Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
D'rok said:
Argh, Michael. Seriously. That's Sol's definition of opacity. A sock with 90% opacity is not necessarily an opaque sock. Sol did not define "opaque" to be a substance exhibiting 90% opacity. Sheesh.

A sock with 100% opacity, assuming such a thing is possible, is definitely an opaque sock. There's probably some measure of opacity below 100% that is de facto opaque, although you will no doubt grasp at anything less than 100% opacity as evidence for your claims.
Click to expand...


Well I think what sol was saying is that at 90% opacity then at some distance it will be opaque at 100%.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Actually, assuming that the sock blocks 90% of the light, yes, it would in fact be "opaque" according to sol's (accurate) definition of opacity. In GM's mind that somehow translates to "we can't see *ANY* light" through one sock, let alone two of them.
Click to expand...

If you have 90% opacity on your sock then how much light will get through ten socks (.1)10A very small number


Two socks 1%
 
Dancing David said:
If you have 90% opacity on your sock then how much light will get through ten socks (.1)10A very small number


Two socks 1%
Click to expand...


I'm wondering why Michael is so reluctant to tell us at what depth the density of the plasma is such that it becomes opaque in his crackpot idea. Maybe he's trying to say that if it weren't for that thermodynamically impossible mythical solid iron surface of his, we'd be able to see all the way through the Sun.
 
phunk said:
You seem to be forgetting that this is plasma we're talking about. What shell is a free electron in?
Click to expand...

I guess we'll have to be patient and wait for the results. :) Either way, I respect sol's efforts a great deal and I trust they will be accurate. I hope to learn a great deal actually. :)
 
Michael Mozina said:
I guess we'll have to be patient and wait for the results. :) Either way, I respect sol's efforts a great deal and I trust they will be accurate. I hope to learn a great deal actually. :)
Click to expand...


But you will not accept it if sol shows that you can't see your thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface over 3000 kilometers into the surface of the Sun, isn't that correct?
 
tusenfem said:
I have no issues with the paper(s), I have issues with the way you are interperting them and describing what happens, and using your own special lingo that does not jive with physics.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but you could have just as easily have used the term "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection" and not selected your own special "lingo" that Alfven himself referred to as "pseudoscience". Either terminology would have kept things congruent with electrical engineering, and/or particle physics theory and would have created no confusion at all. You only have yourself to blame for any "confusion" by clinging to "pseudoscience".
 
GeeMack said:
But you will not accept it if sol shows that you can't see your thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface over 3000 kilometers into the surface of the Sun, isn't that correct?
Click to expand...

How many times must I explain this to you? I respect sol. I respect and *appreciate* his efforts right now. I'm very interested in the results and because he personally is doing them, I'm actually very excited. I'm excited because I know he will "do them right". He'll be "honest" (something you know nothing about) and he'll do it from a place of pure scientific curiosity, not from a place of ego or ignorance, or hostility towards me personally. I'm really looking forward to the numbers actually, and I intend to learn from his efforts to the best of my abilities.

Unlike you I don't profess to know the outcome for certain, but I know that whatever number he comes up with will not represent the point at which all light becomes magically invisible as you seem to believe.

I'm honestly very appreciative of his efforts and I hope to learn a great deal.

You personally have absolutely *NOTHING* to "teach" me.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
How many times must I explain this to you? I respect sol. I respect and *appreciate* his efforts right now. I'm very interested in the results and because he personally is doing them, I'm actually very excited. I'm excited because I know he will "do them right". He'll be "honest" (something you know nothing about) and he'll do it from a place of pure scientific curiosity, not from a place of ego or ignorance, or hostility towards me personally. I'm really looking forward to the numbers actually, and I intend to learn from his efforts to the best of my abilities.

Unlike you I don't profess to know the outcome for certain, but I know that whatever number he comes up with will no represent the point at which all light becomes magically invisible as you seem to believe.

I'm honestly very appreciative of his efforts and I hope to learn a great deal.

You personally have absolutely *NOTHING* to "teach" me.
Click to expand...


So your answer is "No", you will not accept it if sol determines that you are unable to see your mythical solid iron surface. Got it.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Unlike you I don't profess to know the outcome for certain, but I know that whatever number he comes up with will not represent the point at which all light becomes magically invisible as you seem to believe.
Click to expand...


Okay, so you're saying there is no point in the solar atmosphere where the plasma becomes so dense that it is opaque?
 
Michael Mozina said:
How many valence shells are in each element, and how many wavelengths can each element emit?
Click to expand...

Quantized atomic transitions are not the only way a plasma can radiate (or absorb), Michael. As phunk pointed out, it's got free electrons, and free electrons can absorb (and hence emit) any wavelength. Again, basic physics fail on your part. One would think that for somebody so interested in the electromagnetic properties of plasmas, you'd at least be aware of this.

But none of that has any bearing on the error you made that I pointed out. You cannot change emissivity without changing absorptivity. That's an absolute requirement of thermodynamics. Violating it is synonymous with creating a perpetual motion machine. It applies to plasmas, gasses, liquids, solids... everything.
 
D'rok said:
Thanks. I look forward to where this exercise is going.

Lurk mode: engage
Click to expand...

D'rok - shouldn't you have been out slaughtering wooly mammoths and fending off sabre-tooth tigers instead of arguing with this idiot for so long?
 
Ziggurat said:
Quantized atomic transitions are not the only way a plasma can radiate (or absorb), Michael. As phunk pointed out, it's got free electrons, and free electrons can absorb (and hence emit) any wavelength. Again, basic physics fail on your part. One would think that for somebody so interested in the electromagnetic properties of plasmas, you'd at least be aware of this.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of being 'unaware', I simply believe it's not a relevant factor. We'll just have to be patient and see.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's not a matter of being 'unaware', I simply believe it's not a relevant factor.
Click to expand...

It isn't relevant to the fact that your statement about changing emissivity without changing opacity was clearly wrong. It is relevant to the question of optical depth, though that discussion is more complex.
 
GlennB said:
D'rok - shouldn't you have been out slaughtering wooly mammoths and fending off sabre-tooth tigers instead of arguing with this idiot for so long?
Click to expand...

(Just between you and me...I'm not really as fierce as my avatar looks)


Or...as I like to say to Mrs. D'rok: I'm not a dork. I'm a 12th level Barbarian!
 
Michael Mozina said:
Start with an infinite intensity light source at 171A and tell me at what "depth" does it become "opaque"?
Click to expand...

Michael, Michael, Michael. Source intensity is irrelevant to opacity. That isn't how opacity is defined. We already went over this.

You complain that people insult you. This is why. It's not your ignorance, it's not even really your arrogance that offends. It's your refusal to learn.
 
Ziggurat said:
Michael, Michael, Michael. Source intensity is irrelevant to opacity. That isn't how opacity is defined. We already went over this.

You complain that people insult you. This is why. It's not your ignorance, it's not even really your arrogance that offends. It's your refusal to learn.
Click to expand...

Got a number?
 
It seems to me that if we start with a light source of infinite power, the opacity of any layers between it and us would only be of concern for an infinitely short time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom