|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 04/25/2006 : 13:53:06 [Permalink]
|
I'm "a bit gruff at times." Guilty as charged.
Don't forget, Mab, that he posted that some three weeks prior to the latest posts, above.
Seriously, I think he'd not only be a good sport, but also a good scientifically-minded thinker, if he were to just take the final step of applying the models to the observations and see what comes out the other end. |
- 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 - 04/25/2006 : 14:36:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm "a bit gruff at times." Guilty as charged.
Ya think? :)
quote:
Don't forget, Mab, that he posted that some three weeks prior to the latest posts, above.
My "feelings" haven't changed one iota since I first wrote that. You're a pigheaded lot to be sure, but I have very much appreciated the effort you have all made to understand the materials I've presented and to skeptically review and "poke holes" in the materials I've presented over the past few months. I got exactly the kind of skeptical review I was looking/hoping for, with far greater scientific professionalism than I actually expected to find here.
It has also been a very rewarding change of pace to be able to speak my mind freely without any fear of being "banned" or burned at the stake. Even in our "testy" times, you've never threatened to ban me or censure me for my statements. That is a welcome breath of fresh air and it speaks volumes IMO about your integrity. Overall, I've very happy, and quite pleased with the process that has transpired here.
quote:
Seriously, I think he'd not only be a good sport, but also a good scientifically-minded thinker, if he were to just take the final step of applying the models to the observations and see what comes out the other end.
I presume you're talking about mathematical application. The problem I have at the moment is that simultaneously solving the differential equations related to magnetohydrodynamics is typically done on supercomputers. I'm also still in a significant learning curve at is relates to plasma flow dynamics, and the mathematical models that are used to represent the flow of plasma in electric fields. While I completed a number of calculus classes in college, it's been quite a few years since I've integrated derivatives just for fun. :)
I'm also in the process of developing a lot of new code in C# at work right now. I've got my hands full for a few weeks. Don't worry, I'll be back when things have settled down some at work. :) |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2006 : 15:09:57 [Permalink]
|
This is a continuation of a conversation Dave and I from a hijacked thread that ends here:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6216&whichpage=7
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It would only be inconsistent if the gas model predicted two different outcomes from the same data. It doesn't.
Sure it does. It predicted an open convection zone between .985R and .995R, but now we find that reqion blocks mass flow in both directions. Now the gas model is going to get "modified" *someday* (no ones done so yet) to explain that flattened out mass flow .993R. Right now we're in limbo of course, because no one has a clue what to do with the mass flow data and how that relates back to contemporary gas model theory. Instead, the work for Stanford is just sitting there being ignored altogether, and colleges still teach kids that mass is flowing through an open convection zone in this region.
quote:
You know as well as I do that there is no consensus on coronal heating, so its mechanism is hardly a part of the model right now.
You mean to tell me that gas model theory can't even explain why light plasmas get heated by electricity flowing through the plasma and electrically active coronal loops? Why do you put faith in this theory? What good it is if it can't explain something as important and as basic as this?
quote:
Secondly, the gas model predicts that elements are being mass separated due to gravity, it's just that the process is extremely slow and is countered by the massive amount of physical mixing due to convection and huge magnetic loops.
Except we already know that mass isn't flowing up and down in the region between .985 and .995R. Rather the plasma flow all goes horizontal both on the top side and the bottom side in this region. We also know that the sun has not just a "large" gravitational field but rather a "huge" gravitational field. It also has a strong magnetic field as well. We use strong magnetic fields to separate isotopes here on earth. Gas model theory is predicated on the "faith" the somehow all these powerful forces are overcome mearly by "movements" that aren't even occuring in the stratification subsurface. It's one big fat fairytale Dave. You have magically "assumed" that every thing is going to stay almost "perfectly" mixed and no separation into "layers" is likely to occur. This is pure pseudo-scientific mythology because astronomers want everything to stay "simple" and easy. The moment you complicate their world with little facts like gravity and magnetic fields separate plasma, the simply "dream up" an "answer" that has already been falsified by Kosovichev's work.
The other "major" bit of inconsistancies is these "magnetic fields" you have coming from the core, that only magically become visible once the reach the corona. Suddenly, quite magically they all finally start to appear, but not a sign of them exists between the stratification subsurface and the lower corona. Somehow this "corona" that no one knows the heat source for is magically heating the loops. Never mind the fact that the loops are far *brighter* than the surrounding corona. I tell you Dave the rationalization that hold the gas model together are unbelievably convoluted when you get right down to it.
quote:
Of course, whether the gas model is inconsistent or not doesn't matter one whit to whether or not your statements are inconsistent.
But Dave, my statements are not inconsistent. You may percieve them to be that way for some reason, but that isn't the case.
quote:
Can you support that claim with data from Kosovichev's own work?
I see no evidence to demonstrate that anyone (not just Kosovichev) ever directly "measured" the density of the photosphere. The same kinds of math formulas were used to calculate the density and temperature of the atmosphere of Jupiter. It's outer atmosphere was "predicted" to be a specific density and temperature. It turns out however that when we actually "meausured" it directly (by dropping a device into the atmosphere), that it was actually *hotter* and *more dense* than predicted. If you wan't me to believe that *any* (not just Kosovichev) heliosiesmology data is based on direct "measurement", your going to have to demonstrate it. To my knowledge we've never dropped anything into the photosphere. We've never "measured" it at all. It's desnity is "assumed" and all density measurements are relative to this assumed value.
If you believe that anyone actually "measured" the density of the photosphere directly, then you must provide evidence to substanciate it.
I'll be happy to discuss the rest of the heliosiesmology data, the moment you show me how the density of the photosphere was "meausured" and how the instruments to measure them were "calibrated" in the first place. I can undertand how the instruments we dropped into Jupiters atmosphere were "calibrated" to earth's sense of "density", but since we didn't drop anything into the photosphere, I have no idea how anything might possibly have been "calibrated" to earthly standards.
When you show me how the photosphere density was "measured", I'll be happy to get into the rest of the heliosiesmology arguements with you Dave in it's own thread and we'll leave poor Robb alone.
quote:
You're missing what I'm saying is inconsistent. You claim that satellite images show "arcs" extending up from your allegedly solid surface. But, since they're two-dimensional images, you also claim we've got no "altitude" information that would show that there are arcs extending up from a surface.
Dave, any high energy satellite image that is taken along the "horizon" (of the stratification subsurface), shows taht coronal loops arch up from the surface and come back down to the surface. By virtue of the horizon, we can determine the loops are three dimensional.
In fact in close up images, we can see that the loops typically pick up material at one side of the surface and move it to the other, only after the materials have traveled up and through the arc. The two dimensional problem is related to the positioning of the "surface" from which they rise in relationship to the photosophere. Even Lockheed Martin admits that coronal loops are three dimensional and traverse the solar atmosphere. Where we differ is not in their three dimensional nature, but rather in the positioning of the "surface" from which they rise in relationship to the surface of photosphere. I believe they rise from the "subsurface stratification" at about .993R. Lockheed Martin believes they origin |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/24/2006 15:11:59 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2006 : 18:47:37 [Permalink]
|
I think that's the longest post I've ever seen. I look forward to reading it. Right after I read the other 7 parts and 9 pages of this debate...  |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2006 : 19:32:55 [Permalink]
|
Well, what can I say, Michael? You made a positive claim, that Kosovichev's densities were all "relative" to the density of the photosphere. When asked to support your positive claim, you instead retreat and demand that someone present evidence that the density of the photosphere has been "directly" measured. You claim to want to raise this discussion above some "juvenile" level, but the above bait-and-switch is about as juvenile as it gets, Michael. Whatever you think you're trying to do, Michael, if you're unwilling to support the claims that you make, then you're not doing science.
Shifting the goalposts is also juvenile, Michael, and you've done that every time someone has explained the satellite images to you. You're also adding in the requirement that someone else explain your personal interpretations of the images, which have never been verified (like "rigid patterns") and your own personal misunderstandings of the image processing (like "light sources").
You want to have a discussion of the science which doesn't delve into juvenile crappola? Fine! I'm sure we'll all be waiting for you to stop playing these juvenile games. I've got better things to do on a Saturday night. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2006 : 11:29:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, what can I say, Michael? You made a positive claim, that Kosovichev's densities were all "relative" to the density of the photosphere.
But Dave, that was only after your "positive claim" that he directly "measured" the density. I have explained that we have never dropped anything into the photophere to determine it's density, and you've yet to offer any evidence to suggest that we have directly measured it's density. I therefore have no evidence to suggest that the density of the photosphere was "measured" as you claimed.
I also explained why this is critical. As I pointed out, the math formulas that are typically used to calculate the density of distant objects failed quite substancially as it relates to predicting the density and temperature of the largest gas gaint in our solar system. It therefore cannot be demonstrated that simplified mathematical calculations from a distance can be applied to the atmosphere of the sun from a distance. Unless you can show me some way that we actually "measured" this density, I have no evidence it's been measured as you "positively claimed".
quote:
When asked to support your positive claim, you instead retreat and demand that someone present evidence that the density of the photosphere has been "directly" measured. You claim to want to raise this discussion above some "juvenile" level, but the above bait-and-switch is about as juvenile as it gets, Michael. Whatever you think you're trying to do, Michael, if you're unwilling to support the claims that you make, then you're not doing science.
Talk about pots and kettles. You introduced Kosovichev's evidence and you personally claimed he "measured" the density of the photosphere. When I asked you to back up this claim, you started backpeddling immediatly. You've not done so. I have no reason to believe you unless you can explain *how* it was measured. You are the one that keep shifting the blame back to me and insisting I prove that he didn't "measure" density of the photosphere directly, when you've never bothered to even explain how he did it. Talk about irrational behaviors Dave.
quote:
Shifting the goalposts is also juvenile, Michael, and you've done that every time someone has explained the satellite images to you. You're also adding in the requirement that someone else explain your personal interpretations of the images, which have never been verified (like "rigid patterns") and your own personal misunderstandings of the image processing (like "light sources").
You want to have a discussion of the science which doesn't delve into juvenile crappola? Fine! I'm sure we'll all be waiting for you to stop playing these juvenile games. I've got better things to do on a Saturday night.
You amaze me at times Dave. Most of the time you act pretty rationally. You have a good grasp of science on many levels. When we get to certain topics however, you tend to go off into left field with your logic. You claimed that Kosovichev "measured" the density to be within "2%" of the theorized density, but never once would you explain how the density of the photophere was determined. You then shift the burden over to me to "disprove" your positive claim. You drop the F and L words into the conversation on a regular basis, and yet you have the shear audacity to lecture me about shifting the burden and juvenile behaviors? Amazing!
How was the density of the photosphere "measured" Dave. Stop tap-dancing around the question and answer it. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/25/2006 11:44:06 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2006 : 18:49:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But Dave, that was only after your "positive claim" that he directly "measured" the density.
Baloney, Michael. I never once claimed that Kosovichev "directly" measured anything. I provided you with an article by Kosovichev in which he claimed to have measured the density of the Sun using helioseismology.quote:
I have explained that we have never dropped anything into the photophere to determine it's density, and you've yet to offer any evidence to suggest that we have directly measured it's density. I therefore have no evidence to suggest that the density of the photosphere was "measured" as you claimed.
Okay, then we've never "directly measured" the distance from the Earth to the Sun, because we don't have a ruler big enough. Parallax isn't a direct measurement, but only an inference. Photons don't carry odometers, and we only assume that the speed of light is constant between Sun and Earth. So, all inferences are out. And I never claimed anything except that Kosovichev claimed to have measured the Sun's density, and I already provided you with proof of my claim.quote:
I also explained why this is critical.
That's fine, but by demanding "direct measurement" of anything, you've called into question every scientific inference that's ever been made.quote:
As I pointed out, the math formulas that are typically used to calculate the density of distant objects failed quite substancially as it relates to predicting the density and temperature of the largest gas gaint in our solar system.
Yes, and the idea that helioseismology was used to estimate the density of the outermost portions of Jupiter's atmosphere is patently absurd.quote:
It therefore cannot be demonstrated that simplified mathematical calculations from a distance can be applied to the atmosphere of the sun from a distance.
What's simplified about helioseismology, Michael? It's complex enough that you don't understand how it's used to measure the Sun's density.quote:
Unless you can show me some way that we actually "measured" this density, I have no evidence it's been measured as you "positively claimed".
Therefore, all of the helioseismology results are suspect, since no helioseismologist can be trusted. They all claim that helioseismology can measure the density of the Sun at various depths. You've been given at least two articles by independent researchers which make such claims. Since you don't think they can do even that small task, it is incredible that you believe they can measure density differences of less than one tenth of one percent. The idea that they lie when they claim to have measured the density of the Sun from the photosphere to the core means that none of their other work can be trusted.quote:
Talk about pots and kettles. You introduced Kosovichev's evidence and you personally claimed he "measured" the density of the photosphere.
No, I presented evidence that Kosovichev claimed to have measured the density of the Sun at various depths.quote:
When I asked you to back up this claim, you started backpeddling immediatly. You've not done so.
Why should I provide evidence to support a claim I never made?quote:
I have no reason to believe you unless you can explain *how* it was measured.
Fine! Since you can't explain the Sun's radius, I have no reason to believe your model.quote:
You are the one that keep shifting the blame back to me and insisting I prove that he didn't "measure" density of the photosphere directly, when you've never bothered to even explain how he did it. Talk about irrational behaviors Dave.
No, the irrational behaviour is you demanding that I provide evidence to support a claim that I never made.quote:
You amaze me at times Dave. Most of the time you act pretty rationally. You have a good grasp of science on many levels. When we get to certain topics however, you tend to go off into left field with your logic. You claimed that Kosovichev "measured" the density to be within "2%" of the theorized density, but never once would you explain how the density of the photophere was determined.
Why should I defend Kosovichev's claims? You're the one who's communicating with him via email on a regular basis, not I. Ask him how he measured the density of the Sun. He's the one who made the claim, after all.quote:
You then shift the burden over to me to "disprove" your positive claim.
No, nobody forced you to claim that Kosovichev's density measurements were all "relative" to the photosphere. You have no one to blame for that but yourself, especially since your claim implies that the photospheric density measurement must be correct, or we know nothing about the Sun at all.quote:
You drop the F and L words into the conversation on a regular basis, and yet you have the shear audacity to lecture me about shifting the burden and juvenile behaviors? Amazing!
And repeatedly bringing up behaviour for which I've apologized is also juvenile. I haven't called you a liar nor used any "bad words" since the last one, which wasn't even directed at you, personally (had I said, "for God's sake," would you think I was calling you God?). For someone who wants to make the discussion more "adult," Michael, you can't seem to lift |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2006 : 19:21:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I see no evidence to demonstrate that anyone (not just Kosovichev) ever directly "measured" the density of the photosphere. The same kinds of math formulas were used to calculate the density and temperature of the atmosphere of Jupiter. It's outer atmosphere was "predicted" to be a specific density and temperature. It turns out however that when we actually "meausured" it directly (by dropping a device into the atmosphere), that it was actually *hotter* and *more dense* than predicted.
Now, Michael, you're not being completely honest and truthful.
In this thread: Surface of the Sun, Part 6, page 8 we addressed your claim about measured density and temperature of the atmosphere of Jupiter.
This is what we wrote:
Michael Mozina: The case in point that I made earlier, was that these same mathematical calculations based on gravity, etc, failed to give us an accurate picture of the temperature or pressure of the outer atmosphere of Jupiter.
Dave_W: How many times does it need to be pointed out that Jupiter's characteristics do not come from a solar model? The two are not the same.
Dr. Mabuse: Not only that but Mozina misrepresented the content of the link he posted.
Yes, there were deviations in measurement from what was expected during a transitional stage in the descent (but far from as radical differences as Mozina would like us to believe), but the readings returned to what was expected as the craft descended deeper.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 09:45:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I see no evidence to demonstrate that anyone (not just Kosovichev) ever directly "measured" the density of the photosphere. The same kinds of math formulas were used to calculate the density and temperature of the atmosphere of Jupiter. It's outer atmosphere was "predicted" to be a specific density and temperature. It turns out however that when we actually "meausured" it directly (by dropping a device into the atmosphere), that it was actually *hotter* and *more dense* than predicted.
Now, Michael, you're not being completely honest and truthful.
In this thread: Surface of the Sun, Part 6, page 8 we addressed your claim about measured density and temperature of the atmosphere of Jupiter.
This is what we wrote:
Michael Mozina: The case in point that I made earlier, was that these same mathematical calculations based on gravity, etc, failed to give us an accurate picture of the temperature or pressure of the outer atmosphere of Jupiter.
Dave_W: How many times does it need to be pointed out that Jupiter's characteristics do not come from a solar model? The two are not the same.
Dr. Mabuse: Not only that but Mozina misrepresented the content of the link he posted.
Yes, there were deviations in measurement from what was expected during a transitional stage in the descent (but far from as radical differences as Mozina would like us to believe), but the readings returned to what was expected as the craft descended deeper.
Now Dr. Mabuse, I have been completely honest and up front about my objections, and the nature of my concerns. Jupiter's atmosphere was just one of these concerns. There were a pair of brown drarfs found recently that did not follow the "rule" as it relates to the these formulas. It turns out that the larger body in the pair was actually cooler than the smaller one. These variations from expectations suggest that the mathematical models are not 100% reliable at determining either the density or the temperature of the outer atmospheres of large bodies.
The fact that there may have been agreement between theory and observed density "somewhere" during the capsules decent into Jupiter's atmosphere is no more surprising than the fact a broken mechanical clock is still "right" twice a day.
The fact the model wasn't "right" as it relates to determining the temperature and density of the upper most region of Jupiter's atmosphere is important. If these formulas do not work to calculate the density of Jupiter's outer most atmosphere, then there is no guarantee that they will work to predict the density of the surface of the photosphere either. The fact that brown dwarfs don't always behave as expected is yet another example of why mathematical models don't always jive with what we find in the real world.
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/brown_dwarf_masses.html
What evidence do you have to demonstrate that these mathematical models accurately reflect the density of the surface of the photosphere, if they can't accurately predict what's going in these sorts of cases? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/26/2006 09:49:39 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 12:05:03 [Permalink]
|
From the link:
quote:
The astronomers are surprised to discover that the more massive brown dwarf is the cooler of the pair, contrary to all predictions about brown dwarfs of the same age. Either the two are not the same age and may be captured bodies, or the theoretical models are wrong, say researchers.
Emphasis mine. You never mentioned the possibility of the two brown dwarfs being of different ages. Cherry-picking info from articles like that is something I thought was reserved by Creationists.
quote:
An analysis of the light coming from the dwarf pair indicates that the dwarfs have a reddish cast. Current models also predict that brown dwarfs should have "weather" — cloud-like bands and spots similar to those visible on Jupiter and Saturn.
Another hint that the brown dwarfs should be modelled differently from stars. There is a fundamental difference between a brown star and our sun: Our sun is powered by nuclear reactions, brown dwarfs are heated by compression. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 15:38:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Emphasis mine. You never mentioned the possibility of the two brown dwarfs being of different ages.
It was irrelevant to my point actually. Trying to use simple mathematical models doesn't always work.
Having said that, I'll bite. How much "older" would one of them have to from the other for this data set to make sense? How does age factor into this?
quote:
Cherry-picking info from articles like that is something I thought was reserved by Creationists.
I didn't "cherry pick" anything however. I simply noted that sometimes simple concepts can be misapplied to the real world. This is true regardless of the "cause" of the surprise. I've yet to see any data on how age difference would explain these results by the way.
quote:
Another hint that the brown dwarfs should be modelled differently from stars. There is a fundamental difference between a brown star and our sun: Our sun is powered by nuclear reactions, brown dwarfs are heated by compression.
If anything a sun is more complex. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 15:59:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I simply noted that sometimes simple concepts can be misapplied to the real world.
Like trying to apply helio-seismology and stardard gas-sun model on a planet like Jupiter. Or brown dwarfs for that matter. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 16:00:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Another hint that the brown dwarfs should be modelled differently from stars. There is a fundamental difference between a brown star and our sun: Our sun is powered by nuclear reactions, brown dwarfs are heated by compression.
If anything a sun is more complex.
On this we seem to agree. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
