Don't you just love back of the envelope calculation?

Forgive me but I want to understand.

I probably know this but:
BB=Big Bang
SS=?

__________________
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifiresearchers/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifiexplorers/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SciFiDreamers/

You'd normally think of it as Steady State, but in the context of this thread it is really Static State. The original Steady State theory of Bondi, Hoyle and Gold had matter being spontaneously created, which is something that Cyrek would take great issue with.

cyrek reply

Normandy
What evidence to disprove the SSU?
Well you could try to disprove that space is flat.
You could also prove that the Laws of Conservation did not exist in some prior time.
You could also prove that a vacuum (space) can carry galaxies during its supposed expansion.

Those are for starters.

Travis
See above.

fortis
The elements I would expect to be in the Sun during its origin?
Most of the elements in the surrounding objects today. BUT, a very big but, these elements would be crushed in the central portion of the Sun and contained there or possibly transformed into neutrons.

CM
Your talking about splash. How about the explosions resulting from the impacting bodies?
Another thing I did not mention about Solar Max's observations was that during the solar 'minimum', it did not see any comets impacting the Sun.
During its last maximum solar activity, it saw the most cometary impacts.

To all
Ha Ha for the humor. It is a life extender.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

It's not the standard model of elementary particles or the standard model of cosmology that's being questioned. It's up to you, my friend, to provide a measureable that can be tested.
When the big bang was proposed, there were post-dictions (same a pre-diction, but in reverse ) that it was possible. GR showed that a universe cannot be static. Hubble Law showed that galaxies, by and large, were travelling away from each other. Later, scientists used the principles of QM, a theory developed well away from cosmology, to calculate the conditions a universe would have if as it approached a singularity. What they found was the ratio of elements, a CMBR (although they predicted 10 degrees K, later refined it to 5 K, and it ended up being about 3 K, that' quite impressive,) and a whole list of other things I can't think of right now... #-o (brain's drained from the workload here...)
It amounts to a compelling case for the big bang that is tantamount to hubris.

Grey already showed you calculations on stars colliding. I'm sure he can do another back of the envelope calculation to show that there is not enough energy in a comet or asteroid to produce many of the visible CMEs and flares we see from the sun. I hesitate to say for sure, but I'm pretty darned sure.
Do you mind posting a link to Solar Max's data so I can see this correlation you pointed to? Thanks.

That's funny, that's why I keep following this thread!

P.S.: You still have not answered the questions concerning your accusation that solar science has created/fabricated evidence of 3 flavors of neutrinos...

Edit to add:

Yes. Show me why your theory would be better than the current ones and I will most certainly change my mind. Until such time, I will stick with what explains the universe in a more coherent and mathematically accurate way.

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Why should there be an explosion? Is the vicinity near the surface of the Sun hot enough for nuclear fusion? No, not even in the corona. Is there enough, say, oxygen for the kind of chemical reaction you seem to favor? No, in fact I would not be surprised to find that the solar atmosphere at the region where comets dissolve is rarer than the best vacuum we've been able to make on Earth! The comet itself? How is it going to hold together long enough to combust in that heat? All of the comets we have seen that close to the Sun have dissolved like, well, like a snowball in Hell! No fusion, no oxygen, no impact, no explosion. Sorry, try again.

Perhaps a more apt comparison than spitting into a swimming pool might be spitting into a pool of lava!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

Perhaps you misunderstand me. I wasn't asking about the elements that you would expect to be in the Sun during its origin. The question was what elements would you expect to observe in the flares and CMEs, given that the outer regions of the Sun are known to contain iron, oxygen, sulfur, among others?

Still hoping that you can explain to me how the second law of thermodynamics violates the first law of thermodynamics when you apply it to closed systems?

There is lots of evidence showing cosmic evolution. HERE is just one piece supporting the view that the universe has evolved from its early beginnings, a view that contradicts your SSU.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

All tests on GR carried out to this date, demonstrate that GR (with it's curved space-time) provides the best description of gravity. As I have pointed out previously, it is no longer a particularly exotic theory as it is used by GPS receivers to add that extra level of precision to your location.

The thing about the BB is that currently any speculation on what occured "before" the BB is exactly that. Speculation. It's a bit like on CSI, where the forensics team calculate the trajectory of a bullet. You can extrapolate it back to where the shot came from, but it doesn't provide you with answers to the "why?" or the "who?" We're pretty confident that a few billion years ago the universe was much smaller, and much hotter. That is just extrapolating current observations back in time. On the other hand, we know that under the conditions just after the "singularity", our understanding of physics breaks down. There are plenty of different theories and ideas, which people are trying to test, but we're doing the best we can with the available evidence.

As per my previous reply regarding GR.

Anyway, here's to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Cheers!

cyrek reply

Travis
The predictions for the CMBR by Gamow were the closest but after downsizing it from 10 to 5K

As I said before. McKeller OBSERVED a temperature of 2K in an intersteller molecule. This was in 1940 which was way ahead of the BB predictors. So I do not see where this amounts to real evidence on the part of the BB'ers predictions.

CM
If you do not believe in the comet impact idea proven by ibservations, than what, in your opinion, causes the sunspots and the flares?

Fortis
I already explained the 2nd law about thermodynamoics in the article on page 14 , 3rd post from the bottom. Did you read it?

Regarding 'annomalous magnetic moment', this has nothing to do with the subject matter.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

He still did rather better than any prediction that you've made on behalf of your model. Given that the temperature could range over many orders of magnitude, it wasn't a bad estimate.

This was an indirect measurement of the CMBR temperature, and understandibly no-one spotted the significance, i.e. that the molecular line was being excited by the ambient CMBR filling all of space. It was only afterwards that people looked at McKellar's result and realised it's significance.

Mike, even if we didn't have a clue about what causes sunspots and flares, that wouldn't mean that we couldn't rule out your model. Just as your suggestions that the way to disprove your theory for an SSU appears to require us to prove the case for the BB, is a logical falacy. It is possible for both theories to be wrong.

Mike, I have read your posts, and it is clear that you still do not understand about thermodynamics otherwise you wouldn't have made the claim that the 2nd law violates the 1st law for a closed system. If this were true, then the Nobel proze would be yours.

Please can you justify this claim.

It has everything to do with your model of the photon. If your model cannot predict the anomalous magnetic moment with the same degree of accuracy as QED (with it's virtual photons, etc.) then why should I prefer your model.

In fact, as your explanation of the CMBR and redshift is intimately connected to your model of the photon, then a failure of your photon model surely has a large knonk-on effect on the viability of your SSU model.

http://www.astro.ubc.ca/E-Cass/1999-JS/feldman2.html
Edit to add (now that I have time):

As you see, Gamow did not pre-predict this temperature. His colleagues, about a year later, showed the rotational temperature of interstellar gas where CN absorbtion takes place. Complete different than the 'temperature' of CMBR photons...

Nice try. Keep looking. There's a whole internet of facts and figures, some of which are true and some of which are false.

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

First, the "comet impact idea" is not "proven by observations". Yes, comets collide with the Sun and yes, sunspots and flares do occur, but the former are not the cause of the latter, as my simple "back of the envelope" calculation has shown. So what causes sunspots and flares? They are manifestations of the magnetic field of the Sun, which is caused by the great mass of churning, convective plasma that is the Sun. What other source is necessary?

I'm reminded of the story of Arthur S. Eddington countering a critic who doubted that the temperature in the interior of the Sun was sufficient for nuclear fusion to take place with, "If you can think of someplace hotter, then go there!"

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

Subtle.

Yeah, I like that one too.

Glad you like it, but just to be clear, I do not advocate anyone going anywhere hotter than, say, Florida. That's why I included the smilie.

Let me reiterate, the Sun is a massive and huge nuclear fusion reactor with mind-bogglingly huge amounts of matter churning convectively while being stirred with titanic magnetic fields. You don't have to spit into this pool of "lava" to create sunspots, flares, and prominences!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

Mike, in case you've been distracted, I'd just like to summarise my perspective on your theory and its connection to observation.

1) You claim that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics violates the 1st Law of thermodynamics for closed systems, though you give no proof or evidence of this.
2) The Laws of thermodynamics are absolutely applicable to the closed universe that you are considering because your model contains many objects that convert different forms of energy into heat, hence you need to get really concerned about the 2nd Law. As your model violates the 2nd Law I'm really surprised that this doesn't really seem to worry you.
3) In your attempt to explain the CMBR and the cosmological redshift you constructed a model of the photon which doesn't appear to match any observation, and then you claim that evidence of the appropriateness of QED (and the electro-weak theory that it was subsumed into), such as the astonishingly precise prediction of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, is irrelevant.

Any comment?

cyrek reply

Travis quote
http://www.astro.ubc.ca/E-Cass/1999-JS/feldman2.html
Quote:

In a lengthy paper published the same year in the Publications of the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory, McKellar (1941b) made his arguments more quantitative. Therein he determined a "rotational" temperature of 2.3 K for the gas of interstellar space where CN absorption takes place. Nothing more on this subject seems to have been written by McKellar from March, 1941 to the end of his life in May, 1960.

Just after WW II George Gamow and his colleagues Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman began to analyze the conditions under which deuterium would be formed in a hot early Universe (Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow 1948, Gamow 1948). These papers do not actually predict the radiation temperature of the Universe at the current epoch. This was first done explicitly by Alpher and Herman (1948, 1949) who estimated that the temperature would be greater or equal to about 5 K . [Various other estimates were made by these and other workers later.]

As you see, Gamow did not pre-predict this temperature. His colleagues, about a year later, showed the rotational temperature of interstellar gas where CN absorbtion takes place. Complete different than the 'temperature' of CMBR photons...

cyrek reply
Thanks Travis. Your post above confirms that the space temperature was known before the BB'ers made their predictions.


C M quote (regarding Sunsplots And Flares - Added by MC)
They are manifestations of the magnetic field of the Sun, which is caused by the great mass of churning, convective plasma that is the Sun. What other source is necessary?

cyrek reply
I figured you would come up with that answer.
Those sunspot magnetic fields are caused by the ions resulting from the explosive flares that impacted the Sun..

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

cyrek reply

fortis quote
1) You claim that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics violates the 1st Law of thermodynamics for closed systems, though you give no proof or evidence of this.

repeat answer
The first law says in a closed system, you cannot increse or decrease the energy levels.
In the 2nd law, you say entropy must stay the same or INCREASE. Entropy is given in enegy units so if you increase the energy, is that not a violation of the 1st law?

fortis quote
3) In your attempt to explain the CMBR and the cosmological redshift you constructed a model of the photon which doesn't appear to match any observation, and then you claim that evidence of the appropriateness of QED (and the electro-weak theory that it was subsumed into), such as the astonishingly precise prediction of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, is irrelevant.
Any comment?

cyrek reply
I explained that the virtual photon is nothing but a magnetic reaction between two charged particles.
So there are no virtual photons. Only real photons that use the EM field that is composed of 'virtual charged particlas'. That is the only virtual particles that exist ignoring the virtual pairs that QM's allows and serve no purpose.

.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

Wow.

Do you have any reason why someone should believe that?

Mike, as I've said before, you seem to have problems understanding the concept of entropy and understanding what the second law is all about. Entropy is not given in units of energy. The units of entropy (in SI) are J/K, i.e. it is in units of energy per unit temperature. In other words you are wrong. Your argument seems to fall flat at this point.

The second law is not in violation of the first law for a closed system.

You can't just ignore it.

I look forward to your reply.

[edit]I have a feeling that your response may be something like
to which I would reply something like
And remember that the above statement is an "interpretation" not a "definition" of entropy. As the great sage once said, "Get your rebuttals in first".

Just one more point. You may be confusing the notion of the "amount of energy available to do work" with the "total energy of the system" (including thermal energy). Of course these two things are very different quantities, with the latter being the quantity that is conserved in a closed system.
[/edit]

And how many significant figures is your prediction of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron good to?

You're going to have to work a lot harder to convince us that your model of the photon is superior to the model provided by QED.

BZZZZT!!!!
Wrong! The Sun is BIG. The Sun is HOT. There are no un-ionized atoms inside the Sun because of the intense energies there. Instead we find most of the Sun's mass is nuclei and electrons. (Atoms can exist in the surface layers, but the surface layers are a SMALL fraction of the Sun's mass.) Nuclei have positive charges, electrons have negative charge. Charged particles in motion give rise to magnetic fields. This is elementary electromagnetism, Mike. Better hit the books again. The Sun has all the resources it needs to create sunspots, flares and prominences. Comets need not apply!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

cyrek reply

Normandy quote (cause of sunspots)
Do you have any reason why someone should believe that?

reply
See reply to CM balow

Fortis
Mike, as I've said before, you seem to have problems understanding the concept of entropy and understanding what the second law is all about. Entropy is not given in units of energy. The units of entropy (in SI) are J/K, i.e. it is in units of energy per unit temperature. In other words you are wrong. Your argument seems to fall flat at this point.

reply
The left side of your equation is a single figure given in Joules. Right?
For entropy to increase, the temperature would have to decrease. Right?
In a closed system, what would cause this temperature drop?
In a SSU, there could be a burst of new star formation to raise the temperature. This would decrease the entropy, Right?

fortis quote
You're going to have to work a lot harder to convince us that your model of the photon is superior to the model provided by QED.

reply
Fortis, I am retired so I do not have to work harder. Ha Ha,
My idea of a photon is real and the QED's photon is an invention. As I said before, I believe in reality.

Celestial Mechanic quote
Mike. Better hit the books again. The Sun has all the resources it needs to create sunspots, flares and prominences. Comets need not apply!

reply
Why then CM, are the sunspots periodic and concentrated into spots?
Why aren't there more of them being as they are created internally and dredging these ions from the center?
I also mentioned before that there was a correlation between the Solar Max observations in the 1980's of cometary impacts and the solar activity of sunspots.
I tried to find this record at NASA but have not been successful. Will keep trying.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

Ever hear of experiments? Do those count as reality?

Which equation?

I don't recall having supplied you with an equation where the left hand side is a "single figure given in Joules". If you could expand on this, it may help me to understand where you're getting confused.

In terms of the macroscopic variables, the change in entropy of a system is given by

dS (in Joules/Kelvin) = dQ/T

where dQ is the heat energy absorbed or input to your system, (not the total energy of your system), and T is the absolute temperature of the system doing the absorbing.
Wrong. If you have a process that is generating heat then the heat inergy input to your system, dQ, is positive, and hence dS (the change in entropy) is positive.

Even if you aren't generating heat, it can still increase, as heat energy is redistributed around your closed system. If you want to see a calculation using entropy that shows an example of it increasing, while conserving energy, have a look at

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...80&amp;#447080

As I've pointed out above, for the entropy to increase, the temperature doesn't have to drop, so we don't need a mechanism for this process.
If you have stars forming and generating heat, then dQ is positive, and hence the change in entropy, dS, is also positive, i.e. the entropy of your system is increasing. Notice that this is true regardless of the temperature of your system, because the absolute temperatures are positive.

Thanks for providing me with an example showing how the entropy of your universe increases with time.

You're a lucky man.
So your model of the photon, that makes no predictions that tally with observation, is superior to a theory that makes predictions of astonishing precision. Hmmm. What is it that you keep mentioning? "Empirical evidence"?

cyrek1 wrote:
My idea of a photon is real and the QED's photon is an invention. As I said before, I believe in reality.

Normandy quote
Ever hear of experiments? Do those count as reality?

reply
These virtual photons exist on paper only or on the blackboards.
As I said before, those are 'magnetic interactions' between 'charged particles'.
Dealing with such miniscule problems as virtual photons can be influenced by the mind of the experimenters.

The MI is real since the electric motor is a reality. The 'ampere rating experiment' also shows this interaction. These are basic physical realities.

Besides, I do not know why I have to argue this point since this is not cosmology. QED's has nothing to do with the nature of the universe but pertains to light only.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

cyrek reply

Fortis quote
dS (in Joules/Kelvin) = dQ/T

reply
The left side of your equation is dS. The roght side is dQ/T.
Lowering the T creates a larger value for dS, right?

In a previous statement, you said that in a closed system, the entropy must remain the same or INCREASE.

Lowering the temperature above would cause an increase in the entropy, right? Or an increase in dQ would cause an increase.

So, in a closed system, what would cause this temperature to drop or dQ to rise to cause the entropy to increase as you said above?

fortis quote
If you have stars forming and generating heat, then dQ is positive, and hence the change in entropy, dS, is also positive, i.e. the entropy of your system is increasing. Notice that this is true regardless of the temperature of your system, because the absolute temperatures are positive.

Thanks for providing me with an example showing how the entropy of your universe increases with time.

reply
I also said that the opposite also happens where the photons expand to infinite lengths to cool out. You ignored this part.

fortis quote
So your model of the photon, that makes no predictions that tally with observation, is superior to a theory that makes predictions of astonishing precision. Hmmm. What is it that you keep mentioning? "Empirical evidence"?

reply
I did not refute QED's, just replaced the virtual photon with a magnetic interaction to give it some realism.
See also reply to Normandy.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

Mike, please reread my previous posting. dS is the increase in entropy when dQ of heat energy is added to a system at temperature T. If dQ is positive then dS is positive, i.e. the increase in entropy of the system is positive.

The factor of 1/T only tells you if the change in entropy is large or small.

I explained all of this in my previous post, but you still seem to be having great difficulty with the concept.

Let's run through a very quick example. Say I have a system at temperature T, and I add a small quantity of heat energy, dQ, to it (sufficiently small, such that the change in temperature is negligible.) What is the change in entropy of the system?

(By the way, if you are wondering how we treat those cases where the temperature does change as we add heat, then that is what calculus is for. )

Ah. Now you allow that dQ will cause a change in the entropy. You, yourself, have admitted that your model is populated by stars that generate heat, i.e. dQ is positive. You also have gravitational (tidal) interactions, and plenty of other sources of heat.

You have answered your own question.
No. I don't have to worry about this. Let's try a little thought experiment. (I know that you really don't like these, but they are very good for thinking through the consequences of a theory. )

Build a box in space that your photons can enter and exit. Now flick a switch so that the box becomes totally reflective, both inside and out.

We have now trapped a whole bunch of your photons, and they are completely isolated from the rest of the universe. They are now a closed system.

What happens inside the box? According to you the photons expand and "cool out". Where does their energy go, remembering that nothing can enter or leave the box? Is the thermal energy associated with the photons transferred to the "virtual negatively charged particles" that you claim as part of your theory? Does this mean that they acquire thermal energy?

Remember that the 2nd law imposes limits on your ability to convert thermal energy into other forms of energy.
But if your "realism" doesn't make predictions that are in line with reality, then which model should we prefer? When you replace the virtual photon with a "magnetic interaction", do you get the same results?

By the way, I'm going away for a few days, so I won't be able to respond to any of your replies until Friday.

Cyrek reply

There is no need to drag this discussion out. I repeat my question and answered your box question.

fortis
I asked you where would the heat that caused the drop in temperature or just the drop in temperature go in a closed system to increase the entropy? You did not answer that question.

Your box experiment as a closed system would remain stabalized and no changes would occur in entropy as long as there is no loss of heat through the walls of the box.
In other words, there would be no increase in entropy.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek