|
|
|
trogdor
Skeptic Friend
198 Posts |
 Posted - 11/22/2005 : 15:51:21
|
I do not know what to make of this site:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com
hopfully someone who is more knows more about this can help me out.
|
all eyes were on Ford Prefect. some of them were on stalks.
-Douglas Adams |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 03:21:42 [Permalink]
|
| It's nonsense. All you have to do is watch the SOHO site every day like I do to see the dynamic surface changes. This guy is claiming the Sun is solid. We have too much data to not know what the Sun's composition is including it's consistency. |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 09:58:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
It's nonsense. All you have to do is watch the SOHO site every day like I do to see the dynamic surface changes. This guy is claiming the Sun is solid. We have too much data to not know what the Sun's composition is including it's consistency.
Actually, it was the RAW EIT video from SOHO that originally convinced me it was solid. Are you looking only at the colorized version, or have you reviewed the raw eit images (marked DIT) in the archives?
I created a movie made over 8 days from running difference SOHO images. You can see the "structures" in this layer rotate uniformly from pole to equator, and you can see the consistency of this layer over a period of days. The gold running difference image (movie) is from Lockheed Martin's TRACE satellite and also shows the same kinds of "structure" in this layer. Recent Heliosiesmology findings also confirm the presense of a stratified layer at .995R, or just under the visible photosphere as Dr. Manuel and I predicted in our first paper together.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111
Here are three papers we have published on this topic.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510001
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0511051 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 12:00:30 [Permalink]
|
| A solid surface just doesn't make sense. The average density of the sun is only about 1.4 times that of water. Perhaps you could explain how this solid shell of mostly iron is supported. It pretty intuitive that the heavy elements would fall to the center of the sun. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 12:41:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
It's nonsense. All you have to do is watch the SOHO site every day like I do to see the dynamic surface changes. This guy is claiming the Sun is solid. We have too much data to not know what the Sun's composition is including it's consistency.
Actually, it was the RAW EIT video from SOHO that originally convinced me it was solid. Are you looking only at the colorized version, or have you reviewed the raw eit images (marked DIT) in the archives?
....
Ho hum. There are renowned scientists from all over the world, with a vast array of data collections and years and years of study, and you, whoever you are, looked at some raw data so you know more than all the astronomers put together. You saw something none of the rest of the world saw. Only you because... why was that? Pray tell what ideas of grandeur have given you this amazing skill?
And, I could care less if I looked at whatever you looked at, you are a fool. Sorry, you're a new member and I'd prefer to be kinder but what do you say to someone who thinks they are smarter than all of the world's astronomers?
I watch SOHO daily because I'm an aurora watcher and you have to be on alert to see it here in Seattle. I look at multiple images and watch the CMEs on the gif movies all the time. The Sun is no more solid than the ocean.
I presume you were banned and started thread after thread because either you think it's fun to see people argue against your stupid statements or you are psychotic with ideas of grandeur and can't stop yourself from trying to convince the world of your secret powers. Take your lithium and or bizarre sense of humor and waste someone else's time. I won't post more responses than this one unless you want to be involved in a normal thread. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 13:08:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
A solid surface just doesn't make sense. The average density of the sun is only about 1.4 times that of water. Perhaps you could explain how this solid shell of mostly iron is supported. It pretty intuitive that the heavy elements would fall to the center of the sun.
It is in fact intuitive that heavy elements would mass separate and sink. That is not however what NASA seems to assume happens. They assume that the heavier elements stay "suspended" in some way. Dr. Oliver Manuel however has found quite a bit of evidence in comet analysis and lunar soil analysis to suggest the sun is mass separated, and is mostly made of iron. These satellite images would tend to confirm his findings, as would the stratification layer directly under the photosphere in recent heliosiesmology data.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111
Pressure and temperature will also affect density. While I am of the impression the core may include fissionable materials, Dr. Manuel believes the core is a nuetron star that "pushes" against the iron shell.
You will also find that all calculations that involve "density" measurement of the sun "assume" a stationary sun, and include no calculations relating to universal explansion, nor allow for any up or down movement in the Z axis. It is a very heliocentric view of "density".
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 11/24/2005 13:30:22 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 13:25:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Ho hum. There are renowned scientists from all over the world, with a vast array of data collections and years and years of study, and you, whoever you are, looked at some raw data so you know more than all the astronomers put together. You saw something none of the rest of the world saw. Only you because... why was that? Pray tell what ideas of grandeur have given you this amazing skill?
There are actually two logical fallacies in that statement. First of all, "scientists" are not homogeneously "sold" on the gas model of the sun.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/23/sun.iron/index.html
Dr. Kristian Birkeland did a number of experiments with an iron terella in his lab about a hundred years ago that nearly mirror the behaviors seen in Yohkoh satellite images of the sun.
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/
The second logical fallacy in that statement is the obvious appeal to authority fallacy.
quote:
And, I could care less if I looked at whatever you looked at, you are a fool. Sorry, you're a new member and I'd prefer to be kinder but what do you say to someone who thinks they are smarter than all of the world's astronomers?
Now we're up to 4 fallacies. You are argueing by ridicule and building strawment to boot. When did I claim to be "smarter" than anyone? Dr. Manuel beat me to this by three decades. Birkeland had it figured out in the early 1900's. Foolish people rely on logical fallacies in absense of a scientific refute. So far, you've been long on insult and real short on scientific answers.
How about you take the first image/movie on my website and explain it using gas model theory and then tell me what is stratifed at .995R that we see in the heliosiesmology data. Then you talk to me about "foolish" belief systems.
quote:
I watch SOHO daily because I'm an aurora watcher and you have to be on alert to see it here in Seattle. I look at multiple images and watch the CMEs on the gif movies all the time. The Sun is no more solid than the ocean.
Interestingly, Birkeland was also interested in the Aurora and was convinced of the electromagnetic interaction between the sun and the the earth which led him to believe that the sun was an electromagnetic body that was mostly made of metal. Care to explain how the aurora helps your case?
quote:
I presume you were banned and started thread after thread because either you think it's fun to see people argue against your stupid statements or you are psychotic with ideas of grandeur and can't stop yourself from trying to convince the world of your secret powers. Take your lithium and or bizarre sense of humor and waste someone else's time. I won't post more responses than this one unless you want to be involved in a normal thread.
So really, you don't even have any valid scientific refute to offer, nor can you explain even the first image on my website using gas model theory. Evidently you are pretty good at insult, so you'll just start with the insults and call that "skepticism"? I call that childish and pointless and a great example of logical fallacies used to prop up faith based belief systems.
If you have a valid scientific criticism, put it on the table. If not, I assure you that I won't be impressed with pety insults. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 11/24/2005 13:27:14 |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 14:13:36 [Permalink]
|
| I don't claim to be an expert on this topic, however from what I've been able to find, the surface of the sun is > 10,000 K, and iron boils at 3134 K. I don't see how it could be solid (or even molten). |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 14:17:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
I don't claim to be an expert on this topic, however from what I've been able to find, the surface of the sun is > 10,000 K, and iron boils at 3134 K. I don't see how it could be solid (or even molten).
Actually the surface of the photosphere is about 6000K, but during sunspot activity we see upwelling plasma in the 3800K range, suggesting that the umbra layer is much cooler than the penumbra. Alexander Kosovichev from Stanford has created a number of models of the heat layout under sunspots, and the 3800K area directly under the sunspot is warmer than the region around it. Solids can and will form in temperatures under 4000k. I suspect the surface temp is close too 2000K. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 11/24/2005 14:20:03 |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 14:22:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R.Wreck
I don't claim to be an expert on this topic, however from what I've been able to find, the surface of the sun is > 10,000 K, and iron boils at 3134 K. I don't see how it could be solid (or even molten).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the surface of the photosphere is about 6000K, but during sunspot activity we see upwelling plasma in the 3800K range, suggesting that the umbra layer is much cooler than the penumbra. Alexander Kosovichev from Stanfordhas done a number of models of the heat layout under sunspots, and the 3800K area directly under the sunspot is warmer than the region around it. Solids can and will form in temperatures under 4000k. I suspect the surface temp is close too 2000K.
Why would you suspect 200K? And Iron melts at 1811K so it still wouldn't be solid. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 15:04:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Why would you suspect 200K? And Iron melts at 1811K so it still wouldn't be solid.
The 2000K figure comes from analysing the melting point of various alloys. I would have to assume that the sun is not homogenous, and would also include rocky materials as well. There are a couple of different meteorite fragments that I believe are indicative of the range of like crust compositions. I would assume that rocky materials are more common in the upper elevations. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 16:47:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It is in fact intuitive that heavy elements would mass separate and sink. That is not however what NASA seems to assume happens. They assume that the heavier elements stay "suspended" in some way.
Okay I'm gonna need a reference showing where Nasa assumes that enough iron remains suspended in the upper layers of the sun to create a solid iron surface before I can take this seriously.quote:
Dr. Oliver Manuel however has found quite a bit of evidence in comet analysis and lunar soil analysis to suggest the sun is mass separated, and is mostly made of iron.
Mostly made of iron! Oh I see, he examined lunar and comet samples and made the mistake of assuming that the sun was of the same consistency. You see comets and lunar bodies don't have enough gravity to retain the lighter elements.quote:
These satellite images would tend to confirm his findings, as would the stratification layer directly under the photosphere in recent heliosiesmology data.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111
None of your links appear to provide any evidence for a solid sun. Perhaps you could spell it out for me.quote:
Pressure and temperature will also affect density.
Yeah, they affect density but that's not how we calculate it. Density is just mass/volume. It's not terribly complicated as you pretend.quote:
While I am of the impression the core may include fissionable materials, Dr. Manuel believes the core is a nuetron star that "pushes" against the iron shell.
It almost seems like you're trying to make your own ideas seem reasonable by comparison. The idea that the sun is a neutron star is, of course, ridiculous but so is the idea that it's made of mostly solid iron.quote:
You will also find that all calculations that involve "density" measurement of the sun "assume" a stationary sun, and include no calculations relating to universal explansion, nor allow for any up or down movement in the Z axis. It is a very heliocentric view of "density".
Again you are trying to equivocate about how density is calculated. The fact remains that density calculations highlight one of the many fatal flaws in your conjecture. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 18:42:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You will also find that all calculations that involve "density" measurement of the sun "assume" a stationary sun, and include no calculations relating to universal explansion, nor allow for any up or down movement in the Z axis. It is a very heliocentric view of "density".
Why would these things matter? Universal expansion doesn't take place within objects, and even if it did, the average density of the Sun should drop over time.
Secondly, the relativistic effects of the Sun's motion through space mean that to a stationary observer, the Sun is more dense than it would be if it weren't moving. How much? It is 1.000000269 times denser than it should be. That's about 27 millionths of one percent. If Matt is correct, then the actual density of the Sun would be about 1.399999623 times that of water.
Except, of course, that the Earth and the man-made satellites used to measure the Sun's density are all also moving along at the same speed as the Sun, so the relativistic effects don't matter.
Not that it matters, anyway. Your argument seems to require the Sun be more dense than we've measured it to be, yet both of your objections would make it less dense than measured. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
