Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Astronomy
 surface of the sun
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 17

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 11/29/2005 :  13:13:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

Excuse me? No one has demonstrated that the force of acceleration of our universe would not have a significant impact on density calculations. PERIOD!
Yes, I did. Last night.


I may have missed a post or two yesterday Dave. If so, I appologize. I may not have time to catch up and keep moving forward today, but I'll see if I missed something that was relavant.



quote:
If that force (which you refuse to quantify)


Woah. It's not "me personally" that refuses to quantify that force. I will be happy to quantify it as "moving inertial mass that is contained within photons". I will be happy to discuss "dark energy" as moving particles of light.

It is really mainstream science that refuses to quantify "dark energy". They claim it makes up most of the mass of the universe, but they refuse to explain *EXACTLY* (in a scientifically precise way) what it is. Don't blame me for confusing labels and lack of quantification. That mystery is planet wide. I'm willing to put interial mass on the table for discussion, but unless mainstream science is willing to go there, I can't really move forward on that idea.

How about you tell me what kind of "dark matter" pushes against and repels other forms of matter, and how you know it's not light particles doing the pushing?

quote:
had a "significant" impact across a distance of just 92 million miles,[/quote]

I'll have to stop you here again, and explain where you got this figure, since I have no idea where you get this idea, or how you are quantifying "dark energy" and "dark matter" in a non metaphysical way.

quote:
we would know about it as our calculations here on Earth varied as we float around the Sun and zip through the galaxy. Because we can measure the density of pure water at STP (and other simple substances) to be unwavering to within however-many decimal places over decades, we can be certain that the "acceleration of our universe" does not affect our density measurements to a measurable degree, period.
[/quote]

I think you are confusing the concept of "relativity" and relative density with some expectation of change over time. I see no reason to believe that the "relative density" would change much until we got close to the speed of light, but the the density of the sun relative to the earth will be predicated upon the whole range of motions and forces the permiate our universe. We seem to be comparing apples and oranges here.
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 11/29/2005 :  14:03:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Your paper stated that the sun is what was left after a supernova explosion, that is unsupportable and the article above in no way supports that view.

It is not as though we are suggesting that the supernova blew up and left in the center was a sun.

From your paper:
quote:
The Iron Sun formed on the collapsed core of a supernova and now acts as a magnetic plasma diffuser, as did the precursor star, separating ions by mass.

I don't know where I got the idea that you were saying the sun fromed from the collapsed core of a supernova

Clearly I am just reading things into what you wrote.


If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

dv82matt
SFN Regular

760 Posts

Posted - 11/29/2005 :  14:06:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send dv82matt a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt

Well I realize that you don't sweat context or comprehension, but this should be beyond even you. You're talking to yourself!


Gah! How embarassing. :)

I guess that's what I get for trying to get by on two hours sleep the night before and trying to answer these messages between tech calls. :)
Very well, I appreciate the fact that you acknowledged your mistake and did not simply ignore it.

I wonder though if your lack of sleep combined with attempting to respond to so many different posters is preventing you from giving due consideration to your resposes to the points being raised.

For example, to use a balloon as an analogy for the sun as you have done requires a serious denial of reality.

First of all you are ignoring gravity by using this analogy. Gravity is not a significant factor affecting the structure of a balloon, but it is a huge factor affecting the structure of the sun.

Secondly, the balloon model of the sun implies that if the iron structure of the sun were breached at any point, then the lighter interior would begin leaking away. If the breach were large enough then the sun would explosively turn itself inside out.

No matter how you look at it the balloon model of the sun is unstable. These are issues that you should have considered before proposing it.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25997 Posts

Posted - 11/29/2005 :  15:05:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

I may have missed a post or two yesterday Dave. If so, I appologize. I may not have time to catch up and keep moving forward today, but I'll see if I missed something that was relavant.
I assure you, you have.
quote:
Woah. It's not "me personally" that refuses to quantify that force. I will be happy to quantify it as "moving inertial mass that is contained within photons". I will be happy to discuss "dark energy" as moving particles of light.
The link you provided quantified the effect of dark energy as if Einstein's Cosmological Constant were 0.85 (instead of Einstein's 1.0). It should be easy to determine how the 0.85 figure would effect our ability to measure the Sun's density with accuracy.
quote:
It is really mainstream science that refuses to quantify "dark energy". They claim it makes up most of the mass of the universe, but they refuse to explain *EXACTLY* (in a scientifically precise way) what it is.
You've got your dark stuff backwards. Dark matter makes up most of the mass of the universe. We can only "see" it as it effects non-dark matter gravitationally. Dark energy is a repulsive force, acting opposite to gravity.
quote:
Don't blame me for confusing labels and lack of quantification. That mystery is planet wide.
No, it seems to exist only in your ignorance of what scientists say about these things.
quote:
quote:
had a "significant" impact across a distance of just 92 million miles,
I'll have to stop you here again, and explain where you got this figure, since I have no idea where you get this idea...
The only reason I can see why we cannot measure the Sun's mass and volume accurately would be because dark matter (or energy) somehow affect it differently than they affect things here on Earth, 92 million miles away from the Sun.
quote:
...or how you are quantifying "dark energy" and "dark matter" in a non metaphysical way.
My density argument actually does not require quantifying them in any way, other than to note that they affect the Earth and the Sun equally, as should be obvious.
quote:
I think you are confusing the concept of "relativity" and relative density with some expectation of change over time. I see no reason to believe that the "relative density" would change much until we got close to the speed of light, but the the density of the sun relative to the earth will be predicated upon the whole range of motions and forces the permiate our universe. We seem to be comparing apples and oranges here.
You have not been clear at all on how (through what mechanisms) you think any of the factors you've mentioned might affect our ability to accurately measure the Sun's mass and volume. I can only write about what I know of these things.

For example, "relative" density is all we have. God didn't hand us the kilogram, we made it up. There is no absolute unit of measurement. And, we understand much of how General and Special Relativity effect these things, and apparently have a good grip on dark energy, too. None of these things could possibly have an "orders of magnitude" effect upon our density measurements of the Sun while at the same time allow us to be able to effectively launch probes to other planets.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 11/29/2005 :  16:32:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
My question to you now, Mr. Mozina, is do you mean "mostly" by mass or by volume?


Mass. Volume is a different issue altogether.

quote:
Furthermore, some more thinking on the "density question" provides further insight. For one thing, nowhere does anyone articulate the idea that forces generated by dark matter or dark energy fluctuate. In fact, one of the links you recently offered us states that dark energy can be treated like Einstein's Cosmological Constant, in that it's effects are uniform and steady. And dark matter, of course, behaves just like any other matter. So, these two things would affect density calculations in exactly the same way regardless of the composition of the Sun, and would also effect density calculations of every other solar-system body the same way, including the Earth.


I would say that is just one more reason to consider the inertial mass of photons to be that missing mass. The implications of this model is that electromagnetic forces may also play a large role in the acceleration of iron bodies.

quote:
So yet another question to you, Mr. Mozina, is: are our calculations of Earth's density correct or not?


In relative terms, sure. In absolute terms? I don't really know until we can actually agree on what dark matter and dark energy might be.

quote:
Another one would be, can we correctly calculate the density of a cubic centimeter of water?


In relative terms, sure.

quote:
Since dark energy and dark matter are only stipulated to have measurable effects on a galactic scale, then if we can accurately measure the density of a single cc of water, we should be able to accurately measure the density of the Sun (which, on a galactic scale, is extremely close to us). At least as far as dark matter and energy are concerned. Also note that if our measurments of that single cc of water are off by orders of magnitude (from some "absolute" which will forever remain undefined), that's fine because we've defined our measures based upon that single cc of water, anyway. So, iron's density isn't based upon any absolutes, but only relative to our measure of water's density.


I'm going to cautiously agree with that part.

quote:
In short, any effects that dark matter and/or dark energy have on the Sun, they have on us, too. We say that iron has a density of 7874 kg/m3 within the dark matter and dark energy fields in which we find ourselves. Were dark energy and matter to make a difference of orders of magnitude across a scant 92 million miles, we'd find out about it between spring and autumn as the Earth courses through over 2.5 billion miles of the universe.


*IF* some of this missing dark "matter" is really mass within photons, then any significantly luminous body is going to have an affect within a very short distance. 92 million miles is plenty of room to make a substancial difference. If electromagnetic forces are involved, that kind of distance is small enough to make a significant impact on our calculations as well. If this force turns out to be some kind of pressurized "ether" that pushes things apart, that would be more than enough room to cause a significant influence as well. All I am suggesting here is that there are a lot of variables to consider, even new variables to consider (electromagnetic currents between iron bodies) that haven't ever been looked at and considered as it relates to solar density.

quote:
Now, onto the Z-axis movements. For one thing, it's a misnomer since relative motion of the Sun in any axis could have a similar effect.


I agree, but they would have a different kind of affect, particularly on planetary orbits.

quote:
But really, the more-important thing here is to realize that you, Mr. Mozina, expect us to believe that amongst all the (essentially) random bobbing of the Sun (as cork) within the galaxy (as waves), the only times we've measured the Sun's density have coincidentally been those times when the Sun appears to be orders of magnitude less dense than it really is (were it made "mostly" of iron). We're terribly unlucky to never have measured the Sun when these mysterious factors would all point the other direction, and tell us the Sun is a million times denser than water (or however many orders of magnitude you want).


I'm completely confused by this statement. Timing has nothing to do with this arguement. It not a random bobbing that we experience, but a harmonic of the movement of the bar within the center of the galaxy.

quote:
Oh, wait, let me step back a moment. Mr. Mozina, can we accurately measure the volume of the Sun? Per Wikipedia, the volume is 1.411018 km3. If you agree with that (to within an order of magnitude), then your density objections must be based solely upon our inability to correctly measure its mass.


That is absolutely correct. I can't see inside the crust, only the surface. It could be a fission core or a neutron core and these would have different implications related to density. Could be a lot of pressure playing a role in stratifcation scenarios too. There are many variables that prevent me for accurately calculating mass. Now of course there is that "desire" to OVERSIMPLY any arguement, but we both know that is a logical fallacy. :)

quote:
How could we check the mass measurement? Well, we could simply calculate the acceleration a satellite or interplanetary probe would experience due to the Sun, and see if it's correct. Oh, Cassini shows we've already done that (unless you'd like to argue that Cassini is not in orbit around Saturn right now). I'm sure you'll bring up the "Pioneer Anomaly" again, but that anomaly is tiny (10-8m
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 11/29/2005 :  17:07:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
The Iron Sun formed on the collapsed core of a supernova and now acts as a magnetic plasma diffuser, as did the precursor star, separating ions by mass.

I don't know where I got the idea that you were saying the sun fromed from the collapsed core of a supernova

Clearly I am just reading things into what you wrote.



I guess so. Evidently you missed that words "formed on"? A supernova event is a very energetic event. The core itself may even split apart into framents from such events. It probably took quite some time for any of the core fragments to form shells (assuming the core is neutron star material) or to form large structures with fissionable material at the core. In either case, "formation" takes time. Nobody said there was instantly a sun in the center of a supernova. That is the implication you seem to be trying to make here, and I fail to understand why you are suggesting this. We did not suggest that a sun "instantly" formed in the process.
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 11/29/2005 :  17:31:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
I wonder though if your lack of sleep combined with attempting to respond to so many different posters is preventing you from giving due consideration to your resposes to the points being raised.


I don't THINK so, but of course I am baised. :)

quote:
For example, to use a balloon as an analogy for the sun as you have done requires a serious denial of reality.

First of all you are ignoring gravity by using this analogy. Gravity is not a significant factor affecting the structure of a balloon, but it is a huge factor affecting the structure of the sun.


I'm not ignoring gravity, in fact I'm counting on gravity to pull together enough material to form a shell around a nuetron star, a star that ultimately "pushes" against the shell. It may be that there is some sort of fission process in play that creates a lot of heat and a lot of pressure. Temperature and pressure certainly will affect density. I therefore have not tried to spend a great deal of time "speculating" about what "could" be an average density.

That air bubble in water also tends to defy your gravity "rule" in that the lighter air bubble forms inside a heavier water layer. It is not nearly as cut and dry as you make it sound IMO. I would therefore prefer to focus on the things I CAN see and can be sure about rather than speculate about what COULD be under the surface.

http://pof.aip.org/pof/gallery/video/2005/911509phflong.mov

quote:
Secondly, the balloon model of the sun implies that if the iron structure of the sun were breached at any point, then the lighter interior would begin leaking away. If the breach were large enough then the sun would explosively turn itself inside out.


Both a neutron core and a fission based core would form PRESSURES internally that would prevent collapse.

quote:
No matter how you look at it the balloon model of the sun is unstable. These are issues that you should have considered before proposing it.


So lets try that air bubble in the water video and talk about a pressurized, high temperature core, potentially a fissionable plasma type of core surrounded by a heavy shell.

You can "see" from the sunquakes videos, and many other videos by the way, that the surface does in fact "crack", which does in fact fill up with what looks to be "molten" material. A famous example of this the seahorse video.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/seahorse.mpg
Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2996 Posts

Posted - 11/29/2005 :  17:54:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message
Stupid question: I read that solar flares are often observed using filters to isolate the light emitted by hydrogen atoms in the red region of the solar spectrum (the H-alpha spectral line). The video you site "seahorse video" used this filter. Therefore what was the "molten" material made of? Also, what altitude off the surface did this material reach (meaning that maybe this "crack" is an illusion?)

by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Go to Top of Page

dv82matt
SFN Regular

760 Posts

Posted - 11/29/2005 :  17:56:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send dv82matt a Private Message
Of course, an incorrect density prediction is not the only fatal flaw in your model that you fail to satisfactorily address.

The surface temperature of the sun is 5780 K and the melting point of iron is 1811 K. Bear in mind that at the surface of the sun pressure would be inconsequential.

This illustrates a second fatal flaw in your model.

Not only do density and temperature measurements disprove your model of the sun, they are also completely consistent with the gas model of the sun.
Edited by - dv82matt on 11/29/2005 19:58:21
Go to Top of Page

dv82matt
SFN Regular

760 Posts

Posted - 11/29/2005 :  19:32:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send dv82matt a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'm not ignoring gravity, in fact I'm counting on gravity to pull together enough material to form a shell around a nuetron star...
By pretending that the sun need not get denser with depth you are indeed ignoring gravity.
quote:
a star that ultimately "pushes" against the shell.
This sub-star you mention would nessessarily be denser that the shell it is supporting.
quote:
It may be that there is some sort of fission process in play that creates a lot of heat and a lot of pressure. Temperature and pressure certainly will affect density. I therefore have not tried to spend a great deal of time "speculating" about what "could" be an average density.
That you have not considered your idea enough to realize that, at the very least, it predicts a hugely greater density than is measured indicates that you are not interested in falsifying it.
quote:
That air bubble in water also tends to defy your gravity "rule" in that the lighter air bubble forms inside a heavier water layer.
Um... what? If I'm not greatly mistaken, air bubbles have a tendency to rise to the surface.

Oh, I see that you are referring to the video you linked. Unsurprisingly the "gravity rule", as you so eloquently put it, does not apply in the absence of gravity! The video was shot on the international space station.
quote:
It is not nearly as cut and dry as you make it sound IMO. I would therefore prefer to focus on the things I CAN see and can be sure about rather than speculate about what COULD be under the surface.
Realizing that the lower layers of the sun must be more dense than the surface is not speculation, it is a direct consequence of gravity.
quote:
http://pof.aip.org/pof/gallery/video/2005/911509phflong.mov
Couldn't get the audio to work. It looked cool though. I'm not sure why you think this is relevant to the sun's construction.
quote:
Both a neutron core and a fission based core would form PRESSURES internally that would prevent collapse.
Neutron Stars are many many orders of magnitude denser than the sun. Hopefully the linked article will clear up some of your misconceptions about the unavoidable implications of the Neutron star model of the sun with regards to density.
quote:
So lets try that air bubble in the water video and talk about a pressurized, high temperature core, potentially a fissionable plasma type of core surrounded by a heavy shell.
Red herring, at the scale of the demonstration shown in the video surface tension is an important factor and gravity is not. The exact opposite is true of the sun.
quote:
You can "see" from the sunquakes videos, and many other videos by the way, that the surface does in fact "crack", which does in fact fill up with what looks to be "molten" material. A famous example of this the seahorse video.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/seahorse.mpg
Do you also believe that volcanos are evidence that the core of the earth is less dense than the surface? You're not thinking these things through.
Edited by - dv82matt on 11/29/2005 19:59:36
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25997 Posts

Posted - 11/29/2005 :  19:35:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

Mass. Volume is a different issue altogether.
Great! What percentage of the Sun's mass is iron?

Skipping ahead a bit...
quote:
We're having a tough time getting beyond the "relative" concepts of density vs. "absolute" concepts of density. In "relative" terms, I have no doubt that the calculations we use on a dialy basis work quite nicely. I have MANY doubts however that this represents "absolute" density in any meaningful way.
No, the only person asserting that our measurement of the Sun's density needs to be "absolute" in any way is you. All I've been talking about is relative measures.

Backing up again...
quote:
I would say that is just one more reason to consider the inertial mass of photons to be that missing mass.
...and...
quote:
*IF* some of this missing dark "matter" is really mass within photons, then any significantly luminous body is going to have an affect within a very short distance.
Any mass residing within photons is measured by the pull of the Sun's gravity on various objects. Not only that, but the mass of photons is well described by E=mc2 and the way Hydrogen fuses into Helium. The mass of the Sun as we measure it necessarily includes any photons zipping about within the Sun (photons which leave the Sun, of course, carry their gravitational pull - and their mass - away with them).
quote:
The implications of this model is that electromagnetic forces may also play a large role in the acceleration of iron bodies.
No such implications exist, since electromagnetic forces would then play a "large role in the acceleration of" any object which carries an electric charge, like, say, a Hydrogen ion. In other words, these "implications" necessarily hold true for the gas model, also.
quote:
92 million miles is plenty of room to make a substancial difference. If electromagnetic forces are involved, that kind of distance is small enough to make a significant impact on our calculations as well. If this force turns out to be some kind of pressurized "ether" that pushes things apart, that would be more than enough room to cause a significant influence as well. All I am suggesting here is that there are a lot of variables to consider, even new variables to consider (electromagnetic currents between iron bodies) that haven't ever been looked at and considered as it relates to solar density.
All of those same points apply just as well to our density measurements of the Earth or of Jupiter or of any other celestial body. If any of them (or all of them together) represent an "orders of magnitude" error on our part, then please tell me how we can ever send probes to other planets accurately or even get satellites to orbit the Earth?

Honestly, you're emphasizing "implications" which will have no relative effect, and ignoring implications which would mean we'd have no working satellites to take photos of the Sun.
quote:
I agree, but they would have a different kind of affect, particularly on planetary orbits.
No, not at all. The Sun, for one thing, can't be moving very quickly relative to the Earth, or else we'd be able to measure that relative motion.
quote:
I'm completely confused by this statement. Timing has nothing to do with this arguement. It not a random bobbing that we experience, but a harmonic of the movement of the bar within the center of the galaxy.
Oh, okay, then you're necessarily talking about gravity waves, and since gravity waves travel at the speed of light, any effect they would have on our measurements of the Sun's mass would be eliminated (or reversed) in no more than 8.31 minutes. Plus, gravity waves get weaker with distance-squared, so those travelling from the "bar" in the Milky Way would necessarily be highly attenuated by 20,000 light years of intervening space. While these "harmonics" you speak of will, over the course of millions of years, acting on trillions of metric tons of mass (in the form of dust) will have noticable organizing effects (in the form of density gradients across the whole of the galaxy), any effect they'd have between the Earth and Sun will simply be swamped by the solar system's own mass interactions.
quote:
That is absolutely correct. I can't see inside the crust, only the surface. It could be a fission core or a neutron core and these would have different implications related to density. Could be a lot of pressure playing a role in stratifcation scenarios too. There are many variables that prevent me for accurately calculating mass. Now of course there is that "desire" to OVERSIMPLY any arguement, but we both know that is a logical fallacy. :)
No, not a single one of those things would affect the gravitational forces we feel from the Sun overall. And we're only taking about the overall density of the Sun - it's total mass divided by its total volume, relative to what we've got here on Earth.
quote:
I'm going to work on an analogy for you and post it after work hours.
Please do. I'm dying to find out how much knowing some mythical "absolute" density would tell us about the interior of the Sun which a "relative" density would not.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25997 Posts

Posted - 11/29/2005 :  19:52:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
By the way...
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

All I am suggesting here is that there are a lot of variables to consider, even new variables to consider (electromagnetic currents between iron bodies) that haven't ever been looked at and considered as it relates to solar density.
For someone who is critical of "handwaving," why do you do it?

What the above quote says to me is that these criticisms of your model can be safely ignored because we don't know everything about the universe. The problem, of course, is that's true of every scientific theory, including the gas model.

You don't think a gas model can explain the "angular structures" you see in some images? Such criticisms are of no consequence, because those things might be the result of forces within a plasma which we haven't yet considered.

You'd go ape (figuratively) if your criticisms of the gas model were hand-waved away like that, yet you can't seem to avoid that exact same sort of hand-waving when it comes to criticism of your model. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

ronnywhite
SFN Regular

501 Posts

Posted - 11/29/2005 :  22:32:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ronnywhite a Private Message
Mike:

I finally got around to googling and reading on this tonight (admittedly as a non-phd non-astronomy guy) and I was thoroughly amazed at how incredibly well substantiated the old "garden-variety" gas fusion theory is. I've never seen such an impressive marriage of observation, theory, and experiment... in my mind, the current fusion theory is now as inductively well-verified as evolution, or better. It all ties together so well, empirical results involving the subatomic, macroscopic, and stellar concurrently evolving and meshing- I honestly don't know how you could question it. I think the fifth major solar neutrino measurement results of 2002- looking at both charged current AND neutral types- verifying neutrino oscillation theory and yielding a neutrino mass- just puts the biggest nail I've ever seen in your theory's coffin, but it was looking awful bad before that. Occum's razor. It's just too improbable as of 2002 this stuff's coincidence. Too much to mention, but I'll try to list some (and thanks for posting anyway- interesting ideas.) Sorry so long, but there's so much evidence I could easily double it (gotta' run now.)

First, RE your claims based upon posts thus far-

1 Any relativistic effects you claim in 3 (or any number of dimensions) appear (practically) irrelevant considering the Earth or satellite observer's reference frame, distances, relative velocities, and times.
2 Universal expansion or contraction issue doesn't seem to make sense as (practically) relevant.
3 Your mass/density interpretation appears (practically) irrelevant even if there's any merit to it (by virtue of 2) which admittedly as a layman, I can't understand how there could be... assuming you're right, all calculations/indications are that our reference frame is "more than relative enough" to get good measurements, but I have to admit I just don't understand the significance of your different interpretations of density as they apply here.
4 Your evidence is purely subjective visual interpretation. Electronic solar surface effects/correlations you suggest are purely speculative.
5 It's possible your visdual evidence could be an instrumentation/interference factor/digital image processing issue, but I doubt it (you're probably right) YET nonetheless,
6 Considering the distances and time factors concerned, and assuming there is a visible underlying geometry of demonstrable significance and considering the change rates associated with the physical/nuclear processes involved, there could be (most very likely is) a more plausible explanation. (Because...)

Then the gas model-

1 Einstein says e=mc^2 means 0.7% of mass will shine 100 Billion years (if fusion) at least... impressive that it's even on the order of magnitude of other estimates of Universe age, Sun itself.
2 Pauli hypothesizes existence of neutrino "out of thin air"... pure speculation.
3 Bethe formulates gas fusion model, doesn't even mention neutrino.
From website-
"Bethe used his results to estimate the central temperature of the sun and obtained a value that is within 20% of what we currently believe is the correct value (16 million degrees Kelvin) Moreover, he showed that his calculations led to a relation between stellar mass and stellar luminosity that was in satisfactory agreement with the available astronomical observations." (WOW!)
4 Fission-source (beta decay) neutrinos detected 1954 with accuracy incredibly consistent with Fermi's predications.
5 High-energy (Boron 8) neutrino measurement experiments (3 different methods!)...
i. Davis (Homestake) crude Chlorine-type off by only factor of 3 (incredible considering time/ probability densities involved!)
ii. Cerenkov detector off by factor of 2 (even better!)
iii. Gallium-type detectors off by factor of 2 (wow!)
6 All the while- other radiant energy (luminous etc.) outputs measured as very consistent with fusion processes and based on distance, mass, radiant ener

Ron White
Go to Top of Page

trogdor
Skeptic Friend

198 Posts

Posted - 11/30/2005 :  15:58:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send trogdor a Private Message
damn! this is what I was hoping for when I started this thread.
quote:
hopfully someone who is more knows more about this can help me out.

nice work Ronny!

all eyes were on Ford Prefect. some of them were on stalks.
-Douglas Adams
Edited by - trogdor on 11/30/2005 16:00:55
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 11/30/2005 :  16:33:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite

Mike:

I finally got around to googling and reading on this tonight (admittedly as a non-phd non-astronomy guy) and I was thoroughly amazed at how incredibly well substantiated the old "garden-variety" gas fusion theory is. I've never seen such an impressive marriage of observation, theory, and experiment... in my mind, the current fusion theory is now as inductively well-verified as evolution, or better.


I'm preparing for a trade show next week, and I'm answering these messages at work during slow periods. I wanted to briefly respond to this point now, and I'll try returning the rest a little later.

These kinds of comments "disturb" me as a skeptic, not because you choose to put "faith" in one solar idea over another based on current evidence, but because you "believe" that there is A) any experimental evidence (as in lab experiments) to support the notion that the energy source of the sun is *DEFINITETLY* fusion, or B) that any of particular "observation" favors the gas model over a solid surface model of the sun. There is no such evidence is satellite images. There is no such evidence in heliosiesmology, and there is no such evidence in the field of nuclear chemistry. About the only thing we really "know" is that hydrogen fusion *COULD* be, (not necessarily is) the energy source of stars.

The reality here however is that nuclear chemistry, and isotope analysis, the same things that you put faith in as it relates to evolution are on my side of this debate. If you doubt me, please point out the specific flaw in Dr. Manuel's analysis. The fact of the matter here is that chemistry is on my side of this debate, not yours. Think about that.

The reality is that while hydrogen fusion "could" be the power source of a sun, it is not the only possible power source. Self sustaining hydrogen fusion certainly remains a highly elusive little critter in the lab. We've poured billions into the effort and so far that field of science has used *FAR* more energy than it has ever created.

The real "lab" work on solar models was done by Dr. Kristian Birkeland around the turn of the 20th century. In his lab, he produced images of an iron terella that are nearly identical to Yohkoh satellite images of the sun, right down to the arcs, and all the properties we see in solar images.

Some sciences are better understood because they are "hands on" kinds of sciences. For instance, the computer science field (my field of expertise) is a very exact, and very precise science, right down measuring the distances between traces in the silicon in terms of atoms.

Astronomy however is a very "hands off" field of science. We could never hope to probe any star upclose and personal other than the one in our own back yard. The rest of the stars we'll have to see twinkle from a distance for the time being. This makes understanding the working of our own sun critically important, and the satellite images that are designed to study them all that more important.

I too once put a lot of "faith" in gas model theory, in fact I did so up until this year. I did not however ever believe that a hands off field of science like astronomy was anywhere in the same league as other areas of hands on sciences as far as "trustworthyness" and exactness and precision. Dr. Manuel's work is the closest thing I've seen to this calibur of precision using real life data. Most gas model theory is simply "theory", with little or no, or very questionable data to support it.

When it comes right down to it, observation is the purest form of science. It is observation that tells us truth from fiction, and tells us what is repeatable and testable and falsifyable.

If you really put so much faith in gas model theory, why is it that so few people have even seriously attempted to explain any of the structure seen in these critical satellite images, and how come no one to date has yet to tackle any of the finer details of these images using gas model theory?

The problem here IMO is that the gas model theory is a mature and a very well understood and well respected "theory", but it has never never actually been demonstrated that this "theory" jives with reality, or that stars are really made of hydrogen. It is mainly just a theory WITHOUT observational support for anything underneath the surface of the photosphere.

A hydrogen plasma model isn't typically stratifified at such a shallow depth, at least not in any gas model I have ever seen. Now this information was not just confirmed by satellite images by me personally, but also by heliosiesmic evidence as well. The nuclear chemistry is on my side in this debate, not yours.

There is however hope to confirm and/or falsify my interpretation of satellite data and NASA's interpretation within the next 12 months using the STEREO satellite program. This pair of satellites will offer us a three dimensional view of the solar atmosphere.

There is a critical area of disagreement between my interpration and NASA's as it relates to the location of the "Transitional region". NASA has always "assumed" this layer sits between the chromosphere and the corona, whereas I contend that it is underneath of the photosphere. This is a very testeable and falsifyable prediction using the precision technology of the STEREO satellite program. I have "faith" in this technology, and I have "faith" that it will show that the "transition region" that TRACE images is actually under, not above the visible photosphere. If I am right, and NASA is wrong about this placement, will you reconsider this idea?
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 17 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 2.56 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000