plasma. Due to the increadible temperature of the iron plasma, the liter of iron plasma, may not contain many iron atoms, and therefore only be half as heavy as the cooled liter of liquid hydrogen. In that case temperature and density could make a big difference in total weight of the liter, and therefore the "average" density of the liter.
I can't believe that you just said that the density might make a difference to the density. And what does weight have to do with anything? We're talking about mass.
If you start out by putting 1,000 grams of iron into the bottle, then you can heat it as much as you want (assuming a magic bottle that will never melt or deform), and the average density inside the bottle will never change from being one gram per cubic centimeter.
(Unless, of course, you include Einstein's E=mc2 into your considerations, in which case the heat makes the measured density increase compared to what it "really is.")
Or, let's take things the other way, and dump a one-microgram-per-cc iron plasma into the bottle. How do you propose that the temperature would affect its density? Of course, if we change the density (by crushing the bottle, for example) then the density will change (duh). How do you think temperature will change the density of what's in the bottle? Do you really think that if we cool it down to room temperature and open the bottle, we'll find more (or less) than one milligram of iron in it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9692 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 22:06:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by upriver
quote:
Oh, by the way, it's a real shame that upriver is continuing to undermine your whole theory by demanding lab tests without calculations before something will be considered "true."
Bull puckey. You can be an such an *ss.
I'm asking for lab proof of a BB spectrum from gas/plamsa, for 50 years of calculations, stellar observations, and refutations.
The highest temp BB source that I know of.
"Canada's Ultimate Light Ruler"
"In order to produce the required UV radiation, the graphite core is heated to approximately 3230 ºC, a temperature at which almost all metals melt – hence the name an ultra high-temperature blackbody."
http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/highlights/2006/0602blackbody_e.html
The link provides no information what-so-ever about radiation from gas or plasma. So what was the point of including it in this discussion? It only serves to distract from the issues at hand. |
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26025 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2006 : 09:14:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The link provides no information what-so-ever about radiation from gas or plasma. So what was the point of including it in this discussion? It only serves to distract from the issues at hand.
No, Mab, I asked upriver to live by his own standards, and show us all "condensed matter" in the lab creating a blackbody spectrum matching the Sun. The best he could come up was a cavity blackbody, some 3,000°C cooler than the Sun, and for which I am unable to find a spectrum anyway. So, upriver has failed to support his own contention in the same way he expects us to support ours, and so the idea that "condensed matter" is capable of generating a blackbody spectrum matching the Sun's is nothing but wild conjecture on his part. |
- 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 - 09/05/2006 : 09:21:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
And this is why I hate having this discussion with you. While there are certainly hard numbers that can be used to show me how this would work, you offer none. Instead, you make an appear to logic and leave it at that.
I was simply trying to point out to you that temperature and pressure and/or charge repulsion would affect any concept we might have of "absolute density". Any figures I might have put on the table would have been "made up" in the first place. It was simply a conceptual example.
quote:
What is the density of iron plasma? How does it compare to plasma made up of hydrogen and helium? Is it more dense? Less dense? How much have you actually thought about it? Have you worked out numbers to show that this could actually still fit with the numbers we know for the sun's density?
I've not tried to sit down and create in inner plasma pressure/temperature/charge model to express this idea in full detail. I've played with some rough calculations, but I'm not suggesting I can accurately describe the internal structure of the sun yet, complete with temperature, pressure and density figures. For the last bit of time, I've been more focused on what goes on on the *outside* of the solar surface since that is the part that I can actually observe.
The only method I know of to create a complete internal model would be to first isolate the densities of the external layers and then use that data, to compute inner densities based on heliosiesmology data. I would say we are a *long* way away from that kind of detailed model. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
