Re: Radiative Equilibrium (Miskolczi Part 4)

psolar — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:30:07 -0000

EDIT, typo above corrected.

Re: Radiative Equilibrium (Miskolczi Part 4)

psolar — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:04:37 -0000

Clearly there are many detractors that are just too keen to pick a statement that does not seem to make sense and use it as a quick and easy way to dismiss M's theory. Thankfully there is some intelligent questions and discussion here.

I suspect that like many brilliant scientists he is not so good at coming down to other peoples' levels to explain things. Many things seem to obvious to him and he thinks it's obvious to the reader. It depends much on who is reading.

I have two comments on points that are often questioned.

Virial:
potential energy is derived from a potential difference. The base line potential is arbitrary not absolute.

Someone posted that it did not seem to make sense to apply virial because if we consider zero kelvin there is no KE but still PE, hence a contradiction. It seems to me that if the PE of this state is taken as the arbitrary base energy then the apparent contradiction disappears.

Flux vs energy:
Since the schema presented is basically a one dimensional model the distinction between flux and energy has no meaning. If we chose to look at a three dimensional spherical model and integrate flux over both polar coordinates we can equate the result with energy. There is a lack of consistency in terminology but the principal seems correct.

(This may be obvious to M. but if that is the case it is probalby an error not to choose language and terms more precisely in such a paper.)

Disqus - Latest Comments for psolar

Re: Radiative Equilibrium (Miskolczi Part 4)

Re: Radiative Equilibrium (Miskolczi Part 4)