Quote:
Originally Posted by tusenfem
Well, I think you really have to show that to us. As GR is a general theory of gravity I would be surprised if it worked on the core different than on the outer layers, because, in the limit you get Newton and that shows that gravity is only dependent on the mass inside the sphere of the location where you are.
|
You are not paying attention to what I write. I didn't say that GR worked differently on the core to the surface. I said that "there is a
differential between the effect on the core and the surface because
the proportion of the mass that is radiation and relativistic mass is varying with temperature as you move from the core to the surface". You even quoted that.
Do you agree that the surface of the Sun is much cooler than the core?
Do you agree that the proportion of radiant energy to matter is less at the surface than at the core?
Do you agree that the average velocity of matter (due to temperature) is much lower near the surface than in the core?
Do you agree that therefore the relativistic mass content of the matter at the surface is less than at the core?
You have already agreed that GR acts of photons by twice as much as in Newtonian gravity in a low field. Well that twice as much applies to the photons in the centre of the Sun and at the surface, but the proportion of the Sun's mass in photons near the core is greater. Therefore the proportionate change in momentum that this 2x causes is greater in the core. That means that the core is accelerated differently.
If you don't get this, then you miss the whole point. It is a very important oart of the whole argument.
Quote:
|
It is like so many ATM proposals, they sound nice if you write up stuff in words, might even make some sense, but then getting a real calculation, well that takes more than the 30 days a thread is open.
|
The problem is not the calculations. The problem is the logic is not getting across to you. You can't do the maths until the problem is understood.
Quote:
|
Sure you do have a problem. You want something that regular solar models do not have, and they still work.
|
Actually they don't. There is no solar model that can integrate the conditions either from the core to the surface or the other way and get a correct answer that works. Experts in the Sun have acknowledged this.
But that is beside the point. I am not proposing a new solar model. I am explaining a small effect that is standard physics and has previously been ignored. The reason for that has probably been that no-one ever thought about it, or if they did they assumed that it was insignificant.
Quote:
No, I am not, you write: Finally, you can multiply the COM movements in the N-S direction after multiplying by 0.10.
I am not talking about that 0.1 I am talking about you multiplying the COM movements. There is no such thing, movement is velocity. Velocity is a vector which you can either add to another, or take the inner (dot) product (giving you a scalar) or take the outer (cross) product (giving you a vector perpendicular to both multiplied vectors). So, what are you multiplying here and in what way?
but not what you wrote.
|
This is the same point that you didn't get at the top of this post. I will explain it another way with some made up numbers.
Suppose at the core of the Sun we had 1 g of matter containing 0.001 g of radiation. Suppose that at the surface of the Sun we had 1 g of matter (it will have a much bigger volume, but that does not matter) containing 0.000001 g of radiation.
Now the GR effect applies to both lots of radiation. They are both accelerated towards Jupiter by 5/3 times as much as the matter.
So at the core, we have 1 g get 3 units of acceleration (for the sake of ease of calculation) and .001 g get 5 units of acceleration. So the combined mixture (which is interacting continuously to share its momentum) gets an acceleration of (1*3 + .001*5)/(1+.001)= 3.002 units of acceleration.
At the surface the 1 g gets 3 units of acceleration and the .000001 g of radiation gets 5 units of acceleration. So the combined mixture gets an acceleration of (1*3 + .000001*5)/(1+.000001)= 3.000002 units of acceleration.
The difference between these accelerations 0f .001998 units is what I have been referring to as the differential acceleration between the surface and the core. This is what the proposal is all about.
Quote:
|
That is nonsense, you can do math without numbers. That is why we invented math, you use symbols. Then you can put in numbers, after it has been checked that your symbolic manipulation is correct, and then we get some estimates.
|
That is true. And I have provided all the mathematical information needed on the calculations. But if you want to do a perfect job you will have to incorporate a lot of complex stuff like how the proportion of radiation and matter varies with depth in the Sun and the temperature variation with depth and much more. That is all needed to fully solve the maths. But you can establish the order of magnitude of the effects without doing all of that.
Quote:
|
I think not, because of what we know of the Sun through helioseismology.
|
That was my point. Through helioseismology the convection was found to go deeper than solar models said it would. That is what my explanation says will be the case (and did so before that was discovered).
Quote:
|
No, it does not, however, people are working on dynamo models that are getting better and better. I am not up to date with the current state (maybe Papageno knows about that) and how sunspot come into the model, apart from buoyancy of the magnetic field etc.
|
Well I have given another means to make it better still.
Quote:
|
You have show correlations, you have not shown a model and calculations, there is a difference.
|
Yes I have, but you have not understood an essential part of that. Hopefully that will be corrected by this post.
Quote:
|
That is the average value of sin2?
|
Yes.
Quote:
|
I doubt you are the first person to mention the amplitude of the tide on the Sun created by Jupiter.
|
This proposal is not about tides. That is not to say that tides are not relevant, but this is something different as I made clear in my first post.
Quote:
|
Why wait for my permission? Do the calculation that I showed for light for a massive particle, and then you can convince all people here on the board. And please, then also show that the fact that the particles are relativistic is important (or would the same happen for a non relativistic particle?). I am not going to do that job for you, it was bad enough that I had to give the equations for photons, whereas it is supposed to be your job to give the equations and explanations. I did it, because I needed to correct my mistake, so that was okay, now you are in the ballpark.
|
I am not asking you to do any job for me.
Yes, the relativistic component of matter is important. Even though the velocities are much less than c (and so often people would say "non-relativistic"), the relativistic component of the matter is actually greater than the radiation content. This was dealt with by Ken G and others in the
http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...s-surface.html thread. This established the ball park of the numbers involved even if it doesn't get highly precise figures.
Quote:
Take a particle of rest mass m0 and fly it by the sun at velocity v and look at what Newtonian gravity would give as a deflection. Note that you can do this for a general particle at any velocity v, as the mass will just be γ m0, with γ the Lorentz factor.
Then do the same thing for general relativistic stuff, and then compare the two deflections. I am afraid though that you will no longer be able to work in the small deflection limit, but that should not be a problem.
Have fun
|
You too.