|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 09/23/2006 : 06:26:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
The Catch-22 is that you have to theorize something and only then test for it. In Michael-world, you find the particle and then figure out what it did.
That's the way particle physics and QM work. Sorry. How else do you know is something actually *exists* in reality, and isn't figment of an active imagination?
I also couldn't resist responding to this. Michael, while I do not doubt that scientists often stumble across things they don't expect-- things that can lead to remarkable new ideas and developments-- no one runs tests just to see what will happen. (Can you imagine the grant proposal? "Please give us $1.2 million bucks-- we're gonna smash us some atoms! Yeee haw!") Tests are run to see if observation matches what it proposed. And what is proposed is, in the realm of physics and cosmology, always arrived at through computing measurments and, well, math.
So no, that's not the way particle phsyics works, Michael. What's sorry is that you think it is.
You provided an example:quote:
In particle physics they found decay processes that seemed to be "missing" energy, and that is how neutrinos came to be "theorized" from a "problem" in *real life observation* vs. current theory. Note that it is based on *observation*, not blind speculation based on unagreed upon GUT concepts. Note that they understood and had identified the parent particles, and had some notion of the "energy" state it might occupy. The could therefore build experiments to detect these particles and they *did* detect these particles.
Note: Pauli noticed something was wrong when the observations weren't conforming to the math. Then he postulated an undetected thing to explain for the observation. This undetected thing stayed undetected for decades, and only after a) waiting for superior equipment, and b) working through the math, could they devise an experiment to text for them.
Again: they didn't find a neutrino and then figure out what it did. Do you understand? EVERYONE else does. Instead, observation didn't match predictions. So they had to devise new formulas to arrive at a means of testing for the undetected object.
Finally, you should stop bitching about the scalar field "problem". Here's what we have to assume: either a) scientists are completely dumb and haven't noticed this very basic complaint you're raising; b) scientists noted the problem, but have worked through it and found solutions so that it really isn't a problem; or c) your understanding of inflation and scalar fields is facile (and based largely on wikipedia) and serious cosmologists understood that it wasn't a problem to begin with.
I haven't decided if b or c are right, but I bet some quick searching of journal databases (and not, say, wikipedia) will point to one or the other... |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 09/24/2006 07:56:05 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2006 : 20:11:38 [Permalink]
|
Continuing from where I left off, I know I'm missing something big, somewhere. Your latest article references both "Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios" and "Solar Abundance of the Elements" for its claims about "bulk Sun" composition inferred from photosphere abundances. The former paper (2002), however, just references the latter paper (1983) while making the exact same claims as your latest effort.
"Solar Abundance..." however, doesn't actually mention the 4.56log(H/L) equation at all, despite all of Manuel's later papers seeming to all suggest that it came from that 1983 paper (also note: 1983 was prior to Anders and Grevesse, so earlier photospheric abundances - from Ross and Aller, 1976 - were used). Where did that equation come from, really? I don't know yet, but my story here isn't finished.
For a couple hours today, I entertained the notion that the 4.56 figure and associated math (!) just "fell out" of the equations (!) presented in "Solar Abundance..." but I couldn't get the equations to work for me. How Dr. Manuel manages to equate the simple ratio of a couple of simply ratios to a formula in which the value 20 has appeared to jump from denominator to numerator and the formula has somehow glommed onto an exponent, I can't say at this moment. Manuel never does explain the exponent of his equation 2 - n - at all in the paper, and waits to explain the m variable until page 8 (equation 2 is presented on page 2). (This is incredibly poor work for a freakin' nuclear chemistry PhD.)
So even though I know that for Neon-22, Manuel's factor of fractionation is 1.544, I wasn't able to, using the "Solar Abundance..." paper, figure out why it is 1.544. I don't know how many times I read through the paper, but it wasn't until just a few minutes ago that I read that all the math in "Solar Abundance..." was only in there as review of earlier work.
Namely, "Information of astrophysical interest in the isotopes of solar wind implanted noble gases" (1983) and "Noble gas anomalies and synthesis of the chemical elements" (1980). The former was another conference poster, apparently, and isn't available online (not that I could find). The latter offers no clues to the 4.56 figure, though it does show that Dr. Manuel thought (26 years ago) that somehow if a supernova occured where the Sun is now, it might "explain" the CMBR. I wonder if he did any more work on that little gem of an idea...
But I digress.
I'm genuinely at a loss for finding the source for the 4.56 figure which is used to calculate the "bulk Sun" abundances, Michael, and Dr. Manuel's online papers don't offer up enough information for me to derive it myself. What the hell is n? I don't know, but you should, Michael, given that your name is on a paper which references Dr. Manuel's earlier work.
And beyond that, I'd just like to know how in "Solar Abundance..." Dr. Manuel found it valid to assume that the ratio of solar-wind abundances to planetary abundances will be identical to the ratio of photospheric abundances to "bulk Sun" abundances. But then we're back to the not-so-little problem of the shifting definition of the word "photosphere," I suppose.
Dr. Manuel's earlier work doesn't appear to offer any clues that he thought that he was writing about anything other than what everyone else refers to as "the photosphere." I am genuinely curious if Dr. Manuel shares your idea about what the "photosphere" is. Have you actually explained to him that you think the "photosphere" is mostly Neon, and so you're sure that Anders, Grevesse, Palme, Jones, Sauval, Holweger, Beer, Prieto, Cunha, Smith, Ross and Aller are all wrong?
Actually, what I'm looking for now, Michael, is just a method whereby I can validate the use and derivation of the mass-fractionation formula ending in 4.56log(H/L). Until such data is presented - in other words, until I can recreate the same chart you have in your latest paper (since the Anders and Grevesse numbers are online) - I can go no further in the discussion of your entire model. Your assertion that the Sun is "mostly iron" rests upon that formula from Dr. Manuel and photospheric abundance numbers that your model claims are bogus. If the chart you present (figure seven) is unreproducible, then you've got nothing.
In other words, the validity of Dr. Manuel's "nice math formula" is paramount to your own argument, Michael. Let's see the supporting data and derivation of that one formula, please. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
skepticality
Skeptic Friend
USA
105 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2006 : 10:46:11 [Permalink]
|
I still want someone to start the idea of doing a nice spaceport thing so we can all pay for a trip/vaction to the surface of the SUN! If people are paying over a million for a trip just outside the atmo, what would they pay for a nice tan on the sun!
;) |
Derek Colanduno
host - skepticality
http://www.skepticality.com/ |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2006 : 11:21:43 [Permalink]
|
I'm trying to look into these things further on my own, and am just getting more confused. I found Dr. Manuel himself advocating his ideas over on the BAUT forums, and he says, in part,For illustrative purposes, let L = 1 for H-1 and calculate how much this fractionation equation tells us H-1 is enriched relative to other major species.
H-1/He-4, enriched by
4.56 log (4) = 556
H-1/C-12, enriched by
4.56 log (12) = 83,000
H-1/O-16, enriched by
4.56 log (16) = 310,000
H-1/Ne-20, enriched by
4.56 log (20) = 860,000
H-1/Mg-24, enriched by
4.56 log (24) = 2,000,000
H-1/Si-28, enriched by
4.56 log (28) = 4,000,000
H-1/Fe-56, enriched by
4.56 log (56) = 94,000,000
etc. (Call the above "Dataset 1")
And so simply by dividing, we find that according to Dr. Manuel,log (4) = 121.93
log (12) = 18,201.75
log (16) = 67,982.46
log (20) = 188,596.49
log (24) = 438,596.49
log (28) = 877,192.98
log (56) = 20,614,035.09 Now, according to my calculator,log (4) = 0.602
log (12) = 1.079
log (16) = 1.204
log (20) = 1.301
log (24) = 1.380
log (28) = 1.447
log (56) = 1.748 So while Dr. Manuel's own personal log() function has log(56) being six orders of magnitude higher than log(4), my calculator's log() function says they differ by less than a factor of three. What the hell is up with that?
Feeding Dataset 1 to Zunzun's function finder, we find the best-fit curve for the data is y = 1.034x4.55, which is no log function, but does offer up the necessary clue. 4.56log(4) doesn't equal 556, but 44.56 sure does (close enough, that is). And 564.56 is nearly 94 million. Oh, okay, got it: his fractionation fractor once he got to the "4.56" stage is that the log of the factor is equal to 4.56log(H/L), and yes, once you take the inverse log of 4.56log(56) you do get 94 million (or so). So in that BAUT forum post, Dr. Manuel left out the inverse log step in those equations.
Okay, so the factor itself (f) is equal to (H/L)4.56, and so log(f) = 4.56log(H/L). Got it.
I'm still at a loss for how he went from (mG/20Ne)s/(mG/20Ne)p to (20/m)n in the first place. And then how he went on to (H/L)4.56.
(For those keeping track, it seems that Dr. Manuel got banned from the BAUT forums, too.)
But even granting that the above works, I'm still confused about why. From the example Dr. Manuel gives in that post, it's clear that the fractionation isn't dependent upon nuclear (or atomic) mass, nor charge, nor anything else but the integer number of total protons and neutrons in the nucleus. Doesn't matter if it's normal iron (26 protons + 30 neutrons = 56 nucleons) or 56Co (27+29=56) or 56Ni (28+28=56) or even 56Mn (25+31=56). I suppose it doesn't much matter for a first-order approximation, but it'd be nice to know why it allegedly works.
Not that it's been "lab tested" or anything. |
- 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 - 09/26/2006 : 12:28:40 [Permalink]
|
A brief sabatical....
FYI, I am going to be "off the air" for a few weeks while I catch up at work. I also want to finish up some things on a new paper I am working on, and I'll be traveling a bit over the next few weeks. I also want to put some time into updating my website to include a lot of the newer materials that I've picked up over the past few months, and include some new images. I will take up the conversations where we left off when I get caught up. In the mean time, "chill", and be happy. :) |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2006 : 13:20:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(For those keeping track, it seems that Dr. Manuel got banned from the BAUT forums, too.)
I had to comment on this statement.
If my experiences are any example, all it takes to be "banned" at the BAUT forums is to "not answer" whatever arcane, bizarre, and self serving mathematical or science question they throw at you. I was personally "commanded" to compute how much diffusion/absorption takes place at the 171A wavelength as it traversed a variety of different plasmas. At the time I had not even figured out the output of the light source itself, the thicknesses of each layer, let alone the density of each layer. While I have finally figured out the thicknesses of the various outer plasmas with *some* confidence, I'm still net even sure of the "density" of any of the layers, and I'm still tinkering with total output of the light source, so I still couldn't adequately answer that question even a year after being banned for not knowing the answer. You'd have to be an expert on optics and plasma to even start to answer such a question, and I never claimed to have that kind of personal expertise to begin with.
I've watched what has transpired on that forum since my own virtual execution. That place is not a "science forum", it's an "astronomy cult" that burns all it's heretics and critics at the stake, and eliminates all discent by whatever means and excuse that is necessary. They even set aside a special "forum" (ATM) on which to conduct all their advertized witch trials. During the course of the trial, the moderators and critics are allowed to say virtually anything they like, regardless of how personally rude or obnoxious it is, but don't dare fight back or this is ground for automatic virtual execution. They can also evidently ask *anything* they like, even if it's not directly related to the materials you've used to make your case, or it simply remains unanswerable. They virtually execute everyone they don't "like" during the course of the witch hunt. Whatever "excuse" is necessary, they'll use to ban whomever they don't like for whatever reason they dream up. Honest discent is not to be tolerated! The list of "banned" (virtually excecuted) individuals grows by the week, and the number of "closed" topics grows by leaps and bounds. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2006 : 14:38:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, Michael, being wrong is fine, it's being presented with evidence, over and over again, to which you reply that there is no evidence (inflation,
WHAT EVIDENCE DAVE? You keep claiming there is *evidence* to support inflaton fields and you have utterly refused to provide any evidence.
(I promised I wouldn't reply to this utterly fatuous thread, but whatever):
Cosmologist Charles Bennett wins the Harvey Prize in physics for his work on the WMAP data because, among other things, it demonstrated some predictions re inflation. See esp. pages 39 and following.
Except last year this so called "evidence" of inflation went up in smoke, or in this case, lack of lensing.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412276
Last month, the so called "evidence" failed a second critical "test", namely it lacked the right "shadowing" to really be considered "evidence" of inflation.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510160
What you have then is a "handwave" of an alegation that there is "evidence" of inflation, not real evidence of inflation that holds up to any serious scrutiny.
quote:
Does this demonstrate the existence of of monopoles or inflations or any other thing that Mozina hypocritically demands? No.
Hypocritically? Huh? I require "evidence" to support my beliefs. If you wish to believe in monopoles that have never been evidenced, and you wish to believe in inflaton particle fields, it's totally your perogative, but at least I have serveral different kinds of images to support my opinions, and nuclear chemistry analysis that supports my views. I even have heliosiesmology data to support my views. That's a boat load more "evidence" than exists for either monopoles or inflaton fields.
quote:
But does it show that inflationary models make preditions? Yes. Have they shown to be true? Yes.
False. They were not shown to be true. They were in fact shown to be false over a year ago, and it was shown to be false again this year based on a different method altogether.
quote:
Will Mozina move the goalposts? You bet.
Not me. The 'goalpost' is exactly the same. If you wish to claim the CMBR data supports your case, you have to explain the errors in those last two papers I handed you. If you don't address these problems with the data, all you have is a handwave of an "alegation" that there is evidence to support inflation. That is simply not the case, and those two papers demosntrate it is not the case.
quote:
(ETA: Do note that the linked paper involves stuff like Math.)
So what? Even bad ideas can contain cool looking math. String theory works great on paper, but there has never been any evidence to support it either! The two papers I handed you that refute your assertion are also *loaded* with math. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/26/2006 14:40:58 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2006 : 14:54:30 [Permalink]
|
So assuming that Dr. Manuel's f=(H/L)4.56 is correct (I haven't gone digging to find updated solar wind or meteorite numbers), we can actually work out the values that go into the figures he's presented (see once again Mozina's latest paper, figure 7, right panel). I come up with this:-------------------------------------------------------------
! ! 1989 ! 2004 !
! A N NC ! Abund Corr % ! Abund Corr % !
-------------------------------------------------------------
! 1 H 1 ! 12.00 3.85 0.02% ! 12.00 3.86 0.03% !
! 2 He 4 ! 10.99 5.59 0.97% ! 10.99 5.60 1.46% !
! 3 Li 7 ! 1.16 -3.13 0.00% ! 1.10 -3.18 0.00% !
! 4 Be 9 ! 1.15 -2.64 0.00% ! 1.40 -2.38 0.00% !
! 5 B 11 ! 2.60 -0.79 0.00% ! 2.70 -0.68 0.00% !
! 6 C 12 ! 8.56 5.33 0.54% ! 8.39 5.17 0.55% !
! 7 N 14 ! 8.05 5.13 0.34% ! 7.93 5.02 0.38% !
! 8 O 16 ! 8.93 6.27 4.69% ! 8.69 6.04 4.06% !
! 9 F 19 ! 4.56 2.24 0.00% ! 4.56 2.25 0.00% !
! 10 Ne 20 ! 8.09 5.87 1.88% ! 8.00 5.79 2.29% !
! 11 Na 23 ! 6.33 4.39 0.06% ! 6.33 4.40 0.09% !
! 12 Mg 24 ! 7.58 5.72 1.33% ! 7.54 5.69 1.83% !
! 13 Al 27 ! 6.47 4.85 0.18% ! 6.47 4.86 0.27% !
! 14 Si 28 ! 7.55 6.00 2.51% ! 7.54 6.00 3.69% !
! 15 P 31 ! 5.45 4.10 0.03% ! 5.45 4.11 0.05% !
! 16 S 32 ! 7.21 5.92 2.11% ! 7.33 6.05 4.18% !
! 17 Cl 35 ! 5.50 4.39 0.06% ! 5.50 4.40 0.09% !
! 18 Ar 40 ! 6.56 5.72 1.31% ! 6.40 5.57 1.36% !
! 19 K 39 ! 5.12 4.23 0.04% ! 5.12 4.24 0.06% !
! 20 Ca 40 ! 6.36 5.52 0.82% ! 6.36 5.53 1.24% !
! 21 Sc 45 ! 3.10 2.49 0.00% ! 3.17 2.57 0.00% !
! 22 Ti 48 ! 4.99 4.51 0.08% ! 5.02 4.55 0.13% !
! 23 V 51 ! 4.00 3.64 0.01% ! 4.00 3.65 0.02% !
! 24 Cr 52 ! 5.67 5.35 0.56% ! 5.67 5.36 0.84% !
! 25 Mn 55 ! 5.39 5.18 0.38% ! 5.39 5.19 0.57% !
! 26 Fe 56 ! 7.67 7.49 78.04% ! 7.45 7.28 70.68% !
! 27 Co 59 ! 4.92 4.85 0.18% ! 4.92 4.86 0.26% !
! 28 Ni 58 ! 6.25 6.14 3.48% ! 6.25 6.15 5.23% !
! 29 Cu 63 ! 4.21 4.27 0.05% ! 4.21 4.28 0.07% !
! 30 Zn 64 ! 4.60 4.69 0.12% ! 4.60 4.70 0.18% !
! 31 Ga 69 ! 2.88 3.12 0.00% ! 2.88 3.13 0.00% !
! 32 Ge 74 ! 3.41 3.78 0.02% ! 3.41 3.79 0.02% !
! 33 As 75 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 34 Se 80 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 35 Br 79 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 36 Kr 84 ! ----- ----- ----- ! 3.30 3.94 0.03% !
! 37 Rb 85 ! 2.60 3.25 0.00% ! 2.60 3.26 0.01% !
! 38 Sr 88 ! 2.90 3.62 0.01% ! 2.97 3.70 0.02% !
! 39 Y 89 ! 2.24 2.98 0.00% ! 2.24 2.99 0.00% !
! 40 Zr 90 ! 2.60 3.36 0.01% ! 2.60 3.37 0.01% !
! 41 Nb 93 ! 1.42 2.25 0.00% ! 1.42 2.26 0.00% !
! 42 Mo 98 ! 1.92 2.85 0.00% ! 1.92 2.86 0.00% !
! 43 Tc 98 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 44 Ru 102 ! 1.84 2.85 0.00% ! 1.84 2.86 0.00% !
! 45 Rh 103 ! 1.12 2.15 0.00% ! 1.12 2.16 0.00% !
! 46 Pd 106 ! 1.69 2.78 0.00% ! 1.69 2.79 0.00% !
! 47 Ag 107 ! 0.94 2.04 0.00% ! 0.94 2.05 0.00% !
! 48 Cd 114 ! 1.80 3.03 0.00% ! 1.77 3.01 0.00% !
! 49 In 115 ! 1.66 2.91 0.00% ! 1.66 2.92 0.00% !
! 50 Sn 120 ! 2.00 3.33 0.01% ! 2.00 3.34 0.01% !
! 51 Sb 121 ! 1.00 2.35 0.00% ! 1.00 2.36 0.00% !
! 52 Te 130 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 53 I 127 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 54 Xe 132 ! ----- ----- ----- ! 2.16 3.69 0.02% !
! 55 Cs 133 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 56 Ba 138 ! 2.13 3.74 0.01% ! 2.13 3.75 0.02% !
! 57 La 139 ! 1.22 2.84 0.00% ! 1.17 2.80 0.00% !
! 58 Ce 140 ! 1.55 3.19 0.00% ! 1.58 3.23 0.01% !
! 59 Pr 141 ! 0.71 2.36 0.00% ! 0.71 2.37 0.00% !
! 60 Nd 142 ! 1.50 3.17 0.00% ! 1.50 3.18 0.01% !
! 61 Pm 145 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 62 Sm 152 ! 1.00 2.80 0.00% ! 1.01 2.82 0.00% !
! 63 Eu 153 ! 0.51 2.32 0.00% ! 0.51 2.33 0.00% !
! 64 Gd 158 ! 1.12 3.00 0.00% ! 1.12 3.01 0.00% !
! 65 Tb 159 ! -0.09 1.79 0.00% ! -0.09 1.80 0.00% !
! 66 Dy 164 ! 1.10 3.05 0.00% ! 1.14 3.10 0.00% !
! 67 Ho 165 ! 0.26 2.22 0.00% ! 0.26 2.23 0.00% !
! 68 Er 166 ! 0.93 2.90 0.00% ! 0.93 2.91 0.00% !
! 69 Tm 169 ! 0.00 2.01 0.00% ! 0.00 2.02 0.00% !
! 70 Yb 174 ! 1.08 3.15 0.00% ! 1.08 3.16 0.01% !
! 71 Lu 175 ! 0.76 2.84 0.00% ! 0.06 2.15 0.00% !
! 72 Hf 180 ! 0.88 3.02 0.00% ! 0.88 3.03 0.00% !
! 73 Ta 181 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 74 W 184 ! 1.11 3.29 0.00% ! 1.11 3.30 0.01% !
! 75 Re 187 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 76 Os 192 ! 1.45 3.71 0.01% ! 1.45 3.72 0.02% !
! 77 Ir 193 ! 1.35 3.62 0.01% ! 1.35 3.63 0.02% !
! 78 Pt 195 ! 1.80 4.09 0.03% ! 1.80 4.10 0.05% !
! 79 Au 197 ! 1.01 3.32 0.01% ! 1.01 3.33 0.01% !
! 80 Hg 202 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 81 Tl 205 ! 0.90 3.29 0.00% ! 0.90 3.30 0.01% !
! 82 Pb 208 ! 1.85 4.27 0.05% ! 2.00 4.43 0.10% !
! 83 Bi 209 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 84 Po 209 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 85 At 210 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 86 Rn 222 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 87 Fr 223 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 88 Ra 226 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 89 Ac 227 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 90 Th 232 ! 0.12 2.76 0.00% ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 91 Pa 231 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 92 U 238 ! -0.46 2.22 0.00% ! -0.46 2.23 0.00% !
-------------------------------------------------------------
(Just as with Dr. Manuel's figures, the above numbers are all normalized so that the "corrected" log abundance of silicon is equal to six.)
The most interesting thing here is that not only is the Sun "mostly iron" according to these "corrections," but it is seventy-eight percent iron by the 1989 photospheric abundance numbers. You can't really "see" that easily in the figures, but with some raw numbers, it's obvious. By 2004, the iron abundance comes down to 70% or so, but that's still quite a lot, especially since these are abundances by nucleus, and not mass or volume (in other words, for every 10,000 atoms in the Sun per the 2004 numbers, 7,068 of them will be iron).
And therein lies another interesting question: what are the relative masses if the above table represents numbers of atoms? Here's the answer, using 2004 abundance numbers:-----------------------------------------
! A N NC ! % by mass ! Total !
-----------------------------------------
! 26 Fe 56 ! 79.6635770237% ! 79.66% !
! 28 Ni 58 ! 6.1091810091% ! 85.77% !
! 16 S 32 ! 2.6912059787% ! 88.46% !
! 14 Si 28 ! 2.0773597551% ! 90.54% !
! 8 O 16 ! 1.3068332117% ! 91.85% !
! 18 Ar 40 ! 1.0934437580% ! 92.94% !
! |
- 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 - 09/26/2006 : 15:34:16 [Permalink]
|
| Geez Dave, I leave you alone for a couple of days and you do remarkable things all on your own. I think I'm going to make a habit of not responding more often. :) Thanks. (I mean it). |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2006 : 18:47:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Except last year this so called "evidence" of inflation went up in smoke, or in this case, lack of lensing.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412276
Last month, the so called "evidence" failed a second critical "test", namely it lacked the right "shadowing" to really be considered "evidence" of inflation.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510160
What you have then is a "handwave" of an alegation that there is "evidence" of inflation, not real evidence of inflation that holds up to any serious scrutiny.
Except even Lieu-- the author of the paper cited-- doesn't think this overturns the Big Bang. Not even close. And level-headed scientist would want more data and analysis before making any serious changes. And even then, it is likely that simply tweaking the math (oh no!) can resolve the problems. The overall observations about the universe-- e.g. Red Shift-- haven't gone away. And CMBR still exists. To say that it "went up in smoke" is clearly wishful thinking.
quote:
quote:
Does this demonstrate the existence of of monopoles or inflations or any other thing that Mozina hypocritically demands? No.
Hypocritically? Huh? I require "evidence" to support my beliefs. If you wish to believe in monopoles that have never been evidenced, and you wish to believe in inflaton particle fields, it's totally your perogative, but at least I have serveral different kinds of images to support my opinions, and nuclear chemistry analysis that supports my views. I even have heliosiesmology data to support my views. That's a boat load more "evidence" than exists for either monopoles or inflaton fields.
"Evidence"? Puh-leese!!! You "handwave" all the time! ("Oh-- uh, density-- well, there's the Z-axis, after all....") And after that it's all about those stupid images. Even though your lame "explain this image" is nothing more than a glorified astronomical Rorschach Inkblot Test you continually parade them as though they show anything. Your repeated harping on the monopole issue is comical. Perhaps since evolutionary biologists can't produce evidence of fire-breating dragons, we should toss evolutio out the window. After all, evolution as we understand it suggests that there shouldn't have even been fire-breathing dragons. But by Mozina logic, we can only prove evolution correct if... there are dragons? Or something. Riiight.
quote:
quote:
But does it show that inflationary models make preditions? Yes. Have they shown to be true? Yes.
False. They were not shown to be true. They were in fact shown to be false over a year ago, and it was shown to be false again this year based on a different method altogether.
As Dave is fond of stating: just because you say it doesn't make it true. Theories of inflation have made predictions and the observations were in accords with said predictions. I have linked to papers saying as much, and I have downloaded a dozen more.
Honestly: unless you can show me how scholars are wrong in the papers themselves (sort of like what Dave has done to your most recent publication) you have to resort to your best strategy: attack by obfuscation and hope no one notices.
quote:
quote:
Will Mozina move the goalposts? You bet.
Not me. The 'goalpost' is exactly the same. If you wish to claim the CMBR data supports your case, you have to explain the errors in those last two papers I handed you. If you don't address these problems with the data, all you have is a handwave of an "alegation" that there is evidence to support inflation. That is simply not the case, and those two papers demosntrate it is not the case.
First off, you're a fool if you think that the last word on the two above-cited papers has been said. Second, as I already noted: the authors themselves are only calling for changes to the current system, not total abandoment. Third, your tactic of asking a trained Assyriologist to respond to real scientific publications is totally lame. After all, it wouldn't be hard to get into a citation pissing contest with you about inflation or solar theory. And I assure you: you'd lose. And finally, can you prove that the observations in the articles cited disprove in a direct sense the predictions and observations noted in the articles I cited? If not, then all you're doing is engaging in obfuscation-- typical, but weak.
[Edited to patch broken quote-hiearchy. //Dr. Mabuse] |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 09/26/2006 19:50:36 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2006 : 21:38:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
The point is that you are saying that finding monopoles would support Guth when the opposite is true, once again demonstrating your appalling lack of understanding of theories to which you are in violent dissagrement.
That is like trying to claim that a *lack of* unicorns on earth somehow supports his theories. You can't logically use something that has never been evidenced as "support for" a theory. That's illogical and irrational. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2006 : 22:41:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Except even Lieu-- the author of the paper cited-- doesn't think this overturns the Big Bang. Not even close.
But Cune, even I didn't say this new evidence overturned anything related to "pre-Guth" BB theory. I simply said this new evidence precludes you from trying to claim that there is actual "evidence" to support inflation or inflaton fields. There is simply no such thing at this time. About all there is at the moment is some "vague" concept of microwave radiation being somehow associated with inflation theory, and that's about it. There is no current evidence for inflation. Period. That's all these papers demonstrate at the moment.
quote:
And level-headed scientist would want more data and analysis before making any serious changes.
Any level headed "skeptic" would want more evidence of inflation before deciding we need unevidenced scalar fields that defy the laws of physics as we know it. I'm simply noting that from a "skeptical" point of view, inflation doesn't have a leg to stand on. No evidence of monopoles were ever found, no evidence for inflaton fields has surfaced in QM or particle physics, and no evidence of inflation can be *currently* found in CMBR data.
quote:
And even then, it is likely that simply tweaking the math (oh no!) can resolve the problems.
That's the really scary part IMO. Someone *might* one day figure out a way to tinker around with the math in order to to come up with some "plausible" explanation that doesn't rule out inflation, and I'm sure that will be enough to send us off on another wild goose chase.
quote:
The overall observations about the universe-- e.g. Red Shift-- haven't gone away.
According to contemporary theory, redshift is due to the expanding tensor fields of expansion (expanding matter), not scalar inflation fields.
quote:
And CMBR still exists.
So what if it still exists? An x-ray background also exists, but nobody is trying to use that information to suggest that this is evidence of anything in particular as it relates to creation events. If you are going to use the existence of a microwave background to support some guys theory involving monopoles and inflaton fields from a creation theory, you're going to need a lot more "evidence" than the mere existence of a microwave background to support your case.
quote:
To say that it "went up in smoke" is clearly wishful thinking.
To say that there is "evidence" to support inflation at the moment is clearly "wishful thinking" as well.
quote:
"Evidence"? Puh-leese!!! You "handwave" all the time! ("Oh-- uh, density-- well, there's the Z-axis, after all....")
You're now confusing conceptual "issues" that I've discussed that relate to "absolute" density, and you are confusing this with the actual "evidence" that I base my solar beliefs on.
quote:
And after that it's all about those stupid images.
Stupid images? I didn't even create the images. What makes them "stupid"? It's too bad you don't have any "stupid" images of inflaton particles from a multimillion dollar piece of equipment that other people built. I assure you if you did, I'd be a lot more interested in the idea.
quote:
Even though your lame "explain this image" is nothing more than a glorified astronomical Rorschach Inkblot Test you continually parade them as though they show anything.
The problem with your analogy is that unlike your Rorshach test, these are real observations of a real sun in a real galaxy, they are not inkblots on paper.
quote:
Your repeated harping on the monopole issue is comical.
Why would it be "comical" for a skeptic to point out to you that this concept of a monopole was a "theoretical" particle that was originally based on a few people's "concept" on what a GUT "might" be about? The problem Cune is that no such particle has ever been evidenced in nature. Not ever. More importantly, no agreed upon grand unified field theory exists even to this day. A monopole is not a certainty in any final "GUT" that everyone agrees to, it came from a few people's "interpretation" of what a GUT is about. It's not required particle in physics or QM, and it's never been "observed" in nature any any "stupid" images.
quote:
Perhaps since evolutionary biologists can't produce evidence of fire-breating dragons, we should toss evolutio out the window.
You have the roles reversed and skewed quite a bit in your analogy.
*You* are the one that is suggesting there was once a firebreathing dragon that walked the earth, and that somehow this dragon is connected to the theory of evolution (BB). All I am doing is "tossing out" the firebreathing dragon (inflation) part of your story, not the theory of evolution (BB). In my "theory" of evolution, the universe still "evolves" just fine, only it does so without any fire breathing dragons or other mythical creatures. Guth is further convolting the fire breathing dragon theory of inflation by insisting that the reason the fire breathing dragon is necessary to explain evolution is because of the *lack of* any elves on earth we see today. That's the more appropriate analogy in play here.
quote:
After all, evolution as we understand it suggests that there shouldn't have even been fire-breathing dragons. But by Mozina logic, we can only prove evolution correct if... there are dragons? Or something. Riiight.
No. By Mozina logic, evolution still occurs, but there never were an |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/26/2006 22:48:46 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2006 : 04:07:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
The point is that you are saying that finding monopoles would support Guth when the opposite is true, once again demonstrating your appalling lack of understanding of theories to which you are in violent dissagrement.
That is like trying to claim that a *lack of* unicorns on earth somehow supports his theories. You can't logically use something that has never been evidenced as "support for" a theory. That's illogical and irrational.
No it isn't. I can't understand why you can't see this. There are certain mathematical formula for how the universe is supposed to behave. Working through them, you find that an object X should exist in abundance. However, in reality object X doesn't exist. Why? All Guth did was to propose that through manipulation of certain aspects of the math, you could explain why object X doesn't exist.
Clearly there were problems with Guth's attempts to manipulate the math, but it's clear that he was onto something. Manipulating one part of the math resolved why object X didn't appear!
Now, at this point all you can do is complain that the original math that proposed object X was wrong. And perhaps it is. However, since you haven't actually worked through the math (or seen it, for that matter) you have no real idea. Moreover, since most of the entire cosmological community doesn't seem to have a problem with it, we can assume that the math that called for object X was sound. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2006 : 05:49:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Except even Lieu-- the author of the paper cited-- doesn't think this overturns the Big Bang. Not even close.
But Cune, even I didn't say this new evidence overturned anything related to "pre-Guth" BB theory. I simply said this new evidence precludes you from trying to claim that there is actual "evidence" to support inflation or inflaton fields.
Sure-- you said that, but you have done nothing to show it. Except link something. To show that the article in question "disproves" the evidence for inflation, you'd actually have to, for instance, actually read up on inflation and the predictions it makes, and then apply that to the new studies. You obviously haven't done that, so instead you obfuscate.
quote:
quote:
And level-headed scientist would want more data and analysis before making any serious changes.
Any level headed "skeptic" would want more evidence of inflation before deciding we need unevidenced scalar fields that defy the laws of physics as we know it. I'm simply noting that from a "skeptical" point of view, inflation doesn't have a leg to stand on. No evidence of monopoles were ever found, no evidence for inflaton fields has surfaced in QM or particle physics, and no evidence of inflation can be *currently* found in CMBR data.
Actually, a level-headed scientist would actually read up on inflation (that means more than going to wikipedia) so that she or he doesn't look so stupid parroting pointless "defy the laws of physics" line for the hundredth time.
quote:
quote:
The overall observations about the universe-- e.g. Red Shift-- haven't gone away.
According to contemporary theory, redshift is due to the expanding tensor fields of expansion (expanding matter), not scalar inflation fields.
Thanks for bringing this up, since I keep forgetting to do it myself. We've been having this debate for months, and you don't actually know what inflation is. No wonder if feels like I've been debating a wall. For all practical purposes, I have been! Until you actually figure out what inflation is and how it fits into the Big Bang, we can't have this discussion anymore.
That's OK, though-- it is really time-consuming for me to pore over science journals, and you aren't really interested in knowing what inflation is, anyhow.
If you want, you can read up on inflation and the Big Bang and we can resume the debate. Otherwise, good luck with the iron sun thing. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2006 : 07:00:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
The point is that you are saying that finding monopoles would support Guth when the opposite is true, once again demonstrating your appalling lack of understanding of theories to which you are in violent dissagrement.
That is like trying to claim that a *lack of* unicorns on earth somehow supports his theories. You can't logically use something that has never been evidenced as "support for" a theory. That's illogical and irrational.
And yet again, Michael you completely miss the point. It does not matter if the theory is right or wrong the point is you don't understand the theory you are criticizing.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
