'13-07-30, 12:38 DeiRenDopa	Speaking of Balmer H-alpha ... Originally Posted by CC (his website) The standard model of the Sun fails to explain even the simplest of solar observations. For example, we can tell from spectroscopy that at its visible surface, the Sun is 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, with just traces of heavier elements. Figure 1 shows the surface of the Sun on the limb, and in the primary wavelength emitted by hydrogen. Notice that the edge of the photosphere is very distinct, topped by the tenuous plasma in the chromosphere and transition region.1 Above that, the solar atmosphere is transparent. The full transition, from opacity to transparency, occurs in only 7 Mm. [...] Yet in the standard model, a distinct surface just isn't possible. I came across this rather cool graph, showing the fractional abundance of HI (unionized hydrogen) and HII (ionized hydrogen) as a function of temperature and pressure. That got me wondering: for the simultaneous change in temperature and pressure, near/around r/R = 1.0000000 in Model S, what is the change in r/R over which the fractional abundance of HI goes from 0.90 to 0.10? 0.99 to 0.01? Is it possible that that distance is as small as a few thousand (even a few hundred?) km? CC: have you ever sought to work something like this out?
'13-07-30, 14:38 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa I wonder a more extensive critical review might turn up? Please, keep finding errors! And thanks for finding the glaring one in the Heliosphere section concerning temperature. I have already removed the offending section. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa OK, let's take something really simple, the Fraunhofer linesWP. Please describe an observational setup which produces "data" (however you interpret that word) "showing the Fraunhofer lines" (however you interpret that statement). Does a spectrum "showing the Fraunhofer lines" also "show Balmer H-alpha in absorption"? A spectroscope aimed at the Sun will show the Fraunhofer lines, and yes, the Balmer H-alpha line (i.e., 656 nm) is one of them. Originally Posted by Dancing David Excuse me Charles, but you asserted that a hydrogen/helium plasma is not compressible to the level that would exist at the core of the sun. I asked for your evidence, now you are shifting the goal post, I asked for your evidence that there are compression limits on plasma, which is one of your original assertions at the base of your whole model. Please answer my question, or admit that one part of your model is based upon an assumption that you made without evidence. Did you see my comments at the top of post #236? Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Speaking of Balmer H-alpha ... I came across this rather cool graph, showing the fractional abundance of HI (unionized hydrogen) and HII (ionized hydrogen) as a function of temperature and pressure. That got me wondering: for the simultaneous change in temperature and pressure, near/around r/R = 1.0000000 in Model S, what is the change in r/R over which the fractional abundance of HI goes from 0.90 to 0.10? 0.99 to 0.01? Is it possible that that distance is as small as a few thousand (even a few hundred?) km? CC: have you ever sought to work something like this out? No, I haven't work out something like this.
'13-07-30, 15:23 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler The hydrodynamic photosphere, topped by the tenuous, wispy chromosphere, require a force to establish. It isn't gravity, and it isn't hydrostatic pressure, because we already know what those two will do. (my emphasis added) I think it is time that we ask Charles Chandler, Who Do You Mean We Kemo Sabe? It is gravity and it is hydrostatic pressure that establish the photosphere driven by the fusion at the core of the Sun.
'13-07-30, 15:27 ben m	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler . There is a difference between the Dalsgaard and the Stein-Nordlund density gradients. You find the discrepancy to be boring. I don't care — I find it interesting. . Let me put it this way. Are these two authors using exactly the same approximation for the wavelength-dependent opacity? Could this difference be responsible for any differences in their results? One paper is building a spherically-symmetric whole-sun model, presumably with some spherically-averaged expression for convective heat transport . The other is zooming into a thin 3D slab of the chromosphere and tracking individual convection cells. Could this be responsible for small differences in their results? What steps did you take to evaluate *these* explanations, before proceeding to the conclusion that there's an important discrepancy that points to a whole new model of the Sun, new laws of plasma physics, etc.?
'13-07-30, 15:38 Reality Check	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa RC, this is nonsense: If you think so, then please help CC independently derive the "sound speed, etc for Model S", using only the ideal gas laws. You are right - Charles Chandler constantly going on about the ideal gas law made me forget about the 1996 Dalsgaard Model S including other laws of physics.
'13-07-30, 16:04 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by ben m What steps did you take to evaluate *these* explanations, before proceeding to the conclusion that there's an important discrepancy that points to a whole new model of the Sun, new laws of plasma physics, etc.? IMO, you're thinking in a different way from me. Sure, one is studying wave transmission speeds, and needs whole-Sun boiler-plate numbers, so that he can determine the anomalies, and focus in on those. Another is studying opacities, and needs to know the elemental abundances and degrees of ionization. Yet another is studying granules, and needs a more accurate density gradient. We can expect differences in the assumptions made by all of these various endeavors, and if the assumptions don't agree, that's not a problem, in and of itself. But I'm not playing a pedantic game here, saying that the experts don't agree, and therefore they're stupid, or that I'm right, or anything like that. I'm saying that for there to be a non-Dalsgaard density gradient, there have to be forces and/or conditions other than just what Dalsgaard took into account — that's axiomatic. Well, I want to know what those forces and/or conditions are. You're thinking that the bump in the Stein-Nordlund density gradient could trace back to any number of uninteresting conditions. I think that it's the electric force. If so, that asks a lot of really tough questions about how it got there, and the implications are huge.
'13-07-30, 17:26 ben m	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler I'm saying that for there to be a non-Dalsgaard density gradient, there have to be forces and/or conditions other than just what Dalsgaard took into account — that's axiomatic. Well, I want to know what those forces and/or conditions are. No you don't. If you "wanted to know", you'd be comparing all available explanations, because the best of those explanations (whichever it is) qualifies as thing you purportedly "want to know". You only "want to know" insofar as you think that the answer is your own personal theory. At least, that's how you're behaving. Quote: You're thinking that the bump in the Stein-Nordlund density gradient could trace back to any number of uninteresting conditions. I think that it's the electric force. If so, that asks a lot of really tough questions about how it got there, and the implications are huge. Man, I've lost track of what your claim even is. I think it keeps changing. Earlier in the thread you were insisting that Daalsgard had done something horribly wrong, because he didn't use obey your (made-up) "laws of physics" forbidding compressible plasma and "non-newtonian pressure gradients". If I remember correctly, I pointed you to the Stein & Nordlund paper yesterday ... how is it that, so suddenly, that Stein & Nordlund's discrepancy from Daalsgard is the thing you claim to "want" to explain? Finally: you think "it's the electric force"? You look at a simulation that does not include an electric force, and another simulation that also does not include an electric force, and you think the difference between them is due to the electric force? What, are the electric fields in the sun so strong and willful that they reached out and reprogrammed Stein & Nordlund's computer?
'13-07-30, 17:43 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Well, I want to know what those forces and/or conditions are. And we are saying read the paper, Charles Chandler! The actual forces responsible are one or more of gravity electromagnetism strong force weak force The effects (maybe your "forces") responsible look like things such as pressure radiative cooling buoyancy convection interior heating ionization You are asserting that there is a "bump" in the Stein-Nordlund density gradient at the surface which needs to be compared to the Dalsgaard density gradient of the solar interior. But Figure 1 on page 916 has no "bump" in the regime of the Dalsgaard density gradient (the interior of the Sun, i.e. depth > 0). There is a "bump" for a depth
'13-07-30, 18:41 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by ben m If you "wanted to know", you'd be comparing all available explanations, because the best of those explanations (whichever it is) qualifies as thing you purportedly "want to know". Ah, but that's the problem — I can't find any other explanation. Sure, Stein & Nordlund used the Euler equations, but they're assuming a density gradient that they don't justify. Originally Posted by ben m Man, I've lost track of what your claim even is. I think it keeps changing. No, I've been saying the same thing the whole time. The surface of the Sun displays hydrodynamic behaviors that shouldn't be there — because it shouldn't have a surface — at least not due to any of the forces that have already been identified. (And the force of numeric description doesn't count.)
'13-07-30, 18:51 ben m	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Ah, but that's the problem — I can't find any other explanation. Sure, Stein & Nordlund used the Euler equations, but they're assuming a density gradient that they don't justify. Nonsense. The density gradient emerges from the simulations; it's the gradient that the simulated gas settles into by obeying the specified laws of physics. Also, "you can't find any other explanation"? You learned what the Euler equations look like mere hours ago. (In fact, no you didn't---the equations used are Navier-Stokes (Euler plus viscosity), I misremembered which name went with which.) Did you spend those hours mastering the Euler equations, attempting to construct solutions, and failing? That's remarkable.
'13-07-30, 19:01 ben m	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler No, I've been saying the same thing the whole time. The surface of the Sun displays hydrodynamic behaviors that shouldn't be there — because it shouldn't have a surface — at least not due to any of the forces that have already been identified. (And the force of numeric description doesn't count.) It's like when a creationist tells you that there "shouldn't" still be apes, since they evolved into humans. "Since apes and humans are both around today, evolution is wrong!". No, according to people with a better grasp of evolution, ape/human coexistence is just fine. You think these solar behaviors shouldn't be there, based on your handwaving, frequently erroneous understanding of the laws of physics. According to people with a better grasp of the physics, these behaviors are just fine. We've been through this several times. Are you going to repeat your bare "shouldn't work this way" assertions yet again, or are you going to try to provide better evidence?
'13-07-30, 20:30 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by ben m Nonsense. The density gradient emerges from the simulations; it's the gradient that the simulated gas settles into by obeying the specified laws of physics. What laws of physics? If the pressure is supplied by gravity, they'd get the same results that Dalsgaard got — a straight-line density on a log graph. They're actually pulling pressures from an external table: Originally Posted by Stein & Nordlund The pressure is found by interpolation in a table of P(ln o, e) and its derivatives which is calculated with the Uppsala stellar atmosphere package et al. (Gustafsson 1975). Then they are finding the convective and radiative heat exchanges, and resulting temperatures, and thus the densities. From the densities they get the buoyancies, and thus the flows. They are very definitely not simulating the entire domain. In their words: Originally Posted by Stein & Nordlund Current computers have neither the memory nor the speed to perform such a calculation for the ~105 yr of solar time needed to achieve thermal relaxation throughout the convection zone. So the force necessary to produce the non-Dalsgaard density gradient remains unidentified. Originally Posted by ben m We've been through this several times. Are you going to repeat your bare "shouldn't work this way" assertions yet again, or are you going to try to provide better evidence? It's right there in front of you, but you're so convinced that amateurs are always wrong, you won't even look at the evidence. Dalsgaard's calculations show how the density increases steadily under the force of gravity, producing a straight line on a log graph (down to about 13 Mm). Stein & Nordlund are showing a density with a distinct hump at 1.0 R⊙ that isn't there in Dalsgaard's graph. Without it, they couldn't get realistic hydrodynamics. If you don't see it now, you're just not going to. But that's not my problem.
'13-07-30, 21:12 ben m	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler What laws of physics? If the pressure is supplied by gravity, they'd get the same results that Dalsgaard got — a straight-line density on a log graph. They're actually pulling pressures from an external table: That's not an external table of pressure-vs-radius, it's a table for translating mass density and internal-energy-density (those are the parameters on the left hand side of the Navier-Stokes equations are expressed) into the local ionization state and and the local pressure (the latter of which is needed on the right hand side of N-S) I repeat my previous statement. The curves shown in the paper are computed as solutions to the stated force laws. The mechanical forces on the plasma are pressure gradients, gravity, and viscosity, as stated extremely clearly in the paper. You have, once again, misread a source.
'13-07-30, 21:31 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by ben m I repeat my previous statement. The curves shown in the paper are computed as solutions to the stated force laws. The mechanical forces on the plasma are pressure gradients, gravity, and viscosity, as stated extremely clearly in the paper. You have, once again, misread a source. Probably. But you refuse to listen to yourself talk. Dalsgaard calculates the pressure gradients, and gravity. Stein & Nordlund calculate the pressure gradients, and gravity (plus viscosity, which is slight). They get different answers. You're right that I haven't tracked down why. But I'm getting bored with this run-around. There has to be a reason for the discrepancy. You're saying that they include the same physicals laws. But if they did, they'd get the same results.
'13-07-30, 21:55 ben m	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Dalsgaard's calculations show how the density increases steadily under the force of gravity, producing a straight line on a log graph (down to about 13 Mm). Stein & Nordlund are showing a density with a distinct hump at 1.0 R⊙ that isn't there in Dalsgaard's graph. Without it, they couldn't get realistic hydrodynamics. Seriously, CC, calculations with slightly different opacities---or, indeed, any different heat-transport details---will have slightly different temperature structures. Models with slightly different temperature profiles (due to the opacity difference) will have different pressures and densities, even though both would be equally realistic hydrodynamics. If you're watching the weather report, and one forecaster announces a 50% chance of rain until 10PM, and the other announces scattered showers until 11PM, do you conclude that the weather-modeling software violates the laws of physics? Originally Posted by Charles Chandler There has to be a reason for the discrepancy. You're saying that they include the same physicals laws. But if they did, they'd get the same results. Their papers carefully explain the models. They use the same laws of gravity and fluid mechanics. They use different approximations for opacity. They use different approximate viscosities. They use different approximations for turbulence. Of course they get slightly different results. Didn't you read the papers? More generally: perhaps you've forgotten, more generally, that that "gravity" term needs to know the mass density. To know the density you need to know the temperature. The temperature is determined by a much more complicated phenomenon---heat transport---than the "simple" phenomenon of hydrostatic forces and Newton's Law. Opacity is part of heat transport, but in the presence of convection, there's also convective heat transport, which requires understanding the shear structure. For a related example, imagine you were trying to model the Earth's atmosphere. Gravity, hydrostatics, easy, right? Now you're going to try to state the density of air at the Earth's equator, then state it again at the North Pole. Well, in a simple model of the Earth those densities are the same, whereas a measurement will show they're different. Is this a "discrepancy"? No. Does the atmosphere at the North Pole obey different hydrostatic and/or gravitational laws than the atmosphere at the equator? No. Is there a gravitational effect you forgot to include in your model? No. The only way to model this correctly is to realize that the equator and the pole are at different temperatures. Now you're forced to model the temperature---which is NOT easy. You need to know the albedo and emissivity of the Earth at all wavelengths. You need to know how winds transport heat horizontally and vertically---which you're not going to get from simple pressure-gradient forces, because winds are turbulent AND they couple to the landscape. You need to know the composition of the atmosphere, including small-but-important components like CO2 and ozone. How accurately do you think you can predict the pole/equator air density difference? If two Earth-atmosphere modelers disagreed, at the few-percent level, about the pole/equator air density difference, would you accuse them of botching gravity and hydrostatics? Anyway, I get the impression that you've been forgetting about heat transport altogether. This is an oversight. Perhaps, as indicated by your horribly-mistaken "use" of PV=nRT, you were unaware of the fact that density depends on temperature, or more generally unaware of the fact that P,V,T are three separate variables for which an EOS provides only one constraint.
'13-07-30, 21:59 ben m	(consolidate posts)
'13-07-30, 23:22 Vermonter	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler If the atomic speeds at 3000 K are sufficient for full ionization, then why does it take 15 MK to fuse hydrogen into helium? I know the standard answer (i.e., it takes that kind of atomic speed to overcome the Coulomb barrier). I can answer this one. It takes 15,000,000 K (along with the pressure to force everything together) to accelerate particles to the point where they can overcome the Coulomb barrier. ~3000 K may be sufficient to ionize hydrogen (since it typically only has one electron, this isn't terribly difficult), but it won't accelerate the particles to the speeds necessary to initiate fusion. Otherwise we could just use a high-quality pressure cooker to initiate fusion. Even then, it's an incredibly slow process. To overcome the Coulomb Barrier, protons have to collide dead-on, otherwise they bounce off of each other. This is why is takes incredible temperature and pressure. This is basic undergrad college stuff.
'13-07-31, 02:47 catsmate1	Originally Posted by ben m Stop using the term "non-Newtonian density gradient". What you actually mean is "a density gradient that Charles Chandler has mentally compared to his own intuitive guess about what density gradients should look like". I can't explain how real forces account for made-up rule violations. Imagine if a creationist looked at a cladogram of the mammals, decided that it violated conservation of vowels, and demanded an explanation. "How do the so-called theory of evolution account for the non-vowel-conserving cladogram?" The density gradient looks fine to me. Perhaps call it the Chandlerian Pressure Gradient so it won't be confused with real physics? Like MozPhysics and Duffieldian GR................ Originally Posted by Cuddles Wait, what? Rocket thrust depends on behaviour of ambient air and not just on Newton's third law? Originally Posted by Vermonter I can answer this one. It takes 15,000,000 K (along with the pressure to force everything together) to accelerate particles to the point where they can overcome the Coulomb barrier. ~3000 K may be sufficient to ionize hydrogen (since it typically only has one electron, this isn't terribly difficult), but it won't accelerate the particles to the speeds necessary to initiate fusion. Otherwise we could just use a high-quality pressure cooker to initiate fusion. Even then, it's an incredibly slow process. To overcome the Coulomb Barrier, protons have to collide dead-on, otherwise they bounce off of each other. This is why is takes incredible temperature and pressure. This is basic undergrad college stuff. Plus CC doesn't seem to understand the Carbon Cycle model of solar fusion.
'13-07-31, 05:39 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Did you see my comments at the top of post #236? Again CC, I ask you for the evidence that your assumption is correct and that the plasma at the core of the sun has some compression limit that you rely on in your theory. Burden of proof on you. But please make your own argument weaker by refusing to defend a key component, you tell me the degree of ionization at the core of the sun and then you tell me the compression limit. Then we can discuss it.
'13-07-31, 05:46 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Probably. But you refuse to listen to yourself talk. Dalsgaard calculates the pressure gradients, and gravity. Stein & Nordlund calculate the pressure gradients, and gravity (plus viscosity, which is slight). They get different answers. You're right that I haven't tracked down why. But I'm getting bored with this run-around. There has to be a reason for the discrepancy. You're saying that they include the same physicals laws. But if they did, they'd get the same results. CC I have come to the conclusion that you engage in rhetoric, you seem unable to defend your own ideas and attack theories you don't understand. the fact that you engage is rhetoric is telling, you may want to reconsider you stance and actually try to discuss things. Your rhetorical stance makes your statements seem defensive and contrived to defend your theory at any cost, rather than engage is a discussion.
'13-07-31, 06:15 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Originally Posted by me I wonder a more extensive critical review might turn up? Please, keep finding errors! And thanks for finding the glaring one in the Heliosphere section concerning temperature. I have already removed the offending section. I think I'll wait until you've had time to give a considered response to this part of my post #179: Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa CC's ref #2 is a dead end; however this is what it is intended to refer to: "Nobel Lecture: Birth of neutrino astrophysics" (the full text PDF is not behind a paywall). Is CC's assertion ("By this measure, fusion is only responsible for 1/3 of the Sun's power") consistent with Nobel Laureate Masatoshi Koshiba's paper? I'll let you be the judge. Ref #3 is a Scientific American article, from March 2003. So, time for some "critical review": why did you cite documents only from 2003, CC? What efforts did you make, to determine the extent of "independent proof" (your term) of neutrino oscillations? In particular, did you actually read Koshiba's paper, the one you cited, right through to the end? If you did, what did you make of this? "The obtained oscillation parameters, [...], are in good agreement with the solar neutrino result of Fig. 17."
'13-07-31, 06:21 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Originally Posted by me Speaking of Balmer H-alpha ... I came across this rather cool graph, showing the fractional abundance of HI (unionized hydrogen) and HII (ionized hydrogen) as a function of temperature and pressure. That got me wondering: for the simultaneous change in temperature and pressure, near/around r/R = 1.0000000 in Model S, what is the change in r/R over which the fractional abundance of HI goes from 0.90 to 0.10? 0.99 to 0.01? Is it possible that that distance is as small as a few thousand (even a few hundred?) km? CC: have you ever sought to work something like this out? No, I haven't work out something like this. Hmm, that seems ... strange. Can you please point me to the places, in your website, where you report the results of calculations you've done, using the Saha equationWP? I tried to find them, in the obvious places, but failed (in fact, I could not find even a mention of this equation, much less results you'd obtained from using it).
'13-07-31, 06:29 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler I "thought" that everybody was taking for granted that everything is compressible, but when electron shells begin to conflict, it takes additional pressure to continue to increase the density, because it takes force to liberate the electrons (i.e., pressure ionization). (See Saumon, D.; Chabrier, G., 1992: Fluid hydrogen at high density: Pressure ionization. Physical Review A, 46 (4): 2084-2100) Thus the compressibility limits are a function of the pre-existing degree of ionization. If the electrons have already been liberated by high temperatures, those shell conflicts aren't there, and the compression continues past that limit, obeying the ideal gas laws. But if there are still bound electrons at the given temperature, there will be a limit there. Can anyone else confirm/deny that this is established laboratory science? Are you familiar with The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System? If you understand the science behind the papers (astrophysics and physics, in this case), it can help you find relevant reports fairly quickly. Also, you can use ADS to find review papers (though this may take longer). However, if you do not have a good grasp of the relevant physics - to the level of an excellent BSc with a major in physics, say - you may find the learning curve rather steep.
'13-07-31, 06:36 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler So why do we have to dig so deep to find the driving forces? Anyway... If you consider the implications of the non-Newtonian density gradient, you realize that it's actually a heckuva problem. The hydrodynamic photosphere, topped by the tenuous, wispy chromosphere, require a force to establish. It isn't gravity, and it isn't hydrostatic pressure, because we already know what those two will do. And it's not the magnetic force, because the behaviors don't change, regardless of the strength and polarity of the magnetic field. Not for the first time, I find myself concluding that you'd really, really benefit from getting hold of a good, modern textbook; one relevant to this topic. And taking the time and trouble to work through it, in detail, until you've mastered it. Quote: I "think" that this leaves only the electric force. The implications of that are staggering, but nevertheless have to be investigated. Myself, I "think" (oh no! MM is back! ) it leaves only purple space aliens. The implications of that are staggering, but nevertheless have to be investigated.
'13-07-31, 07:53 ben m	Originally Posted by Vermonter I can answer this one. It takes 15,000,000 K (along with the pressure to force everything together) to accelerate particles to the point where they can overcome the Coulomb barrier. ~3000 K may be sufficient to ionize hydrogen (since it typically only has one electron, this isn't terribly difficult), but it won't accelerate the particles to the speeds necessary to initiate fusion.. Vermonter, the question you linked to is one I'd missed before, and I think I now understand more of CC's underlying EOS fallacy. In an ideal gas, the source of pressure is NOT particle-particle repulsion. If you're the east wall of a box of hot neutral gas, you feel a force because a large number of momentum-bearing neutral particles are hitting you from the west every second. If the box is hotter, they're hitting you faster. If the gas is ionized instead of neutral, well, the particles hitting you are ions and electrons, but that doesn't affect their momentum flux. If there are more particles in the box, there are more particles hitting you. To compress something "until it fuses", at low temperature, you'd need truly stupendous gas densities, neutron-star-like densities, and that means huge numbers of particles hitting the walls, and that means huge pressures. The Coulomb force has nothing to do with the force on the walls of the container. The Coulomb force has to do with the distribution of intraparticle separations within the gas. A neutral-particle gas will have a random, flat distribution of distances between it's constituents. A plasma will have, on average, the like-charged particles a little farther apart and the same-charged particles closer together; specifically, each particle occupies a Boltzmann distribution in its distance-from-its-neighbors. In the case of two protons, or two nuclei generally, that distribution makes it extremely rare to find these particles within fusion-distance. THAT's the effect of the coulomb force, and that's why you see it in fusion rate (it affects the particle separation distribution) but not the bulk pressure. Anyway, raising the temperature broadens the Boltzmann distribution, making it more likely for nuclei to be found at fusion-like separations. CC appears to have been picturing the coulomb force supplying the pressure, and he seems to have been picturing "squeezing" being relevant to physically pushing nuclei past the Coulomb barrier. When I said that Coulomb repulsion didn't affect the EOS, he thought I was turning intraparticle forces off altogether. (Tune in for next week's episode of [i]Forensic Pedagogy: Special Victims Unit.[/])
'13-07-31, 12:58 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Dalsgaard's calculations show how the density increases steadily under the force of gravity, producing a straight line on a log graph (down to about 13 Mm). Stein & Nordlund are showing a density with a distinct hump at 1.0 R⊙ that isn't there in Dalsgaard's graph. Without it, they couldn't get realistic hydrodynamics. Dalsgaard's calculations show how the density increases steadily under the force of gravity, producing a straight line on a log graph (down to about 13 Mm). That graph should start at 0 Mm because the model is for the interior of the Sun, i.e. 1.0 R⊙. Stein & Nordlund are showing a density with a faint hump at a little above 1.0 R⊙ that isn't there in Dalsgaard's graph for the simple reason that Dalsgaard's model does not exist above 1.0 R⊙. ETA: Let us look at the actual numbers you plot from http://users-phys.au.dk/jcd/solar_mo...rho.l5bi.d.15c. They start at r/R⊙ = 1.0007126. So your graph of Dalsgaard's model output actually exists at a tiny bit above 1.0 R⊙ and includes the bump! This does not matter. These are two different computer models using the same physics but what looks like different inputs. Anyone who knows about computer models knows that this means that they should not produce exactly the same results. Dalsgaard et al., Stein & Nordlund and all other astronomers that model the Sun use realistic hydrodynamics.
'13-07-31, 15:04 ben m	Stop the presses, folks. CC has devoted the last few days to the argument that because Dalsgaard's model showed a straight-line density plot (in semi-log), while Stein and Nordlund's model shows a downward curve, there's something important and different in the physics. Well, forget everything. Dalsgaard's density curve is not a straight line. It looks more or less like Stein & Nordlund---overall humped shape, little blip at the surface, and all---i.e. it has exactly the features CC complained about it not having. CC's most basic description of the data misreported the existence of the simple visually-identifiable feature he insisted was important. What the heck?
'13-07-31, 16:28 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by ben m Stop the presses, folks. CC has devoted the last few days to the argument that because Dalsgaard's model showed a straight-line density plot (in semi-log), while Stein and Nordlund's model shows a downward curve, there's something important and different in the physics. Well, forget everything. Dalsgaard's density curve is not a straight line. It looks more or less like Stein & Nordlund---overall humped shape, little blip at the surface, and all---i.e. it has exactly the features CC complained about it not having. CC's most basic description of the data misreported the existence of the simple visually-identifiable feature he insisted was important. What the heck? Of course, JREF members being who they are, the question is: how can someone independently confirm what you're saying, ben m? And CC, what do you say? Can you lay out the evidence, showing the features (differences) you've been claiming?
'13-07-31, 16:45 ben m	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Of course, JREF members being who they are, the question is: how can someone independently confirm what you're saying, ben m? And CC, what do you say? Can you lay out the evidence, showing the features (differences) you've been claiming? I downloaded the "limited set of variables" model output file from Dalsgaard's home page (http://astro.phys.au.dk/~jcd/solar_models/). I read it into an nTuple in my usual data-analysis package, ROOT, and made a set of plots (log(rho) vs. r, t vs. r, log(p) vs. r), both over the whole Sun and over the small near-surface range relevant to comparisons with the other paper. Anyone with access to Mathematica, Matlab, R, Root, SciPy, or as a last resort Microsoft Excel, can confirm this for themselves. ETA: Of course, I may have misunderstood what claims CC was making about these graphs. However, he's pretty unambiguous. My bold: Originally Posted by http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=9394172&postcount=214 Have a look at the graph at the top of page 916. Notice the bump in the pressure, density, and temperature at the solar surface? That isn't there in the Dalsgaard model. So why isn't it? And what are the forces responsible for that bump? Yes it is. Originally Posted by http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=9394339&postcount=218 Look again. On a log graph, the pressure and density should be straight lines, as they are in the log graphs of the Dalsgaard model. No they aren't. I don't see any way I could have misread this. And I can't think of any charitable interpretation.
'13-08-01, 06:09 DeiRenDopa	I too downloaded the values for Model S, per the link in CC's webpage. To show that there's nothing particularly 'sciency' about analyzing this data, I copy/pasted it into an Open Office spreadsheet (I don't have MS Excel), then plotted it (well, the rho, p, and T variables anyway). In my chart, there is a very distinct 'bump' in the log(rho) and log(T) lines (plotted against r/R), at or very near r/R = 1.000; if there is a bump in the log(p) line, it's rather subtle*. I tried to "look at the graph at the top of page 916", but was not able to download the PDF (in the HTML version, Figure 1 is far too small to 'see' anything). So I have been unable - so far - to independently check that part of CC's claim. Has any other JREF member done their own independent checking? * ETA: There is a marked change in the slope, between 0.9995 and 1.0000; it's quite certainly there, but much less pronounced than the 'bumps' in the other two lines.
'13-08-01, 07:11 Cuddles	Originally Posted by ben m Anyone with access to Mathematica, Matlab, R, Root, SciPy, or as a last resort Microsoft Excel, can confirm this for themselves. For those without such access, here's what it looks like. The first plot is the all the data from Dalsgaard for r/R vs. rho. The second is a zoom on the section near r/R = 1, near the solar surface. Note that neither of these plots could be reasonably described as a straight line.
'13-08-02, 13:54 ben m	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Speaking of Balmer H-alpha ... That got me wondering: for the simultaneous change in temperature and pressure, near/around r/R = 1.0000000 in Model S, what is the change in r/R over which the fractional abundance of HI goes from 0.90 to 0.10? 0.99 to 0.01? DRD, looking at H alone, and temperature alone, I'm eyeballing your graphs to say the ionization plummets over a temperature range of 7500-6000K. Model S says that temperature drop happens over about 50km. Unsurprisingly, this happens in precisely the location of the "bump" that CC said couldn't be there and wasn't. (0.9999 R0 in Cuddles' second plot)
'13-08-02, 14:29 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by ben m DRD, looking at H alone, and temperature alone, I'm eyeballing your graphs to say the ionization plummets over a temperature range of 7500-6000K. Model S says that temperature drop happens over about 50km. Unsurprisingly, this happens in precisely the location of the "bump" that CC said couldn't be there and wasn't. (0.9999 R0 in Cuddles' second plot) What an astonishing coincidence! This is truly revolutionary, ben m, you may have found an answer to why the Sun's photosphere has such an apparently sharp edge. Which is CC's leading mystery, "the simplest of observations" which the "standard model of the Sun fails to explain". An explanation which has eluded scientists who have spent their entire lives studying the Sun, going back well over a hundred years now. An explanation which is not found in any of the standard textbooks on astrophysics (or solar physics) that CC has read! Not
'13-08-04, 14:45 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Cuddles For those without such access, here's what it looks like. The first plot is the all the data from Dalsgaard for r/R vs. rho. The second is a zoom on the section near r/R = 1, near the solar surface. Note that neither of these plots could be reasonably described as a straight line. http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=622&pictureid=8072http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=8073 Nice work, ben m and Cuddles. However.... The irrelevant bump in the Stein-Nordlund graph that Charles Chandler is going on about is at a depth less than 0 on that graph, i.e. from r/R > 1. So he might argue that they are 2 different bumps. The difference is more likely to be a difference in selecting the zero point in the models. Dalsgaard et. al.'s Model S uses the solar radius which is basically half of the diameter observed in transits. Stein-Nordlund state that they place the solar surface at the expectation value of tau = 1 (not sure what tau is). This just reflects what we all know - the Sun has no well-defined surface so it is no surprise that graphs have different origins. Something else that does not seem to have been mentioned: the papers have different computer simulations (the same physical models though). Dalsgaard et. al.'s Model S seems to be a simulation of the entire Sun from r/R = 0. Stein-Nordlund Quote: We simulate a small portion of the solar photosphere and the upper layers of the convection zone, a region extending 6*6Mm horizontally and from the temperature minimum at -0.5 Mm down to 2.5 Mm below the visible surface. So just we should expect similar results because of the same physical models but not exactly the same results because they are different simulations. In any case a discussion of the difference between the papers has nothing to do with Charles Chandler's invalid EM theory. Unless this is the good old fallacy of false dichotomy.
'13-08-04, 16:46 ben m	Originally Posted by Reality Check Charles Chandler is going on about is at a depth less than 0 on that graph, i.e. from r/R > 1. So he might argue that they are 2 different bumps. My hope is that CC will take a break from stating new theories about the Sun and how it works, and instead take the opportunity for some meta-cognition. 1) Why did he mis-describe this data during his first round of arguments? 2) Does this answer the question of how much time CC spent examining the differences between these dataset, before deciding to reject one of them? 3) Does this event shake CC's belief in his own physics intuition, an intuition he previously believed to be so reliable that his statements of the form "I can't see a way ... " outweighed professional/expert statements based on detailed, mathematically rigorous applications of the laws of physics? 4) Did CC's mistake waste, or not waste, the time of everyone reading his site? How does this affect my desire to listen to or rebut his 2nd round of argumentation?
'13-08-05, 08:48 Cuddles	Originally Posted by Reality Check The irrelevant bump in the Stein-Nordlund graph that Charles Chandler is going on about is at a depth less than 0 on that graph, i.e. from r/R > 1. So he might argue that they are 2 different bumps. That wouldn't really help his case, since his argument has been that the Dalsgaard's data gives a perfectly straight line: Originally Posted by CC Dalsgaard's calculations show how the density increases steadily under the force of gravity, producing a straight line on a log graph Originally Posted by CC the force necessary to produce the non-Dalsgaard density gradient remains unidentified. His entire claim hinges on there being some unknown force producing a feature that Dalsgaard does not predict. Merely having two different models disagree slightly on the details of a feature is very different from having one fail to predict its existence at all. Originally Posted by ben m 1) Why did he mis-describe this data during his first round of arguments? Indeed, it's an interesting question. It's not like this was a hidden detail requiring careful technical analysis, it's simply plotting some easily available data which is fundamental to the entire claim. Had he really spent all that time and effort writing a website and arguing on forums, but never actually taken the trouble to look at the data? Had he looked at it but somehow failed to notice something so obvious? Had he actually noticed it but pretended not to for some reason? None of the options I can think of say particularly good things for his credibility.
'13-08-05, 10:00 ben m	The odd thing is, plots of the Daalsgard data are all over his website. Bumps and all. The most charitable thing I can think of is, maybe: for the purpose of doing a "comparison", CC misread the axes on the Stein & Nordlund graph. He then fixed in his head that Stein & Nordlund "looked wrong" because of "bumps". (Suppose he thinks Dalsgaard is "straight" because he's looking at the r=0 to r=0.9 region and ignoring the near-surface.) He later read (and discussed) the fact that S&N only simulated a slice near the surface ... but this fact didn't propagate backwards and prompt him to revise his "bumps" diagnosis. Just a hypothesis. It's not flattering, but at least it's not dishonest. Has CC abandoned the thread? Maybe because he's embarrassed. Well, that puts him miles ahead of the usual run of JREF-posting physics crackpots, who appear to have no sense of shame to begin with.
'13-08-06, 03:53 Cuddles	Originally Posted by ben m Has CC abandoned the thread? Maybe because he's embarrassed. Well, that puts him miles ahead of the usual run of JREF-posting physics crackpots, who appear to have no sense of shame to begin with. He doesn't seem to have visited since his last post, so unless he's reading without logging on I doubt his absence is anything to do with recent posts.
'13-08-06, 06:03 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by ben m My hope is that CC will take a break from stating new theories about the Sun and how it works, and instead take the opportunity for some meta-cognition. 1) Why did he mis-describe this data during his first round of arguments? 2) Does this answer the question of how much time CC spent examining the differences between these dataset, before deciding to reject one of them? 3) Does this event shake CC's belief in his own physics intuition, an intuition he previously believed to be so reliable that his statements of the form "I can't see a way ... " outweighed professional/expert statements based on detailed, mathematically rigorous applications of the laws of physics? 4) Did CC's mistake waste, or not waste, the time of everyone reading his site? How does this affect my desire to listen to or rebut his 2nd round of argumentation? (my bold) JREF member, but only occasional poster, Tom Bridgman has a blog, Crank Astronomy. Every week (or so) - usually on a Sunday - he adds a new post. This week's one seems particularly relevant to this thread; here's an excerpt: Originally Posted by Tom Bridgman But best of all, he emphasized why we should teach about crank science: Crank science is a training tool for future scientists, and for a science-literate public. I've discussed this before and regard it as one of the primary goals of my efforts in this blog. It is important to deal with misconceptions before they become permanently ingrained in the thinking. Related to Dr. Dixon's mention of some conferences organized by and for crank science claims, one person in the audience asked why the cranks don't criticize each others theories at these conferences. Dr. Dixon noted that the cranks seem incapable of questioning the theories of other cranks. I suspect the reason for this is that the cranks recognize that they would quickly destroy each other so they adopt a 'no criticism' stand. In the crank community, science is treated more like the 'critiques' in literature or philosophy classes with no real WRONG answer, where as math and science DO have right and wrong answers. This would explain why the cranks whine and complain so much about how they're treated by real scientists when criticism of other theories is EXPECTED in the real scientific community. So, I think the answer to the first question - "Did CC's mistake waste, or not waste, the time of everyone reading his site?" - is a resounding NO, it was not, by any stretch - a waste of readers' time. The "model" CC developed, and the approach he (stated) he used, are rather unusual. I for one eagerly await his return.
'13-08-06, 09:09 ben m	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa So, I think the answer to the first question - "Did CC's mistake waste, or not waste, the time of everyone reading his site?" - is a resounding NO, it was not, by any stretch - a waste of readers' time. The "model" CC developed, and the approach he (stated) he used, are rather unusual. I for one eagerly await his return. CC did not waste our time by coming up with a model, trying to defend it, and making mistakes in the process. He wasted our time by misrepresenting his sources. Michael Mozina said all sorts of nonsense about the Sun, but when he claimed to be explaining (wrongly) "why this sun photo has a ring of green pixels", prompting people to think about possible correct explanations for such a ring ... the photo actually had a ring of green pixels that needed explaining.