uaafanblog,
This article shows that there were multiple supernova involved. The consensus is that one or more supernova may have triggered the collapse of the gas cloud that eventually became our solar system and seeded it with material, not that the solar system arose solely from the remnants of a supernova, and there's not much support for an iron core.
It would be impossible for the sun's mass to be off by a factor of two.
QUOTE
This article shows that there were multiple supernova involved.
Um ... no. It theorizes that the uneven distribution of certain isotopes leads them to believe that there may have been more than one supernova event.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This article shows that there were multiple supernova involved. |
Um ... no. It theorizes that the uneven distribution of certain isotopes leads them to believe that there may have been more than one supernova event.
The consensus is that one or more supernova may have triggered the collapse of the gas cloud that eventually became our solar system and seeded it with material, not that the solar system arose solely from the remnants of a supernova
I didn't see anything in that article that talked about a consensus. I'll be happy to accept however that more than one supernova contributed to the mass that eventually accreted to form our solar system. That's really neither here nor there to the questions I was asking. So I'll ask some modified versions ...
Were the elements which compose our solar system created by the fusion reactions inside the predecessor(s) to Sol 2 (our star)? Or were the elements created by the supernovae of the predecessor(s)?
QUOTE
and there's not much support for an iron core.
I asked about the iron core because if the sun is a giant fusion furnace turning hydrogen into helium and helium into progressively heavier elements then it follows that those heavier elements migrate to the center of the mass i.e... you've got an "iron" core. Don't all objects we know in our system that generate large magnetic fields have an "iron" core at their heart? (Note: I'm using "iron" to mean a generally metallic core as I believe Jupiter and/or Saturn have been understood to have "metallic hydrogen" at their cores). Mars has no such magnetic field since it has no active internal core?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and there's not much support for an iron core. |
I asked about the iron core because if the sun is a giant fusion furnace turning hydrogen into helium and helium into progressively heavier elements then it follows that those heavier elements migrate to the center of the mass i.e... you've got an "iron" core. Don't all objects we know in our system that generate large magnetic fields have an "iron" core at their heart? (Note: I'm using "iron" to mean a generally metallic core as I believe Jupiter and/or Saturn have been understood to have "metallic hydrogen" at their cores). Mars has no such magnetic field since it has no active internal core?
It would be impossible for the sun's mass to be off by a factor of two.
Gee thanks for taking my "example" literally I guess.
The point of my admittedly naive inquiry was to edify myself. That's why I included all the excess info as a way of displaying my thought processes in the hope that someone would come along and say ... "Hey you dumb hockey fan ... here and here is where you went wrong."(a reply I'd far more prefer); but instead of that I guess I should just be satisfied that "you" say it is impossible. Thanks.
QUOTE
Obviously you still don't get it.
Obviously you aren't listening to my responses, you're only interested in winning some sort of ego battle in this thread.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Obviously you still don't get it. |
Obviously you aren't listening to my responses, you're only interested in winning some sort of ego battle in this thread.
You still don't get the fact that most of the theories to do with SUSY particles predict that they will be producible, in a lab, under controled conditions, in repeatable experiments.
If and when you ever get around to actually empirically demonstrating that any of the SUSY particles actually exist, and you demonstrate that SUSY theory has any merit whatsoever, and you make some significant link between your new found particle and that "missing mass", let me know. Until then you're just putting faith in a totally *NON MAINSTREAM* view of particle physics theory, and you're hand waving in some perceived connection between your failed galactic mass estimation theories and your faith in hypothetical/mythical SUSY particles.
QUOTE
You still don't get the fact that Bose-Einstein condensates are baryonic matter that has been produced in a lab.
When and where did I claim otherwise? Talk about a strawman fallacy. I specifically said that I had no objection to you proposing a solution to the "missing mass" problem that involves any *empirically demonstrated* forms of mass. Are you just not comprehending the difference between *empirically demonstrated* physics and mythical/hypothetical physics, or are you just building strawmen just for the fun of it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You still don't get the fact that Bose-Einstein condensates are baryonic matter that has been produced in a lab. |
When and where did I claim otherwise? Talk about a strawman fallacy. I specifically said that I had no objection to you proposing a solution to the "missing mass" problem that involves any *empirically demonstrated* forms of mass. Are you just not comprehending the difference between *empirically demonstrated* physics and mythical/hypothetical physics, or are you just building strawmen just for the fun of it?
You still don't get that we have more of a clue how to measure the mass of a galaxy then you think we do, I've tried to explain this to you/point this out, but you continually sidestep the questions/comments that I pose to you.
If we could measure the mass of a galaxy accurately, we wouldn't need hypothetical forms of mass to explain these observations, and we wouldn't have needed "dark matter" in the first place! Get over it. "Dark matter" is nothing more than a post-hoc "gap filler" to prop up an otherwise failed galaxy mass estimation theory. We were so far off the mark that we need several times more "missing mass/dark matter" to exist than the mass that we think we can actually identify at this point in time. We aren't even in the ballpark yet when it comes to identifying the correct amount of mass or the correct type of mass in a galaxy. Don't try to tell me we know how to accurately measure the mass of a galaxy because never once have we gotten in right. That is why we are now reduced to sprinkling in a healthy portion of "dark matter" to explain our "missing mass". Claiming that our "missing mass" might be located in SUSY particles is like claiming that that unidentified flying object in the sky might be from another planet. It might be theoretically possible, but it's not the most probable explanation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary empirical support. Show me some controlled evidence that SUSY theory has merit in the lab, and show me that SUSY actually particles exist in nature, and *then* you can talk to me about where you think that missing mass is located, and what form it is in. Until then, I think your lack of empirical evidence for SUSY theory precludes you from trying to stuff SUSY particles into theories related to "missing mass" in very distant galaxies. If you can't produce any here on earth, what makes you think I should believe there is any of it "out there" somewhere?
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 19 2008, 09:34 AM)
Obviously you aren't listening to my responses, you're only interested in winning some sort of ego battle in this thread.
Now who's engaging in personal attacks?
I've made several polite posts, free of personal attacks to you, meanwhile, you have continued with the barrage of attacks that you have sustained right from the start.
Screw off. I'm not interested in a battle of egos, and for you to ASSume that is just... Wrong.
Now who's engaging in personal attacks?
I've made several polite posts, free of personal attacks to you, meanwhile, you have continued with the barrage of attacks that you have sustained right from the start.
Screw off. I'm not interested in a battle of egos, and for you to ASSume that is just... Wrong.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 19 2008, 09:34 AM)
When and where did I claim otherwise? Talk about a strawman fallacy. I specifically said that I had no objection to you proposing a solution to the "missing mass" problem that involves any *empirically demonstrated* forms of mass. Are you just not comprehending the difference between *empirically demonstrated* physics and mythical/hypothetical physics, or are you just building strawmen just for the fun of it?
Oh screw off.
Once again in your haste and your arrogance you're falsely attributing deliberate malice where there is none you dipsh1t.
Apparently I misunderstood what WIDGET's were - somewhere along the way (even inspite of my post to Harry Costas earlier in the thread to the contrary) I got it in my head that the WIDGET theory of dark matter was refering to a Background Bose Einstein condensate of BARYONIC matter (even though what I said to Harry Costas when he reminded me of WDIGETS was "So your pointing me in the direction of a non-baryonic theory to explain why another non-baryonic theory is wrong?").
So no, it's not a strawman fallact as you as you seem to want to assume, it's a simple misunderstanding, and if you got off your pedastal for one god dam minute, and took the fricking chip off your shoulder, you'd realize that in a thread where I've been posting daily, I've been gone for at least 10 days. In that 10 days, my wife has been critically ill, my baby daughter has been delivered 5 weeks premature at the average weight of a baby 8 weeks premature, i've had a job interview, and all while having to work 12 hour nightshifts.
So I think under the circumstances, I'm allowed to remember one piece of information a little bit wrong (That the WIDGET theory refers to non baryonic very low mass bosons rather then normal baryonic matter).
Sheesh, you're so venemous, and yet you decry my attitude.
Oh screw off.
Once again in your haste and your arrogance you're falsely attributing deliberate malice where there is none you dipsh1t.
Apparently I misunderstood what WIDGET's were - somewhere along the way (even inspite of my post to Harry Costas earlier in the thread to the contrary) I got it in my head that the WIDGET theory of dark matter was refering to a Background Bose Einstein condensate of BARYONIC matter (even though what I said to Harry Costas when he reminded me of WDIGETS was "So your pointing me in the direction of a non-baryonic theory to explain why another non-baryonic theory is wrong?").
So no, it's not a strawman fallact as you as you seem to want to assume, it's a simple misunderstanding, and if you got off your pedastal for one god dam minute, and took the fricking chip off your shoulder, you'd realize that in a thread where I've been posting daily, I've been gone for at least 10 days. In that 10 days, my wife has been critically ill, my baby daughter has been delivered 5 weeks premature at the average weight of a baby 8 weeks premature, i've had a job interview, and all while having to work 12 hour nightshifts.
So I think under the circumstances, I'm allowed to remember one piece of information a little bit wrong (That the WIDGET theory refers to non baryonic very low mass bosons rather then normal baryonic matter).
Sheesh, you're so venemous, and yet you decry my attitude.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 19 2008, 09:34 AM)
If and when you ever get around to actually empirically demonstrating that any of the SUSY particles actually exist, and you demonstrate that SUSY theory has any merit whatsoever, and you make some significant link between your new found particle and that "missing mass", let me know. Until then you're just putting faith in a totally *NON MAINSTREAM* view of particle physics theory, and you're hand waving in some perceived connection between your failed galactic mass estimation theories and your faith in hypothetical/mythical SUSY particles.
Once again, you're twisting my words.
Nowhere have I stated that SUSY particles must be the missing mass of the universe.
The most I have said is that they are one possibility, that there may already be some observational evidence to support this possibility, and that further observational evidence to support or deny it was expected when GLAST is launched, and when the LHC fires up.
In your zeal to falsely attribute things to me this seems to have been twisted to be "It must be SUSY particles" when in fact nowhere on this thread have I claimed to know what dark matter is.
Once again, you're twisting my words.
Nowhere have I stated that SUSY particles must be the missing mass of the universe.
The most I have said is that they are one possibility, that there may already be some observational evidence to support this possibility, and that further observational evidence to support or deny it was expected when GLAST is launched, and when the LHC fires up.
In your zeal to falsely attribute things to me this seems to have been twisted to be "It must be SUSY particles" when in fact nowhere on this thread have I claimed to know what dark matter is.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 19 2008, 09:34 AM)
If we could measure the mass of a galaxy accurately, we wouldn't need hypothetical forms of mass to explain these observations, and we wouldn't have needed "dark matter" in the first place! Get over it. "Dark matter" is nothing more than a post-hoc "gap filler" to prop up an otherwise failed galaxy mass estimation theory. We were so far off the mark that we need several times more "missing mass/dark matter" to exist than the mass that we think we can actually identify at this point in time. We aren't even in the ballpark yet when it comes to identifying the correct amount of mass or the correct type of mass in a galaxy. Don't try to tell me we know how to accurately measure the mass of a galaxy because never once have we gotten in right. That is why we are now reduced to sprinkling in a healthy portion of "dark matter" to explain our "missing mass". Claiming that our "missing mass" might be located in SUSY particles is like claiming that that unidentified flying object in the sky might be from another planet. It might be theoretically possible, but it's not the most probable explanation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary empirical support. Show me some controlled evidence that SUSY theory has merit in the lab, and show me that SUSY actually particles exist in nature, and *then* you can talk to me about where you think that missing mass is located, and what form it is in. Until then, I think your lack of empirical evidence for SUSY theory precludes you from trying to stuff SUSY particles into theories related to "missing mass" in very distant galaxies. If you can't produce any here on earth, what makes you think I should believe there is any of it "out there" somewhere?
I'm not going to address most of the blatantly venemous BS in this post except to point this out.
You claim that our estimations of stellar compositions are out.
You claim that this throws our estimations of stellar masses out.
You claim that this throws our estimations of galactic masses out.
And yet you have produced pecisely ZERO proof to back this up.
You haze provided ZERO calculations to show how far out these factors put galactic mass estimates.
You have provided ZERO proof to back up your 'Iron core' assertions.
You have provided ZERO proof that even our estimates of stellar masses are in error.
And when confronted directly with the point that the relationships between luminosity, colour, and mass can (and have) been emperically derived, you simply sidestep the issue completely refusing to address it at all.
I'm not going to address most of the blatantly venemous BS in this post except to point this out.
You claim that our estimations of stellar compositions are out.
You claim that this throws our estimations of stellar masses out.
You claim that this throws our estimations of galactic masses out.
And yet you have produced pecisely ZERO proof to back this up.
You haze provided ZERO calculations to show how far out these factors put galactic mass estimates.
You have provided ZERO proof to back up your 'Iron core' assertions.
You have provided ZERO proof that even our estimates of stellar masses are in error.
And when confronted directly with the point that the relationships between luminosity, colour, and mass can (and have) been emperically derived, you simply sidestep the issue completely refusing to address it at all.
Trippy, thanks again. I'll look up WIDGETs.
In reference to the 'iron core' thing, I won a $50 bet some years ago with someone who claimed the same sort of thing. We talked our way into an astrophysics lab, talked our way up the deputy department head, and he told my bud to fork over. Very nicely, though. He said to my friend, "It would appear that you are mistaken."
I was gentlemanly, too. We went to dinner, my treat!
In reference to the 'iron core' thing, I won a $50 bet some years ago with someone who claimed the same sort of thing. We talked our way into an astrophysics lab, talked our way up the deputy department head, and he told my bud to fork over. Very nicely, though. He said to my friend, "It would appear that you are mistaken."
I was gentlemanly, too. We went to dinner, my treat!
QUOTE
I've long assumed that our Sun is a second generation star. Am I correct in that?
Yes.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17308
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've long assumed that our Sun is a second generation star. Am I correct in that? |
Yes.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17308
My understanding is that the mass in our system was once likely fully contained in "Sol 1" which was likely a much more massive star than the one we see today. The distribution of the elements in the solar system is evidence of this ... correct? Those elements were all created in the fusion processes of "Sol 1" yes? So in layman's terms ... Sol 1 was big, probably went supernova and the resulting nebula reformed gravitationally until a critical mass was reached and viola Sol 2 is born. Then all the boring long accretion began. During that boring long accretion timeframe Sol 2 has been busy fusing hydrogen into helium and helium into subsequently heavier elements yes? Those heavier elements continue to fuse into heavier elements and so on? So the core of the sun has GOT to be in large part these heavy elements; hence the iron core? What am I missing? This is a fundamental process ... yes?
Yes. You aren't missing anything.
QUOTE
None of this is contrary to Plasma theory is it?
Not at all. It's perfectly congruent with plasma theory.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| None of this is contrary to Plasma theory is it? |
Not at all. It's perfectly congruent with plasma theory.
Doesn't it all just point to an elctro-dynamo at the core of the sun?
IMO it does point us in that direction, as does the missing momentum problem.
QUOTE
The main question in my mind is thus ... Are there any assumptions in the factors that result in the estimates of Sol's mass that in some way could lead to a mistaken conclusion?
First of all, keep in mind that there are many possible configurations of materials that would not require us to assume that the mass calculation is off.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6754021971907867193
As this video demonstrates, surface tension and EM fields can have very surprising effects on spheres in space. The outside surface can be more dense than the interior of a sphere in space.
Having said that, there are many potential ways that our concept of the total mass of the sun might be off, such as a z-axis acceleration of the solar system, or an EM effect between the planets and the sun. Newton used a "rock on a string" analogy to describe the force of gravity. As the rock swings faster there is more tension on the string and gravity has to offset that tension. If we swing that same rock on a string at the same speed, but we also ride up in an elevator while doing it, there would be additional force on the string due to the acceleration of the rock and the string in the z-axis. Using Newton's same analogy, we can demonstrate that a force of acceleration on the central mass in the z-axis will result in additional force on the string. The same idea could apply to the sun. If the sun is experiencing an acceleration in the z-axis, it might require that the sun must contain more mass to offset that additional force on the planets. EM influences might have some influences as well.
Now keep in mind that all the satellites that we've launched up into space, and all the flybys of the planets we have done seem to confirm that our concept of solar and planetary mass appears to be *highly* accurate. I would expect that z-axis acceleration and EM influences would have been inclined to have reared their ugly head by now.
Since I see no obvious signs of other influences on solar mass, I tend to lean toward a solar mass model that resembles that water shell/ air bubble analogy, with lighter elements inside the crust. The sun may even contain a small massive core that rotates rapidly at very high speed, and slowly rotates inside the shell over the period of 22 years, giving us an 11 years solar cycle. All of these option are consistence with plasma cosmology theory, and I highly support that cosmology model as well.
Hi all,
If my knowledge is still current on this (no pun intended), this is not the standard view. There are "super-granule cells" that are traveling in opposite directions in the chromosphere. They are responsible for "dissipating" localized magnetic fields towards the poles. This gives a preferred tendency to collect polarities at the poles, giving the impression that we have an Earth similar "dynamo".
M. Mozina, previous to my last post, I had only read one paper that you linked (already forgot which one), and the one that you worked on, "THE SUN IS A PLASMA DIFFUSER THAT SORTS ATOMS BY MASS". Now, I spent the time to look at your website, and some of the linked papers.
I'm not ready to get off the fence on this idea yet. I agree with some of the things that you are saying, and I understand that we do not yet have a complete theory, that adequately explains some of the questions that you brought up.
The main thing is, I don't understand/agree with the term "solid" being used, nor can I see that the "picture" ends on "iron" as the dominant element.
I agree with Trippy, that you seem to be using the same principle against current theory, to support yours. Namely, that the "view" that we have had is not the whole picture (I agree with that), and then, you wish us to "stop" at 171 A, and call it quits.
Certainly, is is well accepted that we have Fe X & IX at 171 A represented in absorption lines. This is mathematical. Going over to technology, we run in to a bit of a problem (IMO), with the response of the filter. Looking at the instrument report, I see we have +/-~ 6.5 A , as a width.
(trace.lmsal.com)
Also, a full report for STEREO is available here: EIT: EXTREME-ULTRAVIOLET IMAGING TELESCOPE FOR THE SOHO MISSION
To make this easy, go to this site http://www.camdb.ac.cn/e/spectra/spectra_search.asp , and enter the range that we are dealing with, say 165 to 177 A, (do not add any element parameter) and hit "retrieve". This is well within the width of our filter (because we will disregard Doppler broadening at the source).
If my knowledge is still current on this (no pun intended), this is not the standard view. There are "super-granule cells" that are traveling in opposite directions in the chromosphere. They are responsible for "dissipating" localized magnetic fields towards the poles. This gives a preferred tendency to collect polarities at the poles, giving the impression that we have an Earth similar "dynamo".
M. Mozina, previous to my last post, I had only read one paper that you linked (already forgot which one), and the one that you worked on, "THE SUN IS A PLASMA DIFFUSER THAT SORTS ATOMS BY MASS". Now, I spent the time to look at your website, and some of the linked papers.
I'm not ready to get off the fence on this idea yet. I agree with some of the things that you are saying, and I understand that we do not yet have a complete theory, that adequately explains some of the questions that you brought up.
The main thing is, I don't understand/agree with the term "solid" being used, nor can I see that the "picture" ends on "iron" as the dominant element.
I agree with Trippy, that you seem to be using the same principle against current theory, to support yours. Namely, that the "view" that we have had is not the whole picture (I agree with that), and then, you wish us to "stop" at 171 A, and call it quits.
Certainly, is is well accepted that we have Fe X & IX at 171 A represented in absorption lines. This is mathematical. Going over to technology, we run in to a bit of a problem (IMO), with the response of the filter. Looking at the instrument report, I see we have +/-~ 6.5 A , as a width.
(trace.lmsal.com)
Also, a full report for STEREO is available here: EIT: EXTREME-ULTRAVIOLET IMAGING TELESCOPE FOR THE SOHO MISSION
To make this easy, go to this site http://www.camdb.ac.cn/e/spectra/spectra_search.asp , and enter the range that we are dealing with, say 165 to 177 A, (do not add any element parameter) and hit "retrieve". This is well within the width of our filter (because we will disregard Doppler broadening at the source).
Result for atomic spectra
The total number of the relevant data records is 5105, which are shown in 256 pages. The present is page 1.
Index Element I.S. λ (Å) Δλ (Å) Method Ref. O.E. Initial State Final State
1 Ni Ne 169.31744 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 1P1 2s22p53p 3P2
2 Ni Ne 166.02795 Thr DCZ-2004 2s2p63s 1S0 2s22p53d 3P1
3 Cu Ne 170.8617 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 1D2 2s22p53p 3D3
4 Cu Ne 168.22966 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 3D2 2s22p53p 3D3
5 Cu Ne 166.34002 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 1F3 2s22p53p 3D3
6 Cu Ne 173.22055 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 1D2 2s22p53p 3D1
7 Cu Ne 170.5159 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 3D2 2s22p53p 3D1
8 Cu Ne 176.68792 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 3D2 2s22p53p 3P2
9 Cu Ne 174.60466 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 1F3 2s22p53p 3P2
10 Cu Ne 175.08083 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 1P1 2s22p53p 3P0
11 Cu Ne 169.59313 Thr DCZ-2004 2s2p63s 3S1 2s22p53d 3P0
12 Cu Ne 172.73076 Thr DCZ-2004 2s2p63s 3S1 2s22p53d 3P1
13 Zn Ne 173.15857 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53p 3P1 2s22p53s 3P2
14 Zn Ne 171.37548 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53p 1D2 2s22p53s 3P2
15 Zn Ne 177.30943 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53p 1D2 2s22p53s 3P1
16 Ge Ne 165.05089 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53p 1P1 2s22p53s 3P1
17 Ge Ne 172.89495 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 3F2 2s22p53p 3S1
18 Ge Ne 176.13066 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 3D3 2s22p53p 3D2
19 Ge Ne 171.86812 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 3D1 2s22p53p 3D1
20 Ge Ne 170.31088 Thr DCZ-2004 2s2p63d 1D2 2s2p63p 3P1
I'm obviously not going to post all 256 pages of the available 5105 transitions. It suffices to say that Fe is not in any way dominant on this list. H, He, Ni and Ne all post the highest numbers, from my skimmed view. One could also do a similar search, for the 195 A +/- ~6.5 A, and come up with even more possibilities.
So, my question is, "how are our forbidden transitions affected by a plasma state". I have no recollection of this, nor a source to look in. Does anyone know?
This is why I ask, "why stop at 171 A, as if this is the last layer?". It seems a bit premature to assume that we have an iron core (let alone a solid one). The temperatures DO drop way down, inside a CH, below the layer of interest, but never to a point to solidify (at least with the data we have now).
Also, we have "ground support", in this paper, "A STUDY OF HYDROGEN DENSITY IN EMERGING FLUX LOOPS FROM A COORDINATED TRANSITION REGION AND CORONAL EXPLORER AND CANARY ISLANDS OBSERVATION CAMPAIGN" ( http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/321488 ).
By interpreting the absorption of coronal lines by hydrogen and helium continua, we determine the neutral hydrogen column density of the absorbing material. Hydrogen column density is also obtained from the analysis of Ha
profiles, obtained in spectro-imaging with the Multichannel Subtractive Double Pass (MSDP) spectrograph at the VTT, using the cloud-model method.
With MSDP, we are getting a more complete picture. With any quasi-monochromatic approach, measured through 2 similar paths (semi-coherent), we will get some "cross-talk". This would be analogous to a "Solar Hanbury-Brown & Twiss" measurement of "beats". This is basically what barakn has pointed out. You are getting "quantum beats" in the differential pictures. This is one time that I would agree with the standard QM statement, that "when we are not looking (with this method), those mountains are not there". This "monochromatic assumption" plagues many interpretations.
With MSDP, we are getting a more complete picture. With any quasi-monochromatic approach, measured through 2 similar paths (semi-coherent), we will get some "cross-talk". This would be analogous to a "Solar Hanbury-Brown & Twiss" measurement of "beats". This is basically what barakn has pointed out. You are getting "quantum beats" in the differential pictures. This is one time that I would agree with the standard QM statement, that "when we are not looking (with this method), those mountains are not there". This "monochromatic assumption" plagues many interpretations.
In the case of TRACE emission in the EUV both photoelectric absorption by hydrogen and helium have to be considered. We do not include heavier elements because (1) even the next most abundant element, oxygen, is more than 100 times less abundant than helium, and (2) the cross sections of the first
few ionization stages for the next most abundant elements are all less than helium.
The three types of observations (TRACE, VTT, THEMIS) are well complementary: absorption of coronal lines giving a good approximation for the maximum value of the neutral hydrogen column density, the Ha line giving a good determination of n_e, and the 8542 A Ca II line a good determination of the electronic temperature (as noted in Mein et al. 2000).
What I would personally lean towards, is a "churning" at the equator, of a great many different elements (in plasma state), producing the differing speeds of rotation at the equator, and near the poles. The mix of lighter elements would make the mass estimation closer to expectations. The whole "ball" would display a consistent 3D "cymatic", or systemic property, with well defined, self-organized, plasma boundaries. This answers why we would have cyclical patterns appearing in the "under" layer. The "variable", is the incoming radiation, that we have basically zero data on, and how it interacts with our Sun, made visible in the outer layer.
regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE
uaafanblog
Doesn't it all just point to an elctro-dynamo at the core of the sun?
Doesn't it all just point to an elctro-dynamo at the core of the sun?
If my knowledge is still current on this (no pun intended), this is not the standard view. There are "super-granule cells" that are traveling in opposite directions in the chromosphere. They are responsible for "dissipating" localized magnetic fields towards the poles. This gives a preferred tendency to collect polarities at the poles, giving the impression that we have an Earth similar "dynamo".
M. Mozina, previous to my last post, I had only read one paper that you linked (already forgot which one), and the one that you worked on, "THE SUN IS A PLASMA DIFFUSER THAT SORTS ATOMS BY MASS". Now, I spent the time to look at your website, and some of the linked papers.
I'm not ready to get off the fence on this idea yet. I agree with some of the things that you are saying, and I understand that we do not yet have a complete theory, that adequately explains some of the questions that you brought up.
The main thing is, I don't understand/agree with the term "solid" being used, nor can I see that the "picture" ends on "iron" as the dominant element.
I agree with Trippy, that you seem to be using the same principle against current theory, to support yours. Namely, that the "view" that we have had is not the whole picture (I agree with that), and then, you wish us to "stop" at 171 A, and call it quits.
Certainly, is is well accepted that we have Fe X & IX at 171 A represented in absorption lines. This is mathematical. Going over to technology, we run in to a bit of a problem (IMO), with the response of the filter. Looking at the instrument report, I see we have +/-~ 6.5 A , as a width.
(trace.lmsal.com)
Also, a full report for STEREO is available here: EIT: EXTREME-ULTRAVIOLET IMAGING TELESCOPE FOR THE SOHO MISSION
To make this easy, go to this site http://www.camdb.ac.cn/e/spectra/spectra_search.asp , and enter the range that we are dealing with, say 165 to 177 A, (do not add any element parameter) and hit "retrieve". This is well within the width of our filter (because we will disregard Doppler broadening at the source).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| uaafanblog Doesn't it all just point to an elctro-dynamo at the core of the sun? |
If my knowledge is still current on this (no pun intended), this is not the standard view. There are "super-granule cells" that are traveling in opposite directions in the chromosphere. They are responsible for "dissipating" localized magnetic fields towards the poles. This gives a preferred tendency to collect polarities at the poles, giving the impression that we have an Earth similar "dynamo".
M. Mozina, previous to my last post, I had only read one paper that you linked (already forgot which one), and the one that you worked on, "THE SUN IS A PLASMA DIFFUSER THAT SORTS ATOMS BY MASS". Now, I spent the time to look at your website, and some of the linked papers.
I'm not ready to get off the fence on this idea yet. I agree with some of the things that you are saying, and I understand that we do not yet have a complete theory, that adequately explains some of the questions that you brought up.
The main thing is, I don't understand/agree with the term "solid" being used, nor can I see that the "picture" ends on "iron" as the dominant element.
I agree with Trippy, that you seem to be using the same principle against current theory, to support yours. Namely, that the "view" that we have had is not the whole picture (I agree with that), and then, you wish us to "stop" at 171 A, and call it quits.
Certainly, is is well accepted that we have Fe X & IX at 171 A represented in absorption lines. This is mathematical. Going over to technology, we run in to a bit of a problem (IMO), with the response of the filter. Looking at the instrument report, I see we have +/-~ 6.5 A , as a width.
(trace.lmsal.com)
Also, a full report for STEREO is available here: EIT: EXTREME-ULTRAVIOLET IMAGING TELESCOPE FOR THE SOHO MISSION
To make this easy, go to this site http://www.camdb.ac.cn/e/spectra/spectra_search.asp , and enter the range that we are dealing with, say 165 to 177 A, (do not add any element parameter) and hit "retrieve". This is well within the width of our filter (because we will disregard Doppler broadening at the source).
Result for atomic spectra
The total number of the relevant data records is 5105, which are shown in 256 pages. The present is page 1.
Index Element I.S. λ (Å) Δλ (Å) Method Ref. O.E. Initial State Final State
1 Ni Ne 169.31744 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 1P1 2s22p53p 3P2
2 Ni Ne 166.02795 Thr DCZ-2004 2s2p63s 1S0 2s22p53d 3P1
3 Cu Ne 170.8617 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 1D2 2s22p53p 3D3
4 Cu Ne 168.22966 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 3D2 2s22p53p 3D3
5 Cu Ne 166.34002 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 1F3 2s22p53p 3D3
6 Cu Ne 173.22055 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 1D2 2s22p53p 3D1
7 Cu Ne 170.5159 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 3D2 2s22p53p 3D1
8 Cu Ne 176.68792 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 3D2 2s22p53p 3P2
9 Cu Ne 174.60466 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 1F3 2s22p53p 3P2
10 Cu Ne 175.08083 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 1P1 2s22p53p 3P0
11 Cu Ne 169.59313 Thr DCZ-2004 2s2p63s 3S1 2s22p53d 3P0
12 Cu Ne 172.73076 Thr DCZ-2004 2s2p63s 3S1 2s22p53d 3P1
13 Zn Ne 173.15857 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53p 3P1 2s22p53s 3P2
14 Zn Ne 171.37548 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53p 1D2 2s22p53s 3P2
15 Zn Ne 177.30943 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53p 1D2 2s22p53s 3P1
16 Ge Ne 165.05089 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53p 1P1 2s22p53s 3P1
17 Ge Ne 172.89495 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 3F2 2s22p53p 3S1
18 Ge Ne 176.13066 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 3D3 2s22p53p 3D2
19 Ge Ne 171.86812 Thr DCZ-2004 2s22p53d 3D1 2s22p53p 3D1
20 Ge Ne 170.31088 Thr DCZ-2004 2s2p63d 1D2 2s2p63p 3P1
I'm obviously not going to post all 256 pages of the available 5105 transitions. It suffices to say that Fe is not in any way dominant on this list. H, He, Ni and Ne all post the highest numbers, from my skimmed view. One could also do a similar search, for the 195 A +/- ~6.5 A, and come up with even more possibilities.
So, my question is, "how are our forbidden transitions affected by a plasma state". I have no recollection of this, nor a source to look in. Does anyone know?
This is why I ask, "why stop at 171 A, as if this is the last layer?". It seems a bit premature to assume that we have an iron core (let alone a solid one). The temperatures DO drop way down, inside a CH, below the layer of interest, but never to a point to solidify (at least with the data we have now).
Also, we have "ground support", in this paper, "A STUDY OF HYDROGEN DENSITY IN EMERGING FLUX LOOPS FROM A COORDINATED TRANSITION REGION AND CORONAL EXPLORER AND CANARY ISLANDS OBSERVATION CAMPAIGN" ( http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/321488 ).
QUOTE
The determination of physical parameters of chromospheric features like filaments and arch filaments is important to understand their structures, their dynamics, and energetics. The question of formation and stability of filaments
embedded in magnetic structures cannot be solved without the knowledge of the mass supported by the magnetic field lines. The determination of these physical quantities is commonly based on the study of the spatial variation of the emerging radiation intensity, e.g., the chromospheric line profiles, from which we can derive the velocity, the density, the pressure, and even the column mass density using specific techniques.
embedded in magnetic structures cannot be solved without the knowledge of the mass supported by the magnetic field lines. The determination of these physical quantities is commonly based on the study of the spatial variation of the emerging radiation intensity, e.g., the chromospheric line profiles, from which we can derive the velocity, the density, the pressure, and even the column mass density using specific techniques.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The determination of physical parameters of chromospheric features like filaments and arch filaments is important to understand their structures, their dynamics, and energetics. The question of formation and stability of filaments embedded in magnetic structures cannot be solved without the knowledge of the mass supported by the magnetic field lines. The determination of these physical quantities is commonly based on the study of the spatial variation of the emerging radiation intensity, e.g., the chromospheric line profiles, from which we can derive the velocity, the density, the pressure, and even the column mass density using specific techniques. |
By interpreting the absorption of coronal lines by hydrogen and helium continua, we determine the neutral hydrogen column density of the absorbing material. Hydrogen column density is also obtained from the analysis of Ha
profiles, obtained in spectro-imaging with the Multichannel Subtractive Double Pass (MSDP) spectrograph at the VTT, using the cloud-model method.
QUOTE
For each point of the field of view, the Ha profile is interpolated by spline functions from nine intensities observed at nine different wavelengths. The nine wavelengths depending on the position in the field, the maximum interval available everywhere is smaller than 8 x 0.29 = 2.32 A .
With MSDP, we are getting a more complete picture. With any quasi-monochromatic approach, measured through 2 similar paths (semi-coherent), we will get some "cross-talk". This would be analogous to a "Solar Hanbury-Brown & Twiss" measurement of "beats". This is basically what barakn has pointed out. You are getting "quantum beats" in the differential pictures. This is one time that I would agree with the standard QM statement, that "when we are not looking (with this method), those mountains are not there". This "monochromatic assumption" plagues many interpretations.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For each point of the field of view, the Ha profile is interpolated by spline functions from nine intensities observed at nine different wavelengths. The nine wavelengths depending on the position in the field, the maximum interval available everywhere is smaller than 8 x 0.29 = 2.32 A . |
With MSDP, we are getting a more complete picture. With any quasi-monochromatic approach, measured through 2 similar paths (semi-coherent), we will get some "cross-talk". This would be analogous to a "Solar Hanbury-Brown & Twiss" measurement of "beats". This is basically what barakn has pointed out. You are getting "quantum beats" in the differential pictures. This is one time that I would agree with the standard QM statement, that "when we are not looking (with this method), those mountains are not there". This "monochromatic assumption" plagues many interpretations.
In the case of TRACE emission in the EUV both photoelectric absorption by hydrogen and helium have to be considered. We do not include heavier elements because (1) even the next most abundant element, oxygen, is more than 100 times less abundant than helium, and (2) the cross sections of the first
few ionization stages for the next most abundant elements are all less than helium.
QUOTE
This result validates the determination of the foreground emission by the faintest emission above the filament used to calculate the optical depth at 171 and at 195 A .
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This result validates the determination of the foreground emission by the faintest emission above the filament used to calculate the optical depth at 171 and at 195 A . |
The three types of observations (TRACE, VTT, THEMIS) are well complementary: absorption of coronal lines giving a good approximation for the maximum value of the neutral hydrogen column density, the Ha line giving a good determination of n_e, and the 8542 A Ca II line a good determination of the electronic temperature (as noted in Mein et al. 2000).
What I would personally lean towards, is a "churning" at the equator, of a great many different elements (in plasma state), producing the differing speeds of rotation at the equator, and near the poles. The mix of lighter elements would make the mass estimation closer to expectations. The whole "ball" would display a consistent 3D "cymatic", or systemic property, with well defined, self-organized, plasma boundaries. This answers why we would have cyclical patterns appearing in the "under" layer. The "variable", is the incoming radiation, that we have basically zero data on, and how it interacts with our Sun, made visible in the outer layer.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi all,
On a personal note,
I knew that there was something going on, that was setting you on edge.
My best thoughts are with you; Ive been through similar situations, and know that it is not easy, at all.
Try your most, to keep a smile on your face; your wife needs it. Vent a little here, but also, a smile (even cyber) goes a long way. Points can be made very well, without reference to the way opposing views make us feel. I don't mean to "preach", I have been guilty of this a time or 2 as well.
What ever I can do, do not hesitate to send a PM. I know there isn't much, from such distances (at least we're in the same hemisphere), but maybe you just need someone to "dump it out onto". "Strangers" can be oddly comforting at that.
sincere, peaceful and healthy regards,
T.Roc
On a personal note,
QUOTE
Trippy
I've been gone for at least 10 days. In that 10 days, my wife has been critically ill, my baby daughter has been delivered 5 weeks premature at the average weight of a baby 8 weeks premature, i've had a job interview, and all while having to work 12 hour nightshifts.
I've been gone for at least 10 days. In that 10 days, my wife has been critically ill, my baby daughter has been delivered 5 weeks premature at the average weight of a baby 8 weeks premature, i've had a job interview, and all while having to work 12 hour nightshifts.
I knew that there was something going on, that was setting you on edge.
My best thoughts are with you; Ive been through similar situations, and know that it is not easy, at all.
Try your most, to keep a smile on your face; your wife needs it. Vent a little here, but also, a smile (even cyber) goes a long way. Points can be made very well, without reference to the way opposing views make us feel. I don't mean to "preach", I have been guilty of this a time or 2 as well.
What ever I can do, do not hesitate to send a PM. I know there isn't much, from such distances (at least we're in the same hemisphere), but maybe you just need someone to "dump it out onto". "Strangers" can be oddly comforting at that.
sincere, peaceful and healthy regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Jan 18 2008, 07:56 PM)
Um ... no. It theorizes that the uneven distribution of certain isotopes leads them to believe that there may have been more than one supernova event.
I didn't see anything in that article that talked about a consensus. I'll be happy to accept however that more than one supernova contributed to the mass that eventually accreted to form our solar system. That's really neither here nor there to the questions I was asking. So I'll ask some modified versions ...
Were the elements which compose our solar system created by the fusion reactions inside the predecessor(s) to Sol 2 (our star)? Or were the elements created by the supernovae of the predecessor(s)?
I asked about the iron core because if the sun is a giant fusion furnace turning hydrogen into helium and helium into progressively heavier elements then it follows that those heavier elements migrate to the center of the mass i.e... you've got an "iron" core. Don't all objects we know in our system that generate large magnetic fields have an "iron" core at their heart? (Note: I'm using "iron" to mean a generally metallic core as I believe Jupiter and/or Saturn have been understood to have "metallic hydrogen" at their cores). Mars has no such magnetic field since it has no active internal core?
Gee thanks for taking my "example" literally I guess. The point of my admittedly naive inquiry was to edify myself. That's why I included all the excess info as a way of displaying my thought processes in the hope that someone would come along and say ... "Hey you dumb hockey fan ... here and here is where you went wrong."(a reply I'd far more prefer); but instead of that I guess I should just be satisfied that "you" say it is impossible. Thanks.
Most of the mass of our solar system is hydrogen, and obviously no fusion reaction produced that. However it is definitely responsible for the remaining stuff (except some primordial helium). It's unreasonable to assume that the kind of processes that we can observe now didn't occur in the past to produce our sun. Giant clouds of molecular hydrogen slowly collapse and form stars. The biggest stars have the shortest lives. When they explode as supernova, they do two things: their shock waves trigger collapse in as-yet uncondensed regions of the molecular cloud, and they seed those collapsing regions with heavier elements, resulting in a second generation of stars with more "metals" in them than the first generation.
Sorry about taking your example too literally. Consider that NASA and other space programs have to model the future paths of the planets, asteroids, comets, moons, etc. in order to launch probes to the right place. This is accomplished by running a gravitational model of the solar system, and one of the pieces of data used in this process is the solar mass M (actually they usually use GM, but G is a constant so M can be derived trivially). If a model of the solar system was set up with all the initial positions and velocities correct but an invalid solar mass, it would become obvious soon enough that the planetary orbits were far too ellipsoidal to be correct.
Iron cores are going to be a divisive topic in this discussion because of the people involved . Nonetheless I'll tackle it. The crux of the matter is the extremely high pressures and temperatures in the sun. A favorite problem to give to astronomy undergrads is a calculation of how long it would take a photon to escape from the sun's core, and the result is on the order of 10 million years. It takes this long because of all the collisions that take place between it and the super-dense matter around it. The same thing would happen to an iron atom on its way down, making the settling process many orders of magnitude longer than on earth.
I didn't see anything in that article that talked about a consensus. I'll be happy to accept however that more than one supernova contributed to the mass that eventually accreted to form our solar system. That's really neither here nor there to the questions I was asking. So I'll ask some modified versions ...
Were the elements which compose our solar system created by the fusion reactions inside the predecessor(s) to Sol 2 (our star)? Or were the elements created by the supernovae of the predecessor(s)?
I asked about the iron core because if the sun is a giant fusion furnace turning hydrogen into helium and helium into progressively heavier elements then it follows that those heavier elements migrate to the center of the mass i.e... you've got an "iron" core. Don't all objects we know in our system that generate large magnetic fields have an "iron" core at their heart? (Note: I'm using "iron" to mean a generally metallic core as I believe Jupiter and/or Saturn have been understood to have "metallic hydrogen" at their cores). Mars has no such magnetic field since it has no active internal core?
Gee thanks for taking my "example" literally I guess.
The point of my admittedly naive inquiry was to edify myself. That's why I included all the excess info as a way of displaying my thought processes in the hope that someone would come along and say ... "Hey you dumb hockey fan ... here and here is where you went wrong."(a reply I'd far more prefer); but instead of that I guess I should just be satisfied that "you" say it is impossible. Thanks. Most of the mass of our solar system is hydrogen, and obviously no fusion reaction produced that. However it is definitely responsible for the remaining stuff (except some primordial helium). It's unreasonable to assume that the kind of processes that we can observe now didn't occur in the past to produce our sun. Giant clouds of molecular hydrogen slowly collapse and form stars. The biggest stars have the shortest lives. When they explode as supernova, they do two things: their shock waves trigger collapse in as-yet uncondensed regions of the molecular cloud, and they seed those collapsing regions with heavier elements, resulting in a second generation of stars with more "metals" in them than the first generation.
Sorry about taking your example too literally. Consider that NASA and other space programs have to model the future paths of the planets, asteroids, comets, moons, etc. in order to launch probes to the right place. This is accomplished by running a gravitational model of the solar system, and one of the pieces of data used in this process is the solar mass M (actually they usually use GM, but G is a constant so M can be derived trivially). If a model of the solar system was set up with all the initial positions and velocities correct but an invalid solar mass, it would become obvious soon enough that the planetary orbits were far too ellipsoidal to be correct.
Iron cores are going to be a divisive topic in this discussion because of the people involved . Nonetheless I'll tackle it. The crux of the matter is the extremely high pressures and temperatures in the sun. A favorite problem to give to astronomy undergrads is a calculation of how long it would take a photon to escape from the sun's core, and the result is on the order of 10 million years. It takes this long because of all the collisions that take place between it and the super-dense matter around it. The same thing would happen to an iron atom on its way down, making the settling process many orders of magnitude longer than on earth.
QUOTE (barakn+Jan 19 2008, 01:19 AM)
Most of the mass of our solar system is hydrogen,
Strictly speaking, most of the mass is in the form of hydrogen ions, that is protons and electrons. "Hydrogen" may give the impression of neutral hydrogen gas which has vastly different properties than its constituent ions. See also: 99.999% plasma
Strictly speaking, most of the mass is in the form of hydrogen ions, that is protons and electrons. "Hydrogen" may give the impression of neutral hydrogen gas which has vastly different properties than its constituent ions. See also: 99.999% plasma
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 18 2008, 09:41 PM)
Oh screw off.
Once again in your haste and your arrogance you're falsely attributing deliberate malice where there is none you dipsh1t.
Oh the irony of that comment! Gee, I wonder why anyone might assume malice from you?
I'm very sorry to hear that.
Trippy, I definitely think you need to take some additional time off and chill out. It's clear to me at least that the current trials and tribulations of your life are having an adverse effect on the quality of your (our) conversations.
All I have tried to express to you in this thread is that there is a distinct and obvious difference between empirically tested physics, and theoretical constructs that have no empirical support. You seem intent on being angry at me for discussing the difference between real physical "science" and theoretical metaphysical constructs that lack empirical support. At this point in time, many of the key elements of standard theory lack empirical support in any controlled lab test on Earth. That's not my fault, I'm just the messenger. It's not my fault that nobody can demonstrate that inflation has any effect on matter in a controlled scientific experiment, nor it is my fault that nobody can do this with 'dark energy'. It's not my fault that astronomers grossly underestimated the mass of galaxies, and it's not my fault that some of them attempt to stuff that gap with all sorts of metaphysical entities. You may not like the implications of this behavior, but you're getting angry at the wrong guy. Like I said, I'm just the messenger.
Once again in your haste and your arrogance you're falsely attributing deliberate malice where there is none you dipsh1t.
Oh the irony of that comment! Gee, I wonder why anyone might assume malice from you?
QUOTE
I've been gone for at least 10 days. In that 10 days, my wife has been critically ill, my baby daughter has been delivered 5 weeks premature at the average weight of a baby 8 weeks premature, i've had a job interview, and all while having to work 12 hour nightshifts.
I'm very sorry to hear that.
Trippy, I definitely think you need to take some additional time off and chill out. It's clear to me at least that the current trials and tribulations of your life are having an adverse effect on the quality of your (our) conversations.
All I have tried to express to you in this thread is that there is a distinct and obvious difference between empirically tested physics, and theoretical constructs that have no empirical support. You seem intent on being angry at me for discussing the difference between real physical "science" and theoretical metaphysical constructs that lack empirical support. At this point in time, many of the key elements of standard theory lack empirical support in any controlled lab test on Earth. That's not my fault, I'm just the messenger. It's not my fault that nobody can demonstrate that inflation has any effect on matter in a controlled scientific experiment, nor it is my fault that nobody can do this with 'dark energy'. It's not my fault that astronomers grossly underestimated the mass of galaxies, and it's not my fault that some of them attempt to stuff that gap with all sorts of metaphysical entities. You may not like the implications of this behavior, but you're getting angry at the wrong guy. Like I said, I'm just the messenger.
QUOTE (iantresman+Jan 20 2008, 04:16 PM)
Strictly speaking, most of the mass is in the form of hydrogen ions, that is protons and electrons. "Hydrogen" may give the impression of neutral hydrogen gas which has vastly different properties than its constituent ions. See also: 99.999% plasma
What state the matter is in had nothing to do with my argument. I was referring to the identity of the elements involved, whether ionized or not. Also, you are apparently ignorant of the fact that a substance may be considered a plasma even if >99% of its atoms are not ionized. reference Carroll and Ostlie's "An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics" estimates that only one in 13,000 hydrogen atoms in the solar photosphere is ionized. This says nothing about the solar interior, but it does show that your assumption that 100% of the plasma in the universe is 100% ionized is most certainly a gross overestimate. If there was anything useful in your post, it was to illustrate how many EU fanboys don't know enough physics to make arguments on its behalf.
What state the matter is in had nothing to do with my argument. I was referring to the identity of the elements involved, whether ionized or not. Also, you are apparently ignorant of the fact that a substance may be considered a plasma even if >99% of its atoms are not ionized. reference Carroll and Ostlie's "An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics" estimates that only one in 13,000 hydrogen atoms in the solar photosphere is ionized. This says nothing about the solar interior, but it does show that your assumption that 100% of the plasma in the universe is 100% ionized is most certainly a gross overestimate. If there was anything useful in your post, it was to illustrate how many EU fanboys don't know enough physics to make arguments on its behalf.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 21 2008, 07:42 AM)
Oh the irony of that comment! Gee, I wonder why anyone might assume malice from you?
I'm very sorry to hear that.
Trippy, I definitely think you need to take some additional time off and chill out. It's clear to me at least that the current trials and tribulations of your life are having an adverse effect on the quality of your (our) conversations.
All I have tried to express to you in this thread is that there is a distinct and obvious difference between empirically tested physics, and theoretical constructs that have no empirical support. You seem intent on being angry at me for discussing the difference between real physical "science" and theoretical metaphysical constructs that lack empirical support. At this point in time, many of the key elements of standard theory lack empirical support in any controlled lab test on Earth. That's not my fault, I'm just the messenger. It's not my fault that nobody can demonstrate that inflation has any effect on matter in a controlled scientific experiment, nor it is my fault that nobody can do this with 'dark energy'. It's not my fault that astronomers grossly underestimated the mass of galaxies, and it's not my fault that some of them attempt to stuff that gap with all sorts of metaphysical entities. You may not like the implications of this behavior, but you're getting angry at the wrong guy. Like I said, I'm just the messenger.
Still missing the point I see.
One of the points that you miss, is that I understand, and have understood what your objections are right from the first post. You, however, have refused to hear or aknowledge any of the points that I have made.
It's not you that bugs me, it's your attitude (go on, be predictable, take another dig).
I wasn't using my recent challenges as an excuse for my behaviour, let's get this straight right now. My perceived attitude is a direct reflection of your own.
The only reason why I brought any of that up in the first place was to demonstrate that there had been no deliberate attempt at malice or deception in regards to your baseless accusations of me opting to use a strawman fallacy - only a minor misunderstanding on my part (more of a mental rewriting really) about wether WIDGET's were Baryonic, or non baryonic. My responses with regards to Bose-Einstein condensates in respect to your comments about WIDGET's being non-baryonic was a direct reflection of this genuine misunderstanding, not an attempt at deception.
I have tried to explain to you that I object to your use of the phrase 'Metaphysics' when referring to the λCDM model, because of it's common use as a perjurative, and yet you persist in using it.
I hazve tried to explain to you that the view that you are espousing is, in many respects a double standard, and I have endeavoured to explain, in detail why I consider this so, and named many, many examples to support my statements, and yet you have yet to aknowledge that they have even a single iota of validity.
I have even tried to explain to you that there are experiments planned, starting in the next 6-18 months that are anticipated to provide direct observational evidence of both dark matter and dark energy.
I have offered you several challenges to your philosophies, none of which you have been able to meet.
I'm very sorry to hear that.
Trippy, I definitely think you need to take some additional time off and chill out. It's clear to me at least that the current trials and tribulations of your life are having an adverse effect on the quality of your (our) conversations.
All I have tried to express to you in this thread is that there is a distinct and obvious difference between empirically tested physics, and theoretical constructs that have no empirical support. You seem intent on being angry at me for discussing the difference between real physical "science" and theoretical metaphysical constructs that lack empirical support. At this point in time, many of the key elements of standard theory lack empirical support in any controlled lab test on Earth. That's not my fault, I'm just the messenger. It's not my fault that nobody can demonstrate that inflation has any effect on matter in a controlled scientific experiment, nor it is my fault that nobody can do this with 'dark energy'. It's not my fault that astronomers grossly underestimated the mass of galaxies, and it's not my fault that some of them attempt to stuff that gap with all sorts of metaphysical entities. You may not like the implications of this behavior, but you're getting angry at the wrong guy. Like I said, I'm just the messenger.
Still missing the point I see.
One of the points that you miss, is that I understand, and have understood what your objections are right from the first post. You, however, have refused to hear or aknowledge any of the points that I have made.
It's not you that bugs me, it's your attitude (go on, be predictable, take another dig).
I wasn't using my recent challenges as an excuse for my behaviour, let's get this straight right now. My perceived attitude is a direct reflection of your own.
The only reason why I brought any of that up in the first place was to demonstrate that there had been no deliberate attempt at malice or deception in regards to your baseless accusations of me opting to use a strawman fallacy - only a minor misunderstanding on my part (more of a mental rewriting really) about wether WIDGET's were Baryonic, or non baryonic. My responses with regards to Bose-Einstein condensates in respect to your comments about WIDGET's being non-baryonic was a direct reflection of this genuine misunderstanding, not an attempt at deception.
I have tried to explain to you that I object to your use of the phrase 'Metaphysics' when referring to the λCDM model, because of it's common use as a perjurative, and yet you persist in using it.
I hazve tried to explain to you that the view that you are espousing is, in many respects a double standard, and I have endeavoured to explain, in detail why I consider this so, and named many, many examples to support my statements, and yet you have yet to aknowledge that they have even a single iota of validity.
I have even tried to explain to you that there are experiments planned, starting in the next 6-18 months that are anticipated to provide direct observational evidence of both dark matter and dark energy.
I have offered you several challenges to your philosophies, none of which you have been able to meet.
Thanks to everyone for the responses (and re-responses in barakn's case) to my questions. It isn't necessarily an easy thing for a noob to interject simplistic thoughts into a conversation that is on a level so much deeper than my education allows a full understanding (especially those more detailed and/or esoteric points). That said I'm just looking for some feedback as to whether I'd be a "crackpot" ...
Here's where this discussion (and others here) have led me over the last few weeks:
#1: I'm skeptical that Hubble was dead on right -- without a link I refer to Halton Arp and Geoffrey Burbridge's assertions that noncosmological redshift are legitimate factors which Hubble did not consider and subsequent observations have cast doubt upon. I've even read about some of Hubble's own unpublished doubts. This information (entirely new to me) leads me to believe that the Universe is quite possibly MUCH smaller than we think. There is a reasonably fair discussion of the issue at this link.
#2: The primary active process in a star is fusion. The result of the fusion process is to convert a volume of lighter elements into heavier elements with the result being that thos heavier elements migrate to the core of the body over the lifetime of the star. That those heavy elements (metals) are an electro-dynamo which are responsible for the existence of the magnetosphere of the star (in the same way it does on Earth, Jupiter and Saturn). I don't know that this means that electrical interactions take place between anode and cathode galaxies and/or even neighboring stars but it is an exciting possibility that as a layman I find difficult to reject. There is nothing I'd like better than to be alive during a proven discovery that fundamentally changes the way we view the Universe.
#3: If #1 is correct then the dark matter/dark energy search will be fruitless. So ... if the LHC experiements don't find the evidence they are looking for then wouldn't it be reasonable to take another look (a detailed open-minded look) at Hubble's conclusions? Wouldn't it lovely to discover that the Universe is much smaller and probably much older than we currently believe? Wouldn't it be nice (and isn't it more intuitive anyway) if there was no significant expansion? Yes, I guess it sounds like I'm a "Steady State" believer I suppose; but honestly I didn't know what the Steady State really meant a few months ago.
It is somewhat arrogant for me to come here as a layman and express that the currently accepted theory doesn't light my fire. What the hell do I know ... I plead simple intuition though.
Here's a metaphor for how I see the current cosmology theory --
The King of Cosmoland ordered his chef to prepare the ultimate pie to suit his palate. He told the chef his favorite pie was Apple. The chef went off and prepared the best Apple pie he could and presented it to the King. He liked the pie but told the chef it was missing something. The chef went back to work; again and again he added and subtracted an ingredient or two and each time the King tried the pies he expressed that they tasted good but that something wasn't quite right. The chef tried for years to create the perfect pie for his King's palate but to no avail. Then one day he noticed the King drinking a Pepsi with his pie; as an experiment the next day he replaced the King's Pepsi with "The Real Thing" and baked another Apple Pie completely devoid of all the spices he'd been using to flavor it. The King tried the new pie and proclaimed it perfect. We all know "Things Go Better with Coke". --
So no matter how many new ingredients we add to the cosmos in order to balance the equation it just doesn't taste as good as when we serve it with something that gives it "Perfect Harmony". An always existing non-expanding universe is harmonious isn't it; and if noncosmological redshift is true doesn't it make it so? And doesn't the discovery that we overlooked (if we have) something fundamental in the study of our own star (which is right next door to us) call into question so many of our other assumptions?
Is it reasonable as a layman to walk around with all of the above as my current understanding? Or should I accede to those (like all of you) who have a far greater education and understanding of physics and accept the current model until you guys all agree and tell me something different? Sorry if all that is not particularly germane to the specifics of the discussion but this is my favorite thread on the board and I'm just sharing my thoughts.
Trolling:
Pepsi just sucks ... plain and simple ...
Scooby Doo Philosophy 101: Just pull the mask off the ghost and you'll find a regular bad guy.
Learn to Swim: Maynard James Keenan - Tool
Gamma Ray Bursts are a doddle ...
Feynman was Jesus ...
Here's where this discussion (and others here) have led me over the last few weeks:
#1: I'm skeptical that Hubble was dead on right -- without a link I refer to Halton Arp and Geoffrey Burbridge's assertions that noncosmological redshift are legitimate factors which Hubble did not consider and subsequent observations have cast doubt upon. I've even read about some of Hubble's own unpublished doubts. This information (entirely new to me) leads me to believe that the Universe is quite possibly MUCH smaller than we think. There is a reasonably fair discussion of the issue at this link.
#2: The primary active process in a star is fusion. The result of the fusion process is to convert a volume of lighter elements into heavier elements with the result being that thos heavier elements migrate to the core of the body over the lifetime of the star. That those heavy elements (metals) are an electro-dynamo which are responsible for the existence of the magnetosphere of the star (in the same way it does on Earth, Jupiter and Saturn). I don't know that this means that electrical interactions take place between anode and cathode galaxies and/or even neighboring stars but it is an exciting possibility that as a layman I find difficult to reject. There is nothing I'd like better than to be alive during a proven discovery that fundamentally changes the way we view the Universe.
#3: If #1 is correct then the dark matter/dark energy search will be fruitless. So ... if the LHC experiements don't find the evidence they are looking for then wouldn't it be reasonable to take another look (a detailed open-minded look) at Hubble's conclusions? Wouldn't it lovely to discover that the Universe is much smaller and probably much older than we currently believe? Wouldn't it be nice (and isn't it more intuitive anyway) if there was no significant expansion? Yes, I guess it sounds like I'm a "Steady State" believer I suppose; but honestly I didn't know what the Steady State really meant a few months ago.
It is somewhat arrogant for me to come here as a layman and express that the currently accepted theory doesn't light my fire. What the hell do I know ... I plead simple intuition though.
Here's a metaphor for how I see the current cosmology theory --
The King of Cosmoland ordered his chef to prepare the ultimate pie to suit his palate. He told the chef his favorite pie was Apple. The chef went off and prepared the best Apple pie he could and presented it to the King. He liked the pie but told the chef it was missing something. The chef went back to work; again and again he added and subtracted an ingredient or two and each time the King tried the pies he expressed that they tasted good but that something wasn't quite right. The chef tried for years to create the perfect pie for his King's palate but to no avail. Then one day he noticed the King drinking a Pepsi with his pie; as an experiment the next day he replaced the King's Pepsi with "The Real Thing" and baked another Apple Pie completely devoid of all the spices he'd been using to flavor it. The King tried the new pie and proclaimed it perfect. We all know "Things Go Better with Coke". --
So no matter how many new ingredients we add to the cosmos in order to balance the equation it just doesn't taste as good as when we serve it with something that gives it "Perfect Harmony". An always existing non-expanding universe is harmonious isn't it; and if noncosmological redshift is true doesn't it make it so? And doesn't the discovery that we overlooked (if we have) something fundamental in the study of our own star (which is right next door to us) call into question so many of our other assumptions?
Is it reasonable as a layman to walk around with all of the above as my current understanding? Or should I accede to those (like all of you) who have a far greater education and understanding of physics and accept the current model until you guys all agree and tell me something different? Sorry if all that is not particularly germane to the specifics of the discussion but this is my favorite thread on the board and I'm just sharing my thoughts.
Trolling:
Pepsi just sucks ... plain and simple ...
Scooby Doo Philosophy 101: Just pull the mask off the ghost and you'll find a regular bad guy.
Learn to Swim: Maynard James Keenan - Tool
Gamma Ray Bursts are a doddle ...
Feynman was Jesus ...
Hello All
Hydrogen maybe the most abundant element or is it?
We have been told for years that H fusion is mostly found in the solar envelope.
If H made up most of the sun.
What holds the solar envelope together?
What stops it from expanding from all the turbulence?
What controls the heat or energy release from the core?
It requires a very high mass and density matter.
To get this H+ is transformed into Neutrons by the addition of just one electron.
Neutrons are able to be compacted to 10^17 kg/m3 and form a body that is more stable than any other matter. This process has allowed our sun to burn for billions of years by controlling the release of energy and preventing the expansion of the solar envelope. Imagine if we had a low density core. The solar envelope would expand and uncontrollable heat loss from the core, resluting possibly is a Nova or supernova.
Fe and other elements form part of a cycle that keeps on feeding Neutrons and vis-versa.
Fe formed from the fusion of atoms.
Fe broken down by fission reactions to He than to H than to Neutrons.
Neutrons by losing an electron become H+ and fusion starts again.
Forming an important cycle one of many.
Hey! thats my opinion,,,,,,,,,,,,,I could be wrong.
But! the logic is there.
Hydrogen maybe the most abundant element or is it?
We have been told for years that H fusion is mostly found in the solar envelope.
If H made up most of the sun.
What holds the solar envelope together?
What stops it from expanding from all the turbulence?
What controls the heat or energy release from the core?
It requires a very high mass and density matter.
To get this H+ is transformed into Neutrons by the addition of just one electron.
Neutrons are able to be compacted to 10^17 kg/m3 and form a body that is more stable than any other matter. This process has allowed our sun to burn for billions of years by controlling the release of energy and preventing the expansion of the solar envelope. Imagine if we had a low density core. The solar envelope would expand and uncontrollable heat loss from the core, resluting possibly is a Nova or supernova.
Fe and other elements form part of a cycle that keeps on feeding Neutrons and vis-versa.
Fe formed from the fusion of atoms.
Fe broken down by fission reactions to He than to H than to Neutrons.
Neutrons by losing an electron become H+ and fusion starts again.
Forming an important cycle one of many.
Hey! thats my opinion,,,,,,,,,,,,,I could be wrong.
But! the logic is there.
Hi all,
Adding to my last post ( here ). The basic questions: (to MM)
Looking at data from a 171 Angstrom filter can not assure us that we are looking at Fe IX & X exclusively. Yes, this is where we can compute an absorption, but as I have shown, there are 5105 other transitions possible in the same "filtered" region.
We can also not be assured that an "solid iron core" is producing the magnetic field of the Sun.
I asked about forbidden transitions in the plasma state. I am still interested in what others have to say, but I did a little looking myself.
Let's start with a quick definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_transition
Also, a reminder that in these "plasma cells", or "self-organizing boundaries", we will find "vibrational nodes" that produce a vast change in density, compared to the surrounding regions. This is also directly related to "shock zones", where velocities can be seen to be null. De-excitation from collisions will be rare in these conditions. Without going into detail in this post (for brevity), I would just point to the need to discuss "collisionless shocks" as well. Perhaps I will be getting into that on the thread "SEC .. Earthquake precursors .." soon anyway.
An abstract from "Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society":
Effective collision strengths for fine-structure forbidden transitions among the 2s22p3 levels of Ne iv
Ramsbottom, Bell & Keenan
Department of Pure, Applied, and Theoretical Physics, The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_transition
Also, a reminder that in these "plasma cells", or "self-organizing boundaries", we will find "vibrational nodes" that produce a vast change in density, compared to the surrounding regions. This is also directly related to "shock zones", where velocities can be seen to be null. De-excitation from collisions will be rare in these conditions. Without going into detail in this post (for brevity), I would just point to the need to discuss "collisionless shocks" as well. Perhaps I will be getting into that on the thread "SEC .. Earthquake precursors .." soon anyway.
An abstract from "Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society":
Effective collision strengths for fine-structure forbidden transitions among the 2s22p3 levels of Ne iv
Ramsbottom, Bell & Keenan
Department of Pure, Applied, and Theoretical Physics, The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN
Effective collision strengths for electron-impact excitation of the N-like ion Ne iv are calculated in the close-coupling approximation using the multichannel R-matrix method. Specific attention is given to the 10 astrophysically important fine-structure forbidden transitions among the 4So, 2Do and 2Po levels in the 2s22p3 ground-state configuration. The expansion of the total wavefunction incorporates the lowest 11 LS eigenstates of Ne iv, consisting of eight n = 2 terms with configurations 2s22p3, 2s2p4 and 2p5, together with three n = 3 states of configuration 2s22p23s. We present in graphical form the effective collision strengths obtained by thermally averaging the collision strengths over a Maxwellian distribution of velocities, for all 10 fine-structure transitions, over the range of electron temperatures log T(K) = 3.6 to log T(K) = 6.1 (the range appropriate for astrophysical applications). Comparisons are made with the earlier, less sophisticated close-coupling calculation of Giles, and excellent agreement is found in the limited temperature region where a comparison is possible [log T(K) = 3.7 to log T(K) = 4.3]. At higher temperatures the present data are the only reliable results currently available.
(emphasis added)
Starting off with general methodology.
Also, since Oxygen is "#3" in abundance in the Sun, the following should be relevant:
From "NASA Technical Reports Server"
Atomic oxygen-metal surface studies as applied to mass spectrometer measurements of upper planetary atmospheres
Sjolander, G. W.
Again, this is only a "general" link. (related to equipment; see below)
A little more about "measurement methods", from "Physica Scripta. Vol. 58, 599È604, 1998":
Forbidden Transitions in the Visible Spectra of an Electron
Beam Ion Trap (EBIT) Link to PDF
E. Traibert,* P. Beiersdorfer, S. B. Utter and J. R. Crespo Lopez-Urrutia
Department of Physics and Space Technology, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94501, U.S.A.
Again, this is only a "general" link. (related to equipment; see below)
A little more about "measurement methods", from "Physica Scripta. Vol. 58, 599È604, 1998":
Forbidden Transitions in the Visible Spectra of an Electron
Beam Ion Trap (EBIT) Link to PDF
E. Traibert,* P. Beiersdorfer, S. B. Utter and J. R. Crespo Lopez-Urrutia
Department of Physics and Space Technology, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94501, U.S.A.
Abstract
In an explorative study of visible spectra from an electron beam ion trap (EBIT), a variety of rare-gas ion species has been excited and stored. The spectra reveal several forbidden lines and also show peculiarities of general interest to EBIT users. ...
Random cosmic ray events usually affect a few pixels at a time and create signals on the CCD that are several orders of magnitude greater than the
observed UV or optical events.
..
Another problem of the CCD is a certain level of read-out noise added to the data for technical reasons. This (intentionally constant) read-out noise and the true spectral background depend differently on integration time and cannot always be disentangled.
However, many of the lines persisted from one injected gas to the next,
hours or a day later. This suggests that either some materials get trapped in surfaces or recesses of the vacuum vessel and outgas for a long time, or that some of these lines do not relate at all to the gases that were leaked in.
..
We also observed some of these unidentified lines to build up over time. With a freshly started EBIT they would not show, but after, say, half an hour they would appear and then persist for the rest of the run. As the spatial characteristics
of their emission point to highly charged ions and thus to forbidden transitions, these mystery lines are a nuisance (possibly blending lines of interest)..
The present technique can easily be extended to systematic surveys of forbidden transitions in many ion spectra, in particular to those of interest in astrophysics and plasma diagnostic. For the probabilities of forbidden transitions, this study covered a particularly bright specimen and improved on the available data.
(emphasis added throughout)
The technical problems of our measuring devices should be questioned before (IMO) the underlying theories. However, if these problems can be traced back far enough into theory development, it may change our entire picture.
Finally, the closest that I could find, specifically to the problem at hand, is from:
Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series, Vol. 4:Origin and Evolution of the Elements, 2004ed. A. McWilliam and M. Rauch (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
Tracing Iron Abundance with Fe II Spectra in Astrophysical Plasma Link
E. VERNER
IACS/Dept. of Physics, Catholic Univ. of America and NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt MD 20771
The pioneering work on the term analysis of singly ionized iron (Russell 1926) reported 61 energy levels. Now more than 1000 energy levels of Fe II are known (Johansson private communication 2002). The Fe II spectrum has a rich and complicated mixture of forbidden and permitted lines. The first permitted transition is possible only from 64th level to the first one, ..
In a case when only lower levels are populated, only forbidden lines take place. With the increasing density, higher levels are populated by collisions, and the permitted lines are observed. Many tens of terms, corresponding to hundreds of levels, contribute. Laboratory spectroscopy is not complete and only in the past few years have many of the radiative and collision rates been determined. First optical and then UV and IR spectral windows have become available to measure the full spectrum in astrophysical sources.
One of the simplest applications of the Fe II emission model is the interpretation of the forbidden infrared and optical [Fe II ] lines from H II regions. The Orion Nebula is the defining blister H II region (Zuckerman 1973, Balick, Gammon, & Hjellming 1974). A star cluster ionizes the skin of the molecular cloud, causing an expansion away from the molecular cloud towards us. The H II region is in photoionization equilibrium with a density in concert with that of the background photo-dissociation region (Tielens & Hollenbach 1985), and both regions are dusty with high depletions of the refractory elements (Rubin, Dufour,& Walter 1993).
Specifically we address the following questions: Why do we see so many strong Fe II and [Fe II] lines? What is temperature and density of the emitting region? What excitation process dominates: collisional excitation, pumping by the incident stellar continuum, or fluorescence by Ly ? And, can we explain the Fe II emission by a single density model?
(I'll leave the details for those who wish to read the paper)
Our earlier 371-level Fe+ ion model (for energies < 11.6 eV), incorporated into the code CLOUDY, predicts the emission of 68,635 Fe II lines (Verner et al. 1999). Tests of the new, expanded 830-level model (344,035 transitions) have already demonstrated greatly improved results.
The large velocity dispersion of Fe II emission in BLRs, the large number of overlapping lines, and the overall richness of the Fe II spectrum (Verner et al. 1999) forms broad emission blends, producing a "Fe II pseudo-continuum" and/or prominent features from the UV through visual (4000−6000 Å; hereafter Fe II (Optical)) to IR.
..
We conclude that abundance is not the only factor that makes Fe II emission strong over a wide range of wavelengths and is not even the strongest factor. Our modeling indicates that microturbulence also leads to preferential strengthening of the Fe II emission in UV.
..
Due to strong Fe II line overlap, we must adopt a wavelength band approach to get constraints on density, radiation field, and turbulence in BLRs.
(emphasis added throughout)
regards,
T.Roc
You're evidently still intent on killing the messenger.
There is a distinct physical difference between empirically tested physical science, and someone's faith in constructs that lack physical (empirical) support in controlled observations.
Let's just start with inflation. No other known vector or scalar field in nature acts like inflation. Every other field in nature experiences a significant decrease in density over several exponential increases in volume. Nothing even remotely like inflation has even been shown to exist in a lab, anywhere on earth. Now you're welcome to put faith in that metaphysical concept, but it absolutely and positively is a metaphysical concept because there is no empirical evidence that it exists to be found anywhere in nature or in any controlled experiment. Lambda-CDM theory is a act of faith.
I don't practice EU theory from a "big picture" perspective. I take the Birkeland approach here and base my beliefs on what I can actually empirically demonstrate and measure. It's a "little picture first" approach to cosmology, and it's based upon classic methods of empirical science, real physical science.
It is not my fault that you put faith inflation, nor is it my fault that inflation is a metaphysical construct. You're simply blaming the messenger here for something that is entirely impersonal and that is unrelated to me personally. I just notice it and mentioned it, along with hundreds of other scientists on the planet.
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
Ugh,
Point flew right by again I see.
Show me where I blamed you for aznything. I didn't.
All I have simply done is ask you to stop using a particular word because of its common use as a perjurative. That's it. Nothing more.
And once again, you're blaiming me for your misconceptions.
You keep blithering (hey, if you're allowed to use perjuratives, so am I) on about Guths inflation, in spite of it having been pointed out to you that modern inflation theories bare little of no resemblance to Guths inflation.
More over, obviously even Guths inflation predicts that the strength of what ever drove inflation decreased with time, because otherwise any inflation theory would predict that the universe is still expanding exponentialy.
What specific word that clearly distinguishes the difference between tested physical science and untested and unfalsifiable theoretical constructs would make you more comfortable?
Please point me to any other scalar or vector field in nature that acts like inflation and that has been shown to increase it's volume exponentially many times without experiencing a significant decrease in density?
Actually the term "rigid" was used (intentionally) and composition of elements relates directly beck to Manuel's data. I came to the conclusion that the sun had a mostly iron shell based on the satellite data too, but Manuel's work is more definite in that respect.
Actually the term "rigid" was used (intentionally) and composition of elements relates directly beck to Manuel's data. I came to the conclusion that the sun had a mostly iron shell based on the satellite data too, but Manuel's work is more definite in that respect.
I agree with Trippy, that you seem to be using the same principle against current theory, to support yours. Namely, that the "view" that we have had is not the whole picture (I agree with that), and then, you wish us to "stop" at 171 A, and call it quits.
Not at all. I'm simply noticing that different wavelengths give us a different set of observations with different characteristics. I only have access to very specific wavelengths however, particularly when we start looking at individual filters on individual satellites. The SOHO and TRACE filters for instance are limited to three iron ion filters (171, 195 and 284) and one helium ion wavelength 304A. We get very different images from the iron ion wavelengths compared to the helium ion wavelengths.
I'm not actually trying to "stop" at any specific wavelength, I'm just working with the specific wavelengths that are available to me. I've used RHESSI data in my presentations too from the gamma ray spectrum, and I originally became interested in solar satellite images via the Yohkoh program which produced mostly x-ray images of the sun.
I'm simply noting that some wavelengths provide a very different kind of data than other wavelengths. x-rays seem to be absorbed by the photosphere, whereas the iron ion wavelengths are not as easily absorbed by the photosphere.
As far as what the approach itself might be doing to complicate the interpretation process, we need to look at what effect has in other wavelengths. We don't get long lasting (2 hour plus) rigid features in 304A RD images. Why not? That's the question that we have to ask ourselves. Why are different wavelengths producing different sets of patterns, some showing "structures" lasting only a few minutes (G-Band for instance), while other wavelengths show rigid structures that last for hours ans sometimes days at a time.
While I observe this "churning effect' and differential rotation patterns in the helium ion images, including the RD images, I see no such differential pattern of rotation in the 171A images. Why is that?
Now of course when we apply a Doppler imaging technique related to Nickel ion wavelengths, we also find rigid features located under the photosphere. Heliosiesmology data shows us that there is a "stratification subsurface" sitting at a shallow depth under the photosphere. What is that doing sitting in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone according to standard gas model theory?
It's not just one thing or one wavelength that I'm basing these ideas upon, but rather it's based on a wealth of information related to many wavelengths, heliosiesmology data, Doppler images and nuclear chemistry data. It is not as though I'm trying to build a federal case upon a single image or a single wavelength.
Does this help answer your questions at all?
I also wanted to mention that this solar model has actually been "lab tested" to a great degree by Kristian Birkeland. Warning: The following link is to a PDF file of Birkeland's work that is over 160 megabytes in size.
http://ia340919.us.archive.org/2/items/nor...p01chririch.pdf
Birkeland not only tinkered with this solar model, he actually made predictions about the sun based on his simulations. He predicted and simulated a lot of the higher energy emission patterns we observe on the sun, including coronal loops and x-ray jets.
It would be inaccurate to assume here that there is any single piece of data that is critical in this model. In other words, this model comes from the analysis of a lot of different types of data, from nuclear chemistry data, from heliosiesmology data, from satellite image data, to controlled laboratory testing. It's not as though I would attempt to promote a new solar model based on only a couple of satellite images. There is a lot of different data here to consider, and a lot of different pieces of data that all point us towards Birkeland's early solar models.
This composite TRACE (blue)/Yohkoh (yellow) image shows us the absorption pattern of the solar atmosphere on two different wavelengths. The x-ray photons (in yellow) are mostly absorbed by the atmosphere of the sun, whereas the 171A wavelength seen by TRACE is more easily able to penetrate through the solar atmosphere. We can see the bases of the coronal loops that are imaged by Trace cannot even been seen by Yohkoh x-ray images until they come up through the photosphere and into the corona. Different wavelengths of light will give us different views of the solar atmosphere and different views of the sun's activities. I'm not intentionally trying to limit our exploration to any specific wavelength, it's just that certain wavelengths will naturally allow me to support my ideas (like the iron ion wavelengths) about the sun's surface, and other ones (like those x-rays) will not penetrate deeply enough into the solar atmosphere to be of any use to me as it relates to demonstrate a rigid surface. On the other hand, those x-rays are easily recreated here on Earth by running electrical current through iron. In fact we can run electrical current through many materials and generate x-rays.
The Rhessi gamma ray images also support an electric solar model. When we point Rhessi at the Earth, we see intermittent gamma ray emissions coming from the Earth's atmosphere that we have traced back to electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. Likewise we can point that same instrument at the solar atmosphere and see gamma rays coming from electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. It's just one more verified "prediction" of electrical discharge theory as put forth by Dr. Charles Bruce back in the 60's.
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
As I said before, this solar model is supported by many types of photons and many types of data, not just a single wavelength of light, or a single type of data. It's the whole set of emissions, and the patterns of these emissions that lead us back to Kristian Birkeland's early solar models, not just one type of emission, or one pattern of emissions. It's the fact that he created jets and loops, rings and aurora in these experiments and the fact that all these phenomenon have been seen in astronomy that make a strong case for EU theory, not just one thing, or one image, or one wavelength of light.
What specific word that clearly distinguishes the difference between tested physical science and untested and unfalsifiable theoretical constructs would make you more comfortable?
Please point me to any other scalar or vector field in nature that acts like inflation and that has been shown to increase it's volume exponentially many times without experiencing a significant decrease in density?
Point me to the evidence that says electrical currents flow between the sun and any other object in the galaxy.
Point me to the evidence that shows that electrical currents flow between the Milkyway and any other object in the universe.
Point me to the evidence that says that emperically derived relationships between mass, temperature, and colour are wrong.
Point to any form of Iron capable of remaining solid at 6000k and a pressure of less then one atmosphere.
Point me to any piece of EU literature that specifically predicts the existence of a single 130 mega-parsec wide hole in the universe.
The list goes on.
The definition of a magnetic rope in MHD theory according to the father of MHD theory:
The definition of a magnetic rope in MHD theory according to the father of MHD theory:
"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/a...ern_lights.html
There's nothing like pumping an additional five hundred thousands billion Joules through the system to really make things 'entertaining'. Before we even look at any big picture forms of energy transfer, how about that current flow? Shall we simply ignore it?
There's nothing like pumping an additional five hundred thousands billion Joules through the system to really make things 'entertaining'. Before we even look at any big picture forms of energy transfer, how about that current flow? Shall we simply ignore it?
Point to any form of Iron capable of remaining solid at 6000k and a pressure of less then one atmosphere.
The surface is probably less than 1500K. There is evidently a cooler thicker set of plasma layers that sit under the photosphere since we observe plasma temperatures that are several thousand degrees cooler than the photosphere during sunspot activity. All the inside layers of plasma are thicker and cooler than the outside layers and the photosphere is only unique in that it mostly composed of neon. It is hotter and thinner than the silicon layer below it.
It is however *evidence* that current flows between objects in space.
It is however *evidence* that current flows between objects in space.
I already know about the flows of ions within our own solar system.
These are not simple ion flows inside of our solar system. This is a current carrying plasma thread/rope that directly connected the sun's atmosphere to the Earth's outer plasma layers and dumped an *additional* amount of of current directly into the Earth's electromagnetic field. That's not just an ion flow, that's a *current flow* and an *electron flow* between objects in space. Now I should mention here that Birkeland actually *predicted* these kinds of connections between the sun and the Earth over 100 years ago based on his lab simulations. Pure coincidence in your opinion?
My own standards are nothing more than the classic scientific standards. That method requires that all idea be empirically tested in controlled conditions (which Birkeland did already) and then these controlled tests are compared to in situ measurements (which Birkeland also did). It is simply the classic scientific method, nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with writing papers. It has everything to do with empirical testing
My own standards are nothing more than the classic scientific standards. That method requires that all idea be empirically tested in controlled conditions (which Birkeland did already) and then these controlled tests are compared to in situ measurements (which Birkeland also did). It is simply the classic scientific method, nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with writing papers. It has everything to do with empirical testing
Show me a paper that describes a measurement that supports your theory.
I don't think they've actually released any papers describing this event.
Well then Trippy, let me be the first to welcome you to EU theory. You're a "believer" like me now in the fact that the physical bodies in our universe can and do carry electrical currents through them as Birkeland suggested 100 years ago. Now it is simply a matter of "how much current flow is involved and a matter of mapping where the currents flow to and from.
As below, perhaps above. If the sun and the Earth exchange electrical energy through the Earth's magnetosphere, so the sun may exchange electrical energy with the larger interstellar universe through the sun's heliosheath. It's really only a scaling issue and a wiring issue from that point forward. Galaxy cores may serve the same purpose as their solar counterparts and interact with larger intergalactic currents. The galaxy core interacts with these intergalactic currents though it's electromagnetic fields and its larger plasma sheaths. The whole thing scales very nicely, and the plasmas of the universe create various double layers and provide the cellular structures that make it all work. FYI, the testable physics behind plasma physics has already been shown to be scalable over many OOM. As far as we know, the whole thing is simply a repeat of the same set of "structures" on ever expanding scales.
Congratulations on taking your first few small steps as an EU proponent Trippy.
Well then Trippy, let me be the first to welcome you to EU theory. You're a "believer" like me now in the fact that the physical bodies in our universe can and do carry electrical currents through them as Birkeland suggested 100 years ago. Now it is simply a matter of "how much current flow is involved and a matter of mapping where the currents flow to and from.
As below, perhaps above. If the sun and the Earth exchange electrical energy through the Earth's magnetosphere, so the sun may exchange electrical energy with the larger interstellar universe through the sun's heliosheath. It's really only a scaling issue and a wiring issue from that point forward. Galaxy cores may serve the same purpose as their solar counterparts and interact with larger intergalactic currents. The galaxy core interacts with these intergalactic currents though it's electromagnetic fields and its larger plasma sheaths. The whole thing scales very nicely, and the plasmas of the universe create various double layers and provide the cellular structures that make it all work. FYI, the testable physics behind plasma physics has already been shown to be scalable over many OOM. As far as we know, the whole thing is simply a repeat of the same set of "structures" on ever expanding scales.
Congratulations on taking your first few small steps as an EU proponent Trippy.
Pffft.
No i'm not.
Not even close.
And finally, you aknowledge one of the points that I have tried to make - repeatedly.
The wiring issue.
Sure you're close as close to Earth as EU theory gets Trippy. You just acknowledged that there is a current carrying "rope" that THEMIS has seen flowing between the solar atmosphere and the Earth. That is the closest part of the electrical "wiring" circuit that we might hope to map and acknowledge. Now keep in mind that this was only the *extra* electrical energy that just happened to flow between the sun and the Earth that day, in addition to the other Birkeland currents that we observe on a regular and basis.
Just as the Earth interacts with the sun through it's electromagnetic plasma layers in the magnetosphere, so too, the sun interacts with interstellar winds through it's heliosheath. The center of mass of the galaxy interacts with the intergalactic winds though it's electromagnetic fields. It's simply a scaling issue Trippy. You may not be willing to follow the circuitry outside of the solar system, but you seem to acknowledge it has one inside of the solar system. That's the first "baby step" in EU theory Trippy.
The sun electrically interacts with the items in orbit around it. The center of mass of the galaxy electrically interacts with the items in orbit around it too. The whole thing is just repetitive process of scaling. EU theory has no need of any "dark forces" to explain these interactions between objects in space. The objects in space are electromagnetically intertwined and interwoven by the currents that traverse the objects. It's just a matter of mapping out the wiring diagram and scaling it to size.
Sure you're close as close to Earth as EU theory gets Trippy. You just acknowledged that there is a current carrying "rope" that THEMIS has seen flowing between the solar atmosphere and the Earth. That is the closest part of the electrical "wiring" circuit that we might hope to map and acknowledge. Now keep in mind that this was only the *extra* electrical energy that just happened to flow between the sun and the Earth that day, in addition to the other Birkeland currents that we observe on a regular and basis.
Just as the Earth interacts with the sun through it's electromagnetic plasma layers in the magnetosphere, so too, the sun interacts with interstellar winds through it's heliosheath. The center of mass of the galaxy interacts with the intergalactic winds though it's electromagnetic fields. It's simply a scaling issue Trippy. You may not be willing to follow the circuitry outside of the solar system, but you seem to acknowledge it has one inside of the solar system. That's the first "baby step" in EU theory Trippy.
The sun electrically interacts with the items in orbit around it. The center of mass of the galaxy electrically interacts with the items in orbit around it too. The whole thing is just repetitive process of scaling. EU theory has no need of any "dark forces" to explain these interactions between objects in space. The objects in space are electromagnetically intertwined and interwoven by the currents that traverse the objects. It's just a matter of mapping out the wiring diagram and scaling it to size.
And finally, you aknowledge one of the points that I have tried to make - repeatedly.
The wiring issue.
It seems to me that the question here is whether or not *you* are willing to acknowledge that some part of the wiring diagram has already been "predicted" (By Birkeland), mapped, and verified by in situ measurements. All that remains is to fill in the wiring diagram using in situ measurements over time. We haven't really started to leave the solar system's heliosheath to begin exploring the "bigger picture" wiring diagram, but we have already observed some parts of that circuit much "closer to home". Those in situ observations do verify and "map out" at least *part of* that wiring diagram. Care to acknowledge at least that much?
Adding to my last post ( here ). The basic questions: (to MM)
Looking at data from a 171 Angstrom filter can not assure us that we are looking at Fe IX & X exclusively. Yes, this is where we can compute an absorption, but as I have shown, there are 5105 other transitions possible in the same "filtered" region.
We can also not be assured that an "solid iron core" is producing the magnetic field of the Sun.
I asked about forbidden transitions in the plasma state. I am still interested in what others have to say, but I did a little looking myself.
Let's start with a quick definition:
QUOTE
A forbidden mechanism or forbidden line is a concept in physics/chemistry. It is a spectral line emitted by atoms undergoing energy transitions not normally allowed by the selection rules of quantum mechanics. In chemistry, "forbidden" means absolutely impossible due to natural laws, but with the assumption of an ideal symmetry. Although the transitions are technically "forbidden", there is a non-zero probability of their spontaneous occurrence, should an atom or molecule be raised to an excited state. The transition probability is extremely low, however, so if the atom or molecule can make an allowed transition or be otherwise de-excited to a lower energy state, it will almost certainly do so.
Forbidden emission lines have only been observed in extremely low-density gases and plasmas, either in outer space or in the extreme upper atmosphere of the Earth. Even the hardest laboratory vacuum on Earth is still too dense for forbidden line emission to occur before atoms are collisionally de-excited. However, in space environments, densities may be only a few atoms per cubic centimetre, making atomic collisions unlikely. Under such conditions, forbidden line transitions may account for a significant percentage of the photons emitted.
Forbidden emission lines have only been observed in extremely low-density gases and plasmas, either in outer space or in the extreme upper atmosphere of the Earth. Even the hardest laboratory vacuum on Earth is still too dense for forbidden line emission to occur before atoms are collisionally de-excited. However, in space environments, densities may be only a few atoms per cubic centimetre, making atomic collisions unlikely. Under such conditions, forbidden line transitions may account for a significant percentage of the photons emitted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_transition
Also, a reminder that in these "plasma cells", or "self-organizing boundaries", we will find "vibrational nodes" that produce a vast change in density, compared to the surrounding regions. This is also directly related to "shock zones", where velocities can be seen to be null. De-excitation from collisions will be rare in these conditions. Without going into detail in this post (for brevity), I would just point to the need to discuss "collisionless shocks" as well. Perhaps I will be getting into that on the thread "SEC .. Earthquake precursors .." soon anyway.
An abstract from "Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society":
Effective collision strengths for fine-structure forbidden transitions among the 2s22p3 levels of Ne iv
Ramsbottom, Bell & Keenan
Department of Pure, Applied, and Theoretical Physics, The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A forbidden mechanism or forbidden line is a concept in physics/chemistry. It is a spectral line emitted by atoms undergoing energy transitions not normally allowed by the selection rules of quantum mechanics. In chemistry, "forbidden" means absolutely impossible due to natural laws, but with the assumption of an ideal symmetry. Although the transitions are technically "forbidden", there is a non-zero probability of their spontaneous occurrence, should an atom or molecule be raised to an excited state. The transition probability is extremely low, however, so if the atom or molecule can make an allowed transition or be otherwise de-excited to a lower energy state, it will almost certainly do so. Forbidden emission lines have only been observed in extremely low-density gases and plasmas, either in outer space or in the extreme upper atmosphere of the Earth. Even the hardest laboratory vacuum on Earth is still too dense for forbidden line emission to occur before atoms are collisionally de-excited. However, in space environments, densities may be only a few atoms per cubic centimetre, making atomic collisions unlikely. Under such conditions, forbidden line transitions may account for a significant percentage of the photons emitted. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_transition
Also, a reminder that in these "plasma cells", or "self-organizing boundaries", we will find "vibrational nodes" that produce a vast change in density, compared to the surrounding regions. This is also directly related to "shock zones", where velocities can be seen to be null. De-excitation from collisions will be rare in these conditions. Without going into detail in this post (for brevity), I would just point to the need to discuss "collisionless shocks" as well. Perhaps I will be getting into that on the thread "SEC .. Earthquake precursors .." soon anyway.
An abstract from "Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society":
Effective collision strengths for fine-structure forbidden transitions among the 2s22p3 levels of Ne iv
Ramsbottom, Bell & Keenan
Department of Pure, Applied, and Theoretical Physics, The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN
Effective collision strengths for electron-impact excitation of the N-like ion Ne iv are calculated in the close-coupling approximation using the multichannel R-matrix method. Specific attention is given to the 10 astrophysically important fine-structure forbidden transitions among the 4So, 2Do and 2Po levels in the 2s22p3 ground-state configuration. The expansion of the total wavefunction incorporates the lowest 11 LS eigenstates of Ne iv, consisting of eight n = 2 terms with configurations 2s22p3, 2s2p4 and 2p5, together with three n = 3 states of configuration 2s22p23s. We present in graphical form the effective collision strengths obtained by thermally averaging the collision strengths over a Maxwellian distribution of velocities, for all 10 fine-structure transitions, over the range of electron temperatures log T(K) = 3.6 to log T(K) = 6.1 (the range appropriate for astrophysical applications). Comparisons are made with the earlier, less sophisticated close-coupling calculation of Giles, and excellent agreement is found in the limited temperature region where a comparison is possible [log T(K) = 3.7 to log T(K) = 4.3]. At higher temperatures the present data are the only reliable results currently available.
(emphasis added)
Starting off with general methodology.
Also, since Oxygen is "#3" in abundance in the Sun, the following should be relevant:
From "NASA Technical Reports Server"
Atomic oxygen-metal surface studies as applied to mass spectrometer measurements of upper planetary atmospheres
Sjolander, G. W.
QUOTE
The problem of atomic oxygen loss in mass spectrometer ion sources can be reduced to an understanding of the possible surface interactions between oxygen atoms and the metal surface of the ion source. Results are presented for an experimental study in which an atomic oxygen beam apparatus and a mass spectrometer were used to measure the oxygen atom reflection, recombination, general surface reaction, and occlusion probabilities on six different engineering surfaces as a function of atomic oxygen exposure. The materials studied are gold, Nichrome V, aluminum, titanium, silver, and platinum. The variation in measured reflection probability seems to occur with metals that form oxides, Nichrome V being stable in terms of reflection stability. Recombination is observed an all surfaces except aluminum and platinum. Variation in the complete set of measurements in a single experiment is the result of varying surface conditions.
Again, this is only a "general" link. (related to equipment; see below)
A little more about "measurement methods", from "Physica Scripta. Vol. 58, 599È604, 1998":
Forbidden Transitions in the Visible Spectra of an Electron
Beam Ion Trap (EBIT) Link to PDF
E. Traibert,* P. Beiersdorfer, S. B. Utter and J. R. Crespo Lopez-Urrutia
Department of Physics and Space Technology, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94501, U.S.A.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The problem of atomic oxygen loss in mass spectrometer ion sources can be reduced to an understanding of the possible surface interactions between oxygen atoms and the metal surface of the ion source. Results are presented for an experimental study in which an atomic oxygen beam apparatus and a mass spectrometer were used to measure the oxygen atom reflection, recombination, general surface reaction, and occlusion probabilities on six different engineering surfaces as a function of atomic oxygen exposure. The materials studied are gold, Nichrome V, aluminum, titanium, silver, and platinum. The variation in measured reflection probability seems to occur with metals that form oxides, Nichrome V being stable in terms of reflection stability. Recombination is observed an all surfaces except aluminum and platinum. Variation in the complete set of measurements in a single experiment is the result of varying surface conditions. |
Again, this is only a "general" link. (related to equipment; see below)
A little more about "measurement methods", from "Physica Scripta. Vol. 58, 599È604, 1998":
Forbidden Transitions in the Visible Spectra of an Electron
Beam Ion Trap (EBIT) Link to PDF
E. Traibert,* P. Beiersdorfer, S. B. Utter and J. R. Crespo Lopez-Urrutia
Department of Physics and Space Technology, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94501, U.S.A.
Abstract
In an explorative study of visible spectra from an electron beam ion trap (EBIT), a variety of rare-gas ion species has been excited and stored. The spectra reveal several forbidden lines and also show peculiarities of general interest to EBIT users. ...
QUOTE
Line intensities of spin or electric-dipole forbidden transitions provide important tools in the study of elemental abundances, electron densities, and temperatures in low density terrestrial or astrophysical plasmas by atomic spectroscopy [1, 2]. Increasingly precise calculations are available for slow forbidden decays in few-electron atomic systems [3]. In spite of the important role in plasma diagnostics of, for example, the magnetic dipole (M1) or electric quadrupole (E2) transitions between fine-structure levels in the lower configurations of many ions, there are hardly any measurements [4-6] of such forbidden transition probabilities in multicharged ions.
Forbidden lines in the visible spectrum usually have transition probabilities which relate to atomic level lifetimes in the ms range. Such ms lifetimes are (by several orders of magnitude) too long for experiments using the techniques of traditional time-resolved spectroscopy of fast ion beams [7,8], unless they are combined with a heavy-ion storage ring [9]. In EBIT [10], ions in any charge state can be produced [11] and observed with only insignificant Doppler shift, with a detection efficiency sufficient for precision spectroscopy, and under vacuum conditions much better than in traditional radiofrequency or electrostatic ion traps.
Forbidden lines in the visible spectrum usually have transition probabilities which relate to atomic level lifetimes in the ms range. Such ms lifetimes are (by several orders of magnitude) too long for experiments using the techniques of traditional time-resolved spectroscopy of fast ion beams [7,8], unless they are combined with a heavy-ion storage ring [9]. In EBIT [10], ions in any charge state can be produced [11] and observed with only insignificant Doppler shift, with a detection efficiency sufficient for precision spectroscopy, and under vacuum conditions much better than in traditional radiofrequency or electrostatic ion traps.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Line intensities of spin or electric-dipole forbidden transitions provide important tools in the study of elemental abundances, electron densities, and temperatures in low density terrestrial or astrophysical plasmas by atomic spectroscopy [1, 2]. Increasingly precise calculations are available for slow forbidden decays in few-electron atomic systems [3]. In spite of the important role in plasma diagnostics of, for example, the magnetic dipole (M1) or electric quadrupole (E2) transitions between fine-structure levels in the lower configurations of many ions, there are hardly any measurements [4-6] of such forbidden transition probabilities in multicharged ions. Forbidden lines in the visible spectrum usually have transition probabilities which relate to atomic level lifetimes in the ms range. Such ms lifetimes are (by several orders of magnitude) too long for experiments using the techniques of traditional time-resolved spectroscopy of fast ion beams [7,8], unless they are combined with a heavy-ion storage ring [9]. In EBIT [10], ions in any charge state can be produced [11] and observed with only insignificant Doppler shift, with a detection efficiency sufficient for precision spectroscopy, and under vacuum conditions much better than in traditional radiofrequency or electrostatic ion traps. |
Random cosmic ray events usually affect a few pixels at a time and create signals on the CCD that are several orders of magnitude greater than the
observed UV or optical events.
..
Another problem of the CCD is a certain level of read-out noise added to the data for technical reasons. This (intentionally constant) read-out noise and the true spectral background depend differently on integration time and cannot always be disentangled.
QUOTE
In this visible range, the spectra showed a fair number of lines, most of the weak ones of these are unidentified. Although standard spectral tables contain very many lines from low-charge ions in this range, there was no consistent pattern of charge states or excitation levels that would permit a positive identification of even those lines that showed to be of neutral or low-charge state origin by their localized emission near the gas inlet into the trap (see above). Interspersed between those lines appeared a number of fairly intense lines which by their emission from the whole trap length were judged to originate from high-charge state ions. The standard reference tables are notably devoid of visible lines associated with highly charged ions, as such energy intervals would either correspond to transitions between high-lying levels (and these would be visible only in the absence of competing decay branches to low-lying levels) or to fine structure intervals, that is to forbidden transitions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In this visible range, the spectra showed a fair number of lines, most of the weak ones of these are unidentified. Although standard spectral tables contain very many lines from low-charge ions in this range, there was no consistent pattern of charge states or excitation levels that would permit a positive identification of even those lines that showed to be of neutral or low-charge state origin by their localized emission near the gas inlet into the trap (see above). Interspersed between those lines appeared a number of fairly intense lines which by their emission from the whole trap length were judged to originate from high-charge state ions. The standard reference tables are notably devoid of visible lines associated with highly charged ions, as such energy intervals would either correspond to transitions between high-lying levels (and these would be visible only in the absence of competing decay branches to low-lying levels) or to fine structure intervals, that is to forbidden transitions. |
However, many of the lines persisted from one injected gas to the next,
hours or a day later. This suggests that either some materials get trapped in surfaces or recesses of the vacuum vessel and outgas for a long time, or that some of these lines do not relate at all to the gases that were leaked in.
..
We also observed some of these unidentified lines to build up over time. With a freshly started EBIT they would not show, but after, say, half an hour they would appear and then persist for the rest of the run. As the spatial characteristics
of their emission point to highly charged ions and thus to forbidden transitions, these mystery lines are a nuisance (possibly blending lines of interest)..
QUOTE
Hence we assume that many, if not most, of these lines relate to forbidden transitions in charge states lower than q\20. This includes the ions with 3dn electron configurations, for which little data on forbidden lines are available.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hence we assume that many, if not most, of these lines relate to forbidden transitions in charge states lower than q\20. This includes the ions with 3dn electron configurations, for which little data on forbidden lines are available. |
The present technique can easily be extended to systematic surveys of forbidden transitions in many ion spectra, in particular to those of interest in astrophysics and plasma diagnostic. For the probabilities of forbidden transitions, this study covered a particularly bright specimen and improved on the available data.
(emphasis added throughout)
The technical problems of our measuring devices should be questioned before (IMO) the underlying theories. However, if these problems can be traced back far enough into theory development, it may change our entire picture.
Finally, the closest that I could find, specifically to the problem at hand, is from:
Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series, Vol. 4:Origin and Evolution of the Elements, 2004ed. A. McWilliam and M. Rauch (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
Tracing Iron Abundance with Fe II Spectra in Astrophysical Plasma Link
E. VERNER
IACS/Dept. of Physics, Catholic Univ. of America and NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt MD 20771
QUOTE
A large number of the allowed and forbidden Fe II lines are present in a broad range of emission spectra in a variety of astronomical sources. The Fe II emission spectrum arises from thin "envelopes" around a variety of objects such as stars, H II regions, novae, supernova remnants, active galaxies and quasars. The high abundance of iron in the Universe and the very rich spectrum of Fe II explain why this is so. The iron abundance ranks only after H, He, C, N, O, and Ne in a solar composition, and is comparable in abundance to S, Mg, and Si.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A large number of the allowed and forbidden Fe II lines are present in a broad range of emission spectra in a variety of astronomical sources. The Fe II emission spectrum arises from thin "envelopes" around a variety of objects such as stars, H II regions, novae, supernova remnants, active galaxies and quasars. The high abundance of iron in the Universe and the very rich spectrum of Fe II explain why this is so. The iron abundance ranks only after H, He, C, N, O, and Ne in a solar composition, and is comparable in abundance to S, Mg, and Si. |
The pioneering work on the term analysis of singly ionized iron (Russell 1926) reported 61 energy levels. Now more than 1000 energy levels of Fe II are known (Johansson private communication 2002). The Fe II spectrum has a rich and complicated mixture of forbidden and permitted lines. The first permitted transition is possible only from 64th level to the first one, ..
In a case when only lower levels are populated, only forbidden lines take place. With the increasing density, higher levels are populated by collisions, and the permitted lines are observed. Many tens of terms, corresponding to hundreds of levels, contribute. Laboratory spectroscopy is not complete and only in the past few years have many of the radiative and collision rates been determined. First optical and then UV and IR spectral windows have become available to measure the full spectrum in astrophysical sources.
QUOTE
The long-term hope is to determine the abundance of iron. Most of the evolutionary models of galaxies predict increase in Fe abundances after 1-2 Gyr by factors of 2 to 10 relative to solar (Hamann & Ferland, 1993). This overabundance might explain the strong Fe II emission observed in many QSOs and AGN. The expected 1 Gyr delay from the onset of star formation could therefore be used as a clock to constrain QSO ages if accurate Fe abundances are measured. If star formation has a significant contribution from very massive objects (Heger & Woosley 2002), then substantial Fe production can occur at times earlier than 1 Gyr. The answer to this question has important consequences not only for the evolution of the elements, but possibly for understanding the formation of AGNs as well.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The long-term hope is to determine the abundance of iron. Most of the evolutionary models of galaxies predict increase in Fe abundances after 1-2 Gyr by factors of 2 to 10 relative to solar (Hamann & Ferland, 1993). This overabundance might explain the strong Fe II emission observed in many QSOs and AGN. The expected 1 Gyr delay from the onset of star formation could therefore be used as a clock to constrain QSO ages if accurate Fe abundances are measured. If star formation has a significant contribution from very massive objects (Heger & Woosley 2002), then substantial Fe production can occur at times earlier than 1 Gyr. The answer to this question has important consequences not only for the evolution of the elements, but possibly for understanding the formation of AGNs as well. |
One of the simplest applications of the Fe II emission model is the interpretation of the forbidden infrared and optical [Fe II ] lines from H II regions. The Orion Nebula is the defining blister H II region (Zuckerman 1973, Balick, Gammon, & Hjellming 1974). A star cluster ionizes the skin of the molecular cloud, causing an expansion away from the molecular cloud towards us. The H II region is in photoionization equilibrium with a density in concert with that of the background photo-dissociation region (Tielens & Hollenbach 1985), and both regions are dusty with high depletions of the refractory elements (Rubin, Dufour,& Walter 1993).
QUOTE
In 1986, the object known as Eta Carinae was resolved by speckle interferometry into four components (Weigelt & Ebersberger, 1986). Today we name them the Weigelt components A, B, C, and D. The bright component A is due to the central star, while B through D are bright gaseous condensations. The size of the Weigelt Blobs B & D (thereafter BD) are about that of our Solar System (Davidson & Humphreys 1997).
..
The spectrum of the BD Blobs differs from that of the central source. The stellar spectrum is rich in broad H I and Fe II permitted lines (Hillier et al. 2001). In contrast, narrow forbidden Fe II lines dominate in the BD spectrum.
..
The spectrum of the BD Blobs differs from that of the central source. The stellar spectrum is rich in broad H I and Fe II permitted lines (Hillier et al. 2001). In contrast, narrow forbidden Fe II lines dominate in the BD spectrum.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In 1986, the object known as Eta Carinae was resolved by speckle interferometry into four components (Weigelt & Ebersberger, 1986). Today we name them the Weigelt components A, B, C, and D. The bright component A is due to the central star, while B through D are bright gaseous condensations. The size of the Weigelt Blobs B & D (thereafter BD) are about that of our Solar System (Davidson & Humphreys 1997). .. The spectrum of the BD Blobs differs from that of the central source. The stellar spectrum is rich in broad H I and Fe II permitted lines (Hillier et al. 2001). In contrast, narrow forbidden Fe II lines dominate in the BD spectrum. |
Specifically we address the following questions: Why do we see so many strong Fe II and [Fe II] lines? What is temperature and density of the emitting region? What excitation process dominates: collisional excitation, pumping by the incident stellar continuum, or fluorescence by Ly ? And, can we explain the Fe II emission by a single density model?
(I'll leave the details for those who wish to read the paper)
QUOTE
The ionization structure in AGN (Active Galactic Nuclei) is very different from that of H II regions. The clouds can be thick enough to be highly ionized (N4+,O5+) at their illuminated face and almost completely neutral at the back.
..
Because of the extremely complicated energy level configuration of the Fe II atom, line intensities are not simple to calculate. There are several hundreds transitions of Fe II to be considered, many with large optical depth. An additional complication is the large number of wavelength coincidences of different Fe II lines. Their number at high densities (>1010cm−3) can reach 1000. Line overlap and self-pumping is a very important population process for the levels that must be taken into account.
..
Because of the extremely complicated energy level configuration of the Fe II atom, line intensities are not simple to calculate. There are several hundreds transitions of Fe II to be considered, many with large optical depth. An additional complication is the large number of wavelength coincidences of different Fe II lines. Their number at high densities (>1010cm−3) can reach 1000. Line overlap and self-pumping is a very important population process for the levels that must be taken into account.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The ionization structure in AGN (Active Galactic Nuclei) is very different from that of H II regions. The clouds can be thick enough to be highly ionized (N4+,O5+) at their illuminated face and almost completely neutral at the back. .. Because of the extremely complicated energy level configuration of the Fe II atom, line intensities are not simple to calculate. There are several hundreds transitions of Fe II to be considered, many with large optical depth. An additional complication is the large number of wavelength coincidences of different Fe II lines. Their number at high densities (>1010cm−3) can reach 1000. Line overlap and self-pumping is a very important population process for the levels that must be taken into account. |
Our earlier 371-level Fe+ ion model (for energies < 11.6 eV), incorporated into the code CLOUDY, predicts the emission of 68,635 Fe II lines (Verner et al. 1999). Tests of the new, expanded 830-level model (344,035 transitions) have already demonstrated greatly improved results.
QUOTE
The answer to whether the Fe/ abundance ratio has a sharp break at 1 Gyr has important consequences not only for the evolution of the elements, but possibly for understanding the formation of active galactic nuclei (AGN) as well.
..
The delay time in Fe enrichment can be estimated from observations by plotting the observed Fe II (UV)/Mg II emission ratio (or the Fe/Mg abundance) as a function of redshift.
..
The delay time in Fe enrichment can be estimated from observations by plotting the observed Fe II (UV)/Mg II emission ratio (or the Fe/Mg abundance) as a function of redshift.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The answer to whether the Fe/ abundance ratio has a sharp break at 1 Gyr has important consequences not only for the evolution of the elements, but possibly for understanding the formation of active galactic nuclei (AGN) as well. .. The delay time in Fe enrichment can be estimated from observations by plotting the observed Fe II (UV)/Mg II emission ratio (or the Fe/Mg abundance) as a function of redshift. |
The large velocity dispersion of Fe II emission in BLRs, the large number of overlapping lines, and the overall richness of the Fe II spectrum (Verner et al. 1999) forms broad emission blends, producing a "Fe II pseudo-continuum" and/or prominent features from the UV through visual (4000−6000 Å; hereafter Fe II (Optical)) to IR.
..
We conclude that abundance is not the only factor that makes Fe II emission strong over a wide range of wavelengths and is not even the strongest factor. Our modeling indicates that microturbulence also leads to preferential strengthening of the Fe II emission in UV.
..
Due to strong Fe II line overlap, we must adopt a wavelength band approach to get constraints on density, radiation field, and turbulence in BLRs.
(emphasis added throughout)
regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 21 2008, 06:44 AM)
I have tried to explain to you that I object to your use of the phrase 'Metaphysics' when referring to the λCDM model, because of it's common use as a perjurative, and yet you persist in using it.
You're evidently still intent on killing the messenger.
There is a distinct physical difference between empirically tested physical science, and someone's faith in constructs that lack physical (empirical) support in controlled observations.
Let's just start with inflation. No other known vector or scalar field in nature acts like inflation. Every other field in nature experiences a significant decrease in density over several exponential increases in volume. Nothing even remotely like inflation has even been shown to exist in a lab, anywhere on earth. Now you're welcome to put faith in that metaphysical concept, but it absolutely and positively is a metaphysical concept because there is no empirical evidence that it exists to be found anywhere in nature or in any controlled experiment. Lambda-CDM theory is a act of faith.
I don't practice EU theory from a "big picture" perspective. I take the Birkeland approach here and base my beliefs on what I can actually empirically demonstrate and measure. It's a "little picture first" approach to cosmology, and it's based upon classic methods of empirical science, real physical science.
It is not my fault that you put faith inflation, nor is it my fault that inflation is a metaphysical construct. You're simply blaming the messenger here for something that is entirely impersonal and that is unrelated to me personally. I just notice it and mentioned it, along with hundreds of other scientists on the planet.
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
You're evidently still intent on killing the messenger.
There is a distinct physical difference between empirically tested physical science, and someone's faith in constructs that lack physical (empirical) support in controlled observations.
Let's just start with inflation. No other known vector or scalar field in nature acts like inflation. Every other field in nature experiences a significant decrease in density over several exponential increases in volume. Nothing even remotely like inflation has even been shown to exist in a lab, anywhere on earth. Now you're welcome to put faith in that metaphysical concept, but it absolutely and positively is a metaphysical concept because there is no empirical evidence that it exists to be found anywhere in nature or in any controlled experiment. Lambda-CDM theory is a act of faith.
I don't practice EU theory from a "big picture" perspective. I take the Birkeland approach here and base my beliefs on what I can actually empirically demonstrate and measure. It's a "little picture first" approach to cosmology, and it's based upon classic methods of empirical science, real physical science.
It is not my fault that you put faith inflation, nor is it my fault that inflation is a metaphysical construct. You're simply blaming the messenger here for something that is entirely impersonal and that is unrelated to me personally. I just notice it and mentioned it, along with hundreds of other scientists on the planet.
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 22 2008, 05:41 AM)
You're evidently still intent on killing the messenger.
There is a distinct physical difference between empirically tested physical science, and someone's faith in constructs that lack physical (empirical) support in controlled observations.
Let's just start with inflation. No other known vector or scalar field in nature acts like inflation. Every other field in nature experiences a significant decrease in density over several exponential increases in volume. Nothing even remotely like inflation has even been shown to exist in a lab, anywhere on earth. Now you're welcome to put faith in that metaphysical concept, but it absolutely and positively is a metaphysical concept because there is no empirical evidence that it exists to be found anywhere in nature or in any controlled experiment. Lambda-CDM theory is a act of faith.
I don't practice EU theory from a "big picture" perspective. I take the Birkeland approach here and base my beliefs on what I can actually empirically demonstrate and measure. It's a "little picture first" approach to cosmology, and it's based upon classic methods of empirical science, real physical science.
It is not my fault that you put faith inflation, nor is it my fault that inflation is a metaphysical construct. You're simply blaming the messenger here for something that is entirely impersonal and that is unrelated to me personally. I just notice it and mentioned it, along with hundreds of other scientists on the planet.
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
Ugh,
Point flew right by again I see.
Show me where I blamed you for aznything. I didn't.
All I have simply done is ask you to stop using a particular word because of its common use as a perjurative. That's it. Nothing more.
And once again, you're blaiming me for your misconceptions.
You keep blithering (hey, if you're allowed to use perjuratives, so am I) on about Guths inflation, in spite of it having been pointed out to you that modern inflation theories bare little of no resemblance to Guths inflation.
More over, obviously even Guths inflation predicts that the strength of what ever drove inflation decreased with time, because otherwise any inflation theory would predict that the universe is still expanding exponentialy.
QUOTE
All I have simply done is ask you to stop using a particular word because of its common use as a perjurative. That's it. Nothing more.
What specific word that clearly distinguishes the difference between tested physical science and untested and unfalsifiable theoretical constructs would make you more comfortable?
Please point me to any other scalar or vector field in nature that acts like inflation and that has been shown to increase it's volume exponentially many times without experiencing a significant decrease in density?
Hi all,
I think that "MM" (I hope you don't mind that), and Trip are are as close to "apologizing" as they are going to get. Not to be rude, but this is a Forum, and if all you are going to do is go on and on with the "personal" sleights, then you could do so via "PM". You both can move past this, and get into some productive discussions with the rest of us, as well.
Just don't use the word "meta-physical" anymore, because, socially, it has come to be associated with things like "telekinesis" and "ghosts". Those things, while many people believe them, have no Scientific justification. The "current paradigm" (a suggestion to replace meta-physical with) does have Scientific reasoning behind it, even if later, it proves to be off base. We did not get to our current state on the shoulders of idiots.
Right now, there is another question on the table, directed to MM. I am stating the same reasoning that you have used: you are basing your framework on "non-falsifiable" data. What I mean by that is, that the assumption that this data is fully accurate, and without possibility of being "off base". In the last 2 posts, I have clearly framed this claim with technical limitations.
Have you offered a "glimpse" of what lies in "sight" beyond 171 A ? (IE. "penetrated" into the area that you claim exists)
Have you brought back physical samples for us to examine, or done so "on site"? Is this possible right now?
Have you offered a mechanism that allows a "rigid iron surface" to rotate at different rates (poles vs. equator), and to "congeal" at the poles? (crossing this "velocity boundary")
You ask, "Please point me to any other scalar or vector field in nature that acts like inflation and that has been shown to increase it's volume exponentially many times without experiencing a significant decrease in density? ". I will gladly supply you with an example, after you have addressed the issues already on the table.
regards,
T.Roc
I think that "MM" (I hope you don't mind that), and Trip are are as close to "apologizing" as they are going to get. Not to be rude, but this is a Forum, and if all you are going to do is go on and on with the "personal" sleights, then you could do so via "PM".
You both can move past this, and get into some productive discussions with the rest of us, as well.Just don't use the word "meta-physical" anymore, because, socially, it has come to be associated with things like "telekinesis" and "ghosts". Those things, while many people believe them, have no Scientific justification. The "current paradigm" (a suggestion to replace meta-physical with) does have Scientific reasoning behind it, even if later, it proves to be off base. We did not get to our current state on the shoulders of idiots.
Right now, there is another question on the table, directed to MM. I am stating the same reasoning that you have used: you are basing your framework on "non-falsifiable" data. What I mean by that is, that the assumption that this data is fully accurate, and without possibility of being "off base". In the last 2 posts, I have clearly framed this claim with technical limitations.
Have you offered a "glimpse" of what lies in "sight" beyond 171 A ? (IE. "penetrated" into the area that you claim exists)
Have you brought back physical samples for us to examine, or done so "on site"? Is this possible right now?
Have you offered a mechanism that allows a "rigid iron surface" to rotate at different rates (poles vs. equator), and to "congeal" at the poles? (crossing this "velocity boundary")
You ask, "Please point me to any other scalar or vector field in nature that acts like inflation and that has been shown to increase it's volume exponentially many times without experiencing a significant decrease in density? ". I will gladly supply you with an example, after you have addressed the issues already on the table.
regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE
The main thing is, I don't understand/agree with the term "solid" being used, nor can I see that the "picture" ends on "iron" as the dominant element.
Actually the term "rigid" was used (intentionally) and composition of elements relates directly beck to Manuel's data. I came to the conclusion that the sun had a mostly iron shell based on the satellite data too, but Manuel's work is more definite in that respect.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The main thing is, I don't understand/agree with the term "solid" being used, nor can I see that the "picture" ends on "iron" as the dominant element. |
Actually the term "rigid" was used (intentionally) and composition of elements relates directly beck to Manuel's data. I came to the conclusion that the sun had a mostly iron shell based on the satellite data too, but Manuel's work is more definite in that respect.
I agree with Trippy, that you seem to be using the same principle against current theory, to support yours. Namely, that the "view" that we have had is not the whole picture (I agree with that), and then, you wish us to "stop" at 171 A, and call it quits.
Not at all. I'm simply noticing that different wavelengths give us a different set of observations with different characteristics. I only have access to very specific wavelengths however, particularly when we start looking at individual filters on individual satellites. The SOHO and TRACE filters for instance are limited to three iron ion filters (171, 195 and 284) and one helium ion wavelength 304A. We get very different images from the iron ion wavelengths compared to the helium ion wavelengths.
QUOTE
This is why I ask, "why stop at 171 A, as if this is the last layer?". It seems a bit premature to assume that we have an iron core (let alone a solid one). The temperatures DO drop way down, inside a CH, below the layer of interest, but never to a point to solidify (at least with the data we have now).
I'm not actually trying to "stop" at any specific wavelength, I'm just working with the specific wavelengths that are available to me. I've used RHESSI data in my presentations too from the gamma ray spectrum, and I originally became interested in solar satellite images via the Yohkoh program which produced mostly x-ray images of the sun.
I'm simply noting that some wavelengths provide a very different kind of data than other wavelengths. x-rays seem to be absorbed by the photosphere, whereas the iron ion wavelengths are not as easily absorbed by the photosphere.
As far as what the approach itself might be doing to complicate the interpretation process, we need to look at what effect has in other wavelengths. We don't get long lasting (2 hour plus) rigid features in 304A RD images. Why not? That's the question that we have to ask ourselves. Why are different wavelengths producing different sets of patterns, some showing "structures" lasting only a few minutes (G-Band for instance), while other wavelengths show rigid structures that last for hours ans sometimes days at a time.
While I observe this "churning effect' and differential rotation patterns in the helium ion images, including the RD images, I see no such differential pattern of rotation in the 171A images. Why is that?
Now of course when we apply a Doppler imaging technique related to Nickel ion wavelengths, we also find rigid features located under the photosphere. Heliosiesmology data shows us that there is a "stratification subsurface" sitting at a shallow depth under the photosphere. What is that doing sitting in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone according to standard gas model theory?
It's not just one thing or one wavelength that I'm basing these ideas upon, but rather it's based on a wealth of information related to many wavelengths, heliosiesmology data, Doppler images and nuclear chemistry data. It is not as though I'm trying to build a federal case upon a single image or a single wavelength.
Does this help answer your questions at all?
I also wanted to mention that this solar model has actually been "lab tested" to a great degree by Kristian Birkeland. Warning: The following link is to a PDF file of Birkeland's work that is over 160 megabytes in size.
http://ia340919.us.archive.org/2/items/nor...p01chririch.pdf
Birkeland not only tinkered with this solar model, he actually made predictions about the sun based on his simulations. He predicted and simulated a lot of the higher energy emission patterns we observe on the sun, including coronal loops and x-ray jets.
It would be inaccurate to assume here that there is any single piece of data that is critical in this model. In other words, this model comes from the analysis of a lot of different types of data, from nuclear chemistry data, from heliosiesmology data, from satellite image data, to controlled laboratory testing. It's not as though I would attempt to promote a new solar model based on only a couple of satellite images. There is a lot of different data here to consider, and a lot of different pieces of data that all point us towards Birkeland's early solar models.
This composite TRACE (blue)/Yohkoh (yellow) image shows us the absorption pattern of the solar atmosphere on two different wavelengths. The x-ray photons (in yellow) are mostly absorbed by the atmosphere of the sun, whereas the 171A wavelength seen by TRACE is more easily able to penetrate through the solar atmosphere. We can see the bases of the coronal loops that are imaged by Trace cannot even been seen by Yohkoh x-ray images until they come up through the photosphere and into the corona. Different wavelengths of light will give us different views of the solar atmosphere and different views of the sun's activities. I'm not intentionally trying to limit our exploration to any specific wavelength, it's just that certain wavelengths will naturally allow me to support my ideas (like the iron ion wavelengths) about the sun's surface, and other ones (like those x-rays) will not penetrate deeply enough into the solar atmosphere to be of any use to me as it relates to demonstrate a rigid surface. On the other hand, those x-rays are easily recreated here on Earth by running electrical current through iron. In fact we can run electrical current through many materials and generate x-rays.
The Rhessi gamma ray images also support an electric solar model. When we point Rhessi at the Earth, we see intermittent gamma ray emissions coming from the Earth's atmosphere that we have traced back to electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. Likewise we can point that same instrument at the solar atmosphere and see gamma rays coming from electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. It's just one more verified "prediction" of electrical discharge theory as put forth by Dr. Charles Bruce back in the 60's.
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
As I said before, this solar model is supported by many types of photons and many types of data, not just a single wavelength of light, or a single type of data. It's the whole set of emissions, and the patterns of these emissions that lead us back to Kristian Birkeland's early solar models, not just one type of emission, or one pattern of emissions. It's the fact that he created jets and loops, rings and aurora in these experiments and the fact that all these phenomenon have been seen in astronomy that make a strong case for EU theory, not just one thing, or one image, or one wavelength of light.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 22 2008, 06:44 AM)
What specific word that clearly distinguishes the difference between tested physical science and untested and unfalsifiable theoretical constructs would make you more comfortable?
Please point me to any other scalar or vector field in nature that acts like inflation and that has been shown to increase it's volume exponentially many times without experiencing a significant decrease in density?
Point me to the evidence that says electrical currents flow between the sun and any other object in the galaxy.
Point me to the evidence that shows that electrical currents flow between the Milkyway and any other object in the universe.
Point me to the evidence that says that emperically derived relationships between mass, temperature, and colour are wrong.
Point to any form of Iron capable of remaining solid at 6000k and a pressure of less then one atmosphere.
Point me to any piece of EU literature that specifically predicts the existence of a single 130 mega-parsec wide hole in the universe.
The list goes on.
QUOTE
Point me to the evidence that says electrical currents flow between the sun and any other object in the galaxy.
The definition of a magnetic rope in MHD theory according to the father of MHD theory:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Point me to the evidence that says electrical currents flow between the sun and any other object in the galaxy. |
The definition of a magnetic rope in MHD theory according to the father of MHD theory:
"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/a...ern_lights.html
QUOTE
"NASA's Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) mission observed the dynamics of a rapidly developing substorm, confirmed the existence of giant magnetic ropes and witnessed small explosions in the outskirts of Earth's magnetic field. The findings will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco in December."...
"Angelopoulos was quite impressed with the substorm's power and he estimated the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion Joules. That's equivalent to the energy of one magnitude 5.5 earthquake . Where does all that energy come from? THEMIS may have found the answer.
"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," said David Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."
"Angelopoulos was quite impressed with the substorm's power and he estimated the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion Joules. That's equivalent to the energy of one magnitude 5.5 earthquake . Where does all that energy come from? THEMIS may have found the answer.
"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," said David Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."
There's nothing like pumping an additional five hundred thousands billion Joules through the system to really make things 'entertaining'. Before we even look at any big picture forms of energy transfer, how about that current flow? Shall we simply ignore it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "NASA's Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) mission observed the dynamics of a rapidly developing substorm, confirmed the existence of giant magnetic ropes and witnessed small explosions in the outskirts of Earth's magnetic field. The findings will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco in December."... "Angelopoulos was quite impressed with the substorm's power and he estimated the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion Joules. That's equivalent to the energy of one magnitude 5.5 earthquake . Where does all that energy come from? THEMIS may have found the answer. "The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," said David Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras." |
There's nothing like pumping an additional five hundred thousands billion Joules through the system to really make things 'entertaining'. Before we even look at any big picture forms of energy transfer, how about that current flow? Shall we simply ignore it?
Point to any form of Iron capable of remaining solid at 6000k and a pressure of less then one atmosphere.
The surface is probably less than 1500K. There is evidently a cooler thicker set of plasma layers that sit under the photosphere since we observe plasma temperatures that are several thousand degrees cooler than the photosphere during sunspot activity. All the inside layers of plasma are thicker and cooler than the outside layers and the photosphere is only unique in that it mostly composed of neon. It is hotter and thinner than the silicon layer below it.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 23 2008, 06:01 AM)
The definition of a magnetic rope in MHD theory according to the father of MHD theory:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/a...ern_lights.html
There's nothing like pumping an additional five hundred thousands billion Joules through the system to really make things 'entertaining'. Before we even look at any big picture forms of energy transfer, how about that current flow? Shall we simply ignore it?
This isn't proof. I already know about the flows of ions within our own solar system.
Hold yourself to your own standards.
Show me a paper that describes a measurement that supports your theory.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/a...ern_lights.html
There's nothing like pumping an additional five hundred thousands billion Joules through the system to really make things 'entertaining'. Before we even look at any big picture forms of energy transfer, how about that current flow? Shall we simply ignore it?
This isn't proof. I already know about the flows of ions within our own solar system.
Hold yourself to your own standards.
Show me a paper that describes a measurement that supports your theory.
QUOTE
This isn't proof.
It is however *evidence* that current flows between objects in space.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This isn't proof. |
It is however *evidence* that current flows between objects in space.
I already know about the flows of ions within our own solar system.
These are not simple ion flows inside of our solar system. This is a current carrying plasma thread/rope that directly connected the sun's atmosphere to the Earth's outer plasma layers and dumped an *additional* amount of of current directly into the Earth's electromagnetic field. That's not just an ion flow, that's a *current flow* and an *electron flow* between objects in space. Now I should mention here that Birkeland actually *predicted* these kinds of connections between the sun and the Earth over 100 years ago based on his lab simulations. Pure coincidence in your opinion?
QUOTE
Hold yourself to your own standards.
My own standards are nothing more than the classic scientific standards. That method requires that all idea be empirically tested in controlled conditions (which Birkeland did already) and then these controlled tests are compared to in situ measurements (which Birkeland also did). It is simply the classic scientific method, nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with writing papers. It has everything to do with empirical testing
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hold yourself to your own standards. |
My own standards are nothing more than the classic scientific standards. That method requires that all idea be empirically tested in controlled conditions (which Birkeland did already) and then these controlled tests are compared to in situ measurements (which Birkeland also did). It is simply the classic scientific method, nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with writing papers. It has everything to do with empirical testing
Show me a paper that describes a measurement that supports your theory.
I don't think they've actually released any papers describing this event.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 22 2008, 10:29 AM)
Point me to the evidence that says electrical currents flow between the sun and any other object in the galaxy.
Point me to the evidence that shows that electrical currents flow between the Milkyway and any other object in the universe.
Good question.
Point me to the evidence that shows that electrical currents flow between the Milkyway and any other object in the universe.
Good question.
- The Heliospheric current sheet is evidence that a current flows between the Sun and the heliopause/plasmapause, giving rise to a Heliospheric current circuit (see links for peer-reviewed citations). It is due to the rotation of a plasma in magnetic field.
. - In 2007, the Themis satellite "found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun"[Ref] The NASA press release described it as "a burst of electrical current", which is a field-aligned current, sometimes called a Birkeland current
- Peratt, Anthony L., "The evidence for electrical currents in cosmic plasma", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 26-32. (Full text, PDF)
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 23 2008, 07:33 AM)
These are not simple ion flows inside of our solar system. This is a current carrying plasma thread/rope that directly connected the sun's atmosphere to the Earth's outer plasma layers and dumped an *additional* amount of of current directly into the Earth's electromagnetic field. That's not just an ion flow, that's a *current flow* and an *electron flow* between objects in space. Now I should mention here that Birkeland actually *predicted* these kinds of connections between the sun and the Earth over 100 years ago based on his lab simulations. Pure coincidence in your opinion?
For ##### sake.
Quit flogging this dead horse.
I have never ONCE disputed the Themis findings, nor how the realted to Birkelands thread.
This, truely is a strawman. You're arguing something that I haven't debated, nor called into question.
Sheesh, get real.
For ##### sake.
Quit flogging this dead horse.
I have never ONCE disputed the Themis findings, nor how the realted to Birkelands thread.
This, truely is a strawman. You're arguing something that I haven't debated, nor called into question.
Sheesh, get real.
QUOTE
For ##### sake.
Quit flogging this dead horse.
I have never ONCE disputed the Themis findings, nor how the realted to Birkelands thread.
Quit flogging this dead horse.
I have never ONCE disputed the Themis findings, nor how the realted to Birkelands thread.
Well then Trippy, let me be the first to welcome you to EU theory. You're a "believer" like me now in the fact that the physical bodies in our universe can and do carry electrical currents through them as Birkeland suggested 100 years ago. Now it is simply a matter of "how much current flow is involved and a matter of mapping where the currents flow to and from.
As below, perhaps above. If the sun and the Earth exchange electrical energy through the Earth's magnetosphere, so the sun may exchange electrical energy with the larger interstellar universe through the sun's heliosheath. It's really only a scaling issue and a wiring issue from that point forward. Galaxy cores may serve the same purpose as their solar counterparts and interact with larger intergalactic currents. The galaxy core interacts with these intergalactic currents though it's electromagnetic fields and its larger plasma sheaths. The whole thing scales very nicely, and the plasmas of the universe create various double layers and provide the cellular structures that make it all work. FYI, the testable physics behind plasma physics has already been shown to be scalable over many OOM. As far as we know, the whole thing is simply a repeat of the same set of "structures" on ever expanding scales.
Congratulations on taking your first few small steps as an EU proponent Trippy.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 24 2008, 06:11 AM)
Well then Trippy, let me be the first to welcome you to EU theory. You're a "believer" like me now in the fact that the physical bodies in our universe can and do carry electrical currents through them as Birkeland suggested 100 years ago. Now it is simply a matter of "how much current flow is involved and a matter of mapping where the currents flow to and from.
As below, perhaps above. If the sun and the Earth exchange electrical energy through the Earth's magnetosphere, so the sun may exchange electrical energy with the larger interstellar universe through the sun's heliosheath. It's really only a scaling issue and a wiring issue from that point forward. Galaxy cores may serve the same purpose as their solar counterparts and interact with larger intergalactic currents. The galaxy core interacts with these intergalactic currents though it's electromagnetic fields and its larger plasma sheaths. The whole thing scales very nicely, and the plasmas of the universe create various double layers and provide the cellular structures that make it all work. FYI, the testable physics behind plasma physics has already been shown to be scalable over many OOM. As far as we know, the whole thing is simply a repeat of the same set of "structures" on ever expanding scales.
Congratulations on taking your first few small steps as an EU proponent Trippy.
Pffft.
No i'm not.
Not even close.
And finally, you aknowledge one of the points that I have tried to make - repeatedly.
The wiring issue.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 23 2008, 05:32 PM)
QUOTE
Pffft.
No i'm not.
Not even close.
No i'm not.
Not even close.
Sure you're close as close to Earth as EU theory gets Trippy. You just acknowledged that there is a current carrying "rope" that THEMIS has seen flowing between the solar atmosphere and the Earth. That is the closest part of the electrical "wiring" circuit that we might hope to map and acknowledge. Now keep in mind that this was only the *extra* electrical energy that just happened to flow between the sun and the Earth that day, in addition to the other Birkeland currents that we observe on a regular and basis.
Just as the Earth interacts with the sun through it's electromagnetic plasma layers in the magnetosphere, so too, the sun interacts with interstellar winds through it's heliosheath. The center of mass of the galaxy interacts with the intergalactic winds though it's electromagnetic fields. It's simply a scaling issue Trippy. You may not be willing to follow the circuitry outside of the solar system, but you seem to acknowledge it has one inside of the solar system. That's the first "baby step" in EU theory Trippy.
The sun electrically interacts with the items in orbit around it. The center of mass of the galaxy electrically interacts with the items in orbit around it too. The whole thing is just repetitive process of scaling. EU theory has no need of any "dark forces" to explain these interactions between objects in space. The objects in space are electromagnetically intertwined and interwoven by the currents that traverse the objects. It's just a matter of mapping out the wiring diagram and scaling it to size.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Pffft. No i'm not. Not even close. |
Sure you're close as close to Earth as EU theory gets Trippy. You just acknowledged that there is a current carrying "rope" that THEMIS has seen flowing between the solar atmosphere and the Earth. That is the closest part of the electrical "wiring" circuit that we might hope to map and acknowledge. Now keep in mind that this was only the *extra* electrical energy that just happened to flow between the sun and the Earth that day, in addition to the other Birkeland currents that we observe on a regular and basis.
Just as the Earth interacts with the sun through it's electromagnetic plasma layers in the magnetosphere, so too, the sun interacts with interstellar winds through it's heliosheath. The center of mass of the galaxy interacts with the intergalactic winds though it's electromagnetic fields. It's simply a scaling issue Trippy. You may not be willing to follow the circuitry outside of the solar system, but you seem to acknowledge it has one inside of the solar system. That's the first "baby step" in EU theory Trippy.
The sun electrically interacts with the items in orbit around it. The center of mass of the galaxy electrically interacts with the items in orbit around it too. The whole thing is just repetitive process of scaling. EU theory has no need of any "dark forces" to explain these interactions between objects in space. The objects in space are electromagnetically intertwined and interwoven by the currents that traverse the objects. It's just a matter of mapping out the wiring diagram and scaling it to size.
And finally, you aknowledge one of the points that I have tried to make - repeatedly.
The wiring issue.
It seems to me that the question here is whether or not *you* are willing to acknowledge that some part of the wiring diagram has already been "predicted" (By Birkeland), mapped, and verified by in situ measurements. All that remains is to fill in the wiring diagram using in situ measurements over time. We haven't really started to leave the solar system's heliosheath to begin exploring the "bigger picture" wiring diagram, but we have already observed some parts of that circuit much "closer to home". Those in situ observations do verify and "map out" at least *part of* that wiring diagram. Care to acknowledge at least that much?
Hi all,
MM, you responded to the "solid" question, with "it's just "rigid". OK, but my point was "what state of matter are you suggesting that the iron is in?" Plasma? or..
Fine; me too. The reason I used "171 A" as an example, is because it had been the topic in this thread, and it is the first image on your website.
But make no mistake here, my argument is not limited to just "one wavelength" either. The points I made apply across the spectrum, to any thing other that the "lab based", well controlled, "approximations" that the current paradigm stands on. This applies to Trip's comment as well: " Point me to the evidence that says that empirically derived relationships between mass, temperature, and colour are wrong." [ see this post ]
I'm not lame enough to claim that it's "wrong". We know that it is entirely self-consistent. It was designed that way. However, the problems that I pointed out are real. We do NOT "know everything" that is to be known on this, yet. There IS room for error, some being quite great. There is NO clear Scientific consensus, even as to "what an electron is", or "what a photon is"; these are titles and subjects of papers still being published today, as well as symposiums, etc. The fact that the name "forbidden transitions" was given, and now, must be "retracted" by adjustment to theory (as is all to common today), demonstrates this point. As long as we start with a "round horse" approximation (joke), then we have certain events "forbidden". In the "real world", things are not so "clean".
Fine; me too. The reason I used "171 A" as an example, is because it had been the topic in this thread, and it is the first image on your website.
But make no mistake here, my argument is not limited to just "one wavelength" either. The points I made apply across the spectrum, to any thing other that the "lab based", well controlled, "approximations" that the current paradigm stands on. This applies to Trip's comment as well: " Point me to the evidence that says that empirically derived relationships between mass, temperature, and colour are wrong." [ see this post ]
I'm not lame enough to claim that it's "wrong". We know that it is entirely self-consistent. It was designed that way. However, the problems that I pointed out are real. We do NOT "know everything" that is to be known on this, yet. There IS room for error, some being quite great. There is NO clear Scientific consensus, even as to "what an electron is", or "what a photon is"; these are titles and subjects of papers still being published today, as well as symposiums, etc. The fact that the name "forbidden transitions" was given, and now, must be "retracted" by adjustment to theory (as is all to common today), demonstrates this point. As long as we start with a "round horse" approximation (joke), then we have certain events "forbidden". In the "real world", things are not so "clean".
MM-
It would be inaccurate to assume here that there is any single piece of data that is critical in this model.
I have no problem with that. Perhaps you should lead off with something else. As there is no such thing as a "perfect absorber", and "black" is the "absence" of particular data, and not a specific transition state, relying on "what things look like", at a particular wavelength (viewed through an imperfect "filter"), this is "circumstantial evidence", IMO. We should look for the non-linear, 3D (multi-wavelength) "smoking gun" evidence.
While were on that subject, I'll ask (anyone): does the requirement to "tune out dark current", in experiments in space, as well as on Earth, count as evidence for current in the "electric universe"?
Certainly, I am not alone, in wondering what we might be "missing" here. If we could do complete measurements, where these energy levels were included, and still match our expectations. How does this apply to sampling theorem (Nyquist)? How does this apply to Dirac's constant? Are we "cheating"?
regards,
T.Roc
It could be in both solid and plasma form. We specifically chose the word "rigid" because it left open the possibility that this "surface" is simply a far more dense region of plasma. I personally believe that it is a solid crust, but even I have to admit it could be "interpreted" as a much more dense layer of plasma. We all agree the sun is mostly iron and that this mostly iron surface is 'more rigid" that the photosphere and it sits under the photosphere.
It could be in both solid and plasma form. We specifically chose the word "rigid" because it left open the possibility that this "surface" is simply a far more dense region of plasma. I personally believe that it is a solid crust, but even I have to admit it could be "interpreted" as a much more dense layer of plasma. We all agree the sun is mostly iron and that this mostly iron surface is 'more rigid" that the photosphere and it sits under the photosphere.
I'm not lame enough to claim that it's "wrong". We know that it is entirely self-consistent. It was designed that way. However, the problems that I pointed out are real. We do NOT "know everything" that is to be known on this, yet. There IS room for error, some being quite great. There is NO clear Scientific consensus, even as to "what an electron is", or "what a photon is"; these are titles and subjects of papers still being published today, as well as symposiums, etc. The fact that the name "forbidden transitions" was given, and now, must be "retracted" by adjustment to theory (as is all to common today), demonstrates this point. As long as we start with a "round horse" approximation (joke), then we have certain events "forbidden". In the "real world", things are not so "clean".
Well, I tend to agree with you here, but there are also real satellite images to explain and real chemistry data to explain and real heliosiesmology data to explain with our solar theory. Whatever ideas we put forth have to be able to deal with all these pieces of information, not just one or two of them. It has to be a comprehensive explanation that shows how the various data sets from chemistry, satellite imagery and heliosiesmology all come together cohesively.
Well, the first "smoking gun" for me was Kosovichev's Doppler image. It confirmed what I already suspected from the SOHO RD images. The second spoking gun for me was the TRACE RD image that is now the first image on my website. At first I only had SOHO RD images on my website and I finally realized that the TRACE satellite, with it's better zoom capabilities, "should have" clearer RD images than SOHO. Once that through occurred to me, I specifically went hunting through the TRACE movies and images again to see if I could find one. I was totally blow away by that Gold RD image. It was even better and more clear than I ever imagined it might be. That TRACE/Yohkoh composite image was another "smoking gun' image from my perspective, since it shows that some wavelengths of light do penetrate deeply into the solar atmosphere. Kosovichev's revelation of a "stratification subsurface' sitting right about where I knew it had to be sitting blew my socks off. Another smoking gun along the way came from Oliver Manuel's work in nuclear chemistry. Perhaps the most obvious "smoking guns" of all from my personal perspective are those million degree coronal loops we see lighting up the solar atmosphere. Those loops stick out a million degree exception in an otherwise 5800K BB rule. There sure are a lot of smoking guns from my perspective, starting with the original epiphany I had while looking at the SOHO RD images.
Well, the first "smoking gun" for me was Kosovichev's Doppler image. It confirmed what I already suspected from the SOHO RD images. The second spoking gun for me was the TRACE RD image that is now the first image on my website. At first I only had SOHO RD images on my website and I finally realized that the TRACE satellite, with it's better zoom capabilities, "should have" clearer RD images than SOHO. Once that through occurred to me, I specifically went hunting through the TRACE movies and images again to see if I could find one. I was totally blow away by that Gold RD image. It was even better and more clear than I ever imagined it might be. That TRACE/Yohkoh composite image was another "smoking gun' image from my perspective, since it shows that some wavelengths of light do penetrate deeply into the solar atmosphere. Kosovichev's revelation of a "stratification subsurface' sitting right about where I knew it had to be sitting blew my socks off. Another smoking gun along the way came from Oliver Manuel's work in nuclear chemistry. Perhaps the most obvious "smoking guns" of all from my personal perspective are those million degree coronal loops we see lighting up the solar atmosphere. Those loops stick out a million degree exception in an otherwise 5800K BB rule. There sure are a lot of smoking guns from my perspective, starting with the original epiphany I had while looking at the SOHO RD images.
While were on that subject, I'll ask (anyone): does the requirement to "tune out dark current", in experiments in space, as well as on Earth, count as evidence for current in the "electric universe"?
I guess you weren't actually looking for my answer.
MM, you responded to the "solid" question, with "it's just "rigid". OK, but my point was "what state of matter are you suggesting that the iron is in?" Plasma? or..
QUOTE
I'm simply noticing that different wavelengths give us a different set of observations with different characteristics.
Fine; me too. The reason I used "171 A" as an example, is because it had been the topic in this thread, and it is the first image on your website.
But make no mistake here, my argument is not limited to just "one wavelength" either. The points I made apply across the spectrum, to any thing other that the "lab based", well controlled, "approximations" that the current paradigm stands on. This applies to Trip's comment as well: " Point me to the evidence that says that empirically derived relationships between mass, temperature, and colour are wrong." [ see this post ]
I'm not lame enough to claim that it's "wrong". We know that it is entirely self-consistent. It was designed that way. However, the problems that I pointed out are real. We do NOT "know everything" that is to be known on this, yet. There IS room for error, some being quite great. There is NO clear Scientific consensus, even as to "what an electron is", or "what a photon is"; these are titles and subjects of papers still being published today, as well as symposiums, etc. The fact that the name "forbidden transitions" was given, and now, must be "retracted" by adjustment to theory (as is all to common today), demonstrates this point. As long as we start with a "round horse" approximation (joke), then we have certain events "forbidden". In the "real world", things are not so "clean".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm simply noticing that different wavelengths give us a different set of observations with different characteristics. |
Fine; me too. The reason I used "171 A" as an example, is because it had been the topic in this thread, and it is the first image on your website.
But make no mistake here, my argument is not limited to just "one wavelength" either. The points I made apply across the spectrum, to any thing other that the "lab based", well controlled, "approximations" that the current paradigm stands on. This applies to Trip's comment as well: " Point me to the evidence that says that empirically derived relationships between mass, temperature, and colour are wrong." [ see this post ]
I'm not lame enough to claim that it's "wrong". We know that it is entirely self-consistent. It was designed that way. However, the problems that I pointed out are real. We do NOT "know everything" that is to be known on this, yet. There IS room for error, some being quite great. There is NO clear Scientific consensus, even as to "what an electron is", or "what a photon is"; these are titles and subjects of papers still being published today, as well as symposiums, etc. The fact that the name "forbidden transitions" was given, and now, must be "retracted" by adjustment to theory (as is all to common today), demonstrates this point. As long as we start with a "round horse" approximation (joke), then we have certain events "forbidden". In the "real world", things are not so "clean".
MM-
It would be inaccurate to assume here that there is any single piece of data that is critical in this model.
I have no problem with that. Perhaps you should lead off with something else. As there is no such thing as a "perfect absorber", and "black" is the "absence" of particular data, and not a specific transition state, relying on "what things look like", at a particular wavelength (viewed through an imperfect "filter"), this is "circumstantial evidence", IMO. We should look for the non-linear, 3D (multi-wavelength) "smoking gun" evidence.
While were on that subject, I'll ask (anyone): does the requirement to "tune out dark current", in experiments in space, as well as on Earth, count as evidence for current in the "electric universe"?
Certainly, I am not alone, in wondering what we might be "missing" here. If we could do complete measurements, where these energy levels were included, and still match our expectations. How does this apply to sampling theorem (Nyquist)? How does this apply to Dirac's constant? Are we "cheating"?
regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE
MM, you responded to the "solid" question, with "it's just "rigid". OK, but my point was "what state of matter are you suggesting that the iron is in?" Plasma? or..
It could be in both solid and plasma form. We specifically chose the word "rigid" because it left open the possibility that this "surface" is simply a far more dense region of plasma. I personally believe that it is a solid crust, but even I have to admit it could be "interpreted" as a much more dense layer of plasma. We all agree the sun is mostly iron and that this mostly iron surface is 'more rigid" that the photosphere and it sits under the photosphere.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| MM, you responded to the "solid" question, with "it's just "rigid". OK, but my point was "what state of matter are you suggesting that the iron is in?" Plasma? or.. |
It could be in both solid and plasma form. We specifically chose the word "rigid" because it left open the possibility that this "surface" is simply a far more dense region of plasma. I personally believe that it is a solid crust, but even I have to admit it could be "interpreted" as a much more dense layer of plasma. We all agree the sun is mostly iron and that this mostly iron surface is 'more rigid" that the photosphere and it sits under the photosphere.
I'm not lame enough to claim that it's "wrong". We know that it is entirely self-consistent. It was designed that way. However, the problems that I pointed out are real. We do NOT "know everything" that is to be known on this, yet. There IS room for error, some being quite great. There is NO clear Scientific consensus, even as to "what an electron is", or "what a photon is"; these are titles and subjects of papers still being published today, as well as symposiums, etc. The fact that the name "forbidden transitions" was given, and now, must be "retracted" by adjustment to theory (as is all to common today), demonstrates this point. As long as we start with a "round horse" approximation (joke), then we have certain events "forbidden". In the "real world", things are not so "clean".
Well, I tend to agree with you here, but there are also real satellite images to explain and real chemistry data to explain and real heliosiesmology data to explain with our solar theory. Whatever ideas we put forth have to be able to deal with all these pieces of information, not just one or two of them. It has to be a comprehensive explanation that shows how the various data sets from chemistry, satellite imagery and heliosiesmology all come together cohesively.
QUOTE
I have no problem with that. Perhaps you should lead off with something else. As there is no such thing as a "perfect absorber", and "black" is the "absence" of particular data, and not a specific transition state, relying on "what things look like", at a particular wavelength (viewed through an imperfect "filter"), this is "circumstantial evidence", IMO. We should look for the non-linear, 3D (multi-wavelength) "smoking gun" evidence.
Well, the first "smoking gun" for me was Kosovichev's Doppler image. It confirmed what I already suspected from the SOHO RD images. The second spoking gun for me was the TRACE RD image that is now the first image on my website. At first I only had SOHO RD images on my website and I finally realized that the TRACE satellite, with it's better zoom capabilities, "should have" clearer RD images than SOHO. Once that through occurred to me, I specifically went hunting through the TRACE movies and images again to see if I could find one. I was totally blow away by that Gold RD image. It was even better and more clear than I ever imagined it might be. That TRACE/Yohkoh composite image was another "smoking gun' image from my perspective, since it shows that some wavelengths of light do penetrate deeply into the solar atmosphere. Kosovichev's revelation of a "stratification subsurface' sitting right about where I knew it had to be sitting blew my socks off. Another smoking gun along the way came from Oliver Manuel's work in nuclear chemistry. Perhaps the most obvious "smoking guns" of all from my personal perspective are those million degree coronal loops we see lighting up the solar atmosphere. Those loops stick out a million degree exception in an otherwise 5800K BB rule. There sure are a lot of smoking guns from my perspective, starting with the original epiphany I had while looking at the SOHO RD images.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have no problem with that. Perhaps you should lead off with something else. As there is no such thing as a "perfect absorber", and "black" is the "absence" of particular data, and not a specific transition state, relying on "what things look like", at a particular wavelength (viewed through an imperfect "filter"), this is "circumstantial evidence", IMO. We should look for the non-linear, 3D (multi-wavelength) "smoking gun" evidence. |
Well, the first "smoking gun" for me was Kosovichev's Doppler image. It confirmed what I already suspected from the SOHO RD images. The second spoking gun for me was the TRACE RD image that is now the first image on my website. At first I only had SOHO RD images on my website and I finally realized that the TRACE satellite, with it's better zoom capabilities, "should have" clearer RD images than SOHO. Once that through occurred to me, I specifically went hunting through the TRACE movies and images again to see if I could find one. I was totally blow away by that Gold RD image. It was even better and more clear than I ever imagined it might be. That TRACE/Yohkoh composite image was another "smoking gun' image from my perspective, since it shows that some wavelengths of light do penetrate deeply into the solar atmosphere. Kosovichev's revelation of a "stratification subsurface' sitting right about where I knew it had to be sitting blew my socks off. Another smoking gun along the way came from Oliver Manuel's work in nuclear chemistry. Perhaps the most obvious "smoking guns" of all from my personal perspective are those million degree coronal loops we see lighting up the solar atmosphere. Those loops stick out a million degree exception in an otherwise 5800K BB rule. There sure are a lot of smoking guns from my perspective, starting with the original epiphany I had while looking at the SOHO RD images.
While were on that subject, I'll ask (anyone): does the requirement to "tune out dark current", in experiments in space, as well as on Earth, count as evidence for current in the "electric universe"?
I guess you weren't actually looking for my answer.
Michael Mozina,
I'm not following you here. What is the connection?
I'm playing devil's advocate; I have no vested interest in you being wrong (or current theory being right).
The statement, " there are also real satellite images to explain and real chemistry data to explain and real heliosiesmology data to explain " should be "pared down" a bit, IMO. The lack of understanding, and a complete data sheet, on forbidden transitions, and "spontaneous up-conversion", is a problem. This could work either for, or against you; that remains to be seen.
Take a "real image / microscope photo" of my skin in Sun light, through 171 A; am I primarily iron, if we see "darkness", or "absorption lines"? (this is rhetoric; trying to make a point) Biological forms regularly "transform elements", in a "forbidden" way (compared to lab theory). Sonoluminescence could be involved. Temperatures (internal) of one million+ kelvins have been postulated, in this acoustically driven cavitation. A bit of Noble gas is required, among other similarities, like "bubble fusion", to what is happening inside/around of the Sun. This could also work either for, or against you.
Can you do the favor of posting a list of these other areas (with a little detail, or links) that support the idea, that are not "pictures"? 95% of your "smoking guns" were "pictures". That method hasn't "proved" Big Foot, or the Loch Ness yet, either. Tell us more about "Oliver Manuel's work in nuclear chemistry", or how the "those million degree coronal loops" can only come from "rigid iron".
It seems that, mainly, you have listed problems with the current paradigm. That's fine, but I see no reason to exchange one set of incomplete data, for another.
regards,
T.Roc
Do you mean I should focus on one issue at a time? It seems to me that we would naturally attempt to explain as many observed phenomenon as possible, but clearly not every solar model will explain every solar observation. I think you would agree that we are looking for a comprehensive model that addresses as many observed phenomenon as possible.
Do you mean I should focus on one issue at a time? It seems to me that we would naturally attempt to explain as many observed phenomenon as possible, but clearly not every solar model will explain every solar observation. I think you would agree that we are looking for a comprehensive model that addresses as many observed phenomenon as possible.
The lack of understanding, and a complete data sheet, on forbidden transitions, and "spontaneous up-conversion", is a problem. This could work either for, or against you; that remains to be seen.
I guess my confusion here stems from the fact that I did not ever attempt to use a forbidden line argument to build my solar model, so I really have no comment as to whether that particular observation works for or against my model. I will admit up front that I'm not an expert on every possible solar observation.
I guess since I am not an expert on "forbidden" emission lines, my basic attitude is if you can show me evidence that this somehow favors a different solar model, then I'll probably have to sit down and figure out a way to explain the observation in question at least as well as any other solar model. I can't really respond to a generic argument. If you are suggesting that every solar model will have "gaps" in it's ability to explain specific phenomenon, then I would be inclined to agree with you wholeheartedly.
I guess since I am not an expert on "forbidden" emission lines, my basic attitude is if you can show me evidence that this somehow favors a different solar model, then I'll probably have to sit down and figure out a way to explain the observation in question at least as well as any other solar model. I can't really respond to a generic argument. If you are suggesting that every solar model will have "gaps" in it's ability to explain specific phenomenon, then I would be inclined to agree with you wholeheartedly.
Can you do the favor of posting a list of these other areas (with a little detail, or links) that support the idea, that are not "pictures"? 95% of your "smoking guns" were "pictures". That method hasn't "proved" Big Foot, or the Loch Ness yet, either. Tell us more about "Oliver Manuel's work in nuclear chemistry",
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
Those million degree coronal loops that emit 171a, 284A, 195A and x-ray photons must contain iron, but it's definitely being emitted from an iron plasma, not a solid form of iron.
The solid features of the surface reflect these wavelengths in very specific patterns, patterns that we can observe in RD images, and Doppler images, and in heliosiesmolgy data.
Now again, Oliver Manuel has been working on this issue from the perspective of nuclear chemistry for over three decades. We can talk about that information too if you like, but my real "epiphanies" came mostly from what I learned from satellite images, not from what I learned in heliosiesmology data, or in nuclear chemistry data. although these certainly do support the satellite image interpretation I have put forth.
Those million degree coronal loops that emit 171a, 284A, 195A and x-ray photons must contain iron, but it's definitely being emitted from an iron plasma, not a solid form of iron.
The solid features of the surface reflect these wavelengths in very specific patterns, patterns that we can observe in RD images, and Doppler images, and in heliosiesmolgy data.
Now again, Oliver Manuel has been working on this issue from the perspective of nuclear chemistry for over three decades. We can talk about that information too if you like, but my real "epiphanies" came mostly from what I learned from satellite images, not from what I learned in heliosiesmology data, or in nuclear chemistry data. although these certainly do support the satellite image interpretation I have put forth.
It seems that, mainly, you have listed problems with the current paradigm. That's fine, but I see no reason to exchange one set of incomplete data, for another.
Well, I really do see where you're coming from, but then life is always complicated and somewhat subjective. You may not think it's a big deal that standard theory cannot explain million degree coronal loops, but from an EU perspective, that's an obvious example of current flow in action. It seems like an important failure of standard theory. Likewise a "stratification subsurface" was never predicted to be located at .995R in standard theory. Instead that is supposed to be an open convection zone region according to standard theory. Standard theory doesn't adequately explain the rigid features of the RD images in the iron ion wavelengths either, and that is another key observation from a Birkeland solar model perspective.
The primary advantage of Birkeland's electrical solar model is that it has produced useful information that can be directly related back to in situ observations of the sun. That's the way all scientific theories are constructed.
There are many instances throughout history where multiple ideas were in competition. If you recall, I'm only asking for classroom parity, I'm not asking for other solar theories to be abandoned, or excluded from the classroom curriculum. My motives are based upon expanding the curriculum to include other viable theories. Birkeland's solar model has many advantages over standard gas model theories, starting with the fact that he produced a working simulation in controlled conditions. We've never managed to create and sustain a controlled nuclear fusion process in a lab. From the standpoint of empirical testing of concept, Birkeland's solar model is hand down better "qualified' than standard theories. It's not as well "quantified" as standard theories, but when we look at the in-situ observations, they follow the predictions that Birkeland put forth, and they defy explanation in the standard model. Should we just ignore that only because there are some other unexplained observations that favor no particular model?
If I were insisting that we must eliminate all solar model competition and we must select one and only one solar model to teach in school, then I would agree with your objection. Since I am simply noting that all theories have strengths and weaknesses and Birkeland's solar model deserves classroom time and classroom consideration, your point seems a bit moot. I'm not trying to get anyone to trade one solar model for another, I'm simply trying to get other solar models into the classroom so that other models might be worked on over time, along side of standard models.
Can you put yourself in my shoes and see where I'm coming from on that issue?
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
(me) While were on that subject, I'll ask (anyone): does the requirement to "tune out dark current", in experiments in space, as well as on Earth, count as evidence for current in the "electric universe"? I guess you weren't actually looking for my answer. |
I'm not following you here. What is the connection?
I'm playing devil's advocate; I have no vested interest in you being wrong (or current theory being right).
The statement, " there are also real satellite images to explain and real chemistry data to explain and real heliosiesmology data to explain " should be "pared down" a bit, IMO. The lack of understanding, and a complete data sheet, on forbidden transitions, and "spontaneous up-conversion", is a problem. This could work either for, or against you; that remains to be seen.
Take a "real image / microscope photo" of my skin in Sun light, through 171 A; am I primarily iron, if we see "darkness", or "absorption lines"? (this is rhetoric; trying to make a point) Biological forms regularly "transform elements", in a "forbidden" way (compared to lab theory). Sonoluminescence could be involved. Temperatures (internal) of one million+ kelvins have been postulated, in this acoustically driven cavitation. A bit of Noble gas is required, among other similarities, like "bubble fusion", to what is happening inside/around of the Sun. This could also work either for, or against you.
Can you do the favor of posting a list of these other areas (with a little detail, or links) that support the idea, that are not "pictures"? 95% of your "smoking guns" were "pictures". That method hasn't "proved" Big Foot, or the Loch Ness yet, either. Tell us more about "Oliver Manuel's work in nuclear chemistry", or how the "those million degree coronal loops" can only come from "rigid iron".
It seems that, mainly, you have listed problems with the current paradigm. That's fine, but I see no reason to exchange one set of incomplete data, for another.
regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE
The statement, " there are also real satellite images to explain and real chemistry data to explain and real heliosiesmology data to explain " should be "pared down" a bit, IMO.
Do you mean I should focus on one issue at a time? It seems to me that we would naturally attempt to explain as many observed phenomenon as possible, but clearly not every solar model will explain every solar observation. I think you would agree that we are looking for a comprehensive model that addresses as many observed phenomenon as possible.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The statement, " there are also real satellite images to explain and real chemistry data to explain and real heliosiesmology data to explain " should be "pared down" a bit, IMO. |
Do you mean I should focus on one issue at a time? It seems to me that we would naturally attempt to explain as many observed phenomenon as possible, but clearly not every solar model will explain every solar observation. I think you would agree that we are looking for a comprehensive model that addresses as many observed phenomenon as possible.
The lack of understanding, and a complete data sheet, on forbidden transitions, and "spontaneous up-conversion", is a problem. This could work either for, or against you; that remains to be seen.
I guess my confusion here stems from the fact that I did not ever attempt to use a forbidden line argument to build my solar model, so I really have no comment as to whether that particular observation works for or against my model. I will admit up front that I'm not an expert on every possible solar observation.
QUOTE
Take a "real image / microscope photo" of my skin in Sun light, through 171 A; am I primarily iron, if we see "darkness", or "absorption lines"? (this is rhetoric; trying to make a point) Biological forms regularly "transform elements", in a "forbidden" way (compared to lab theory). Sonoluminescence could be involved. Temperatures (internal) of one million+ kelvins have been postulated, in this acoustically driven cavitation. A bit of Noble gas is required, among other similarities, like "bubble fusion", to what is happening inside/around of the Sun. This could also work either for, or against you.
I guess since I am not an expert on "forbidden" emission lines, my basic attitude is if you can show me evidence that this somehow favors a different solar model, then I'll probably have to sit down and figure out a way to explain the observation in question at least as well as any other solar model. I can't really respond to a generic argument. If you are suggesting that every solar model will have "gaps" in it's ability to explain specific phenomenon, then I would be inclined to agree with you wholeheartedly.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Take a "real image / microscope photo" of my skin in Sun light, through 171 A; am I primarily iron, if we see "darkness", or "absorption lines"? (this is rhetoric; trying to make a point) Biological forms regularly "transform elements", in a "forbidden" way (compared to lab theory). Sonoluminescence could be involved. Temperatures (internal) of one million+ kelvins have been postulated, in this acoustically driven cavitation. A bit of Noble gas is required, among other similarities, like "bubble fusion", to what is happening inside/around of the Sun. This could also work either for, or against you. |
I guess since I am not an expert on "forbidden" emission lines, my basic attitude is if you can show me evidence that this somehow favors a different solar model, then I'll probably have to sit down and figure out a way to explain the observation in question at least as well as any other solar model. I can't really respond to a generic argument. If you are suggesting that every solar model will have "gaps" in it's ability to explain specific phenomenon, then I would be inclined to agree with you wholeheartedly.
Can you do the favor of posting a list of these other areas (with a little detail, or links) that support the idea, that are not "pictures"? 95% of your "smoking guns" were "pictures". That method hasn't "proved" Big Foot, or the Loch Ness yet, either. Tell us more about "Oliver Manuel's work in nuclear chemistry",
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
QUOTE
or how the "those million degree coronal loops" can only come from "rigid iron".
Those million degree coronal loops that emit 171a, 284A, 195A and x-ray photons must contain iron, but it's definitely being emitted from an iron plasma, not a solid form of iron.
The solid features of the surface reflect these wavelengths in very specific patterns, patterns that we can observe in RD images, and Doppler images, and in heliosiesmolgy data.
Now again, Oliver Manuel has been working on this issue from the perspective of nuclear chemistry for over three decades. We can talk about that information too if you like, but my real "epiphanies" came mostly from what I learned from satellite images, not from what I learned in heliosiesmology data, or in nuclear chemistry data. although these certainly do support the satellite image interpretation I have put forth.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| or how the "those million degree coronal loops" can only come from "rigid iron". |
Those million degree coronal loops that emit 171a, 284A, 195A and x-ray photons must contain iron, but it's definitely being emitted from an iron plasma, not a solid form of iron.
The solid features of the surface reflect these wavelengths in very specific patterns, patterns that we can observe in RD images, and Doppler images, and in heliosiesmolgy data.
Now again, Oliver Manuel has been working on this issue from the perspective of nuclear chemistry for over three decades. We can talk about that information too if you like, but my real "epiphanies" came mostly from what I learned from satellite images, not from what I learned in heliosiesmology data, or in nuclear chemistry data. although these certainly do support the satellite image interpretation I have put forth.
It seems that, mainly, you have listed problems with the current paradigm. That's fine, but I see no reason to exchange one set of incomplete data, for another.
Well, I really do see where you're coming from, but then life is always complicated and somewhat subjective. You may not think it's a big deal that standard theory cannot explain million degree coronal loops, but from an EU perspective, that's an obvious example of current flow in action. It seems like an important failure of standard theory. Likewise a "stratification subsurface" was never predicted to be located at .995R in standard theory. Instead that is supposed to be an open convection zone region according to standard theory. Standard theory doesn't adequately explain the rigid features of the RD images in the iron ion wavelengths either, and that is another key observation from a Birkeland solar model perspective.
The primary advantage of Birkeland's electrical solar model is that it has produced useful information that can be directly related back to in situ observations of the sun. That's the way all scientific theories are constructed.
There are many instances throughout history where multiple ideas were in competition. If you recall, I'm only asking for classroom parity, I'm not asking for other solar theories to be abandoned, or excluded from the classroom curriculum. My motives are based upon expanding the curriculum to include other viable theories. Birkeland's solar model has many advantages over standard gas model theories, starting with the fact that he produced a working simulation in controlled conditions. We've never managed to create and sustain a controlled nuclear fusion process in a lab. From the standpoint of empirical testing of concept, Birkeland's solar model is hand down better "qualified' than standard theories. It's not as well "quantified" as standard theories, but when we look at the in-situ observations, they follow the predictions that Birkeland put forth, and they defy explanation in the standard model. Should we just ignore that only because there are some other unexplained observations that favor no particular model?
If I were insisting that we must eliminate all solar model competition and we must select one and only one solar model to teach in school, then I would agree with your objection. Since I am simply noting that all theories have strengths and weaknesses and Birkeland's solar model deserves classroom time and classroom consideration, your point seems a bit moot. I'm not trying to get anyone to trade one solar model for another, I'm simply trying to get other solar models into the classroom so that other models might be worked on over time, along side of standard models.
Can you put yourself in my shoes and see where I'm coming from on that issue?
Michael.
Did you ever stop to consider that maybe, just maybe, your 'proof' has an alternate explanation? You know, that of time scales?
The waves in the image evolve over a period of seconds.
The dark patches (granules), last around 20 minutes (here's a time lapse sequence that shows that the structures you claim are solid, ar in fact, quite fluid http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/S...granulation.mpg )
And as far as the Standard Solar model not predicting the transition zone that you keep refering back to... Here's an idea...
Mayde it... I don't know, represents a transition from a more ordered large scale convective flow to a less ordered small scale convective flow, such as those represented by Granules [
and Super granules. 
(click the images to enlarge them).
It's all a matter of scale, and at no point have you ever provided any context for the images you keep claiming support your argument.
Did you ever stop to consider that maybe, just maybe, your 'proof' has an alternate explanation? You know, that of time scales?
The waves in the image evolve over a period of seconds.
The dark patches (granules), last around 20 minutes (here's a time lapse sequence that shows that the structures you claim are solid, ar in fact, quite fluid http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/S...granulation.mpg )
And as far as the Standard Solar model not predicting the transition zone that you keep refering back to... Here's an idea...
Mayde it... I don't know, represents a transition from a more ordered large scale convective flow to a less ordered small scale convective flow, such as those represented by Granules [
and Super granules. (click the images to enlarge them).
It's all a matter of scale, and at no point have you ever provided any context for the images you keep claiming support your argument.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 25 2008, 08:22 PM)
Michael.
Did you ever stop to consider that maybe, just maybe, your 'proof' has an alternate explanation? You know, that of time scales?
Why no Trippy, I would never try to falsify my own position. Give me a break. As long as you ask rhetorical questions like this, do you really expect to have a mature discussion about this topic?
The waves in the photosphere seen in that Doppler can evolve over a period of seconds, sure, just like they can develop on the surface of water in just seconds. It's all related to the physical consistency of the layer in question and the physical nature of plasma vs. the nature of a solid. The wave on the surface of the photosphere in Kosovichev's Doppler image is flowing in relatively light plasma, so it can form in seconds,. and it spread out in a wave pattern, much like we might see in an ocean during a tsunami event.
How about that rigid feature on the left that circled for you?
The waves in the photosphere seen in that Doppler can evolve over a period of seconds, sure, just like they can develop on the surface of water in just seconds. It's all related to the physical consistency of the layer in question and the physical nature of plasma vs. the nature of a solid. The wave on the surface of the photosphere in Kosovichev's Doppler image is flowing in relatively light plasma, so it can form in seconds,. and it spread out in a wave pattern, much like we might see in an ocean during a tsunami event.
How about that rigid feature on the left that circled for you?
The dark patches (granules), last around 20 minutes (here's a time lapse sequence that shows that the structures you claim are solid, ar in fact, quite fluid http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/S...granulation.mpg )
The granules in the photosphere have more of an 8 minute interval on average, and the light plasma photosphere is very fluid in it's movement patterns. It has the consistency of boiling milk. That is why the wave propagates through the photosphere. Note that this granule image is a g-band image that has nothing to do with the "surface" that I'm describing, and that's why it's granules come and go in just minutes, whereas the "structures" that are observed in 171A images, and that "structure" under the wave in the Doppler image, last for a significantly longer period of time. Longevity of the structures become important tools in isolating the features of various layers. All the plasma layers, including the photosphere are very "fluid-like" in nature. Light plasmas ebb and flow like boiling liquids. That angular structure under the wave in the Doppler photosphere image shows that "rigid features" exist underneath the photosphere that have longevity times far in excess of the granules in the photosphere.
What is tha rigid feature in under the wave in the Doppler image, and why doesn't it's outline change shape during the entire (over hour long) video?
Compare and contrast your g-band image now with another wavelength, and another feature set from another wavelength. What are all those outlines in the LMSAL 171A image? Why are these features persistent over periods of days and weeks and months?
Are you suggesting that the region under the photosphere becomes significantly more dense than the regions above 995R? If so, at least our conversation is headed in the right direction. Show me one paper from the standard solar model that predicted the existence of a "stratification subsurface" at a significantly higher density exists at this point in the solar atmosphere?
Define a "supergranule" in terms of expected longevity and location, and then let's look at that SOHO RD image and those structures that last for several days and we'll see how your idea holds up to observational evidence.
The key here is recognizing that:
A) Persistent features exist underneath the photosphere and
their longevity is unlike anything in the photosphere.
The rest we can debate, but these two issues have to be agreed upon before we can go any further.
At this point we need to discuss what options we have to describe "features" that persist and come around again at the same place on the surface in 27.3 days.
Granules are features that exist on the surface of the photosphere. Which part of the atmosphere of the sun are you suggesting that the supergranules of longer longevity times are located?
Did you ever stop to consider that maybe, just maybe, your 'proof' has an alternate explanation? You know, that of time scales?
Why no Trippy, I would never try to falsify my own position.
Give me a break. As long as you ask rhetorical questions like this, do you really expect to have a mature discussion about this topic?QUOTE
The waves in the image evolve over a period of seconds.
The waves in the photosphere seen in that Doppler can evolve over a period of seconds, sure, just like they can develop on the surface of water in just seconds. It's all related to the physical consistency of the layer in question and the physical nature of plasma vs. the nature of a solid. The wave on the surface of the photosphere in Kosovichev's Doppler image is flowing in relatively light plasma, so it can form in seconds,. and it spread out in a wave pattern, much like we might see in an ocean during a tsunami event.
How about that rigid feature on the left that circled for you?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The waves in the image evolve over a period of seconds. |
The waves in the photosphere seen in that Doppler can evolve over a period of seconds, sure, just like they can develop on the surface of water in just seconds. It's all related to the physical consistency of the layer in question and the physical nature of plasma vs. the nature of a solid. The wave on the surface of the photosphere in Kosovichev's Doppler image is flowing in relatively light plasma, so it can form in seconds,. and it spread out in a wave pattern, much like we might see in an ocean during a tsunami event.
How about that rigid feature on the left that circled for you?
The dark patches (granules), last around 20 minutes (here's a time lapse sequence that shows that the structures you claim are solid, ar in fact, quite fluid http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/S...granulation.mpg )
The granules in the photosphere have more of an 8 minute interval on average, and the light plasma photosphere is very fluid in it's movement patterns. It has the consistency of boiling milk. That is why the wave propagates through the photosphere. Note that this granule image is a g-band image that has nothing to do with the "surface" that I'm describing, and that's why it's granules come and go in just minutes, whereas the "structures" that are observed in 171A images, and that "structure" under the wave in the Doppler image, last for a significantly longer period of time. Longevity of the structures become important tools in isolating the features of various layers. All the plasma layers, including the photosphere are very "fluid-like" in nature. Light plasmas ebb and flow like boiling liquids. That angular structure under the wave in the Doppler photosphere image shows that "rigid features" exist underneath the photosphere that have longevity times far in excess of the granules in the photosphere.
What is tha rigid feature in under the wave in the Doppler image, and why doesn't it's outline change shape during the entire (over hour long) video?
Compare and contrast your g-band image now with another wavelength, and another feature set from another wavelength. What are all those outlines in the LMSAL 171A image? Why are these features persistent over periods of days and weeks and months?
QUOTE
And as far as the Standard Solar model not predicting the transition zone that you keep refering back to... Here's an idea...
Mayde it... I don't know, represents a transition from a more ordered large scale convective flow to a less ordered small scale convective flow, such as those represented by Granules [ and Super granules.
Mayde it... I don't know, represents a transition from a more ordered large scale convective flow to a less ordered small scale convective flow, such as those represented by Granules [
and Super granules. Are you suggesting that the region under the photosphere becomes significantly more dense than the regions above 995R? If so, at least our conversation is headed in the right direction. Show me one paper from the standard solar model that predicted the existence of a "stratification subsurface" at a significantly higher density exists at this point in the solar atmosphere?
Define a "supergranule" in terms of expected longevity and location, and then let's look at that SOHO RD image and those structures that last for several days and we'll see how your idea holds up to observational evidence.
The key here is recognizing that:
A) Persistent features exist underneath the photosphere and
their longevity is unlike anything in the photosphere.The rest we can debate, but these two issues have to be agreed upon before we can go any further.
At this point we need to discuss what options we have to describe "features" that persist and come around again at the same place on the surface in 27.3 days.
Granules are features that exist on the surface of the photosphere. Which part of the atmosphere of the sun are you suggesting that the supergranules of longer longevity times are located?
Hello All
I have been away on projects.
I have a few more links to post as information about the sun.
If this information is correct than why is the standard model standing?
Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.10717M
An Iron-Rich Sun and Its Source of Energy
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.10646M
An Iron-Rich Sun and Its Source of Energy
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.10646M
Abstract
Mass-fractionation enriches light elements and the lighter isotopes of each element at the solar surface, making a photosphere that is 91 percent H and 9 percent He. The solar interior consists mostly of elements that comprise 99 percent of ordinary meteorites (Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca) elements made in the deep interior of a supernova. Solar energy arises from a series of nuclear reactions triggered by neutron-emission from the collapsed supernova core on which the Sun formed. Solar mass-fractionation, solar neutrinos, and the annual solar-wind outpouring of 3 E43 H atoms from the solar surface are by-products of solar luminosity.
Why the Model of a Hydrogen-Filled Sun Is Obsolete
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.10569M
Is There a Deficit of Solar Neutrinos?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.10460M
Is There a Deficit of Solar Neutrinos?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.10460M
Abstract
Measurements on the isotopic and elemental compositions of meteorites, planets, lunar samples, the solar wind, and solar flares since 1960 suggest that the standard solar model may be in error. A new solar model suggests that the observed number of solar neutrinos represents at least 87% of the number generated: There is little if any deficit of solar neutrinos.
The Interior of the Sun
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AAS...202.5501M
I have been away on projects.
I have a few more links to post as information about the sun.
If this information is correct than why is the standard model standing?
Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.10717M
QUOTE
Abstract
Measurements are reviewed showing that the interior of the Sun, the inner planets, and ordinary meteorites consist mostly of the same elements: Iron, oxygen, nickel, silicon, magnesium, sulfur and calcium. These results do not support the standard solar model.
Measurements are reviewed showing that the interior of the Sun, the inner planets, and ordinary meteorites consist mostly of the same elements: Iron, oxygen, nickel, silicon, magnesium, sulfur and calcium. These results do not support the standard solar model.
An Iron-Rich Sun and Its Source of Energy
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.10646M
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract Measurements are reviewed showing that the interior of the Sun, the inner planets, and ordinary meteorites consist mostly of the same elements: Iron, oxygen, nickel, silicon, magnesium, sulfur and calcium. These results do not support the standard solar model. |
An Iron-Rich Sun and Its Source of Energy
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.10646M
Abstract
Mass-fractionation enriches light elements and the lighter isotopes of each element at the solar surface, making a photosphere that is 91 percent H and 9 percent He. The solar interior consists mostly of elements that comprise 99 percent of ordinary meteorites (Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca) elements made in the deep interior of a supernova. Solar energy arises from a series of nuclear reactions triggered by neutron-emission from the collapsed supernova core on which the Sun formed. Solar mass-fractionation, solar neutrinos, and the annual solar-wind outpouring of 3 E43 H atoms from the solar surface are by-products of solar luminosity.
Why the Model of a Hydrogen-Filled Sun Is Obsolete
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.10569M
QUOTE
Abstract
Isotope analyses on meteorites, planets, lunar samples, the solar wind, and solar flares show that heterogeneous debris of a supernova (SN) that exploded here 5 Gy ago formed the solar system. The Sun formed on the collapsed SN core. Iron meteorites and the iron cores of the terrestrial planets formed out of iron-rich material surrounding the SN core. Giant gaseous planets formed out of the light-weight elements in the outer SN layers. Mass separation enriches light elements like H and He at the solar surface, but the bulk Sun consists almost entirely of the same seven, even-numbered elements that comprise 99% of ordinary meteorites - iron (Fe), oxygen (O), nickel (Ni), silicon (Si), magnesium (Mg), sulfur (S) and calcium (Ca).
Isotope analyses on meteorites, planets, lunar samples, the solar wind, and solar flares show that heterogeneous debris of a supernova (SN) that exploded here 5 Gy ago formed the solar system. The Sun formed on the collapsed SN core. Iron meteorites and the iron cores of the terrestrial planets formed out of iron-rich material surrounding the SN core. Giant gaseous planets formed out of the light-weight elements in the outer SN layers. Mass separation enriches light elements like H and He at the solar surface, but the bulk Sun consists almost entirely of the same seven, even-numbered elements that comprise 99% of ordinary meteorites - iron (Fe), oxygen (O), nickel (Ni), silicon (Si), magnesium (Mg), sulfur (S) and calcium (Ca).
Is There a Deficit of Solar Neutrinos?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.10460M
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract Isotope analyses on meteorites, planets, lunar samples, the solar wind, and solar flares show that heterogeneous debris of a supernova (SN) that exploded here 5 Gy ago formed the solar system. The Sun formed on the collapsed SN core. Iron meteorites and the iron cores of the terrestrial planets formed out of iron-rich material surrounding the SN core. Giant gaseous planets formed out of the light-weight elements in the outer SN layers. Mass separation enriches light elements like H and He at the solar surface, but the bulk Sun consists almost entirely of the same seven, even-numbered elements that comprise 99% of ordinary meteorites - iron (Fe), oxygen (O), nickel (Ni), silicon (Si), magnesium (Mg), sulfur (S) and calcium (Ca). |
Is There a Deficit of Solar Neutrinos?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.10460M
Abstract
Measurements on the isotopic and elemental compositions of meteorites, planets, lunar samples, the solar wind, and solar flares since 1960 suggest that the standard solar model may be in error. A new solar model suggests that the observed number of solar neutrinos represents at least 87% of the number generated: There is little if any deficit of solar neutrinos.
The Interior of the Sun
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AAS...202.5501M
QUOTE
Abstract
The Sun's surface is mostly hydrogen, but decay products of short-lived nuclides and linked elemental and isotopic variations in meteorites show that a) a supernova occurred 5 Gy ago [1], the Sun formed on its neutron-rich core, and c) its debris formed the planetary system [2]. At the solar surface light (L) elements and isotopes are enriched relative to heavy (H) ones by a common mass-fractionation (f) [3], where f = (H/L)4.56. Solar flares dredge up heavier elements and isotopes [4]. Beneath its hydrogen-veneer, the Sun consists mostly of the same elements that comprise 99% of ordinary meteorites: Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg, Ca [5].
Nuclear systematics [6] reveal an instability toward neutron emission in assemblages of neutrons. Neutron-emission from the collapsed SN core in the Sun initiates reactions that generate the observed neutrino flux (without oscillations), luminosity, and an outpouring of H+ ions in the solar wind [7]. This upward movement of H+ ions maintains mass separation. Magnetic fields released by the Meissner effect from a charged fluid of boson-rich nuclides (the major isotopes of Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg, and Ca) should accelerate H+ ions upward [8]. This may be tested by looking for a) solar cycles induced by rotation of a central neutron star in the charged Bose gas [8] and an anomalous abundance of Fermi nuclides relative to fractionation when magnetic fields penetrate the solar surface and eject material, e.g., 3He and 25Mg.
The Sun's surface is mostly hydrogen, but decay products of short-lived nuclides and linked elemental and isotopic variations in meteorites show that a) a supernova occurred 5 Gy ago [1],
the Sun formed on its neutron-rich core, and c) its debris formed the planetary system [2]. At the solar surface light (L) elements and isotopes are enriched relative to heavy (H) ones by a common mass-fractionation (f) [3], where f = (H/L)4.56. Solar flares dredge up heavier elements and isotopes [4]. Beneath its hydrogen-veneer, the Sun consists mostly of the same elements that comprise 99% of ordinary meteorites: Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg, Ca [5].Nuclear systematics [6] reveal an instability toward neutron emission in assemblages of neutrons. Neutron-emission from the collapsed SN core in the Sun initiates reactions that generate the observed neutrino flux (without oscillations), luminosity, and an outpouring of H+ ions in the solar wind [7]. This upward movement of H+ ions maintains mass separation. Magnetic fields released by the Meissner effect from a charged fluid of boson-rich nuclides (the major isotopes of Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg, and Ca) should accelerate H+ ions upward [8]. This may be tested by looking for a) solar cycles induced by rotation of a central neutron star in the charged Bose gas [8] and
an anomalous abundance of Fermi nuclides relative to fractionation when magnetic fields penetrate the solar surface and eject material, e.g., 3He and 25Mg.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzzzz
Probe to approach the sun
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/080501_solarprobe
May 1, 2008
Courtesy Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory
and World Science staff
The goals are to determine the structure and dynamics of the magnetic fields at the sources of solar wind; trace the flow of energy that heats the corona and accelerates the solar wind; determine what accelerates and transports energetic particles; and explore dusty plasma near the sun and its influence on solar wind and energetic particle formation.
Probe to approach the sun
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/080501_solarprobe
May 1, 2008
Courtesy Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory
and World Science staff
QUOTE
Scientists plan to send a spacecraft nearer the sun than ever before. The unmanned NASA Solar Probe would go nine times closer to the star than the hottest planet, Mercury, and into an inferno more than hot enough to melt stone.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Scientists plan to send a spacecraft nearer the sun than ever before. The unmanned NASA Solar Probe would go nine times closer to the star than the hottest planet, Mercury, and into an inferno more than hot enough to melt stone. |
The goals are to determine the structure and dynamics of the magnetic fields at the sources of solar wind; trace the flow of energy that heats the corona and accelerates the solar wind; determine what accelerates and transports energetic particles; and explore dusty plasma near the sun and its influence on solar wind and energetic particle formation.
Hello Costas
Do you have any suspect about the link still???
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm
Prof. Oliver has not any suspect.
I’m in the team of his friends still.
This is REVOLUTION RESEARCH of the XXI century.
THIS IS REVOLUTION IN THE ASTRONOMY AND COSMOLOGY!!!
I was very busy
I have for you gift without additional payment.
The book of broken ground discoveries – book of century.
The FedEx service not so cheap. 60-70$ for each book.
I can not send the book for all intellectual in the world.
You need the FedEx account to pay at home for the book.
You have to send your FedEx account number and postal address by E-mail.
My old E-mail is locked
New data is in the link:
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/BOOK%20BY%20AUTHOR.htm
I promise you the book is simply sensational. You can understand a lot of secrets about universe, stars, planets, primordial and captured moons, etc. There are decoded the tectonic secrets of the Earth: Extinction boundaries, floods, asteroid impacts, etc.
Important is that the Gilgamesh’s flood is decoded exactly and you can read detail information about next flood (how happened that) and about next flood date decoded by the great genius Newton.
With Kind regards.
K. Margiani.
Do you have any suspect about the link still???
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm
Prof. Oliver has not any suspect.
I’m in the team of his friends still.
This is REVOLUTION RESEARCH of the XXI century.
THIS IS REVOLUTION IN THE ASTRONOMY AND COSMOLOGY!!!
I was very busy
I have for you gift without additional payment.
The book of broken ground discoveries – book of century.
The FedEx service not so cheap. 60-70$ for each book.
I can not send the book for all intellectual in the world.
You need the FedEx account to pay at home for the book.
You have to send your FedEx account number and postal address by E-mail.
My old E-mail is locked
New data is in the link:
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/BOOK%20BY%20AUTHOR.htm
I promise you the book is simply sensational. You can understand a lot of secrets about universe, stars, planets, primordial and captured moons, etc. There are decoded the tectonic secrets of the Earth: Extinction boundaries, floods, asteroid impacts, etc.
Important is that the Gilgamesh’s flood is decoded exactly and you can read detail information about next flood (how happened that) and about next flood date decoded by the great genius Newton.
With Kind regards.
K. Margiani.
We can discuss here endless about origin the Sun, galaxies and whole universe. I have excellent idea to produce the redshifted spectrum of the Sun.
It needs new project:
1.Financial support.
2.Technical support.
The experiment is not very difficult. Within a month team of investigators can produce broken-ground discovery.
I don’t want to discuss here about technical details. I’ll send technical description for international team of scientists.
This is best forum in the internet and the thread can read very many best scientists. Please…
It needs new project:
1.Financial support.
2.Technical support.
The experiment is not very difficult. Within a month team of investigators can produce broken-ground discovery.
I don’t want to discuss here about technical details. I’ll send technical description for international team of scientists.
This is best forum in the internet and the thread can read very many best scientists. Please…
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz
Hello Margiani, good to see you.
I have read
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm
and I note your reference to Prof Oliver Manuel.
You are doing well.
Now do you understand how Neutrons are formed and how they are compacted and how jets are formed?
The next thing you will need to Learn is Neutron compacted matter and the theory behind quark compacted matter and the transition to the theoretical black holes.
There is a probe planned to got o the sun in the near future.
Hello Margiani, good to see you.
I have read
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm
and I note your reference to Prof Oliver Manuel.
You are doing well.
Now do you understand how Neutrons are formed and how they are compacted and how jets are formed?
The next thing you will need to Learn is Neutron compacted matter and the theory behind quark compacted matter and the transition to the theoretical black holes.
There is a probe planned to got o the sun in the near future.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Feb 2 2008, 02:14 AM)
If this information is correct than why is the standard model standing?
Because it's not correct?
Because it's not correct?
QUOTE (barakn+Aug 26 2008, 05:05 AM)
Because it's not correct?
There's plenty of legitimate evidence to support that it is INDEED correct.
There's plenty of legitimate evidence to support that it is INDEED correct.
If the sun is a fusion engine as the standard model claims and the fusion process is one of fusing elements together into heavier elements then you would expect a large concentration of iron to accumulate at its core after 4 billion years. (cue Trippy)
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
Its funny how people will support a theory regardless of what ever evidence.
If you wish to support the BBT
Anybody
Please explain how the mega super structures of the superclusters of galaxies and the odd 100 billion galaxies to form in just 500 million years.
While you are at that, please supply evidence that can stand alone and supported by astrophysics the BBT.
In years to come the BBT will be noted as the crankpot theory of the last 80 odd years. A theory that was supported by ad hoc ideas to make the model work.
They have spent billions on supporting the BBT, politicians, churches and schools are going to be up in arms over the billions of dollars. Why else support a theory that Santa is related to.
Its funny how people will support a theory regardless of what ever evidence.
If you wish to support the BBT
Anybody
Please explain how the mega super structures of the superclusters of galaxies and the odd 100 billion galaxies to form in just 500 million years.
While you are at that, please supply evidence that can stand alone and supported by astrophysics the BBT.
In years to come the BBT will be noted as the crankpot theory of the last 80 odd years. A theory that was supported by ad hoc ideas to make the model work.
They have spent billions on supporting the BBT, politicians, churches and schools are going to be up in arms over the billions of dollars. Why else support a theory that Santa is related to.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 26 2008, 06:39 PM)
If the sun is a fusion engine as the standard model claims and the fusion process is one of fusing elements together into heavier elements then you would expect a large concentration of iron to accumulate at its core after 4 billion years. (cue Trippy)
Incorrect.
The sun does not have enough mass to support the fusion of elements all the way to iron. Whatever
Incorrect.
The sun does not have enough mass to support the fusion of elements all the way to iron. Whatever
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
Hello Trippy
You said
Why do you say that?
Can you support that statement?
Hello Trippy
You said
QUOTE
The sun does not have enough mass to support the fusion of elements all the way to iron.
Why do you say that?
Can you support that statement?
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 26 2008, 10:38 PM)
Why do you say that?
Because it's true.
Now do you understand how Neutrons are formed and how they are compacted and how jets are formed?
The next thing you will need to Learn is Neutron compacted matter and the theory behind quark compacted matter and the transition to the theoretical black holes.
There is a probe planned to got o the sun in the near future.
Hello Costas!
Magnetic field triggers protons into thermonuclear reactions and produces concentration of neutrons in the centre by means of violent P/N changing in the core. Everything is correctly described in the book send me E-mail ASAP. I’m waiting your E-mail kmargi@posta.ge
Because it's true.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 26 2008, 10:38 PM)
Can you support that statement?
Yes, I can.
Yes, I can.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 26 2008, 04:36 AM)
Now do you understand how Neutrons are formed and how they are compacted and how jets are formed?
The next thing you will need to Learn is Neutron compacted matter and the theory behind quark compacted matter and the transition to the theoretical black holes.
There is a probe planned to got o the sun in the near future.
Hello Costas!
Magnetic field triggers protons into thermonuclear reactions and produces concentration of neutrons in the centre by means of violent P/N changing in the core. Everything is correctly described in the book send me E-mail ASAP. I’m waiting your E-mail kmargi@posta.ge
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz
Trippy said:
Well I'm waiting. Give me your best shot.
=====================================
Hello Margiani
You said
Well I'm waiting. Give me your best shot.
=====================================
Hello Margiani
You said
Magnetic field triggers protons into thermonuclear reactions and produces concentration of neutrons in the centre by means of violent P/N changing in the core. Everything is correctly described in the book send me E-mail ASAP
Yes! That will happen.But! Thats not all.
What is the Mechanism that drives it?
Where do the Neutrons come from?
How do the Neutrons form?
Does it stay in this matrix or does it compress to a higher density, such as quarks?.
What is the trigger that starts a supernova?
Yes! That will happen.But! Thats not all.
What is the Mechanism that drives it?
Where do the Neutrons come from?
How do the Neutrons form?
Does it stay in this matrix or does it compress to a higher density, such as quarks?.
What is the trigger that starts a supernova?
There is not so easy to explain the book (format A4, 181pages) within the forum list.
Trippy said:
QUOTE
Because it's true.
Yes, I can.
Yes, I can.
Well I'm waiting. Give me your best shot.
=====================================
Hello Margiani
You said
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Because it's true. Yes, I can. |
Well I'm waiting. Give me your best shot.
=====================================
Hello Margiani
You said
Magnetic field triggers protons into thermonuclear reactions and produces concentration of neutrons in the centre by means of violent P/N changing in the core. Everything is correctly described in the book send me E-mail ASAP
Yes! That will happen.But! Thats not all.
What is the Mechanism that drives it?
Where do the Neutrons come from?
How do the Neutrons form?
Does it stay in this matrix or does it compress to a higher density, such as quarks?.
What is the trigger that starts a supernova?
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 27 2008, 12:50 PM)
Trippy said:
Well I'm waiting. Give me your best shot.
You seem to have some sort of beef against the standard model of stellar nucleosynthesis.
Here's the thing, one of the leading researchers in that field was Fred Hoyle, who was opposed to the BBT - he favoured the 'quasi steady state' theory so the (apparent) basis of your objection is fundamentally flawed.
So you can complain all you wanted about the Big Bang Theory, but that doesn't alter the validity of Stellar Nucleosynthesis the Silicon burning process - the process which ultimately leads to the production of Iron and Nickle only occurs in stars with core temperatures of 2.7-3.5 billion Kelvins, and masses of 8-11 solar masses.
For the record, here's a paper on the physics of a core collapse supernova
I still have yet to see you justify a need for me to justify anything to do with any of the models.
Well i'm waiting. Give me your best shot.
Well I'm waiting. Give me your best shot.
You seem to have some sort of beef against the standard model of stellar nucleosynthesis.
Here's the thing, one of the leading researchers in that field was Fred Hoyle, who was opposed to the BBT - he favoured the 'quasi steady state' theory so the (apparent) basis of your objection is fundamentally flawed.
So you can complain all you wanted about the Big Bang Theory, but that doesn't alter the validity of Stellar Nucleosynthesis the Silicon burning process - the process which ultimately leads to the production of Iron and Nickle only occurs in stars with core temperatures of 2.7-3.5 billion Kelvins, and masses of 8-11 solar masses.
For the record, here's a paper on the physics of a core collapse supernova
I still have yet to see you justify a need for me to justify anything to do with any of the models.
Well i'm waiting. Give me your best shot.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz
Trippy said
I have no problem or beef with stellar Nucleosynthesis and Silicon burning.
I'm not complaining about the BBT. I asked you to provide evidence that supports the BBT. Do you understand the BBT or you just float down main stream without questioning?
As for core collapse supernova
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0601261
This is one opinion, it maybe right.
But! I'm of the opinion that Si and Fe do form around the core but! not in the core.
During Photodisintergration of Si and Fe break down and form Neutrons that rejuvinate the core of what ever composite exists and leaves behind in some cases a Neutron Core. The core in actual fact does not collapse matter collapses into it. The process is triggered by an unstable core releasing hight energy photons that break up the Si and Fe.
Trippy said
QUOTE
So you can complain all you wanted about the Big Bang Theory, but that doesn't alter the validity of Stellar Nucleosynthesis the Silicon burning process - the process which ultimately leads to the production of Iron and Nickle only occurs in stars with core temperatures of 2.7-3.5 billion Kelvins, and masses of 8-11 solar masses.
I have no problem or beef with stellar Nucleosynthesis and Silicon burning.
I'm not complaining about the BBT. I asked you to provide evidence that supports the BBT. Do you understand the BBT or you just float down main stream without questioning?
As for core collapse supernova
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0601261
This is one opinion, it maybe right.
But! I'm of the opinion that Si and Fe do form around the core but! not in the core.
During Photodisintergration of Si and Fe break down and form Neutrons that rejuvinate the core of what ever composite exists and leaves behind in some cases a Neutron Core. The core in actual fact does not collapse matter collapses into it. The process is triggered by an unstable core releasing hight energy photons that break up the Si and Fe.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 27 2008, 12:50 AM)
Yes! That will happen.But! Thats not all.
What is the Mechanism that drives it?
Where do the Neutrons come from?
How do the Neutrons form?
Does it stay in this matrix or does it compress to a higher density, such as quarks?.
What is the trigger that starts a supernova?
There is not so easy to explain the book (format A4, 181pages) within the forum list.
G'day Margiani
I'm not asking you to explain the book, but to express your thoughts.
You need to do this to express your book.
Writing the book is fantastic, undrstanding the issues is a proprity.
I must admit, I for one, through reading have realized how little I know.
So! have fun with it, make mistakes, nobody here cares.
But! one day you will know more.
I'm not asking you to explain the book, but to express your thoughts.
You need to do this to express your book.
Writing the book is fantastic, undrstanding the issues is a proprity.
I must admit, I for one, through reading have realized how little I know.
So! have fun with it, make mistakes, nobody here cares.
But! one day you will know more.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 27 2008, 04:24 PM)
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz
Trippy said
I have no problem or beef with stellar Nucleosynthesis and Silicon burning.
I'm not complaining about the BBT. I asked you to provide evidence that supports the BBT. Do you understand the BBT or you just float down main stream without questioning?
As for core collapse supernova
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0601261
This is one opinion, it maybe right.
But! I'm of the opinion that Si and Fe do form around the core but! not in the core.
During Photodisintergration of Si and Fe break down and form Neutrons that rejuvinate the core of what ever composite exists and leaves behind in some cases a Neutron Core. The core in actual fact does not collapse matter collapses into it. The process is triggered by an unstable core releasing hight energy photons that break up the Si and Fe.
I wasn't commenting on the big bang now was I?
I stated that the sun does not have enough mass to support silicon burning.
Anything else is irrelevant.
If you disagree with the statement that the sun does not have enough mass to support silicon burning to Iron, then you disagree with the standard model of nucleosythesis, it's pretty much that simple.
So which is it?
Trippy said
I have no problem or beef with stellar Nucleosynthesis and Silicon burning.
I'm not complaining about the BBT. I asked you to provide evidence that supports the BBT. Do you understand the BBT or you just float down main stream without questioning?
As for core collapse supernova
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0601261
This is one opinion, it maybe right.
But! I'm of the opinion that Si and Fe do form around the core but! not in the core.
During Photodisintergration of Si and Fe break down and form Neutrons that rejuvinate the core of what ever composite exists and leaves behind in some cases a Neutron Core. The core in actual fact does not collapse matter collapses into it. The process is triggered by an unstable core releasing hight energy photons that break up the Si and Fe.
I wasn't commenting on the big bang now was I?
I stated that the sun does not have enough mass to support silicon burning.
Anything else is irrelevant.
If you disagree with the statement that the sun does not have enough mass to support silicon burning to Iron, then you disagree with the standard model of nucleosythesis, it's pretty much that simple.
So which is it?
So um ...
Q. What was the composition of the post-nova nebula after Sol 1 blew itself to smithereens?
A. All the elements created in that star.
Q. Which of those elements from that nebula coalesced to form our current Star (Sol 2)?
A. All of the elements available in the nebula.
Q. Was Sol 1 massive enough to have fused silicon to iron?
A. Almost certainly as it was most likely a 1st generation star.
Q. So then there's an abundance of iron in the core of the Sun just as there is on every other body in the solar system?
A. Without a doubt.
Q. What was the composition of the post-nova nebula after Sol 1 blew itself to smithereens?
A. All the elements created in that star.
Q. Which of those elements from that nebula coalesced to form our current Star (Sol 2)?
A. All of the elements available in the nebula.
Q. Was Sol 1 massive enough to have fused silicon to iron?
A. Almost certainly as it was most likely a 1st generation star.
Q. So then there's an abundance of iron in the core of the Sun just as there is on every other body in the solar system?
A. Without a doubt.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
I do not agree with the standard model of the workings of the Sun.
The papers presented by Prof Oliver Manuel are cutting edge scientific information backed by research.
New ideas are sometimes hard to accept, when you have a standard theory in place. You have to go up stream for sometime until main stream catches on.
I do not agree with the standard model of the workings of the Sun.
The papers presented by Prof Oliver Manuel are cutting edge scientific information backed by research.
New ideas are sometimes hard to accept, when you have a standard theory in place. You have to go up stream for sometime until main stream catches on.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 28 2008, 01:47 PM)
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
I do not agree with the standard model of the workings of the Sun.
The papers presented by Prof Oliver Manuel are cutting edge scientific information backed by research.
New ideas are sometimes hard to accept, when you have a standard theory in place. You have to go up stream for sometime until main stream catches on.
Then you were lying when you said this weren't you.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=19744&st=240#
I do not agree with the standard model of the workings of the Sun.
The papers presented by Prof Oliver Manuel are cutting edge scientific information backed by research.
New ideas are sometimes hard to accept, when you have a standard theory in place. You have to go up stream for sometime until main stream catches on.
Then you were lying when you said this weren't you.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=19744&st=240#
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 27 2008, 04:24 PM)
have no problem or beef with stellar Nucleosynthesis and Silicon burning.
No response for my assertion that your silicon/iron argument doesn't hold water eh? So you just find some minor inconsistency in something Harry said and call him a "liar".
Luckily, readers can see what was written for themselves. I imagine they'll conclude that rather than have a discussion of the subject that you'll just resort to the same sort of childish attacks that you used with Mozina when you couldn't refute the things he said.
What's wrong with you dude? Teach ninth grade physics and afraid you'll have to change your 20 year old lesson plan? You react defensively with the same sort of personal attacks anytime your dogma is challenged here. You are on the same level as the religionists that post here.
I doubt I can stomach the bile you spew here much longer.
Luckily, readers can see what was written for themselves. I imagine they'll conclude that rather than have a discussion of the subject that you'll just resort to the same sort of childish attacks that you used with Mozina when you couldn't refute the things he said.
What's wrong with you dude? Teach ninth grade physics and afraid you'll have to change your 20 year old lesson plan? You react defensively with the same sort of personal attacks anytime your dogma is challenged here. You are on the same level as the religionists that post here.
I doubt I can stomach the bile you spew here much longer.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 28 2008, 09:15 PM)
No response for my assertion that your silicon/iron argument doesn't hold water eh?
What assertion? I didn't see any posts directed at me. I did however see a bunch of questions and answers that didn't make sense though.
What assertion? I didn't see any posts directed at me. I did however see a bunch of questions and answers that didn't make sense though.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 28 2008, 09:15 PM)
So you just find some minor inconsistency in something Harry said and call him a "liar".
It wasn't a minor inconsistancy, he completely contradicted himself.
It wasn't a minor inconsistancy, he completely contradicted himself.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 28 2008, 09:15 PM)
Luckily, readers can see what was written for themselves. I imagine they'll conclude that rather than have a discussion of the subject that you'll just resort to the same sort of childish attacks that you used with Mozina when you couldn't refute the things he said.
More likely, if they're actually interested, they'll realize just how empty this rhetoric of yours is. I could (and did) refute Mozina's arguments, Mozina however refused to listen to anything I had to say, equally validly, in spite of my explaining myself, Mozina insisted on making inflammatory statements.
You're expecting me to take responsibility for Mozina's actions?
More likely, if they're actually interested, they'll realize just how empty this rhetoric of yours is. I could (and did) refute Mozina's arguments, Mozina however refused to listen to anything I had to say, equally validly, in spite of my explaining myself, Mozina insisted on making inflammatory statements.
You're expecting me to take responsibility for Mozina's actions?
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 28 2008, 09:15 PM)
What's wrong with you dude? Teach ninth grade physics and afraid you'll have to change your 20 year old lesson plan? You react defensively with the same sort of personal attacks anytime your dogma is challenged here. You are on the same level as the religionists that post here.
I doubt I can stomach the bile you spew here much longer.
More empty rhetoric - why is it that whenever I attempt to engage someone in conversation and encourage them to justify their statements, suddenly i'm the villain?
Dude, get a grip. You seriously have some anger issues.
I can honestly say that i'm not afraid of anything i've seen on this forum.
And I still haven't seen anybody justify how a solid iron shell with a diameter of approximately 1.3x10^9 and an implied thickness on the order of kilometers can exist immersed in a plasma of nearly 6,000 k (bp 3,000 k) can be stable - especially when we see Fe (IX) emission lines in the surface features.
Piece of advice - When a post is directed at someone, generally speaking, it's good nettiquette to actually address it to them.
No doubt you're about to start ranting and raving about my discussion with Mozina, but really, i'm not interested.
I doubt I can stomach the bile you spew here much longer.
More empty rhetoric - why is it that whenever I attempt to engage someone in conversation and encourage them to justify their statements, suddenly i'm the villain?
Dude, get a grip. You seriously have some anger issues.
I can honestly say that i'm not afraid of anything i've seen on this forum.
And I still haven't seen anybody justify how a solid iron shell with a diameter of approximately 1.3x10^9 and an implied thickness on the order of kilometers can exist immersed in a plasma of nearly 6,000 k (bp 3,000 k) can be stable - especially when we see Fe (IX) emission lines in the surface features.
Piece of advice - When a post is directed at someone, generally speaking, it's good nettiquette to actually address it to them.
No doubt you're about to start ranting and raving about my discussion with Mozina, but really, i'm not interested.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz
Trippy, what is your problem.
I see you read words out of context.
What do you mean by:
It is better to stick to the subject rather than not.
=======================================
I do not mind discussing any issues, but no baby talk,,,,,,,,,,,,,unless we are joking around.
Trippy, what is your problem.
I see you read words out of context.
What do you mean by:
QUOTE
Then you were lying when you said this weren't you.
It is better to stick to the subject rather than not.
=======================================
I do not mind discussing any issues, but no baby talk,,,,,,,,,,,,,unless we are joking around.
I can only assume that these are the points you wee whinging about.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 27 2008, 08:33 PM)
So um ...
Q. What was the composition of the post-nova nebula after Sol 1 blew itself to smithereens?
A. All the elements created in that star.
No, not really, there's wasn't a 'Sol 1' and there wasn't a 'single star' that preceeded the sun.
First off, there was an entire generation of stars that were metal free, then there was an entire generation of stars that had a low metal content. In all likelyhood, there were dozens of of stars. Evidence for this sort of evolution is in the fact that when we look at stars we see a variety of metallicities, there are other lines of evidence to support this as well.
Q. What was the composition of the post-nova nebula after Sol 1 blew itself to smithereens?
A. All the elements created in that star.
No, not really, there's wasn't a 'Sol 1' and there wasn't a 'single star' that preceeded the sun.
First off, there was an entire generation of stars that were metal free, then there was an entire generation of stars that had a low metal content. In all likelyhood, there were dozens of of stars. Evidence for this sort of evolution is in the fact that when we look at stars we see a variety of metallicities, there are other lines of evidence to support this as well.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 27 2008, 08:33 PM)
Q. Which of those elements from that nebula coalesced to form our current Star (Sol 2)?
A. All of the elements available in the nebula.
The sun did not coalesce out of the remnants of an exploded star. When a star explodes, it forms a shockwave, that shockwave forms a bubble, when that bubble interacts with (for example) a GMC, turbulent mixing occurs. Sometimes that turbulent mixing causes the cloud (or part of it) to collapse into a star, or group of stars.
A. All of the elements available in the nebula.
The sun did not coalesce out of the remnants of an exploded star. When a star explodes, it forms a shockwave, that shockwave forms a bubble, when that bubble interacts with (for example) a GMC, turbulent mixing occurs. Sometimes that turbulent mixing causes the cloud (or part of it) to collapse into a star, or group of stars.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 27 2008, 08:33 PM)
Q. Was Sol 1 massive enough to have fused silicon to iron?
A. Almost certainly as it was most likely a 1st generation star.
This statement is largely inaccurate. It's also largely a tautology (ironically enough). For a star to be large enough to explode, it will also be large enough to fuse silicon into Iron. It's inaccurate in that there wasn't a sol 1 in the way ou've been describing it.
A. Almost certainly as it was most likely a 1st generation star.
This statement is largely inaccurate. It's also largely a tautology (ironically enough). For a star to be large enough to explode, it will also be large enough to fuse silicon into Iron. It's inaccurate in that there wasn't a sol 1 in the way ou've been describing it.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 27 2008, 08:33 PM)
Q. So then there's an abundance of iron in the core of the Sun just as there is on every other body in the solar system?
A. Without a doubt.
Perhaps, perhaps not, the Iron in the sun might be mixed evenly through out the body of the sun, it's not neccessarily concentrated in the middle. The sun's phosophere is 6.1% Iron, where the earth is 32% Iron.
But really, this is a non-sequitere, and a strawman argument to boot. I can't recall arguing against there being more iron in the core, then in the photosphere, what I have argued against is the idea of an iron core in the sense that the earth has one. My recollection is that the degree of turbulent mixing prevents this from happening with regards to the Helium core of the sun, and the iron cores of larger stars there's sufficient ash that a portion of it settles - as with any suspension. A small anount of fine sediment in a glass jar, a small amount, bownian motion in the water will be sufficient to keep it mixed without deposition of sediment on the bottom of the jar.
So, in spite of your whinging, I haven't seen you say anything that comes remotely close to my "Silicon/Iron argument not holding water".
Of course, in your zeal, the point that you ignore is the fact that everything i'm talking about was worked on by Fred Hoyle who was opposed to the BBT.
A. Without a doubt.
Perhaps, perhaps not, the Iron in the sun might be mixed evenly through out the body of the sun, it's not neccessarily concentrated in the middle. The sun's phosophere is 6.1% Iron, where the earth is 32% Iron.
But really, this is a non-sequitere, and a strawman argument to boot. I can't recall arguing against there being more iron in the core, then in the photosphere, what I have argued against is the idea of an iron core in the sense that the earth has one. My recollection is that the degree of turbulent mixing prevents this from happening with regards to the Helium core of the sun, and the iron cores of larger stars there's sufficient ash that a portion of it settles - as with any suspension. A small anount of fine sediment in a glass jar, a small amount, bownian motion in the water will be sufficient to keep it mixed without deposition of sediment on the bottom of the jar.
So, in spite of your whinging, I haven't seen you say anything that comes remotely close to my "Silicon/Iron argument not holding water".
Of course, in your zeal, the point that you ignore is the fact that everything i'm talking about was worked on by Fred Hoyle who was opposed to the BBT.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 28 2008, 09:49 PM)
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz
Trippy, what is your problem.
I see you read words out of context.
What do you mean by:
It is better to stick to the subject rather than not.
=======================================
I do not mind discussing any issues, but no baby talk,,,,,,,,,,,,,unless we are joking around.
I thought I made it abundantly clear.
First you claimed one thing - that you had no beef with the standard models of stellar nucleosynthesis, then you stated that you did.
Trippy, what is your problem.
I see you read words out of context.
What do you mean by:
It is better to stick to the subject rather than not.
=======================================
I do not mind discussing any issues, but no baby talk,,,,,,,,,,,,,unless we are joking around.
I thought I made it abundantly clear.
First you claimed one thing - that you had no beef with the standard models of stellar nucleosynthesis, then you stated that you did.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 28 2008, 10:29 AM)
I can only assume (obfuscating text replaced for clarity's sake) blah blah wikipedia blah blah blah wikipedia blah blah ...
Apparently Wikipedia doesn't have extensive enough information for you to refute the studies/links posted so you resort to the standard "TrippyObfuscation".
I'm well aware that Fred Hoyle was one of the leading proponents of todays standard model. His work in that area and his objections to BBT aren't directly related. Pulling Hoyle out of your arse as some sort peg to hang your "I'm not dogmatic ... see I referenced the 'steady state' fruitcake" hat doesn't lend any additional credence to what your saying. It's the equivalent of Dan Quayle's attempt to associated himself with JFK
Stellar evolution is likely not just the one-trick pony (Eagle Nebula) you portray. Huge levels of variability are the norm. EU/Plasma theories are gaining ground everyday and you railing against it won't change that fact. Admittedly, people of my level of physics sophistication might be drawn to it earlier than is perhaps wise, but the method of your objections do nothing to assuage that. From what I have gleaned in my time here I must defer somewhat to your physics knowledge but that deference does not extend to your humanity. As to that aspect here, you are inferior and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth with each direct interaction.
Even with your continual pissing, this thread is probably one of the best on this site in the last year. Without you, it would have that honor wrapped up.
Apparently Wikipedia doesn't have extensive enough information for you to refute the studies/links posted so you resort to the standard "TrippyObfuscation".
I'm well aware that Fred Hoyle was one of the leading proponents of todays standard model. His work in that area and his objections to BBT aren't directly related. Pulling Hoyle out of your arse as some sort peg to hang your "I'm not dogmatic ... see I referenced the 'steady state' fruitcake" hat doesn't lend any additional credence to what your saying. It's the equivalent of Dan Quayle's attempt to associated himself with JFK
Stellar evolution is likely not just the one-trick pony (Eagle Nebula) you portray. Huge levels of variability are the norm. EU/Plasma theories are gaining ground everyday and you railing against it won't change that fact. Admittedly, people of my level of physics sophistication might be drawn to it earlier than is perhaps wise, but the method of your objections do nothing to assuage that. From what I have gleaned in my time here I must defer somewhat to your physics knowledge but that deference does not extend to your humanity. As to that aspect here, you are inferior and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth with each direct interaction.
Even with your continual pissing, this thread is probably one of the best on this site in the last year. Without you, it would have that honor wrapped up.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz
Hello Trippy
You said
Mate lets get back on track.
What is your beef?
Meaning ref to the topic.
People read words out of context and thats ok. It seems this is the case.
Uaafanblog said
Mate lets get back on track.
What is your beef?
Meaning ref to the topic.
People read words out of context and thats ok. It seems this is the case.
Uaafanblog said
Even with your continual pissing, this thread is probably one of the best on this site in the last year. Without you, it would have that honor wrapped up.
Trippy is pissed off over something, so let him air his thoughts. Its only words over cyber space.
========================================
Question
If the standard model assumes that our Sun is a ball of Hydrogen.
Can some tell me the problem with this theory?
Hello Trippy
You said
QUOTE
I thought I made it abundantly clear.
First you claimed one thing - that you had no beef with the standard models of stellar nucleosynthesis, then you stated that you did.
First you claimed one thing - that you had no beef with the standard models of stellar nucleosynthesis, then you stated that you did.
Mate lets get back on track.
What is your beef?
Meaning ref to the topic.
People read words out of context and thats ok. It seems this is the case.
Uaafanblog said
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I thought I made it abundantly clear. First you claimed one thing - that you had no beef with the standard models of stellar nucleosynthesis, then you stated that you did. |
Mate lets get back on track.
What is your beef?
Meaning ref to the topic.
People read words out of context and thats ok. It seems this is the case.
Uaafanblog said
Even with your continual pissing, this thread is probably one of the best on this site in the last year. Without you, it would have that honor wrapped up.
Trippy is pissed off over something, so let him air his thoughts. Its only words over cyber space.
========================================
Question
If the standard model assumes that our Sun is a ball of Hydrogen.
Can some tell me the problem with this theory?
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 09:20 AM)
Apparently Wikipedia doesn't have extensive enough information for you to refute the studies/links posted so you resort to the standard "TrippyObfuscation".
I present a reasoned response to your post and this abuse is the best you can come up with? And you have the timerity to sit around complaining about my short temper with someone who was being provocative and misleading?
Did you forget to take your anti-psychotics this morning or something?
I present a reasoned response to your post and this abuse is the best you can come up with? And you have the timerity to sit around complaining about my short temper with someone who was being provocative and misleading?
Did you forget to take your anti-psychotics this morning or something?
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 09:20 AM)
I'm well aware that Fred Hoyle was one of the leading proponents of todays standard model.
That's nice.
That's nice.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 09:20 AM)
His work in that area and his objections to BBT aren't directly related.
Which is precisely the point that I was trying to make - that stellar evolution and the BBT aren't neccessarily related, objecting to one does not neccessitate objecting to both.
Which is precisely the point that I was trying to make - that stellar evolution and the BBT aren't neccessarily related, objecting to one does not neccessitate objecting to both.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 09:20 AM)
Pulling Hoyle out of your arse as some sort peg to hang your "I'm not dogmatic ... see I referenced the 'steady state' fruitcake" hat doesn't lend any additional credence to what your saying. It's the equivalent of Dan Quayle's attempt to associated himself with JFK
This statement is deliberately misleading, and constitutes an appeal to emotion (a logical fallacy) it also constitutes a strawman argument (another logical fallacy).
You have deliberately misrepresented my statements and position. At no time have I called Fred Hoyle a fruit cake (in fact I have a lot of respect for him), nor did I reference him as some sort of peg to hang my hat on. I referencd him to demonstrate that belief in one does not imply belief in the other.
This statement is deliberately misleading, and constitutes an appeal to emotion (a logical fallacy) it also constitutes a strawman argument (another logical fallacy).
You have deliberately misrepresented my statements and position. At no time have I called Fred Hoyle a fruit cake (in fact I have a lot of respect for him), nor did I reference him as some sort of peg to hang my hat on. I referencd him to demonstrate that belief in one does not imply belief in the other.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 09:20 AM)
Stellar evolution is likely not just the one-trick pony (Eagle Nebula) you portray.
You're the one that was portraying it as a one trick pony, not me. You're the one that was attempting to insinuate that, or simply stating that the current models imply that it was as simple One star BOOM, Sun. Remember, I specifically stated that it was more complicated then that.
Here we have Barakn saying the same thing as me and providing a reference for it.
You're the one that was portraying it as a one trick pony, not me. You're the one that was attempting to insinuate that, or simply stating that the current models imply that it was as simple One star BOOM, Sun. Remember, I specifically stated that it was more complicated then that.
Here we have Barakn saying the same thing as me and providing a reference for it.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 09:20 AM)
Huge levels of variability are the norm. EU/Plasma theories are gaining ground everyday and you railing against it won't change that fact.
Then why does no one address the basic points that I have raised in this thread? The basic points that at this stage stand un contested?
Then why does no one address the basic points that I have raised in this thread? The basic points that at this stage stand un contested?
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 09:20 AM)
Admittedly, people of my level of physics sophistication might be drawn to it earlier than is perhaps wise, but the method of your objections do nothing to assuage that.
What, presenting a reasoned argument, then eventually getting scratchy at it being stated or implied that I only say what I say because i'm a brain dead text book spewing zombie with a dogmatic belief in fairies?
Yeah, right, you can't stay civil either, you're no better then you claim I am.
What, presenting a reasoned argument, then eventually getting scratchy at it being stated or implied that I only say what I say because i'm a brain dead text book spewing zombie with a dogmatic belief in fairies?
Yeah, right, you can't stay civil either, you're no better then you claim I am.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 09:20 AM)
From what I have gleaned in my time here I must defer somewhat to your physics knowledge but that deference does not extend to your humanity.
You know nothing of my humanity - save that I am occasionally short tempered when I get continually insulted.
Get real.
You know nothing of my humanity - save that I am occasionally short tempered when I get continually insulted.
Get real.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 09:20 AM)
As to that aspect here, you are inferior and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth with each direct interaction.
More empty rhetoric and ad hominem attacks. This post is proof that you're no better then you claim I am. I mean, get real. The most insulting thing that I did was refer to your whinging, which I consider this post to be (and it was this post specifically I was referring to). And by your own standards it's a justified comment, after all, you posted this, critisizing me for not responding to a post that wasn't actually addressed to me.
More empty rhetoric and ad hominem attacks. This post is proof that you're no better then you claim I am. I mean, get real. The most insulting thing that I did was refer to your whinging, which I consider this post to be (and it was this post specifically I was referring to). And by your own standards it's a justified comment, after all, you posted this, critisizing me for not responding to a post that wasn't actually addressed to me.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 09:20 AM)
Even with your continual pissing, this thread is probably one of the best on this site in the last year. Without you, it would have that honor wrapped up.
Right... Which is why it's you that started attacking me out of the blue in this thread - see, i've been right back through this thread, and not once have I insulted you in this thread. In fact here we have you agreeing with my contention that Mozina's use of language was inflammatory.
All i've done is point out some of the mistakes you've made, and offer more information, and that's got you frothing at the mouth.
in this thread, I have presented reasoned arguments, and you've responded with insults.
Initially you agreed that the language being used by Mozina was provocative and inflammatory, and now your critisizing me for responding to that very same provocation, and saying that responding to it makes me inhuman?
Get real.
I don't know what the **** has changed, but frankly, i'm finding your behaviour annoying. You've gone from being someone I enjoyed talking to, to being an ***, and you're trying to blame me for it.
Well, i'm not going to wear it.
Right... Which is why it's you that started attacking me out of the blue in this thread - see, i've been right back through this thread, and not once have I insulted you in this thread. In fact here we have you agreeing with my contention that Mozina's use of language was inflammatory.
All i've done is point out some of the mistakes you've made, and offer more information, and that's got you frothing at the mouth.
in this thread, I have presented reasoned arguments, and you've responded with insults.
Initially you agreed that the language being used by Mozina was provocative and inflammatory, and now your critisizing me for responding to that very same provocation, and saying that responding to it makes me inhuman?
Get real.
I don't know what the **** has changed, but frankly, i'm finding your behaviour annoying. You've gone from being someone I enjoyed talking to, to being an ***, and you're trying to blame me for it.
Well, i'm not going to wear it.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 29 2008, 10:29 AM)
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz
Hello Trippy
You said
Mate lets get back on track.
What is your beef?
Meaning ref to the topic.
My beef is that you claimed one thing, and then a few posts later claimed another.
My beef is that you've contradicted yourself, and in spite of my having asked you to clarify the apparent contradiction, you keep dancing around the bush, refusing to make a definitive statement.
Hello Trippy
You said
Mate lets get back on track.
What is your beef?
Meaning ref to the topic.
My beef is that you claimed one thing, and then a few posts later claimed another.
My beef is that you've contradicted yourself, and in spite of my having asked you to clarify the apparent contradiction, you keep dancing around the bush, refusing to make a definitive statement.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 29 2008, 10:29 AM)
Trippy is pissed off over something, so let him air his thoughts. Its only words over cyber space.
Oh for **** sake. I've made it abundantly clear.
Seeing as how you seem to be reading 'Strine rather then english, let me break it down for you.
The simple truth of point 4 is that Plasma cosmology captured my attention, it utterly fascinated me for a while, but the more I read about it, the less convinced I became, pure and simple.
Oh for **** sake. I've made it abundantly clear.
Seeing as how you seem to be reading 'Strine rather then english, let me break it down for you.
- 1. Uaafanblogs unprovoked attack.
2. Your beating around the bush and refusing to answer questions.
3. Mozina's provocative language.
4. The assumption that because I happen to believe that the evidence supports the BBT over EU or plasma cosmology, that I haven't actually looked into it.
The simple truth of point 4 is that Plasma cosmology captured my attention, it utterly fascinated me for a while, but the more I read about it, the less convinced I became, pure and simple.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 29 2008, 10:29 AM)
Question
If the standard model assumes that our Sun is a ball of Hydrogen.
Can some tell me the problem with this theory?
Yeah, for start, your interpretation of it. That's not what the standard model of stellar evolution/nucleosynthesis assumes at all.
Tell me something, can you see the problem with assuming that the sun possess the same composition as the earth?
If the standard model assumes that our Sun is a ball of Hydrogen.
Can some tell me the problem with this theory?
Yeah, for start, your interpretation of it. That's not what the standard model of stellar evolution/nucleosynthesis assumes at all.
Tell me something, can you see the problem with assuming that the sun possess the same composition as the earth?
G'day trippy
Discuss one point at the time.
You said'
First discuss the issue of the Sun being mostly Hydrogen. What is your opinion?
Secondly, althouth the sun is able to produce many of the lements. Elements higher than Fe and Ni become unstable and break down to Fe. So the Sun does not have the same composition as the Earth.
====================================
I think you remind me of my wife, she has the same attitude.
Discuss one point at the time.
You said'
QUOTE
Yeah, for start, your interpretation of it. That's not what the standard model of stellar evolution/nucleosynthesis assumes at all.
Tell me something, can you see the problem with assuming that the sun possess the same composition as the earth?
Tell me something, can you see the problem with assuming that the sun possess the same composition as the earth?
First discuss the issue of the Sun being mostly Hydrogen. What is your opinion?
Secondly, althouth the sun is able to produce many of the lements. Elements higher than Fe and Ni become unstable and break down to Fe. So the Sun does not have the same composition as the Earth.
====================================
I think you remind me of my wife, she has the same attitude.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 29 2008, 11:41 AM)
G'day trippy
Discuss one point at the time.
You said'
First discuss the issue of the Sun being mostly Hydrogen. What is your opinion?
I agree that the sun is mostly Hydrogen.
The evidence we can collect in our own solar system by examining the gas giants, and comets/KBO's supports this assertion.
The evidence we can collect from outside our solar system by examining GMC's (EG the Orion nebula) and from outside our galaxy (SMC, LMC, andromeda, any other galaxy close enough to resolve star forming regions) also supports this assertion.
Discuss one point at the time.
You said'
First discuss the issue of the Sun being mostly Hydrogen. What is your opinion?
I agree that the sun is mostly Hydrogen.
The evidence we can collect in our own solar system by examining the gas giants, and comets/KBO's supports this assertion.
The evidence we can collect from outside our solar system by examining GMC's (EG the Orion nebula) and from outside our galaxy (SMC, LMC, andromeda, any other galaxy close enough to resolve star forming regions) also supports this assertion.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 29 2008, 11:41 AM)
Secondly, althouth the sun is able to produce many of the lements. Elements higher than Fe and Ni become unstable and break down to Fe. So the Sun does not have the same composition as the Earth.
I mostly disagree.
I agree that the sun fuses Hydrogen into Helium, and I also agree that the CNO cycle is active in the sun, but as I understand it, that's as far as it goes (for example, the sun is not currently producing Iron). I also disagree in the sense that the sun is not hot enough to cause significant photodisintegration.
And yet if an electrodynamic process is a key part of the Sun's nature that will be an additional nail in the BBT's coffin. The convolution of which was created by your obfuscations.
And yet if an electrodynamic process is a key part of the Sun's nature that will be an additional nail in the BBT's coffin. The convolution of which was created by your obfuscations.
This statement is deliberately misleading, and constitutes an appeal to emotion (a logical fallacy) it also constitutes a strawman argument (another logical fallacy). You have deliberately misrepresented my statements and position. At no time have I called Fred Hoyle a fruit cake (in fact I have a lot of respect for him), nor did I reference him as some sort of peg to hang my hat on. I referencd him to demonstrate that belief in one does not imply belief in the other.
It was clearly my interpretation of what you'd said. It wasn't a strawman. I didn't say you said it. I inferred meaning from it and your history. Such restatings (whether they are intended to bolster or impugn) are a part of the natural give and take on a forum such as this. Perhaps if you can't deal with that without your short temper getting the best of you, then you should consider alternative forums ... I'd imagine there is a wrestling forum somewhere on the interwebs. Perhaps that would suit you?
Yes. I tried to simplify the discussion. I should have used different terminology (i.e... should have just called our star "2nd generation" as opposed to any references to "Sol 1"). It is a mistake of a layman. I'm a layman. Nevertheless, it wasn't a particularly brutal error.
Yes. I tried to simplify the discussion. I should have used different terminology (i.e... should have just called our star "2nd generation" as opposed to any references to "Sol 1"). It is a mistake of a layman. I'm a layman. Nevertheless, it wasn't a particularly brutal error.
Initially you agreed that the language being used by Mozina was provocative and inflammatory, and now your critisizing me for responding to that very same provocation, and saying that responding to it makes me inhuman?
My recollection includes me virtually begging for some civility. I remember Mozina being a proponent and you taking up the con. I remember Mozina's "provocations" being constrained to the nature of the discussion while your retorts were personal and defensive (as they are again).
And yes (without including your additional quotes because all that editing is just a pain), I did call you out personally in the last day or two. But only after you used the word "liar" in response to a Costas mistatement/misinterpretation/misunderstanding. That word was the "ad hominem" attack. Mine were "post" hominem.
Lastly, using your standard for the word "strawman" ... I never claimed to be better than you. My attack on you in no way included any reference to me. I did call you "inferior" but that was a comparison to humanity as a whole versus me specifically. I'm an ***. I know I'm an ***. I admit to being an *** all the time. I'm comfortable with my assholeness. I'm also a prick. Embrace your own assholeness.
The basic problem here is that I don't dig you going off the deep end just because someone else misstated something. It was well beyond what was necessary and exactly the sort of thing you've done in this thread with regard to Mozina.
And this off-topic bullshit argument is an unwelcome distraction from the discussion that should be happening. Hopefully, it can return and you can get your questions answered by someone with more knowledge of the subject than me.
And yet if an electrodynamic process is a key part of the Sun's nature that will be an additional nail in the BBT's coffin. The convolution of which was created by your obfuscations.
No, not neccessarily. And there was no convolutions or obfuscations on your part.
I mostly disagree.
I agree that the sun fuses Hydrogen into Helium, and I also agree that the CNO cycle is active in the sun, but as I understand it, that's as far as it goes (for example, the sun is not currently producing Iron). I also disagree in the sense that the sun is not hot enough to cause significant photodisintegration.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 29 2008, 11:41 AM)
I think you remind me of my wife, she has the same attitude.
Whatever.
Whatever.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 28 2008, 10:50 PM)
QUOTE
Which is precisely the point that I was trying to make - that stellar evolution and the BBT aren't neccessarily related, objecting to one does not neccessitate objecting to both.
And yet if an electrodynamic process is a key part of the Sun's nature that will be an additional nail in the BBT's coffin. The convolution of which was created by your obfuscations.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Which is precisely the point that I was trying to make - that stellar evolution and the BBT aren't neccessarily related, objecting to one does not neccessitate objecting to both. |
And yet if an electrodynamic process is a key part of the Sun's nature that will be an additional nail in the BBT's coffin. The convolution of which was created by your obfuscations.
This statement is deliberately misleading, and constitutes an appeal to emotion (a logical fallacy) it also constitutes a strawman argument (another logical fallacy). You have deliberately misrepresented my statements and position. At no time have I called Fred Hoyle a fruit cake (in fact I have a lot of respect for him), nor did I reference him as some sort of peg to hang my hat on. I referencd him to demonstrate that belief in one does not imply belief in the other.
It was clearly my interpretation of what you'd said. It wasn't a strawman. I didn't say you said it. I inferred meaning from it and your history. Such restatings (whether they are intended to bolster or impugn) are a part of the natural give and take on a forum such as this. Perhaps if you can't deal with that without your short temper getting the best of you, then you should consider alternative forums ... I'd imagine there is a wrestling forum somewhere on the interwebs. Perhaps that would suit you?
QUOTE
You're the one that was portraying it as a one trick pony, not me. You're the one that was attempting to insinuate that, or simply stating that the current models imply that it was as simple One star BOOM, Sun. Remember, I specifically stated that it was more complicated then that.
Yes. I tried to simplify the discussion. I should have used different terminology (i.e... should have just called our star "2nd generation" as opposed to any references to "Sol 1"). It is a mistake of a layman. I'm a layman. Nevertheless, it wasn't a particularly brutal error.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're the one that was portraying it as a one trick pony, not me. You're the one that was attempting to insinuate that, or simply stating that the current models imply that it was as simple One star BOOM, Sun. Remember, I specifically stated that it was more complicated then that. |
Yes. I tried to simplify the discussion. I should have used different terminology (i.e... should have just called our star "2nd generation" as opposed to any references to "Sol 1"). It is a mistake of a layman. I'm a layman. Nevertheless, it wasn't a particularly brutal error.
Initially you agreed that the language being used by Mozina was provocative and inflammatory, and now your critisizing me for responding to that very same provocation, and saying that responding to it makes me inhuman?
My recollection includes me virtually begging for some civility. I remember Mozina being a proponent and you taking up the con. I remember Mozina's "provocations" being constrained to the nature of the discussion while your retorts were personal and defensive (as they are again).
And yes (without including your additional quotes because all that editing is just a pain), I did call you out personally in the last day or two. But only after you used the word "liar" in response to a Costas mistatement/misinterpretation/misunderstanding. That word was the "ad hominem" attack. Mine were "post" hominem.
Lastly, using your standard for the word "strawman" ... I never claimed to be better than you. My attack on you in no way included any reference to me. I did call you "inferior" but that was a comparison to humanity as a whole versus me specifically. I'm an ***. I know I'm an ***. I admit to being an *** all the time. I'm comfortable with my assholeness. I'm also a prick. Embrace your own assholeness.
The basic problem here is that I don't dig you going off the deep end just because someone else misstated something. It was well beyond what was necessary and exactly the sort of thing you've done in this thread with regard to Mozina.
And this off-topic bullshit argument is an unwelcome distraction from the discussion that should be happening. Hopefully, it can return and you can get your questions answered by someone with more knowledge of the subject than me.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
I hope thats the end of the conflict. Although some get off at doing that. Its a form of cyber sex.
=====================================
These links are for general info and rated "G".
My opinion on the links is not important. Some I do not agree with. But! thats me.
Old Star's "Rebirth" Gives Astronomers Surprises
http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2005/sakurai/
Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978Ap%26SS..55..487A
STELLAR EVOLUTION
http://www.iac.es/gabinete/iacnotici...98/xevoluc.htm
Stellar Evolution - Stellar Mechanics
http://science.jrank.org/pages/6490/...mechanics.html
Star Life Cycle
http://aspire.cosmic-ray.org/labs/st...life_main.html
Life and deaths of stars
http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/s10.htm
NASA
Stars
http://nasascience.nasa.gov/astrophy...orm-and-evolve
Stages in the Life of a Star
http://www.maa.mhn.de/Scholar/star_evol.html
http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/s10.htm
I hope thats the end of the conflict. Although some get off at doing that. Its a form of cyber sex.
=====================================
These links are for general info and rated "G".
My opinion on the links is not important. Some I do not agree with. But! thats me.
Old Star's "Rebirth" Gives Astronomers Surprises
http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2005/sakurai/
Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978Ap%26SS..55..487A
STELLAR EVOLUTION
http://www.iac.es/gabinete/iacnotici...98/xevoluc.htm
Stellar Evolution - Stellar Mechanics
http://science.jrank.org/pages/6490/...mechanics.html
Star Life Cycle
http://aspire.cosmic-ray.org/labs/st...life_main.html
Life and deaths of stars
http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/s10.htm
NASA
Stars
http://nasascience.nasa.gov/astrophy...orm-and-evolve
Stages in the Life of a Star
http://www.maa.mhn.de/Scholar/star_evol.html
http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/s10.htm
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 12:35 PM)
And yet if an electrodynamic process is a key part of the Sun's nature that will be an additional nail in the BBT's coffin. The convolution of which was created by your obfuscations.
No, not neccessarily. And there was no convolutions or obfuscations on your part.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 12:35 PM)
It was clearly my interpretation of what you'd said.
A (deliberate) mis-interpretation.
A (deliberate) mis-interpretation.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 12:35 PM)
It wasn't a strawman.
It was a misrepresentation of my words, you set up an argument that resembled mine, and then ridiculed it. Ergo, strawman.
It was a misrepresentation of my words, you set up an argument that resembled mine, and then ridiculed it. Ergo, strawman.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 12:35 PM)
I didn't say you said it. I inferred meaning from it and your history.
Right... And you've proven your bias/grudge against me multiple times. So you inferred a wrong meaning from my words, based on a biased opinion of my history.
And you wonder why I got cranky?
Right... And you've proven your bias/grudge against me multiple times. So you inferred a wrong meaning from my words, based on a biased opinion of my history.
And you wonder why I got cranky?
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 12:35 PM)
Such restatings (whether they are intended to bolster or impugn) are a part of the natural give and take on a forum such as this.
And a misrepresentation of those arguments that resembles the actual argument is still technicaly a strawman.
And a misrepresentation of those arguments that resembles the actual argument is still technicaly a strawman.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 12:35 PM)
Perhaps if you can't deal with that without your short temper getting the best of you, then you should consider alternative forums ... I'd imagine there is a wrestling forum somewhere on the interwebs. Perhaps that would suit you?
This is nothing more then a personal attack which I shouldn't really respond to, but I will say that you have, on more then one occasion, without provocation or consideration of the circumstances lambasted me for comments that were not dorected at you.
This is nothing more then a personal attack which I shouldn't really respond to, but I will say that you have, on more then one occasion, without provocation or consideration of the circumstances lambasted me for comments that were not dorected at you.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 12:35 PM)
Yes. I tried to simplify the discussion. I should have used different terminology (i.e... should have just called our star "2nd generation" as opposed to any references to "Sol 1"). It is a mistake of a layman. I'm a layman. Nevertheless, it wasn't a particularly brutal error.
Irrelevant, it was an error, you claimed that it somehow negated what I was saying, it came across as much the same sort of argument that, for example, Gallileo used in one of the dialogs he wrote on gravity.
Irrelevant, it was an error, you claimed that it somehow negated what I was saying, it came across as much the same sort of argument that, for example, Gallileo used in one of the dialogs he wrote on gravity.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 12:35 PM)
My recollection includes me virtually begging for some civility. I remember Mozina being a proponent and you taking up the con. I remember Mozina's "provocations" being constrained to the nature of the discussion while your retorts were personal and defensive (as they are again).
Incorrect. Mozina got as personal as you claim I was being. Of course, given your demonstrated bias, I doubt very strongly you would recognize it.
Incorrect. Mozina got as personal as you claim I was being. Of course, given your demonstrated bias, I doubt very strongly you would recognize it.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 12:35 PM)
And yes (without including your additional quotes because all that editing is just a pain), I did call you out personally in the last day or two. But only after you used the word "liar" in response to a Costas mistatement/misinterpretation/misunderstanding. That word was the "ad hominem" attack. Mine were "post" hominem.
No, it wasn't. I justified it and explained why I used it.
Person A makes two contradictory statements.
One of those statements must be false.
Person A has made at least one false statement.
A false statement is a lie, therefore person A is a liar.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it any less true.
No, it wasn't. I justified it and explained why I used it.
Person A makes two contradictory statements.
One of those statements must be false.
Person A has made at least one false statement.
A false statement is a lie, therefore person A is a liar.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it any less true.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 12:35 PM)
Lastly, using your standard for the word "strawman" ... I never claimed to be better than you. My attack on you in no way included any reference to me. I did call you "inferior" but that was a comparison to humanity as a whole versus me specifically. I'm an ***. I know I'm an ***. I admit to being an *** all the time. I'm comfortable with my assholeness. I'm also a prick. Embrace your own assholeness.
I do, and then I get critiscized by the likes of you and Boneidol when that Assholeness comes out and plays (not something that - generally speaking, happens easily).
And you've missed my point, I wasn't claiming that you thought you were better then me, in fact your honesty (especially after some of the unadulterated BS i've seen on this forum - eg Boneidol). I was simply pointing out the fact that you've critiscized me for this behaviour, but no one else, even though there are plenty of other examples in this thread, and others, that if your as offended by it all as you claim, that you could have spoken up on.
If you're saying that with my level of intelligence and knowledge that I should hold myself to a higher standard then I sometimes manage, I actually agree, however, i'm not perfect, and I'm being poked in nearly every thread i'm involved in, so i'm not going to apologize for being a little short tempered.
I do, and then I get critiscized by the likes of you and Boneidol when that Assholeness comes out and plays (not something that - generally speaking, happens easily).
And you've missed my point, I wasn't claiming that you thought you were better then me, in fact your honesty (especially after some of the unadulterated BS i've seen on this forum - eg Boneidol). I was simply pointing out the fact that you've critiscized me for this behaviour, but no one else, even though there are plenty of other examples in this thread, and others, that if your as offended by it all as you claim, that you could have spoken up on.
If you're saying that with my level of intelligence and knowledge that I should hold myself to a higher standard then I sometimes manage, I actually agree, however, i'm not perfect, and I'm being poked in nearly every thread i'm involved in, so i'm not going to apologize for being a little short tempered.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 12:35 PM)
The basic problem here is that I don't dig you going off the deep end just because someone else misstated something. It was well beyond what was necessary and exactly the sort of thing you've done in this thread with regard to Mozina.
I've already explained my actions as much as I feel the need to.
If you don't like the way I react, don't poke me with a stick, and don't say dumb *** at me (and equally, don't direct ambiguous and provocative comments at me in white font). It's really that simple (and before you say it, if you know anything about me, you'll know I have a high tolerance for 'silly questions' under most conditions - proof of that is in my conversations with DavidD about Quantum Mechanics if you don't believe me.
I've already explained my actions as much as I feel the need to.
If you don't like the way I react, don't poke me with a stick, and don't say dumb *** at me (and equally, don't direct ambiguous and provocative comments at me in white font). It's really that simple (and before you say it, if you know anything about me, you'll know I have a high tolerance for 'silly questions' under most conditions - proof of that is in my conversations with DavidD about Quantum Mechanics if you don't believe me.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 29 2008, 12:35 PM)
And this off-topic bullshit argument is an unwelcome distraction from the discussion that should be happening. Hopefully, it can return and you can get your questions answered by someone with more knowledge of the subject than me.
I agree, and it's left a bitter taste in my mouth, I'd be quite happy for you to admit that your reaction has been over the top, however, i'm done with this bun-fight. I won't be responding to any posts directed at me, by you unless they're actually relevant to the topic at hand/scientific/whatever you want to call it.
I agree, and it's left a bitter taste in my mouth, I'd be quite happy for you to admit that your reaction has been over the top, however, i'm done with this bun-fight. I won't be responding to any posts directed at me, by you unless they're actually relevant to the topic at hand/scientific/whatever you want to call it.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 29 2008, 02:10 PM)
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
I hope thats the end of the conflict. Although some get off at doing that. Its a form of cyber sex.
=====================================
These links are for general info and rated "G".
My opinion on the links is not important. Some I do not agree with. But! thats me.
Old Star's "Rebirth" Gives Astronomers Surprises
http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2005/sakurai/
Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978Ap%26SS..55..487A
STELLAR EVOLUTION
http://www.iac.es/gabinete/iacnotici...98/xevoluc.htm
Stellar Evolution - Stellar Mechanics
http://science.jrank.org/pages/6490/...mechanics.html
Star Life Cycle
http://aspire.cosmic-ray.org/labs/st...life_main.html
Life and deaths of stars
http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/s10.htm
NASA
Stars
http://nasascience.nasa.gov/astrophy...orm-and-evolve
Stages in the Life of a Star
http://www.maa.mhn.de/Scholar/star_evol.html
http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/s10.htm
What precisely is your point in posting these articles?
Are you trying to make a point?
Are you trying to demonstrate something?
I hope thats the end of the conflict. Although some get off at doing that. Its a form of cyber sex.
=====================================
These links are for general info and rated "G".
My opinion on the links is not important. Some I do not agree with. But! thats me.
Old Star's "Rebirth" Gives Astronomers Surprises
http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2005/sakurai/
Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978Ap%26SS..55..487A
STELLAR EVOLUTION
http://www.iac.es/gabinete/iacnotici...98/xevoluc.htm
Stellar Evolution - Stellar Mechanics
http://science.jrank.org/pages/6490/...mechanics.html
Star Life Cycle
http://aspire.cosmic-ray.org/labs/st...life_main.html
Life and deaths of stars
http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/s10.htm
NASA
Stars
http://nasascience.nasa.gov/astrophy...orm-and-evolve
Stages in the Life of a Star
http://www.maa.mhn.de/Scholar/star_evol.html
http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/s10.htm
What precisely is your point in posting these articles?
Are you trying to make a point?
Are you trying to demonstrate something?
G'day trippy
General info mate,,,,,,,,,,you got problem with that.
If you do not want to read them,,so be it.
Many do not know and maybe a bit of reading may give some understanding. Is that Ok with you?
============================================
One more for the road
Just emailed to me
XMM-Newton's massive discovery
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=7323
General info mate,,,,,,,,,,you got problem with that.
If you do not want to read them,,so be it.
Many do not know and maybe a bit of reading may give some understanding. Is that Ok with you?
============================================
One more for the road
Just emailed to me
XMM-Newton's massive discovery
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=7323
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 29 2008, 07:03 PM)
G'day trippy
General info mate,,,,,,,,,,you got problem with that.
If you do not want to read them,,so be it.
Many do not know and maybe a bit of reading may give some understanding. Is that Ok with you?
Get over it.
I was <i>just</i> asking you a question.
You asked me a couple of questions here, which I answered here.
Ordinarily, the 'polite' thing would be for your next post to actually have some relevance to your response, or for you to at least post some response, after all, I took the time to answer your question.
General info mate,,,,,,,,,,you got problem with that.
If you do not want to read them,,so be it.
Many do not know and maybe a bit of reading may give some understanding. Is that Ok with you?
Get over it.
I was <i>just</i> asking you a question.
You asked me a couple of questions here, which I answered here.
Ordinarily, the 'polite' thing would be for your next post to actually have some relevance to your response, or for you to at least post some response, after all, I took the time to answer your question.
G'day Trippy
You said the word polite.
Do you know the meaning of the word?
In the last many posts, you have created a situation of conflict and for what ever reason, who knows.
I will not discuss anything further with you until, I know that you wish to discuss topics and not other issues.
You said the word polite.
Do you know the meaning of the word?
In the last many posts, you have created a situation of conflict and for what ever reason, who knows.
I will not discuss anything further with you until, I know that you wish to discuss topics and not other issues.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 29 2008, 07:48 PM)
G'day Trippy
You said the word polite.
Do you know the meaning of the word?
In the last many posts, you have created a situation of conflict and for what ever reason, who knows.
I will not discuss anything further with you until, I know that you wish to discuss topics and not other issues.
Jesus H.
You wonder why I loose my rag?
Look.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=19744&st=240#
On topic reply to your questions.
If you bothered reading my posts, you would have seen that in my last post to him I told him I had no interest in the bun-fight (a bunfight which he started, not me).
Get over yourself.
Get your facts straight.
Christ almighty.
You said the word polite.
Do you know the meaning of the word?
In the last many posts, you have created a situation of conflict and for what ever reason, who knows.
I will not discuss anything further with you until, I know that you wish to discuss topics and not other issues.
Jesus H.
You wonder why I loose my rag?
Look.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=19744&st=240#
On topic reply to your questions.
If you bothered reading my posts, you would have seen that in my last post to him I told him I had no interest in the bun-fight (a bunfight which he started, not me).
Get over yourself.
Get your facts straight.
Christ almighty.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 29 2008, 06:18 AM)
I do, and then I get critiscized by the likes of you and Boneidol when that Assholeness comes out and plays (not something that - generally speaking, happens easily).
And you've missed my point, I wasn't claiming that you thought you were better then me, in fact your honesty (especially after some of the unadulterated BS i've seen on this forum - eg Boneidol). I was simply pointing out the fact that you've critiscized me for this behaviour, but no one else, even though there are plenty of other examples in this thread, and others, that if your as offended by it all as you claim, that you could have spoken up on
And you've missed my point, I wasn't claiming that you thought you were better then me, in fact your honesty (especially after some of the unadulterated BS i've seen on this forum - eg Boneidol). I was simply pointing out the fact that you've critiscized me for this behaviour, but no one else, even though there are plenty of other examples in this thread, and others, that if your as offended by it all as you claim, that you could have spoken up on.
If you don't like the way I react, don't poke me with a stick, and don't say dumb *** at me (and equally, don't direct ambiguous and provocative comments at me in white font). It's really that simple (and before you say it, if you know anything about me, you'll know I have a high tolerance for 'silly questions' under most conditions - proof of that is in my conversations with DavidD about Quantum Mechanics if you don't believe me.
I agree, and it's left a bitter taste in my mouth, I'd be quite happy for you to admit that your reaction has been over the top, however, i'm done with this bun-fight. I won't be responding to any posts directed at me, by you unless they're actually relevant to the topic at hand/scientific/whatever you want to call it.
Blame it on my my less than discreet desire to stand up for other people. All I really want from this place (and this thread) is to learn something. The nature of the discussions is often difficult at best due to the many reasons of which you are already aware. I suppose that in part it is my recognition that you are already aware of those factors that leads me to expect (my problem not yours) something other than I sometimes see. Hence my 'stand-up-for-others' reactive nature comes into play. So, it's "on me" so to speak. I'm no expert on the subjects at hand here but perhaps my experience in other forums makes me a little trigger happy.
And you've missed my point, I wasn't claiming that you thought you were better then me, in fact your honesty (especially after some of the unadulterated BS i've seen on this forum - eg Boneidol). I was simply pointing out the fact that you've critiscized me for this behaviour, but no one else, even though there are plenty of other examples in this thread, and others, that if your as offended by it all as you claim, that you could have spoken up on
And you've missed my point, I wasn't claiming that you thought you were better then me, in fact your honesty (especially after some of the unadulterated BS i've seen on this forum - eg Boneidol). I was simply pointing out the fact that you've critiscized me for this behaviour, but no one else, even though there are plenty of other examples in this thread, and others, that if your as offended by it all as you claim, that you could have spoken up on.
If you don't like the way I react, don't poke me with a stick, and don't say dumb *** at me (and equally, don't direct ambiguous and provocative comments at me in white font). It's really that simple (and before you say it, if you know anything about me, you'll know I have a high tolerance for 'silly questions' under most conditions - proof of that is in my conversations with DavidD about Quantum Mechanics if you don't believe me.
I agree, and it's left a bitter taste in my mouth, I'd be quite happy for you to admit that your reaction has been over the top, however, i'm done with this bun-fight. I won't be responding to any posts directed at me, by you unless they're actually relevant to the topic at hand/scientific/whatever you want to call it.
Blame it on my my less than discreet desire to stand up for other people. All I really want from this place (and this thread) is to learn something. The nature of the discussions is often difficult at best due to the many reasons of which you are already aware. I suppose that in part it is my recognition that you are already aware of those factors that leads me to expect (my problem not yours) something other than I sometimes see. Hence my 'stand-up-for-others' reactive nature comes into play. So, it's "on me" so to speak. I'm no expert on the subjects at hand here but perhaps my experience in other forums makes me a little trigger happy.
G'day uaafanblog
What did you want to learn?
What did you want to learn?
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 29 2008, 10:13 PM)
G'day uaafanblog
What did you want to learn?
So now you're just going to ignore the points that I made?
If this were a formal debate, that would mean that I would win by default.
What did you want to learn?
So now you're just going to ignore the points that I made?
If this were a formal debate, that would mean that I would win by default.
G'day trippy
Change your attitude and people will discusss issues with you.
If you are interested in winning,,,,,,,,,,,than your a winner by default.
Change your attitude and people will discusss issues with you.
If you are interested in winning,,,,,,,,,,,than your a winner by default.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 30 2008, 02:39 PM)
G'day trippy
Change your attitude and people will discusss issues with you.
If you are interested in winning,,,,,,,,,,,than your a winner by default.
Again - get real.
Read my posts.
I've made my position perfectly clear - even Uaafanblog can see that.
I'm not the one being unreasonable here, it's you.
If English isn't your first language, say so.
Otherwise, go back through my last few posts and try and figure out why your whinging at me is nothing but pointless antagonism by you.
Or, alternatively, i'll give you a big clue.
It's got something to do with the statement "I'm done with this bunfight, I won't be responding to any of your posts unless they're on topic".
Although, i'm tempted to point out to the general viewing audience that you've been recieving negative feedback for precisely this sort of behaviour (avoiding questions) since 2006.
Change your attitude and people will discusss issues with you.
If you are interested in winning,,,,,,,,,,,than your a winner by default.
Again - get real.
Read my posts.
I've made my position perfectly clear - even Uaafanblog can see that.
I'm not the one being unreasonable here, it's you.
If English isn't your first language, say so.
Otherwise, go back through my last few posts and try and figure out why your whinging at me is nothing but pointless antagonism by you.
Or, alternatively, i'll give you a big clue.
It's got something to do with the statement "I'm done with this bunfight, I won't be responding to any of your posts unless they're on topic".
Although, i'm tempted to point out to the general viewing audience that you've been recieving negative feedback for precisely this sort of behaviour (avoiding questions) since 2006.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
Trippy state your question and I will try to answer it.
Keep to the topic
I'm off to la la land where dreams are made.
Trippy state your question and I will try to answer it.
Keep to the topic
I'm off to la la land where dreams are made.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 30 2008, 11:52 PM)
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
Trippy state your question and I will try to answer it.
Keep to the topic
I'm off to la la land where dreams are made.
Trippy state your question and I will try to answer it.
Keep to the topic
I'm off to la la land where dreams are made.
G'day Trippy
I'm not going to go round in circles.
I asked you to support your statements.
What is your point of discussion?
I'm not going to go round in circles.
I asked you to support your statements.
What is your point of discussion?
G'day Fairy
Sounds like you are interested
Let me know if I can help.
Sounds like you are interested
Let me know if I can help.
G'day Fairy
What is BUMP?
What is BUMP?
G'day fairy
That's well and good.
But you do not discuss the issues at hand.
That's well and good.
But you do not discuss the issues at hand.
G'day Fairy
What is your main interest?
What is your main interest?
The sun is listed as a yellow sun in textbooks so many years ago.Now, yahoos science page came out and said its a white dwarf variable.
G'day Philip347
Can you post the link?
Can you post the link?
... in luminosity: the energy output of our Sun, for example, varies by about 0.1 ... [edit] Pulsating white dwarfs. Main article: Pulsating white dwarf ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_star
Many stars are not, like our sun, the only in a solar system. ... becomes a red giant and then a white dwarf, a small but hot and shortlived star ...
vwww.abo.fi/vos/vosusers/tillman/2003/s.htm
>>>This is not the info I wanted.This is an older yahoo science page that says, (NASA now says our sun as a white dwarf variable).
I think the article by NASA aired in yahoo, was in reply to so many people saying and writing in on various science pages, that our sun now burns white.
*edit, Yes I think something awfully strange has happened to our sun, but note that college and high school science books, of twenty years ago, do say that our central sun is a mild yellow sun.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_star
Many stars are not, like our sun, the only in a solar system. ... becomes a red giant and then a white dwarf, a small but hot and shortlived star ...
vwww.abo.fi/vos/vosusers/tillman/2003/s.htm
>>>This is not the info I wanted.This is an older yahoo science page that says, (NASA now says our sun as a white dwarf variable).
I think the article by NASA aired in yahoo, was in reply to so many people saying and writing in on various science pages, that our sun now burns white.
*edit, Yes I think something awfully strange has happened to our sun, but note that college and high school science books, of twenty years ago, do say that our central sun is a mild yellow sun.
I think its a pretty big spot in the rug to try to cover up.
Most science books of twenty years ago, say, {our central sun burns in the yellow range}.
They say it is a yellow sun.Now it seems that this is not so, that it burns in the white range of affairs.
If our sun is a masked variable, then this would certainly pose a few problems for the people living upon Earth.
One' they would start to develop skin and dermal changes.These changes along with nicketating membranes over the eyes, to protect against radiation.
There would begin to be definite problems in the DNA helix, with changes shown in new births plus the ability to replicate mankind.
The most startling evidence, would be a change in mass and density measurements.This is a problem, as since every instrument on Earth would be relativistically changing, the measurements would come out the same.
Lisa Randall a cosmologist, says that Earth and its vicinity is in kind of a gravity well.
I wander if the increased gravity mass phenomenon, is what she is trying to refer to?
*Note, in the 2003 range, people had noted a dramatic increased in solar activity.
Dermatologist said that this sun is not safe to expose yourself to at the beach anymore.
Dermatologist are scientific men, so I guess the claim would stick?
In off-world info, there is one happenstance of bat like faced humanoids, relaying of experimentation with their sun, I suppose to the point it was in trouble, but wont commit to this say.
Source, Fieldguide To Extraterrestrials, log in the many kinds allegedly contacted, met so far.
Most science books of twenty years ago, say, {our central sun burns in the yellow range}.
They say it is a yellow sun.Now it seems that this is not so, that it burns in the white range of affairs.
If our sun is a masked variable, then this would certainly pose a few problems for the people living upon Earth.
One' they would start to develop skin and dermal changes.These changes along with nicketating membranes over the eyes, to protect against radiation.
There would begin to be definite problems in the DNA helix, with changes shown in new births plus the ability to replicate mankind.
The most startling evidence, would be a change in mass and density measurements.This is a problem, as since every instrument on Earth would be relativistically changing, the measurements would come out the same.
Lisa Randall a cosmologist, says that Earth and its vicinity is in kind of a gravity well.
I wander if the increased gravity mass phenomenon, is what she is trying to refer to?
*Note, in the 2003 range, people had noted a dramatic increased in solar activity.
Dermatologist said that this sun is not safe to expose yourself to at the beach anymore.
Dermatologist are scientific men, so I guess the claim would stick?
In off-world info, there is one happenstance of bat like faced humanoids, relaying of experimentation with their sun, I suppose to the point it was in trouble, but wont commit to this say.
Source, Fieldguide To Extraterrestrials, log in the many kinds allegedly contacted, met so far.
Sun's protective 'bubble' is shrinking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...-shrinking.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...-shrinking.html
G'day phillip
If you are correct, that our sun is a white dwarf. Than it changes the composition of the solar envelope and the core.
This means that it is highly probable that our Sun may have a neutron matrix composite.
This means that most of the energy comes from Neutrons changing to protons as they are released. Than you have the fusion of Hydrogen and so on.
If you are correct, that our sun is a white dwarf. Than it changes the composition of the solar envelope and the core.
This means that it is highly probable that our Sun may have a neutron matrix composite.
This means that most of the energy comes from Neutrons changing to protons as they are released. Than you have the fusion of Hydrogen and so on.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.