Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PatKelley
The question was why would we expect the mass of the sun to be different from what was measured. We know the volume, we estimate the mass from gravitational interaction, yet you have implied that we cannot or don't know the mass which leaves room for your conjectures, so the question is irrelevant. I asked "why?" This is not a barrage of questions, as near as I can ascertain.
|
First of all, I am NOT suggesting we should expect to see any change in the sun's "mass" relative to earth. I do not however fully understand it overall mass since it is in motion and being accelerated at the same time. I'm not sure how this factors into the equation just yet. I respect your question, but "I don't know" is going to have to do for the time being.
How do you explain solar moss again?
Quote:
Quote:
|
The implications are that the theory is correct, and all other science is wrong.
|
Not ALL other science, but some.
Quote:
|
Regarding your use of logical argument debate rules, i.e. accusing others of setting up strawmen, you have here quoted "scared" when I said nothing of the kind. The quotes in your statment above imply that it was somehow my statement. Please, if we are playing by logical argument rules, make sure to observe them in kind.
|
That's fair. Poor choice of words and bad use of quotes on my part.
Quote:
|
Yes it is. The "other" photons are black body radiation i.e. thermal. Elemental abundances are recorded very frequently from emission spectral analysis.
|
Yes, but my model predicts this behavior just like yours. The heat is passed to the outer layers and these layers emit the most photons. There is nothing really that different between my model and yours as it relates to black body radiation. The only difference between these models is that I claim that black body radiation has little or nothing to do with sunspots. The NEON is responsible for most of the the visible light, not black body radiation.
Quote:
|
It can determine more than presence; it can determine abundance.
|
It can only determine their presense and their "abundance" as far as how many pass through the reader during any given interval. That frequency however cannot be overlysimplistically applied to the sun's composition. There are many other factors involved, including heat distribution and valence shell energy states of these various materials. You cannot simply count the number of each photon present and suggest a simple photon count reveals the solar composition at the surface. That is not possible unless you know the model and know the thickness of each layer, and know how all these materials interact.
Quote:
|
The abundance of neon in the solar atmosphere is not nearly of the order of magnitude required for a layer of neon encircling the globe and cooling a layer of silicon.
|
That is simply false. You are trying to oversimplify a much more complicated process. To know how much actual neon is present you have to measure it. Fortunately we can do that by measuring the penumbral length of the filaments. That's the only easy layer to measure at the moment.
Please do the same. Where are you factoring in heat flow and valence shell energy states into your measurements again?
Quote:
|
The melting point of iron is approximately 1500 degrees Celcius.
|
First of all, we're talking about a calcium ferrite allow of some kind. What studies have you seen done that replicate the conditions on the sun, and used silicon as the medium to measure tne melting point of various alloys?
Quote:
|
It has the highest melting point of any of the ingredients. The interior of a sunspot is 4000 degrees Celcius. This is above the boiling point of iron (2800 Celcius approximately). Iron, in other words, would be a vapor.
|
Actually, according to wikipedia.com, the temps of the umbra during sunspots is right around 2200 degrees, close enough to the melting point of calcium ferrite alloys to take the idea VERY seriously.
|
By your own analogy, either the sun is solid iron, or all of the iron should have sunk to the center.
[quote]
I can't answer that from my observations. I can only tell you it has a surface. I cannot tell you what is underneath the magma that flow up from this surface.
Quote:
|
And how, if all of these understandings are incorrect, did the SOHO satellite get to where it is and return the data it has using the current (as stated above) understandings of gravitational mass and quantum physics?
|
I never suggested that the relative gravity of the sun as it relates to earth was wrong. I simply don't understand how to compute density until I understand relative thicknesses of layers and undertand the properties of universal acceleration as it relates to this model.
Quote:
|
You have. By claiming that we might not understand inertial mass,
|
We only know it's "mass" relative to the mass of the earth.
Quote:
|
and additionally by initially pushing aside black body radiation,
|
I did not "push aside" the concept of black body radiation. I simply said it didn't apply to sunspots, or the cause of sunspots. See that distinction?
Quote:
|
you asserted that the primary principles that put SOHO in its orbit, and allow it to do its work don't work.
|
Now you are playing with strawmen I see.
Quote:
|
It is a legitimate question, especially as SOHO data appears to be the primary method of your research. It is a legitimate position to ask: if we don't know the properties of inertial mass, and don't understand black body radiation, how is SOHO present to provide you with data?
|
We understand the pull of the sun as it relates to the mass of the earth or SOHO wouldn't fly at all. I never suggested otherwise. I don't dispute the phenomenon of black body radiation, or our understanding of the idea. I simply dont' think it applies to the notion of sunspots as you seem to think. Not a single one of you has explained the umbra, the clear deliniation between penumbra and umbra, or explained the flare in the top of the penumbral filament layer. Until you do, it's premature to suggest these things are caused by "black body radiation" as you suggest. If you can explain to me how black body radiation explains these observed phenomenon, then we can talk. Until you do, you are ALEDGING something that has NOT been demonstrated through observation.