|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 04/10/2007 : 08:45:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I wish there were a 'stunned silence' emoticon, because that's about all I've got after reading this. I mean, on the one hand you're right that mainstream scientists are mistaken in not considering largely unpublished arguments for radically different notions of solar composition. Why they don't consider Mozina's iron sun theory is beyond me.
It really doesn't even matter if we used an iron sun theory (not my personal idea by the way) or standard theory. The distance between stars is *huge*. The likelihood of a direct hit is not high. To suggest that you already know that the material in the clouds will compose the *majority* of the mass is simply assuming what you're trying to demonstrate. It wouldn't even matter if we used an iron sun model or standard theory, the majority of the mass will remain in the suns.
quote:
In any case, don't bother even watching the video. You clearly got nothing out of the article.
You can't *assume* what you are trying to demonstrate, or make an assumption that directly affects what you are trying to demonstrate. That's what these authors did. Anything that doesn't move or behave based upon their initial assumption only goes to demonstrate their case, or is used to build their case.
All they really demonstrated ("proved" in their lingo) was that their initial assumption was incorrect.
quote:
I think your use of the "iron sun" argument as an initial rejection of the dark matter evidence is rather telling.
I think you missed the part about it fails *even in standard theory*.
I can't help but see the universe my way at this point, just as you see it your way. I didn't however reject the idea *only* based on my ideas, but upon physics in a larger sense. How far apart do you think individual stars are in a galaxy? If two of them pass through one another, what do you think the odds are that suns would collide?
quote:
How rough is it? I'll skip how you still can't answer questions about density and gravity in relation to your iron suns. But why bring it up now? I mean, we've talked about dark matter before, and in your earlier posts to HH you never threw in iron suns. But this problem dates back to 1937! But you're just now realizing that the iron sun solution solves the gravity rotation problem!
No, I've considered it for quite some time. It works great at a distance. Then again, that idea creates its own set of problems when we look close up, inside a solar system. Our current GR formulas and calculations seem to work very well inside the confines of this solar system.
quote:
Anyhow, I'm completely unimpressed with your handwave regarding this problem.
Their whole argument was based upon an *assumption* that they ultimately disproved. The mass in the galaxies that are contained in solar systems will generally track with the suns in the galaxy, not the plasma flowing between the suns. I fail to see how this is even "strong evidence" for "dark matter", let alone "proof". Come on.
I've provided tons more "evidence" in support of electric solar theory and I still would not call it "proof". That's was a wild boast from beginning to end and they disproved their own assumption. I fail to see the "big deal" frankly. All we know for sure is that the sentence I highlighted is *false*, just like I figured it was. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2007 09:50:13 |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 09:02:30 [Permalink]
|
| Your argument, Michael, was that mainstream scientists are handwaving with metaphysics regarding dark matter. However, I showed you a clear example of how they are in fact testing a hypothesis. The hypothesis passed the test, strongly suggesting that there is additional matter that we cannot see, and making attempts to rework Newtonian physics less likely. Thus, you can no longer say it's metaphysics and handwaving-- they're actually testing their ideas. That's all. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 09:06:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
1. The primary energy source for the heating of the sun's atmosphere is external to the sun.
Yes, though the sun does generate *some* energy locally. For instance you can see fusion reactions occurring in the solar atmosphere in Rhessi images. The current flow is the catalyst of the energy release but the energy release is local as well.
quote:
2. This energy is source is a current, that is a flow of electrons.
The external part, yes.
quote:
3. You can't be more specific about the origin/nature of this current other than "background currents flowing through the universe".
Yes.
quote:
Given that these statements are a correct representation of your position:
4. Have you done any calculations as to the magnitude of this current?
As it relates to coronal loops, yes. As it relates to total electron flow through the system, no, I have not not personally done so.
quote:
Given that you claim to have numbers for the temperatures and make-up of the suns atmospehre, this ought to be fairly straightforward. Very rough, few orders of magnitude type calculations would serve as a reality check.
That plasma ball is also a "reality check". It allows us to see in the real world what Alfven described in his book. He notes that when current is passed through plasma, it tends to form filament channels that "flow" inside the system. He describes the math in the book I suggested earlier, but you can see that threading action in action up close and personal in a cheap plasma ball. The physics is the same, but the scales are much larger. The thing about MHD theory is that it scales very well.
quote:
5. Has anyone directly observed these (speculatively) massive currents through the sun with other instrumentation?
They directly observe the *magnetic fields* that flow parallel to the current because those are much easier to detect. How would you suggest we directly measure the current flow inside of a coronal loop?
If you study Alfven's work, he explains that a "rope" like flow of current forms inside the plasma. That is what 'holds' the magnetic field in that location. Like gas, plasma will not hold a magnetic field like a solid. It moves like a gas. The only thing that could create such power fields in these loops is electron flow and the fields that follow that electron flow through the plasma.
quote:
So now Kristian Birkeland has demonstrated that a model (your model, by your own words) works, and managed to do so decades before the development of this alleged model.
Well, sort of. I spent many months putting together my model based on satellite images alone. I had not heard of Dr. Manuel, nor had I seen the lab work of Kristian Birkeland. I had heard of Alfven but I was mostly ignorant of his work.
The model I came up with was based purely on observation and interpretations of direct observations. When I got done, and I put up my website I then ran into Dr. Manuel and realized I was not the first person to suggest a mostly iron sun. I also began educating myself on plasma cosmology and low and behold I ran into Kristian Birkeland's work. It seems he already took all the major components (inner magnet, iron shell, plasma atmosphere and current flow) and put them all together in a simulator and fired them up. He beat me to the major components of this model by 100 years and he tested it too! It would be pretty damn arrogant for me to claim it was all my idea. Evidently great minds think alike. :)
quote:
This ought to be pretty easy to confirm. Would you care to provide links to the scientific solar models developed by yourself and Kristian Birkeland, so that we can do a comparison?
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/
Note that when he charged the sphere positive he created coronal loops and arcs across the surface. When he charged it negative, he created aurora.
About the only thing he didn't demonstrate from our model is the concentric elemental plasma layers. Alfven however points out that plasma tends to separate like that in the presence of strong current flows. Strong magnetic fields and gravity are also know to separate plasma. That's about the only major component that Birkeland did not test.
quote:
Pot, meet kettle. If you're going to play the "not likely" card, how about a little more evidence that the "iron sun scenario" is anything but incredibly unlikely. I believe you yourself expressed some doubt about it's merit in recent times.
I don't even have to do that since they did it for me. In the final analysis they completely and utterly disproved their own assumption. The bulk of the mass follows the stars, not the dust between the stars. The already demonstrated this John. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2007 09:46:46 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 09:13:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Your argument, Michael, was that mainstream scientists are handwaving with metaphysics regarding dark matter.
Yes, they are.
quote:
However, I showed you a clear example of how they are in fact testing a hypothesis.
How did they "test" it????? They "assumed" a position (most of the mass follows the dust), disproved their position (most of the mass follows the stars), and then chalked up their mistake to "dark matter"!!!! That's all they did. Show me some "dark matter" in a lab and then talk to me about what it does a billion light years away. Don't just *assume* that it exists and then use it to explain stuff a billion light years away!
quote:
The hypothesis passed the test,
No, their hypothesis failed their own test. The mass did not follow the dust. It stayed with the "structured" (solar systems) galaxy. In a very real way they disproved their own assumption.
quote:
strongly suggesting that there is additional matter that we cannot see, and making attempts to rework Newtonian physics less likely. Thus, you can no longer say it's metaphysics and handwaving-- they're actually testing their ideas. That's all.
I also proposed another option involving acceleration in the z axis at the bad astronomy forum years ago, and it didn't require anything metaphysical in nature, but it had it's own set of "issues".
Here's the deal. If dark matter exists, what is it? Show me some here and now and show me how it interacts with matter in controlled experiments. Then and only then will I allow you to use "dark matter" to explain some distant observation. From my perspective this is simply a fudge factor of epic proportions because GR *alone* fails to explain the movements of universe, and standard theorists are in pure denial of electrical currents in space. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2007 09:48:22 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 09:57:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
How did they "test" it????? They "assumed" a position (most of the mass follows the dust), disproved their position (most of the mass follows the stars), and then chalked up their mistake to "dark matter"!!!! That's all they did. Show me some "dark matter" in a lab and then talk to me about what it does a billion light years away. Don't just *assume* that it exists and then use it to explain stuff a billion light years away!
Oh right-- what they should have done is go to skeptic web forum and post blurry pictures asking if anyone can explain it to them. 'Cause that's how real science gets done.
No, Michael, they didn't "assume" a position. Unless you're seriously going to posit that they erred in not considering your utterly fatuous "iron sun" theory. And you actually didn't summarize their argument correctly anyhow-- what's the use of talking about the test when you don't understand it!
And I find it rich when you always bitch about things being tested in a lab when the best you can offer for your own arguments are photographs!
quote:
No, their hypothesis failed their own test. The mass did not follow the dust. It stayed with the "structured" (solar systems) galaxy. In a very real way they disproved their own assumption.
Huh? You really don't understand what they did at all, do you?
quote:
strongly suggesting that there is additional matter that we cannot see, and making attempts to rework Newtonian physics less likely. Thus, you can no longer say it's metaphysics and handwaving-- they're actually testing their ideas. That's all.
I also proposed another option involving acceleration in the z axis at the bad astronomy forum years ago, and it didn't require anything metaphysical in nature, but it had it's own set of "issues".
Oh, good. I haven't laughed all day. Thanks for reminding me about the Magic Mozina Z-Axis, used to explain away anything that involves real math.
quote:
Here's the deal. If dark matter exists, what is it? Show me some here and now and show me how it interacts with matter in controlled experiments. Then and only then will I allow you to use "dark matter" to explain some distant observation. From my perspective this is simply a fudge factor of epic proportions because GR *alone* fails to explain the movements of universe, and standard theorists are in pure denial of electrical currents in space.
Right-- I will similarly hold out for your iron sun when you build one here on earth. Sounds fair. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 10:18:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The "debate" between us Dave is the *volume* of electrons that run through the plasma. Is that better?
The debate cannot be about the "*volume*" of electrons that run through the plasma, because you've never once offered an estimate of that figure. The "debate" over that quantity is simply you claiming that the mainstream solar scientists are wrong, without presenting any evidence or experiment of your own which might demonstrate them to be wrong. Alfven's book isn't evidence, since all the current theories are based upon his MHD.quote:
Sheesh.
Indeed.quote:
You know I never realized how much debating an electric universe would be like debating Darwin's theories to creationists. In both cases the opposition simply *refuses* to educate them themselves.
Yes, you do.quote:
They handwave away the science.
Yes, you do.quote:
Creationists handwave away nuclear chemical evidence, just like the hydrogen sun crowd.
I've been asking you to explain why the nuclear chemical evidence is evidence, and not just Dr. Manuel's speculation, and you refuse to answer.quote:
Both seem to insist that the need not even read Darwin's/Alfven's theories to handwave them away.
No, you appear to be misunderstanding Alfven's work, even though you've read it, just like the creationists misunderstand Darwin.quote:
Neither creationist nor standard theorists will provide a *shred* of evidence to support an alternative view.
Actually, the creationists claim that the "standard theorists" of neo-Darwinism never provide a shred of evidence. You are the creationist in that analogy. Despite the thousands of articles and books written about the Sun, you claim that there isn't a shred of evidence for the current models.quote:
I really had no idea when I began discussing electric universe theory what a deja-vu this would turn into.
You've got no one else to blame for that but yourself, because you continue to refuse to offer a cogent theory.quote:
Let's hear your alternative Dave.
I already told you: my alternative is "we don't know," and what little you've presented of your theory isn't any better than mine. |
- 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 - 04/10/2007 : 10:30:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Oh right-- what they should have done is go to skeptic web forum and post blurry pictures asking if anyone can explain it to them. 'Cause that's how real science gets done.
Do you figure that is that all that I've done for the last two years?
http://arxiv.org/find/grp_q-bio,grp_cs,grp_physics,grp_math,grp_nlin/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
quote:
No, Michael, they didn't "assume" a position. Unless you're seriously going to posit that they erred in not considering your utterly fatuous "iron sun" theory. And you actually didn't summarize their argument correctly anyhow-- what's the use of talking about the test when you don't understand it!
What *exactly* did I misrepresent? My complaint has nothing to do with an iron sun theory, the problem is simply exacerbated in an iron sun environment. Even in standard theory however, their assumption is self serving and questionable.
quote:
And I find it rich when you always bitch about things being tested in a lab when the best you can offer for your own arguments are photographs!
Boloney. Alfven played with his math in a lab. Birkland experimented with this theories in a lab. None of my theories require things that are shy around a lab. Only standard theory incorporates metaphysics.
quote:
Huh? You really don't understand what they did at all, do you?
Yes, I think I do. If I have misrepresented it, how about explaining what you think I missed.
quote:
strongly suggesting that there is additional matter that we cannot see, and making attempts to rework Newtonian physics less likely. Thus, you can no longer say it's metaphysics and handwaving-- they're actually testing their ideas. That's all.
All it suggests is that there is more matter in a solar system than they realize. It does not "prove" that dark matter exist, or that it is responsible for their "missing mass".
What *exactly* (be specific now) is dark matter? Where can I find some? Where is it located? How does it compare to normal matter? Can it be shown to have some kind of influence on normal matter in *controlled* scientific experiments?
quote:
Oh, good. I haven't laughed all day. Thanks for reminding me about the Magic Mozina Z-Axis, used to explain away anything that involves real math.
Excuse me? Talk about handwaves.
quote:
Right-- I will similarly hold out for your iron sun when you build one here on earth. Sounds fair.
Birkeland already did that over 100 years ago. There isn't even a comparison between these ideas actually.
Here's the problem with your logic. Somehow most of the "dark matter" follows the solar systems of galaxies, and it's more pervasive than "normal matter". Even still, this elusive "dark matter" has never been seen or demonstrated on earth. Why? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 10:34:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The debate cannot be about the "*volume*" of electrons that run through the plasma, because you've never once offered an estimate of that figure. The "debate" over that quantity is simply you claiming that the mainstream solar scientists are wrong, without presenting any evidence or experiment of your own which might demonstrate them to be wrong. Alfven's book isn't evidence, since all the current theories are based upon his MHD.
No Dave, that is absolutely false. According to Alfven "magnetic reconnection" is a myth. You wouldn't know that however, since you absolutely refuse to educate yourself. Evidently you're smarter than everyone without even reading the material. That includes the work of Alfven evidently.
Please refrain from lecturing me about MHD theory, or telling me what MHD theory is about if you refuse to study it. It's just plain comical from my perspective. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2007 10:35:50 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 10:42:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
All it suggests is that there is more matter in a solar system than they realize. It does not "prove" that dark matter exist, or that it is responsible for their "missing mass".
Right! There is more mass than we'd thought. And this test showed that this was the case. In light of that, it seems unlikely that Newtonian physics is wrong, as some have claimed. In light of this, there has to be some matter that we can't see or otherwise yet detect. Given that we can't detect it, it has been given the name "dark matter." That's all we can say at this point. (Though the soon-to-be-operating CERN particle accelerator (right here on earth!) may change that!) |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 11:25:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Right! There is more mass than we'd thought.
Well, maybe. We'll assume for the sake of argument that electrical currents running *through* the solar system are not contributing to the motion or the lensing activity in any way.
According to that article that missing mass stays with the "structures" of the galaxies, not the dust around them. The implication is that solar systems remained pretty much intact, and whatever missing mass might exist, exists within the solar systems of the galaxy, not the plasmas around them.
quote:
And this test showed that this was the case.
Ok, so we'll agree with it. How does that demonstrate the existence of "dark matter"?
quote:
In light of that, it seems unlikely that Newtonian physics is wrong, as some have claimed.
FYI, I did not claim that. In fact I tried to use a variation of Newtonian physics to demonstrate where I thought that missing mass might be.
quote:
In light of this, there has to be some matter that we can't see or otherwise yet detect.
And?????
quote:
Given that we can't detect it, it has been given the name "dark matter."
So essentially it's a placeholder term for ignorance?
quote:
That's all we can say at this point. (Though the soon-to-be-operating CERN particle accelerator (right here on earth!) may change that!)
Here's the problem as I see it. I know exactly where that "missing mass" is. I can see it in SOHO, STEREO and Trace images. I have pictures of it on my website. It's no mystery to me where that missing mass is located. It's located *inside* the solar system just as that paper suggests. It's not "dark matter". It's called "iron".
The very first image on my website is a picture of this iron, and it exists right under the photosphere at about .993R. It's "dark" in the sense that it doesn't emit much light, but it's not metaphysical in origin. There is nothing mysterious about it from my perspective.
Now if you expect me to believe that something else "besides" that iron surface I see is generating that extra mass, please show me some of it so I can look at it, because it *must* exist inside our solar system. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2007 11:25:50 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 11:34:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
According to that article that missing mass stays with the "structures" of the galaxies, not the dust around them. The implication is that solar systems remained pretty much intact, and whatever missing mass might exist, exists within the solar systems of the galaxy, not the plasmas around them.
That's what their test showed, yes.
quote:
quote:
In light of that, it seems unlikely that Newtonian physics is wrong, as some have claimed.
FYI, I did not claim that. In fact I tried to use a variation of Newtonian physics to demonstrate where I thought that missing mass might be.
Right-- that's not my claim (but see below). But others who didn't like the idea of 'dark matter' sought to resolve the problem of galaxy rotation by arguing for new Physics, e.g. MOND. According to the results of the tests(and at some point, the math and terminology is beyond me so I have to go with them), allowing for 'dark matter' is far more likely than postulating a re-working of Newtonian physics.
quote:
quote:
In light of this, there has to be some matter that we can't see or otherwise yet detect.
And?????
quote:
Given that we can't detect it, it has been given the name "dark matter."
So essentially it's a placeholder term for ignorance?
Jesus. No, it's a term for the matter that almost certainly has to be there, but is not detectable via conventional means.
quote:
Here's the problem as I see it. I know exactly where that "missing mass" is. I can see it in SOHO, STEREO and Trace images. I have pictures of it on my website. It's no mystery to me where that missing mass is located. It's located *inside* the solar system just as that paper suggests. It's not "dark matter". It's called "iron".
The very first image on my website is a picture of this iron, and it exists right under the photosphere at about .993R. It's "dark" in the sense that it doesn't emit much light, but it's not metaphysical in origin. There is nothing mysterious about it from my perspective.
Now if you expect me to believe that something else "besides" that iron surface I see is generating that extra mass, please show me some of it so I can look at it, because it *must* exist inside our solar system.
Except your iron sun requires a vast revolution of Newtonian physics (I know you don't recall our discussion of d=m/v, but that's not surprising). And as yet, besides something about a Z-axis, you've yet to resolve that. (Indeed, it's not even clear that you grasp the problem!) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 11:36:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No Dave, that is absolutely false. According to Alfven "magnetic reconnection" is a myth.
And that's not a debate over the "*volume*" of electrons moving through the plasma, Michael.quote:
You wouldn't know that however, since you absolutely refuse to educate yourself. Evidently you're smarter than everyone without even reading the material. That includes the work of Alfven evidently.
Well, since you're not even going to ask how well my attempts to educate myself are going, and instead you're just going to assume the worst, I'll treat you likewise. Fair's fair, right?quote:
Please refrain from lecturing me about MHD theory, or telling me what MHD theory is about if you refuse to study it. It's just plain comical from my perspective.
Well, see, all the evidence I have so far says that only you, "ManInTheMirror" and one Web site claim that Alfven said "magnetic reconnection is a myth" or anything close to it. Given that, plus the fact that he got himself a Nobel and you don't, plus the fact that you refuse to reference the statement, plus the fact that you've gotten other peoples' meaning completely wrong before, plus the fact that modern studies are providing evidence for magnetic reconnection, and I'm forced to conclude that you have misunderstood Alfven's work when you make claims on his behalf. A second, very distant possibility, is that Alfven himself was wrong. |
- 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 - 04/10/2007 : 11:47:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Jesus. No, it's a term for the matter that almost certainly has to be there, but is not detectable via conventional means.
I "detect" that iron surface just fine using conventional technology. How do you know that it is "undetectable" via conventional means, especially since we know it exists *inside* our solar system?
quote:
Except your iron sun requires a vast revolution of Newtonian physics (I know you don't recall our discussion of d=m/v, but that's not surprising). And as yet, besides something about a Z-axis, you've yet to resolve that. (Indeed, it's not even clear that you grasp the problem!)
I think it is you that fails to grasp the problem. If the missing mass is located inside our solar system, then you also have the same problem! The only difference is that I know where at least some of that mass is located and you do not. You still have a lot of extra mass to account for, and no matter how you do it, it's going to mess up something. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2007 11:56:16 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 11:55:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And that's not a debate over the "*volume*" of electrons moving through the plasma, Michael.
Well *EXCUSE ME*. :) Sometimes I think you intentionally nitpick at a word just to ignore the real issue at times. We're debating the *number* of electrons flowing through the plasma. Is that better?
Care to get off the creationist crutch of blind skepticism and explain these million degree loops another way?
quote:
Well, since you're not even going to ask how well my attempts to educate myself are going, and instead you're just going to assume the worst, I'll treat you likewise. Fair's fair, right?
Did you order the book I suggested, yes or no?
quote:
Well, see, all the evidence I have so far says
Do you have the book, yes or no? You don't need me or anyone else to give you the evidence you seek. You need the man that wrote MHD theory to explain it to you. That is why I suggested that book to you. If you don't have enough evidence, don't blame me or anyone else for your lack of evidence. Your ignorance is purely self imposed at this point.
Alfven very clearly explained the threading process that occurs in current carrying plasmas. You can see how it works in a common toy plasma ball. Alfven explains all the math, and clearly explains all the physics involved in the process. He leaves nothing to chance, and he tested all this stuff in real plasma. Now if you don't wish to get this information from the horses mouth, don't whine about how hard it is to find this information on the internet Dave. I told you right where to find the information you claim you want. All you have to do it fork over some cash and spend less of your time arguing with me and more of your time reading Alfven's work. I too find it very frustrating that I can't find Alfven's work easily on the internet, but hey, that's life. Quit whining and start reading. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2007 11:58:35 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 11:56:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Jesus. No, it's a term for the matter that almost certainly has to be there, but is not detectable via conventional means.
I "detect" that iron surface just fine using conventional technology. How do you know it "undetectable" via conventional means, especially since we know it exists *inside* our solar system?
We know we can't detect it because we can't see it. But as the test showed, there must be additional mass associated with galaxies. This is consistent with what was observed regarding the rotation of galaxies. I'm not sure where the solar system comes into play, since in my (unfortunately limited) reading up on the topic, the solar system hasn't come into the discussion.
quote:
quote:
Except your iron sun requires a vast revolution of Newtonian physics (I know you don't recall our discussion of d=m/v, but that's not surprising). And as yet, besides something about a Z-axis, you've yet to resolve that. (Indeed, it's not even clear that you grasp the problem!)
I think it is you that fails to grasp the problem. If the missing mass is located inside our solar system, then you also have the same problem! The only difference is that I know where at least some of that mass is located and you do not. You still have a lot of extra mass to account for, and no matter how you do it, it's going to mess up something.
No, really, you don't understand the problem. If the sun is made of significantly more iron than main stream science claims (and you put it somewhere >50%) then the sun's density must be far greater than we find via d=m/v. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Surface of the Sun, part 13
