|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 02/09/2006 : 09:17:32
|
|
Continues the discussion from this thread. Go figure...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 13:12:34 [Permalink]
|
Dear Dave,
I've spent the last two threads explaining my position and offering my opinions about the heliosiesmology data that you asked me about. I've even pointed out some of the flow pattern data that I believe supports the Birkeland model. Whether you agree or disagree with my position related to the density issue, I have sincerely tried to address the heliosiesmology evidence you presented to me to the best of my current ability. I would now like us to turn our attention to the mass separation issue, and I would like to understand your position on Manuel's isotope analysis that shows evidence of mass separation. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/09/2006 13:38:53 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 14:51:31 [Permalink]
|
Well, Michael, maybe we can look at that issue in a bit, but I've spent some time here answering your challenges from the previous thread:quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
How did you determine it's mass [the mass of the Sun - Dave] without knowing what it's made of?
Okay, we'll start from the beginning.
The law of universal gravitation is F = Gm1m2/r2. Thanks to Galilleo and one of the Moon landing crews, we know that the mass of an object in a gravitational field is inconsequential to its acceleration, and we know that F = mA, also, so the law can be rewritten as m1A = Gm1m2/r2, or after cancelling and dropping the second subscript, A = Gm/r2, where m is the mass of the body causing the gravitational field resulting in the acceleration A of a smaller body at a distance r from the large body's center of mass.
So, we take an object - any object - place it in a tall vacuum chamber, and drop it over and over again in various places around the Earth's equator near sea level, and measure how it accelerates as it falls. Through careful measurement, we find it speeds up at a rate of 9.8 m/s2 (this is going to be a rough calculation).
Now, we go and measure the radius of the Earth at the Equator at sea level (on average), and find it to be 6,378,135 meters. Then, we take the updated value of Cavendish's 1797 measurement of G as 6.6742×10-11, and we're ready to solve the universal gravitation equation for the mass of the Earth.
That equation, again, is A = Gm/r2, but we want to solve for m, not A, so we rewrite the equation as m = Ar2/G. Plugging in all our numbers, we find m to be 5.9733×1024 kg. (Note that Wikipedia says the mass of the Earth is 5.9736×1024 kg, so we're only off by five thousandths of one percent.)
Would you agree, Michael, that we have found the mass of the Earth without knowing anything about it but its radius and the acceleration due to its gravity?
If so, then I'll forge ahead. We measure the radius of Earth's orbit at approximately 149,597,887,500 meters, and the time it takes to orbit the Sun at 365.2564 days. This tells us that the acceleration of the Earth due to the Sun's gravity is approximately 0.00593 m/s2. Once again using the equation, m = Ar2/G, we find the mass of the Sun to be 1.9884×1030 kg (Wikipedia says 1.9891×1030, so we're off by 0.0352%).
While I was mistaken when describing this to HalfMooner - since we don't need to know the mass of the Earth to know the mass of the Sun - would you agree, Michael, that we've found the mass of the Sun knowing nothing more about it than its distance from Earth and the Earth's acceleration due to the Sun's gravity?quote:
If you don't mind, I'd like to look at these calculations again. You and I seem to have a very different recollection of what calculations you believe that you provided, and I don't want to misrepresent you. Do you recall which thread that was?
Nevermind, let's do them again, especially since I'm not sure that I did them correctly in your favor the first time around. But we'll have to start with definitions:quote:
You and I don't seem to be defining dark energy in the same manner.
Indeed. As used by cosmologists, dark matter is the 90% of matter which we cannot see, but can only detect through its gravitational effects (regardless of whether it is your mass of light, or WIMPs, or miniscule black holes, or whatever - the effects matter to our discussion, while the underlying cause does not). Dark energy is defined as an energy which causes a "negative pressure," and as currently measured, acts as if there is about 10-29 g/cm3 of "negative" mass throughout the entire universe ("negative" mass because it acts opposite to gravity).
If you will accept those definitions, then perhaps you'll accept a couple more measurements. The radius of the visible universe is, to grossly underestimate (in your favor), 18 billion light years, or 1.7×1026 meters. The mass of visible matter in the universe is about 6.0×1051 kg, so the mass of all of the matter (visible and dark) is about 6.0×1052 kg.
Now, let's model the universe as 41,253 thin cones or pyramids centered on the center of the Sun, each comprising just about one square degree of sky. Since all the mass in the universe is distributed more-or-less evenly, each cone in our model contains about 1.45×1048 kg of the universe's mass. The center of mass of each of the cones will be about 70% of the radius of the visible universe, since each cone carves out more volume further from the Sun than closer to it, but we'll place it closer, at 50% of the distance (or 8.5×1025 m), so that it works in your favor.
Similarly, each cone inside the Sun contains 4.822×1025 kg of mass, which we'll model as being entirely at the level of the photosphere (to work in your favor again, Michael). And so, solving the law of universal gravition for the force of gravity between these two modeled masses, we find it is 6.458×1011 Newtons, and dividing by the mass of the cone within the Sun results in an acceleration of 1.34×10-17 m/s2 outwards.
Since the acceleration due to gravity at the Sun's surface (due to its mass) is 273.95 m/s2, the acceleration due to the mass of the universe would subtract 0.000000000000000004889% of that figure. Since the radius of the Sun is determined gravitationally (partly) and gravitation depends on the square of the distance, the effect of the gravity of the mass of the universe is to make the Sun appear to have a radius 2.39×10-35% larger than it would be hanging in empty space by itself, or 1.664×10-28 meters (1.664×10-19 nanometers), which means the standard total volume figure is too large by 1.013 cubic millimeters.
Now, the dark energy outside the Sun, since it is "pushing" on the Sun and making it fractionally smaller, will be ignored. The dark energy inside the Sun, however, is pushing the photosphere out, making the Sun look larger than it would be if it didn't have the dark energy inside it. At 10-29 g/cm3, it's 10-26 kg/m3, or 14.122 kg of "negative" mass in the Sun. Compared with the Sun's mass of 1.9891×1030 kg, dark energy counteracts 7.1×10-28 percent of the Sun's gravity, making the Sun 5.04×10-59% larger than it would be if the dark energy were removed from its interior. Since this is about 24 orders of magnitude smaller than the dark matter figure, I'll go ahead and round this up to another whole cubic millimeter of volume in the Sun.
So, accounting for the all the mass of the universe, and the dark energy within it, the Sun is |
- 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 - 02/09/2006 : 19:45:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, it's not an ideal gas, but for the purposes of helioseismology, it can be modeled as an ideal gas.
But that "modeling" will never be 100% accurate...
Nobody expects a model to ever be 100% accurate. No model we have of any physical process is 100% accurate, so why would you demand our model of plasma acoustics to be 100% accurate? Kosovichev measured the acoustics of the Sun, and found the standard model is correct to within 2% of the measurements. So the standard model isn't perfect, but it's not that far off. The next step, obviously, is to test the deviations, hypothesize about why the model isn't perfect, and refine the thing for better results.quote:
...particularly if we are talking about large flows of current and large electromagnetic fields. These are influence which will change the behavior of plasma relative to "ideal gasses".quote:
And I am not aware of any way in which the presence or absence of a current through the plasma would change that.
But you yourself mentioned there would be local influence and we needed to consider "average" density. I agree, but then the fact there are local influence would suggest these things can and do play a a part in our sense of plasma density.
Yes, indeedy-do. Which is why Kosovichev, in this paper for example, used a 360-day data set of over 2,100 different acoustic frequencies to test against the standard solar model. "Because of the stochastic nature of solar oscillations substantial spatial and temporal averaging of data is required to measure the frequencies and travel times accurately." He also says that to measure local phenomena (like sunspots), he uses between 100,000 and a million data points. He knows better than to think he'll get accurate measurements from, say, three hours of raw data, Michael. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 19:54:17 [Permalink]
|
| I would like to hear your opinions about the mass separation issue whenever you are ready. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/09/2006 20:04:33 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 19:56:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I take it this means you aren't going to tackle the mass separation issue, you're just going to ignore it?
Are we to take this to mean you've completely given up defending the solid surface model?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 20:02:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I would now like us to turn our attention to the mass separation issue, and I would like to understand your position on Manuel's isotope analysis that shows evidence of mass separation.
My position is [shrug].
I asked you why it's a valid assumption to "correct" the Sun against meteorites, and you said it was because it works against Moon rocks, too (that was the basic idea I got from your response). That doesn't validate the assumption at all, however, but a good test would be to take the raw abundance data of elements within the Earth's atmosphere and "correct" them via the same meteorites, and see if the bulk composition of the Earth pops out the other end of the equation. Until something like that test is done, I don't see how the assumption that "correcting" the Sun's photospheric composition against meteorites will deliver data about the bulk Sun is valid.
Second, you claim that mass separation doesn't provide evidence for a solid shell, but allows for the "possibility" of a solid shell. I don't see why a non-mass-separated atmosphere can't be present over a solid shell (like an atmosphere so turbulent with "wind" that any separation done by electric arcs is destroyed continuously, just like a Jacob's Ladder sitting in front of a fan). So as far as I can tell, one can have a solid shell and a mass-separated atmosphere; a solid shell and a non-mass-separated atmosphere; no shell and a mass-separated atmosphere; and no shell and no mass separation. I don't understand - given the idea that shells can form in the first place - how any one of these could be considered more likely than any other, and so saying there's evidence of mass separation still leaves us to find some other method to distinguish between "shell" and "no shell" since mass separation and shells don't go hand-in-hand.
In other words, I find the idea of mass separation irrelevant to the question of whether or not a solid shell is underneath the photosphere. The presence or absence of mass separation doesn't give us any clues as to whether a shell is present or not, nor does it seem to make a shell "possible" where without it a shell would never exist.
Now, if you'd care to explain in detail why you think a shell is impossible without mass separation, I'd like to hear it. Maybe it'll make the idea seem relevant to me. |
- 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 - 02/09/2006 : 20:09:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I take it this means you aren't going to tackle the mass separation issue, you're just going to ignore it?
You asked me to be nice. You asked me to stick to the science. Well, here's a big "fuck you!" for your impatience and hypocrisy. Why is it that after preaching about not making this personal, you make it personal?
Now that that is out of the way, shall I assume that your lack of response means I went through all that work for nothing, or shall I be reasonable and wait a while for a reply to my answer to the questions that you asked me?
And besides all that, as I said above, I still have no idea what you want me to "tackle." |
- 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 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 20:15:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Nice edit, Michael, but too late.
I think I actually deserved that for not considering the work you put into your first response before opening my big mouth. My apologies. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 20:23:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Are we to take this to mean you've completely given up defending the solid surface model?
Not by a long shot. I think I'm just bit testy at the moment at the lack of focus on the mass separation issue. IMO that piece of data is critical, as ARE the actual satellite images. These are the things that *I* would like to discuss, rather than go into other aspects. I have tried to be reasonable and to address the questions put to me, and I'll continue to do so. I realized after I opened my big mouth just how much work Dave put into that first post, and I immediately realized what a stupid comment I made. Unfortunely you two both happened to be hanging out before I could fix it. :)
I actually appreciate the time and effort that Dave has put into this conversation over the past month, which is the really the only reason I've stuck around here as long as I have. I do enjoy the science aspects of our conversations, and I'm going to start being a bit more careful with how I phrase things from here on out.
I do however have a whole lot of satellite evidence to demonstrate that the sun has a solid surface, and anytime you folks are ready, I'll be happy to talk about them. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 20:37:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I think I'm just bit testy at the moment at the lack of focus on the mass separation issue.
Some of us are testy at the lack of data in which to really sink our teeth.quote:
IMO that piece of data is critical, as ARE the actual satellite images. These are the things that *I* would like to discuss, rather than go into other aspects.
Understandable, but I think what is truly critical now is that you answer the primary questions put to you in my long, long post near the start of this thread: do you agree that we can learn the mass of a thing (like the Earth or the Sun) without being able to touch it or know its composition? This is a very basic piece of science, and if you don't agree then I suspect we won't be able to agree about much of anything.quote:
I realized after I opened my big mouth just how much work Dave put into that first post, and I immediately realized what a stupid comment I made. Unfortunely you two both happened to be hanging out before I could fix it. :)
Appreciated.quote:
I do however have a whole lot of satellite evidence to demonstrate that the sun has a solid surface, and anytime you folks are ready, I'll be happy to talk about them.
I still don't understand what you want me to "tackle" about the mass separation, so let's stick to that for now. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 20:51:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I think I'm just bit testy at the moment at the lack of focus on the mass separation issue. IMO that piece of data is critical...
Except no one can see how it's especially relevant, let alone critical, but you.
quote:
...as ARE the actual satellite images.
But all that evidence boils down to is "the images sure look like a solid surface" to you, despite the fact that it's been shown you often have no idea what you're even looking at.
quote:
These are the things that *I* would like to discuss, rather than go into other aspects.
That's unfortunate, Michael. A true scientist would be as interested in trying to find a way to test his model--to falsify it--as he would be in trying to prove it correct. It seems the majority of the things you don't like to discuss are facts which hurt the feasibility of your model. Rather than address them, you insist on changing the subject. It comes off as highly dishonest and unprofessional.
Did you ever hear about the guy who was convinced he could see martian civilizations in some of the NASA photographs of Mars? He had spent hours and hours documenting all kinds of geometric shapes and "anamolies" on the surface which he said could not be produced by natural means. It turns out the guy was looking at uncompressed jpegs on his computer monitor with a magnifying glass. He was misidentifying compression aritifacts or simply imagining things beyond the resolution of his computer screen. He was just way in over his head when it came to understanding what it was he was looking at. And yet, he remained convinced to the end that he was correct. Try as they might, no one could make him understand how unsound his thinking and his methods really were.
Despite your pleas to be taken seriously on your science, you are demonstrating similar tunnel-vision. Whenever the science points to a conclusion you'd rather not accept, you holler objections or try and change the subject. And you are really convinced you can see something in those images of the sun that all the other scientists who work with satellite imagery every day of their professional careers just don't see, despite having no training in the field yourself.
Michael, do yourself a favor and take some time off. Really think about the facts that have been raised in criticism of your theory and seriously consider them. Ask yourself if you've allowed yourself to get in too far over your head. Ask yourself if you haven't become obsessed a little bit. Ask yourself if this is about the science anymore, or even if it ever was.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 21:04:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
My position is [shrug].
First of all, I want to apologize again for that last comment. I do in fact appreciate a lot of your efforts Dave, and in fact your post are what keep me coming back here. As I said, I have a great deal of respect for you, your knowledge of science, and your math skills. They are all admireable talents. I do want to keep our relationship "professional", and I'll do my part to clean up my act.
Since I have to replace a printer server this evening and I don't have that much time to kill, I picked this response to respond to first. I'll come back to your first response about gravity and absolute density as I get more time, but it may not be till Saturday. I've got a busy day tomorrow.
By the way I was not asking how you determined the mass of the sun without touching it, I was asking how you determined the density of the penumbral filaments without knowing what they are made of, and without touching them.
Now, as far as the "shrug" goes, I'm a little concerned frankly. This really isn't a "minor" issue at all, but in fact quite an important one. If the sun is mass separated then we have to toss current gas model theory out the window and find a mass separated model that works. If it's not mass separated, there is absolutely no way for there to be a "surface" under the photosphere. This is a solar theory buster, either way you look at it. It's an important issue IMO.
quote:
I asked you why it's a valid assumption to "correct" the Sun against meteorites, and you said it was because it works against Moon rocks, too (that was the basic idea I got from your response).
I was trying to convey quite a bit more than you got from that response. Let me try again. :)
The moon does not "collect" the hydrogen gas that flows past it. It's too small, and the solar wind blows away the hydrogen. Hydrogen gas is frankly "whispy" in comparison to meteorites and heavy objects. It just doesn't seem to stick, or collect or condense very easily. In fact the hydrogen the sun produces in the arc flows freely off the sun, and the turbulance of the solar atmosphere blows it into space. I don't see any evidence it sticks to even the largest bodies in our solar system, and certainly not the smaller ones. The condensation process of forming moon/planet/sun like objects begins with mass separated heavy elements, right from the very beginning. Even the earth, as close to a seemingly never ending supply of hydrogen gas doesn't seem to have a mass separated hydrogen layer, nor has it collected a lot of hydrogen gas. About the only hydrogen we see in our atmosphere is hydrogen that is stuck to something else.
Even something as massive as Earth doesn't seem to be a very good collector of hydrogen.
quote:
That doesn't validate the assumption at all, however, but a good test would be to take the raw abundance data of elements within the Earth's atmosphere and "correct" them via the same meteorites, and see if the bulk composition of the Earth pops out the other end of the equation. Until something like that test is done, I don't see how the assumption that "correcting" the Sun's photospheric composition against meteorites will deliver data about the bulk Sun is valid.
That's where the mass fractionization data comes into play. Again however I'm inclined to point out that the moon has collected *TONS* of meteorites since forming around the earth as we can tell from it's craters. It still has almost no atmosphere, and the hydrogen in it atmosphere is virtually nothing compared to the weight it's gained from meteorite strikes over the past 4.6 billion years.
quote:
Second, you claim that mass separation doesn't provide evidence for a solid shell, but allows for the "possibility" of a solid shell.
Correct.
quote:
I don't see why a non-mass-separated atmosphere can't be present over a solid shell (like an atmosphere so turbulent with "wind" that any separation done by electric arcs is destroyed continuously, just like a Jacob's Ladder sitting in front of a fan).
If were were talking about "ideal gasses", I might be more receptive to that idea. Since we're talking about plasmas that easily conduct electricity, and we have ample evidence of mass separation of plasmas in the presense of electrical activity, that idea doesn't sound as plausible. It's possible I suppose, but then you'll have to explain the mass fractionization, and why it applies to so many gasses.
quote:
So as far as I can tell, one can have a solid shell and a mass-separated atmosphere;
I vote for that one. :) I've got satellite images to demonstrate it too.
quote:
a solid shell and a non-mass-separated atmosphere;
That might be possible if were talking about ideal gasses *without* any flow of electricity, but since we're talking plasmas in an electromagnetic field, it's a wee harder to buy that theory. Then again there's the umbra/penumbra delineation to explain, not to mention the flare on the top of the sunspot.
quote:
no shell and a mass-separated atmosphere;
That's a possibility, but that's also where the satellite images come in.
quote:
and no shell and no mass separation.
And to the best of our knowledge, it would be the exception, not the rule. We've landed on the moon. I has a surface. We've landed on mars. It has a surface as well. We've landed on Venus. It too has a surface. So far everything we landed on has had a surface, or our satellite got crushed in the atmosphere and we don't know if it has a surface. Then again, Shoemaker Levi 9 seemed to cause quite a blowout on Jupiter, and it was not that deep into the atmosphere.
quote:
I don't understand - given the idea that shells can form in the first place - how any one of these could be considered more likely than any other, and so saying there's evidence of mass separation still leaves us to find some other meth |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/09/2006 21:05:35 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 21:45:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
First of all, I want to apologize again for that last comment.
Accepted.quote:
By the way I was not asking how you determined the mass of the sun without touching it, I was asking how you determined the density of the penumbral filaments without knowing what they are made of, and without touching them.
The comment you responded to was about the Sun as a whole, and you didn't mention anything which could be considered a hint that you were switching the context to just your "penumbral filaments" instead of the Sun. You said "it," and "it" at the time refered to the Sun.
But I still would like to hear some agreement. If not on the basic measurement of the density, then on the analysis of the dark matter, dark energy and "light mass," and a further explanation of how one should take "acceleration" into account.quote:
Now, as far as the "shrug" goes, I'm a little concerned frankly. This really isn't a "minor" issue at all, but in fact quite an important one. If the sun is mass separated then we have to toss current gas model theory out the window and find a mass separated model that works. If it's not mass separated, there is absolutely no way for there to be a "surface" under the photosphere. This is a solar theory buster, either way you look at it. It's an important issue IMO.
If you're going to frame it like that, you're still going to have to explain, in detail, why you think that a solid shell is impossible without a mass-separated atmosphere. As far as I can tell, the two things are not interdependent.
You state, "Unless there is mass separation, there can't be a surface," but you don't supply any evidence that this assertion is true. You later state, "Well, if there's no mass separation, then it's likely to get hotter as we go deeper," but you offer no evidence that with mass separation, things don't get hotter as one goes deeper (in fact, for most of the depth of Earth's atmosphere, it gets hotter as one goes deeper). You go on to explain, "If the sun really is made of the composition that gas model theory suggest, such a light material is highly unlikely to become 'more stable' at higher temperatures, even if it becomes more dense," but we're not testing your model against the standard solar model (your model doesn't make any of the same predictions), we're testing your solar model against all possible solar models, including one in which the "shell" is made by aliens, and is completely hollow except for their incredibly compact power generators and coolers, thus making the temperature curve of the atmosphere anything we might imagine.
So again, I don't understand why mass separation of the atmosphere is required for there to be a solid shell under the atmosphere. (And a Jacob's Ladder, because it is a spark-gap, generates its own plasmas which, in the presence of even a breeze, would quickly be mixed together regardless of their mass.)quote:
quote:
I asked you why it's a valid assumption to "correct" the Sun against meteorites, and you said it was because it works against Moon rocks, too (that was the basic idea I got from your response).
I was trying to convey quite a bit more than you got from that response. Let me try again. :)
The moon does not "collect" the hydrogen gas that flows past it. It's too small, and the solar wind blows away the hydrogen. Hydrogen gas is frankly "whispy" in comparison to meteorites and heavy objects. It just doesn't seem to stick, or collect or condense very easily. In fact the hydrogen the sun produces in the arc...
Whoa whoa whoa! Back the truck up right there!
Just how the heck does an electrical arc "produce" hydrogen in the absence of hydrogen? Electric arcs are a chemical phemonenon, not a nuclear phenomenon, and in all 60+ pages of this thread so far, I don't recall you mentioning hydrogen being a constituent of the surface or of the plasmas near the surface. We've got a mostly-iron shell mixed with oxygen, calcium and (apparently) any metal one might name, a calcium plasma over that, a silicon plasma over that, and a neon plasma over that. Just where is this hydrogen being produced? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 21:57:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Except no one can see how it's especially relevant, let alone critical, but you.
Come on HH. Current solar theory is *predicated* on *faith* in the notion that the sun is not mass separated. If it is mass separated, current theory is useless and must be replaced. Maybe you might not replace it automatically with a solid surface model, but you'll have to replace it with a mass separated model of some sort. The implication of this data is huge, and has increadible implication on astronomy as a whole. This is no "minor" issue.
quote:
But all that evidence boils down to is "the images sure look like a solid surface" to you,
It's not that they just "look" like a solid surface, it "behaves" as though it has a solid surface. You can see a shock wave propogate through the solar atmosphere on my website and watch those shock waves run into objects that deflect the shockwaves into space. You can watch a rigid, angular structure be completely unaffected by the wave moving the the photosophere in the tsunami video by Kosovichev. You can see this rigidness of this layer in the RD images. You can see these same structures over rotate evenly from pole to equator over a period of days. You can see electrical arcs come from the surface as well. It's not simply how it "looks", it's how those structures behave that matters.
quote:
despite the fact that it's been shown you often have no idea what you're even looking at.
That is a just a rediculace statement. In the 9 months I've been debating these ideas in cyberspace, not more than a handful of people have even offered an explanation for the very first image on my website. No one has ever given a comprehensive explanation that expained why these "structures" we see do not more around as do the structures in the photosphere that come and go every 8 minutes. No one has addressed that image in detail or in a way that scientifically pans using gas model theory. I've talked to people all over this planet in that time, on many different forums. Not once has anyone put a dent on that very first image.
Now keep in mind that this image isn't even what first convinced me there is as surface. It's just a good, closeup image of the surface, and ther is much to be seen in that image. There are tons more, but no one ever gets past that first image. As I recall, you tried to explain these structures by using photosphere structures that aren't even a part of the area where this image comes from. It's not an easy image to deal with based on gas model principles.
I've looked at so many images now that clearly reveal the solid surface, and the electrical arcs from the surface that I can't even look at solar images without seeing some sign of some activity that begins at the surface. All of what I see, I can pretty much explain now with Birkelands model. When I clung to gas model theory, I couldn't get past that first image either. I had no idea how to explain it with gas model theory. I still don't know how to explain it based on gas model theory, and evidently nobody does.
quote:
That's unfortunate, Michael. A true scientist would be as interested in trying to find a way to test his model--to falsify it--as he would be in trying to prove it correct.
I hear you on that point. I've already stuck my neck *WAY* out on a limb with the STEREO program. I'm betting the farm that they'll "discover" that the 171A, 195A, and 284A image originate *underneath* the photosphere, not above it. That's a real falsification mechanism that I'll accept as a viable way to determine which "interpretation" is accurate, and there should not be much room for error. I'm going to pay close attention to that data, I assure you. I'm interesting in both proving my case and also in falsifying it as well.
There are however some things that I don't have the data for just yet. For instance, I have no idea what kind of Birkeland currents run though our solar system, and I doubt we'll know for quite some time to come. We can therefore talk about "density" issues, but there are unknowns out there in space that preclude me from trying to use a heliocentric notion of density as some sort of disproof for a Birkeland solar model that by necessity is electrically influenced by the the universe around us. This however gets off into speculative areas of science that that are hard to demonstrate at the moment. Birkeland's notion of current *inside* the solar system weren't confirmed until long after his death. I don't want to be dead before most people finally realize that Birkeland nailed the solar model down as well. That man was *way* ahead of his time. I'd rather pick some slightly more "grounded" ideas that can be more easily falsified like that placement of the transitional region seen in 171A. If it's above the photosphere as NASA believes, then it's not likely to be solid. It's below the photosphere as I believe, then it can be solid, and in fact is likely to be solid.
quote:
It seems the majority of the things you don't like to discuss are facts which hurt the feasibility of your model.
Anyone (and practically everyone) could come up with something that I can't explain about the sun. I'll bet I can stump everyone as well on some archane point of gas model theory. Gas model theory can't even predict sunspots for goodness sake! It's not a crime to not be able to explain some aspect of solar theory. However the herd mentality seems to be of the opinion that if we stump Michael, Birkeland's model must be wrong. There isn't a one to one correlation between something I can't explain and being wrong, but that's how it's percieved around here.
I don't really see a lot of things that "hurt" the feasibility of my model that I can't at least explain in a theoretical way. None of that however has anything to do with what I can actually observe in satellite images. Keep in mind, that the images are something I can explain and can use to support my case. That is why I'd prefer to talk about them. :)
quote:
Rather than address them, you insist on changing the subject.
That is not fair IMO. I've spent the last two threads getting into the details of heliosiesmology, something Dave was interested in discussing. I've answered the questions I've been asked to the best of my ability. I'm not trying to change any subjects at all. I've been trying to focus on the mass separation issue, practically since day one.
quote:
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
