Quote:
Originally Posted by tusenfem
rtomes
Lots of words again, now please show mathematically that your statements have any significance.
1. show that the the bending for light also holds for (relativistic) matter, using Uncle Al's theory
|
I don't know what Uncle Al has to do with this.
I cannot show that it also applies to the relativistic content of matter. I will leave that to GR experts to determine, although I will say that I have not found agreement even amoung them.
Quote:
|
2. what happens with the Suns corona, which has an enormous temperature, and thus the particles will have lots of "relativistic mass" so they must also be more influenced by the NS motion/force/tide/whatever
|
Yes, that wold be true, but the radiation passes through there extremely fast and so is hardly affected, and the matter also moves very fast and so is little affected. Remember that the displacement achieved is 1/2 a t^2 so when a short time applies the effect is quite tiny.
Quote:
|
3. please show us mathematically that indeed the core reacts more on the forces by the planets than the outer layers of the sun, and not just useless comment like "say 2 times"
|
You are obsessed with "mathematically". :-)
As I mentioned two or three times the radiation content and relativistic mass content of the Sun were discussed in another thread. No-one was of the opinion that the answer is known extremely accurately to the actual figures. There is no disagreement that the core of the Sun has much more radiation than the convection zone. The mean free path of photons is of the order of 1 mm there because of the much higher matter density. Nearer the surface the speed of radiation becomes thousands of times greater. Do you dispute this?
Mathematically, the speed of particles rises as a power of temperature. That means that the relativistic mass proportion of the matter at the core is much higher than at the surface. I don't intend to try to establish the exact amount as it depends on too many things. An order of magnitude estimate is sufficient for my purpose.
Quote:
|
4. If the core of the sun would move differenty from the outer layers, then we would most likely have observed that using helioseismology.
|
No you wouldn't. The distances that I am talking about are very small and the time periods very long. therefore the velocities are extremely small. Helioseismology measures velocity differences and would not be near to showing this. Actually it would have more chance of measuring the temperature difference in the two hemispheres. That is conceivable over a full solar cycle or two.
Quote:
|
For the rest it is just lots of words and impressive-significant-sounding numbers, now, amaze us with some real mathematical models. Start with number 1 here above, and show that what you propose has some beef.
|
Your protests are rather silly in the face of the difficulties that I have explained (and you have not disputed) for actual quantification of several factors. These problems are not in my court but in standard solar physics. Why should I be expected to solve things in that area that the experts have not managed to do?
It is sufficient to show that the linkage of effects that I claim do exist and to give an order of magnitude estimate of the effects. I have done that.