|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
 Posted - 11/24/2005 : 20:09:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Why would you suspect 200K? And Iron melts at 1811K so it still wouldn't be solid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2000K figure comes from analysing the melting point of various alloys. I would have to assume that the sun is not homogenous, and would also include rocky materials as well. There are a couple of different meteorite fragments that I believe are indicative of the range of like crust compositions. I would assume that rocky materials are more common in the upper elevations.
Why would you assume the sun contains rocky materials? What do meteorite fragments have to do with the compostion of the sun? Why do you assume "rocky materials are more common in the upper elevations"? |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2005 : 21:33:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Okay I'm gonna need a reference showing where Nasa assumes that enough iron remains suspended in the upper layers of the sun to create a solid iron surface before I can take this seriously.
We don't seem to be communicating here. I did not try to suggest that NASA agrees with me about a solid surface on the sun. I simply suggested that "significant" quantities of iron are seen in the outer regions of the sun, and they do not believe that iron concentrates in the core. I was not suggesting that NASA agrees with my assesment of a predominantly iron surface that conducts electricity.
quote:
Mostly made of iron! Oh I see, he examined lunar and comet samples and made the mistake of assuming that the sun was of the same consistency. You see comets and lunar bodies don't have enough gravity to retain the lighter elements.
Don't you figure a Doctor of Nuclear chemistry thought about that? Actually his assesment was based on the concept that our sun and solar system were formed from supernova remnants. It was also based on the mass separation he witnessed in a variety of gases, in both lunar soils and comets. Have you read any of his work?
quote:
None of your links appear to provide any evidence for a solid sun. Perhaps you could spell it out for me.
I suggest you read the first couple of pages of my website. If you want the simplified version, you can download the PDF file "The (Ferrite) Surface Of The Sun". I wrote that prior to finding Dr. Manuel's work, so it is heavily focused on satellite imagery and spectral analysis data.
I suggest you reread the heliosiesmology paper and tell me what that layer corresponds to in gas model theory.
quote:
Yeah, they affect density but that's not how we calculate it. Density is just mass/volume. It's not terribly complicated as you pretend.
It isn't terribly complicated it you "assume" a stationary sun. The moment you stop thinking of the sun as the center of the universe, it gets a lot more complicated than you make it sound.
quote:
It almost seems like you're trying to make your own ideas seem reasonable by comparison.
No, it is that we both realize we can't "see" inside the sun. In comarison to gas model theories, I think we cetainly both agree we are closer to one another than to the gas model.
quote:
The idea that the sun is a neutron star is, of course, ridiculous but so is the idea that it's made of mostly solid iron.
When did arguement by ridicule become a good tool of a true "skeptic"?
Ridiculous in what way? Be scientifically precise please.
quote:
Again you are trying to equivocate about how density is calculated. The fact remains that density calculations highlight one of the many fatal flaws in your conjecture.
No, the density calculations of our sun simply highlight one of the many fatal flaws in gas model theory. If we ASSUME the sun is stationary and is the center of the universe, the arguement "seems" to make sense. The moment we look at the acceleration of the universe (recently confirmed again by the way), it becomes a lot more complicated. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2005 : 21:48:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why would these things matter?
Because any movement in the z axis "could" have (at least theoretically) a very significant impact on our perception of density.
quote:
Universal expansion doesn't take place within objects, and even if it did, the average density of the Sun should drop over time.
I was not trying to suggest that expansion happened within, only that the universe continues to accelerate and that "blunder" by Einstein was in fact recently confirmed. Natually that leads to the questions of "what causes this acceleration?", and "How does that affect 'density' calculations related to the sun?".
quote:
Secondly, the relativistic effects of the Sun's motion through space mean that to a stationary observer, the Sun is more dense than it would be if it weren't moving. How much? It is 1.000000269 times denser than it should be. That's about 27 millionths of one percent. If Matt is correct, then the actual density of the Sun would be about 1.399999623 times that of water.
I don't think we are quite talking about the same thing yet. If you look at the cover December's issue of Scientific American, it shows the "waves" the progate from the core of the galaxy. Our sun rides those waves. Furthermore, out sun also experiences whatever "force" is accelerating the unverse itself. These are the influence I am trying to describe. Newton used the analogy of a rock tied to a string. When you swing it around, you feel a force on the string. If however we move our and up and down while riding an accelerating elevator, the force on that string will increase significantly, even though from our "perspective", it might "seem" important.
quote:
Except, of course, that the Earth and the man-made satellites used to measure the Sun's density are all also moving along at the same speed as the Sun, so the relativistic effects don't matter.
I more or less agree with this idea, but some unidentied force is affecting the Voyager Spacecraft as they traverse our solar system.
quote:
Not that it matters, anyway. Your argument seems to require the Sun be more dense than we've measured it to be, yet both of your objections would make it less dense than measured.
It only requires that the sun is more dense in absolute terms than we have "seemed" to have measured it in relativistic terms. Even still, it is not clear how much density difference is required since we have no idea about the makeup of what is under the surface. I can only see the surface and the various plasma atmospheres, not what is under the surface.
Check out this movie showing a light air bubble inside a water "shell".
http://pof.aip.org/pof/gallery/video/2005/911509phflong.mov
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2005 : 21:53:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Why would you assume the sun contains rocky materials?
We find rocky materials in meteorites and we find evidence of various elements in spectral analysis of the photons coming from the sun.
quote:
What do meteorite fragments have to do with the compostion of the sun?
Potentially everything. Meteorites are typically associated with supernova remnants and supernovas are high in iron content and heavier elements. You don't find it odd that all the inner planets are high in iron content, and consistent with meteorite composition, but somehow the sun is completely different in composition than all it's closest neighbors? What is a good skeptic like me to believe about such a "theory"? :)
quote:
Why do you assume "rocky materials are more common in the upper elevations"?
Because they would be more apt to stay solid in the hotter, harsher conditions of the upper surfaces. These areas tend to be the positively charged lightening rods for the arcs that originate from the lower, more negatively charged surfaces. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2005 : 23:17:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Because any movement in the z axis "could" have (at least theoretically) a very significant impact on our perception of density.
Didn't I just show that if the Sun were moving at 220,000 mps relative to the Earth, we would only perceive a 27-millionths of a percent difference in its density? In order for relativistic effects to make even a 25% difference, the Sun would have to be moving 818 times as fast as it is.quote:
I was not trying to suggest that expansion happened within, only that the universe continues to accelerate and that "blunder" by Einstein was in fact recently confirmed. Natually that leads to the questions of "what causes this acceleration?", and "How does that affect 'density' calculations related to the sun?".
And how do you answer those questions in such a way as to claim the Sun's density is different than it is?quote:
I don't think we are quite talking about the same thing yet. If you look at the cover December's issue of Scientific American, it shows the "waves" the progate from the core of the galaxy. Our sun rides those waves. Furthermore, out sun also experiences whatever "force" is accelerating the unverse itself. These are the influence I am trying to describe.
Obviously, we're not talking about the same things. Why don't you describe the science you want to use to claim that the Sun's density is different from what we measure? "Universal expansion" and "motion in the Z axis" are obviously very bad descriptors, since they utterly fail to capture "riding waves from the core of the galaxy" and dark energy.quote:
Newton used the analogy of a rock tied to a string. When you swing it around, you feel a force on the string. If however we move our and up and down while riding an accelerating elevator, the force on that string will increase significantly, even though from our "perspective", it might "seem" important.
The above has so many grammar problems I can't even begin to parse it in scientific terms. Please try again.quote:
I more or less agree with this idea, but some unidentied force is affecting the Voyager Spacecraft as they traverse our solar system.
And that force would affect the Sun how, exactly?quote:
It only requires that the sun is more dense in absolute terms than we have "seemed" to have measured it in relativistic terms. Even still, it is not clear how much density difference is required since we have no idea about the makeup of what is under the surface. I can only see the surface and the various plasma atmospheres, not what is under the surface.
No, you claim that whatever is going on underneath the surface is nuclear fission, so whatever it is must be relatively heavy (hydrogen doesn't fission).quote:
Check out this movie showing a light air bubble inside a water "shell".
http://pof.aip.org/pof/gallery/video/2005/911509phflong.mov
I checked it out. What is it supposed to mean relative to the "iron shell" theory?
Hey, I'm also interested in what you think is creating electrical potentials across the face of a big iron sphere. Since electrons can move through iron at something approaching 0.10c, and at far lower speeds through whatever plasma might be floating above the iron (in your theory), one would think you'd never see any arcing at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2005 : 00:53:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
We don't seem to be communicating here. I did not try to suggest that NASA agrees with me about a solid surface on the sun. I simply suggested that "significant" quantities of iron are seen in the outer regions of the sun, and they do not believe that iron concentrates in the core. I was not suggesting that NASA agrees with my assesment of a predominantly iron surface that conducts electricity.
Oh okay, I'm not sure why you brought it up then, since it doesn't support your position.quote:
quote:
Mostly made of iron! Oh I see, he examined lunar and comet samples and made the mistake of assuming that the sun was of the same consistency. You see comets and lunar bodies don't have enough gravity to retain the lighter elements.
Don't you figure a Doctor of Nuclear chemistry thought about that?
Bit of mild sarcasm, forgive me.quote:
Actually his assesment was based on the concept that our sun and solar system were formed from supernova remnants. It was also based on the mass separation he witnessed in a variety of gases, in both lunar soils and comets. Have you read any of his work?
No, I haven't read any of his work. I read a couple of articles about him and his work while googling the subject though. It doesn't appear that he's yet gained much support for his "the sun is a supernova remnant" theory.quote:
quote:
None of your links appear to provide any evidence for a solid sun. Perhaps you could spell it out for me.
I suggest you read the first couple of pages of my website. If you want the simplified version, you can download the PDF file "The (Ferrite) Surface Of The Sun". I wrote that prior to finding Dr. Manuel's work, so it is heavily focused on satellite imagery and spectral analysis data.
I scanned your website.quote:
quote:
Yeah, they affect density but that's not how we calculate it. Density is just mass/volume. It's not terribly complicated as you pretend.
It isn't terribly complicated it you "assume" a stationary sun. The moment you stop thinking of the sun as the center of the universe, it gets a lot more complicated than you make it sound.
Only if we were travelling at relatavistic speeds in relation to the sun, but we're not.quote:
quote:
The idea that the sun is a neutron star is, of course, ridiculous but so is the idea that it's made of mostly solid iron.
When did arguement by ridicule become a good tool of a true "skeptic"?
Ridiculous in what way? Be scientifically precise please.
What would you call the idea that, the earth is actually a black hole? I'm just calling it as I see it. If you want rigourous scientific scrutiny I suggest taking your idea to qualified astrophysicists.quote:
No, the density calculations of our sun simply highlight one of the many fatal flaws in gas model theory. If we ASSUME the sun is stationary and is the center of the universe, the arguement "seems" to make sense. The moment we look at the acceleration of the universe (recently confirmed again by the way), it becomes a lot more complicated.
I assume that your talking about the accelerating expansion of the universe. The effect would be miniscule for an object the size of the sun. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2005 : 01:25:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Didn't I just show that if the Sun were moving at 220,000 mps relative to the Earth, we would only perceive a 27-millionths of a percent difference in its density? In order for relativistic effects to make even a 25% difference, the Sun would have to be moving 818 times as fast as it is.
We are not yet talking about the same thing. I am talking about the force of acceleration of the universe, and any and all movements in the z axis that may affect our "relative" concept of "density".
Again, I will go back to Newton's analogy of the rock on the string. If we assume a stationary sun, and only consider movement in the x,y plane, we may underestimate the force on the string. If we go back to the analogy of the rock swinging on a string while riding up in an elevator, it may require quite a bit more force to keep that rock stable in an x,y plane. Any deviation in the force of acceleration would also affect the amount of force required to hold the rock (in this case planets) in a stable x,y plane. I am talking about about any and all external influneces, and any changes in movement and changes in force, perhaps even changes in charges, not simply the "speed" the sun is currently traveling at the moment as you seem to be concerned with.
quote:
And how do you answer those questions in such a way as to claim the Sun's density is different than it is?
Actually, I technically did not. I simply "question" what influences our solar system experiences and how that MIGHT affect density. Did you watch that movie with the air bubble in the water shell?
I would however expect to discover that the percieved density is quite a bit underestimated at the moment based on an overly simplistic concept of movement. We know that the universe continues to accelerate. What is that force? What affect does this have on percieved density?
I only put real "faith" in what I can "see" in satellite images and "hear" in heliosiesmology data, and study via nuclear chemistry and repeat in each of these fields of sience.
How about taking that first image/movie on my website and explaining it with gas model theory? What is the light source? What is the structure? Why is the light source changing while the structures remain "stable"?
quote:
Obviously, we're not talking about the same things. Why don't you describe the science you want to use to claim that the Sun's density is different from what we measure? "Universal expansion" and "motion in the Z axis" are obviously very bad descriptors, since they utterly fail to capture "riding waves from the core of the galaxy" and dark energy.
So how do any current "density" calculations include the concept of "dark energy" into them?
quote:
The above has so many grammar problems I can't even begin to parse it in scientific terms. Please try again.
My appologies. I was in a hurry the last go round. I tried again above. Hopefully you get the idea. Imagine a rock on a string and the force on that string as it swings in the x,y plane. Now imaging riding up an elevator and experiencing acceleration in the z axis. The force on the string will increase significantly.
quote:
No, you claim that whatever is going on underneath the surface is nuclear fission, so whatever it is must be relatively heavy (hydrogen doesn't fission).
Yes, but xenon is a likely biproduct of fission, and pressure will directly relate to density. I do not know with any accuracy what the core and sun's inner regions might look like.
quote:
I checked it out. What is it supposed to mean relative to the "iron shell" theory?
The idea here is that a heavier shell can form over a pressurized core and it is therefore impossible to accurately predict the overall density of the sun.
quote:
Hey, I'm also interested in what you think is creating electrical potentials across the face of a big iron sphere. Since electrons can move through iron at something approaching 0.10c, and at far lower speeds through whatever plasma might be floating above the iron (in your theory), one would think you'd never see any arcing at all.
The fission processes from the core release free electrons and free protons. The electrons take the path of least resistence through the iron shell. The lower, thinner areas of the surface will typically be the most negatively charged, while the thicker, higher regions of the surface will be more positively charged.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 11/26/2005 01:30:22 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2005 : 02:54:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Didn't I just show that if the Sun were moving at 220,000 mps relative to the Earth, we would only perceive a 27-millionths of a percent difference in its density? In order for relativistic effects to make even a 25% difference, the Sun would have to be moving 818 times as fast as it is.
We are not yet talking about the same thing. I am talking about the force of acceleration of the universe, and any and all movements in the z axis that may affect our "relative" concept of "density".
Again, I will go back to Newton's analogy of the rock on the string. If we assume a stationary sun, and only consider movement in the x,y plane, we may underestimate the force on the string. If we go back to the analogy of the rock swinging on a string while riding up in an elevator, it may require quite a bit more force to keep that rock stable in an x,y plane. Any deviation in the force of acceleration would also affect the amount of force required to hold the rock (in this case planets) in a stable x,y plane. I am talking about about any and all external influences, and any changes in movement and changes in force, perhaps even changes in charges, not simply the "speed" the sun is currently travelling at the moment as you seem to be concerned with.
If the sun was deformed due to a force acting upon it in the z-axis, the deformation would be visible from Earth a quarter of a year later, as Earth's rotation around the Sun swaps the x-axis and z-axis.
Damn, I'm not thinking straight. I can't get it to make sense. Can it be that I've only slept 6 of the last 50 hours? |
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. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2005 : 04:29:21 [Permalink]
|
Michael
I don't think you are grasping the decisiveness of the density problem. In order for your model of the sun to be correct you would need the density of the sun to be something like an order of magnitude denser than what we measure it to be. (Instead of being 1.4 times the density of water you need it to be a bare minimum of 7 times the density of water!)
The effects that you mention are too miniscule to have such a large effect on density calculations of the sun. Seriously, calculate the amount of y axis movement that would be required to account for this. I think you'll find that it would require a hell of a shove, enough that it would be trivial to observe it. If you want universal expansion to account for it, we should be seeing galaxies torn apart by this massive force, or rather, never forming in the first place.
We presently have no reason to believe that density calculations for the sun are inaccurate. It follows that your model and not the evidence is incorrect.
If it were to turn out that the current calculations are hugely inaccurate then it may be reasonable to take another look at your model. But for now it's a fatal flaw that relegates it to the trash heap.
I think you may have become too emotionally invested in your solid sun model. You have obviously spent a lot of time and effort developing your ideas. I hope that you will try to reinterpret your data taking the actual density of the sun into account.
PS. If you'd be interested in poking holes in a conjecture of mine see this thread. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2005 : 11:26:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
We are not yet talking about the same thing. I am talking about the force of acceleration of the universe, and any and all movements in the z axis that may affect our "relative" concept of "density".
Again, I will go back to Newton's analogy of the rock on the string. If we assume a stationary sun, and only consider movement in the x,y plane, we may underestimate the force on the string. If we go back to the analogy of the rock swinging on a string while riding up in an elevator, it may require quite a bit more force to keep that rock stable in an x,y plane. Any deviation in the force of acceleration would also affect the amount of force required to hold the rock (in this case planets) in a stable x,y plane. I am talking about about any and all external influneces, and any changes in movement and changes in force, perhaps even changes in charges, not simply the "speed" the sun is currently traveling at the moment as you seem to be concerned with.
Tell me how these alleged accelerations affect our measurements of the Sun's average density. I know of no other method but relativity. Please tell me yours.quote:
quote:
And how do you answer those questions in such a way as to claim the Sun's density is different than it is?
Actually, I technically did not. I simply "question" what influences our solar system experiences and how that MIGHT affect density.
I know you didn't answer the questions. I want to know how you plan to answer the questions, as they seem central to your thesis.quote:
Did you watch that movie with the air bubble in the water shell?
You know I did, because I told you I did.quote:
I would however expect to discover that the percieved density is quite a bit underestimated at the moment based on an overly simplistic concept of movement. We know that the universe continues to accelerate. What is that force? What affect does this have on percieved density?
Those are the questions which you must answer in order to assert the primacy of the theories you champion. Until you do, you've got nothing more than unbridled speculation. Sure, dark energy might have an effect upon the measured density of the Sun, but until you can tell us the mechanism, and how much of an effect it has, you've got nothing.quote:
I only put real "faith" in what I can "see" in satellite images and "hear" in heliosiesmology data, and study via nuclear chemistry and repeat in each of these fields of sience.
And unfortunately, you've proven yourself impervious to criticism of the interpretation you give to what you "see" and "hear." Your faith is, indeed, strong. Stronger than reason.quote:
How about taking that first image/movie on my website and explaining it with gas model theory? What is the light source? What is the structure? Why is the light source changing while the structures remain "stable"?
There is no need to explain it with the gas model. What explains the images is the way they were produced, which is by taking a difference between two other images. The brightness of a pixel is directly related to the difference in brightness in two different images, so there is no "light source." There is no structure. That movie is not a video, no camera you can point at the Sun could ever "see" such things.quote:
So how do any current "density" calculations include the concept of "dark energy" into them?
What, isn't it obvious? To measure density, we divide the mass of an object by its volume. If dark energy has an effect on the Sun, it would be to push the outside of the Sun away from the inside, thus increasing the volume without increasing the mass, and so dropping (slightly) the density.
However, this effect would equally skew the density, whether the Sun has an iron shell or not.quote:
Imagine a rock on a string and the force on that string as it swings in the x,y plane. Now imaging riding up an elevator and experiencing acceleration in the z axis. The force on the string will increase significantly.
Please quantify "significantly."quote:
Yes, but xenon is a likely biproduct of fission...
Only if the fissile material was even large atoms. Uranium, for example, is more dense than iron.quote:
...and pressure will directly relate to density. I do not know with any accuracy what the core and sun's inner regions might look like.
You are positing a shell of solid iron around the entire Sun. In order for the average density of the Sun to be as low as it is, therefore, the interior must be much less dense than iron.quote:
The idea here is that a heavier shell can form over a pressurized core and it is therefore impossible to accurately predict the overall density of the sun.
Computing the average density of an object does not depend on its internal structure.quote:
The fission processes from the core release free electrons and free protons. The electrons take the path of least resistence through the iron shell. The lower, thinner areas of the surface will typically be the most negatively charged, while the thicker, higher regions of the surface will be more positively charged.
Why? Why would the electrons "congregate" at the thinner parts of the shell, and the protons congregate at the thicker parts? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2005 : 11:31:37 [Permalink]
|
I will state up front that I am no way near an expert (or even a neophyte) on this stuff.
But, having read this thread and the others on Bad Astronomy forums, it seems this whole theory is based on that one movie where the suface "looks" solid.
But this has been explained as merely the way in which the images were produced and is therefore of no consequence.
Since the very premise of this theory has been nullified, what is left?
edited for horrible attempts at english |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 11/26/2005 11:33:07 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2005 : 13:16:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
I will state up front that I am no way near an expert (or even a neophyte) on this stuff.
But, having read this thread and the others on Bad Astronomy forums, it seems this whole theory is based on that one movie where the suface "looks" solid.
That is simply not true. I have put together MANY, MANY, MANY images from three different satellite systems, and several ground based telescopes to support the solid surface model. At the bautforum, we never even got past the very first image. The running difference images are only one technique that allows us to see the surface. The surface is also visible in raw EIT images, and it has also been imaged via doppler images as well. These ideas are certainly not based on a single image or a single imaging technique. I suggest you read the pdf file I wrote originally to see the images I used to support my case, along with the spectral data I used to distinguish the various layers.
quote:
But this has been explained as merely the way in which the images were produced and is therefore of no consequence.
How does the production technique factor into this discussion, and how does it explain these images?
quote:
Since the very premise of this theory has been nullified, what is left?
Even if we took away the running difference images altogether, there are still pages and pages of images on my website to support these ideas. That tsunami video for instance was put together using the Doppler imager on SOHO. It too shows "structure" under the photosphere. In fact this is the same system and individual that put together the heliosiesmology evidence to support these ideas. Even if we took away all the satellite images I've used on my website, we still have heliosiesmology evidence to consider, not to mention the nuclear chemical data. There are many thing here to consider, not simply a single image. The problem is that no one could or ever has offered a reasonable alternative to explain these "structures" using gas model theory. It's not that there is but one image to support the idea, it's just that it only takes a single image to show that the gas model is fully incapable of explaining this stratified layer that sits just under the photosphere that we see in satellite images, and hear in heliosiesmology. If you disagree, show me what this stratified layer at .995R represents in gas model theory. What does gas model theory expect to find at .995R that is stratified in this way? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 11/26/2005 13:20:47 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2005 : 13:32:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
If the sun was deformed due to a force acting upon it in the z-axis, the deformation would be visible from Earth a quarter of a year later, as Earth's rotation around the Sun swaps the x-axis and z-axis.
Damn, I'm not thinking straight. I can't get it to make sense. Can it be that I've only slept 6 of the last 50 hours?
The sun stays in the same x,y plane that is relative to the sun's spin axis. I believe you are confusing the magnetic orienation of the sun's core with the idea that the solar system "rotates". The magnetic poles of the sun rotate relative to it's spin axis, but the planets circle the spin axis of the sun and do not rotate relative to the spin axis of the sun. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2005 : 13:50:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Michael
I don't think you are grasping the decisiveness of the density problem.
I don't think you are grasping the tenuousness of the density measurements, or the lack of accounting for any of the known forces of our universe in these calculations. For instance, where is there any evidence of "dark energy" being factored into density calculations? How about any concept of universal acceleration? Z axis movement of any sort? A completely heilocentric concept of reality cannot possibly be considered "decisive" in any way, shape of form. It is a very "weak" argument at best IMO, and it fails to address either the heliosiesmology evidence, the nuclear chemistry evidence, or the satellite observations.
quote:
In order for your model of the sun to be correct you would need the density of the sun to be something like an order of magnitude denser than what we measure it to be. (Instead of being 1.4 times the density of water you need it to be a bare minimum of 7 times the density of water!)
Again, you are "assuming" a relatively "solid" core without respect to heat or pressure, and without respect to anything I have personally claimed. You are essentually "assuming" something I personally did not assume (nor did Dr. Manuel) and trying to suggest this is a problem. It's not a problem, just a percieved problem.
quote:
The effects that you mention are too miniscule to have such a large effect on density calculations of the sun.
Says who? Again, you are just handwaving at this point and not addressing the core ideas I have presented. If we stop assuming our sun is stationary and the center of the universe, these density calculations become far more complex and certainly we cannot claim that one "relative" measurement disproves observed satellite evidence.
In order for you to disprove a solid surface model, you will need a lot more than a single measurement, expecially one that is bsed on heliocentric ideas.
quote:
Seriously, calculate the amount of y axis movement that would be required to account for this. I think you'll find that it would require a hell of a shove, enough that it would be trivial to observe it. If you want universal expansion to account for it, we should be seeing galaxies torn apart by this massive force, or rather, never forming in the first place.
Not at all. It would simply take more force to hold it together than we realize. The force on that string in absolute terms is significantly higher than it "appears" in relative terms.
quote:
We presently have no reason to believe that density calculations for the sun are inaccurate. It follows that your model and not the evidence is incorrect.
We do have good reason to believe this single measurement is based on several assumptions that have not been established, and that have in fact been falsified. There is no measurement that relates to dark matter in these calculations. There is no room for z axis movement of any sort in these calculations. We have every reason to distrust this single measurement as being "definite" toward any model. Again, unless you can explain the heliosiesmology data, the nuclear chemistry data, and the satellite images, it is meaningless IMO to attempt to use a heliocentric notion of reality to attempt to disprove observed phenomenon that has been confirmed three different ways.
quote:
If it were to turn out that the current calculations are hugely inaccurate then it may be reasonable to take another look at your model. But for now it's a fatal flaw that relegates it to the trash heap.
IMO, that is completely illogical. I did not claim the sun was "solid iron" in the first place, nor did I make a guess at overall "density". You are creating a "percieved" problem that is based on a heliocentric concept of reality.
quote:
I think you may have become too emotionally invested in your solid sun model. You have obviously spent a lot of time and effort developing your ideas. I hope that you will try to reinterpret your data taking the actual density of the sun into account.
I have far less emotional and psychological attachment to these ideas than most professional gas model theorists. I have a day job that is completely independent on these ideas being "true", and my career is completely unaffected if it turns out I am wrong. On the other hand, many professional astronomers have built their funding streams and career on gas model theory. I have nothing really to lose by being wrong here, and I have not even attempted to profit from the idea. My actually emotional investment in these ideas is quite minimal compared to what gas model theoriests are going through at the moment.
The key issue is this IMO:
Can you use gas model theory to explain real life observation or not? In other words, what is that stratified layer seen in heliosiesmology at .995R? What does that represent in gas model theory? What is that structure we see in doppler and running difference and raw EIT images? What is the light source? Why does this structure rotate uniformly from pole to equator?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
