Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
brantc said:
Please dont go OT. Go start a thermo acoustic thread somewhere else.
Click to expand...
'Beg 'pardon, guy. I didn't intend to rain on your parade; there was a free-for-all happening and I just dove in. Sorry.:o

Please remove your OT.
Otherwise I will ask the mod to delete your posts.
Click to expand...

If there were a simple way, I would gladly do so, but I don't think this forum allows that to be done lightly.

Knock yourself out; if you want to tattle to teacher, I cannot stop you.:)

Cheers,

Dave
 
brantc said:
Please dont go OT. Go start a thermo acoustic thread somewhere else.
Click to expand...

You may wish to consider that any calculation of heat flow through a compressible medium, be it air, plasma, or to a lesser effect iron is affected by thermoacoustics. You've made a claim that the iron shell stays solid regardless of being completely immersed in a medium of much higher temperature, and have not offered a plausible explanation for any mechanism that would refrigerate it to this extent. In fact, your model would require the shell to be actively cooled, as it has to serve as a condenser for iron vapor. Absolutely sure you don't want to consider thermoacoustic refrigeration as a possible mechanism? Some of Dave's links might be rather useful for you.

How about assuming that the sun is a hollow but porous iron sphere, and the fusion occurs intermittently inside it, creating pressure waves. Perhaps a black hole inside, with in-falling plasma that reaches fusion densities then is thrown back outward by the resulting explosion? The intermittent fusion explosions compress the plasma and move it outward in the porous iron matrix at the same time, causing it to shed the heat it absorbed from the inner surface into the outer surface, therefore pumping heat from the inside to the outside of the shell. The outside of the shell would be vaporized by the additional heat, but the inside would be preserved and cooled. Temperature gradient would be a lot higher outside the shell than would otherwise be predicted if you assume some active method of moving heat, and all this one requires is propagating shock waves through a porous medium.

I will stress that I don't believe that the sun is an iron sphere, but if you ARE going to push that model, using all known mechanisms of heat flow in your calculations is a good start to respectability. At least it shows that you're trying. Ruling certain mechanisms as off topic and not including them in calculations without a reason hurts your credibility. There are thousands of processes going on in your model that have yet to be discussed. Black body radiation is just one of the ways heat gets around, and your model has some pretty big flaws in that regard. If you're not going to discard it, you need to patch it, and that means examining all the possible mechanisms that might set it back in balance.

A
 
On/Off topic.

Andrew Wiggin said:
Ruling certain mechanisms as off topic and not including them in calculations without a reason hurts your credibility.
Click to expand...
It's not off topic anyway. The topic is clearly announced in the title of this thread: Iron sun with Aether batteries .... Anything that relates to the title is on topic. So brantc can live with it. Thermodynamics makes an "iron sun" physically impossible in trivial fashion. Period. Why bother with all the "aether battery" nonsense when you can prove that an iron sun is impossible before the batteries even enter the conversation?
 
Solar spectroscopy shows us the elemental composition of the Sun's atmosphere that agrees with the current standard gas model. Helioseismology shows us the physical construction of the Sun's innards, bearing out the validity of the gas model. As Tim mentioned, thermodynamics shows that an iron surface can't work. General relativity supports our understanding of the Sun's mass exactly as would be expected if it is built according to the contemporary gas model. Satellite imagery gives us a pretty thorough understanding of the thermal and optical characteristics of the solar surface down to about 500 km into the photosphere. No iron surface there.

This stuff isn't just some wildass guess. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of professional researchers and educators on Earth whose varied expertise, when combined, show that any sort of iron Sun conjecture proposed by the current crop of crackpots is wrong. With virtually no dissension, all the people studying and applying all the various methods of examining and understanding the Sun's makeup are in agreement with each other, and every one of them supports something quite like the contemporary gas model. That's why it is the standard solar model.

Of course there are small details that still escape our understanding, but none of them could be considered flaws in the model. Certianly not a flaw that would have us toss out the standard model and head back to the drawing board. In order for another solar model to attain a position of legitimate scientific validity, all the sciences that support the standard solar model will have to be shown to be wrong. Or at the very least, virtually all the data acquired and used to develop current solar theories will have to be shown to be in error.

If Michael or brantc would like to propose an alternative model, and expect to be taken seriously, they need to show how all those areas of support are incorrect. And even further, they will have to assemble a theory that is at least as well supported and explains as thoroughly all the pieces and parts as well as the current standard model does. They will have to start from scratch with the data gathering and essentially re-write the sciences of thermodynamics, solar spectroscopy, helioseismology, and yes, general relativity. So guys, good luck with that.
 
I earlier 'fessed up to derailing the thread and apologised.

I stand by that.

However, I note that some respondents seem to think I may have accidentally stumbled into a possible route by which the proponent may temporarily salvage his conjecture from the ash heap.

My sense of Honor requires that I can take no credit for this, as I was just allowing my ADD to cause me to chase after "something shiny" I saw in the distance:D, but I hope this bears fruit.:)

We'll see where this goes...

Andrew Wiggin said:
You may wish to consider that any calculation of heat flow through a compressible medium, be it air, plasma, or to a lesser effect iron is affected by thermoacoustics. You've made a claim that the iron shell stays solid regardless of being completely immersed in a medium of much higher temperature, and have not offered a plausible explanation for any mechanism that would refrigerate it to this extent. In fact, your model would require the shell to be actively cooled, as it has to serve as a condenser for iron vapor. Absolutely sure you don't want to consider thermoacoustic refrigeration as a possible mechanism? Some of Dave's links might be rather useful for you.

How about assuming that the sun is a hollow but porous iron sphere, and the fusion occurs intermittently inside it, creating pressure waves. Perhaps a black hole inside, with in-falling plasma that reaches fusion densities then is thrown back outward by the resulting explosion? The intermittent fusion explosions compress the plasma and move it outward in the porous iron matrix at the same time, causing it to shed the heat it absorbed from the inner surface into the outer surface, therefore pumping heat from the inside to the outside of the shell. The outside of the shell would be vaporized by the additional heat, but the inside would be preserved and cooled. Temperature gradient would be a lot higher outside the shell than would otherwise be predicted if you assume some active method of moving heat, and all this one requires is propagating shock waves through a porous medium.

I will stress that I don't believe that the sun is an iron sphere, but if you ARE going to push that model, using all known mechanisms of heat flow in your calculations is a good start to respectability. At least it shows that you're trying. Ruling certain mechanisms as off topic and not including them in calculations without a reason hurts your credibility. There are thousands of processes going on in your model that have yet to be discussed. Black body radiation is just one of the ways heat gets around, and your model has some pretty big flaws in that regard. If you're not going to discard it, you need to patch it, and that means examining all the possible mechanisms that might set it back in balance.

A
Click to expand...

Tim Thompson said:
It's not off topic anyway. The topic is clearly announced in the title of this thread: Iron sun with Aether batteries .... Anything that relates to the title is on topic. So brantc can live with it. Thermodynamics makes an "iron sun" physically impossible in trivial fashion. Period. Why bother with all the "aether battery" nonsense when you can prove that an iron sun is impossible before the batteries even enter the conversation?
Click to expand...

I wish the O/P well on pursuing this possibility.

Cheers,

Dave
 
GeeMack said:
Solar spectroscopy shows us the elemental composition of the Sun's atmosphere that agrees with the current standard gas model.
Click to expand...
Yes, it shows you the outside of the sun. The atmosphere.
But if you look at coronal loops you see iron plasma. Lot of it!! When you use 192,171nm light from this iron plasma you see structures under the photosphere. The coronal loop footprints are under the photosphere on the iron surface. The process that takes place is thermionic emission which gives you the ionized iron, electrons, protons and heavy ions.

Helioseismology shows us the physical construction of the Sun's innards, bearing out the validity of the gas model.
Click to expand...

Actually the measurements(harmonics) support a bounded sphere as opposed to a decreasing density "plasma ball" of fusion.

As Tim mentioned, thermodynamics shows that an iron surface can't work.
Click to expand...

The heat generated by the photosphere is thermalized by the iron shell and reradiated as IR.

General relativity supports our understanding of the Sun's mass exactly as would be expected if it is built according to the contemporary gas model.
Click to expand...

The mass of the sun is inferred from measurements of the earth and calculations of the orbit. It is not actually measured.

We know there are problems with gravity. Thats why dark matter was introduced. The Pioneer anomalies. You see more articles about MOND because there are problems with gravity. The list goes on.

That also the contention of Jerry on BAUT. He has shown alot of anomalies to support that idea.


Satellite imagery gives us a pretty thorough understanding of the thermal and optical characteristics of the solar surface down to about 500 km into the photosphere. No iron surface there.
Click to expand...

I have spent hours and hours on the TRACE website. I have downloaded all of their movie and DVD's.
My only comment would be "Once you know what your are looking at then you know what you are looking at.

Look at the structures under the loops. This is where the cooled coronal rain falls.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif

This stuff isn't just some wildass guess. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of professional researchers and educators on Earth whose varied expertise, when combined, show that any sort of iron Sun conjecture proposed by the current crop of crackpots is wrong. With virtually no dissension, all the people studying and applying all the various methods of examining and understanding the Sun's makeup are in agreement with each other, and every one of them supports something quite like the contemporary gas model. That's why it is the standard solar model.
Click to expand...

Appeal to consensus authority(the church?).

Of course there are small details that still escape our understanding, but none of them could be considered flaws in the model. Certianly not a flaw that would have us toss out the standard model and head back to the drawing board. In order for another solar model to attain a position of legitimate scientific validity, all the sciences that support the standard solar model will have to be shown to be wrong. Or at the very least, virtually all the data acquired and used to develop current solar theories will have to be shown to be in error.
Click to expand...

Its not the observations. Its the assumptions and the simulations about how the sun works. About how it must be fusion.
You can take the same data and put it together into a different story which would be a different model that would be consistent.

If Michael or brantc would like to propose an alternative model, and expect to be taken seriously, they need to show how all those areas of support are incorrect. And even further, they will have to assemble a theory that is at least as well supported and explains as thoroughly all the pieces and parts as well as the current standard model does. They will have to start from scratch with the data gathering and essentially re-write the sciences of thermodynamics, solar spectroscopy, helioseismology, and yes, general relativity. So guys, good luck with that.
Click to expand...

As I said observations are observations. Its how there are interpreted that makes the model. Really, its the pieces that are missing that determine how the model is put together by a scientist. The pieces that are there, you cant argue with. You see some color in the sky, there is no argument there is color, but whats it from??

So all I have to do is strictly follow science, as in the lab as in the sky.

So I have to find laboratory evidence of this alternative model of gravity for it to be useful. The big question is, when do you fail your model???
I say when your current model has anomalies.

Here I think is some hint of proof of this different model of gravity.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Milkovic_Two-Stage_Mechanical_Oscillator

Then if you go here. Here is the model of gravity
http://davidpratt.info/aethergrav.htm#g4

This is a hypothesis of a type of gravity that is external waves AKA Le Sage type gravity.
 
CaveDave said:
I earlier 'fessed up to derailing the thread and apologised.

I stand by that.

However, I note that some respondents seem to think I may have accidentally stumbled into a possible route by which the proponent may temporarily salvage his conjecture from the ash heap.

My sense of Honor requires that I can take no credit for this, as I was just allowing my ADD to cause me to chase after "something shiny" I saw in the distance:D, but I hope this bears fruit.:)

We'll see where this goes...





I wish the O/P well on pursuing this possibility.

Cheers,

Dave
Click to expand...

Don't sell yourself short here. Technically, you were never off topic. Mikemcc raised the point that the thermodynamics Brantc was talking about would require work to equal cooling and would thus also keep sterling engines from working. Theprestige mentioned that sterling refrigeration might have some benefit, and you responded with a post about thermoacoustics, which is really a more likely way sterling refrigeration can apply to the hypothetical iron sun unless Brantc thinks there are pistons and cranks milled into the iron. (That would be cool and steampunky, or perhaps sterlingpunky?)

We're all just talking about thermodynamics in the face of a hypothesis that violates what's known on the subject. Brantc just doesn't want us going down that path in examining his hypothesis, because thermodynamically it's a bloody nightmare, with no mechanism to maintain the temperature gradient it would need to work. (Amongst other problems...)

Basically this is debating in the 'give em enough rope and see what happens' school of thought.

A
 
Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible

GeeMack said:
As Tim mentioned, thermodynamics shows that an iron surface can't work.
Click to expand...
brantc said:
The heat generated by the photosphere is thermalized by the iron shell and reradiated as IR.
Click to expand...
Not in this universe. Physics is not so easily derailed as a thread on a discussion page :D

The melting point of iron is 1811 Kelvins, and its boiling point is 3134 Kelvins. The effective temperature of the photosphere of the sun is 5777 Kelvins, which significantly exceeds both of those temperatures. Exposed to a temperature that high the iron will not "thermalize" anything, certainly not by any physics that works in this universe. It will melt & boil & vaporize, and it will do so fairly quickly.

Furthermore, one must remember that 5777 Kelvins is an effective temperature, a best fit blackbody to an actual thermal emission that is a superposition of blackbody emission curves that are generated at different depths in the photosphere. Limb observations of the sun make it possible to retrieve the temperature structure of the photosphere as a function of depth, in much the same way as limb observations of Earth's atmosphere by satellites allows us to retrieve temperature profiles for the Earth's atmosphere (see, e.g., Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal, Wiley-VCh 2004, chapter 5: "The photosphere"; The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres by David Gray, Cambridge University Press 2005, 3rd edition). The temperature at the lowest level we can determine is 9400 Kelvins. We don't see much of that on Earth, because of the opacity of the overlying layers. But your iron surface is pretty much hugging the 9400 Kelvin base of the photosphere. To the best of my knowledge, the highest boiling point for any element is Rhenium, which boils at 5869 Kelvins, so no known element can survive as a solid or even as a liquid at the temperature found at the base of the photosphere.

The iron surface of the sun is thermodynamic toast, and "thermalize" is a pleasant fiction that bears no resemblance to the physics of this universe.
 
brantc said:
The heat generated by the photosphere is thermalized by the iron shell and reradiated as IR.
Click to expand...

Clue one for the clueless: in order to lose the same amount of heat through IR that you absorb through visible and UV radiation, that iron surface would need to be hotter than the photosphere. This is a hard thermodynamic requirement. Violating it is equivalent to a perpetual motion machine - not as in similar, as in the same thing.

Clue two for the clueless: the power from IR radation escaping the sun is observed to be less than the power from visible and UV radiation.

So fail.

The mass of the sun is inferred from measurements of the earth and calculations of the orbit. It is not actually measured.
Click to expand...

All measurements are inferences. Some are more direct than others, but this is still a measurement.

You can take the same data and put it together into a different story which would be a different model that would be consistent.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe one can. But you cannot. Your ideas are completely inconsistent with observations.
 
brantc said:
...
When you use 192,171nm light from this iron plasma you see structures under the photosphere.
Click to expand...
I hope you are aware that 192,171nm light, whatever "caused" it, is present in the continuous blackbody spectrum; you can see it everywhere you look and images at that wavelength don't necessarily "see" through the photosphere, don't you?
ETA: At least as I understand Blackbody spectra. Those who know better are welcome to correct me.

The list goes on.
Click to expand...
"And the beat goes on..Boom..boom..boom..boom..boom..boom..boom..boom..."

I have spent hours and hours on the TRACE website. I have downloaded all of their movie and DVD's.
My only comment would be "Once you know what your are looking at then you know what you are looking at.
Click to expand...

And once you "see the bunny", all you see is bunnies..bunnies..bunnies...

You can take the same data and put it together into a different story which would be a different model that would be consistent.
Click to expand...

Much as you have done (but you left out the "consistency")?

So all I have to do is strictly follow science, as in the lab as in the sky.
Click to expand...
"On Earth as it is in Heaven"?:D

So I have to find laboratory evidence of this alternative model of gravity for it to be useful. The is, when do you fail your model???
Click to expand...
No lab evidence yet? Perhaps the "big question" for you is "when do you fail your model???".

This is a hypothesis of a type of gravity that is external waves AKA Le Sage type gravity.
Click to expand...
Face it: it is waving goodbye (as should you to your FAILED speculations)!

Cheers,

Dave
 
Last edited:
Helioseismology and the Solar Interior

GeeMack said:
Helioseismology shows us the physical construction of the Sun's innards, bearing out the validity of the gas model.
Click to expand...
brantc said:
Actually the measurements(harmonics) support a bounded sphere as opposed to a decreasing density "plasma ball" of fusion.
Click to expand...
Actually, GeeMack is quite correct, and you are way wrong. Helioseismology is extremely supportive of the standard model. This is extensively documented in the literature; e.g., Helioseismology, Jorgen Christensen-Dalsgaard, Reviews of Modern Physics 74(4): 1073-1129, November 2002; The Internal Rotation of the Sun, M.J. Thompson, et al., (not me & no relation that I know of), Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 41: 599-643 (2003), and the many citations to both. More recently, see M.J. Thompson, 2010; Gizon, Birch & Spriut, 2010; Solar Interior Rotation and its Variation, Rachel Howe, Living Reviews in Solar Physics 6(1), February 2009 (free access online); Zhao, et al., 2009; Chaplin & Basu, 2008; Christensen-Dalsgaard, 2007; Gough, 2006 & etc. Finally, see the book Stellar Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, edited by M.J. Thompson & Jorgen Christensen-Dalsgaard, Cambridge University Press 2003.

The idea that a bounded sphere is implied by helioseismological data is unacceptable, and very much contradicted by the weight of scientific study of the topic.
 
Gravity works just fine

brantc said:
YWe know there are problems with gravity. Thats why dark matter was introduced. The Pioneer anomalies. You see more articles about MOND because there are problems with gravity. The list goes on.
Click to expand...
Once again, just plain wrong. To begin with, whether or not the Pioneer anomaly has anything at all to do with gravity is a matter of interpretation. As for MOND, the primary reason you see lots of papers about MOND is because a lot of people just don't like the idea of dark matter. The issue at hand for them is gravity in the extremely weak field limit and whether or not Newtonian gravity is the correct weak field limit of general relativity. The simple assumption of dark matter eliminates all of the "problems" you are talking about. The reason you see a lot of papers about MOND is that a lot of people don't like the idea of dark matter, they prefer to modify gravity instead. However, neither MOND, nor any other version of modified gravity has ever managed to deal as effectively with observation than simple dark matter.

Of particular importance here is the paper Probing modifications of General Relativity using current cosmological observations, Zhao, et al., March 2010. The authors probe the consistency between data and modified theories of gravity that differ from general relativity, either as modifications of Poisson's equation or modifications of the weak field potential from a Newtonian potential. They are unable to see any deviation from general relativity in the data. This is consistent with laboratory experiments of weak field gravity (e.g., Schlamminger, et al., 2008; Kapner, et al., 2007; Hoyle, et al., 2004), although the cosmological tests span far weaker fields as well as cosmological redshift dependance.

However, you have a different problem. You are talking about modifying gravity so that a spherical shell in the sun will be stable. That's not a weak field problem, that's a strong field problem. None of the "problems" you are talking about come anywhere near the regime of field strength you are talking about. There are in fact fact no problems of any kind suggested or proposed, that I am aware of, regarding the strong field interpretation of general relativity, or the Newtonian approximation on stellar mass scales. So you are simply inventing things out of your imagination. There is no such "problem" with gravity as you suggest, applicable to your scenario.
 
Andrew Wiggin said:
Don't sell yourself short here. Technically, you were never off topic. Mikemcc raised the point that the thermodynamics Brantc was talking about would require work to equal cooling and would thus also keep sterling engines from working. Theprestige mentioned that sterling refrigeration might have some benefit, and you responded with a post about thermoacoustics, which is really a more likely way sterling refrigeration can apply to the hypothetical iron sun unless Brantc thinks there are pistons and cranks milled into the iron. (That would be cool and steampunky, or perhaps sterlingpunky?)

We're all just talking about thermodynamics in the face of a hypothesis that violates what's known on the subject. Brantc just doesn't want us going down that path in examining his hypothesis, because thermodynamically it's a bloody nightmare, with no mechanism to maintain the temperature gradient it would need to work. (Amongst other problems...)

Basically this is debating in the 'give em enough rope and see what happens' school of thought.

A
Click to expand...

Well, thank you, Andrew. I diverged somewhat, I think, but perhaps I was not so far afield as as I feared.

I am not practiced in the art of thinking critically and deeply about thermodynamics and plasma physics, so I was unaware I was blundering into anything relevant; I consider myself a moderately well informed student of these matters, and pick out whatever you or the other highly-studied posters offer up and attempt to absorb it. I do appreciate the opportunity presented by the many well-reasoned posts by various members, and the contrast with the crankish challengers is is both instructive and informative.

As far as I have ever seen, no crank ever wants to face the real deficiencies of their pet speculations (I am loath to use the term "theory" for these.) because that would mean abandoning the "script" they have followed habitually to keep others from asking uncomfortable questions [see "magician's hand waving" and "Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain":D] that they can't answer.

Thanks.

Cheers,

Dave
 
brantc said:
The mass of the sun is inferred from measurements of the earth and calculations of the orbit. It is not actually measured.
Click to expand...

So how would you tell the mass 'directly' then? I don't understand.

brantc said:
We know there are problems with gravity. Thats why dark matter was introduced. The Pioneer anomalies. You see more articles about MOND because there are problems with gravity. The list goes on.

That also the contention of Jerry on BAUT. He has shown alot of anomalies to support that idea.
Click to expand...

We know there are 'problems' with every theory in physics that has ever been considered.

That doesn't invalidate incredibly successful and predictive and well tested theories in physics at a stroke. Certainly not when they are replaced with a theory that hasnt even been tested to a nth degree of the current one.
 
1. Dark matter is not a "problem with gravity", and it has been empyrically observed. In a collision of two galaxies, the bulk of the gravity lensing effect had actually moved ahead of the actual visible galaxies.

And I mean, exactly like it sounds: there was a big gravitational lens where no stars were. Some invisible mass had to be there, and it was moving ahead because obviously it wasn't braked by interaction with the other galaxy's gas.

You can use MOND or whatever you wish, they still can't explain why there would be gravitational lensing where there isn't any visible matter. They could affect the actual lensing around a star or galaxy, but not explain lensing in a place where there is no star or galaxy.

2. The "problem" explained by dark matter -- and which such modified gravity models tried to explain -- happens at _very_ large distances. We're talking about distances measured in thousands of light years. The ones explained by dark _energy_ even more so.

For something the size of the Sun, or even all the way to the orbit of Jupiter, GR actually works very well and predicts the precession and everything. There is no correction needed at the scale of the Sun's surface.

Also, none of those corrections result in gravity being a "surface effect" anyway. A hollow sphere of molten iron would still collapse inwards in MOND or any other proposed model.

Basically latching onto those proposed corrections to handwave this particular woo is as stupid as saying "we don't know yet what fish are in this lake, therefore the moon is made of cheese." I mean, it's already silly to fill in the actual gaps with an unsupported fairy tale, but using the gaps to justify shoving the fairy tale in another place where there is no gap in the first place... well, that's got to take the cake.
 
Last edited:
brantc said:
Yes, it shows you the outside of the sun. The atmosphere.
But if you look at coronal loops you see iron plasma. Lot of it!! When you use 192,171nm light from this iron plasma you see structures under the photosphere.
Click to expand...


No, I do not. You and Michael Mozina may believe you see structures under the photosphere, but you don't either. Nobody does. Even with the IR filters that allow us the deepest view, we can only see about 500 km into the photosphere. It's all plasma, brantc, not a single solitary hunk of anything solid in there at all.

And as for seeing iron plasma, lots of it, in coronal loops, I think you've radically misunderstood what the 171Å and 195Å filters are doing for the satellite images. They are used for sorting out areas of varying thermal characteristics. They are not used to determine elemental composition of the plasmas.
 
brantc said:
Its not the observations. Its the assumptions and the simulations about how the sun works. About how it must be fusion.
You can take the same data and put it together into a different story which would be a different model that would be consistent.
Click to expand...


And you don't find it the least bit disconcerting that no such "different model that would be consistent" has ever been presented?
 
GeeMack said:
No, I do not. You and Michael Mozina may believe you see structures under the photosphere, but you don't either. Nobody does. Even with the IR filters that allow us the deepest view, we can only see about 500 km into the photosphere. It's all plasma, brantc, not a single solitary hunk of anything solid in there at all.
Click to expand...

If only your plasma sun theory actually worked in real life and offered actual explanations for satellite observations. Alas, it doesn't, whereas a solar "crust" explain it rather nicely, volcanic activity and everything.

tsunami1.JPG


http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi
 
FYI, for anyone actually following this thread, the sun's atmosphere is "layered" into various elements with the hottest and least dense layers on the outside and the "coolest" (relative term mind you) layers underneath. That is why the neon photosphere is cooler and more dense than the helium chromosphere, and why the hydrogen corona is the hottest and least dense layer of the sun.
 
brantc said:
Yes, it shows you the outside of the sun. The atmosphere.
But if you look at coronal loops you see iron plasma. Lot of it!! When you use 192,171nm light from this iron plasma you see structures under the photosphere. The coronal loop footprints are under the photosphere on the iron surface. The process that takes place is thermionic emission which gives you the ionized iron, electrons, protons and heavy ions.
Click to expand...

Not to mention visible gamma rays from the discharge process, and fusion processes as well.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002700/a002750/
 
The Man said:
It does however explicitly require a "solid surface". Care to explain exactly how your ferrite “solid surface” remains, well, solid?
Click to expand...

Certainly. It's surrounded by a relatively cool layer of plasma that keeps it "cool".

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040122083025.htm

Keep in mind the crust is not "solid iron", and the melting point of various elements depend on the actual "conditions" unrelated to the melting point of iron in our atmosphere here on Earth.
 
Michael Mozina said:
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/171surfaceshotsmall.JPG[/qimg]

Any of you plasma sun proponents care to explain even the very first LMSAL image on my website?

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive4.html
Click to expand...


Sure. I'm not a plasma Sun proponent, but I can easily explain the running difference graph. You take a series of images. You add 50% gray value to each pixel in the first image then subtract the value of each corresponding pixel in the second image. The result is a graph representing the change in the values of the pixels between the first and second image, or between successive images in the case of a running difference video.

There. Explained every single pixel. And quite simply I might add. It's a feat that most anyone could do. Oddly enough there is one person in all these years who has never attempted to explain every single pixel in that image. Uh, that would be you, Michael. Care to give it a shot yourself, or are we going to have to hear your 9 year old kid version of looks-like-a-bunny science again?

But of course you and I know this has been explained to you countless times over the past few years, and just like all those other times, I predict you will steadfastly maintain your ignorance again, probably throw another tantrum, badmouth and belittle me a bit, and change the subject so you don't have to actually address the dismal failure in your crackpot conjecture.
 
After his ignorance is exposed, as on other threads, MM will simply withdraw, only to later reappear on another thread starting the same "9 year old kid version of looks-like-a-bunny science" all over again.
 
Tim Thompson said:
As for MOND, the primary reason you see lots of papers about MOND is because a lot of people just don't like the idea of dark matter. The issue at hand for them is gravity in the extremely weak field limit and whether or not Newtonian gravity is the correct weak field limit of general relativity.
Click to expand...

That's not quite right. There is no question about whether Newtonian gravity is the weak-field limit of GR - it is.

MOND is an ad hoc proposal that succeeds rather well in explaining one set of observations (galaxy rotation curves and the Tulley-Fisher relation). However it fails completely to explain the recent bullet cluster observations, fails to have a consistent relativistic generalization (which means it cannot account for e.g. gravitational lensing), and has to a large extent been abandoned even by its past proponents.
 
Perpetual Student said:
After his ignorance is exposed, as on other threads, MM will simply withdraw, only to later reappear on another thread starting the same "9 year old kid version of looks-like-a-bunny science" all over again.
Click to expand...


We have a list of questions from late 2005 through 2006 still waiting for answers on another forum. He even "bet the farm" that his crackpot notion would be shown to be correct with the data acquired from the STEREO solar exploration program. And to nobody's surprise, it didn't happen. When his tactic of changing the subject stops working and people start to actually press him for answers to their legitimate questions about his nutty claim, he walks. Ignorance has been a pretty effective strategy. Not scientific by any stretch of the imagination. But effective for his purpose.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, for anyone actually following this thread, the sun's atmosphere is "layered" into various elements with the hottest and least dense layers on the outside and the "coolest" (relative term mind you) layers underneath. That is why the neon photosphere is cooler and more dense than the helium chromosphere, and why the hydrogen corona is the hottest and least dense layer of the sun.
Click to expand...

And again you are violating the laws of photon irradiation. You can not have a solid iron surface kept magically cool by some unknown process, under a layer hot enough to melt said surface.

I know you wave you words and pretend that is not a problem, but it is Michael, just like the neutral material in the solar wind.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Certainly. It's surrounded by a relatively cool layer of plasma that keeps it "cool".

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040122083025.htm

Keep in mind the crust is not "solid iron", and the melting point of various elements depend on the actual "conditions" unrelated to the melting point of iron in our atmosphere here on Earth.
Click to expand...

Funny how you post an irrelevant link Michael, you do not have a mechanism to keep your 'crust' from melting. Now please squirm and redefine 'crust' for us. And show us how the pressure at the earth is related at all to the density in the sun.

Your terms Michael, you call it a crust and you call it solid. And you pretend that a giant hollow sphere is not unstable.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Certainly. It's surrounded by a relatively cool layer of plasma that keeps it "cool".

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040122083025.htm

Keep in mind the crust is not "solid iron",
Click to expand...

So now your “solid surface” isn’t all that solid or just isn’t mostly iron?


Michael Mozina said:
and the melting point of various elements depend on the actual "conditions" unrelated to the melting point of iron in our atmosphere here on Earth.
Click to expand...

Hence my question about if you would

The Man said:
Care to explain exactly how your ferrite “solid surface” remains, well, solid?
Click to expand...

That you imagine it is kept “cool” by some “cool layer of plasma” that you imagine hardly constitutes an explanation, just your speculation and most of us would have already surmised that you think it is cooled somehow. Explaining where and how the heat is generated and how it is lost would be a start. The particular branch of physics in this case would be thermodynamics (as mentioned before).


Based on the article you cited are you claiming your ferrite “curst” is under some similar type of pressure? Are you aware of the relationships between pressure, volume, heat energy and temperature?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Certainly. It's surrounded by a relatively cool layer of plasma that keeps it "cool".

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040122083025.htm

Keep in mind the crust is not "solid iron",

So now your “solid surface” isn’t all that solid or just isn’t mostly iron?


Michael Mozina said:
and the melting point of various elements depend on the actual "conditions" unrelated to the melting point of iron in our atmosphere here on Earth.
Click to expand...

Hence my question about if you would

The Man said:
Care to explain exactly how your ferrite “solid surface” remains, well, solid?
Click to expand...

That you imagine it is kept “cool” by some “cool layer of plasma” that you imagine hardly constitutes an explanation, just your speculation and most of us would have already surmised that you think it is cooled somehow. Explaining where and how the heat is generated and how it is lost would be a start. The particular branch of physics in this case would be thermodynamics (as mentioned before).


Based on the article you cited are you claiming your ferrite “curst” is under some similar type of pressure? Are you aware of the relationships between pressure, volume, heat energy and temperature?
Click to expand...
 
GeeMack said:
Sure. I'm not a plasma Sun proponent, but I can easily explain the running difference graph. You take a series of images. You add 50% gray value to each pixel in the first image then subtract the value of each corresponding pixel in the second image. The result is a graph representing the change in the values of the pixels between the first and second image, or between successive images in the case of a running difference video.

There. Explained every single pixel. And quite simply I might add. It's a feat that most anyone could do. Oddly enough there is one person in all these years who has never attempted to explain every single pixel in that image. Uh, that would be you, Michael. Care to give it a shot yourself, or are we going to have to hear your 9 year old kid version of looks-like-a-bunny science again?

But of course you and I know this has been explained to you countless times over the past few years, and just like all those other times, I predict you will steadfastly maintain your ignorance again, probably throw another tantrum, badmouth and belittle me a bit, and change the subject so you don't have to actually address the dismal failure in your crackpot conjecture.
Click to expand...

I should add, just in case that's not already clear for someone, the very fact that there is a delta there implies some kind of change. If it's a solid surface, well, congrats, then we have a solid which is in the middle of swirling like a fluid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom