|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 01/23/2006 : 22:26:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
(Nod to Dave for some help with sentence structure.  )
Wow! The sincerest form of flattery. The beer is on me if ever we meet, H. |
- 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 - 01/24/2006 : 09:46:10 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Kosovichev makes some interesting comments in this article...quote:
Scientists Produce First Detailed Image of the Inside of a Sunspot...
"What we found is that sunspots aren't static but consist of very strong, downward flows of plasma traveling toward the interior of the sun at speeds of about 3,000 miles per hour," [Kosovichev] says.
Within the article, any mention of flow describes "plasma", or alternatively, "material". It is possible, but seems quite unlikely, that the primary participants in this helioseismology project would use the terms "plasma" and "material" if indeed they were referring to electron movement and/or magma. But moving on to more relevant concerns...quote:
"Sound-speed maps tell us about the distribution of temperatures and magnetic fields," notes Kosovichev. "That's because sound waves propagate faster in regions with higher plasma temperatures and stronger magnetic fields."
He points out that sunspots appear dark because they are about 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than their surroundings. As expected, analysis of the June 1998 sunspot revealed that sound waves travel about 10 percent slower at the surface where temperatures are lower, and maintain this relatively slow pace as they begin moving toward the interior of the sun. When the sound waves reach a point about 3,000 miles below the surface, however, their speed increases significantly, indicating that the roots of a sunspot are hotter than their surroundings.
"This means that sunspots are cool only to depths of about 3,000 miles - a relatively shallow layer considering that it's about 430,000 miles from the surface to the center of the sun," Kosovichev explains.
Apparently in the helioseismology research, the speed of sound waves increasing or decreasing has little to do with density, and almost exclusively indicates differences in temperatures and magnetic fields. The variance in speed across ranges from 0.995R to 0.990R aren't related to any issue of density at all, solid or otherwise. So it appears the helioseismology data, as it has been used in this discussion by the proponent of the solid surface conjecture, can be effectively tossed in the scrap bin. It does not support a solid surface sun, and in fact serves to falsify the concept.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 10:59:57 [Permalink]
|
Well, GeeMack, the speed of sound in any material is affected by its density and temperature. More important than that in the difference in sound speed between a gas and a solid, however, is the fact that gasses tend to be vastly more compressible than solids. This elasticity slows down the propagation of sound (pressure) waves in a gas as compared to a solid. This page gives a short overview, and includes a chart which shows, for example, that the speed of sound in iron is nearly 18 times higher than in air at STP (and 4.6 times higher than in pure H2). The chart also shows that the slowest sound velocities are in the "spongiest" solids, with cork being just 1.51 times air at STP.
The density of a material acts to impede sound waves just through the material's inertia. Higher temperatures, on the other hand, speed sound up. So if a material has a relatively uniform density, but with large temperature differences throughout, then yes, temperature will be the more-important factor in determining the local speeds of sound. (And, strong magnetic fields cool plasmas.)
But, it's also important to remember that when examining the sunspot, Kosovichev was using different analysis techniques, and even different types of sound waves, than in the examination of the variance in the seismic radii. In the latter, he was specifically measuring the location of "density stratifications," using the fundamental frequencies of the Sun (the sound waves which ring the Sun like a bell). In the sunspot study, he was instead looking for the movement of mass using locally-produced sound waves.
So yes, the 0.995R figure comes from the direct detection of density differences. The sunspot information, not necessarily (but density has to figure into the equations no matter what, even if its presence is "uninteresting"). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 11:40:38 [Permalink]
|
| Is it possible that one or more of you gentlepeople could take a moment to briefly summarize the discussion and points of dispute so far, in terms the layman might hope to grasp? I ask this out of genuine curiousity, as this has been a very active topic, but way over my head. If such a layman's explanation is not possible or practical, then please continue with my apologies for the interruption. (So far, my own best reading of this thread is that the surface of the sun, or at least a discusson of it, produces more heat than light. But I may be wrong.) |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 12:17:51 [Permalink]
|
1: MM is an expert in UFOlgy science, where a picture is all the evidence you need.
2: Skeptic requires more.
3: MM says but I gave you more
4: Skeptic says no you didnt
bout sums it up |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 01/24/2006 12:18:11 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 12:29:45 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, Dave W., for the clarification and for the interesting link. My comments were in regards to the article cited, which was in regards to the sunspot research, not the overall helioseismology project. Sorry. I understand the movement discussed in the article, as well as in Investigation of Mass Flows Beneath a Sunspot by Time-Distance Helioseismology, isn't just convection (or conduction), and does actually indicate movement of mass. But of course it doesn't seem to support any cessation of movement of mass between 0.995R and 0.990R.
The direction of mass flow in the 3000 km to 6000 km range is more generally horizontal than vertical in the areas surrounding the sunspot (Figure 3), and much of that horizontal movement actually appears to be faster than the vertical movement at nearby depths above and below. So in reviewing the article, the material under discussion is moving, and seems to be referred to as plasma rather than magma or electrons.
We still haven't gotten a reasonable explanation for what type of solid material is less dense than helium at STP, conducts electricity, peels away when subjected to electrical arcs, remains solid at temperatures approaching 3500°C, allows for movement of mass through it at speeds up to 3000 miles per hour, and is over half iron. (Did I miss some?) Without some material to meet those required criteria for the solid in question, it's a pretty long stretch to claim that there is indeed a solid surface.
So what is the composition of the material that makes up the solid surface, Michael? Please describe the material and the principles of physics that support its existence. Any references you can provide would be appreciated, too. And I shouldn't have to remind you (as we often do with some folks who make extreme claims in other forums), your own incredulity, your belief that a solid surface does exist, therefore you can't imagine how such a material doesn't exist, is not supportive evidence. Oh, and neither is magic.
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 12:48:57 [Permalink]
|
BigPapaSmurf sez:quote:
1: MM is an expert in UFOlgy science, where a picture is all the evidence you need.
2: Skeptic requires more.
3: MM says but I gave you more
4: Skeptic says no you didnt
bout sums it up
Thanks. And the sun relates to UFOlogy Science how? |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 13:28:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner...
Thanks. And the sun relates to UFOlogy Science how?
BigPapaSmurf referred to "UFOlogy Science" as a method of going about supporting a claim. This thread isn't about UFOs. It's about the sun. There is a conjecture having to do with the composition of the sun which has been proposed by Michael Mozina. The conjecture is that the sun, rather than being composed pretty much exclusively of gaseous materials and plasma, actually has a solid surface shell. The shell supposedly begins about 3500 km down from outermost surface, at 0.995R, or 995 thousandths of the radius. The conjecture is very ambiguous about the actual thickness of the shell, but generally it seems the claim has it at a few thousand kilometers thick.
For the most part Michael is depending on his personal interpretation of several satellite images and videos to support his claim, in the same way that believers in alien UFOs tend to use their own interpretations of photos as the bulk of support for their beliefs, thereby inspiring BigPapaSmurf's comment.
There have been several direct questions put to the claimant which have often resulted in evasive apologetics and in some cases simple refusals to answer. Michael seems to expect his claim to be taken as truth until and unless others can prove it wrong. Often he seems to not understand that the burden of proof of such a claim falls upon the claimant. That issue has caused much frustration for those who have requested he take responsibility for supporting his claim, although it hasn't prevented others from researching material and providing data that seems to soundly refute the solid surface conjecture.
After more than thirty pages of discussion we have gotten (again) to a point where the physical makeup of the "solid" surface has been brought into question. There are several criteria which are required of this surface in order for it to be solid and to conform to other more scientific observations and analyses. So as much as anything else, right now we're waiting for Michael to describe that specific material that makes up his solid shell.
|
| Edited by - GeeMack on 01/24/2006 13:29:17 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 13:55:53 [Permalink]
|
Thank you very much, GeeMack, for taking the time to explain the argument so clearly. Now, for instance, the reason for the "stratification" discussion makes some sense to me.
As a layman in this arena, I would have supposed that if anything were solid in the sun, it would be at or near the core, not just below the photosphere. I certainly agree with you about the burden of proof on extraordinary claims. Oh, well, I'm happy to let you folks continue without futher interruption.
Thanks again to you and BigPapaSmurf. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 01/24/2006 13:56:25 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 14:11:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
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.
You have a VERY bad habit of pulling sentences out of context and comparing apples to oranges. The discussion we were having at that moment was centered on the idea that knowing there is a surface doesn't give us much if any useful information. My response was in relationship to that line of dialog by Dave. If you keep yanking things out of context like this, what do you expect?
I have a great deal of personal confidence in Birkeland's model. I have been up front about my confidence in Birkeland's model. I can say at this point that there is "solid evidence" to support Birkeland's model, hence my level of confidence is high. I could try to tap dance around that issue and feign neutrality if that suits you better, but the honest truth is that I do trust Birkeland's model, and I have great deal of confidence in it because of what I see in satellite images, and what I see in isotope analysis.
quote:
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?
That depends on what is going on in the moment. Perhaps it happens once a day, perhaps several times a day, perhaps twice a week. Sometimes it does happen several times in a day in different areas of the surface. It all depends on how active the sun is, and how actively the erosion is taking place.
quote:
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?
Not only didn't I "fabricate" any data, I pointed out two instance where GIGANTIC cracks appeared in the surface about 10 days apart. I've got images of the "Seahorse" CME on my website. In that movie, you can literally see the magma flow into the surface cracks and start to solidify over time.
quote:
Sometimes you know it's solid, sometimes this layer is composed of solids. I wonder if you could be a little more ambiguous, please.
I wonder about you sometimes. I have absolutely NOT been ambigous about this point in any way. I suggested matter of factly that the surface of the sun is very comperable to the surface of earth. That is not an ambiguous answer.
quote:
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."
Hint: I disagree about the density of the material in question, and I have some active conversations going with Alexander Kosovichev about determining heat changes from density changes in his methods. He's not had time to answer my last round of questions, and I'd like his response before I continue. Suffice to say, I believe that what is "assumed" to be a thermal transition, is more likely a density transition based on mass separation IMO.
quote:
What really matters is that you are right, is that it?
The only thing that matters to me is "truth". It's not an ego thing for me at all. If I'm right, so what? Birkeland nailed this model 100 years ago. I'm 100 years late to claim credit for the model.
If I'm wrong, so what? Life will go on, and I'll actually save money on advertizing. It's not about ME or anything to do with ME. It's about BIRKELAND and his model.
quote:
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.
First of all, as I already stated, this isn't about ego. Birkeland beat me to this explanation by 100 years. Manuel beat me to it by about 30 years, Bruce beat me to it by about 40 years. There is nothing here that even remotely relates to ego other than in your own mind.
quote:
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.
Skepticism works ALL ways. If I must prove the scientific validity of Birkeland's model based on satellite images, then gas model theoriests must also demonstrate their case with gas model theory. No "theory" is exempt from scrutiny, and an inability on my part to explain some archane aspect of some set of data thrown at me is not evidence that Birkeland's model is innaccurate.
quote:
Well if you're so sure it's solid, in fact you've claimed to know it,
First of all, I was talking to Dave in THEORETICAL terms about the value of knowing there is a generic surface on the sun. I was explaining the various things we would know would know by knowing the surface is solid. That is what I was discussing in the quote you yanked out of context. The use of the term "know" in that particular sentence was based on what we would KNOW by KNOWING that we had a crust. It began with the ASSUMPTION that we KNEW there was a crust.
quote:
what material, being 320 times less dense than radon,
That has NOT been demonstrated. That has only been ALLEDGED by Dave based on ONE paper by ONE individual. I'm actively communicating with that same individual, and I'd like to see that conversation play out before I continue this part of the discussion. I specifically believe that Alexander Kosovichev ASSUMED that the temperature increased rather than ASSUMING the density increased. I can't absolutely state that this is the case however until I hear back from Dr. Kosovichev. He's been very gratious to me over the last year so I owe him a chance |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 14:19:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
That depends on what is going on in the moment. Perhaps it happens once a day, perhaps several times a day, perhaps twice a week. Sometimes it does happen several times in a day in different areas of the surface. It all depends on how active the sun is, and how actively the erosion is taking place.
Just to start with...
How frequently? Fifty times a day? A hundred? Three? Depending on what that might be going on at the moment? Magic? Comets hitting Jupiter? Why is it like pulling teeth to get you to cough up a straight answer? You said magma moves through the surface of the sun "more frequently" than it does here on Earth. How about you start with explaining how frequently magma moves through the surface of the Earth. Then go from there and give us some numbers? Or is this going to be another one of your refusals to actually back up your claim?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 14:26:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
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.
In this particular instance, that is exactly the case. We have 90 percent of the mass, and all the acceleration of the unviverse being utterly ignored in current "density" calculations. You are now trying to claim they are representative of "absolute" density, when they can only reflect "relative" concepts of density since they are computed in "relative" terms to begin with.
quote:
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. )
No, I'm addressed the data, pointed out a weakness in how the data is gathered and computed and I've pointed out the effects and issues that are not accounted for. That is completely different from the way you ignored Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis, never pointed out any flaw or concerns but just ignored it completely. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/24/2006 14:27:59 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 14:30:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
You have a VERY bad habit of pulling sentences out of context and comparing apples to oranges. The discussion we were having at that moment was centered on the idea that knowing there is a surface doesn't give us much if any useful information. My response was in relationship to that line of dialog by Dave. If you keep yanking things out of context like this, what do you expect?
Well I sure as hell don't expect a straight answer since you've given very few in the last 35 pages. Shall we review this one? Dave W. said...quote:
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.
To which you responded...quote:
That is not true. We know a lot about it. We know it's solid.
Then a bit later you declared...quote:
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.
There is absolutely nothing out of context here at all. Dave W. suggested you don't know anything about the surface, and you replied that you know it's solid, and followed later with a claim that you never claimed that you were right. You somehow think of yourself as a competent researcher when you've proven beyond any doubt that can't even go back a couple pages and re-read part of a conversation.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2006 : 14:33:55 [Permalink]
|
| Note also that an increase in density of 0.1%, per the speed-of-sound equations (all other factors being equal), would result in a drop in sound speed of approximately 0.05%, as opposed to the large increase we would expect when going from most gasses to most solids. So another constraint placed upon the shell material is that while a solid, it must be highly elastic (probably softer than even Silly Putty). If it weren't, the helioseismology data would reflect the huge speed-of-sound discrepancies (between observations and the expectations of the Standard Solar Model) at and below the shell. |
- 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 - 01/24/2006 : 14:39:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Skepticism works ALL ways. If I must prove the scientific validity of Birkeland's model based on satellite images, then gas model theoriests must also demonstrate their case with gas model theory.
When the gas model theory becomes the topic of discussion then the gas model theorists will be expected to step up. This claim you make is about a solid surface. Skepticism only needs to be applied to the particular topic at hand. That topic is your conjecture. And, since you clearly have a problem with reading comprehension, allow me to put this in terms that even a moron can understand: You've made the claim. It is your responsibility to prove it.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
