Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 332

Thread: Does Lockheed Martin Understand Black Body Radiation?

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,165
    I had another chat with my professor today after the lecture, and I learned some things.

    You cannot have fission without fissionable material. Radioactive elements (like U-328) will decay. Iron won't. Absolutely will not, not even within the sun.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    The surface is an alloy, not raw iron. I say this because it holds a magnetic alignment indicating it's a calcium ferrite and probably magnesium alloy. I'm not precisely sure what the melting point of they alloy might be under these electromagnetic and gravitational conditions. My guess is the surface is approximately 2000K. There is likely to be a mixture of granite as well as various mixtures of alloys in the crust. The first page of my website has some pictures of meteorites that I believe are indicative of the range of surface crust features. If you notice I used multiple meteorites to show a range of possible mixtures. I think the surface is not homogenous. More likely the higher iron content is near the poles where it is cooler, and the one with more granite is more than likely from the equator where things get "hot" and stay hot from the electrical activity.
    Your guesses are not what the data tells us, Michael. The measured surface temperature of the Sun is 5800 K, and the sunspots are 4000 K. Iron is magnetic. Where do you get the ideas about calcium ferrite and magnesium? Granite rock will melt, Michael. It will vaporize. Just because metallic and rocky meteors show features, doesn't mean the Sun shares those. How do you propose the poles to be cooler, when energy output and heat are spread evenly throughout the sphere-like Sun?

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Vermonter
    Your guesses are not what the data tells us, Michael. The measured surface temperature of the Sun is 5800 K, and the sunspots are 4000 K. Iron is magnetic. Where do you get the ideas about calcium ferrite and magnesium? Granite rock will melt, Michael. It will vaporize. Just because metallic and rocky meteors show features, doesn't mean the Sun shares those. How do you propose the poles to be cooler, when energy output and heat are spread evenly throughout the sphere-like Sun?
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507001

    Here is a link to a paper you might read about possible fission processes in the core of solar bodies. I would assume the processes of the sun's core would be much the same only on a more massive scale. At some point the thing becomes it's own breader reactor.

    The surface of the photosphere is indeed 6000K, but underneath it, the umbra is much cooler. Even when the plasma in the umbra begins to rise, we see cooler temperatures of around 3800K. That upwelling umbra has already been heated and it is only because it is heated that it rises. Typically the material in the umbra is much cooler. Dr. Kosovichev has a number of remarkable heat distribution videos that I think are hightly accurate.

    I get the elements from the SERTS spectral DATA.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,165
    What elements are you including for fission? Please be specific.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Vermonter
    Your guesses are not what the data tells us, Michael. The measured surface temperature of the Sun is 5800 K, and the sunspots are 4000 K. Iron is magnetic. Where do you get the ideas about calcium ferrite and magnesium? Granite rock will melt, Michael. It will vaporize. Just because metallic and rocky meteors show features, doesn't mean the Sun shares those. How do you propose the poles to be cooler, when energy output and heat are spread evenly throughout the sphere-like Sun?
    I should have been more specific about one comment. The equator is more electrically active, particularly in the active phases. The heat stays pretty evenly distributed in the umbra. The umbra is relatively thick. There is about 4800km of it (and the penumbra) between the surface of the photosphere and the transitional layer.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Vermonter
    What elements are you including for fission? Please be specific.
    I am assuming that all elements released in a supernova explosion would be present in the sun. Whatever fissionable elements are around will eventually work their way to the core via gravity.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,784

    How many explanations needed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

    Make no mistake about it however, the blue areas are not emitting photons and they are not hotter than the million degree plasmas within the coronal loop. Even in gas model theory, their coloring explanation is wrong. I can't help that fact Duane. I'd love to ignore it, but it's too important to ignore IMO.

    It has been explained to you several times that you are misinterpreting what you are seeing. It has been explained how these images work, and why your interpretation of them is wrong. It has been explained why the images work they way they do, and how it is that the findings of the researchers actually looking at the raw data are what they are. Your answers and questions regarding these aspects tell me that you clearly, clearly do not understand thermaldynamics nor why it is that the laws involved in that disipline cannot be reconciled with what you propose.

    It has been pointed out to you why your idea of black body radiation is wrong, and a number of links have been supplied to allow you the opportunity to read through to get to the point of understanding at least how current theory has gotten where it is.

    You continually call modern theory "the gas model" without understanding how solar and stellar physics have explained what we see through math, physics and actual observation. You continually refer back to images you clearly do not understand, using them to support your theory, when your most basic understanding of what you are looking at is flawed.

    You seem like a smart man Michael, and your doggedness on this subject is nothing short of amazing. This is why I keep trying to tell you to do some reading (in fact, you should take a few courses) as have a number of other people over the last few months, so that you can at least get the venacular right when trying to argue your case. Your responce to those suggestions is that you already know it all, followed immediately by more questions or comments that show that you do not understand the concepts except at the most basic level.

    Don't confuse this dissertation with anything personal. I have read enough from you to say what I say, with the hope that you will take the time to actually do the reading.

    I do however appreciate the fact that you may not want to continue to discuss this since we have had our differences in the past.
    It has nothing to do with that, nor have I any memory of any differences with you--other than the fact I find your ideas of solar evolution incomprehensible in the face of such overwhelming evidence against it. I continue to learn alot during discussions like these. My only regret is that you seem so unable to grasp how shallow your knowledge in this field actually is.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507001

    Here is a link to a paper you might read about possible fission processes in the core of solar bodies. I would assume the processes of the sun's core would be much the same only on a more massive scale. At some point the thing becomes it's own breader reactor.

    The surface of the photosphere is indeed 6000K, but underneath it, the umbra is much cooler. Even when the plasma in the umbra begins to rise, we see cooler temperatures of around 3800K. That upwelling umbra has already been heated and it is only because it is heated that it rises. Typically the material in the umbra is much cooler. Dr. Kosovichev has a number of remarkable heat distribution videos that I think are hightly accurate.

    I get the elements from the SERTS spectral DATA.
    I'm unable to access that link. When I look up breeder reactor on Wiki, I see U-238 as a fuel for a fast breeder reactor, Thorium for fast and thermal. FBR's tend to use a mix of PuO2 (20%) and UO2 (80%). It doesn't say anywhere about iron. You can only use heavy elements, and certain ones at that, like isotopes of Uranium, Plutonium, and Thorium. You can't just stick anything in and hope that it works.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Duane
    This whole discussion is going in circles, and over several
    different threads to boot. I and several others have mentioned
    this before, but Michael will not take the hint!!!

    MICHAEL--YOU NEED TO REFRESH YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF BASIC
    PHYSICS AND THEN LEARN ABOUT SOLAR PHYSICS BEFORE YOU COME
    BACK HERE TO DISCUSS THIS THEORY!!!!!
    Duane,

    The mods are discussing this post. One of us will come back to this part to advise all what we have decided.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    Last edited by Duane; 2005-Oct-06 at 08:27 PM. Reason: We will be discussing this
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:.../0/1/0/all/0/1

    Go to Marvin J Herdon's first paper listed.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    I am assuming that all elements released in a supernova explosion would be present in the sun. Whatever fissionable elements are around will eventually work their way to the core via gravity.
    I'm getting tired of you dodging the question. I ask for specific elements several times, and each time you dodge the question and give me this. "Whatever fissionable elements" does not cut it. Either you know, or you don't. So pick one, please.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    We'll let you know what we decide.
    Last edited by Duane; 2005-Oct-06 at 08:37 PM. Reason: This is being discussed

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Vermonter
    Iron is magnetic.
    Just a minor nitpick. Iron is only magnetic at certain temperatures and pressures. The iron in the core of the Earth is not magnetic either, contrary to commonly held belief. The Earth's magnetic field is the result of the dynamic convection in the outer core, not magnetized iron. In the sun, the vaporized iron plasma would only be magnetic because of its highly ionized state--if at all.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Vermonter
    I'm getting tired of you dodging the question. I ask for specific elements several times, and each time you dodge the question and give me this. "Whatever fissionable elements" does not cut it. Either you know, or you don't. So pick one, please.
    I am not dodging the question in any way shape or form Vermonter. There are whole host of fissionable materials found in supernova remnants. To pick one and only one would make no sense at all. You might read through that last paper by Dr. Manuel, it has all sorts of materials related to supernova remnants and the half like of fissionable elements present in meteors.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    To be discussed.
    Last edited by Duane; 2005-Oct-06 at 08:35 PM. Reason: I am removing the content of this post for now. The mods are discussing it

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,165
    I read "Solar System Formation Deduced from Observations of Matter" and didn't find anything odd, barring the fission theory in the center of planets. He makes no reference to that same process in the sun, however. He thinks that planets contain a appreciable amount of a radioactive uranium isotope, to explain the heat in planets, while choosing to ignore accretion energy of planets.

    Reading "Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics" didn't really do much for me for this topic, either. Just a different way of thinking about differentiation of planets. Still no reference to the Sun about that.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Duane
    Just a minor nitpick. Iron is only magnetic at certain temperatures and pressures. The iron in the core of the Earth is not magnetic either, contrary to commonly held belief. The Earth's magnetic field is the result of the dynamic convection in the outer core, not magnetized iron. In the sun, the vaporized iron plasma would only be magnetic because of its highly ionized state--if at all.
    My bad, then.

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    I am not dodging the question in any way shape or form Vermonter. There are whole host of fissionable materials found in supernova remnants. To pick one and only one would make no sense at all. You might read through that last paper by Dr. Manuel, it has all sorts of materials related to supernova remnants and the half like of fissionable elements present in meteors.
    I'm not asking you to pick one fissionable element. I'm asking you to name the elements and isotopes that you are including.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,198
    Keep it down--I'm trying to beltsand some rust off the photosphere...stupid pop rivets--I TOLD THEM TO USE BOLTS :}

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Duane
    It has been explained to you several times that you are misinterpreting what you are seeing. It has been explained how these images work, and why your interpretation of them is wrong. It has been explained why the images work they way they do, and how it is that the findings of the researchers actually looking at the raw data are what they are. Your answers and questions regarding these aspects tell me that you clearly, clearly do not understand thermaldynamics nor why it is that the laws involved in that disipline cannot be reconciled with what you propose.
    Be *very* specific and explain to me how my answer violates any lowas of thermodynamics? If the dark areas are dark in both Trace and Yohkoh images, what evidence do you have that these areas are "hotter" than the bright areas based on either the original Trace image, or the Yohkoh image? The only areas that Yohkoh can isolate as being "hotter", are the very tops of the coronal loops, and the very base of the loops. There is no evidence either in the original image, or the Yohkoh composite images that dark surface areas are hotter than coronal loops.

    It has been pointed out to you why your idea of black body radiation is wrong, and a number of links have been supplied to allow you the opportunity to read through to get to the point of understanding at least how current theory has gotten where it is.

    You continually call modern theory "the gas model" without understanding how solar and stellar physics have explained what we see through math, physics and actual observation. You continually refer back to images you clearly do not understand, using them to support your theory, when your most basic understanding of what you are looking at is flawed.
    Since I stuck to standard gas model theory here, you should be able to be specfic here as well. What have I misrepresented about standard gas model theory that suggests coronal loops are hot and come from underneath the photosphere?

    You seem like a smart man Michael, and your doggedness on this subject is nothing short of amazing.
    The reason I'm dogged, and the reason Dr. Manuel is dogged as well, is because we understand something that you do not Duane. I would not continue to pour my time and financial resources in this idea if I did not believe in it. While I understand why you believe my knowledge is "shallow', I assure you quite the opposite is true. I'm here because I want my 13 year old daughter to know that science works, that science is fair and science is about knowledge and open dialog and the open discussion of ideas. I believe in science and I have been a scientist all my life. I am here because I can and will debate these ideas scientifically, even if you and I ultimately agree to disagree on this topic of science. I respect you beliefs Duane, but I can't ignore what I see in these images or be quiet about what I see in Dr. Manuel's analysis of lunar soils and comets. I can't be quiet about Dr. Birkeland or Dr. Bruce. I can't be quiet because I believe in their research and in their lifelong persuit of truth, in spite of opposing views. It seems to me there is room in the scientific world for discenting opinions, and for awhile I will have to settle for that position. I do however strongly believe that one day people will come around and this idea will be take a lot more seriously. In fact, I'm quite convinced that this will happen with the next round of satellites and multimegapel resolutions.

    Even if I'm wrong Duane, I want my daughter to know it's ok to be wrong once in a while. Life will go on. We should not let fear of failure prevent us from talking about what we believe in. Science requires and thrives on debate and I simply believe in what I see after a lifetime of studying the sun. I'm just here to discuss these ideas with poeple who also have an interest in astronomy and the sun as I do.

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    You have no right to say things like this Jeff.
    You can keep such comments to yourself. I am a sucessful, self employed
    business man with a wife and two wonderful children. I don't want my
    children reading this kind of trash. My thirteen year old daughter does
    follow these conversation, and I'm VERY unhappy that she has to hear **
    like this.
    Better to face the truth than live with a lie, don't you think?

    What I said is certainly true of some people. The questions
    are whether it is true of you, and whether I should have said
    it in this forum. My opinion, based on the limited information
    available to me in this forum, is that it clearly does apply to
    you. If I am right, you should know about it, and so should
    your family. If your daughter reads your posts here, then she
    probably has her own opinion. Ask her if she thinks what I
    said is inaccurate. Or ask your physician.

    As for whether I should have said it in this forum: all I have
    done is put a name to your behavior in this forum. If I have
    put the wrong name on it, then it is my very bad error. But
    if the name is accurate, then I haven't done anything but told
    you what everyone can see from your posts.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr
    Keep it down--I'm trying to beltsand some rust off the photosphere...stupid pop rivets--I TOLD THEM TO USE BOLTS :}

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root
    Better to face the truth than live with a lie, don't you think?

    What I said is certainly true of some people. The questions
    are whether it is true of you, and whether I should have said
    it in this forum. My opinion, based on the limited information
    available to me in this forum, is that it clearly does apply to
    you. If I am right, you should know about it, and so should
    your family. If your daughter reads your posts here, then she
    probably has her own opinion. Ask her if she thinks what I
    said is inaccurate. Or ask your physician.

    As for whether I should have said it in this forum: all I have
    done is put a name to your behavior in this forum. If I have
    put the wrong name on it, then it is my very bad error. But
    if the name is accurate, then I haven't done anything but told
    you what everyone can see from your posts.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    I guess you can get away with anything around here and still post on the forum as long as you sling the mud at ATM'rs. I won't repsond to you any more Jeff. Any respect I had for you is gone, and I don't want to stoop to your gutter level tactics.

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,165
    Jeff, I would be very careful with what you say. It is not wise to raise the ire of the moderators by discussing someone's mental condition, especially if they are a member. While we may think his ideas are wrong or misguided, we aren't right to call him mentally deficient. I've been on this board for two years now, and I've seen people get banned for your attitude. Just be careful, and think.

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Vermonter
    I read "Solar System Formation Deduced from Observations of Matter" and didn't find anything odd, barring the fission theory in the center of planets. He makes no reference to that same process in the sun, however. He thinks that planets contain a appreciable amount of a radioactive uranium isotope, to explain the heat in planets, while choosing to ignore accretion energy of planets.

    Reading "Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics" didn't really do much for me for this topic, either. Just a different way of thinking about differentiation of planets. Still no reference to the Sun about that.
    There is no reference to the sun in that article, but it's the best info I can give you about a fissionable core staying "hot" over 4.5 billion years and why it might stay "hot". The processes of the sun would necessarily have to be on a much larger scale to produce that kind of current and to produce that kind of energy. If and when I run across better literature on the subject I'll post it. I did talk to Marvin on the phone however and he seem to believe that Jupiter also has a fission core and we both seemed to think it was at least possible that the sun could have one as well. He's the best expert I've got at the moment. I'm sure he'd talk with you if you called him by the way. He could probably answer your questions about this topic better that I could.

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root
    ...all I have
    done is put a name to your behavior in this forum.
    No...what you have done is attack the person and not the idea which is a real no no around here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    I guess you can get away with anything around here and still post on the forum as long as you sling the mud at ATM'rs.
    No...that's not the way this board is run...being "nice" applies to everyone, and I seriously doubt that Jeff will "get away" with it.

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    There is no reference to the sun in that article, but it's the best info I can give you about a fissionable core staying "hot" over 4.5 billion years and why it might stay "hot". The processes of the sun would necessarily have to be on a much larger scale to produce that kind of current and to produce that kind of energy. If and when I run across better literature on the subject I'll post it. I did talk to Marvin on the phone however and he seem to believe that Jupiter also has a fission core and we both seemed to think it was at least possible that the sun could have one as well. He's the best expert I've got at the moment. I'm sure he'd talk with you if you called him by the way. He could probably answer your questions about this topic better that I could.
    I think it's incorrect to infer that. I may have to have a chat with Marvin about this at some point, I'll be sure to mention you if I do call him. Even with breeder reactors, I think there is a point where it dun fizz anymore, plus it's tightly controlled. A natural reactor may burn itself out. While it may be possible for fission to be in the cores of planets (which I'm doubting), the sheer scale difference between Jupiter and the Sun puts doubt in it.

    You need a lot of fissionable material. And that has a half-life. You also run into the problem of energy output. The output has to equal the self-compression forces of the Sun, or it shrinks. That's the cool thing about fusion in the Sun, it maintains equilibrium. There's enough pressure pushing out from fusion so that the sun doesn't collapse even more on itself.

    Temperature and pressure regulate fusion in a star. If you magically lowered the core temperature of the star, the rate of fusion would decrease, causing the star to shrink from its own gravity. This then increases the temperature and pressure of the core, which then increases the rate of fusion. The star's energy output increases, and equilibrium is once again acheived. Same goes if you increase the core temperature over what it normally is.

    It seems to be that with a fission reactor, energy output would be decreasing as time goes on. Observations seem to indicate that the sun's energy output is increasing with time.

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    I was really hoping you would join this discussion Baloo. Based on my last post to Nereid, specifically from a gas model perspective, how do you know the transition layer that Lockheed images is not the same transition layer that Dr. Kosovichev is imaging?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1641599.stm
    Well, since we're now in ATM, the question is: please, Michael (or any other proponent of the 'Sun has a solid iron/ferrite surface' idea), explain - using numbers, math, and stuff - how it is possible for TRACE's EUV images to show a layer ~4800 km beneath the photospheric surface of a sunspot?

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,202
    What happened to taking this discussion back to the fundamentals? If Mozina's model can't account for the fundamentals-- the mass, density, age, power output-- all the easily observable and measured data of the sun, then how could arguing the details even matter?

    Mozina, if you manage to prove the gas model is lacking or totally correct, it doesn't mean that the iron model is right! In fact, with the wealth of confirmed data that matches the gas model, if the gas model is wrong, then most likely yours is wrong, too.

    Get back to the fundamentals and explain them. Accurately describing the fundamentals is like the foundation of the home. You can't start nailing roof rafters into mid-air!

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,533
    Ok, thats enough. Jeff, you have been warned once, and you should have gotten an idea we were not happy with your post when I yanked it and left a note saying we were reviewing it.

    You are now banned for 24 hours, subject to our continued review with consideration of a permanant one.
    Last edited by Duane; 2005-Oct-06 at 10:42 PM. Reason: Banning
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

Similar Threads

  1. Lockheed Martin buys first commercial quantum computer
    By Andrew D in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2012-Jan-11, 07:56 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-Dec-01, 08:00 PM
  3. Does Lockheed Martin Understand Black Body Radiation?
    By Michael Mozina in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 100
    Last Post: 2005-Oct-06, 03:21 PM
  4. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Spaceships Design
    By Tuckerfan in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2005-May-06, 10:20 PM
  5. Discussion: Lockheed Martin and Northrop ...
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2003-Sep-30, 05:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: