|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 01/23/2006 : 13:47:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Okay, Michael Mozina, you've made it abundantly clear that you aren't going to answer the questions and that you can't support your conjecture. Your work here is done.
?????
I've answered thirty plus pages of questions, and I will continue to answer every question to the best of my ability. Sometimes there are limits to my abilities, and I may not be the "perfect" representative of the Birkeland model as it relates to areas of plasma physics, electrical flow, etc. That is utterly irrelevent to the perfectly GOOD data I have already provided you, which you've utterly ignored.
|
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 13:59:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
So, I emailed Dr. Kosovichev with some questions, and got back a reply pretty damn quick (thanks again, Dr. Kosovichev!). His reply was short, but packed with useful information.
He's great isn't he? Since his reply was short and useful, how about posting it here, since frankly that density number you quoted sounds like something you just made up. Where did he claim any of this? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/23/2006 14:08:54 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 14:43:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
He's great isn't he? Since his reply was short and useful, how about posting it here, since frankly that density number you quoted sounds like something you just made up. Where did he claim any of this?
First: I didn't ask for, and Dr. Kosovichev didn't offer, permission for me to post his email whole, so I won't. Even if I did, it wouldn't "prove" anything to you, as you could just as easily claim that I fabricated the entire thing as that I fabricated a single number.
Second: the figure of 30 micrograms/cm3 comes from the standard solar model, he said. This is a perfectly reasonable number, given the outermost photosphere has a density of about 2 micrograms/cm3 and this page (for just one example) says that the SSM suggests the density at a deep 0.849R is just 50 milligrams/cm3, and continues to rise (exponentially) down to the core. The density only rises to that of water near 0.500R.
Third: it is, of course, very telling that you'd rather accuse me of lying than to address the fundamental issue now at hand. Kosovichev's helioseismological analyses of the Sun verify the SSM's density figures to within 2%, at numerous radii within the Sun. Not only that, but he says that the "density stratifications" which you claim signify the boundary between plasma and solid consist of a difference in density of less than 0.1%.
Your two possible defenses of your model, at this stage, are to claim that the "shell" is so porous that it may as well not exist, or to claim that Kosovichev's work is so unreliable (or financially biased) that it can't be used at all - meaning that a major piece of your "evidence" of a shell at 0.995R must be thrown out.
You can, of course, continue to accuse me of lying about that one number (or the whole thing), but there's no way I can prove to you that the information came from Dr. Kosovichev. Not that the source matters, anyway. I suggest that you learn the facts from another, completely independent solar scientist. They aren't exactly rare. Just email someone who should know, and ask "what does the Standard Solar Model predict for the density of the solar material at 0.995Rsun?" We can see how well their response matches 0.00003 g/cm3.
Of course, I now also know that you never bothered asking Dr. Kosovichev these basic questions about his 2005 article. By keeping yourself ignorant of those facts, you were able to maintain the hypothesis that the "density stratifications" could mark the boundary between a plasma and a solid. Of course, with no way to test that hypothesis except to ask the Dr. Kosovichev himself, someone was bound to eventually remove the wool you've pulled over your own eyes. |
- 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 - 01/23/2006 : 15:25:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
First: I didn't ask for, and Dr. Kosovichev didn't offer, permission for me to post his email whole, so I won't. Even if I did, it wouldn't "prove" anything to you, as you could just as easily claim that I fabricated the entire thing as that I fabricated a single number.
I wasn't trying to PROVE anything with his email, I just wanted to see EXACTLY what he said so I know how much is SPIN on your part, and how much of this argument is related to something he actually said.
quote:
Second: the figure of 30 micrograms/cm3 comes from the standard solar model, he said.
Where are you getting this from HIS work? In other words does HIS work say it's X density at Dx, Y density Dy, Z density at Dz, or are you just IMPLYING this from some other mechanism unrelated to his work?
quote:
This is a perfectly reasonable number,
To whom?
quote:
given the outermost photosphere has a density of about 2 micrograms/cm3
All these ideas ASSUME no mass separation occurs, and assumes a MOSTLY hydrogen sun. You are now trying to take THEORY and trying to equate theory with OBSERVATION.
quote:
Third: it is, of course, very telling that you'd rather accuse me of lying than to address the fundamental issue now at hand.
First of all I absolutely, positively did *NOT* accuse you of lying. I wasn't even trying to imply such a thing, in fact it never crossed my mind. I don't consider you a "dishonest" person, and I would not assume you lied about anything, in fact I would assume you were "truthful".
The main reason I asked you to post the email is so I could see which parts of this arguement were realy based upon HIS data and HIS comments, and how much was based on your ideas and your "interpretation". This has nothing at all to do with "truthfullness".
quote:
Kosovichev's helioseismological analyses of the Sun verify the SSM's density figures to within 2%, at numerous radii within the Sun.
Please specify the work of his you feel supports this density idea of yours.
quote:
Not only that, but he says that the "density stratifications" which you claim signify the boundary between plasma and solid consist of a difference in density of less than 0.1%.
From my model, I would expect to see several changes in density between the photosophere surface and the actual surface of the sun. There should be SOME change at the umbra layer, and some change at the calcium layer as well, and eventually SOME change at the solid layer too. In each case, the density should increase as the sound travels into the various layers. A relatively "small" change between any of the layers would not be unusual.
quote:
Your two possible defenses of your model, at this stage, are to claim that the "shell" is so porous that it may as well not exist,
I don't believe that is the case.
quote:
or to claim that Kosovichev's work is so unreliable (or financially biased)
I don't believe that is the case either Dave. There must be a logical third choice somewhere.
quote:
You can, of course, continue to accuse me of lying about that one number (or the whole thing), but there's no way I can prove to you that the information came from Dr. Kosovichev.
The only number that concerns me is the DENSITY number Dave. That number seems 'unlikely'. I'm not in any way questioning your integrity or your honesty. I'm questioning your INTERPRETATION of what he said at worst case, but certainly not your integrity or your honesty. It does not help for you to interject this kind of commentary into our debate. I don't much care for your "gruff" attitude at times but at no time have I EVER questioned your honesty.
quote:
Not that the source matters, anyway. I suggest that you learn the facts from another, completely independent solar scientist. They aren't exactly rare. Just email someone who should know, and ask "what does the Standard Solar Model predict for the density of the solar material at 0.995Rsun?" We can see how well their response matches 0.00003 g/cm3.
How is such a "prediction" of density actually "verified" in your opinion?
quote:
Of course, I now also know that you never bothered asking Dr. Kosovichev these basic questions about his 2005 article.
Now THAT is a completely false statement. I have emailed Dr. Kosovichev on at least three separate occasions about his most recent paper. I certainly DID bother asking him about it. Now I think you're obligated to share with me where you got that idea. If *HE* is actually under that impression, I would like to contact him again about it since I was under the impression he did WANT to answer my questions, not that he had never seen them at all.
quote:
By keeping yourself ignorant of those facts, you were able to maintain the hypothesis that the "density stratifications" could mark the boundary between a plasma and a solid. Of course, with no way to test that hypothesis except to ask the Dr. Kosovichev himself, someone was bound to eventually remove the wool you've pulled over your own eyes.
It is completely disengenous to accuse me of never contacting him, or at least ATTEMPTING to contact him about this paper. I have certainly TRIED to contact him via email on at least three separate oc |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/23/2006 15:35:38 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 16:16:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
If you're going to make a factual claim, as you did in asserting that "molten" parts of the shell plus electron flow can result in a helioseismology result which looks exactly like a plasma flow at about 1,000 m/sec, then yes, I expect you to be able to do the calculations that allowed you to state that claim with certainty.
Actually Dave, I didn't make any "factual" claims other than to state that mass flow *IS* predicted in the Birkeland model, in two different ways. Your use of the term "exactly" is rather dubious, and a strawman, since I didn't claim this is the case, and since the directional appear radically different in the transitional region than they appear to be in the area above and below the transitional region.
quote:
That's all that question #2 deals with: the steps you must have logically taken to arrive at the conclusion you stated. You must have already done those calculations, after all, or otherwise you'd be making a claim without the evidence to back it up.
The flow of electricity from these events has already been documented Dave.
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~white/papers/03_norh_020723.pdf
This paper talks about the kinds of flows in these electrical arcs, and it may be these kinds of processes that help drive the flow in the upper region, and produce the mass flows we see in the crust.
quote:
So, present your work where you found out how much electron flow is needed to mimic a plasma flow when measured via helioseismology. Once you do, question #2 will be answered and we might be able to move onto something else.
Essentially all you have to do is take the mass moved, and divide it by the weight of an electron. It's not that difficult of a calculation.
quote:
Stonewalling does not help your case.
Come on Dave. You won't deal with the RD images, nor the isotope analysis. You are completely ignoring the fact that there is NO differential rotation in that RD image, certainly nothing like the kind of movements we see in the photosphere plasmas. You won't even address the isotope analysis unless I jump through a bunch of hoops of your own design. You are literally "grasping" for some area of science that you see some weekness in me personally so you can feign some sort of "victory" in finding some lack of ability in the individual so you don't have to deal with the real data I already presented to you. It's crazy. I feel like I watching creationists deny the validity of the isotope analysis, or ignore it altogether while focusing on some percieved weakness in proving macroevolutionary concepts. I'm stunned. The images are real, and I didn't create them. The nuclear chemistry is real and done by a professor of nuclear chemistry.
FYI, here is that link again that relates to density flow of electrons in high energy surface events:
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~white/papers/03_norh_020723.pdf
Notice the temperature ranges that are seen, and notice the electron density measurements they describe. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/23/2006 16:18:50 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 18:50:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I've answered thirty plus pages of questions, and I will continue to answer every question to the best of my ability. Sometimes there are limits to my abilities, and I may not be the "perfect" representative of the Birkeland model as it relates to areas of plasma physics, electrical flow, etc.
We've just had an opportunity to see the "solid" surface defined. You're ignoring the requirement to explain the material composition of a solid that is 320 times less dense than radon at STP, composed of over half iron, allows for fairly free movement of mass through it, and conducts electricity. You're ignoring the question about the material composition of the magma that passes through the supposedly solid surface, in what quantities, with what frequency, and by what mechanism this passage takes place.quote:
That is utterly irrelevent to the perfectly GOOD data I have already provided you, which you've utterly ignored.
Actually a satisfactory explanation of the material makeup of the "solid" surface is perfectly relevant. You see, if the surface isn't really solid at all, it doesn't matter how thorough your other observations are. It doesn't matter if you've looked at the pictures for a long long time. And it doesn't matter if those pictures really really look like a solid surface to you.quote:
You are literally "grasping" for some area of science that you see some weekness in me personally so you can feign some sort of "victory" in finding some lack of ability in the individual so you don't have to deal with the real data I already presented to you. It's crazy. I feel like I watching creationists deny the validity of the isotope analysis, or ignore it altogether while focusing on some percieved weakness in proving macroevolutionary concepts. I'm stunned.
It's no surprise you're stunned in light of the very real possibility that no material yet known could possibly make up your "solid" surface. It's been reasonably demonstrated that for your conjecture to be true, the surface must meet some very specific requirements, and it must be solid. If you can't explain what solid material meets those criteria, it indicates that your interpretation of your other observations may very well be inaccurate.
Bottom line, if the surface isn't solid, it isn't solid. So what material is it?
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 19:16:41 [Permalink]
|
Guys, guys... Michael is only interested in discussing two things: 1) What evidence the standard gas model fails to account for and, 2) What the iron sun model does.
You keep trying to point out flaws in his theory, but Michael has been quite clear about the fact that he isn't trying to falsify the solid sun theory. He only collects evidence which supports it, and anything which doesn't is immediately discounted. Like creationists, Michael already knows he is right, therefore any contradictory data has to be wrong--either wrongly collected, wrongly interpreted, or wrongly formulated because it fails to take into account all of Michael's criteria (like the density calculations).
He really, really wants to talk about the isotope analysis, since he feels that supports the solid sun model. Quit pointing out things which might falsify his model! He isn't interested in that! He's spent far too much time and money to change his mind now. Just talk about what his model gets right, you damn skeptics!
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/23/2006 19:18:19 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 20:42:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Guys, guys... Michael is only interested in discussing two things: 1) What evidence the standard gas model fails to account for and, 2) What the iron sun model does.
Well, frankly those do sound like logical starting places. I'm more than happy to have things "branch out" into all kinds of 'theory' and conjecture and into areas I'm less knowledgeable about, but there are things I can prove now that nobody here seems to want to deal with.
quote:
You keep trying to point out flaws in his theory, but Michael has been quite clear about the fact that he isn't trying to falsify the solid sun theory.
Huh? I meantioned the STEREO program as an EXCELLENT method to falisify both my model, and NASA placement of layers as well. It shoud be able to tell us if the plasmas are mass separated, with hydrogen released in the arcs, etc. There are any number of valid, scientific ways to look for corroboration and falsification.
quote:
He only collects evidence which supports it, and anything which doesn't is immediately discounted.
I have not discounted anything. I've been responding to each and every issue, one by one. Now of course I'm just one guy here, and there are bound to be questions about the Birkeland's model that I simply cannot answer at this time. Some things I can answer now. Even if I can't answer every issue right this second, it doesn't mean that someone else cannot, or will not explain it using Birkeland's model, sooner or later.
quote:
Like creationists, Michael already knows he is right, therefore any contradictory data has to be wrong--either wrongly collected, wrongly interpreted, or wrongly formulated because it fails to take into account all of Michael's criteria (like the density calculations).
First of all, "density calculations" as it relates to the density of the sun are based ENTIRELY on heliocentric, non electric, non dark energy concepts. The ignore 90+ percent of the mass/force of the universe. To call them "realiable" in terms of ABSOLUTE mass is WAY premature IMO. We have many things to learn, and I can't ignore that surface I see only because it disagrees with some heliocentric concept of reality.
Having said that, I am not completely certain that I am right. I never claimed that I AM right. I said I *BELIEVE* that I am right. Notice the difference between these two ideas.
quote:
He really, really wants to talk about the isotope analysis, since he feels that supports the solid sun model.
Of course. That is a scientific perspective that supports my case. Why wouldn't I want to talk about it? Only creationists avoid isotope analysis like the plague.
I wouldn't mind talking about the image either for that matter since they too support my case.
Some however don't want to talk about OBSERVATION at all.
quote:
Quit pointing out things which might falsify his model! He isn't interested in that!
You're welcome to throw stones at me from the peanut gallery if that tickles your fancy, but why in the heck aren't you willing to look at that isotope analysis?
This is just like a creationist not wanting to look at the isotope analysis that points us to the real age of the earth. Instead they wish to ignore that data entirely and focus on some archane aspect related to macroevolution and the difficulty this presents to contemporary theory and then harps on that point rather than considering the BIG PICUTRE including the isotope analysis and the direct satellite observations.
quote:
He's spent far too much time and money to change his mind now. [/qoute]
It's all relative. I've spent what I can afford, and it's not that big a deal. It's certainly peanuts compared to what NASA and Lockheed spent putting up and maintaining these satellites. Don't you think we should at least look at and discuss the images they return to us?
[quote]Just talk about what his model gets right, you damn skeptics!
Actually I'm kind of partial to skeptics, in fact I consider myself a BIG skeptic of the gas model theory. You're welcome to talk about the weaknesses of the Birkeland solar model in relationship to some sort of scientific DATA, but there's no point in personalizing this to "Michael" or worrying much about Michael. I don't worry much about myself. I'm more interested in truth and enlightenment and determining reality from popular myth.
I see no reason for the whole bunch of you to leave that isotope analysis sitting there as though it doesn't support Birkeland's model. I see no reason to ignore the fact that the RD images show little if *ANY* sign of differential rotation even over lenghty periods of time, more than enough time for several generation of filaments to come and go.
Somehow there has to be a happy medium here between skepticism towards Birkeland's model *AND* skepticism toward gas model theory. Whatever skepticism we apply to one, we should apply to both. That's all I ask. I also ask that we actually ADDRESS the data that I can speak about and can show you. Some things are likely to eventually stump me for the time being. That doesn't mean Birkeland was wrong, it just mean's Michael has limits. Individuals here are irrelevant. Only science and observation are relevant to this discussion. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/23/2006 21:06:29 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 21:02:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
We've just had an opportunity to see the "solid" surface defined. You're ignoring the requirement to explain the material composition of a solid that is 320 times less dense than radon at STP,
Woah. First of all, that was not PROVEN, that was ALLEDGED. I need Dave to answer a few questions about density for me and then we'll get into that topic. For now, that ALLEGATION has not been proven. All of that allegation is based upon THEORY (specifically gas model theory) that has NOT been proven. You can't take a piece of one THEORY that we are attempting to disprove and try to use that theory as proof that the new idea is wrong.
quote:
composed of over half iron, allows for fairly free movement of mass through it,
Iron turns out to be a pretty good conductor, and as such, it fairly freely moves mass through itself.
quote:
and conducts electricity.
Iron does in fact conduct electricity. That seems to be it's saving grace, plus the fact that iron is so stable in an atomic sense.
quote:
You're ignoring the question about the material composition of the magma that passes through the supposedly solid surface,
No, in fact I have identified what causes it, and what is under the surface including nickel, iron and sulfur as well. We see elevated amounts of Nickel and Sulfur during "active" phases in the SERTS data.
quote:
in what quantities,
Define "quantities" for me. Of what? The surface of the sun is not homogenous any more than the surface of the earth is homogenous. You seem to want "simple" and "easy" answers where there are none, and now you blame me for the fact they aren't simple or easy.
quote:
with what frequency,
Are we talking active phases or quiet phases? Are you looking for an interger number that is supposed to apply to the sun at every interval? How simplistic do you figure the answers are likely to be anyway?
quote:
and by what mechanism this passage takes place.
Most ruptures are caused by active electrical erosion along the surface. It's not exactly difficult to grasp, particular if you've ever used an arc welder. Things get hot. Things change. Surface features get eaten away over time. The time scales however are MUCH longer than for the motion of the plasma in the solar atmosphere. The surface cells of the photosphere come and go every 8 minutes. There are obvious signs of differential rotion in the plasma over these very short timelines.
quote:
Actually a satisfactory explanation of the material makeup of the "solid" surface is perfectly relevant.
I have done that. I compared the crust of the sun to the crust of the earth with simply a higher iron content. There's nothing particulary mysterious about my explanation in this respect. The fact we see arcs coming from these rigid surface structures lends strong support to the notion that this layer is composed of solids.
quote:
You see, if the surface isn't really solid at all, it doesn't matter how thorough your other observations are.
So you've really just "made up your mind", and regardless of what the observations show us, they can't be solids? How are you so sure of that again?
quote:
It doesn't matter if you've looked at the pictures for a long long time.
What really matters is that you are right, is that it? How long have you spent analysing solar images? Should we trust someone who's spent the time to analyse the images and can offer a comprehensive explanation that is attentive to detail, or believe a handwave of an arguement that doesn't even identify the light source or the structure or the longetivity of the structure? Shall we simply ignore the peeling and the dust blowing aspects of the images on your word?
quote:
And it doesn't matter if those pictures really really look like a solid surface to you.
Why not? How do you know they aren't solids holding those structures over these timelines?
quote:
It's no surprise you're stunned in light of the very real possibility that no material yet known could possibly make up your "solid" surface.
That is false. The only requirement here for solids to form is areas of less than 4000K. We see such temperatures in the umbra. The rest of your conjecture is meaningless.
quote:
It's been reasonably demonstrated that for your conjecture to be true, the surface must meet some very specific requirements, and it must be solid. If you can't explain what solid material meets those criteria, it indicates that your interpretation of your other observations may very well be inaccurate.
All I've heard so far is Dave's handwave of a density calc that seems to be take from THEORY that we are trying to validate or falisify to begin with. When I see a comprehensive response from Dave, I'll comment some more. As it is, not not one of you have explained why we see those downflows stop at around .995 to 6000mm and why the plasma below flows up and away from the column while the topside moves in and down.
quote:
Bottom line, if the surface isn't solid, it isn't solid. So what material is it?
It is |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/23/2006 21:07:26 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 21:13:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I wasn't trying to PROVE anything with his email, I just wanted to see EXACTLY what he said so I know how much is SPIN on your part, and how much of this argument is related to something he actually said.
But, as will be demonstrated, we can multiply the 0.03 mg/cm3 by a factor of 1,000 and it will still present a problem for your model. If my "interpretation" of the density figure is off by three orders of magnitude, that's a little more than just a "spin" problem.quote:
quote:
Second: the figure of 30 micrograms/cm3 comes from the standard solar model, he said.
Where are you getting this from HIS work?
What part of "he said" do you not understand? That density figure is what Dr. Kosovichev told me in his email is the density of the solar material at 3,000 km below the surface according to the Standard Solar Model.quote:
In other words does HIS work say it's X density at Dx, Y density Dy, Z density at Dz, or are you just IMPLYING this from some other mechanism unrelated to his work?
I'm not implying anything. You're free to look up the SSM on numerous Web pages, solve the equations yourself, and tell us if that figure is correct or incorrect. In fact, why don't you do just that? I think it's the only way you're going to be satisfied that I've "interpreted" any of the various statements of the SSM correctly.quote:
quote:
given the outermost photosphere has a density of about 2 micrograms/cm3
All these ideas ASSUME no mass separation occurs, and assumes a MOSTLY hydrogen sun. You are now trying to take THEORY and trying to equate theory with OBSERVATION.
No, the 1998 paper by Dr. Kosovichev made observations through helioseismology which confirmed the SSM's density predictions to within 2%. How much more clear can that paper be about what Dr. Kosovichev found? If the SSM is correct to within 2%, then it is a mostly hydrogen sun.quote:
The main reason I asked you to post the email is so I could see which parts of this arguement were realy based upon HIS data and HIS comments, and how much was based on your ideas and your "interpretation". This has nothing at all to do with "truthfullness".
How else could I "interpret" his statement that the SSM says the density of the solar material is 0.00003 g/cm3 just above 0.995R?quote:
quote:
Kosovichev's helioseismological analyses of the Sun verify the SSM's density figures to within 2%, at numerous radii within the Sun.
Please specify the work of his you feel supports this density idea of yours.
I already did. If you can't be bothered to click a link and take a look at the 1998 Kosovichev paper (I even told you the page number and figure to look at), then I can't be bothered to click any links regarding the isotope analysis. Fair is fair.quote:
quote:
Not only that, but he says that the "density stratifications" which you claim signify the boundary between plasma and solid consist of a difference in density of less than 0.1%.
From my model, I would expect to see several changes in density between the photosophere surface and the actual surface of the sun. There should be SOME change at the umbra layer, and some change at the calcium layer as well, and eventually SOME change at the solid layer too. In each case, the density should increase as the sound travels into the various layers. A relatively "small" change between any of the layers would not be unusual.
Well, there would have to be just over 4,607 of those 0.1% increments in order to get from 0.03 mg/cm3 to 3 mg/cm3 (because 1.0014,607.47=100), the density of the least-dense aerogels. We know those are unsuitable for solar surface material because they contain only trace iron and are so friable they'd simply shatter if a big spark hit them. It would take about 10,420 of those 0.1% increases in density to go from the SSM's density figure to that of water at STP. This is obviously all ridiculous, since according to Dr. Manuel, there are only 2,850 possible different masses to be separated. Actually, many less than that, since the ones which are heavier than iron can't be above the ferrite layer, can they?
It's also ridiculous because I specifically asked Dr. Kosovichev about the density difference above and below a "density stratification," in more than one way, so he would know precisely what I was asking about. Each of the many "density stratifications" he measured in his 2005 paper was less than 0.1%, including the one at 0.995R.quote:
quote:
Your two possible defenses of your model, at this stage, are to claim that the "shell" is so porous that it may as well not exist,
I don't believe that is the case.quote:
or to claim that Kosovichev's work is so unreliable (or financially biased)
I don't believe that is the case either Dave. There must be a logical third choice somewhere.
Well, the logical choice I would make would be to say, "since the idea of a solid shell with half its mass coming from iron yet less dense than helium at STP is ab |
- 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
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 21:43:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
First of all, "density calculations" as it relates to the density of the sun are based ENTIRELY on heliocentric, non electric, non dark energy concepts. The ignore 90+ percent of the mass/force of the universe. To call them "realiable" in terms of ABSOLUTE mass is WAY premature IMO. We have many things to learn, and I can't ignore that surface I see only because it disagrees with some heliocentric concept of reality.
What part of the Universal Constant and Einstein's Equality Principle do you understand at all?
Before we accept your assumptions stated in the quote, you have to convince us that they do in fact have an impact. Demonstrate how the Universal Constant affects the mass of the sun as opposed to the sun in rest. Secondly, demonstrate how dark matter adds to the sun without affecting the calculated trajectories of space probes like Cassini. Demonstrate that Einstein's Equality Principle is wrong (since you claim that calculations of the mass of the sun has to include acceleration).
What is the average density of the solid shell according you? Give us a number. Even magnitudes should be sufficient to start with. |
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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 21:43:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
First of all, "density calculations" as it relates to the density of the sun are based ENTIRELY on heliocentric, non electric, non dark energy concepts. The ignore 90+ percent of the mass/force of the universe. To call them "realiable" in terms of ABSOLUTE mass is WAY premature IMO.
Nobody has called them relaiable in terms of "absolute mass" because nobody knows what "absolute mass" is. When someone says "the Sun is 1.9891×1030kg," it's a measurement relative to the "standard kilogram" kept somewhere in France. Nobody can measure the mass of anything without comparing it to the mass of something else, Michael. The very concept of an "absolute mass" is a fiction.quote:
We have many things to learn, and I can't ignore that surface I see only because it disagrees with some heliocentric concept of reality.
How about because it disagrees with the helioseismic observations of reality?quote:
Some however don't want to talk about OBSERVATION at all.
The helioseismic data are nothing but observations which support the SSM, and show your model to be false.quote:
This is just like a creationist not wanting to look at the isotope analysis that points us to the real age of the earth.
You're entirely wrong here. The creationists look at isotope dataing techniques, point out every flaw they can find, and claim that it is so unreliable it can't possibly be used to calculate the age of the Earth. When corrected on this, they don't ignore it, they switch to claiming that the anaylsis is wrong because radioactive decay doesn't happen at a steady pace, and nobody has been around for millions of years to accurately measure any million-year-plus halflife, so therefore decay could have occured at a much faster pace 5,000 years ago, making all dating techniques just plain wrong.
None of that is an attempt to ignore the data, it's all ad hoc reasons why the data is instead supplied by Satan.
As for my delay in getting to the isotope analysis, right now I'm thinking that if the helioseismologist you consider to have provided evidence for a solid layer has, instead, provided volumes of data on why a solid layer simply cannot exist within the Sun, then what's the point? The "big picture" would have a gaping hole in it, especially since you use the helioseismology data to claim that the 171A images from TRACE are at 0.995R.
So, out of the isotope data, the helioseismology data and the images, the only thing that might be correct right now for your model, from my point of view, is the isotope analysis, and that's only because I haven't examined it. The "big picture" argument depends on all of the evidence pointing to the same conclusion. At this moment, from my vantage point, 2/3rds of the evidence points to your model being wrong in fundamental ways. |
- 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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 21:54:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Iron turns out to be a pretty good conductor, and as such, it fairly freely moves mass through itself.
Except that if left to its own devices, iron moves electron mass through itself at more than three million meters per second, not the paltry 1.4 thousand m/s detected by helioseismology methods. So I ask again: what is the necessary resistance, in ohms, of the surface material to produce such slow movements of mass if that mass is partially (or wholly) electrons?quote:
That is false. The only requirement here for solids to form is areas of less than 4000K.
Name a substance - or a mixture of substances - which remains solid at 3,000K. How about 2,500K? 2,000K? Come on, Michael, demonstrate to us that even one of your conjectures might be correct.quote:
All I've heard so far is Dave's handwave of a density calc that seems to be take from THEORY that we are trying to validate or falisify to begin with.
Apparently, that theory was validated by one A. Kosovichev in 1998. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 22:00:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Having said that, I am not completely certain that I am right. I never claimed that I AM right. I said I *BELIEVE* that I am right. Notice the difference between these two ideas.
Remember these?quote:
I will win debate sooner or later, even if it takes years to do so.
[...]
Originally posted by Dave W....
Since all you can say is that the layer is "mostly iron" and that it is "solid," then we really know next to nothing about it.
That is not true. We know a lot about it. We know it's solid. We know solids are capable of holding their shape in three dimensions. We know solids can conduct electricity in organized patterns. We know a lot, even if we don't know every detail.
Let's see. You *KNOW* it's solid, and you *WILL* win this debate, but you only *BELIEVE* it's solid. So you really don't know. Maybe you just can't make up your mind.quote:
Are we talking active phases or quiet phases? Are you looking for an interger number that is supposed to apply to the sun at every interval? How simplistic do you figure the answers are likely to be anyway?
I'm looking for a number. You're the one who said magma comes through your solid surface more frequently than it does here on Earth. How frequently? I was looking for a simple answer, because you made a blanket statement that apparently you considered to be a fact. Or was your comment about "more frequently" just another piece of useless fabricated "data"? How frequently?quote:
I have done that. I compared the crust of the sun to the crust of the earth with simply a higher iron content. There's nothing particulary mysterious about my explanation in this respect. The fact we see arcs coming from these rigid surface structures lends strong support to the notion that this layer is composed of solids.
Sometimes you know it's solid, sometimes this layer is composed of solids. I wonder if you could be a little more ambiguous, please. Now what material, being 320 times less dense than radon, being half iron, allowing for movement of mass within, and being electrically conductive, makes up your solid shell? Hint: The answer to the question, "what material," will not be, "solid."quote:
What really matters is that you are right, is that it? How long have you spent analysing solar images? Should we trust someone who's spent the time to analyse the images and can offer a comprehensive explanation that is attentive to detail, or believe a handwave of an arguement that doesn't even identify the light source or the structure or the longetivity of the structure? Shall we simply ignore the peeling and the dust blowing aspects of the images on your word?
You need to check your ego at the door. My being right is of no consequence to me since it is you who have made the claim, therefore it is you who has to take the responsibility for proving it. But as simple as that concept is, you clearly have some resistance to understanding it. It has been mentioned often enough and clearly enough throughout this thread.quote:
Why not? How do you know they aren't solids holding those structures over these timelines?
Well if you're so sure it's solid, in fact you've claimed to know it, what material, being 320 times less dense than radon, being half iron, allowing for movement of mass within, and being electrically conductive, makes up your solid shell?
Oh, and I said, "Bottom line, if the surface isn't solid, it isn't solid. So what material is it?" I realize reading comprehension is definitely not your strong suit, as you've demonstrated several times that you can't grasp the simplest of concepts presented in simple written form. But the question, "So what material is it?" requires an answer of a particular composition. Your answer, "It's solid," is not a material.
Now if you can't answer the question about what material makes up your solid shell, then you can't realistically claim it to be solid. So once more... What material, being 320 times less dense than radon, being half iron, allowing for movement of mass within, and being electrically conductive, makes up your solid shell?
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 22:03:13 [Permalink]
|
It's like this. The iron sunists look at density calculations, point out every flaw they can find, and claim that it is so unreliable it can't possibly be used to calculate the density of the sun. When corrected on this, they don't ignore it, they switch to claiming that the anaylsis is wrong because dark energy doesn't factor into the equation, so therefore density could be affected in strange and unexplained ways, making all density calculations just plain wrong.
None of that is an attempt to ignore the data, it's all ad hoc reasons why the data is instead supplied by dogmatic scientists.
(Nod to Dave for some help with sentence structure.  )
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/23/2006 22:05:06 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
