|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 08/18/2006 : 06:51:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
First of all, I did not try to change our fundamental understanding of gravity or density, I simply tried to suggest there may be movement (technically acceleration) in the Z axis of the solar system. Now that the voyager probes have started showing us where the solar sheath is located, there is actually evidence now to suggest this may be what's going on.
Let me assure you Michael are not at rest, and even if we are there would be absolutely no way to prove it - it is called relativity.
The solar sheath may mean the interstellar medium is moving relative to the sun or it may mean that the sun is moving relative to the interstellar medium or it may mean that some other mechanisum is causing it, but it does not mean we are accelerating.
But none of this matters anyway! If we are rocketing through interstellar space at 1,000,000 mph or even accelterating through space it does not matter. Why? Because both the earth and the sun are moving at the same realtive velocity (or acceleration). Where is my proof that it does not matter?
Let me demonstrate how to calculate the mass of the sun:
T^2 = (4Pi^2/GM)r^3 Kepler's 3rd Law
M = (4Pi^2 r^3)/GT^2
Where
M = the mass of the sun
r = the mean orbit radius of earth
G = Gravitational constant
T = earths orbital period (365x24x60x60)
You keep repeating acceleration in the Z axis - Why would that matter to determining the mass of the sun? Stop waving your arms and repeating the same thing over and over.
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT ACCELERATION IN THE Z AXIS WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN DETERMINING THE MASS OF THE SUN???
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 08:04:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
But none of this matters anyway! If we are rocketing through interstellar space at 1,000,000 mph or even accelterating through space it does not matter. Why? Because both the earth and the sun are moving at the same realtive velocity (or acceleration). Where is my proof that it does not matter?
Let me demonstrate how to calculate the mass of the sun:
T^2 = (4Pi^2/GM)r^3 Kepler's 3rd Law
M = (4Pi^2 r^3)/GT^2
Where
M = the mass of the sun
r = the mean orbit radius of earth
G = Gravitational constant
T = earths orbital period (365x24x60x60)
Thanks, furshur. This is what I thought, but wasn't sure if I was simply uninformed about a special formula that involved movement along the z-axis. Perhaps we both are uninformed, but its up to Michael to explain it.
In short, without being able to explain the sun's mass and density within a model of it having a solid surface (and therefore with massive amounts of dense iron, etc.), then his model must be rejected, images be damned.
So let me supplement Dave and ask that after he's presented a clear model about electronic arcs, etc., that he explain clearly and in full how this model can account for the facts of the sun's mass and density. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 08:33:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
In short, without being able to explain the sun's mass and density within a model of it having a solid surface (and therefore with massive amounts of dense iron, etc.), then his model must be rejected, images be damned.
To be fair, the standard solar models don't explain the Sun's mass, but instead use it as a starting point (a "free variable") to make other predictions. The standard solar models do explain the Sun's density, however, while Michael's "model" only does so by pleading ignorance of the structure of the Sun. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 09:38:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
In short, without being able to explain the sun's mass and density within a model of it having a solid surface (and therefore with massive amounts of dense iron, etc.), then his model must be rejected, images be damned.
To be fair, the standard solar models don't explain the Sun's mass, but instead use it as a starting point (a "free variable") to make other predictions. The standard solar models do explain the Sun's density, however, while Michael's "model" only does so by pleading ignorance of the structure of the Sun.
Right, Dave. I guess I wasn't clear. My point was, that-- as you note-- current solar models are in accords with that we know about mass, density, and gravity. This is one of many compelling reasons to accept the standard solar model.
SO, if you are going to explain stars in a new way-- namely that they are made up of up to 50% iron-- then to arrive at the accepted numbers for mass and density and gravity, we must fundamentally change how we think about them.
Michael is all too happy to toss around the "no evidence" and "metaphysical" crap when talking about the Big Bang and inflation. In light of this, one would expect that he could at least throw us a bone regarding his model and this fundamental new understanding of things like mass and gravity. And this "z-axis" and whatnot simply does not cut it! |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 10:02:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
No shit, Dave! I mean, what kind of question is "how much evidence do you want" anyway? How do you answer that? Quantitatively? "I want 2 megs worth!" Or what? Your answer should be obvious, and Michael should want to put enough out that that we have so say "enough already, we buy it!"
The problem Cune is that no matter how much evidence I might put together cohesively, there will always be multiple ways to interpret any set of data. I can point out that coronal loops emit x-rays and gamma-rays just like electrical discharges here on earth, and point out all the similaries between the emission patterns and the emission paterns of Birkeland's experiments, and I can quote Alfven till I'm blue in the face, but that's not a guarantee that anyone will listen. Does it matter to you or Dave that Rhessi shows us the coronal loops create neutron capture signatures and releases free neutrons like we would expect from z-pinches in plasma? I don't really know.
To me however, trying to explain the hydrogen flow was a serious problem with a surface crust made of iron. Prior to these satellite images, Dr. Manuel was under the impression that nuetrons released from the neutron core would eventually decay into hydrogen atoms, but with a solid surface sitting in the way, that's not really a "complete" explantion of hydrogen flow. Once however I found the Rhessi images, and saw the neutron capture process going on the the upper atmosphere, I started studying z-pinch forces in plasma. Through this process, and by studying z-pinch forces, I realized that the process that frees neutrons that decay into hydrogen atoms is a function of z-pinching in the upper atmosphere. This was a key issue for me personally, and it explained a "mystery" that I was struggling with for a while. For me it's a "big deal".
From your perspective however, it's probably no big deal at all, but from my perspective, these Rhessi images are critical.
It's therefore really hard for me to know what you might find "relevant" and what's not going to have much impact. I just think it's very naive to believe that a single paper I write is going to change everyone's opinion after one read through.
In fact, they actually gave Alfven a Nobel Prize, and then promptly ignored the later half of his life's work that is related to *light* plasma and current flow.
I have no idea how much evidence will be "enough" to make this group say "enough already". In fact I'm quite certain that no matter how much evidence I present, that there will be a way to remain "skeptical" if one wishes to remain skeptical. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/18/2006 10:06:38 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 10:37:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
The solar sheath may mean the interstellar medium is moving relative to the sun or it may mean that the sun is moving relative to the interstellar medium or it may mean that some other mechanisum is causing it, but it does not mean we are accelerating.
You are correct, there is no one to one correlation between the shape of the sheath and the concept of "acceleration". As I noted earier it could indicate this, but there are multiple ways to interpret this data. Then again, if you believe the Hubble constant applies, you'll have to accept an expanding and accelerating universe.
quote:
But none of this matters anyway! If we are rocketing through interstellar space at 1,000,000 mph or even accelterating through space it does not matter. Why? Because both the earth and the sun are moving at the same realtive velocity (or acceleration). Where is my proof that it does not matter?
You are either confusing "velocity" with "acceleration" or you are assuming that all bodies in the solar system are accelerated uniformly. I don't believe that is the case here. In fact I'm assuming that any force of acceleration is not uniform, or there would simply be no additional centripetal force on the string in my analogy.
Having said all this, I don't really know the densities and temperatures of the interior areas of the sun yet, so I don't really know for sure that there even *is* a "density" problem in the first place! This is an "assumption" that you guys keep asserting as fact, but I have no idea if it's actually true or not true at this point in time. Since there is so little evidence to support the notion of z-axis acceleration, and because I'm not even sure that I need to explain a different "average density" of the sun in the first place, I have no desire to go around and around over this issue again. I would much rather spend my time focusing on something like satellite images and things I can actually see and explain and support my theory of a solid surface crust. Whether there even *is* a density "problem" in the first place remains to be seen. If and when I know that I need to cross that bridge I will, but right now I have no idea if that is even necessary in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 10:47:36 [Permalink]
|
FYI.....
After sleeping on it and thinking about it, I'm inclined to agree with Dave's assesment of where things stand.
It's way too hard to build a cohesive arguement for electrified coronal loops in a peicemeal fashion on a website like this in between tech calls. :)
The coronal loops are IMO *the* key to making my case for a solid surface, and they are also the key to demonstrating that the sun is "electrical" in nature. This topic certainly warrants a paper of it's own. I'll probably want to curtail my posts here for awhile now and invest my time in putting such a paper together. Our business is also very cyclical, and it revolves around the startup of the school year. This is our busiest time of the year. Don't take it personally if disappear for awhile, while I work on cohesive presentation of electrified loops.
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 10:51:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Having said all this, I don't really know the densities and temperatures of the interior areas of the sun yet, so I don't really know for sure that there even *is* a "density" problem in the first place! This is an "assumption" that you guys keep asserting as fact, but I have no idea if it's actually true or not true at this point in time. Since there is so little evidence to support the notion of z-axis acceleration, and because I'm not even sure that I need to explain a different "average density" of the sun in the first place, I have no desire to go around and around over this issue again. I would much rather spend my time focusing on something like satellite images and things I can actually see and explain and support my theory of a solid surface crust. Whether there even *is* a density "problem" in the first place remains to be seen. If and when I know that I need to cross that bridge I will, but right now I have no idea if that is even necessary in the first place.
Well, this sums it all up! You don't know the density and argue that we're just "assuming" what it is. Of course, density is a pretty well-understood concept, and it's clear we're assuming nothing. Or at least, we aren't making any assumptions that are greater than we are when we apply f=ma, for instance.
So when you say "I have no desire to go around and around over this issue again. I would much rather spend my time focusing on something like satellite images and things I can actually see and explain and support my theory of a solid surface crust," what you're really saying is that "my theory can't stand up to any real scrutiny and so I'd rather keep pointing to my images and shouting 'can you explain this?'" to anyone who'll read a web page.
I am unconvinced to the Nth degree, Michael. I approached with as open a mind as possible, and did more research into stars and the universe than I'd ever done before. (Last night, BTW, I searched through about 20 recent dissertations on the sun and stars using gas models and all seemed to answer their questions under this model!) Nothing I've seen would even make me think twice that you're right. Sorry! |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 11:19:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You also expect me to neglect the fact that your source for the "vortex" stuff believes that sunspots are basically huge tornados,...
So do I Dave. The fact he duplicated these in his lab says volumes IMO.
quote:
...while you want me to think of them as huge upwellings of silicon plasma. Which one would you prefer I adhere to? Your version, or his?
Both. Just like rising heat on earth helps create tornados here on earth, so too the rising heat in the solar atmosphere work in much the same way.
quote:
After all, he doesn't think that the coronal features aren't powered by anything internal to the Sun at all, while you do.
There are subtle differences of course, but I am also assuming there is an external energy source just like he did. I also assume there are induction forces created by the plasma flowing past solid surface features. Is that an "internal" or "external" energy source if the cosmic wind, and electrical flow patterns of the universe drive the differential rotation patterns in the plasma? Things get complicated in a hurry here Dave, and both of us agree there is an external energy source.
quote:
Perhaps you can keep these contradictory ideas in your head and consider them "true" at the same time - a brilliant form of cognitive dissonance - but I certainly cannot.
You cannot concieve of rising hot air being associated with tornados here on earth?
quote:
Where is there any evidence of "tornados" in Kosovichev's mass-flow diagrams?
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v557n1/53591/fg3.gif
The effects can be seen in the tight little downward flow of electrons (from the universe) that occurs in umbra region of these graphs.
quote:
While you're trying to push me towards looking at days and days of SOHO data, without giving me any clues as to what you want me to look for, I'm still waiting for all of your evidence that the giant electrical arcs you see on the Sun can heat anything to million-plus Kelvin temperatures. Sandia's experiments certainly don't show that, since they only reach those temperatures with precision-manufactured, extremely tiny wires, and not a "non-homogenous" mixture of "metals" and "rock."
I'm not asking you to do anything other than download the RD SOHO images from the archives. In fact today they posted a helium running difference image and there are two noticeable and predictable difference between iron filters and helium filters. Unlike in the iron filters where we see consistent surface patterns, in the helium RD images, we're looking at a plasma "surface" and therfore there is a great deal more movement in the RD images. The other noteable thing you can see in yesterdays helium RD image is that there is reconnection event happening the spews a ribbon of material outward from the source of the electrical activity at the surface.
All you have to is download a few movies from archives, you don't have to create the RD images yourself. I'm not asking for even as much of your time as it takes to read one of the reference papers I've posted here.
quote:
You want to be methodical? Then let's be methodical. Take a week or two - as long as you need - to put together your whole case for electrical resistive heating being responsible for the temperatures measured in coronal loops.
I think that is actually very good advice Dave. That's exactly what I think I'll do next. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 11:42:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The problem Cune is that no matter how much evidence I might put together cohesively, there will always be multiple ways to interpret any set of data. I can point out that coronal loops emit x-rays and gamma-rays just like electrical discharges here on earth, and point out all the similaries between the emission patterns and the emission paterns of Birkeland's experiments, and I can quote Alfven till I'm blue in the face, but that's not a guarantee that anyone will listen. Does it matter to you or Dave that Rhessi shows us the coronal loops create neutron capture signatures and releases free neutrons like we would expect from z-pinches in plasma? I don't really know.
You only have to convince 90% or so of the scientists, Michael, not every last one of 'em, since it's inevitable that some few will be dogmatically opposed to anything you've got to say.
That said, it doesn't matter if you can show similarities (homologies) between the Sun and Earth-bound electrical discharges if solar scientists already have tentative explanations of these phenomena which don't include huge sparks and are also backed up by Earth-bound experiments. Similarities only show "could be," and you need to show "must be." Find a way to distinguish your explanations from the ones already in use, a distinction which can be shown using the data available today to be true, and you'll convince people.
Because there are an infinite number of things that the phenomena "could be," so why must it be arcs?quote:
...Dr. Manuel was under the impression that nuetrons released from the neutron core would eventually decay into hydrogen atoms...
Which shows that Dr. Manuel was ignorant of basic physics, since left to itself, a neutron decays into a low-velocity proton and, most often, a relativistic electron. The average electron from neutron decay would have to shed a lot of energy to bind to the proton (especially since their velocity vectors will tend to oppose each other, to boot).quote:
...but with a solid surface sitting in the way, that's not really a "complete" explantion of hydrogen flow. Once however I found the Rhessi images, and saw the neutron capture process going on the the upper atmosphere, I started studying z-pinch forces in plasma. Through this process, and by studying z-pinch forces, I realized that the process that frees neutrons that decay into hydrogen atoms is a function of z-pinching in the upper atmosphere. This was a key issue for me personally, and it explained a "mystery" that I was struggling with for a while. For me it's a "big deal".
It would be a bigger deal for some of us if neutrons really did decay into hydrogen atoms to any great extent, even inside a pinch. You could, for example, describe the process in terms of the energies of the particles involved, and show how the momentum issue is really a non-problem for your hypothetical scenario.quote:
It's therefore really hard for me to know what you might find "relevant" and what's not going to have much impact.
Every phenomenon that you deem necessary for your hypothesis which hasn't been described a zillion times in the mainstream literature is going to be a point of contention.quote:
I just think it's very naive to believe that a single paper I write is going to change everyone's opinion after one read through.
If you write it with the idea that nobody knows how you expect the average neutron to decay into a hydrogen atom (for example), so that you explain all of these sorts of things in "elementary" detail (like I explained the iron emissions for H.), you will write it so that it will change minds on a first read-through. If you can't be bothered to go into such details, you're not going to change anyone's mind.quote:
In fact, they actually gave Alfven a Nobel Prize, and then promptly ignored the later half of his life's work that is related to *light* plasma and current flow.
Yeah, and after giving a Nobel to Linus Pauling for his work on molecular chemistry, the world at large has ignored his whack-ball ideas that megadoses of vitamin C can cure everything from headaches to cancer. Alfven did some great work, and some not-so-great work. Just like Birkeland. One Nobel Prize isn't enough to prevent crack-pottery (and they gave Linus Pauling two of them - the second one for Peace). "We should pay attention to this guy because he won a Nobel Prize" is nothing more than an argument from authority, and a poor one at that.quote:
I have no idea how much evidence will be "enough" to make this group say "enough already". In fact I'm quite certain that no matter how much evidence I present, that there will be a way to remain "skeptical" if one wishes to remain skeptical.
You're absolutely correct, but nobody is asking you to convince the cynics, only the skeptics. If, after reading your ideas, someone asks, "how the heck does a neutron decay into a hydrogen atom?" it means your work isn't done. |
- 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 - 08/18/2006 : 11:44:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Well, this sums it all up! You don't know the density and argue that we're just "assuming" what it is. Of course, density is a pretty well-understood concept, and it's clear we're assuming nothing. Or at least, we aren't making any assumptions that are greater than we are when we apply f=ma, for instance.
But just like you, I can simply take those density results and run with them. I don't have to assume there is any difference between the *average* density of this model and the average density of any model.
quote:
So when you say "I have no desire to go around and around over this issue again. I would much rather spend my time focusing on something like satellite images and things I can actually see and explain and support my theory of a solid surface crust," what you're really saying is that "my theory can't stand up to any real scrutiny....
Woah. There is no "scrutiny" here that this solar model failed to stand up to. There was a "handwave" of an arguement, an alegation in fact that an iron sun would be too dense, but no evidence was provided to actually support that position. Now I'm supposed to respond to that handwave arguement and that handwave is considered "scrutiny"?
quote:
and so I'd rather keep pointing to my images and shouting 'can you explain this?'" to anyone who'll read a web page.
I'd rather focus on direct satellite obserations of the sun that are not based on handwave alegations. I fail to see why you think I should be able to explain the interior in my model, but gas model theory doesn't have to explain satellite images, the heat source of the corona, or the cause of coronal loops. Talk about double standards.
quote:
I am unconvinced to the Nth degree, Michael. I approached with as open a mind as possible, and did more research into stars and the universe than I'd ever done before. (Last night, BTW, I searched through about 20 recent dissertations on the sun and stars using gas models and all seemed to answer their questions under this model!) Nothing I've seen would even make me think twice that you're right. Sorry!
That's fine Cune. This is definitely not a "mainstream" position right now. I never expected to convince everyone immediately, nor is it any skin off my nose if you (or anyone else) never change your mind. I was pretty unconvinced myself a couple of years ago until I finally sat down to explain a running difference SOHO or TRACE image, and a SOHO Doppler RD image. Then my opinions started to change. They didn't change immediately of course, and even once I put up my website, I felt strongly compelled to solicite other opinions to make sure I wasn't overlooking something. Caution is a very good thing. I'm not expecting you to jump ships in a week or a month or even a year.
To be quite honest, I frankly doubt that anything is likely to change very much until and unless the STEREO data begins to roll in, and it directly supports my "interpretions" of these images in terms of location.
Let's be real here for a minute Cune. Who in their right mind is going to take the word of some amateur astronomer from Mt. Shasta California over the "experts" at LMSAL or NASA? I'm not naive Cune.
I'm in this for long haul. I expect you to be "unconvinced" right about now. I'd frankly be quite surprised if you were convinced that I'm right based on the time you've spent here so far, and the amount of skepticism "in the air" around here. I came here looking for a good skeptical review, not converts to the cause. I'd like to think that some of you might change your position once the STEREO data comes out, but I don't expect to see massive converts to the Birkeland solar model anytime soon. Like I said, I'm in this for the long haul, and time will tell us which "interpretation" is accurate and which is not.
I frankly am very relieved and excited that STEREO is to be launched soon. I couldn't think of a better way to demonstrate my point than by having a 3D view of the solar atmosphere. Keep an eye on that data Cune. It will tell us whether I am right or I am wrong, and *then* you can make up your mind. Right now, I don't really think you understand my model well enough to even judge it fairly yet, and you're bound to be influenced by the others here that are "skeptical" of the idea. As long as you keep an open mind, that's all I ask. I don't expect you to "jump ship" just yet. Let's see what STEREO shows us in a few months, and then we'll talk again about which solar model is most capable of "predicting" the STEREO results most accurately.
According to LMSAL the "transitional region" sits in the lower corona, whereas according to me, it's sitting under the photosphere. Only one of these interpretations can be accurate, and assuming STEREO launches without a hitch, we should be getting data back within a relatively short window of time. Then you can decide who is the "expert" and which one of us blew the "intepretation". |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/18/2006 11:55:16 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 12:05:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
So do I Dave. The fact he duplicated these in his lab says volumes IMO.
He didn't duplicate a tornado in his lab, he duplicated a vortex.quote:
Both. Just like rising heat on earth helps create tornados here on earth, so too the rising heat in the solar atmosphere work in much the same way.
Earth-bound tornados are not equal to upwelling heat, in fact tornados occur most often on the periphery of thunderstorm updrafts.quote:
You cannot concieve of rising hot air being associated with tornados here on earth?
Sure, but tornados are not rising hot air. You claim the umbra of a sunspot is a rising silicon plasma (contrary to Kosovichev's mass-flow diagrams). This guy you cite claims that a sunspot is a giant tornado.quote:
quote:
Where is there any evidence of "tornados" in Kosovichev's mass-flow diagrams?
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v557n1/53591/fg3.gif
The effects can be seen in the tight little downward flow of electrons (from the universe) that occurs in umbra region of these graphs.
Ah, yet another "new piece of data." Since when is the downflow of plasma just made up of electrons? And you're also now asserting not "plasma tornados," but just "electron tornados" (what causes the separation of charges - I mean, why aren't the much-more massive atomic nucleii in the plasma seen going the opposite direction?). And even if that were true, where is the evidence that the downflow is rotating like a tornado?quote:
I'm not asking you to do anything other than download the RD SOHO images from the archives. In fact today they posted a helium running difference image and there are two noticeable and predictable difference between iron filters and helium filters. Unlike in the iron filters where we see consistent surface patterns, in the helium RD images, we're looking at a plasma "surface" and therfore there is a great deal more movement in the RD images. The other noteable thing you can see in yesterdays helium RD image is that there is reconnection event happening the spews a ribbon of material outward from the source of the electrical activity at the surface.
The above assumes that there is a surface and that there's "electrical activity" (of the sort that you mean). It won't show me that those assumptions are correct.quote:
All you have to is download a few movies from archives, you don't have to create the RD images yourself. I'm not asking for even as much of your time as it takes to read one of the reference papers I've posted here.
But why would you have me download these things? |
- 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 - 08/18/2006 : 12:14:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But just like you, I can simply take those density results and run with them. I don't have to assume there is any difference between the *average* density of this model and the average density of any model.
No, you just have to make a plausible model constrained to that same average density figure, which appears to necessarily include an interior heated to at least a billion degrees (to maintain the pressure to keep the shell from crashing in on itself), which would melt any shell you care to name. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 12:28:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Well, this sums it all up! You don't know the density and argue that we're just "assuming" what it is. Of course, density is a pretty well-understood concept, and it's clear we're assuming nothing. Or at least, we aren't making any assumptions that are greater than we are when we apply f=ma, for instance.
But just like you, I can simply take those density results and run with them. I don't have to assume there is any difference between the *average* density of this model and the average density of any model.
quote:
So when you say "I have no desire to go around and around over this issue again. I would much rather spend my time focusing on something like satellite images and things I can actually see and explain and support my theory of a solid surface crust," what you're really saying is that "my theory can't stand up to any real scrutiny....
Woah. There is no "scrutiny" here that this solar model failed to stand up to. There was a "handwave" of an arguement, an alegation in fact that an iron sun would be too dense, but no evidence was provided to actually support that position. Now I'm supposed to respond to that handwave arguement and that handwave is considered "scrutiny"?
Have you been reading and following the arguments? We know the average density of the sun. Doing some basic calculations (Dave started to earlier), it's clear that a solid iron surface means that for the average density of the sun to match what the math tells us, the non-iron portion of the sun is going to have to be very, very light. Yet your model also calls for silicone and other relatively (to hydrogen) heavy elements, and lots of them! This isn't handwaving, it's basic logic.
Here's what Dave said earlier: quote:
If half the mass of the Sun is from iron (and let's say that hot iron has 75% of the density of room-temp iron), then if you were to glom all the Sun's iron into a single ball, it would have a volume of (mass of Sun) times 50% divided by (density of iron times 75%), or about 1.68×1017 km3. That's about 12% of the Sun's volume, so the other 88% of the Sun's volume contains the other 50% of the Sun's mass, making its average density about 0.705 g/cm3, or 70% of that of water at STP.
Now, the average density of the sun is 1.4 g/cm3. What you need to do is somehow explain how the 50% of the sun that's not iron, but also still full of heavy and dense things is half as dense as a sun that, under the gas model, is made up largely of the lightest elements out there.
Does this make any sense? Am I just completely missing something? I am not trained in math or science and am only just now trying to catch up on all of this. But we know the density, and this density is fine assuming that its made up of light elements like hydrogen and helium. If you want to posit that its actually mostly made up of things denser than hydrogen and helium-- like iron and silicon (or whatever)-- then you're left trying to explain why the sun isn't any more dense than it is! This seems to be a basic obstacle, but perhaps I'm crazy in thinking this to be so. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 13:01:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
The solar sheath may mean the interstellar medium is moving relative to the sun or it may mean that the sun is moving relative to the interstellar medium or it may mean that some other mechanisum is causing it, but it does not mean we are accelerating.
You are correct, there is no one to one correlation between the shape of the sheath and the concept of "acceleration". As I noted earier it could indicate this, but there are multiple ways to interpret this data. Then again, if you believe the Hubble constant applies, you'll have to accept an expanding and accelerating universe..
I know that you won't understand this but: The expansion of the universe could not possible have anything to do with the sun accelerating is some direction. That you would even make such a statement shows that you have no inkling of what the hubble constant or the expansion of the unverse mean.
quote:
You are either confusing "velocity" with "acceleration" or you are assuming that all bodies in the solar system are accelerated uniformly. I don't believe that is the case here. In fact I'm assuming that any force of acceleration is not uniform, or there would simply be no additional centripetal force on the string in my analogy.
Jumping Jesus Christ! You don't believe that is the case??? Well lets see, if the bodies in our solar system are not acclerating uniformly (nevermind that there is zero evidence that there is any sort of 'bulk' acceleration of the solar system) then the distances between the bodies MUST be changing. Do you have some evidence of this?
quote:
Since there is so little evidence to support the notion of z-axis acceleration, and because I'm not even sure that I need to explain a different "average density" of the sun in the first place, I have no desire to go around and around over this issue again.
So what you are saying in that special Michael Mozina way is that the answer to this question:
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT ACCELERATION IN THE Z AXIS WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN DETERMINING THE MASS OF THE SUN???
is that you do not have any. There, that only took about a year for you to admit....
Then you should not use this as reason to discount the mass of the sun as calculated by the rest of the scientific community. You will have to stick with the tried and true Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
