|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 02/10/2006 : 08:51:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Until you or Dave can demonstrate a way to determine the density of an unknown material without touching it, I can't see a way to really start on the density issue.
I think most of us found Dave W.'s method for determining the density of the Sun to be quite understandable. Apparently you didn't, or at least you don't consider it a reliable method. But you also haven't proposed any modifications to his method that you'd find acceptable, nor have you provided any alternative methods for determining that density.
Interestingly enough you may have created for yourself what might be an insurmountable dilemma. You've ventured to guess the Sun has a solid surface, and you've been very specific about it being solid, not liquid, plasma, or gas. In fact, the entire premise of this discussion is to provide you with an opportunity to prove that claim. And of course even you said you'd like to do that in a valid, legitimately scientific way.quote:
It has *always* been about science. That has been my motive from the start. I've not made a dime on this project and I doubt I ever will. My primary motive in doing all this is because I didn't want my kids to be taught myths in school. I feel about Birkeland's model the way you feel about evolution. It's always been about science from my perspective.
To define a material as solid, from a scientific perspective, we must be able to determine its density, at least in a way that allows us to scientifically compare it to other characteristics of the material and/or other known solids. You aren't willing to accept that the density of a material can be determined without touching it. Due to our current technological limitations, we just can't get a handful of material from 0.995Rsun to test it and assess whether it conforms to the required characteristics of a solid. Therefore, until we can grab a chunk of that solar material from the 0.995Rsun area, or until you can provide an acceptable scientific method of determining the density characteristics of materials which we can't touch, you can't prove your claim.
In simple terms, according to the limits you have imposed upon yourself regarding the scientific validity of the evidence, it may be impossible for you to ever prove there's a solid surface on the Sun.
Now if you'd like to address the issue of how we might scientifically determine the density properties of the untouchable materials that make up the Sun, if you'd like to answer Dave W.'s questions regarding the methods necessary for calculating density, you might be able to salvage this discussion. The possibility, or impossibility, of proving your claim relies on your ability to define a method to determine density of materials you can't touch. At this point, any other concern seems to be tangent.
|
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 15:28:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
You are using big words here, Michael. I really hope you can back it up with an equally big (as in good) explanation.
I believe I can back it up, starting with that first Lockheed RD image on my website, and including the sunquake images, as well as the doppler images and the composite images. I've got evidence of electrical arcs coming off the surface.
That wasn't what I asked of you in that post, and you damn well know it. You just don't want to (or can't) answer that question. The one about the false dichotomy.
I can't picture you having an honest discussion.
Two pages of posts, several made by you, and not a single one addressing Dave's first post, which provides a scientific calculation of dark matter's influence on the sun.
You sir shoot off a big mouth about wanting a scientific discussion, but when push come to shove, you run off playing he-said-she-said games. Thank you for reminding me why wanted to stay out of these threads in the first place. I will probably continue reading (yeah, I'm a closet masochist) and maybe I will make a post at some point.
quote:
quote:
I can imagine a hypothetical situation where at least a partial mass separation of the sun may contribute the 2% deviation from the ideal gas model that was detected by helioseismologists.
That's why I'm unprepared to discount the standard solar model just yet.
I can imagine that we could all imagine a whole host of hypothetical possibilities, all of which "might be" or "could be" possible.
See, I can play the "might be", "could be", and "probably" game too. I'm sure that Valiant Dancer will run all your post through the word-processor to see how many such words you have written.
But using your standard of proof and logic, I have aleady proved that mass separation cannot falsify the standard solar model. Hence, it is useless as evidence against Standard Model, and it is useless as evidence for Solid Surface. 
quote:
The real proof however is found in the observations and in the images themselves, which is why I am so keen to discuss them.
Then why don't you discuss that then? I mean instead of bitching about us not reading Manuel's mass separation stuff?
As long as you are contradicting yourself like this, you are creating confusion that in the end serves you no good, because you've managed to piss us off, and made us less interested in examining your ideas for validity.
(edited spelling and clarification) |
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/10/2006 15:45:11 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 17:46:06 [Permalink]
|
A Brief History of Michael's arguments:
Look at the photos!
(These photos don't really prove anything.)
Because you aren't reading the papers which verify them!
(These papers don't really support your conclusions.)
Then why are you ignoring the isotope analysis?
(The results of the isotope analysis don't support your model one way or the other.)
It does if you would only look at the photos!
(....)
|
"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 02/10/2006 18:03:48 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2006 : 10:29:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Then take a stand and tell me what you think about Manuel's evidence of mass separation. Is he right or is he wrong. If he is wrong, explain why he is wrong. Don't hedge, don't evade the question, just put your opinions on the table so we can all scrutinize your position on the matter.
I'll bite.
Here is my position:
I think that Dr. Manuel is wrong about mass separation indicating that the sun is primarily iron.
My position is that the measurements shows that the sun is ~ 92% hydrogen and the between 7% - 8% helium. Direct spectroscopic measurements indicate this. Jupiter and Saturn have also been shown to be approximately 90% hydrogen. Most normal stars are measured to consist primarily of hydrogen and helium. Most nebula are composed primarily of hydrogen. All of this evidence indicates that the most common element in universe is hydrogen.
If I understand Dr. Manuels position of mass seperation it all rests on his assumption that meteorites are indicative of the relative percentage of the elements in the universe. This is a flawed assumption, which means all of the conclusions based on that assumption are also flawed.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2006 : 15:47:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I'll bite.
Here is my position:
I think that Dr. Manuel is wrong about mass separation indicating that the sun is primarily iron.
Your last few posts have made me rethink my perception of you furshur. You've been honest as well as willing to stick your neck out and take a stand. Those are two very admirable qualities. I can't help liking you whether or not I agree with you. :)
quote:
My position is that the measurements shows that the sun is ~ 92% hydrogen and the between 7% - 8% helium. Direct spectroscopic measurements indicate this.
This is a bit of a self fulfilling prophesy I'm afraid. What you're essentially saying is "This gas model "holy-book" of ours claims that the sun is *not* mass separated, therefore we can use spectroscopic measurements to count photons and then *assume* that in a non mass separated sun, these would tell us something about it's composition. I'm afraid that has nothing to do with the isotope analysis, and it's based upon the "assumption" that the sun is *not* mass separated, therefore you can make such a leap of faith. All of it however is predictated on the "faith" that the sun is not mass separated. That's what Manuel's isotope analysis speaks to in the first place. It's a bit akin to finding the universe isn't really just 6K years old based on isotope analysis. The gas model holy-book has to be scrutinized here based on this isotope analysis that suggests the sun *is* mass separated.
quote:
Jupiter and Saturn have also been shown to be approximately 90% hydrogen.
Based on a theoretical universe where no Birkeland currents exists, your Holy-Book theorizes it can predict the composition of an astronomical body only by knowing it's "relative" density. I'm afraid the existence of Birkeland currents both inside and outside the solar system call that theory into question as well. Shoemaker Levy 9 did not penetrate deeply into Jupiter's atmosophere.
quote:
Most normal stars are measured to consist primarily of hydrogen and helium.
Only if we "asssume" there is no mass separation in the first place!
quote:
Most nebula are composed primarily of hydrogen. All of this evidence indicates that the most common element in universe is hydrogen.
Even if that were the case, there isn't a one to one correlation between Hydrogen being very abundant, and hydrogen being the most abundent element on any physical formation. Hydrogen is light. Our moon has collected a great deal of weight from heavy elements over the last 4.6 billion years, but there's no hydrogen bubble around it. The fact that hydrogen gas is so light precludes us from suggesting that it's abundance in the universe automatically correlates to an abundance on a phyiscal body.
quote:
If I understand Dr. Manuels position of mass seperation it all rests on his assumption that meteorites are indicative of the relative percentage of the elements in the universe.
No. That is but one aspect of his whole theory, but the mass separation evidence began with lunar soil analysis. Others have noticed this mass fractionation process in other gasses as well as Dr. Manuel.
quote:
This is a flawed assumption, which means all of the conclusions based on that assumption are also flawed.
This is not a "flawed assumption" as it relates to what we see in our own solar system. Shoemaker Levy nine deposited a lot of mass on Jupiter recently. The moon is full of craters that show where it picked up weight and material from meteorites. Other celestial bodies have shown evidence of meteorite hits. There is nothing particularly "flawed" about such an assumption, in fact it has strong observational support, on earth, on the moon, and on other celestial bodies as well.
While I admire your honesty and your willingness to stick your neck out, you ultimately have not addressed the isotope analysis that shows evidence of universal process of mass fractionization across a number of elements.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/11/2006 16:43:47 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2006 : 16:01:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
A Brief History of Michael's arguments:
Look at the photos!
(These photos don't really prove anything.)
Because you aren't reading the papers which verify them!
Wow, what an obvious little strawman HH. That's really not your style. I'm surprised you'd stoop to that level.
Of course there is evidence in these images. They are direct observations, the single most important thing as it relates to science and knowledge. It is only via observation that we can determine what are accurate theories, and which theories are inaccurate. Only via observation can we tell "theory" from "reality".
These images do show evidence of mass separation, and show evidence of a rigid (in fact solid) surface under the photosphere.
But that's not the only kind of scientific observation that you need rely on. There is also nuclear chemical data that shows that the sun is mass separated, right down to the isotope. I didn't even know it was separated down to the isotope just by looking at the large scale observations.
quote:
(These papers don't really support your conclusions.)
They absolutely *do* support my conclusions. I concluded that the sun mass separates the plamsa in it's atmosophere from these satellite images, and this isotope analysis work *absolutely* supports that assessment. In fact it supports that part of the assesment right down to the isotope. *That* aspect of my theory is *fully* supported by this evidence, even if we can't "assume" it supports a "solid" surface exists under the photosphere. While *one* aspect of my interpretation of the observations are fully supported by this evidence, not *every* aspect of my theory is fully supported by this observation. The fact that *some* part of my theory is supported by this observation precludes you from ignoring it altogether.
quote:
Then why are you ignoring the isotope analysis?
(The results of the isotope analysis don't support your model one way or the other.)
This is GeeMack's propoganda. Rather than being a man about it and taking a stand like furshur, he'd rather try to get you to ignore the fact it does support the mass separation aspects of my theory perfectly, in fact it shows a greater "resolution" of this understanding of mass separation that goes right down to the isotope level.
quote:
It does if you would only look at the photos!
(....)
Now that we *know* that satellite evidence and nuclear chemical analysis have demonstrated mass separation is a reality, in order for us to know whether there is actually a solid surface vs. a heavy plasma layer, we will have to go back to the images again and see what they reveal to us. We do however know without a doubt that the satellite evidence of mass separation is confirmed by nuclear chemical analysis. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/11/2006 16:08:59 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2006 : 16:12:02 [Permalink]
|
Portraying an opposing position as nothing but dogma, Michael, assures most of us here that you aren't interested in holding a discussion of the science.
Especially since Dr. Manuel's work rests upon "correcting" the spectroscopy with spectroscopy of other entities. In other words, the assumption that some form of spectroscopy can give us correct information about the interior of the Sun is present in Dr. Manuel's work.
Just like you want to cherry-pick from the helioseismology results, you're also cherry-picking the spectroscopy, using the results when it suits your purposes, and discarding results based upon the same assumptions when it doesn't fit your model.
That's the opposite of science Michael. |
- 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 - 02/11/2006 : 16:25:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
That wasn't what I asked of you in that post, and you damn well know it. You just don't want to (or can't) answer that question. The one about the false dichotomy.
Actually Dr. Mabuse, I don't know what you want or what exactly *your* question is.
quote:
I can't picture you having an honest discussion.
I'm trying to be honest about what I do know and what I'm speculating about, and I've been honest about the fact I would prefer to stick to topics I can actualy answer rather than going off on tangents.
quote:
Two pages of posts, several made by you, and not a single one addressing Dave's first post, which provides a scientific calculation of dark matter's influence on the sun.
I was in the middle of putting together a printer server, and rewiring the computer room for crying out loud! I even explained that to Dave, and told him I'd be back today to respond to it! Geez! Never mind the fact that I've answered a lot more than five questions for Dave, and I'm still waiting for Dave to answer my questions about the stuff I wanted to deal with.
quote:
You sir shoot off a big mouth about wanting a scientific discussion, but when push come to shove, you run off playing he-said-she-said games.
Dr. Mabuse, that is simply not true. I've not run off. I'm still here after 4 complete threads answering as many questions as I can. I've not shot off my mouth about anything I don't believe I can demonstrate. The times I have put my foot in my mouth, I've apologized and moved on. I don't see why you would say such a thing frankly.
quote:
Thank you for reminding me why wanted to stay out of these threads in the first place. I will probably continue reading (yeah, I'm a closet masochist) and maybe I will make a post at some point.
I wish you would participate and put together an explanation for the two images I meantioned using whatever framework you feel is relevant. I think if you sat down and tried to do that in earnest, you'd have a better idea of where I'm coming from. That was my point in asking you for an explanation of just two solar satellite images.
quote:
See, I can play the "might be", "could be", and "probably" game too. I'm sure that Valiant Dancer will run all your post through the word-processor to see how many such words you have written.
But using your standard of proof and logic, I have aleady proved that mass separation cannot falsify the standard solar model. Hence, it is useless as evidence against Standard Model, and it is useless as evidence for Solid Surface.
Except this mass separation process extends to the isotope level suggesting that not only are elements separated but even the the layers are separated down to the isotope.
quote:
Then why don't you discuss that then?
I've tried. I'll continue to try to get folks to address these actual images. That's why I asked you some basic questions of the two images I meantioned. I want to talk about them.
quote:
I mean instead of bitching about us not reading Manuel's mass separation stuff?
I'm only "bitching" because not everyone is even addressing this data in integrity. Some are ignoring the fact that the mass separation aspect of my theory is "fully" supported by this data. *That* ius what I'm bitching about.
quote:
As long as you are contradicting yourself like this, you are creating confusion that in the end serves you no good, because you've managed to piss us off, and made us less interested in examining your ideas for validity.
I'm trying to work on the "pissing people off" part, but frankly nobody here much cares how I feel or might react to the mud slinging I'm being subjected to around here. I not really a good victim, I tend to "react" instead. My reaction needs to be better I suppose, and I agree with that aspect of your criticism. I've even tried to be clear and honest about that feedback as well. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/11/2006 16:27:22 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2006 : 16:38:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Portraying an opposing position as nothing but dogma, Michael, assures most of us here that you aren't interested in holding a discussion of the science.
But Dave, some parts of gas model theory *are* based on "dogma". The notion you can use spectroscopy to determine the solar composition is a concept that is predicated on the "faith" that the sun is not mass separated. Once you question that "faith" based on isotope analysis, everyone get's really touchy.
quote:
Especially since Dr. Manuel's work rests upon "correcting" the spectroscopy with spectroscopy of other entities. In other words, the assumption that some form of spectroscopy can give us correct information about the interior of the Sun is present in Dr. Manuel's work.
It's based on the "assumption" that the isotope analysis is accurate. That's the only assumption he makes. It's an understandable assumption since more than one chemist came up with these same results of mass fractionation.
quote:
Just like you want to cherry-pick from the helioseismology results,
Wait a minute! You are also 'cherry picking" the heliosiesmology data yourself. You've not explained that mass movement difference above and below the stratification layer! We haven't even talked about his last paper and there are difinitely some bombshells in that paper as it relates to surface fractures seen in 195A images during these same times.
quote:
you're also cherry-picking the spectroscopy, using the results when it suits your purposes, and discarding results based upon the same assumptions when it doesn't fit your model.
I am not. I'm using spectroscopy to tell me what elements are present but I am not *assuming* your faith in non mass separation is accurate. In fact I'm assuming that chemists are correct about the mass fractionization evidence, expecially since I "observed" that the sun was mass separated in satellite images.
In essense, Manuel's (and other's) work strike to the heart of the "faith" that gas model theoriest have in the notion that the sun is not mass separated. Gas model theory is predicated on the "faith" that the sun is not mass separated, but he isotope analysis and the satellite images show that it *is* mass separated, right down to the isotope.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/11/2006 16:40:55 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2006 : 16:44:39 [Permalink]
|
So, Michael, how are we supposed to take your not answering the many specific, pertinent, legitimate, scientifically based concerns posed over the past several pages? Maybe you're still working on the answers?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2006 : 16:45:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
These images do show evidence of mass separation...
Explain that, please.quote:
...and show evidence of a rigid (in fact solid) surface under the photosphere.
Not when you can't show that they come from under the photosphere, they don't.quote:
There is also nuclear chemical data that shows that the sun is mass separated, right down to the isotope.
Nononono. Dr. Manuel's data shows, at best, that the Sun's atmosphere is mass separated, not the whole Sun. In fact, your model simply doesn't have an entirely mass-separated Sun, since you're talking about compounds and "assimilation" in the solid shell.
And, as another matter of fact, the Earth's atmosphere is only mass-separated above 100 km. Below that, turbulence ensures that the gasses remain mixed together for the most part. Not only that, but heavier ozone (O3) doesn't appear below about 15 km without help from automobile exhaust and lightning strikes, but "floats" on top of the less-massive O2. So, since 99.9% of the Earth's atmosphere is not mass separated, why should we assume that the Sun's atmosphere is mass separated? That, after all, is your argument from similarity in a nutshell.quote:
They absolutely *do* support my conclusions. I concluded that the sun mass separates the plamsa in it's atmosophere from these satellite images, and this isotope analysis work *absolutely* supports that assessment. In fact it supports that part of the assesment right down to the isotope.
Except that you lumped all the metals and whatever else SERTS didn't see into the shell, so "right down to the isotope" is plainly false.quote:
Now that we *know* that satellite evidence and nuclear chemical analysis have demonstrated mass separation is a reality...
We don't "know" any such thing. You haven't even begun to explain how the satellite images support the mass-separation hypothesis.quote:
We do however know without a doubt that the satellite evidence of mass separation is confirmed by nuclear chemical analysis.
Baloney. We're just beginning that very question. |
- 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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2006 : 16:54:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But Dave, some parts of gas model theory *are* based on "dogma". The notion you can use spectroscopy to determine the solar composition is a concept that is predicated on the "faith" that the sun is not mass separated. Once you question that "faith" based on isotope analysis, everyone get's really touchy.
Not at all, they get "touchy" that you call it "dogma" when you can't seem to explain how "mass separation" would give the same measurements in different fields a wholly different interpretation. If you could explain how - precisely - the "dogma" is false (using math, since the "dogma" is mathematical), things might be different.quote:
It's based on the "assumption" that the isotope analysis is accurate. That's the only assumption he makes.
Bullshit, Michael. The analysis rests upon spectroscopic measurements, so if you're going to call spectroscopy into question, you must also call Dr. Manuel's analysis into question.quote:
It's an understandable assumption since more than one chemist came up with these same results of mass fractionation.
Arguments from popularity will be ignored. The vast majority of geologists in 1910 thought the continents didn't move, and they were all wrong.quote:
Wait a minute! You are also 'cherry picking" the heliosiesmology data yourself. You've not explained that mass movement difference above and below the stratification layer!
Yes I did, you just ignored my explanation. Just like you've ignored my questions to you in this thread.quote:
We haven't even talked about his last paper and there are difinitely some bombshells in that paper as it relates to surface fractures seen in 195A images during these same times.
You'll have to prove that there are "surface fractures" before we can discuss them. I read Kosovichev's latest paper - I didn't see anything Sun-shaking in it at all.quote:
I am not. I'm using spectroscopy to tell me what elements are present but I am not *assuming* your faith in non mass separation is accurate.
Explain how it makes a difference.quote:
In fact I'm assuming that chemists are correct about the mass fractionization evidence, expecially since I "observed" that the sun was mass separated in satellite images.
Explain how you observed the mass separation.quote:
In essense, Manuel's (and other's) work strike to the heart of the "faith" that gas model theoriest have in the notion that the sun is not mass separated.
Show me the words "the Sun is not mass separated" in any description of the standard solar model.quote:
...but he isotope analysis and the satellite images show that it *is* mass separated, right down to the isotope.
Then why does your model reject the mass separation hypothesis? |
- 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 - 02/11/2006 : 17:33:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
That wasn't what I asked of you in that post, and you damn well know it. You just don't want to (or can't) answer that question. The one about the false dichotomy.
Actually Dr. Mabuse, I don't know what you want or what exactly *your* question is.
Then I fear you have either a serious reading comprehension problem, or you didn't bother actually reading what I posted.
Here if comes again, for your benefit:
//Starting repost
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The implication of mass separation however is that it lands a death blow to current gas model theory. If there is mass separation, then everything related to current gas model theory is meaningless, and we have to start over.
...and this is where you loose most of the credibility you have. It seems way to much of a false dichotomy to me.
I will not accept this premise until you can give a detailed explanation to why the current gas model becomes meaningless.
You are using big words here, Michael. I really hope you can back it up with an equally big (as in good) explanation.
//Ending repost
You stated "Death Blow" and "meaningless" as in totally nullifying the Standard Solar Model. That's what I asked you to justify, especially in the light that 2% discrepancy between an ideal gas model and the measured result can be explained as a partial mass separation, and that detected interfaces between layers are the boundaries between two levels of convection cells. |
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. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2006 : 18:00:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
You stated "Death Blow" and "meaningless" as in totally nullifying the Standard Solar Model. That's what I asked you to justify, especially in the light that 2% discrepancy between an ideal gas model and the measured result can be explained as a partial mass separation, and that detected interfaces between layers are the boundaries between two levels of convection cells.
Here was my response the last time:
quote:
Except this mass separation process extends to the isotope level suggesting that not only are elements separated but even the the layers are separated down to the isotope.
According to these mass fractionation patterns the mass separation is a process that involves layers, and even isotope layers within layers of elements. It's not just a 'little' mass separated, it's separted in layers of elements and layers within layers.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2006 : 18:39:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Not at all, they get "touchy" that you call it "dogma" when you can't seem to explain how "mass separation" would give the same measurements in different fields a wholly different interpretation.
But Dave, I have given you my views on this several times now.
quote:
If you could explain how - precisely - the "dogma" is false (using math, since the "dogma" is mathematical), things might be different.
The dogma isn't mathematic. The dogma has *some* mathematical support, based on heliocentric concepts of reality and preconcieved and self fulfilling concepts of how spectroscopy can be used.
I gave a mathematically precise explanation why coronal loops have to be the hottest things in the solar atmosophere on the Bautforum, and that data was utterly ignored. Dr. Manuel has expressed himself in a mathematically precise was as well. What's wrong with any of this math?
quote:
Bullshit, Michael. The analysis rests upon spectroscopic measurements, so if you're going to call spectroscopy into question, you must also call Dr. Manuel's analysis into question.
You're comparing apples to oranges. He's using spectrosopy to look at isotope of elements in controlled and well understood conditions, whereas gas model theory is using it to measure something the size of a sun, with the *assumption* it isn't mass separated. Dr. Manuel assumed nothing about mass fractionization of elements. That just popped out of the data itself!
quote:
Arguments from popularity will be ignored. The vast majority of geologists in 1910 thought the continents didn't move, and they were all wrong.
That funny since you seem to think none of the heliosiesmology "expert" you cite could be wrong. :) Now we have a battle of chemists vs. heliosiesmology "assumptions".
quote:
Yes I did, you just ignored my explanation. Just like you've ignored my questions to you in this thread.
If you did, I must have missed it. Could you point me to it, or briefly try again to explain why the mass flow underneath is moving up and away from the column while the top side is moving down and toward the column?
quote:
You'll have to prove that there are "surface fractures" before we can discuss them.
You can even see a few of them on my website. In fact on of the dates he uses is one of the two dates I mentioned on my website where we see *giant* surface fractures that span nearly half the visible surface.
quote:
I read Kosovichev's latest paper - I didn't see anything Sun-shaking in it at all.
Sun shaking? First of all he's looking at the surface of the photosphere which is sitting 4800Km above the surface. There are only "waves" on the plasma of the photosphere, much as we might see "waves" on the ocean.
quote:
Explain how it makes a difference.
The spectroscopy data will accurately reveal at least *some* of the elements that exist, regardless of whether or not the sun is mass separated. Only if you *assume* that the sun is not mass separated can you start making wild guesses as to whether you're seeing "all" of the elements, or even a proportionally representative spectrum. Only by "assuming" that no mass separation occurs can you literally "leap" to the conclusion that you can determine actual composition in this way. My way requires no preconcieved ideas about how the sun is layed out, whereas trying to determine actual percentages of elements present *assumes* a non mass separated model.
quote:
Explain how you observed the mass separation.
There are several "layers" on the sun, including the surface, the umbra, the penumbra, the chromosophere and the corona. The are represented by metals, silicon, neon, helium and hydrogen (in that order). The most obvious example of mass separation is between the umbra and the penumbra where you can literally see the lit neon filaments end at a very specific depth, and the silicon umbra begins.
quote:
Show me the words "the Sun is not mass separated" in any description of the standard solar model.
That's the underlying assumption of using spectroscopy to determine elemental abundance.
quote:
Then why does your model reject the mass separation hypothesis?
Huh? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/11/2006 18:41:40 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
